ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023
The history and welfare of working mules in the valleys of the Toubkal massif, in the High Atlas of Morocco.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scoping Review of the Socioeconomic Value of Working Equids, and the Impact of Educational Interventions Aimed at Improving Their Welfare.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- From the bit to the between: an autoethnography of friendship.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The appearance of the mule in the remote villages of the Toubkal National Park in the High Atlas Mountains of Morocco can be traced back to the early years of the twentieth century. The mule population's subsequent growth in numbers accompanied the shift away from a subsistence economy that was made possible by the appearance and growth of the mining and mountain tourism industries. This paper reviews this early history, drawing on the accounts provided by early explorers and anthropologists, before developing a mixed methods approach to evaluating the welfare of pack mules in two villages within the National Park. The first village is part of the main access route to the Toubkal, the principle summit of the National Park and therefore much visited. The second is a much more remote, under visited and less developed village. Ethnographic work, studying muleteering practice and undertaken over several years is reported here and supplemented by findings from a detailed survey of the mules of both villages. This allows the work undertaken and the lived realities of the working mule across several generations of inhabitants to be presented together with data about the primary welfare concerns identified on clinical examination. In village one, 72 mule owners and their mules were surveyed and examined. Many of these mules worked in tourism, providing a source of revenue for their families. This work was often undertaken by teenagers/young adults working their father's mules. Tethering was widely practised and evidence of tethering injuries were identified in most mules. In the more remote village, 18 owners and their equids were surveyed and examined. In this population, mules were more likely to be worked locally in agriculture, building and to collect firewood. Bitting injuries associated with the use of the traditional bit were a significant concern in both villages. The universal use of a closed shoe was also in evidence in both villages; this was associated with atrophy of the frog and hoof imbalances. The reasoning for the use of the traditional bit and closed shoe are presented and alternatives discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.