No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Development of a welfare assessment protocol and assessment of dairy cattle welfare in Haryana and Punjab states of Northern India
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2023
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The aim of this study was to develop an on-farm dairy cattle welfare assessment protocol at different-sized farms in two major commercial dairy farming states in India. For developing the protocol, the basic ‘Integrative Diagnostic System Welfare’ (IDSW) framework was modified to include three welfare components (animal housing and other facilities; feeds and feeding practices; and animal health, performance and behaviour) and 20 welfare indicators (ten resource- and ten animal-based). Each indicator was weighed on a value scale with an aggregate welfare score of 100. The protocol was tested for feasibility, validity and reliability using Cronbach's alpha and Guttman split-half coefficient. Using this protocol, welfare was assessed on 60 commercial farms in Punjab and 50 in Haryana, divided into three adult herd sizes: small (S < 20), medium (M = 21–50) and large (L > 50). Welfare scores in L (76.60 [± 1.70]) and M (68.40 [± 2.27]) sized herds in Punjab were higher than in S herds (60.80 [± 2.77]). In Haryana these were higher in L (68.1 [± 1.18]) than in S (60.50 [± 2.74]) and M (59.35 [± 2.17]) sized herds. The aggregate average welfare score was higher in Punjab (68.60 [± 1.49]) than in Haryana (62.65 [± 2.02]). Welfare at more than 75% of the farms in Punjab and more than 50% of those in Haryana was judged as ‘acceptable.’ Six welfare indicators in Punjab and eight in Haryana were most compromised. Four indicators (microclimate protection measures, availability of milking parlour, cow cleanliness and reproductive efficiency) were the most compromised indicators in both states. To improve dairy cattle welfare in these states we recommend an emphasis on improving housing and feeding conditions, especially at small and medium farms, along with heat stress amelioration measures and improving hygiene and reproductive efficiency at all farms.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2022 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
References
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the Animal Needs Index (ANI) for the assessment of animal's well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00067-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics 2019 Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Government of India: New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
Benatallah, A, Ghozlane, F and Marie, M 2015 Dairy cow welfare assessment on Algerian farms. African Journal of Agricultural Research 10(9): 895–901. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.9483Google Scholar
Berckmans, D 2014 Precision livestock farming technologies for welfare management in intensive livestock systems. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties (Paris) 33(1): 189–196. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2273CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertoni, G, Calamati, L and Maianti, MG 2003 Factors of welfare status in dairy cows and the relationship with milk features. In: Greppi GF and Enne G (eds) Proceedings of International Symposium on Milk and Research pp 63–94. Lodi, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Bertoni, G, Trevisi, E, Calamari, L and Lombardelli, R 1998 Additional energy and protein supplementation of dairy cows during early lactation: milk yield, metabolic-endocrine status and reproductive performances. Zootecnicae Nutrizione Animale 24: 17–29Google Scholar
Bewley, J, Palmer, RW and Jackson-Smith, DB 2001 An overview of experiences of Wisconsin dairy farmers who modernized their operations. Journal of Dairy Science 84(3): 717–729. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74526-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM 2001 Coping, stress and welfare. In: Broom, DM (ed) Coping with Challenge: Welfare in Animals Including Humans. Proceedings of Dahlem Conference pp 1–9. Dahlem University Press: Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Calamari, L and Bertoni, G 2009 Model to evaluate welfare in dairy cow farms. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8(S1): 301–323. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calamari, L, Bionaz, M and Bertoni, G 2003 A new model to evaluate the welfare status in the dairy farm. Proceeding of fourth International Congress of European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics pp 77–80. Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
Calamari, L, Bionaz, M, Trevisi, E and Bertoni, G 2004 Preliminary study to validate a model of animal welfare assessment in dairy farms. Proceedings of Fifth International Congress of European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics pp 38–42. Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Canali, E and Keeling, L 2009 Welfare Quality® project: from scientific research to on-farm assessment of animal welfare. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8(2): 900–903. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s2.900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coignard, M, Guatteo, R, Veissier, I, Roches, ADBD, Mounier, L, Lehébel, A and Bareille, N 2013 Description and factors of variation of the overall health score in French dairy cattle herds using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 112: 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Constitution of India, Article 48 2015 Organisation of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/directive_principles_of_state_policy/articles/Article%2048Google Scholar
Cook, NB, Bennett, TB and Nordlund, KV 2004 Effect of freestall surface on daily activity patterns in dairy cows with relevance to lameness prevalence. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 2912–2922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, LJ and Meehl, PE 1995 Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 32: 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957Google Scholar
Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organizations 2012 Holy Cows! Research Insight into Dairies in India pp 12–45. Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organizations: New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
Flower, FC and Weary, DM 2006 Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow's gait. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grethe, H 2017 The economics of farm animal welfare. Annual Review of Resource Economics 9: 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act 2015 http://pashudhanharyana.gov.in/sites/default/files/documents/The_Haryana_Gauvansh_Sanrakshan_and_gausamvardhan_act_2015_-_Eng.PDFGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, Borg, S and Dowling, S 2002 The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80: 68–78. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.80168xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humane Society International 2012 An HSI Report: The Welfare of intensively confined animals in battery cages, gestation crates, and veal crates. https://www.hsi.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/pdfs/welfare-of-intensively-confined-animals-international-word-sept-4-08.pdfGoogle Scholar
Humane Society of US 2009 An HSUS Report: The welfare of cows in the dairy industry. Humane Society of US: USAGoogle Scholar
Islam, MA, Sharma, A, Mazumdar, A, Rudra, KC and Phillips, CJC 2020 Welfare assessment of dairy cows in small dairy farms in Bangladesh. Animals 10: 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030394CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, P and Toates, FM 1993 Who needs behavioural needs? Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37(2): 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90108-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Johannesson, T and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: Many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Science 51(S30): 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647001316923027Google Scholar
Kamboj, ML, Prasad, S, Oberio, PS, Manimaran, A, Lathwal, SS and Gupta, K 2014 National Code of Practices for the Management of Dairy Animals in India pp 80. ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal and World Animal Protection: New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, U, Sharma, A and Philips, CJC 2018 The sheltering of unwanted cattle, experiences in India and implications for cattle industries elsewhere. Animals 8(5): 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8050064CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18(4): 451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, C, Haskell, MJ, Nunes, T and Stilwell, G 2015 Creating a model to detect dairy cattle farms with poor welfare using a national database. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 122: 280–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.10.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, A 2015 The changing paradigms of Indian dairy industry. International Journal of Livestock Research 5(6): 19–25. https://doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20150602041344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodrick, D 2005 Symbol and sustenance: Cattle in South Asian culture. Dialectical Anthropology 29: 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-005-5809-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DC, Kent, J, Wemelsfelder, F, Ofner, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2003 Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment. Animal Welfare 12(4): 523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, S, Klotz, C, Baroli, D, Minero, M, Ferrante, V and Canali, E 2009 Welfare problems in alpine dairy cattle farms in Alto Adige (Eastern Italian Alps). Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 628–630. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s2.628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Bunglavan, SJ, Rowe, E, Barrett, DC, Lee, MRF, Ananth, D and Tarlton, J 2020 Welfare challenges of dairy cows in India identified through on-farm observations. Animals 10: 586. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040586CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Napolitano, F, Grasso, F, Bordi, A, Tripaldi, C, Saltalamacchia, F, Pacelli, C and De Rosa, G 2005 On-farm welfare assessment in dairy cattle and buffaloes: evaluation of some animal-based parameter. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4: 223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popescu, S and Borda, C 2011 Microbiological air quality in tiestall dairy barns and some factors that influence it. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6(32): 6726–6734. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.1428Google Scholar
Popescu, S, Borda, C, Lazar, EA and Hegedus, IC 2009 Assessment of dairy cow welfare in farms from Transylvania, Proceedings of 44th Croatian and 4th International Symposium in Agriculture pp 752–756. Upatija, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
Popescu, S, Borda, C, Sandru, CD, Stefan, R and Lazar, E 2010 The welfare assessment of tied dairy cows in 52 small farms in north-eastern Transylvania using animal-based measurements. Slovakia Veterinary Research 47(3): 77–82Google Scholar
Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act 1955 http://www.lawsofindia.org/pdf/haryana/1956/1956HR15.pdfGoogle Scholar
Robbins, JA, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Fraser, D and Weary, DM 2016 Invited review: Farm size and animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 94: 5439–5455. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0805CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salas, MAS, Cardona, MGT, Perez, LB, Ortiz, JGP and Badillo, MDRJ 2017 Milk cow welfare assessment in system of small-scale production by applying the protocol proposed by Welfare Quality®. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias 8(1): 53–60. https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v8i1.4306Google Scholar
Samer, M 2010 Adjusting dairy housing in hot climates to meet animal welfare requirements. Journal of Experimental Sciences 1(3): 14–18Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Nolan, AM and Fitzpatrick, JL 2001 Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: a framework for the measurement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 30: 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647001316922983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sejian, V, Bhalla, R, Gaugham, JB, Dunshea, FB and Lacetera, N 2018 Review: Adoption of animals to heat stress. Animal 12(2): 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118001945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, A 2019 Welfare assessment of cows at cow shelters (gaushalas) in India. PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, GW and Cochran, WG 1994 Statistical Methods, Seventh Edition. Iowa State University Press: Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Spiller, A, Gauly, M, Balmann, A, Bauhus, J, Birner, R, Bokelmann, W, Christen, O, Entenmann, S, Grethe, H, Knierim, U, Latacz-Lohmann, U, Matenh-Lohmann, J, Matinhernie-Bauhus, J and Peterweingarten, V 2015 Ways to a socially acceptable farm animal husbandry. Reports on Agriculture 221: 1–171Google Scholar
Špinka, M 2006 How important is natural behaviour in animal farming systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100(1-2): 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprecher, DJ, Hoesteler, DE and Kaneene, JB 1997 A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47: 1179–1187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundrum, A 1994 Assessing livestock housing conditions in terms of animal welfare, possibilities and limitations. Proceedings of Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems. Foulum, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
University of Minnesota Quality Counts Programs 2011 SCC Diagnostics Tool Box, W-AH-2: Hock Injury Scorecard. https://qualitycounts.umn.edu/sites/qualitycounts.umn.edu/files/20-22-01/w-ah-2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I and Evans, A 2007 Rationale behind the Welfare Quality® assessment of animal welfare. In: Veissier I, Forkman B and Jones B (eds) Assuring Animal Welfare: From Societal Concerns to Implementation pp 9–12. Second Welfare Quality® Stakeholders Conference, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Vries, MD, Bokkers, EAM, Schaik, GV, Botreau, R, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and Boer, IJMD 2013 Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality® multi-criteria evaluation model for classification of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6129CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Fölsch, DW 2003 Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84(1): 23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Winckler, C 2014 On-farm animal welfare assessment and welfare improvement in dairy cattle. AgroLife Scientific Journal 3(1):163–168Google Scholar
Winter, M, Fry, C and Carruthers, SP 1998 European agricultural policy and farm animal welfare. Food Policy 23: 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(98)00036-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamboj et al. supplementary material 1
File
269.9 KB
Kamboj et al. supplementary material 2
File
804.3 KB
You have
Access