Donkey keeping in northern Tanzania: socio-economic roles and reported husbandry and health constraints

E S Swai and S J R Bwanga

Veterinary Investigation Centre, PO Box 1068, Arusha, Tanzania
emasw@yahoo.co.uk

Abstract

Data on the socio-economic roles, husbandry and health of donkeys in Tanzania are scarce. Donkeys have received little attention from researchers because conventionally they are viewed as having low status and any study of their problems is consequently accorded low priority. The actual importance of donkeys, to livestock keeping communities in general and pastoralist women in particular, needs more informed recognition. To redress this knowledge gap, we visited 145 families located in three agro pastoral geographical sites in Northern Tanzania to conduct a detailed structured questionnaire interview. Random survey methods were carried out to determine the donkey keeping system and the constraints faced in order to facilitate the design of appropriate intervention strategies. Information collected included data concerning socio-economic, nutritional, health and managemental aspects.  

Out of 145 respondents, 98.6% owned other livestock species as well donkey. Of these 91.7% owned cattle (indigenous and improved), 88.3% owned small East African goats, 73.2% owned indigenous sheep and 86.9% owned poultry. Everyone interviewed was a donkey owner. The mean (±stdDev) donkey herd size was 3.3(±2.3) per household. Pack transport of foodstuffs (maize and beans), water and household domestic materials were the major reasons for keeping donkeys. 

Donkey keeping constraints and disease condition were numerous and varied greatly between and within the study sites. Health, low social status and poor management were the major constraints that respondents claimed had an impact on their donkeys. It was concluded that donkeys were an important component in both agro-pastoral and pastoral societies surveyed. It was therefore argued and postulated that improvement of management practices, particularly treatment and control of hind legs / back sores by use of proper harness as well as feed supplementation are required to enable better performance of donkeys. 

Key words: Arusha, demography, disease, management, pastoral, use-pattern

Introduction

An estimated 39 million donkeys live in the developing world and 36% of this number is found in Africa (FAO 2005). There are no reliable or up to date data on the numbers of donkeys in Tanzania. Starkey and Mutabugya (1992) estimated that there were about 250,000 working donkeys in Tanzania.  

Donkeys play a vital role in rural economies through the provision of draught power and transport. Compared to other equid species, donkeys contribute the major proportion of readily available transport needs of poor women and men living in hostile environments, enabling them to integrate into social and economic processes (Fernando and Starkey 1996). In addition to their popularity in the transport sector, donkeys are perceived as disease resistant and hardy specie by non-pastoralist communities and even animal health policy makers (Blakeway 1994; de Aluja and Lopez 1991; Bakkoury and Belemlih 1991). Donkeys are preferred to other equines because of their affordability, survivability, docile nature and ease of training and handling. The ability of donkey to thrive on poor quality minimally supplemented feeds has also made them popular in environments where feed shortages can seasonally become a critical problem. Donkeys have been reported to survive better under drought condition than any livestock species due to their small body size and low dry matter intake requirements minimizing their water and maintenance needs in arid and semi arid areas (NRC 1984). 

In Tanzania as in other developing countries, one of the most important problems in promoting donkeys is the lack of knowledge about their socio-economic status, husbandry and health needs. There is also a lack of knowledge on improved saddling and harnessing techniques that will reduce the back and hind leg sores that donkeys often suffer from. 

Knowledge and understanding of the donkey production system, inclusive of the opportunities and constraints, are important for the design and implementation of informed welfare and development programmes. These would have direct spin off benefit for rural societies as a whole through the provision of improved pack and draft power.  This investigation was carried out to evaluate the health and production status of rural donkeys and to identify the key problems faced informing the design of appropriate research, welfare and intervention programmes. 

We report the results of rapid field surveys we conducted on socio-economic, management and health constraints experienced by donkeys belonging to agro pastoral and pastoral communities living in northern Tanzania.
 

Material and methods

Study area 

The study was conducted in the northern part of Tanzania covering 3 agro-pastoral and pastoral sites. The sites chosen are situated on the land that slopes of Mount Meru to the adjoining lowlands. The location of the study areas and their general descriptions are presented in Table1.

Data collection

A total of 145 donkey keeping /livestock owners were interviewed, 52 in Kikatiti; 50 in Nkonoo and 43 in Makuyuni. The owners were selected in a stratified random method from a list developed by the demographers. The survey was conducted through the use of a structured questionnaire. Data on household characteristics, donkey and general livestock keeping practices, their roles and uses, feeding regime and perceived health constraints were gathered. Additional information (complemented by inspection and dentition estimation) included the age and sex of the donkey. The donkeys were grouped into three age categories: donkeys under 1 year old were classed as young foals, donkey older than one year but less than 2 years as juveniles and donkeys older than two years were classed as adult. A pair wise ranking exercise on a list of variables was performed with each respondent. The level of agreement between subset of individuals from the same site was assessed using Kendall coefficient of concordance (λ). The lower the rank of parameter, the greater is its importance. λ ranges from 0 to 1 and the higher its value the greater is the level of agreement between individuals. 

Statistical analyses 

Collected data sets were entered, managed and analysed using Epi-Info, Version 6.04b (Centre for Disease Control, Atlanta, USA). Descriptive statistics generated included counts, frequencies and means. Analysis of variance was used to asses significant differences of means, means with significant F-values were separated by Duncan multiple range test. The chi-square test was used to establish associations between variables where applicable (Epi-Info, version 6.04b). The level of significance was set at 0.05.  
 

Results and discussion

General characteristics 

Out of 145 respondents, 98.6% owned other livestock species as well donkey. Of these 91% owned cattle (indigenous and improved), 88.3% owned small East African goats, 73.2% owned indigenous sheep and 86.9% owned poultry. Goats, sheep and cattle were owned by all respondents in Nkonoo and Makuyuni sites and poultry in the Kikatiti site. Kikatiti site had the lowest (P<0.05) tropical livestock unit compared to the other sites. Nkonoo owned the least numbers of indigenous poultry and Kikatiti the highest (P<0.05). A few household across the three sites raised a small number of guinea fowls and ducks (Table 2)

Major source of income for donkey holders 

The major sources of regular income are listed in Table 3. Irrespective of site, agricultural and livestock farming were considered to be the main source of income and were ranked high. Livestock farming in Makuyuni was ranked as priority number one. Significant (p<0.05) high levels of agreement (0.62, 0.72 and 0.58 in Kikatiti, Nkonoo and Makuyuni, respectively) were observed among the respondents for their ranks.

Socio-economic demography of donkey owners interviewed 

One hundred forty five interviews were carried out in the selected sites with a 100 % response rate. The household size varied within and between survey sites. The majority of the households comprised of four to seven members with an average of 5±2 (mean±stdDev) members. Thirty-six percent (n=53) of the household had more than 7 persons. The smallest number of people per household was two and the highest was 15. Distribution of household size is shown in Table 4.

Nkonoo had significantly higher number of household size category of >4-7 than other sites (p< 0.05). Family size has been asserted as the most important determinant of labour investment for family farms (Bartlett 1980). In this study, household size was considered important because in addition to being source of labour, the size of the family may also influence task division and the need for increased crop and livestock production for home consumption as well for the market. Over 89.7% of the respondent said that the head of the household was male and 10.3% were female headed. 

The survey indicated that the keeping of donkeys is widely practised at the study sites. Everyone interviewed was a donkey owner. In the three surveyed sites, donkey keepers were mainly Arusha, Meru, and Maasai which were the main ethnic groups present in the area (Table 4).The majority of the respondents were primary school leavers (57.2%), fifty three (36.6%) had no formal education and only nine (6.2%) were secondary school leavers. Nyangito (1986) showed that the adoption of new and improved technologies in livestock husbandry was positively related to education. In the light of our study finding, opportunities and prospects for adoption donkey management practices seems to be achievable as reflected by high levels of literacy amongst the respondents (literate 63% vs. illiterate 36%). The overall mean age of the interviewed farmers was 43.9±12.5 (mean±stdDev) and range 19-73 years. There was no significant difference in proportion of respondents with respect to age between the surveyed sites (P>0.05). Less than 15% of the donkey keepers were below 30 years. This implies that the younger generation is less involved in donkey keeping. This is the active working group that includes those seeking higher paying jobs, especially in peri–urban/urban areas. With the exception of Makuyuni site, the rest were very close to Arusha city (Table1). Socio-economic factors have an effect on donkey and the general farm management practices (Nyangito 1986; Wells and Krecek 2001). These factors will therefore affect the design and implementation of future development interventions. Without a good understanding of these factors, it would be very difficult to persuade the donkey keepers to participate and cooperate in donkey intervention strategies or programmes.

History and donkey ownership system 

Information provided by respondents revealed that farmers started keeping donkey before seventies. The majority (31%) reported to have started between years 1990 to 2000 (Figure 1). Thirty eight farmers (26%) reported to have started donkey keeping between years 2000 to 2007.

Figure 1.  Period of starting donkey keeping as reported by respondents from the three study sites

Most of the respondent owned between one and three donkeys (Figure 2).

Although the total number of donkey owned by the respondent ranged from 1-15, the average (± stdDev) number of donkey per household was 3.3(±2.3) and there was a significant difference between the sites, with Makuyuni having higher number of donkeys per household (p<0.05). While respondent from Kikatiti (60%) and Nkonoo (52%) owned/kept on average 2.4±1.98 (range 1-7), donkeys, the respondent in Makuyuni kept/owned 5.35±2.87 (range 1-15) donkeys per household. With the exception of Nkonoo, donkeys were significantly perceived as the husband property rather than belonging to the spouse (p<0.05). The reason for high numbers in Makuyuni could most probably be due to agro-ecology and production system of the area. The area is dry, with a flat topography that is suited to the carriage of water loads by donkeys. Hiring out of donkey was not observed to be commonly practiced. One custom noted is for an individual who has a donkey to lend it to an individual without. Thus donkey can play an important role in social relationship between families, relatives and /or neighbours. Most of the donkeys were acquired through cash purchase, inheritance from family, and to a lesser extent through exchange with other livestock belonging to neighbours or friends.

The respondents also provided information as to which household member owns the donkeys. The majority (n=82, 56.6%) are owned by husbands and sixty three (43.4%) by wives. There was a great variation in the gender ownership of donkeys between sites (p< 0.05). The majority of the donkey owners in Nkonoo were females. There are several reasons for women owning donkeys. Donkeys are significantly cheaper to buy than working oxen (i.e. in the study sites US$ 15.2 vs. US$ 200; 1US$ ~ Tsh 1,350/=). The overall average (stdDev) prices recorded in our survey was US$ 14.3±8.6 per donkey with range varying from US$ 0.04 to 48.1. The low price recorded may be related to the fact that donkeys are not perceived as multi-use animals. Unlike other livestock species donkey are not sold for their meat nor are they considered in the payment of bride price (Bwalya 2000). Another reason given was the lack of physical strength compared to an ox of similar size though donkeys work faster than oxen, are easier to train, drought tolerant and, importantly, women can use them easily. 

Donkey herd characteristics 

Details of the average donkey herd structure by site are given in Table 5.

Irrespective of site females constituted 39 -55% of the herd and the average sexually mature and therefore potential breeding male to breeding female ratio was about 1.13: 1. The higher number of adult males than females may be a reflection of the general pattern of use for donkeys. Males are perceived to be hardier and capable of doing heavier tasks than females. 

Reason for keeping donkey  

The most important reasons given for keeping donkey in the 3 sites are reported in Table 6.

Reasons related to pack animals were ranked high. This finding was in agreement with studies by McPeake (2004) and Starkey and Mutabugya (1992) in Mgeta and Southern highlands Tanzania; Twerda et al (1997) and Catley and Blakeway (1997) in Turkana and Samburu pastoralist societies, in Kenya and Wells and Krecek (2001) in South Africa, respectively. All interviewee used their donkey themselves. Over ninety five percent of the respondent transported farm crops and water (Figure 3).

There was great variation in the goods transported at the 3 sites (p<0.05). In Nkonoo, donkeys transported firewood (42%) more commonly than in Makuyuni (7%) and Kikatiti (28%), whereas donkeys in Nkonoo (100%) and Kikatiti (100%) transported farm crops more commonly than in Makuyuni (90%). Maize and beans were the major crops transported by the donkeys. Respondents also transported home consumables such as cooking oil, sugar, home baking flour, salt and this was highest in Kikatiti (86%) and Nkonoo (84%) and least in Makuyuni (67%).

Transportation of manure was significantly higher in Kikatiti (p<0.05) compared to other sites. Other items transported by donkey include livestock feeds and to a lesser extent vegetables and construction materials i.e. cement etc. Contrary to the study in Makete Tanzania, the use of donkey for both transporting farm inputs and ploughing was observed and ranked to be minimal (Sieber 1996).

Feeds, feeding and housing  

Irrespective of the sites, over 95% of respondents let their donkey graze freely. Fifteen percent (n =22) of respondents said that they supplemented their donkeys with energy and protein rich feeds i.e. maize bran and sunflower cake during post harvest period of heavy work. Donkeys are nutritionally adaptable to life in arid lands, capable of tolerating up to 30% dehydration and they are good selective grazers (Yousef 1991). They often select the most nutritious species from the native grassland and will also if need dictates select browse. The teeth and lips of donkey permits grazing close to the ground and they can graze short vegetation efficiently (Aganga et al 2000). This could explain why donkeys are able to maintain live weight even when the amount of vegetation available for grazing is sparse. The advantage of having a narrow muzzle and mobile lips promote greater selectivity in feeding which allows them to maximize feeding quality rather than the quantity. Donkeys spend less energy while foraging for food; this lowered energy costs results in lowered dry matter intake, therefore enabling donkeys to have lower maintenance costs than any livestock species (Smith and Pearson 2005).

Virtually, all (n =107; 74%) the farmers found at the 3 study sites did not provided any specific shelter for their donkeys. Only 21 %( n =31) of the respondent had specific pen or house constructed for donkeys. These shelters were significantly more in Kikatiti compared to other sites (p<0.05).  Donkeys of all ages and sex were kept together with other livestock species (i.e. cattle, sheep) and housed at night in bomas or kraal constructed from thorn tree branches to protect them from thieves and wild animals predators. Lesser commonly, (n =6; 5.6%) donkeys were tethered at night under a tree. In all study sites, donkey theft was not reported to be a significant problem. 

Perceived health constraints 

Table 7 shows the types of health problems that the respondents experienced with their donkeys.

The most frequently encountered problems were colic, coughing, back and hind leg sores. Eighty-nine percent (n=130) of respondent mentioned rolling and other signs associated with colic or tympany which may also be related to high parasite burdens and impaction. The problem may be seasonal; at harvest time donkey eat a lot of post harvest – maize and bean straw and /or grain or during the rains, when they can access lush green grass. Colic cases were significantly higher in Nkonoo and Makuyuni sites than in Kikatiti (p<0.05). Coughs can be caused by parasites, notably lungworm, and incorrectly applied drenching procedures. The later can cause pneumonia. Wounds especially on the back (66%) and hind legs, (60%) were third cited donkey health problem (Figure 4).

This finding is in agreement with the work of Wells and Krecek, (2001) who reported hind leg and back sores to be a predominant problem in rural working donkeys in South Africa. These were normally associated with poor made and ill fitting/applied harness. Back and hind leg sores, skin disease and diarrhoea were significantly reported at a higher frequency in Nkonoo than other sites (p<0.05). Because most donkeys were used as a pack animals and the care taken was minimal, the problem was significant. The absence of proper pack saddles and lack of rest for donkeys with back sores compounded the problem. Back sores and hind leg bruises could be due to the lack of management given by the owners and the nature of the loads. 19% and 22% of the respondents had experienced a sudden death syndrome and abortion, respectively.

The problem of sudden death was significant in Makuyuni (p<0.05). Death could be due to infectious diseases or snake bite. Other diseases that were mentioned included diarrhoea, emaciation, innapetence, teeth and lacrymation. Problems of teeth and innapetence were recorded to be minimal.

Awareness or health care intervention

In general the respondents lacked awareness about donkey health care and did not seem to consider donkey disease as a problem though nearly half (n=77, 53.1%) of the respondents mentioned the need to protect their donkeys against diseases. Prophylactic measures commonly offered were against trypanosomosis, endo-parasite or worms and tick-borne diseases. The prophylactic regime and frequency of application varied widely between the 3 sites. Frequency of deworming varied between 3 times in Kikatiti to 2 times per year in Nkonoo and Makuyuni, respectively; whereas for trypanosomosis ranged from 2 times in Kikatiti to 3 times in Nkonoo and Makuyuni per year (Table 8).

Donkeys appear to be the one domestic equid with innate resistance to trypanosomosis, and the disease only seems to become a clinical problem through precipitating factors, such as stress of work (Crane 2000; Blakeway 1994; Barrowman 1991). A small proportion (3; 4 %) of farmers in Kikatiti mentioned that they apply topical fly repellent during wet season. Wound care was not practiced and received very little attention. The reason for the lack of awareness was the relatively tolerant nature of the animals and the lack of veterinary services due to the low priority placed for donkey by animal health authorities. Despite, the possible major influence on health and consequently on the performance of donkey, only 5 respondents (3.4%) and 38 (26%) mentioned parasitism and lameness as a health problem. This was probably due to the sub-clinical nature of infection and the relative resistance of the animal. Unlike other livestock species donkey with a burden of parasites are rarely seen with clinical signs. Prevention is the most practical way to deal with health problem. Many of the health problems identified above could be improved by a combination of better husbandry, routine deworming, routine foot care, well designed harnesses, and regular, consistent, considerate, and hence less stressful, working practices. 
 

Conclusion and recommendations 

This study is the first attempt to record and describe the key socio-economic, health and production features of a rurally based donkey production system in Northern Tanzania. 

• The current population of donkeys in Tanzania is probably an under estimate. These estimates will need to be revised upwards as it is our observation that there are currently significantly greater numbers of donkeys being kept in comparison to as little as 10 years ago. Our study supports this assertion in the finding that more than 50% of the livestock keepers interviewed have only comparatively recently acquired donkeys.

• About (36%) of the farmers were illiterate and the rest had elemental reading and writing skills. There needs to be a focus on the provision of targeted education and training opportunities for agro-pastoral and pastoral women and men to equip them with better skills for sustaining their livelihoods in the challenging environment of the arid and semi arid rangelands. 

• The present study has provided information that may facilitate the development of health and welfare intervention for working donkeys in the northern and possibly other parts of Tanzania. Although farmers practiced a certain degree of worm control, the practice was not strategically applied and was largely in response to a perceived range of ill health conditions. Supplementary feeding of donkeys with a protein rich feeds during the critical dry season period, when forage is in short supply, would help to maintain body condition and strengthen resistance to worm infection (Coop and Holmes 1996). 

•  The use of donkey as pack animals by pastoral and agro pastoral communities is important. Health was the major constraint that respondents claimed had an impact on their donkeys. Coughing and back/leg sores were reported as the most serious problem. Applied studies on prevalent disease condition leading to the development of cost effective and sustainable disease control strategies are urgently needed to sustain and increase the work this highly underserved beast of burden undertakes providing crucially important support for the lives and livelihoods of rural communities. 

• Despite the great contribution made by donkeys to the daily life of rural people especially women, they suffer the dual negative impact of low social status and poor management. These factors can significantly reduce their work output and constrain the full contribution that donkeys could be making in support of rural livelihoods. Improvement of management practices, particularly treatment and control of hind legs/ back sores by use of proper harnesses as well as feed supplementation are required to enable better performance of donkeys. 
   

Acknowledgements                                                                                   

We would like to extend our thanks to the Arusha Society for Prevention of Cruelty in Animals (ASPA) for showing interest in this research and encouragement. We also wish to extend appreciation for the support from extension officers, Mr. S.J.R. Bwanga, Mr. Khalid and Mr. W. Ole Saruni who were part of investigation team during field work in Kikatiti, Nkonoo and Makuyuni. Drs C. Daborn and Patricia Moehlman (equid specialist) are acknowledged for their constructive comments and proof reading the manuscript. We wish also to thank the participating donkey keepers whose co-operation made this investigation a success.
 

References 

Aganga A A, Letso M and Aganga A O 2000 Feeding donkeys. Livestock research for rural Development. Volume 12, Article # (1). Retrieved August 29, 2007, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd12/2/agan122.htm

Bakkoury M and Belemlih A 1991 Some aspects of the use of equines in an urban area of Morocco. In Fielding D and Pearson R A (Editors). Donkeys, Mules and Horses in Tropical Agricultural Dev elopement, CTV, Edinburgh, pp 26-27 

Barrowman P R 1991 Equine trypanosomiasis. In: Fielding D and Pearson R A (Editors). Donkeys, Mules and Horses in Tropical Agricultural Development, CTV, Edinburgh. Pp106-112

Bartlett P F 1980 Cost benefit analysis: a test of alternative methodologies: in Bartlett  P F (Editor). Agricultural decision making in Rural Development. Academic Press Rando San Diego, New York. Pp 8-12

Blakeway S J 1994 The welfare of Donkeys. MSc thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK

Bwalya G M 2000 Donkey promotion in Western Province, Zambia. In: Starkey P and Fielding D (Editors), Donkeys, People and Development. A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA), ACP-EU. Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (ACP), Wageningen, The Netherlands, 244p .ISBN 92-9081-219-2, pp 132-135 130-133, Last visited August 2007, http://www.atnesa.org/donkeys/donkeys-bwalya-promotion-ZM.pdf

Catley A and Blakeway S 1997 Donkeys and provision of livestock to returnees: lesson from Eritrea. In: P Starkey and D Fielding (Editors). Donkeys, People and Development. Animal Traction Network for Eastern and South Africa (ATNESA) held Debre Zeit, Ethiopia on 5-9 May 1997. pp 12-16  86-92  http://www.atnesa.org/donkeys/donkeys-catley-returnees-ER.pdf

Coop R L and Holmes P H 1996 Nutrition and parasite interaction, International Journal for Parasitology 26: 951-962 

Crane M 2000 ‘Medical’ The professional Handbook of the Donkey, Whittet Books Limited, London, UK. pp 19-36

de Aluja A S and Lopez F 1991 Donkeys in Mexico. In: Fielding D and Pearson R A (Editors). Donkeys, Mules and Horses in Tropical Agricultural Development, CTV, Edinburgh. pp 1-7

Epi-info 1996 Centre for disease control, version 6.04d, Atlanta, USA and Geneva, Switzerland.

FAO 2005 FAO statistical data base website. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. Last visited January 2008; http://www.faostat.fao.org/

Fernando P and Starkey P 1996 Donkey and developments: socio-economic aspects of donkey use in Africa. In: Fernando P and  Starkey P H (Editors). Donkey, People and Development. A resource book of the ATNESA, ACP-EU-CTA, The Netherlands, pp 244. International Forum for Rural Transport and Development, 2 Spitfire Studios, 63-71 Collier Street, London, UK. Pp 12-15, Last visited August 2007;  http://www.atnesa.org/donkeys/donkeys-fernando-socioeconomic.pdf

McPeake K J 2004 Studies on the Health and Welfare of Donkeys in Tanzania, University of Glasgow Veterinary School, UK. pp 3-12, Last visited August 2007; http://www.bva.co.uk/profession/overseas/worldwide/taws_kevin_mcpeake.pdf.

NRC 1984 National Research Council. Nutrient requirement of Poultry.  8^th  Edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Pp 35-45 

Nyangito H Z 1986 A socio-economic analysis of the factors that determine the effect of potato post harvest practices and storage technologies on Kinangop, Kenya. A case study. MSc Thesis, University of Nairobi, Kenya. Pp 32-40

Sieber N 1996 The economic impact of pack donkeys in Makete, Tanzania, In: Starkey P and Fielding D. (Editors).Donkey, People and Development. A resource book of the ATNESA, ACP-EU-CTA, The Netherlands, pp 244. International Forum for Rural Transport and Development, 2 Spitfire Studios, 63-71 Collier Street, London, UK. Pp 6-9 http://www.atnesa.org/donkeys/donkeys-sieber-economic-TZ.pdf 

Smith D G and Pearson R A 2005 A review of the factors affecting the survival of donkeys in semi-arid regions of Sub-saharan Africa, Tropical Animal Health and Production 37(1): 1-9 

Starkey  P and Mutabugya  W 1992  ‘Animal traction in Tanzania: experience, trends and priorities’ Ministry of Agriculture, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania and Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK, pp 51

Twerda M, Fielding D and Field C 1997 Role and management of donkeys in Samburu and Turkana pastoralist societies in northern Kenya, Tropical Animal Health Production 29(1): 48-54

Wells D and Krecek R C 2001 Socio-economic, health and management aspects of working donkeys in Moretele 1, North West Province, South Africa, Journal of South African Veterinary Association 72(1): 37-43

Yousef  M K 1991 Physiological responses of donkey to heat stress. In: Fielding D and Pearson R A (Editors). Donkeys, Mules and Horses in Tropical Agricultural Development. CTV, Edinburgh. pp 96

Received 15 December 2007; Accepted 6 February 2008; Published 1 May 2008

Go to top