Completed

1) Milk use results:

Of the eleven farms visited which were producing donkey milk for sale, all produced milk which was intended for human consumption. Eight farms also produced cosmetics and four additionally transformed milk into confectionery products. The main sales channel was direct to the consumer (N=11), other options were a small consortium (N=1) and a non-specialised shop (N=1).  The marketing channels were websites and social networks (N=8) and word of mouth (N=8).  None of the sampled farms sold milk to paediatric wards.  Consumers mostly bought fresh milk directly on farm more than once a week (N=5) or less frequently (N=6).  All the consumers, as reported by farmers, were children in the household, and it was interpreted from the questionnaire that they needed to drink milk for health reasons.  All the farms but one performed mechanical milking, the remaining one   did   manual   milking; machines   used   were   modified from a goat milkmaid. Nine farms milked once a day, the remaining one milked upon request. All the farmers adopted a method of cleaning and disinfection of the teats: damp cloth, disinfectant or pre-dipping.  Five farms performed pasteurization, four refrigerated the milk, one farm performed filtering and one farm froze the milk. All the farms but one periodically carried out milk analysis, with   eight   farms   searching   for   somatic   cells (22916,7±34851,5 SSC/ml) in addition to bacterial count (134166,7±229383,3 cfu/ml). All the farmers declared not to use any drugs on lactating donkeys. It remains to be investigated if and how lactating donkeys were treated when ill.

2) Legislation results:

According to European Council Directive 98/58 donkeys kept for milk/meat production should be considered as farm animals. Also within the council directive are non-species-specific guidelines on minimum standards for the protection of animals bred or kept for farming purposes. Within European Regulations 37/2010 and &Italian Dlgs 193/2006 is stated that a veterinarian must prescribe pharmacologically active substances and commend an appropriate withdrawal period. No specific information regarding drugs for dairy donkeys is reported. Italian guidelines “Codice per la Tutela e la Gestione degli Equidi” state essential criteria for proper management of equines and make suggestions about nutrition and water provision, stable management, training, identification documents, transport, euthanasia and education of farmers; none of which are specific for donkeys or dairy donkeys. Italian Regional D.D. 461 17/06/2013 & Circolare 17 05/10/2005 & ALLEGATO A Dgr 513 03/04/2012 generically suggest that donkeys should be kept in good welfare conditions, but with no specific indication about how to guarantee a good welfare state.

3) Husbandry results:

Twelve farms were visited between June and September 2015 by two assessors. The welfare assessment was conducted on a representative sample of animals, using the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for donkeys, comprising 22 animal-based indicators. A total of 257 donkeys (females = 131; pregnant females = 73 gelding = 1; stallions = 52) of different breeds, aged between one and 360 months (mean = 65.70 ± 61.92) were assessed. Data was collected using ODK application and analysed with IBM SPSS Statistic 23. The proportion of donkeys with different scores for each welfare indicator was calculated.

4) Welfare assessment results

On the average, the assessed donkeys had a good welfare status. Most of the donkeys (80.2%) showed a good nutritional status (BCS = 3); the others tended to be thin (12.8% with BCS = 2) rather than fat (6.2% with BCS = 4). The main issue highlighted was hoof care: 18.7% of the donkeys showed signs of neglect. All the donkeys could express normal behaviour and interact with conspecifics. Most of the donkeys showed positive reactions to human-animal relationship tests; 20.9% donkeys were not used to be restrained with a head-collar; thus, it was not possible to assess them.

The research confirmed that interspecies engagement can be measured equally for both species and the results can be used as an indicator for welfare and consent of non-verbal participants. It did not, however, show that such engagement reflected outcome benefits. ‘Benefits’ are subjective and dependent on how and of whom the question is asked. Other EAA research has indicated that there are positive ‘benefits’ from EAA, yet they have not included measures of engagement their participants actually experienced. Without a clear indication of engagement between partners, it is not possible to attribute these benefits solely to the EAA. The undefined yet very special ‘thing’ that is so attractive about donkeys and horses should be observed as a concrete variable, such as their emotional state and motivation to engage for the purpose of EAA research. 

The relationship between autistic children and donkeys relies on the uniqueness of each character on any given day. Autism is not a homogeneous description of a person, and whether it is considered a diversity or a diagnosis, it still translates to each person being unique. Both humans and donkeys are individual characters made up by their culture, family group norms, peer norms, genetic makeup, individual histories, and individual personalities. How they will relate to one another is very hard to predict and therefore requires constant monitoring for both welfare and consent. 

Autistic children and donkeys were shown to be a compatible coupling because some of their traits were similar and complemented their interactions. Both cohorts required a calm environment to be able to focus, smooth and fluid movements from others around them and as much time as they needed to process information. EAA is not a lifesaving medical intervention therefore it should only be considered as a practice for those children who show a willingness towards interactions with other species. Equally, some donkeys may find certain individuals or environments distressing and this should be monitored and respected.  

Equine type was associated with differences in both faecal microbial concentrations and community composition. Donkeys were generally most distinct from the other equid species, with horse and zebra not being found to differ. Despite this, a common bacterial core of eight OTUs and 16 genus level groupings were found in all faecal samples and this bacterial core represented a much larger proportion of the equine faecal microbiota than previously reported. Anaerobic fungi were detected in all animals but donkeys had 6-fold higher faecal concentrations than horses and 8-fold higher than in zebra. No anaerobic  fungal taxon was found to be common to all equines. Caecomyces was predominant in donkeys and donkey hybrids and an uncultivated anaerobic fungal genus AL1 was predominant in horses/ponies and zebra. 

When diet was controlled though, faecal prokaryotic and anaerobic fungal community composition significantly differed between equine types but not prokaryotic alpha diversity, faecal microbial concentrations or faecal dry matter content. Donkeys, compared to ponies and donkey hybrids, had higher relative abundances of two bacterial genera that have known, or a potential role in plant fibre degradation and donkeys also had an increased number of anaerobic fungal OTUs and a higher relative abundance of the uncultivated anaerobic fungal genus SK3. 

Interestingly, when looking at the seasonal differences in diet, anaerobic fungal concentrations differed between both years for the summer diet but not for the winter diet. 

Results of the in vitro study showed that, independent of gut site, the enrichments resulted in an increased proportion of acetate (the major fermentation end product of anaerobic fungi) compared to the untreated controls. This suggests that the treatment was effective at enriching equine anaerobic fungi, and indicated that anaerobic fungi can make a significant contribution to hindgut fermentation of plant material.