The Welfare of Cows in Indian Shelters.
India
assessment
cow shelters
gaushala
welfare
Journal
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
Titre abrégé: Animals (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101635614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Apr 2019
16 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
11
03
2019
revised:
03
04
2019
accepted:
10
04
2019
entrez:
19
4
2019
pubmed:
19
4
2019
medline:
19
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30995810
pii: ani9040172
doi: 10.3390/ani9040172
pmc: PMC6523919
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : University of Queensland
ID : PhD student grant
Organisme : Humane Society International, Australia
ID : payment no.14444
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med. 2000 May;47(4):221-9
pubmed: 10887753
Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2000 Oct 1;69(3):189-197
pubmed: 10906403
J Dairy Sci. 2001 Mar;84(3):623-8
pubmed: 11286416
Jpn J Infect Dis. 2002 Dec;55(6):194-6
pubmed: 12606828
Vet Rec. 2003 Aug 16;153(7):197-202
pubmed: 12956296
Prev Vet Med. 2004 Jan 30;62(1):19-33
pubmed: 15154682
J Dairy Sci. 2004 Sep;87(9):2889-95
pubmed: 15375049
Prev Vet Med. 2004 Dec 15;66(1-4):247-64
pubmed: 15579346
J Comp Psychol. 1992 Jun;106(2):107-13
pubmed: 1600717
J Dairy Sci. 2005 Nov;88(11):3876-85
pubmed: 16230693
J Dairy Sci. 2006 Jan;89(1):126-33
pubmed: 16357274
J Dairy Sci. 2006 Jan;89(1):139-46
pubmed: 16357276
J Dairy Sci. 1991 Feb;74(2):526-36
pubmed: 1646242
Prev Vet Med. 2006 Jul 17;75(1-2):133-9
pubmed: 16621073
Rev Sci Tech. 2005 Dec;24(3):879-85
pubmed: 16642758
J Dairy Sci. 2006 Aug;89(8):2965-72
pubmed: 16840611
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Oct;1081:74-83
pubmed: 17135496
Prev Vet Med. 2007 Jul 16;80(2-3):209-21
pubmed: 17383035
J Dairy Sci. 2008 May;91(5):1874-84
pubmed: 18420618
J Dairy Sci. 2008 May;91(5):1903-7
pubmed: 18420621
J Dairy Sci. 2008 Sep;91(9):3710-5
pubmed: 18765630
BMC Public Health. 2009 Jan 12;9:11
pubmed: 19134225
J Dairy Sci. 2010 Sep;93(9):3979-89
pubmed: 20723673
Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011 Mar;34(2):163-9
pubmed: 21071087
J Anim Sci. 2011 May;89(5):1452-65
pubmed: 21169516
J Dairy Sci. 2011 Jun;94(6):2952-63
pubmed: 21605765
J Dairy Sci. 2011 Jul;94(7):3213-28
pubmed: 21700006
J Dairy Sci. 2011 Jul;94(7):3420-7
pubmed: 21700027
J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010 Jan;1(1):59
pubmed: 21808591
Theriogenology. 2012 Jan 15;77(2):382-8
pubmed: 21924470
Ir Vet J. 2011 Oct 07;64:13
pubmed: 21982340
J Dairy Sci. 2012 Aug;95(8):4352-62
pubmed: 22818448
J Dairy Sci. 2012 Dec;95(12):7399-408
pubmed: 23063152
J Dairy Sci. 2013 Jan;96(1):307-17
pubmed: 23102960
J Dairy Sci. 2013 Oct;96(10):6264-73
pubmed: 23932136
Prev Vet Med. 2013 Nov 1;112(3-4):296-308
pubmed: 23998636
J Dairy Sci. 2014 Feb;97(2):715-30
pubmed: 24290821
Rev Sci Tech. 2013 Dec;32(3):645-56
pubmed: 24761721
Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2014 Jul;30(2):429-39, vi-vii
pubmed: 24980730
Indian J Exp Biol. 2015 Jan;53(1):16-24
pubmed: 25675707
J Dairy Sci. 2015 Jul;98(7):4401-13
pubmed: 25981068
Rev Sci Tech. 2015 Dec;34(3):713-27
pubmed: 27044147
J Dairy Sci. 2017 Aug;100(8):6494-6503
pubmed: 28551187
Br J Nutr. 1986 Sep;56(2):463-76
pubmed: 3676225
J Anim Sci. 1979 Feb;48(2):381-92
pubmed: 575129
J Dairy Sci. 1993 Apr;76(4):1074-82
pubmed: 8387550