Introduction
Working animals help support the livelihood of the one billion plus people that comprise the world’s poor, playing a crucial role in helping achieve the target of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). Their presence enables access to education, a reduced impact of climate change, a reduction in the burden borne by women, and the delivery of water (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations [FAO] 2011; Lever & Evans Reference Lever and Evans2017; Cox & Bridgers Reference Cox and Bridgers2019; Olmos et al. Reference Olmos, Tunón, De Oliveira, Jone, Wallenbeck, Swanson and Keeling2021).
In terms of agriculture, working animals are responsible for more than 50% of the world’s agrarian energy with engines contributing less than 30% and the remainder provided by humans themselves (Swann Reference Swann2006). Additionally, livestock are mainly considered livelihood assets and a social safety net for poor farmers, particularly for women and pastoralist farmers (Herrero et al. Reference Herrero, Grace, Njuki, Johnson, Enahoro, Silvestri and Rufino2013; Gina et al. Reference Gina, Tadesse and Jigjiga2015).
Looking beyond agriculture, many developing parts of the world, e.g. India, Pakistan, and sub-Saharan Africa have seen urban workers shift from motor vehicles to working animals in direct response to increasing fuel prices (Haben Reference Haben2020). This is the harsh reality of life in Ethiopia where working animals remain crucial, acting as the major source of income for their owners (Herago et al. Reference Herago, Megersa, Niguse and Fayera2015; Merridale et al. Reference Merridale, Elias, Wodajo, El-Hage, Zewdu, Tesfaye and Hitchens2024). Despite showing variability between locations, donkeys, mules, horses and camels remain the most common transport animals in Ethiopia for pulling carts and for riding (FAO 2011; Geiger et al. Reference Geiger, Hockenhull, Buller, Tefera, Getachew, Burden and Whay2020). According to the BROOKE report (2023), more than one million cart donkeys and 250,000 cart horses are utilised by millions of people throughout different parts of the country. In addition, cattle provide nearly all the draught power for agricultural crop production at the smallholder level in Ethiopia (Tefera Reference Tefera2011).
According to The Donkey Sanctuary Ethiopia (2017), Ethiopia has the largest working animal sector, comprising 12.4 million oxen, 5.7 million donkeys, 2.4 million camels, 2 million horses, and 0.3 million mules; animals that perform an indispensable role in the improvement of food security and helping reduce poverty. It cannot be overstated how heavily the economy of the country is reliant upon the livestock sector, contributing as it does to agricultural gross domestic product and foreign exchange as a result of exports of animals, meat, leather and other animal products (Admassu & Shiferaw Reference Admassu and Shiferaw2011; Robi et al. Reference Robi, Bogale, Temteme, Aleme and Urge2023).
Animal welfare operates on many levels, including economic, social, political, ethical, and moral dimensions (Lund et al. Reference Lund, Coleman, Gunnarsson, Appleby and Karkinen2006). However, there is evidence (Asebe et al. Reference Asebe, Gelayenew and Kumar2016; Gelaye Reference Gelaye2020; Alemayehu et al. Reference Alemayehu, Berhe, Gelan, Mokria, Jaldessa, Molu, Wieland, Knight-Jones and Doyle2022) that despite the hugely significant role working animals play in improving livelihoods within communities and in the economy of the country as a whole, their welfare tends be neglected. There are many reasons for this. Ethiopia is still to embrace the concept of raising awareness of animals’ basic welfare requirements (Asebe et al. Reference Asebe, Gelayenew and Kumar2016; Alemayehu et al. Reference Alemayehu, Berhe, Gelan, Mokria, Jaldessa, Molu, Wieland, Knight-Jones and Doyle2022). For this reason, working animals become afflicted by a number of diseases, are prone to physical and mental injury, are overworked, suffer low healthcare, and see a shortage of feed, all of which result in poor welfare and work performance (Mekuria et al. Reference Mekuria, Matusala and Rahmeto2013; Sumbria et al. Reference Sumbria, Singla, Sharma, Bal and Randhawa2017; Arega et al. Reference Arega, Bulbula, Fesseha, Arega and Mezgebu2023; Desta Reference Desta2023).
Several studies have sought to explore the key health and welfare issues facing working animals in Ethiopia (Getahun et al. Reference Getahun, Bizelew and Ashwani2016; Behnke & Metaferia Reference Behnke and Metaferia2011; Shapiro et al. Reference Shapiro, Gebru, Desta, Negassa, Nigussie, Aboset and Mechale2017; Hundie & Diba Reference Hundie and Diba2018; Geiger et al Reference Geiger, Hockenhull, Buller, Tefera, Getachew, Burden and Whay2020; Atalel et al. Reference Atalel, Aragaw and Mekibib2024). Studies differ with regard to where their emphasis is directed, for instance Birhan et al. (Reference Birhan, Chanie, Tesfaye, Kassa, Mekonnen and Wagaw2014), Kumar et al. (Reference Kumar, Fisseha, Shishay and Hagos2014), Tesfaye et al. (Reference Tesfaye, Deressa and Teshome2016), Molla et al. Reference Molla, Dembela, Megersa and Mekuria2017, Fsahaye et al. (Reference Fsahaye, Kumar, Kebede and Abebe2018) and Tanga and Gebremeskel (Reference Tanga and Gebremeskel2019) focus on the health and welfare status of working donkeys in different parts of Ethiopia whereas Tadesse (Reference Tadesse2014), Asmare and Yayeh (Reference Asmare and Yayeh2017), Chala et al. (Reference Chala, Ayele and Tariku2017) and Merridale et al. (Reference Merridale, Elias, Wodajo, El-Hage, Zewdu, Tesfaye and Hitchens2024) were more concerned with the health and welfare status of cart-pushing horses. Meanwhile, Getnet et al. (Reference Getnet, Feyera, Alemu, Niguse and Abera2014), Ali et al. (Reference Ali, El Sayed, Matoock, Fouad and Heleski2016), Solomon et al. (Reference Solomon, Mussie and Fanaye2016) and Hundie et al. (Reference Hundie, Diba and Yusuf2018) looked at the health and welfare of cart-pulling mules. A common theme has been a fundamental lack of appreciation of the contribution made by working animals in terms of improving the livelihood and food security of smallholder farmers not to mention on the economy of Ethiopia as a whole (Shapiro et al. Reference Shapiro, Gebru, Desta, Negassa, Nigussie, Aboset and Mechale2017; Temesgen & Sitota Reference Temesgen and Sitota2019; Geiger et al. Reference Geiger, Hockenhull, Buller, Tefera, Getachew, Burden and Whay2020; Nugese 2022; Arega et al. Reference Arega, Bulbula, Fesseha, Arega and Mezgebu2023). Despite these studies not covering the true socio-economic contribution of working animals nor the status (or lack thereof) of their welfare, there is still merit in their findings since they focus upon a specific area in question, certain welfare parameters, and single working animals. Ultimately, what is needed is a comprehensive understanding of the welfare of working animals and the role they play in people’s livelihoods.
Thus, the main aim of this paper is to offer a systematic review of the welfare status of working animals and their role in livelihood, food security, and agriculture production in Ethiopia. In doing so, we seek to contribute in two ways; firstly, to provide comprehensive information regarding the overall welfare of working animals via an integration of previous works thereby facilitating the refining of effective strategies to improve the welfare status and economic return of working animals. And, secondly, to identify gaps in the literature as regards assessment of the welfare status of working animals. This will hopefully help inspire future researchers and policy designers regarding the welfare of working animals throughout the world.
Materials and methods
Literature search
For this review, the content included previously published secondary data such as books, research articles from reputable journals, annual reports from national and international organisations, policy briefs, and other indexed scholarly materials related to the topic in question. The search took place between December 2023 and April 2024.
Databases included Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, and once all search sources had been identified, search criteria were refined, i.e. that studies must have been published between 2010 and 2024. Studies were limited to those incorporating such keywords as ‘working animals’, ‘equine welfare’, ‘cattle welfare’, ‘animal welfare’, ‘working animals and their role in achieving livelihood’, ‘food security’, and ‘agriculture production in Ethiopia’.
PRISMA flow diagram description
Literature screening (inclusion and exclusion criteria)
The literature inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed through consideration of different principles designed to ensure literature was sourced that best achieved the review objectives. A total of 1,499 studies were initially identified which were reduced down to 28 following implementations of various inclusion and exclusion criteria. These were selected for full review. Figure 1 illustrates the entire searching and screening process, and Table 1 summarises the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Graphic representation of the overall search and literature screening, resulting in 28 articles included in the systematic review.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the literature (n = 28) included in this review
Results
Extracted data from studies
Table 2 sets out the data that were extracted and classified based on predefined criteria, including year of publication (2010–2024), study area (Ethiopia), and studies that are focused on the welfare of working animals and the role they play in people’s livelihood. The majority of selected studies addressed both working animal welfare and their role in a single study, although some looked only at the welfare aspects while others were concerned more with the economics but all were considered in this review. Figure 2 depicts the number of studies published between 2010 and 2024 on working animals’ welfare and their importance as related to livelihood and food security.
Extraction of appropriate data comprising the studies (n = 28) included in review into the welfare of working animals in Ethiopia and their multidimensional implications
Publication years (2010–2024) of the 28 studies included in the review on working animals’ welfare and their roles in Ethiopia.
Our review found 53% of studies that stressed the importance of working animals as draught labour, while 36% indicated the critical role of working animals as a primary source of income and employment creation especially for poor people in rural and urban areas. A further 7% described the role of working animals as direct sources of food.
Discussion
The major welfare problems facing working animals in Ethiopia
Prior to any discussion regarding the welfare status of these working animals it might be helpful to consider the basic indicators of farm animal welfare. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC 2011) sets out five standardised welfare indicators for the welfare status of animals. The so-called Five Freedoms which consist of ‘Freedom from hunger and thirst’, ‘Freedom from discomfort’, ‘Freedom from pain, injury, or disease’, ‘Freedom to express normal behaviour’ and ‘Freedom from fear and distress’. These are worth bearing in mind when viewed in conjunction with Table 3 which shows the main working animal species in Ethiopia, the major welfare problems facing each animal and the solution recommended in previous studies.
Summary of the findings from the studies (n = 28) included in our review, sorted by species of working animal with their predominant welfare problems and potential solutions
Figure 3 offers an illustration of the major welfare problems faced by working animals as reported in previous studies published from 2010–2024. Our review revealed 43% of studies specified low prevention and treatment of injury or disease as a primary welfare problem for working animals in Ethiopia. Despite the extensive roles played by equines in the community, less attention gets paid to their welfare (Upjohn et al. Reference Upjohn, Pfeiffer and Verheyen2014; Geiger et al. Reference Geiger, Hockenhull, Buller, Kedir, Engida, Getachew and Whay2021; Arega et al. Reference Arega, Bulbula, Fesseha, Arega and Mezgebu2023). It is clear from our review that the majority of owners do not take their equines to veterinary clinics for treatment with some relying upon traditional medicines. The picture painted is one where equines were expected to work hard without sufficient veterinary treatment and when sick they are essentially left to die (Zegeye et al. Reference Zegeye, Molla, Tiruneh and Tesema2015; Stringer et al. Reference Stringer, Christley, Bell, Gebreab, Tefera, Reed and Pinchbeck2017).
Major welfare problems facing working animals in Ethiopia according to the 28 studies included in the review.
There is extensive literature on the subject of working animals’ susceptibility to health-related issues, such as infectious diseases, dermatological diseases, dental problems, musculoskeletal problems, eye problems, wounds, abrasions from ill-fitting breast straps, poor girth, improper harnessing, and biting insects (Hippobosca spp, Stomoxys spp) as direct result of their limited access to veterinary treatment (Lund et al. Reference Lund, Coleman, Gunnarsson, Appleby and Karkinen2006; Birhan et al. Reference Birhan, Chanie, Tesfaye, Kassa, Mekonnen and Wagaw2014; Tesfaye et al. Reference Tesfaye, Deressa and Teshome2016; Nejash et al. Reference Nejash, Endale, Abdi and Feyissa2017; Fsahaye et al. Reference Fsahaye, Kumar, Kebede and Abebe2018; Melkamu et al. Reference Melkamu, Hadush, Dubale and Asrat2022; Mekete Reference Mekete2022; Chalchisa et al. Reference Chalchisa, Kumsa and Gutema Wegi2024).
Our review found that 33% of Ethiopa’s working animals suffered from limited access to feed and water. Equines, especially donkeys, are deemed low status animals throughout different regions of Ethiopia and, as such, are frequently neglected; denied access the kind of feed, water, and healthcare that is made readily available to other animals such as cattle. An outcome implying that equines, despite the fundamental role they play in socio-economic enterprise, are perceived as being of little value by their owners (Admassu & Shiferaw Reference Admassu and Shiferaw2011; Amante et al. Reference Amante, Hunde, Endebu, Hirpa and Mamo2014; Asebe et al. Reference Asebe, Gelayenew and Kumar2016; Tanga & Gebremeskel Reference Tanga and Gebremeskel2019; Geiger et al. Reference Geiger, Hockenhull, Buller, Tefera, Getachew, Burden and Whay2020; Alemayehu et al. Reference Alemayehu, Berhe, Gelan, Mokria, Jaldessa, Molu, Wieland, Knight-Jones and Doyle2022)
Our analysis also found evidence that in 13% of the studies reviewed, working animals had no freedom from beating, fear, and distress. Many of the working equines are owned by poor households; hence, ensuring conditions and treatments that avoid mental and physical suffering are ignored (Teferi et al. 2020; Lemma et al. Reference Lemma, Doyle, Alemayehu, Mekonnen, Kumbe and Wieland2022). Equines are beaten to compel them to work and, as a result, are subject to serious ailments, including gait abnormalities, joint swelling, broken skin, deep lesions, and dental problems (Birhan et al. Reference Birhan, Chanie, Tesfaye, Kassa, Mekonnen and Wagaw2014; Ayalew et al. Reference Ayalew, Hailemelekot and Taye2018; Temesgen & Sitota Reference Temesgen and Sitota2019; Alemayehu et al. Reference Alemayehu, Berhe, Gelan, Mokria, Jaldessa, Molu, Wieland, Knight-Jones and Doyle2022; Mekete Reference Mekete2022).
As shown in Figure 3, 7% of papers reviewed reported working animals, particularly equines, were provided insufficient access to shelter and resting areas (Usman et al. Reference Usman, Disassa, Kabeta, Zenebe and Kebede2015; Mekonnen & Channe Reference Mekonnen and Channe2016; Girmay Reference GirmGay2017; Fsahaye et al. Reference Fsahaye, Kumar, Kebede and Abebe2018; Yalew et al. Reference Yalew, Darge and Melake2024). This indicates the seriousness of this issue for working animals (especially equines) in Ethiopia. Since cattle are held in higher status (as a result of their meat being a prized commodity), mostly they are provided with access to shelter. The majority of farmers utilise cattle for a dual purpose; firstly, as a traction force and then latterly the meat is sold as a source of food. This serves as a direct contrast to equines since their meat is not deemed consumable within communities leading to them suffering neglect (Amante et al. Reference Amante, Hunde, Endebu, Hirpa and Mamo2014; Geiger et al. Reference Geiger, Hockenhull, Buller, Tefera, Getachew, Burden and Whay2020; Aliye et al. Reference Aliye, Nigusie, Fesseha and Mathewos2022).
Improving the conditions and facilities for working animals to enable them to express their normal behaviour is a key indicator of welfare (Popescu & Diugan Reference Popescu and Diugan2013; Ali et al. Reference Ali, Orion, Tesfaye and Zambriski2016). As shown in Figure 3, only 3% of the studies reviewed conducted behavioural assessments on working equines in Ethiopia thereby ensuring a distinct lack of possibilities for equines to express their normal behaviour. A significant number of studies indicate the importance of the human-animal relationship to working animals’ care as well as for effective utilisation of them, but mostly the studies express the notion that the majority of working animals are dull and difficult to catch leading to them being beaten and suffering from chronic fear (Usman et al. Reference Usman, Disassa, Kabeta, Zenebe and Kebede2015; Getahun et al. Reference Getahun, Bizelew and Ashwani2016; Fsahaye et al. Reference Fsahaye, Kumar, Kebede and Abebe2018; Yalew et al. Reference Yalew, Darge and Melake2024).
The role working animals play in improving livelihood, food security and agriculture production
Ethiopia has a reported population of 31 million cattle which is the largest in the entire continent of Africa (Astatke & Mohammed-Saleem Reference Astatke and Mohamed-Saleem1996; Aune et al. Reference Aune, Bussa, Asfaw and Ayele2001). Nine to 10 million of which are deployed as draught power in agriculture or for other livelihood purposes. Typically, Ethiopian smallholder farms make use of indigenous breeds of Zebu cattle, deployed in pairs, to prepare seed beds and for threshing. Horses, donkeys and mules tend only to be used to plough crop land when oxen are unavailable when they are paired with the same species or with others (Taye Reference Taye2005; Urga & Abayneh Reference Urga and Abayneh2007; Chanie et al. Reference Chanie, Fentahun, Mitiku and Berhan2012). Generally, these equine species (horses, donkeys and mules) are deployed as modes of transport throughout most parts of the country. Ethiopia has six donkey breeds (Abyssinian, Afar, Hararghe, Ogaden Omo and Sinnar) which are distributed throughout the highland region (Gebreab et al. Reference Gebreab, Wold, Kelemu, Ibro and Yilma2004; Zewdie et al. Reference Zewdie, Welday and Pal2015; Getachew et al. Reference Getachew, Kassa and Megersa2023). In Ethiopia, donkeys play a significant role in transport, pulling carts and for ploughing (Central Statistical Agency [CSA] 2017; Wassie et al. Reference Wassie, Getachew, Kassa, Megersa and Ayele2023). In the lowlands and in drier regions, camels are also used exclusively as pack and transport animals.
Several scholars (Teha et al. Reference Teha, Asefa, Birhanu, Gizachew and Nekemte2017; Wilson Reference Wilson2010; Admassu & Shiferaw Reference Admassu and Shiferaw2011; Girmay Reference GirmGay2017) confirmed the broad use of working animals throughout Ethiopia and the indispensable role they play in people’s everyday activities, not to mention the income that they also generate. Furthermore, they have both direct and indirect impact on households’ overall standard of living through helping ensure food will be available.
This was illustrated in a study by Amejo et al. (Reference Amejo, Gebere, Kassa and Tana2018) who described cattle as not only a direct source of food via provision of meat and milk but also an indirect source due to their role as draught animals, ploughing, threshing and, on occasion, as transporters of products. In Ethiopia, 90% of the rural population are dependent upon draught animals, including oxen, for a multitude of purposes. A number of other studies (Li et al. Reference Li, Mayberry, Jemberu, Schrobback, Herrero, Chaters and Rushton2023; Wendimu et al. Reference Wendimu, Tekalign, Bojago and Zemarku2023; Willy et al. Reference Willy, Beyene and Amare2023; Berhe et al. Reference Berhe, Oniki, Negash and Etsa2024) indicate oxen as being important sources of income via direct sales of animals, meat, skin, and other products. Oxen may also be rented out for cash during the cropping season, creating further income for farmers (Mouazen et al. Reference Mouazen, Smolders, Meresa, Gebregziabher, Nyssen, Verplancke and De Baerdemaeker2007; Cochet Reference Cochet2011). According to Aune et al. (Reference Aune, Bussa, Asfaw and Ayele2001), oxen are the primary source of draught power for crop production, however in rare circumstances farmers will also use cow traction as an alternative to oxen ploughing. However, the deployment of cows as a traction power was not referred to in the papers covered in our systematic review. The majority of farmers in Ethiopia use oxen as traction for ploughing their land for agricultural crop production. Farmers also use cattle production as an alternative source of income by selling them for meat at the local market. However, welfare problems afflicting oxen during the ploughing season has a detrimental effect on their meat quality leading to a decline in their market price and reduced profit margin (Jemal et al. Reference Jemal, Gadisa and Bukaro2023).
Our review also highlighted the role played by camels, with them used as draught power and transporters of both people and products across landscapes less suited to other working animals. Additionally, they also serve as a reliable food source in areas of Ethiopia where the arid and semi-arid conditions render other animals less practical. Although the consumption of camel meat and milk is frowned upon by the Christian church, these remain an important food source for the pastoral and agro-pastoral Muslim communities of Ethiopia (Mouazen et al. Reference Mouazen, Smolders, Meresa, Gebregziabher, Nyssen, Verplancke and De Baerdemaeker2007; Tura et al. Reference Tura, Kuria, Walaga and Lesuper2010; Demlie et al. Reference Demlie, Nurye, Sied and Kefyalew2023; Edea et al. Reference Edea, Tesfaye, Geleta, Taye, Hailemariam and Miglas2024).
Further evidence, originating from the Somali Region of Ethiopia, vindicates this notion of working animals (e.g. camels, donkeys and cattle) contributing greatly to household finances as well as enriching the lives of the community in general. Cattle and camels especially represent basic and reliable sources of meat, milk, and skin for households (Gina et al. Reference Gina, Tadesse and Jigjiga2015). In line with the above study, the FAO (2011) also reported the direct role played by working animals in ensuring food availability at the level of the smallholder farmers via provision of milk and meat and indirectly as a result of fertilisation of farmland and the sale of offspring to fund food items. For developing countries such as Ethiopia, in particular, the majority of the population depends on animal power as its main energy source.
Our review also sheds light on the role equines play in creating employment opportunities for poor households, leading to the generation of income. The majority of equine owners confirmed that the benefits far outweigh the costs as regards equines, making them very useful either for use exclusively by the household or for the generation of income. As the majority of Ethiopians depend greatly upon subsistence agriculture, which is highly susceptible to climatic change risk, our study has identified that equines are the main source for diversification into non-farm activities (Ameni Reference Ameni2006; Admassu & Shiferaw Reference Admassu and Shiferaw2011; Gelaye Reference Gelaye2020; Molla et al. Reference Molla, Fentahun and Jemberu2021). In Ethiopia, especially the study areas of Ankesha Guagusa and Banja Shekudad district, evidence points to the importance of equines, such as horses, to the livelihood of many smallholder farmers. For example, ploughing of farmland, transportation of goods, and human transport (Asmare & Yayeh Reference Asmare and Yayeh2017).
Research gaps
Previously, studies have sought to investigate the overall welfare of working animals and the roles they play regarding livelihood, food security and agricultural production. Seeking to diminish welfare issues as well as enhancing the impact of working animals on food security is key, however additional efforts must also be devoted to advancing research in this field. As such, this systematic review has set out to identify research gaps in existing literature.
Gaps in the measurement of working animals’ welfare
Applying accurate welfare indicators (measurements) or parameters is a necessary precondition in assessing and understanding the welfare status of working animals. Only a very small proportion of the total papers reviewed considered all the parameters in one single investigation, e.g. Girmay (Reference GirmGay2017), Tanga and Gebremeskel (Reference Tanga and Gebremeskel2019), Aliye et al. (Reference Aliye, Nigusie, Fesseha and Mathewos2022) and Yalew et al. (Reference Yalew, Darge and Melake2024). Meanwhile, 40% of studies reviewed focused only on the health and physical condition of the animals in question, e.g. Scantlebury et al. (Reference Scantlebury, Zerfu, Pinchbeck, Reed, Gebreab, Aklilu and Christley2015), Fasil and Yenewhunegnaw (Reference Fasil and Yenewhunegnaw2017), Fsahaye et al. (Reference Fsahaye, Kumar, Kebede and Abebe2018), Molla et al. (Reference Molla, Fentahun and Jemberu2021) and Mathewos et al. (Reference Mathewos, Bukero, Endale, Mekbib, Giday and Mekore2023). On the other hand, 37% of studies were concerned with feed and water access for working animals, e.g. Amenu et al. (Reference Amenu, Markemann, Roessler, Siegmund-Schultze, Abebe and Valle Zárate2013), Asmare and Yayeh (Reference Asmare and Yayeh2017) and Hadush (Reference Hadush2018). However, tellingly, only 3% (Asmare Reference Asmare2014; Molla et al. Reference Molla, Dembela, Megersa and Mekuria2017) looked at the behaviour of working animals and their mental state. This indicates a need for studies to consider a holistic approach whereby the overall welfare status of working animals is considered, not merely one facet. Clearly, there has been a failure to pay sufficient attention to this with health parameters mostly featuring in assessments of working animals’ welfare.
Gaps in the data analysis methods
According to our analysis, 46.6% made use of simple descriptive statistics to analyse their data. Meanwhile only 27% of studies deployed econometric models with 20% and 7% using narration and other methods of analysis, respectively. Despite selecting a method of data analysis appropriate to the study in question, econometric models are preferable due to their ability to identify the relevance and predict the magnitude of the specific welfare parameter in question, thereby improving the welfare status of the working animals. Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to either econometrics or other sophisticated methods of analysis in these studies.
Gap in studied working animals
The largest proportion of previous studies (43%) were focused purely on donkeys, whereas 30% took all equines (donkeys, horses, and mules) into account. Moreover, 13% of studies considered only horses, while 7% were concerned with both cattle and equines. Further statistics to emerge were that only 3% focused on cattle and the same proportion on camels. Cattle and camels are among the most vital working animals in Ethiopia (Aune et al. Reference Aune, Bussa, Asfaw and Ayele2001; Gina et al. Reference Gina, Tadesse and Jigjiga2015) yet, despite this, remain the subject of a paucity of studies in comparison to working equines.
Animal welfare implications and conclusion
The main aim of this review was to demonstrate the role of working animals in people’s livelihoods, food security, farm production, and poverty reduction in an attempt to increase the profile of these animals among policy-makers, thereby enhancing the implementation of policies to secure working animal welfare. Our findings highlight the close connection that exists between human livelihoods, food security, agricultural production, and working animals. However, the welfare of working animals in developing countries such as Ethiopia continues to be a cause for concern. To this end, we carried out a literature review of papers published between 2010 and 2024. The results revealed the multi-dimensional importance of working animals to be encapsulated into a number of major roles, including serving as a draught power for the majority of smallholder farmers, as a basic source of income, as a direct source of food, not to mention other social and cultural roles. Numerous welfare issues were readily identified that seriously impinge on the ability of these animals to work efficiently. These mainly consisted of high occurrence of disease and injury in conjunction with low to non-existent treatment/veterinary care; poor access to feed and water, lack of freedom from beatings and distress; low access to shelter; and no freedom to express normal behaviour. In addition, a number of research gaps were identified as regards aspects of welfare measurements and methods of data analysis which led us to offer a set of recommendations to be addressed moving forward.
In terms of the challenge of meeting the needs of food supply, working animals can act as a fundamental sustainable food resource, for human livelihoods, and reduction of poverty in Ethiopia. This could influence policy-makers and development partners to incorporate these animals into the national development plans, as part of a holistic approach to help ensure food security and poverty reduction. In particular, all bodies in question should prioritise the need to popularise and maintain the animal welfare protection system from national to ground level. Moreover, future studies should strive to investigate the status of animal welfare via an integrated and holistic approach, ensuring the implementation of appropriate welfare indicators and rigorous data analysis methods.
Competing interest
None.
Open access
