Improving working equine welfare in 'hard-win' situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal

Brooke is a non-government organisation with working equine welfare programmes across Africa, Asia and Latin America. In 2014, staff from ten country programmes were asked to identify 'no-win' situations (subsequently reframed as 'hard-wins')-where improving equine welfare is pro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2018-02, Vol.13 (2), p.e0191950-e0191950
Hauptverfasser: Pritchard, Joy, Upjohn, Melissa, Hirson, Tamsin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0191950
container_issue 2
container_start_page e0191950
container_title PloS one
container_volume 13
creator Pritchard, Joy
Upjohn, Melissa
Hirson, Tamsin
description Brooke is a non-government organisation with working equine welfare programmes across Africa, Asia and Latin America. In 2014, staff from ten country programmes were asked to identify 'no-win' situations (subsequently reframed as 'hard-wins')-where improving equine welfare is proving difficult, expensive and/or marginal-in order to inform strategic decisions on how to approach, manage and mitigate for such situations. The Delphi-type consultation process had three phases. Round 1 posed five questions in the form of a workshop, survey and semi-structured interviews. Round 2 re-presented key themes and sense-checked initial conclusions. Round 3 reviewed the nature and prevalence of hard-win situations at an international meeting of all participants. Reasons given for hard-win situations included: no economic or social benefit from caring for working animals; poor resource availability; lack of empathy for working equids or their owners among wider stakeholders; deep-seated social issues, such as addiction or illegal working; areas with a high animal turnover or migratory human population; lack of community cooperation or cohesion; unsafe areas where welfare interventions cannot be adequately supported. Participants estimated the prevalence of hard-win situations as 40-70% of their work. They suggested some current ways of working that may be contributing to the problem, and opportunities to tackle hard-wins more effectively. Respondents agreed that if equine welfare improvements are to span generations of animals, interventions cannot rely on relatively simple, technical knowledge-transfer strategies and quick-wins alone. Programmes need to be more flexible and iterative and less risk-averse in their approaches to embedding good equine welfare practices in all relevant actors. Consultation recommendations informed development of Brooke's new global strategy, a revised organisational structure and redefinition of roles and responsibilities to streamline ways to approach hard-wins in the complex environments and socio-economic contexts in which working equids are found.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0191950
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1995240329</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A526511537</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_62f9de699297425181f41d18b71417f0</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A526511537</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6070-53384af313162b9defa4099fa31d7ef7277e9a59dbeb0ef0c2ab18be31be3e353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1tr2zAUx83YWLtu32BshsK6QZ3pYlvWy6CUXQKFwm6vQraPHKWOlEp20n37yYlb4tGHIYSE9Dv_c5FOFL3GaIYpwx-XtndGtrO1NTBDmGOeoSfRMeaUJDlB9OnB_ih64f0SoYwWef48OiI8RUVRsOPoZr5aO7vRpom31t0MK9z22kC8hVZJB7E28dlCujrZanMWe931stPW-PN4u4Bw30htfDyQtVZKV33bncdwtwbj9QZi6-KVdI0Oob6MninZeng1rifRry-ff15-S66uv84vL66SKkcMJRmlRSoVxRTnpOQ1KJkizpWkuGagGGEMuMx4XUKJQKGKyBIXJVAcJtCMnkRv97rr1nox1skLzHlGUkQJD8R8T9RWLsXa6RDiH2GlFrsD6xohXaerFkROVAgh55xwlpIMF1iluA7-GE4xUyhofRq99eUK6gpM52Q7EZ3eGL0Qjd2IrEAoz9Mg8H4UcPa2B9-JlfYVtK00YPtd3MPjZnjI7PQf9PHsRqqRIQFtlA1-q0FUXGQkz3BQYoGaPUKFUcNKV-FTKR3OJwYfJgaB6eCua2TvvZj_-P7_7PXvKfvugF2AbLuFt22_-2VTMN2DlbPeO1APRcZIDD1xXw0x9IQYeyKYvTl8oAej-yagfwEwVwaV</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1995240329</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Improving working equine welfare in 'hard-win' situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal</title><source>Public Library of Science</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Pritchard, Joy ; Upjohn, Melissa ; Hirson, Tamsin</creator><contributor>Olsson, I Anna S</contributor><creatorcontrib>Pritchard, Joy ; Upjohn, Melissa ; Hirson, Tamsin ; Olsson, I Anna S</creatorcontrib><description>Brooke is a non-government organisation with working equine welfare programmes across Africa, Asia and Latin America. In 2014, staff from ten country programmes were asked to identify 'no-win' situations (subsequently reframed as 'hard-wins')-where improving equine welfare is proving difficult, expensive and/or marginal-in order to inform strategic decisions on how to approach, manage and mitigate for such situations. The Delphi-type consultation process had three phases. Round 1 posed five questions in the form of a workshop, survey and semi-structured interviews. Round 2 re-presented key themes and sense-checked initial conclusions. Round 3 reviewed the nature and prevalence of hard-win situations at an international meeting of all participants. Reasons given for hard-win situations included: no economic or social benefit from caring for working animals; poor resource availability; lack of empathy for working equids or their owners among wider stakeholders; deep-seated social issues, such as addiction or illegal working; areas with a high animal turnover or migratory human population; lack of community cooperation or cohesion; unsafe areas where welfare interventions cannot be adequately supported. Participants estimated the prevalence of hard-win situations as 40-70% of their work. They suggested some current ways of working that may be contributing to the problem, and opportunities to tackle hard-wins more effectively. Respondents agreed that if equine welfare improvements are to span generations of animals, interventions cannot rely on relatively simple, technical knowledge-transfer strategies and quick-wins alone. Programmes need to be more flexible and iterative and less risk-averse in their approaches to embedding good equine welfare practices in all relevant actors. Consultation recommendations informed development of Brooke's new global strategy, a revised organisational structure and redefinition of roles and responsibilities to streamline ways to approach hard-wins in the complex environments and socio-economic contexts in which working equids are found.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191950</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29408887</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Addictions ; Analysis ; Animal welfare ; Animals ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Consultation ; Embedding ; Human populations ; Knowledge management ; Organizational structure ; People and Places ; Productivity ; Resource availability ; Risk aversion ; Social aspects ; Social Sciences ; Surveys</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-02, Vol.13 (2), p.e0191950-e0191950</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Pritchard et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Pritchard et al 2018 Pritchard et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6070-53384af313162b9defa4099fa31d7ef7277e9a59dbeb0ef0c2ab18be31be3e353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6070-53384af313162b9defa4099fa31d7ef7277e9a59dbeb0ef0c2ab18be31be3e353</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3367-4699</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5800664/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5800664/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,2096,2915,23847,27905,27906,53772,53774,79349,79350</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29408887$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Olsson, I Anna S</contributor><creatorcontrib>Pritchard, Joy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Upjohn, Melissa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirson, Tamsin</creatorcontrib><title>Improving working equine welfare in 'hard-win' situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Brooke is a non-government organisation with working equine welfare programmes across Africa, Asia and Latin America. In 2014, staff from ten country programmes were asked to identify 'no-win' situations (subsequently reframed as 'hard-wins')-where improving equine welfare is proving difficult, expensive and/or marginal-in order to inform strategic decisions on how to approach, manage and mitigate for such situations. The Delphi-type consultation process had three phases. Round 1 posed five questions in the form of a workshop, survey and semi-structured interviews. Round 2 re-presented key themes and sense-checked initial conclusions. Round 3 reviewed the nature and prevalence of hard-win situations at an international meeting of all participants. Reasons given for hard-win situations included: no economic or social benefit from caring for working animals; poor resource availability; lack of empathy for working equids or their owners among wider stakeholders; deep-seated social issues, such as addiction or illegal working; areas with a high animal turnover or migratory human population; lack of community cooperation or cohesion; unsafe areas where welfare interventions cannot be adequately supported. Participants estimated the prevalence of hard-win situations as 40-70% of their work. They suggested some current ways of working that may be contributing to the problem, and opportunities to tackle hard-wins more effectively. Respondents agreed that if equine welfare improvements are to span generations of animals, interventions cannot rely on relatively simple, technical knowledge-transfer strategies and quick-wins alone. Programmes need to be more flexible and iterative and less risk-averse in their approaches to embedding good equine welfare practices in all relevant actors. Consultation recommendations informed development of Brooke's new global strategy, a revised organisational structure and redefinition of roles and responsibilities to streamline ways to approach hard-wins in the complex environments and socio-economic contexts in which working equids are found.</description><subject>Addictions</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Animal welfare</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Consultation</subject><subject>Embedding</subject><subject>Human populations</subject><subject>Knowledge management</subject><subject>Organizational structure</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Productivity</subject><subject>Resource availability</subject><subject>Risk aversion</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1tr2zAUx83YWLtu32BshsK6QZ3pYlvWy6CUXQKFwm6vQraPHKWOlEp20n37yYlb4tGHIYSE9Dv_c5FOFL3GaIYpwx-XtndGtrO1NTBDmGOeoSfRMeaUJDlB9OnB_ih64f0SoYwWef48OiI8RUVRsOPoZr5aO7vRpom31t0MK9z22kC8hVZJB7E28dlCujrZanMWe931stPW-PN4u4Bw30htfDyQtVZKV33bncdwtwbj9QZi6-KVdI0Oob6MninZeng1rifRry-ff15-S66uv84vL66SKkcMJRmlRSoVxRTnpOQ1KJkizpWkuGagGGEMuMx4XUKJQKGKyBIXJVAcJtCMnkRv97rr1nox1skLzHlGUkQJD8R8T9RWLsXa6RDiH2GlFrsD6xohXaerFkROVAgh55xwlpIMF1iluA7-GE4xUyhofRq99eUK6gpM52Q7EZ3eGL0Qjd2IrEAoz9Mg8H4UcPa2B9-JlfYVtK00YPtd3MPjZnjI7PQf9PHsRqqRIQFtlA1-q0FUXGQkz3BQYoGaPUKFUcNKV-FTKR3OJwYfJgaB6eCua2TvvZj_-P7_7PXvKfvugF2AbLuFt22_-2VTMN2DlbPeO1APRcZIDD1xXw0x9IQYeyKYvTl8oAej-yagfwEwVwaV</recordid><startdate>20180206</startdate><enddate>20180206</enddate><creator>Pritchard, Joy</creator><creator>Upjohn, Melissa</creator><creator>Hirson, Tamsin</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3367-4699</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180206</creationdate><title>Improving working equine welfare in 'hard-win' situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal</title><author>Pritchard, Joy ; Upjohn, Melissa ; Hirson, Tamsin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6070-53384af313162b9defa4099fa31d7ef7277e9a59dbeb0ef0c2ab18be31be3e353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Addictions</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Animal welfare</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Consultation</topic><topic>Embedding</topic><topic>Human populations</topic><topic>Knowledge management</topic><topic>Organizational structure</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Productivity</topic><topic>Resource availability</topic><topic>Risk aversion</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pritchard, Joy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Upjohn, Melissa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirson, Tamsin</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database‎ (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>https://resources.nclive.org/materials</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pritchard, Joy</au><au>Upjohn, Melissa</au><au>Hirson, Tamsin</au><au>Olsson, I Anna S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Improving working equine welfare in 'hard-win' situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-02-06</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e0191950</spage><epage>e0191950</epage><pages>e0191950-e0191950</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Brooke is a non-government organisation with working equine welfare programmes across Africa, Asia and Latin America. In 2014, staff from ten country programmes were asked to identify 'no-win' situations (subsequently reframed as 'hard-wins')-where improving equine welfare is proving difficult, expensive and/or marginal-in order to inform strategic decisions on how to approach, manage and mitigate for such situations. The Delphi-type consultation process had three phases. Round 1 posed five questions in the form of a workshop, survey and semi-structured interviews. Round 2 re-presented key themes and sense-checked initial conclusions. Round 3 reviewed the nature and prevalence of hard-win situations at an international meeting of all participants. Reasons given for hard-win situations included: no economic or social benefit from caring for working animals; poor resource availability; lack of empathy for working equids or their owners among wider stakeholders; deep-seated social issues, such as addiction or illegal working; areas with a high animal turnover or migratory human population; lack of community cooperation or cohesion; unsafe areas where welfare interventions cannot be adequately supported. Participants estimated the prevalence of hard-win situations as 40-70% of their work. They suggested some current ways of working that may be contributing to the problem, and opportunities to tackle hard-wins more effectively. Respondents agreed that if equine welfare improvements are to span generations of animals, interventions cannot rely on relatively simple, technical knowledge-transfer strategies and quick-wins alone. Programmes need to be more flexible and iterative and less risk-averse in their approaches to embedding good equine welfare practices in all relevant actors. Consultation recommendations informed development of Brooke's new global strategy, a revised organisational structure and redefinition of roles and responsibilities to streamline ways to approach hard-wins in the complex environments and socio-economic contexts in which working equids are found.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>29408887</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0191950</doi><tpages>e0191950</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3367-4699</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2018-02, Vol.13 (2), p.e0191950-e0191950
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_1995240329
source Public Library of Science; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Addictions
Analysis
Animal welfare
Animals
Biology and Life Sciences
Consultation
Embedding
Human populations
Knowledge management
Organizational structure
People and Places
Productivity
Resource availability
Risk aversion
Social aspects
Social Sciences
Surveys
title Improving working equine welfare in 'hard-win' situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T18%3A15%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Improving%20working%20equine%20welfare%20in%20'hard-win'%20situations,%20where%20gains%20are%20difficult,%20expensive%20or%20marginal&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Pritchard,%20Joy&rft.date=2018-02-06&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e0191950&rft.epage=e0191950&rft.pages=e0191950-e0191950&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0191950&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA526511537%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1995240329&rft_id=info:pmid/29408887&rft_galeid=A526511537&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_62f9de699297425181f41d18b71417f0&rfr_iscdi=true