Colic in the Donkey

Thiemann, Alexandra K.; Rickards, Karen; Getachew, M.; Paraschou, Georgios

doi:10.1002/9781119063254.ch38

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These no longer respond to weight loss and should not be incorporated in the BCS [ 15 ]. Furthermore, donkeys may have intra-abdominal fat depots [ 16 ] that may, for example, cover the linea alba [ 18 , 19 ].…”

Section: Asinine Metabolic Syndromementioning

confidence: 99%

Pituitary Pars Intermedia Dysfunction and Metabolic Syndrome in Donkeys

Gehlen

Schwarz²,

Bartmann

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Appropriate medical care for donkeys is challenging despite being important working animals in non-industrialized countries and pets in first world countries. Although the same principles of diagnosis and therapy as in horses are commonly applied, there are differences in reference values and physiologic reaction to dynamic tests. However, donkeys seem to suffer from typical equine diseases, such as metabolic syndrome and pituitary pars intermedia dysfunction (PPID). Asinine metabolic syndrome (AMS) comprises obesity, insulin dysregulation, and laminitis. The principles of diagnosis are similar to horses. Donkey-specific reference ranges for insulin and glucose have been evaluated previously. Examinations regarding dynamic testing revealed differences in the intravenous glucose tolerance test and the combined insulin tolerance test compared to horses. The therapy of AMS is based mainly on weight loss and exercise. There are conflicting data regarding the incidence of PPID in donkeys. Laminitis and hypertrichosis were described as the main clinical signs. Species-specific and seasonal reference ranges were defined to diagnose PPID in donkeys. Furthermore, the dexamethasone suppression test, the thyrotropin releasing hormone (TRH) test and the combined dexamethasone suppression/TRH test were evaluated. Pergolide is commonly recommended for treatment.

show abstract

Section: Asinine Metabolic Syndromementioning

confidence: 99%

Pituitary Pars Intermedia Dysfunction and Metabolic Syndrome in Donkeys

Gehlen

Schwarz²,

Bartmann

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ingestion of moldy feed or excess seasonal lush grass can result in tympanic colic, whereas grazing low in poor grasslands may contribute to sand colic. 7 Donkey studies in the United Kingdom have identified impaction colic as having high morbidity and mortality. 8 The pelvic flexure was the main site of impaction, but mortality was higher for cecal impactions.…”

Section: Epidemiology and Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An extensive discussion of donkey parasitology is provided elsewhere. 7,9 Relevant gastrointestinal parasites are listed in Table 1.…”

Section: Role Of Parasitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gastrointestinal Disorders of Donkeys and Mules

Thiemann¹,

Sullivan²

2019

Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The second problem with companion, guard, and pleasure donkeys is their typical nature and temperament, which makes detection of pain or signs of colic and laminitis challenging for owners [ 17 , 18 , 25 ]. The temperament in donkeys differs from that in horses, as donkeys are generally less overtly reactive, demonstrating a more stoic nature [ 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics

Maśko

Wierzbicka

Zdrojkowski

et al. 2022

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since donkey breeding has increased due to their variety of uses, welfare evaluation has become more important. This study aimed to compare donkey, pony, and horse dorsal profiles and head shapes using geometric morphometrics (GM). Photographs of 14 donkeys, 14 ponies, and 14 horses were analyzed using GM, including the sliding semilandmarks method. The variations in the first three principal components (PCs) were PC1: 57.16%, PC2: 16.05%, and PC3: 8.31% for the dorsal profiles and PC1: 44.77%, PC2: 13.46%, and PC3: 7.66% for the head shapes. Both the dorsal profiles and head shapes differed between donkeys and horses (p < 0.0001) but not between donkeys and ponies (p > 0.05). Moreover, both the dorsal profiles and head shapes differed in size between ponies and horses (p < 0.0001) but not in shape (p > 0.05). Higher Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances were noted between donkeys and horses as well between donkeys and ponies than between ponies and horses. The use of geometric morphometrics revealed the differences in the dorsal profiles and head shapes between the studied equids. These differences should be taken into account when adapting welfare scales and methods from horses to donkeys.

show abstract

Colic in the Donkey

Cited by 5 publications

References 62 publications

Pituitary Pars Intermedia Dysfunction and Metabolic Syndrome in Donkeys

Pituitary Pars Intermedia Dysfunction and Metabolic Syndrome in Donkeys

Gastrointestinal Disorders of Donkeys and Mules

Comparison of Donkey, Pony, and Horse Dorsal Profiles and Head Shapes Using Geometric Morphometrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About