Dromedary camels are the preferable livestock species in the arid and semi-arid regions of the world. Most of the world’s camel populations are managed under a subsistence/extensive system maintained by migratory pastoralists but intensification is getting more frequent. Even though recently the welfare of camels has been receiving more attention, in many countries there are no regulations to protect their health and welfare. The objectives of this article were to explore the main research topics related to camel welfare, their distribution over time and to highlight research gaps. A literature search was performed to identify records published in English from January 1980 to March 2023 on Dromedary camel welfare via Scopus^®, using “Camel welfare,” “Camel behaviour,” “She-camel” and “Camel management” as search words. A total of 234 records were retained for analysis after automatic and manual screening procedures. Descriptive statistics, text mining (TM) and topic analysis (TA) were performed. The result shows that even though there were fluctuations between years, records on camel welfare have increased exponentially over time. Asia was the region where most of the corresponding authors were located. The first five most frequent words were, “milk,” “calv,” “behaviour,” “femal,” and “breed,” the least frequent word was “stabl.” TA resulted in the five most relevant topics dealing with “Calf management and milk production,” “Camel health and management system,” “Female and male reproduction,” “Camel behaviour and feeding,” and “Camel welfare.” The topics that contained the oldest records were “female and male reproduction” and “camel health and management system” (in 1980 and 1983, respectively), while the topic named “camel behaviour and feeding” had the first article published in 2000. Overall, even though topics related to camel behaviour and welfare are receiving more attention from academia, research is still needed to fully understand how to safeguard welfare in Dromedary camels.

Prompt pain management is crucial in horses; however, tools to assess pain are limited. This study aimed to develop and pilot a composite scale for pain estimation in foals. The “Foal Composite Pain Scale” (FCPS) was developed based on literature and authors’ expertise. The FCPS consisted of 11 facial expressions, 4 behavioural items, and 5 physical items. Thirty-five pain-free foals (Control Group) and 15 foals experiencing pain (Pain Group) were used. Foals were video-recorded at different time points: the Control Group only at inclusion (C), while the Pain Group at inclusion (T1), after an analgesic treatment (T2), and at recovery (T3). Physical items were also recorded at the same time points. Videos were scored twice by five trained observers, blinded to group and time points, to calculate inter- and intra-observer reliability of each scale item. Fleiss’ kappa values ranged from moderate to almost perfect for the majority of the items, while the intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent (ICC = 0.923). The consistency of FCPS was also excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.842). A cut-off ≥ 7 indicated the presence of pain. The Pain Group scores were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the Control Group and decreased over time (T1, T2 > T3; p = 0.001). Overall, FCPS seems clinically applicable to quantify pain and improve the judgment of the quality of life in foals, but it needs modifications based on these preliminary findings. Consequently, further studies on a larger sample size are needed to test the feasibility and validity of the refined FCPS.

Bedding is an important component of equine accommodation management. Choosing the right bedding is important for stable management and its selection may include considerations such as the sourcing of the material, the capital investment and ongoing costs, delivery, storage, installation, ongoing labour and maintenance, removal and disposal. Furthermore, it is crucial that the consequences for the health and welfare of horses and humans and the impact on the environment should also be considered. This review aimed to outline the advantages and disadvantages of different horse bedding types, focusing on their effects on the well-being of horses, humans, and the environment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) technique was used as the methodology for this review. The search was performed in Scopus and Web of Science bibliometric databases and a total of 176 records were screened reading the title and the After screening, 58 records were retained and another 19 records were identified using their reference lists (i.e., snowballing). Therefore, a total of 77 records were considered. Straw and wood shavings were the most commonly used and studied bedding materials, while research on alternative options remains limited. Straw is identified as horses’ preferred option, while shavings appear to be the easiest to clean, making them the preferred choice for stable workers. The parameters to consider when choosing the bedding most fit for purpose are many and their attributes differ across the various bedding types. This review has compared all the bedding types within the research literature to determine the best overall option using the research-based evidence. Each bedding type offers unique benefits and drawbacks summarised in a user-friendly table. Stable managers must consider and evaluate them to suit their specific needs, including the health and welfare of each horse and the husbandry system involved. Our findings may, therefore, be useful in the decision-making process of equine industry members.

The number of donkeys in Europe has significantly declined in recent decades due to mechanization; however, recently, the demand for donkey milk and other purposes has led to a slight increase in their population. However, information on how they are kept and managed, and their welfare is limited. This review aimed to explore the husbandry, management, and welfare of donkeys (Equus asinus) across European Union member states, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) technique was used. The search was conducted using Scopus and Web of Science, identifying 797 records that were screened using titles, keywords, and abstracts, resulting in 78 retained records. An additional 19 records were identified using snowballing and experts’ suggestions, bringing the total to 97. Dairy donkeys have been studied mainly in Italy, and there they are usually managed under extensive to semi-intensive husbandry systems. Donkeys involved in human intervention therapies are generally managed semi-intensively. Based on the literature, most donkeys are provided with shelter and outdoor access, and this can be with or without pasture, except the free-range donkeys that graze year-round. Health and management-related issues (e.g., obesity, dental disorders, and hoof disorders) could be overlooked, potentially compromising their welfare. The feeding management of donkeys is generally traditional and poorly studied, relying mainly on forages supplemented with concentrates. Most donkeys suffer from overweight/obesity except for lactating donkeys, which are often underweight. This may indicate unbalanced feeding practices. Improved understanding of housing and feeding management is essential for establishing evidence-based welfare guidelines tailored to the donkeys’ species-specific needs.

To date, there is no official method for measuring horse welfare after transport. This study aimed to develop a scale to classify horses into four categories: good shape; light affected; affected; down (GLAD) based on their welfare impairment measured at unloading. To this end, 15 animal-based measures (ABMs), previously recorded from 1019 horses, were scored. Weight and severity scores provided by welfare experts, alongside the number of welfare principles highlighted by the ABM, were assigned to each ABM. The welfare impairment (S) of each horse was then calculated as the weighted sum of the severity scores of the 15 ABMs. Three thresholds were also set to define the four GLAD categories; the ABM “down” (i.e., horses unable to stand and walk on arrival, also considered by the law as the indicator of the worst welfare) was used as the higher threshold, S_down, (category D); the intermediate threshold, S₂, was defined by the ABM “injuries”, assumed to represent highly impaired welfare (category A); the threshold, S₁, was defined assuming that significant welfare impairment starts from 20% of S₂ (L category). Horses with an S value below S₁ were considered physically and mentally fit (G category). Out of 1019, 43% of horses fell into category G, 48% into L, 9% into A, and 0.3% into D. Our scale could be useful for veterinarians to decide whether a horse can be slaughtered immediately (G), needs rest (L), needs attention (A), or euthanasia (D), but further validation is needed.