Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1 of 25
Evaluation of the prevalence, nature and distribution of skin wounds in
donkeys in Tamil Nadu, India
Background
WVS India has been working in Tamil Nadu with the working donkeys since 2011, regularly
conducting camps for deworming and tetanus vaccinations. Wounds are treated frequently,
but often owners are unaware of both the nature of the wounds and how to prevent them.
Furthermore, their general understanding of the welfare of their animals is limited, and
consequently, donkeys continue to suffer.
Studies in donkey welfare are limited. One study found that the majority of owners of
working donkeys in the Bareilly city of India were aware of some of the Five Freedoms
(Biswas et al, 2013) suggesting that there is an appreciation of welfare and a basis for
progression. Preventable wounds and deliberate “mutilations” are a common occurrence in
donkeys throughout the world. A separate study assessed lesions in donkeys from a variety
of countries, including India, and found them to be most common on the breast/shoulders,
wither and girths, with the type of wounds being related directly to the type of work being
performed (Pritchard el al, 2005). Furthermore, the majority had a poor body condition score
and demonstrable lameness or gait abnormalities. Since 2011, the WorldWide Vet Service
(WVS) (India) donkey health camps have been providing welfare education to the donkey
owners and helping to address commonly encountered issues like poor harness fitting and
the use of hobbles. However, they continue to see preventable injuries in these animals.
Therefore, a thorough understanding of the nature and type is necessary in order to
formulate and implement a targeted intervention programme which fully addresses the
current issues faced by donkeys in Tamil Nadu.
The aims of this study were therefore to: (1) Evaluate the nature, prevalence and distribution
of skin wounds/mutilations in donkeys in 5 regions in Tamil Nadu, India and (2) To use this
information to direct future, larger studies on the assessment of wounds in donkeys based
on seasonality and work patterns to implement further, targeted interventions.
Method
A series of animal welfare-based indicators were compiled, partially based on previously
published protocols for donkey welfare assessment (3) (4). The first section focused on
general data including demographics of both owner and donkeys. A health assessment
followed, including a section specifically detailing each skin lesion present (location, size,
type etc). Owners were asked to score the severity of each lesion and this was recorded
together with the score given by the attending vet. These questions were located on a smart
phone app which was used at 5 locations in Tamil Nadu where Donkey Camp initiatives
were currently organised by the WVS. Data was collected from 5 locations between
October 2016 and July 2017.
Data was transferred to Microsoft Excel 2010 for analysis. Minitab 17 was used for statistical
analysis and Endnote X8 as a reference manager. The report was compiled in Microsoft
Word 2010.
Page 2 of 25
Results
Overview of data
The results are summarised in Tables 1 and 2.
In total, 582 donkeys were assessed in 5 locations within Tamil Nadu between October 2016
and July 2017. Each donkey was assessed by the same WVS veterinarian at the owner’s
home. The primary reason for the visit was to assess health status and administer any
necessary treatments. All donkeys examined were included in the study. 57.5% of donkeys
received treatment; the remainder of the donkeys did not require treatment but were
included in the study (42.5%).
94.8%% were used as pack animals, with the rest employed for draft purposes or breeding.
The majority of donkeys were stallions (68.0%); only 16.6% of all the male donkeys included
in the study were gelded. 16.8% of all mares were pregnant at the time of examination. The
majority of donkeys were aged between 3 and 10 years (74.2%) with only 2.2% being older
than 10 years and 2.9% being 6 months or less.
Number of donkeys owned per household: mean=4.8, median=3, mode=1
The number of donkeys were examined from the five different locations visited were:
Krishnagiri (188), Mettuplayam (126), Ooty (14), Theni (91) and Tuticorin (163).
Table 1. Description of gender and work type of donkeys assessed in Tamil Nadu.
Gender
Work Type
Total number of donkeys Pack
(552) Draft (5)
Breeding (24)
Stallion 382 5 9 396 Gelding 79 0 0 79
Mare (non-pregnant)
74 0 15 89
Mare (pregnant) 17 0 1 18
Table 2. Summary of age ranges of donkeys assessed in Tamil Nadu.
Age range (years)
< 0.5 0.5 to 3 3 to 10 >10 Total
Number of donkeys
17
120
432
13
582
Page 3 of 25
Working conditions
A summary of the working conditions of the donkeys is shown in Table 3. Briefly, owners
reported that the majority of donkeys worked between 2 and 3 days per week (47.4%) for 4-
8 hours per day (88.1%). Most (94.1%) were allowed between 4-6 rests per day. Only 16.4%
were worked between 12pm and 3pm, considered the hottest and most stressful period, and
prohibited by law when temperatures exceed 37 degrees Celsius (7).
Table 3. Summary of working conditions
Working condition parameters Total number of donkeys (%)
Working hours/day < 4 11.9
4-8 88.1
8-12 0
>12 0
Number of working days 0-1 24.6
2-3 4-5 6-7
47.4 25.3 2.7
Worked between 12-3pm Yes
16.4
Number of rest periods/day 1 to 3 5.9
4 to 6 94.1
General health
The data for general health is summarised in Table 4.
The vast majority of donkeys were considered healthy with a body condition score of 3 to 5
(88.3%). Most donkeys had a healthy coat (81.4%), and were alert (98.8%) with a normal
hydration status (90.2%). External signs of disease were uncommon; ectoparasites (0.2%),
faecal staining (a sign of diarrhoea) (0.5%) and abnormal ocular/nasal/vaginal/penile
discharges (2.9%) were rare. Only 3.5% were considered to be suffering from heatstroke,
and 1.3% were lame at the time of examination.
Observation 1
In general, working conditions appear good for the donkeys; an encouraging observation.
This type of data collection can be subject to recall bias (a systematic error caused be
differences in the accuracy of recollection of information) and judgement bias (cognitive
bias whereby people may alter their responses to fit what they think is the correct
answer). Nevertheless, it is likely due to the previous donkey camps organised in these
areas have had a positive influence on attitudes of owners and their subsequent
treatment of their donkeys.
Page 4 of 25
Table 4. Summary of general health
Health parameter
% of total number of donkeys
Body condition score (BCS)- 1-2 3 to 5
11.7 88.3
Coat condition- Healthy Unhealthy
81.4 18.6
Demeanour- Alert Depressed
98.8 6.2
Hydration status- Normal Abnormal
90.2 9.8
Ectoparasites- Present Absent
0.2 99.8
Faecal staining (perineum)- Yes No
0.5 99.5
Cheek palpation- Normal Abnormal
99.8 0.2
Abnormal discharge (ocular/nasal/vaginal/penile)- Yes No
2.9 97.1
Heatstroke- Yes No
3.5 96.6
Presence of lameness- Yes No
1.3 98.7
Observation 2: Most donkeys appeared in good health, with external signs of disease
uncommon. Again, this likely reflects the positive effects of past donkey camp
involvement in these locations.
Page 5 of 25
Lesions
One or more lesions were present in a total of 229 donkeys; 294 lesions were recorded in
total, with a prevalence of 50.5% of the total population examined. Causes are summarised
in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Prevalence of lesion types
Mutilations, comprising nose splitting, ear splitting and branding, made up the majority of
lesions (62.8%). The remainder were primarily wounds resulting from the use of a restraining
device (hobbles, 13.8%), an incorrectly-fitting harness (13.4%) or due to fighting (bite
wounds, 7.1%). The ‘other’ lesions, observed rarely, resulted from a variety of causes
including trauma, barbed wire, a road traffic accident, secondary to a wart, tumour or an
unspecified “skin lesion”, or an associated skin reaction to a gunny bag or wet blanket.
Assessment of lesion severities is shown below:
7%
13%
14%
22%
27%
14%
3%Bite wounds
Harness-related wounds
Branding (mutilation)
Ear splitting (mutilation)
Nose splitting (mutilation)
Restraint wounds (hobbles)
Other
Page 6 of 25
Table 5. Lesion type and severity
Lesion severity
Lesion Type Alopecia Superficial Deep Mutilation Total
Restraint 6 33 2
41
Harness 9 31
40
Bite 7 13 1
21
Mutilation(nose split)
81 81
Mutilation(ear split)
65 65
Mutilation(branding)
1
40 41
Other (barbed wire)
1
1
Other (gunny bag) 1
1 Other (reaction to wet
blanket) 1
1
Other (skin lesion) 1
1
Other (trauma)
1
1
Other (tumour)
2
2
Other (wart) 1
1
Total: 26 82 4 186 298
The majority of ‘non-mutilation’ lesions were classed as superficial (73.2%); 3.6% were
considered deep wounds and 23.2% comprised hair loss only (alopecia).
Some lesion types were associated with specific locations on the body. For example,
specific mutilations (ear and nose-splitting) were region-specific. Branding occurred mainly
on the shoulders, with some involvement of hindquarters. Harness wounds were located
either on the midsection or hindquarters, associated with the contact points of the harness.
Bite wounds were observed at different locations of the body with no prominent predilection
site. Restraint wounds, due to the specific use of hobbles, were noted either on the
hindquarters and legs.
Page 7 of 25
The clinical nature of the wounds are summarised below:
Table 6. Lesion type and clinical nature
Clinical nature of lesion
Lesion Type Active bleeding Exudation Granulation Scarring
Total
Restraint 2 5 25 9 41
Harness 7 13 12 8 40
Bite 3 2 10 6 21
Mutilation(nose split) 0 0 0 81 81
Mutilation(ear split) 0 1 0 64 65
Mutilation(branding) 0 0 3 38 41
Other (barbed wire) 0 1 0 0 1
Other (gunny bag) 0 0 0 1 1 Other (reaction to wet
blanket) 0 0 0 1 1
Other (skin lesion) 0 0 0 1 1
Other (trauma) 1 0 0 0 1
Other (tumour) 0 2 0 0 2
Other (wart) 0 0 0 1 1
Total: 14 24 50 210 298
The majority of restraint, harness and bite wounds were infected (exudative) or healing
(granulating). A proportion were fresh wounds, with active bleeding. c
Observation 3: Mutilations constitute the majority of lesions observed. The prevalence of
other wounds is low, and generally of a superficial nature. Future, iatrogenic wounds,
whether these be mutilations or lesions caused by restraints or harnesses, are potentially
avoidable with ongoing or enhanced educational interventions and continued focus on
these preventative measures is recommended. This can constitute:
• simple, targeted advice and guidance on how to correctly fit a harness to avoid
pressure points predisposing to injuries
• Alternatives to the use of the popular practice of hobbling or using soft material
and padding to reduce the risk of injuries.
• Wound care and management by owners to improve healing rates.
• Education on the detrimental effects of mutilation and challenging the beliefs held
by owners on the “benefits” on the animals’ ability to perform its duties more
effectively.
Evidence of prevalence reduction will support future interventions by WVS staff in new
locations.
Although out with the scope of this current project, there are previous data available on
wound prevalence in donkeys prior to camp interventions. Therefore, a comparison of the
two data sets can be assessed in the future.
Page 8 of 25
Owner versus vet assessment of lesion severity
The owner was asked to rate the severity of each lesion on his/her donkeys using the
following criteria: 1-minor; 2- slightly concerning; 3-concerning; 4-serious; 5-life threatening.
The vet assessed the lesion independently using the same criteria. The data are
summarised in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Subjective assessment of lesion severity by the vet and owners
Small differences were observed in the perception of wound severity between owners and
the vet, with a trend for the vet to perceive a wound as more severe than the owner.
However, these differences were not significant statistically at the p=0.05 confidence limits
(Mann-Whitney U test).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Minor Slightlyconcerning
Concerning Serious Life threatening
Nu
mb
er
of le
sio
ns
Subjective assessment of lesion severity
Vet scores
Owner scores
Observation 4: As far as the author is aware, there are no studies assessing differences
in the perception of the severity of wounds observed animal owners and vets. In the
present study, it is interesting to note that differences are small but show a tendency for
increased severity score by vets. It is suggested that this is a result of their professional
training and tendency for increased empathy with animals. Despite this, severities appear
similar between both owners and vets in this population, which is an encouraging
observation.
Interactions with owners in previous donkey camps may have positively influenced
owners’ perception of wounds.
Page 9 of 25
Regional statistics
The number of lesions observed in each of the 5 regions visited is shown below.
Table 7. Percentage of lesions observed by region
Region
Total number of donkeys
examined/region
Number of donkeys with
lesions
Total number of
lesions recorded Yes
(%) No (%)
Krishnagiri 188 61 (32.4)
127 (67.6)
73
Mettupalayam 126 23 (22.2)
103 (81.7)
28
Ooty 14 11 (78.6)
3 (21.4)
16
Theni 91 56 (61.5)
35 (38.5)
78
Tuticorin 163 78 (47.9)
85 (52.1)
95
Total: 582 229 353 290
The prevalence of lesions varied from 22.2% in Mettupalayam to 78.6% in Ooty. (Note that
the number of donkeys examined also varied substantially between regions).
The frequency of lesion types varies regionally. Figure 3 shows the total number of lesions
documented for each region.
Figure 3. Lesion types observed according to location.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Nu
mb
er o
f le
sio
ns
Location
Other cause
Mutilation(branding)
Mutilation(ear split)
Mutilation(nose split)
Bite
Harness
Restraint
73
28
17
78
97
Page 10 of 25
(The location of four lesions was not specified therefore these were removed from the data).
Ear and nose splitting mutilations were the most common type of lesion seen in
Mettupalayam, Ooty, Theni and Tuticorin. Interestingly, in Krishnagiri, these two lesions were
uncommon and restraint injuries predominated. Bite wounds and harness wounds were also
observed commonly in this location.
The gender of donkeys for each location is shown below:
Figure 4. Gender of donkeys according to location.
Stallions predominated in Krishnagiri and Tuticorin, whereas geldings were more common in
Theni, and a mixture in Mettupalayam and Ooty. A small percentage of pregnant mares were
noted in Mettupalayam and Tuticorin.
Surgical castrations were performed by WVS vets at previous visits at Theni only, explaining
the increased prevalence of gelded donkeys in this location.
The proportion of bites compared to proportion of stallions in each area was investigated
using Poisson regression modelling, but an association between the two was not seen with
the current data available. The number of locations used was low (5 in total) which is likely to
Observation 5: The prevalence of lesion types shows a degree of regional variation.
Identification of issues per location will enable targeted intervention to further reduce
incidence of specific issues and impact positively on animal welfare.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Krishnagiri Mettupalayam Ooty Theni Tuticorin
Nu
mb
er
of
do
nke
ys
Location
Gelding
Stallion
Pregnant
Mare
Page 11 of 25
have limited the data analysis. Collecting data from additional areas would be useful in
further exploring associations.
1. Krishnagiri
188 donkeys were examined. 61 (32%) had one or more lesions; there were 73 lesions
recorded in total. 95.7% of male donkeys were stallions.
Table 8. Lesion types in Krishnagiri
Lesion type Lesion severity Mutilations Number
of lesions
% prevalence of lesions
Alopecia Superficial Deep
Restraint 5 30 1 N/A 36 49.3
Harness 5 7 0 N/A 12 16.4
Bite 4 6 0 N/A 10 13.7
Mutilation(nose split)
N/A N/A N/A 1 1
1.4
Mutilation(ear split) N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2.8
Mutilation(branding) N/A N/A N/A 11 11 15.1
Other cause 1 0 0 N/A 1 1.4
Total 15 43 0 14 73 100
The location of non-mutilation wounds are shown below:
Figure 5. Location of non-mutilation wounds on the body of donkeys from Krishnagiri
Non-mutilations wounds were, in general, the most frequent wound types, and related to
either work performed or methods of restraint. Restraint wounds due to hobbling were the
top cause (49.3%); these were focused primarily on the distal limbs, but were also prominent
0
5
10
15
20
25
Nu
mb
er
of
lesi
on
s
Location of lesion
Other
Restraint
Harness
Bite
Page 12 of 25
on the proximal hindquarters. In general, wounds severity was mild. Harness and bite
wounds also common; harness wounds were most prevalent on the midsection.
The only mutilation lesion noted with moderate frequency was branding; ear and nose-
splitting were rare in this location.
Observation 6: It is suggested to continue to address hobbling practices and education of
harness fitting in Krishnagiri. In this location, the donkeys are used primarily to transport
sand and are hobbled when left to graze. The method of hobbling results in wounds both
in proximal (thigh) and distal limbs. Whilst focus has been placed on educating owners to
reduce the use of hobbles and to use padding to reduce future wounds, further interaction
and education is needed based on the above results.
Furthermore, examination of the reasons for bite wounds is recommended. The cause of
aggression in equids is multifactorial and can include social isolation (1), invasion of
personal space (2), stallion-mare interactions (5) and chronic pain (6). An assessment of
the possible causes of aggression in this region is recommended in subsequent donkey
camps. Surgical castration would be useful to consider here as one method of reducing
aggression amongst the large population of stallions.
Location: Krishnagiri.
Restraint wound- hindquarters,
bleeding, superficial
Severity scored as 1 (minor) by the
vet and owner
Page 13 of 25
Location: Krishnagiri.
Restraint wound on leg, granulating,
superficial.
Severity scored as 1(minor) by both
owner and vet
Page 14 of 25
2. Mettupalayam
126 donkeys were examined. 23 donkeys (9.5%) had lesions. 28 lesions were recorded.
96.7% of male donkeys were stallions.
Table 9. Lesion types in Mettupalayam
Lesion type
Lesion severity
Mutilations Number
of lesions
% prevalence of lesions
Alopecia Superficial Deep
Restraint 1 2 0 0 3 10.7
Harness 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Bite 0 1 0 0 1 3.6
Mutilation(nose split) 0 0 0 8 8 28.6
Mutilation(ear split) 0 0 0 10 10 35.7
Mutilation(branding) 0 0 0 3 3 10.7
Other cause 0 0 0 3 3 10.7
Total 1 2 0 24 28 100
Figure 6. Location of non-mutilation wounds on the body of donkeys from Mettupalayam
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Nu
mb
er
of
lesi
on
s
Location of lesion
Other
Restraint
Harness
Bite
Page 15 of 25
In this location, nose and ear-splitting lesions predominated. Branding was also noted. Out
of the non-mutilation wounds, restraint wounds predominated and were focused on the distal
limbs. Bite wounds were rare.
Location- Mettupalayam. This donkey had multiple lesions comprising nose splitting
and branding mutilations. Note the abnormal eye discharge.
Observation 7: Mutilation practices are the main area of focus with regard to improving
welfare; data does not exist on when these practices were carried out and it is
recommended that future studies record such data to enable incidence to be assessed.
Hobbling practices should also be a focus for continued owner education to reduce lesion
prevalence. Distal limbs are primarily affected.
Location- Mettupalayam
Restraint wounds on distal limbs,
granulating, superficial
Severity scored at 1 (minor) by
vet and owner
Page 16 of 25
3. Ooty
A small sample of 14 donkeys was examined in Ooty. 11 donkeys (78.6%) had wounds and
there were 17 wounds in total. 100% of male donkeys were stallions.
Table 10. Lesion types in Ooty
Lesion type
Lesion severity
Mutilations Number
of lesions
% prevalence of lesions Alopecia Superficial Deep
Restraint 1 0 0 N/A 1 5.9
Harness 0 1 0 N/A 1 5.9
Bite 1 2 0 N/A 3 17.6
Mutilation(nose split) 0 0 0 8 8 47.1
Mutilation(ear split) 0 0 0 2 2 11.8
Mutilation(branding) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other cause 2 0 0 0 2 11.8
4 3 0 10 17 100
Figure 7. Location of non-mutilation wounds on the body of donkeys from Ooty
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Nu
mb
er
of
lesi
on
s
Location of lesion
Other
Restraint
Harness
Bite
Page 17 of 25
The sample size of donkeys was low in this location. Nose split mutilations were the most
common issue; ear split mutilations, bite, harness and hobble (restraint) lesions were also
documented; bite wounds were the most prevalent non-mutilation wound, and occurred
primarily on the shoulders or midsection.
Observation 8: A targeted focus on continued or enhanced owner education for reducing
future prevalence of mutilations, use of hobbles and incorrectly fitting harnesses is
recommended. As Ooty is a hilly area, it is commonly believed by owners that splitting the
nose of donkeys will improve their performance. These beliefs should continue to be
challenged.
Donkeys in this location are commonly used for breeding purposes. Although sample
size is small, the most frequent non-mutilation wounds are bite wounds. Focusing on
husbandry practices of these donkeys is recommended with the aim of reducing
aggression.
Further data is required to accurately assess welfare issues affecting donkeys in this
location. (Note that this is a small sample size and therefore may not be representative of
the general population in this area).
Location-Ooty
Ear split mutilation (healed)
Page 18 of 25
4. Theni
91 donkeys were examined and 56 (61.5%) had one or more lesions. There were 78 lesions
recorded in total. 28.7% of donkeys were stallions; 64.8% were gelded.
Table 11. Lesion types in Theni
Lesion type
Lesion severity
Mutilations Number
of lesions
% prevalence of lesions Alopecia Superficial Deep
Restraint 0 0 0 N/A 0 0
Harness 4 20 0 N/A 24 30.8
Bite 0 0 0 N/A 0 0.0
Mutilation(nose split) 0 0 0 26 26 33.3
Mutilation(ear split) 0 0 0 17 17 21.8
Mutilation(branding) 0 0 0 10 10 12.8
Other cause 0 1 0 0 1 1.3
4 21 0 53 78 100
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Nu
mb
er
of
lesi
on
s
Location of lesion
Other
Restraint
Harness
Bite
Page 19 of 25
Figure 8. Location of non-mutilation wounds on the body of donkeys from Theni
Mutilations were a common observation. Harness lesions were noted as the most frequent
non-mutilation wound; these were focused on the shoulders and hindquarters. Hobble and
bite wounds were not documented in these donkeys.
Observation 9: A targeted focus on continued or enhanced owner education for reducing
future prevalence of mutilations is recommended.
These donkeys are used for transportation on hilly terrains. Due to tightening of the
harnesses to prevent slippage on these terrains, the tail area is frequently damaged.
Further reducing harness related injuries are also a target for improvement.
It is interesting to note the absence of bite wounds in relation to the high prevalence of
donkeys that are gelded. As discussed previously, aggression can be multi-factorial, but
further studies into the possible association between geldings and reduced aggression is
recommended and any evidence of such an association would enhance the argument for
performing routine castrations during future donkey camps.
Location-Theni
Harness wound on hindquarters
(tail); exudative, superficial
Scored as 2 (slightly concerning) by
vet and 1 (minor) by the owner
Location-Theni
Harness wound on
hindquarters (tail); granulating,
superficial
Page 20 of 25
5. Tuticorin
163 donkeys were examined and 78 (47.9%) had one or more lesions; 97 lesions were
observed in total. 92.6% of male donkeys were stallions.
Table 12. Lesion types in Tuticorin
Lesion type
Lesion severity
Mutilations Number
of lesions
% prevalence of lesions Alopecia Superficial Deep
Restraint 0 0 1 N/A 1 1.0
Harness 0 2 0 N/A 2 2.1
Bite 2 3 1 N/A 6 6.2
Mutilation(nose split) 0 0 0 37 37 38.1
Mutilation(ear split) 0 0 0 34 34 35.1
Mutilation(branding) 0 1 0 14 15 15.4
Other cause 1 1 0 0 2 2.1
3 7 2 85 97 100
Page 21 of 25
Figure 9. Location of non-mutilation wounds on the body of donkeys from Tuticorin.
All forms of branding were observed, with ear and nose splitting the most common. The
prevalence of non-mutilation wounds were low with bite wounds were the most common.
Hobble wounds were rare (hobbling is not practiced in this area).
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5N
um
be
r o
f le
sio
ns
Location of lesion
Other
Restraint
Harness
Bite
Observation 9: Efforts should be focused in addressing mutilation wounds in this location
and general focus on reducing bite wounds by identifying potential causes.
Location- Tuticorin
Nose splitting (healed)
Page 22 of 25
Limitations to the study
There were some limitations to the study. During the period of app design, it became clear
that including questionnaires on owners’ views and practices with regard to donkey welfare
would not be practical in the field setting. It was not possible to include these questions
whilst ensuring all donkeys were assessed and treated within defined timeframes of the
donkey camps. Therefore, the data collection was limited to health and welfare parameters
collected by the veterinarian, and one question involving owner severity assessment of
wounds on their animals, to compare against the vet’s assessment. (this was relayed to
BVA Animal Welfare Foundation Trustees at the time that the limitation was discovered).
Conclusion
This study focused on assessing the prevalence, nature and distribution of skin wounds in
donkeys in 5 locations in Tamil Nadu, India. Data was collected using a smartphone app
whilst undertaking routine assessments and treatments of donkeys in each location. The
study aim was to understand the welfare issue affecting donkeys with specific focus on
wounds, to enable future, targeted interventions on those issues which affect welfare.
Results showed that overall welfare of donkeys in the five locations was of a reasonable
standard. This is unsurprising and likely reflects the interventions and education provided by
WVS staff in previous donkey camps. Issues were identified both with mutilations practices
and with wounds resulting from incorrectly fitting harnesses and the use of hobbles as
restraints. Although donkey numbers were low in some locations, the data demonstrates that
welfare issues vary regionally, and that recognition of region-specific practices enables
targeted owner education.
There was evidence of a range of mutilation practices that had occurred previously in all five
locations. Although information on when they were carried out was not available, the data
highlights their common occurrence and that continued, targeted owner education is
required to highlight the pointless nature and significant welfare issues associated with such
practices. More comprehensive data collection can be addressed in future studies.
The other main focus for improvement is continuation of education of owners with respect to
restraint practices (hobbles) and harness use. The use of hobbles has been shown to result
in a high prevalence of wounds in India, reported as 81% in one study (8). Their use can
Page 23 of 25
negatively impact on multiple aspects of welfare; this includes prevention of fully accessing
food and water; cause of pain, injury and distress; and restricting the ability to express
natural behaviours e.g. grazing, socialising. Ways of avoiding or reducing the use of hobbles
should continue to be encouraged. The use of an alternative method of restraint is
recommended, for example head collar or neck rope. These may be more challenging in
animals that are not used to being handled or are scared due to previous, negative
incidences. Encouragement should be given to owners to handle and treat their animals with
respect to enable effective training and a good relationship between animal and owner.
If hobbles are used as a way to attempt to reduce the incidence of aggression, alternatives
can be suggested, for example castration of males. A focus on castration is already being
achieved in donkey camps run in this area, and further data collection will help to assess the
positive effects. As causes of aggression can be multifactorial, a comprehensive approach
to assessing the causes of aggression could be considered in areas where fight-related
wounds are high.
Where alternative methods to hobbling are difficult to implement, owners can be encouraged
to use soft or padded materials that do not result in painful wounds.
Similarly, simple techniques such as soft material or padding under pressure points to
reduce the frequency of harness-related injuries can be encouraged. The aim is to prevent
wounds altogether, as active wounds that are continuously disrupted by harness rubbing are
likely to be difficult to treat.
The study design enabled a wide range of data to be collected easily using the smartphone
app. This is a valuable observation and proves that this method is suitable for future
assessments requiring “in-field” data collection, particularly in new locations that the charity
may visit in future ventures.
This particular study was constrained by locations that had already been visited by the WVS
in previous donkey camps. As a result, data was collected on donkeys which had been
treated previously and where owner education had already been carried out. Therefore, this
population did not likely represent the general population of Indian donkeys and explains the
improved health and welfare of donkeys in this study compared to other published studies
(9, 10). However, data collected showed that improvements in donkey welfare had likely
been achieved through previous interventions and highlighted the ongoing issues still facing
donkeys with respect to specific wounds, both mutilations and non-mutilations. The success
of such data collection using the smart phone app, and the improvements found, indicates
that the charity has had a positive impact on donkey welfare through their donkey camps
programmes.
In summary, this study has (1) provided valuable information on lesions and overall welfare
issues faced by donkeys in specific regions in Tamilnadu which will enable future, targeted
educational programmes to improve welfare; (2) highlighted the ongoing, positive work
carried out by the WVS in improving donkey welfare and (3) provided proof of principle that
collection of data on donkeys in Tamilnadu in field conditions is achievable using a
smartphone app, which will enable further, more in depth welfare studies to be carried out.
There is the aim to design future, larger scale, welfare-focused studies in additional locations
identified by the WVS staff, whereby baseline data will be collected prior to interventions,
enabling direct comparisons and further understand the effectiveness of the donkey camps
currently carried out by the charity.
Page 24 of 25
18
18th November 2017
Dr Emma Rayner, BSc(Hons), BVetMed, MSc IAWEL, FRCPath, MRCVS
18th November 2017
Dr Ilona Otter, DVM, MSc, MRCVS
Director, Worldwide Veterinary Service, India
References
1. Christensen JW, Ladewig J, Søndergaard E, Malmkvist J. Effects of individual versus group stabling on social behaviour in domestic stallions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2002;75(3):233-48. 2. Tyler SJ. The Behaviour and Social Organization of the New Forest Ponies. Animal Behaviour Monographs. 1972;5(Part 2):87-196. 3. AWIN. AWIN welfare assessment protocol for donkeys2015. 4. Sanctuary TD. Condition scoring and weight estimation 2014 [5th November 2017]. Available from: https://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/sites/sanctuary/files/document/142-1423234830-donkey_health_and_welfare.pdf. 5. Feist JD, McCullough DR. Behavior patterns and communication in feral horses. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie. 1976;41(4):337-71. 6. Fureix C, Menguy H, Hausberger M. Partners with bad temper: reject or cure? A study of chronic pain and aggression in horses. PloS one. 2010;5(8):e12434. 7. Government of India MoF, Agriculture, Community Development &, Agriculture) C-oDo. THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO DRAUGHT AND PACK ANIMALS RULES, 1965. 1968 [cited 2017 27th September]. Available from: http://www.envfor.nic.in/legis/awbi/awbi02.pdf. 8. Zaman S F. Hobbling: An Equine welfare issue 2008 [13th September 2017]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/Hobbling_article.pdf. 9. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DCJ, Whay HR. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2005;69(3):265-83.
Page 25 of 25
10. Probhakar Biswas TD, M. Patel, Reena Kamal, P.K. Bharti, Subhasish Sahu. Assessment of pack animal welfare in and around Bareilly city of India. Vet World.6(6):332-6.
