5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Welfare of Cows in Indian Shelters

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Simple Summary

          The welfare of cows in traditional cow shelters (gaushalas), was assessed on the basis of the measurement of animal- and resource-based welfare parameters and description of the herd characteristics by the manager. A description of the condition of the cows and the resources provided to them is provided in this cross-sectional study. Small space allowance per cow, non-uniform flooring, little freedom of movement, and lack of access to pastures were the key welfare issues observed in the study. Very few cows were recorded as lame, but about half had carpal joint lesions and slightly less had lesions from interacting with shelter furniture. This study will inform the stakeholders about the concept of welfare auditing of the cow shelters, for better welfare and management of the cows in the shelters.

          Abstract

          Cow shelters (gaushalas) are unique traditional institutions in India, where aged, infertile, diseased, rescued, and abandoned cows are sheltered for the rest of their life, until they die of natural causes. These institutions owe their existence to the reverence for the cow as a holy mother goddess for Hindus, the majority religion in India. There is a religious and legal prohibition on cow slaughter in most Indian states. A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the welfare of cows in these shelters, which included the development of a welfare assessment protocol, based on direct animal-based measurements, indirect resource-based assessments, and description of the herd characteristics by the manager. A total of 54 cow shelters in 6 states of India were studied and 1620 animals were clinically examined, based on 37 health, welfare, and behavior parameters. Thirty resources provided to the animals, including housing, flooring, feeding, watering, ease of movement, cleanliness of facilities, lighting, temperature, humidity, and noise levels in the sheds were measured. The study showed that the shelters contained mostly non-lactating cows, with a mean age of 11 years. The primary welfare problems appeared to be different to those in Western countries, as the major issues found in the shelters were facility-related—the low space allowance per cow, poor quality of the floors, little freedom of movement, and a lack of pasture grazing. Very few cows were recorded as lame, but about one half had carpal joint hair loss and swelling, and slightly less had lesions from interacting with shelter furniture. Some shelters also had compromised biosecurity and risks of zoonosis. These issues need to be addressed to aid in ensuring the acceptability of these institutions to the public. This welfare assessment protocol aims to address the welfare issues and problems in the shelters, by providing feedback for improvement to the stakeholders.

          Related collections

          Most cited references102

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait.

          To explore how hoof pathologies affect dairy cattle gait, we studied cows with sole hemorrhages (n = 14), sole ulcers (n = 7), and those with no visible injuries (n = 17). Overall gait assessments, scored from video using a 1 to 5 numerical rating system (1 = sound, 5 = severely lame) and a continuous 100-unit visual analog scale, found cows having sole ulcers had poorer gait than healthy cows (mean +/- SEM: 4.0 +/- 0.13 vs. 3.1 +/- 0.08, and 59 +/- 3 vs. 46 +/- 2, respectively). Six gait attributes (back arch, head bob, tracking-up, joint flexion, asymmetric gait, and reluctance to bear weight) were also assessed using continuous 100-unit scales. Compared with healthy cows, those having sole ulcers walked with a more pronounced back arch (12 +/- 3 vs. 28 +/- 4), more jerky head movement (2 +/- 2 vs. 10 +/- 3), shortened strides (7 +/- 2 vs. 26 +/- 4), and more uneven weighting among the limbs (16 +/- 2 vs. 32 +/- 3). Of all measures, the numerical rating system most effectively discriminated healthy cows from those with sole ulcers (R2 = 0.73), classifying 92% of animals correctly. No differences were detected among cows with and without sole hemorrhages. Intra- and interobserver reliabilities were reasonable for all measures (R2 > or = 0.64) except joint flexion and asymmetric gait. In summary, subjective assessments of dairy cattle gait provide valid and reliable approaches to identifying cattle with sole ulcers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows.

            In this paper, we describe a novel approach to corporate involvement in on-farm assessment, driven by the desire to provide a service for dairy producers and to create a vehicle for engagement on issues of dairy cow welfare. This program provides producers with feedback on animal-based (including gait score, leg injuries, and lying time) and facility-based (including freestall design, bedding practices, feed bunk design and management, and stocking density) measures that can be used to better address their management goals. The aim of this paper is to describe variation in the prevalence of lameness and leg injuries, lying behavior, facility design, and management practices for high-producing cows on freestall dairy farms in 3 regions of North America: British Columbia (BC; n=42); California (CA; n=39); and the northeastern United States (NE-US; n=40). Prevalence of clinical lameness averaged (mean ± SD) 27.9±14.1% in BC, 30.8±15.5% in CA, and 54.8±16.7% in NE-US; prevalence of severe lameness averaged 7.1±5.4% in BC, 3.6±4.2% in CA, and 8.2±5.6% in NE-US. Overall prevalence of hock injuries was 42.3±26.2% in BC, 56.2±21.6% in CA, and 81.2±22.5% in NE-US; prevalence of severe injuries was 3.7±5.2% in BC, 1.8±3.1% in CA, 5.4±5.9% in NE-US. Prevalence of swollen knees was minimal in CA (0.3±0.6%) but high (23.1±16.3%) in NE-US (not scored in BC). Lying times were similar across regions (11.0±0.7h/d in BC, 10.4±0.8h/d in CA, 10.6±0.9h/d in NE-US), but individual lying times among cows assessed varied (4.2 to 19.5h/d, 3.7 to 17.5h/d, and 2.8 to 20.5h/d in BC, CA, and NE-US, respectively). These results showed considerable variation in lameness and leg injury prevalence as well as facility design and management among freestall farms in North America. Each of the 3 regions had farms with a very low prevalence of lameness and injuries, suggesting great opportunities for improvement on other farms within the region.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Stocking density and feed barrier design affect the feeding and social behavior of dairy cattle.

              The objectives of this study were to: 1) evaluate how stocking density at the feed bunk affects feeding and social behavior of dairy cows; and 2) determine if this effect is further influenced by the type of feed barrier used. Thirty-six lactating Holstein cows, allotted to 4 groups, were subjected to each of 4 stocking density treatments and 2 feed barrier treatments. Initially, 2 groups were assigned to a headlock barrier, and 2 groups to a post-and-rail barrier. Each group was then exposed to 4 stocking density treatments (0.81, 0.61, 0.41, and 0.21 m/cow, corresponding to 1.33, 1.00, 0.67, and 0.33 headlocks/cow), in 4 successive 10-d treatment periods. After these periods, the feed barriers were switched between groups and the 4 stocking density treatments were readministered. Time-lapse video was used to quantify feeding, standing, and aggressive behavior at the feed bunk. Daily feeding times were greater and duration of inactive standing in the feeding area was less when using a post-and-rail compared with a headlock feed barrier. Feeding time decreased and inactive standing increased for both barrier designs as stocking density increased at the feed bunk. Cows were displaced more often from the feeding area when the stocking density was increased, and this effect was greater for cows using the post-and-rail feed barrier. Cows ranked lower in the social hierarchy at the feed bunk were displaced more often when feeding at a post-and-rail barrier, particularly at high stocking densities. Therefore, we recommend avoiding overstocking at the feed bunk to increase feeding activity and reduce competition. Use of a barrier that provides some physical separation between adjacent cows, such as a headlock feed barrier, can be used to further reduce competition at the feed bunk.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Animals (Basel)
                Animals (Basel)
                animals
                Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI
                MDPI
                2076-2615
                16 April 2019
                April 2019
                : 9
                : 4
                : 172
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia; c.phillips@ 123456uq.edu.au
                [2 ]RSPCA Queensland, Wacol, QLD 4076, Australia; uttaram@ 123456yahoo.com
                [3 ]Faculty of Arts and Social Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 4343, Australia; vajracat@ 123456gmail.com
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: arvind.sharma@ 123456uqconnect.edu.au ; Tel.: +61-472622438
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2006-3263
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6567-6202
                Article
                animals-09-00172
                10.3390/ani9040172
                6523919
                30995810
                9454eeff-0e78-414b-bb92-5f553ad67ca4
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 11 March 2019
                : 10 April 2019
                Categories
                Article

                india,cow shelters,gaushala,welfare,assessment
                india, cow shelters, gaushala, welfare, assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article