United Kingdom

Factors Affecting and Contributing to Donkey and Hybrid Acquisition Decisions in the UK

Status
Start date
End date
Country

Across the stages of donkey/donkey hybrid acquisition, from early decision making through to the act of purchase or rehoming, there is potential for practices that may promote or compromise the animal's welfare.    

There is currently limited evidence behind the motivations, attitudes and behaviours of people thinking about or acting on decisions to purchase or rehome a donkey/donkey hybrid.  Identifying key factors associated with donkey/donkey hybrid acquisition may help to develop and direct support to where it is needed most.  

This study will incorporate three complementary strands of data collection to further our understanding of decision-making processes underlying the planned or actual acquisition of a donkey or donkey hybrid, and characteristics of the owned donkey/ donkey hybrid population in the UK. The first project strand (1a) will explore online platforms, including social media, to investigate the current sales market for donkeys and their hybrids. Data will be collated longitudinally enabling temporal differences, including seasonal variations, to be captured. Strands 2a and 2b focus on people who are contemplating acquiring a donkey or hybrid, or who have already made that commitment. In strand 2a a cross-sectional online survey targeting people who own or who have rehomed donkeys, or their hybrids, will be used to collect data on donkey and owner demographics, the owners acquisition process, information seeking behaviour and experience of ownership/guardianship. Strand 2b will use focus groups and semi-structured interviews, as appropriate, to provide a deeper insight into areas of interest informed by the survey data.

Methodology

1) A search of donkeys and their hybrids being advertised for sale via publicly accessible websites, social media and online auction catalogues. Details provided in the advert (location, age, sex, breed/type, colour, whether being sold as an individual, pair or group, information relating to breeding status, health status and behaviour, suitability, price etc.) to be recorded in a password protected Excel spreadsheet. Data will be recorded on a minimum of a weekly basis and for a full calendar year to get full seasonal representation.

Broad, descriptive data analysis will be employed to uncover trends and patterns.  

2a) Cross-sectional online survey hosted on Microsoft Forms aimed at both current and prospective donkey/donkey hybrid owners/guardians in the UK.  We are aiming to collaborate with a University for this part so that it is more independent and to avoid potentially skewing responses by it being solely a TDS survey.  Adopting a collaborative approach will also hopefully be beneficial for advertising and dissemination of the survey to a wider group of participants. The survey will be publicised on social media and via relevant newsletters.  Participants will be encouraged to share the survey details within their relevant networks to maximise reach.  

The survey will consist of a mix of demographic questions, closed-ended multiple-choice questions and a small number of open-ended (free text) questions.  

Key topics will include: owner demographics and location, current donkey/donkey hybrid demographic information, donkey/donkey hybrid owning timeline/history, method of acquisition, purchase price/rehoming fee, reason for acquisition, whether the donkey/donkey hybrid(s) matched their description/lived up to expectations, main sources of donkey/hybrid education/information.

The survey will remain active for 1 month, after which the number of responses will be checked and a decision made on whether to extend the time.

The data will be statistically interpreted to identify any significant patterns and relationships. Open-ended questions will be transcribed and thematically analysed using NVivo.

Survey participants will be asked if they would like to take part in a focus group / interview and details will be taken accordingly.

Survey participants contact data will be numericalised to preserve confidentiality whilst retaining contact information for those who volunteer for focus group interviews.

2b) Focus groups/interviews with relevant stakeholders including both prospective and current donkey/donkey hybrid owners/carers (to include private homes, guardian homes, educational establishments, commercial operators), along with breeders, dealers and welfare charity representatives. A purposive sampling strategy will be used to capture the breadth of perspectives and experiences.

Focus groups and interviews will be undertaken after gaining consent to do so (see attached information sheet and consent form). They will be recorded and preferably conducted online but face to face remains an option if required - subject to suitability and budget. Each focus group will likely have between 4 and 12 participants and there will likely be 3 questions posed to the group during the session.  Key topics will be determined upon trends identified within the survey data. 

Aims

To gain a better insight into the current online trade of donkeys and their hybrids and to explore key ownership variables around acquisition decisions.

Objectives

Research Questions:

What platforms are being used to advertise donkeys and their hybrids?

How many donkeys/donkey hybrids are being advertised (on average) each month and are there seasonal variations?

Are there certain types of donkeys/donkey hybrids being advertised (age, breed etc.)?  

Are there any regional differences?

What type of information is being given in adverts (health, behaviour, breeding status etc.)?

To what extent do acquisition decisions vary with owner demographics?

Are differences in acquisition decisions associated with differences in owner knowledge and understanding?

What are the drivers behind people deciding to source donkeys or their hybrids?  

What are the driving factors behind decisions to purchase versus rehome?  

Are there any keys aspects people look for when purchasing/rehoming (temperament, conformation etc.)?

Are there any trends (demographic, socioeconomic etc.) in people buying vs rehoming?

Do people tend to carry out any research before purchasing and if so, where do they go for information/advice?  

Understanding public perceptions of donkeys and donkey welfare within a sanctuary setting

Status
Applicant(s)
Start date
End date
Country

The Donkey Sanctuary (Sidmouth, Devon) has been receiving visitors since its inception over 50 years ago. To date, there has been little research to understand public perceptions of (and encounters with) donkeys on site and how these on-site experiences reflect and shape public ideas about animal welfare, including the concept of a 'sanctuary' and a 'good life' (FAWC, 2009) for donkeys. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to explore the relationship between visitor experiences, perceptions and ideas of animal welfare within a sanctuary settling. In other words, what do visitor experiences and perceptions tell us about how animal welfare is being imagined, interpreted and understood in the context of a sanctuary - and how does this potentially influence views of animal welfare outside of a sanctuary setting? This research will contribute to the organisation's strategy by informing our understanding of how visitors learn about donkeys, what they perceive as good welfare and how our educational material can help to inform their understanding of TDS work and the welfare of donkeys. It will also help us to better understand our supporters and wider visitors, and identify opportunities to engage them further in our work to improve donkey welfare, raise awareness of donkeys and contribute vital knowledge in the fields of human-animal studies and animal welfare. 

Methodology

This research applies a twofold methodology to better understand public experiences and perceptions on site, using:

(a) Emotional mapping - a participatory approach that enables the representation of subjective, emotional and/or affective responses to a space or place. This method will be used to identify emotional "hotspots" at The Donkey Sanctuary (areas that have significance for the public, physically, emotionally, spiritually) and understand these in relation to ideas/perceptions of donkeys and donkey welfare.

(2) Emplaced and mobile interviews - established methods in human geography that will be used to elicit public responses to the donkeys in the context of their environment, which will in turn, tell us something about public perceptions of donkeys and donkey welfare in a sanctuary setting. Interviews will be used alongside the emotional mapping exercise to enrich/give depth to the cartographic information.

Aims

Explore the relationship between visitor experiences, perceptions and ideas/understandings of animal welfare at a sanctuary - unpacking the concept of "sanctuary" in the process. To frame this as a question: What do visitor experiences and perceptions tell us about how animal welfare is being imagined, interpreted and understood in the context of a sanctuary? (See below for further breakdown of questions).

Objectives

RQ1. How do the public perceive and interpret the life/experience of a 'sanctuary donkey' based on their visits to The Donkey Sanctuary? What ideas do they come away with (a) in relation to donkey sentience and intelligence and (b) in terms of what a sanctuary life is like for donkeys? 
RQ2. In what ways (if at all) does the wider offering at the sanctuary (e.g. the landscape and nature, walking routes, views of the sea, the memorial aspects of the site) contribute to ideas of animal welfare and a "good life" for donkeys? Related: To what extent is the physical environment/space a factor in shaping perceptions described in RQ1? 
RQ3. What knowledge is generated on site with/by the public and how is it generated (e.g. through direct encounters with donkeys, through interactions with grooms, through information boards etc?). 

Donkeys working in commercial activities in Great Britain: Understanding the scale and distribution of donkeys, and key stakeholder perspectives.

Status
Collaborator(s)
Start date
End date
Country

Commercial activities within Great Britain are a significant addition to the workload of welfare teams due to concerns regularly raised by members of the public about the welfare of donkeys involved in this work. There are wide discrepancies in the recording of donkey population numbers in GB, or  appreciation for the numbers working in commercial settings. This project will evaluate the scale, distribution and types of donkey-related licensed/ unlicensed commercial activities in GB from FOI data obtained from licensing authorities. Using Animal Management System data it will also glean information about the welfare of donkeys in these contexts, why they are brought to TDS, and what our welfare teams find when they visit the premises of commercial operations. Further collaborative research will be undertaken with Manchester Metropolitan University (Helen Wadham) to ascertain the perspectives and understanding of those interacting with donkeys in commercial operations (local authority officials, vets, the business owners and the public). 

Methodology

Mixed methods of FOI requests to licensing authorities, data extraction from AMS, interviews and netnography. 

Aims
  1. To aid the understanding of donkey welfare in working contexts in GB to support those licensing and being licensed  ensure adequate care and retirement provision for working donkeys throughout their lives. 
  2. To aid the development of tools to support the public in welfare friendly decision-making when utilising commercial donkey related activities.
  3. Provide operational information to support the welfare teams in the delivery of an efficient and effective welfare service for donkeys in working contexts. 
Objectives
  1. Understand the scale and distribution of commercial operations (licensed and unlicensed) involving donkeys in GB.
  2. Investigate the roles donkeys are currently performing within businesses.
  3. Evaluate the welfare of donkeys in these contexts and what happens at the end of their working lives.
  4. Investigate the licensing process from the perspectives of licensing officials, operators of premises requiring licence, and the public.
  5. Evaluate the online discourse about donkeys working in GB using netnography.
  6. Investigate the licensing authorities, owners and the public's understanding and knowledge of donkeys, donkey perspectives and their needs.


 

Donkey pain scoring

Rebekah Sullivan
Presentation date

Donkeys are notorious for being a ‘stoical’ species. They typically do not overtly demonstrate symptoms of being in pain and discomfort. This masking behaviour is a key survival technique for many prey species. In acute scenarios, such as colic or acute musculoskeletal injury, there is an inherent risk that owners may not recognise the donkey is unwell or in discomfort until advanced stages, and vets may overlook the severity of the situation. For disease processes such as surgical colic and colitis, where prompt treatment is necessary to maximise a favourable outcome, a delay in recognition of a donkey in pain has a significant negative impact on prognosis. For chronic conditions, such as dental pathology, persistent ocular lesions and osteoarthritis, a donkey may not receive adequate analgesia and other treatment required if subtle symptoms of pain are not acknowledged. 

The ability to objectively identify evidence of pain is therefore of benefit to donkey welfare, not only in recognition of acute discomfort but also for monitoring of chronic conditions, assessing quality of life, post-operative pain management and intensive care cases. Owners, vets, nurses and other clinic support staff can all be trained in the use of simple pain scoring tools. Validated pain scoring systems have been developed for horses. However, as donkeys have unique behavioural tendencies and physiology, it stands to reason that tools designed for horses may not be directly transferable to use in donkeys. Furthermore, as different sources of pain, whether acute or chronic, may result in different signs, the accuracy of objective pain scoring does not fit with a ‘one size fits all’ approach. 

Facial expression based pain scales and composite pain scales have now been developed and evaluated for the scoring of acute pain in donkeys [1]. These scales used those developed for horses as their baseline, adjusting and adding further parameters using expert donkey knowledge. Results from this study indicate that acute head-related pain and colic pain are most reliably assessed using the facial pain scale, whilst acute orthopaedic pain and post-surgical castration pain are better assessed using the composite pain scale. In both scales, parameters are given a numerical score, with a higher number denoting greater evidence of pain. 

The composite pain score is a multifactorial scale based on 20 parameters, scored during observations over a 5-minute period. For example, a donkey that has no audible signs of pain is given a score of 0, a donkey with audible teeth grinding and moaning more than four times in the 5-minute observation period is given a score of 3. Scores are weighted and there is a maximum score of 60. The scale includes behavioural and physiological parameters as well as responses to stimuli. Those parameters that do not require a hands-on approach are assessed first, observing the donkey from a suitable distance to avoid any effect that disturbance due to human interaction may elicit. 

The facial pain scoring scale is a multifactorial scale based on 12 parameters, scored during observations over a 2-minute period. For example, ears in a normal position are scored 0, ears held in an abnormal position (hanging down or backwards) are scored 2. There is a maximum score of 24. 

Inter-observational reliability has been demonstrated for both scales. Whilst there are clear limitations, repeated use of the scales by trained observers provides an objective data set which is clinically applicable. Elevated scores should promote discussion of why that score is present – is the donkey in pain, why and what is the response to any treatment administered? For hospitalised patients, scores that are increasing are an immediate alert that a treatment plan may need adjusting. 

Work is underway to evaluate scoring systems for assessment of chronic pain in donkeys. The availability of validated scales will be welcome to those vets and owners caring for not only geriatric donkeys, but any donkey with a chronic health condition. In a study [2], researchers constructed a chronic pain score, which is an amalgamation of composite and facial pain scoring scales. The study demonstrated good inter-observational reliability between well trained, previously inexperienced observers. The choice to amalgamate two scoring scales arose because pilot work indicated that donkeys experiencing pain from chronic conditions may show changes in facial expressions akin to those found in donkeys in acute pain, whilst demonstrating behavioural changes that are quantifiable using the composite pain scale. Validation of this chronic pain scale will be of major benefit to those monitoring the health and welfare of any donkey living with a chronic health condition. It is hoped that the regular use of chronic pain scale scoring will assist treatment monitoring and will be a welcome inclusion to a quality of life assessment toolkit. 

References 

1. van Dierendonck, M.C., Burden, F.A., Rickards, K. and van Loon, J.P.A.M. (2020) Monitoring acute pain in donkeys with the Equine Utrecht University Scale for Donkeys Composite Pain Assessment (EQUUSDONKEY-COMPASS) and the Equine Utrecht University Scale for Donkey Facial Assessment of Pain (EQUUS-DONKEY-FAP). Animals 10(2), 354. 

2. van Loon, J.P.A.M., de Grauw, J.C., Burden, F., Vos, K.J., Bardelmeijer, L.H. and Rickards, K. (2021) Objective assessment of chronic pain in donkeys using the donkey chronic pain scale (DCPS): A scale-construction study. Vet. J. 267, 105580.

Country
Not published as conference proceedings

Endocrine disease in donkeys

Rebekah Sullivan
Presentation date

There are significant numbers of donkeys kept as companion animals, both in the UK and abroad. Like their horse and pony compatriots, many kept donkeys are geriatric. Additionally, obesity is a common problem, irrespective of age. Diagnosis and management of endocrine disease in donkeys is challenging as many of the available tests for horses have not been specifically validated in donkeys. Furthermore, endocrinopathic laminitis in the donkey is not infrequently subclinical. The term ‘subclinical,’ is perhaps inappropriate, for the lack of clinical signs may not correlate with the severity of the laminitis episode but instead be a feature of the donkey’s notoriously stoic behaviour with respect to pain.

As a species, the donkey has evolved to be extremely energy efficient, with an inherent ability to maintain good body condition on lower energy diets. They have a slower intestinal transit time and greater efficiency of fibre digestion than the horse [1]. Donkeys appear able to accumulate adipose tissue with ease. Whilst these innate traits serve the working donkey or those kept in harsh environments where food resources are scarce well, they predispose the sedentary donkey to obesity, dyslipidaemias, insulin dysregulation and other metabolic disorders.

Donkey, or asinine, metabolic syndrome is increasingly recognised by equine veterinary practitioners. Clear and precise definitions are lacking and currently rely on extrapolations from equine metabolic syndrome. The clinician presented with an obese donkey should be suspicious of underlying metabolic derangements. The donkey may be generally obese, or have defined regional adiposity, with deposits along the neck, dorsum and rump being common. There are usually substantial subcutaneous fat deposits on the ventral abdomen in obese donkeys. Awareness of the obese donkey may only arise when the otherwise healthy donkey is presented for routine preventative care, such as vaccination or dental care. This provides an ideal opportunity to discuss the donkey’s body condition and diet, with the intention to reduce development of metabolic disease. Initial clinical assessment must include an evaluation of any indicators of laminitis, whether subtle or overt. The donkey that is described as unwilling to walk may actually be in discomfort rather than being unused to handling. It is imperative that provided diets are appropriate for the donkey’s life stage. For the adult, healthy donkey, with good molar function, the majority of forage intake should be provided by straw, with hay/haylage or restricted grazing making up the remainder of the diet. Owners should be advised to aim for straw to provide 75% of intake in summer and 50% in winter. Supplementation with a vitamin and mineral balancer is recommended. The conscientious owner may be willing to have their forage sugar content analysed, to further guide dietary management.

If a donkey remains obese, despite sufficient time and appropriate diet for expected weight loss to ensue, further investigation for metabolic disease should be undertaken. Basal insulin concentrations may be elevated in obese donkeys. The established reference range at The Donkey Sanctuary for a non-fasted insulin sample in the adult donkey is 0-15.1 uIU/ml (TOSOH AIA, using two-site immunoenzymometric serum assay). As for horses, a normal insulin concentration does not rule out insulin dysregulation and dynamic tests are recommended for further investigation. Protocols have been developed for donkeys, with intravenous glucose tolerance test, combined glucose-insulin test and oral glucose tolerance tests described in the literature [2] but insulin cut-off values for these tests have not been validated for donkeys. In the author’s clinic, the oral glucose tolerance test with corn syrup is used as this provides an accessible and practical dynamic test. The major limitation being that the protocol used is that developed for horses and may not be directly transferable to donkeys and, again, there is no validated insulin cut-off value. Consequently, diagnosis of asinine metabolic syndrome is currently made based upon combinations of clinical observations, poor weight loss despite appropriate diet, evidence of hyperinsulinaemia or insulin dysregulation and history of laminitis episodes.

Management of asinine metabolic syndrome is as challenging as the diagnosis. Many owners struggle to appropriately diet their donkey, particularly if any companion is not obese and/or has different dietary requirements. It is now widely understood that donkeys form strong bonds with their companions and can become distressed and at risk of hyperlipaemia if separated. However, for short periods if one donkey needs supplementary feed companions can be kept in sight of each other, yet physically separated by a fence or stable door. Owners should also try to encourage their donkeys to exercise, which is admittedly no mean feat. Turn out onto a bare pasture, which donkeys can explore and exercise within, is likely to carry more benefit than stabling a donkey away from rich grass pastures. If a donkey is accepting of a head collar and being led, many owners enjoy taking their animals for short walks. Providing enrichment activities that encourage the donkey to be mobile and explore are also helpful.

It goes without saying that exercise should not be advised until active laminitis has been ruled out. An association between obesity, insulin dysregulation and recurrent laminitis in donkeys has been reported but in a recent cross-sectional study of 707 donkeys in the UK [3], the presence of basal hyperinsulinaemia or PPID (indicated by seasonally adjusted elevations in ACTH) was not associated with increased odds of laminitis. However, this study acknowledged the lack of validated dynamic testing for either PPID or AMS and the potential errors in classification of cases. In the absence of definitive knowledge, clinicians should err on the side of caution and be alert to the potential for endocrinopathic laminitis. Management of laminitis in the donkey has been covered elsewhere [4].

The use of medication to treat asinine metabolic syndrome has not been extensively evaluated. As for horses, therapeutic protocols should only be used as an adjunct to dietary and exercise management. The use of levothyroxine in the donkey at standard equine doses has been reported [2]. Studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of ertugliflozin in the donkey, alongside any other medication proposed for treatment of metabolic syndrome in the horse.

 

References:

[1] Thiemann AK, Sullivan RJE. (2019). Gastrointestinal Disorders of Donkeys and Mules. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 35(3):419-432

[2] Mendoza FJ, Toribio RE, Perez-Ecija A. (2019) Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders in Donkeys. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 35(3):399-417

[3] Menzies-Gow NJ, Wakeel F, Little H, Buil J, Rickards K. (2021). Cross-sectional study to identify the prevalence of and factors associated with laminitis in UK donkeys. Equine Vet J. 54(4):757-765

[4] Thiemann A.K, Buil J, Rickards K, Sullivan R.J (2021). A review of laminitis in the donkey. Equine Vet Educ 34(10): 553-560

Country
Not published as conference proceedings

Colitis in donkeys

Rebekah Sullivan
Presentation date

Colitis and typhlitis are diagnosed in donkey populations. Precise clinical presentations vary, depending on whether acute or chronic, a single individual or a number of animals in a group outbreak situation. The common feature, irrespective of circumstance, is that of a dull donkey and consequently, in the initial stages can be challenging to differentiate from the many other potential causes of dullness. Typically, donkeys present as inappetent, or only picking at feed, behaviour is depressed and they may distance themselves from companions. It is vital that owners and vets are aware that this likely constitutes a medical emergency and a clinical exam should be performed without delay. In acute cases, the donkey may be tachycardic, tachypnoeic, pyrexic, have congested mucous membranes with delayed capillary refill time and significantly reduced borborygmi. However, many cases can initially present with relatively normal parameters, yet progress to a peracute presentation and become moribund within hours. A salient point is the lack of diarrhoea in most donkeys with colitis. Ventral or limb oedema is not a consistent finding. Overt demonstrations of abdominal pain, such as rolling or kicking at the abdomen are uncommon in donkeys but if present are likely to indicate severe pain.

Thorough history taking is essential to guide diagnosis. Risk factors for colitis in donkeys include stressors such as recent movement, management or dietary change, alongside ingestion of toxic feed substances, infectious aetiologies, endoparasite infestation and recent anthelmintic or antimicrobial use. Right dorsal colitis does not appear to be common in donkeys, irrespective of short or long-term NSAID treatment at standard maintenance doses. Dysbiosis, secondary to any of the previously listed stressors, may be a significant factor in the development of colitis. Toxic and infectious causes are higher up the differential list in an outbreak situation. In chronic cases, insidious weight loss may be noted and intermittent episodes of dullness and colic.

Common differentials include hyperlipaemia, hepatopathies, other forms of colic including impaction or sand and any systemic inflammatory process causing pain and discomfort. Co-morbidities of any of these with typhlocolitis are not uncommon and can complicate diagnosis and treatment.

In addition to the basic clinical exam, vets should perform a rectal examination where possible. The aim is two-fold – to establish the presence of intestinal distension, displacement or impaction and to obtain a faecal sample for subsequent analysis. Testing for Salmonella, C.difficile and C.perfringens (including toxins) and Coronavirus alongside worm egg counts are recommended. Additional tests may be advised for foals. A blood sample should be obtained for routine biochemistry and haematology alongside inflammatory markers and, essentially, serum triglyceride concentrations. Feed samples can be collected for analysis if ingested toxins are suspected. Passage of a nasogastric tube is useful to assess for the presence of reflux. Transcutaneous ultrasonographic abdominal examination is ideal for further assessment, including measurement of intestinal wall thickness but may not be available in the field. Owners should be counselled as to the guarded prognosis and potential costs involved. Referral to a clinic setting should be considered for donkeys in need of intensive care but the risks of stress induced by movement will need to be taken into account.

Initial treatment in an ambulatory setting and whilst awaiting results of initial diagnostics centres on stabilising the donkey, restoring fluid and energy deficits and relieving pain. Unless there is gastric reflux and/or complete ileus, if the donkey is not voluntarily eating, nasogastric intubation of a water/electrolyte combination (the average standard size donkey stomach will hold approximately 3 litres of fluid) with dextrose or glucose powder and oat-based cereal (fine milled porridge cereals) should be given. If an infectious or toxic aetiology is suspected, enteral adsorbants such as smectites may be given down the stomach tube. Severely hypovolemic donkeys, or those with total ileus may require intravenous fluid boluses in the field before being stable enough to transport to a clinic. Analgesia is essential, usually flunixin meglumine at 1.1mg/bwt BID i.v providing the donkey is sufficiently hydrated, otherwise anti-endotoxic doses can be given and/or paracetamol at 20-25mg/kg p.o BID. Alpha-2 agonists and opioids may be required for multimodal analgesia, again extrapolating from standard equine doses. Use of corticosteroids in the acute phase is often debated and should be subject to a risk benefit analysis -the merits of potent anti-inflammatory activity versus worsening of systemic infection for example. Decision making for administration of other medications, such as anthelmintics, antimicrobials, gastroprotectants, pro-kinetics and other anti-inflammatory and anti-endotoxin therapies follow the same rationale as for horses and there are no peer-reviewed donkey specific guidelines. In our Donkey Sanctuary population, post mortem data of non-survivors indicates that very sick donkeys with colitis may be predisposed to gastric glandular ulceration.

If the donkey is worsening or failing to respond to treatment and intensive care is an option then remember to hospitalise companions with the patient, to reduce further distress. As for horses, strict biosecurity measures should be adhered to until infectious causes can be ruled out. In a donkey with severe hypoalbuminaemia, colloid fluid therapy may be indicated. Severe mural oedema has been identified at post-mortem in the intestines of donkeys subjected to aggressive crystalloid therapy and this likely worsens ileus. Other conspicuous findings of non-survivors in our population at post-mortem have included focal or diffuse severe necrotisation and encysted cyathostome burdens

Vets and owners should establish clear end points for treatment, if the donkey is responding poorly. Repeated transabdominal ultrasound, blood work including lactate quantification and results of abdominocentesis may be used to guide decision making. There are donkey specific biochemical and haematology parameters [1] but normal intestinal wall thicknesses

and lactate reference ranges have not been established. For patients that are responding favourably, provision of their normal diet and good nursing care are essential for recovery. Like horses, donkey colitis patients may be prone to laminitis. Transfaunation using faeces from another donkey is a valid consideration in the recovering patient. Note that the donkey gut microbiome is not the same as that of the horse [2] and therefore horse-specific probiotics are unsuitable.

References:

[1] The Donkey Sanctuary (2020). Parameters for Haematology and Biochemistry. Available at: https://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/research/sites/uk/files/2020-02/parameters-for-haematology-and-biochemistry.pdf

[2] Edwards, J.E., Schennink, A., Burden, F. Long S., van Doorn D.A., Pellikaan W.F., Dijkstra J., Saccenti E., Smidt H.. (2020) Domesticated equine species and their derived hybrids differ in their fecal microbiota. Anim Microbiome 2(1):8

Country
Not published as conference proceedings

Invisible animals: Exploring public discourses to understand the contemporary status of donkeys in Britain

Established representations of donkeys in western literature and popular culture have often been negative, portraying the animals as stupid, inept, and bad tempered. To understand whether such representations are reflected in contemporary understandings of donkeys, we constructed a digitized body of texts (a corpus) from contemporary (public-facing) news articles and (public-produced) social media posts about donkeys, which we analyzed using quantitative and qualitative language analysis techniques drawn from corpus linguistics and discourse analysis. We supplemented this with focus groups conducted with members of the public to gather insights and reflections on key patterns of representation in two key news texts identified in the linguistic analysis. This combined approach, which is novel in its application to animal welfare topics, revealed that donkeys are most commonly represented as figures of entertainment, ridicule, and as victims of hardship and suffering (i.e., animals in need). We argue that such representations can sideline, obscure and “invisibilize” the real animals, leading to persistent misunderstandings and false conceptions about donkeys, which are further perpetuated through language use and can be difficult to disrupt and change. These findings have important implications for animal welfare, education programs, and public communication about donkeys. Finally, we highlight areas where incorrect, unhelpful, and potentially damaging representations can be challenged by those seeking to improve the contemporary status of donkeys.

Journal
Publication date
Research output
Country
Subscribe to United Kingdom