Hoof morphometry in a population of lame and nonlame working donkeys in Pakistan

Abstract

Background: Hoof morphometry, conformation and shoeing practices have all been associated with lameness in horses. Hoof morphometry in working donkeys in Pakistan has not been objectively measured.Objectives: To quantitatively assess hoof morphology in donkeys, to identify factors underlying hoof morphology, and interrelationships between conformation, lameness, and shoeing status.Study design: Cross-sectional study.Methods: Donkeys were assessed in-harness using a modified five-point lameness scale by two veterinarians and digital photographs of front hooves taken alongside a grid. Factor analysis was used to examine the interrelationships among morphometric data. Associations between conformation, shoeing, age and lameness were assessed.Results: Sixty-one donkeys were examined; 28 were unshod. There were significant left-right hoof asymmetries between heel height (0.27, SD 0.92 cm; p = 0.02), toe-heel angle (2.97 , SD 8.85 ; p = 0.03) and medio-lateral symmetry (0.5, SD 1.75 cm; p = 0.05). Ten percent of donkeys (n = 6) were sound and 64% donkeys (n = 39) were consistently lame. Conformational defects were seen in 41% (n = 25) of donkeys. Eleven factors were extracted, accounting for 83% of the variance encountered in the original variables. Shoeing, and asymmetry between or within feet were not associated with lameness in donkeys; older donkeys were more likely to be lame (p = 0.02).Main limitations: As a convenience sample of draught donkeys, most of which were lame, the study may not reflect nonpathological hoof morphology in working donkeys. There are no validated objective lameness measures for donkeys and donkeys were in harness when assessed. Conclusion:This study represents a snapshot of hoof morphology and lameness in a single population and under various limitations. Further work should use larger datasets and more homogenous samples to discriminate between 'normal' and 'abnormal' feet and how these might contribute to lameness. Factor analysis highlighted

Cross-Sectional Questionnaire of Donkey Owners and Farriers Regarding Farriery Practices in the Faisalabad Region of Pakistan

“…The majority of donkey owners reported lameness in their donkeys. Only seven owners did not report lameness at any time, which is consistent with a recent study in this population [26]. While not common, owners in the current study also reported their donkeys becoming lame due to traumatic events, such as slipping, being hit by a vehicle, or overloading.…”

“…While the impact of the growth of the dairy sector and farriers servicing both sectors were not specifically investigated in the current study, the overlap does create some concerns for the working equid industry. Firstly, the characteristics of a functional working donkey hoof and that of a dairy animal differ markedly [26,27]. A lack of understanding of the similarity or differences in hoof characteristics of these species could be detrimental to welfare.…”

“…Specifically, a good owner-farrier relationship is needed so that owners will respect the opinion of farriers as experts if they refuse to undertake harmful practices, such as frog removal. One limitation in providing training may be a reliance on reference values for donkey hoof morphometry from horses or from breeds from other regions of the world rather than from local breeds [26].…”

“…This further indicates the importance of developing a donkey-specific lameness evaluation system that could help owners in the early diagnosis and treatment of lameness in their donkeys. Modified lameness evaluation scales [26], grimace scales [40] and ethograms [41] represent important aids in this respect, but knowledge of these tools needs to be transferred to owners and farriers along with veterinarians working with working donkeys.…”

Assessing the impact of draught load pulling on welfare in equids

“…The welfare standards of working equids remain inadequate in LMICs (13,15). Eye infections, infectious diseases, colic, skin diseases, poor physical condition, respiratory infections, back pain, injuries, exhaustion, wounds, malnutrition, famine, fracture, heat stress, dehydration (2, 10), trauma, insect exposure (16), sprains, lameness, as well as other catastrophic injuries (15,17) are some of the most common welfare issues (Figure 2). They are prone to locomotor system diseases (18), which become even more common when subjected to hazardous working situations (19).…”