The Management of Cow Shelters (Gaushalas) in India, Including the Attitudes of Shelter Managers to Cow Welfare.

India attitudes cows managers shelters survey 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:
28 Jan 2020
Historique:
received: 19 11 2019
revised: 17 01 2020
accepted: 23 01 2020
entrez: 5 2 2020
pubmed: 6 2 2020
medline: 6 2 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Gaushala management is a specialized profession requiring particular skills relating to the management of cow shelters or gaushalas, which are traditional and ancient Indian institutions that shelter old, unproductive and abandoned cows, The 1800 registered cow shelters in India have managers who are important stakeholders in the management of cows in these unique institutions. It is important to survey the routine management of these shelters and attitudes of the managers towards cow welfare to identify the constraints and welfare issues. We visited 54 shelters in six states of India for a face-to-face structured interview of the managers. Quantitative data collection included questions on demographics, routine management operations, protocols followed in the shelters and attitudes of the managers towards cow welfare. All shelters except one were managed by males, half of them were in the age range of 45-65 years, were university graduates or post-graduates, with 5-15 years shelter management experience, and with the majority having lived in rural areas for most of their lives. Each shelter housed a median of 232 cattle were housed, out of which 13 were lactating cows. The majority of managers vaccinated their animals against endemic diseases like foot and mouth disease, haemorrhagic septicaemia and black quarter (gangraena emphysematosa) and administered endo-and ectoparasiticidal treatments, however, hardly any screened the cattle for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Only 17% of the shelters had in house veterinarians and most cows died of old age, with an annual mortality rate of 14%. The majority of the shelters allowed the cows to reproduce. Access to pasture was available in only 41% of the shelters, while most allowed some access to yards. Most (57%) had limited biosecurity measures, but 82% of the shelters disposed of the carcasses by deep burial on their own premises or through the municipality, with 18% disposing of them in open spaces or nearby creeks. About one half of the shelters maintained records of the protocols followed routinely. Charitable societies ran half of the shelters, mostly through public donations, with accounts audited regularly. Most managers thought that shelter cows' welfare was important and that they should attempt to improve it. They were less in agreement that their knowledge of animal welfare was adequate. Local support, more moral than financial, was recognized more than government support. Managers perceived cow welfare as important from a religious perspective, citing the mother god and caring for abandoned animals as frequent themes in their definition of cow welfare. Caring for animals, mother and goddess were key elements in managers' perception of animal welfare. The recommendations arising from this survey include that the shelter managers should be involved in the decision-making process for the welfare of cows in shelters, which is vital for the sustainability of these unique institutions. Welfare could be improved by strict compliance with biosecurity measures and disease surveillance protocols, avoidance of unrestricted reproduction in cows and separation of males and females.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32012807
pii: ani10020211
doi: 10.3390/ani10020211
pmc: PMC7070297
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Subventions

Organisme : Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
ID : UFAW grant no. 13-16/17,UK
Organisme : School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland
ID : PhD Student Grant
Organisme : Humane Society International, Australia
ID : Grant no.14444 dated 21/09/2016
Organisme : Fondation Brigitte Bardot, France
ID : Nil.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Références

Parasitol Res. 2007 Sep;101 Suppl 2:S207-16
pubmed: 17823830
Vet Parasitol. 2005 Sep 30;132(3-4):205-15
pubmed: 16099104
Aust Vet J. 1998 Jul;76(7):482-8
pubmed: 9700403
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2013 Jun;60(3):197-203
pubmed: 22551096
Vet Microbiol. 2006 Feb 25;112(2-4):339-45
pubmed: 16387455
Animal. 2017 Feb;11(2):261-273
pubmed: 27364762
J Dairy Sci. 2006 Dec;89(12):4723-35
pubmed: 17106104
Trop Anim Health Prod. 2004 Oct;36(7):645-54
pubmed: 15563025
Vet Microbiol. 2017 Oct;210:71-76
pubmed: 29103699
Rev Sci Tech. 2014 Apr;33(1):131-7
pubmed: 25000785
J Vet Med Educ. 2005 Winter;32(4):491-6
pubmed: 16421833
Vet World. 2016 Apr;9(4):383-7
pubmed: 27182134
Zentralbl Veterinarmed B. 1994 May;41(3):176-228
pubmed: 7801720
Vet Microbiol. 2017 May;203:196-201
pubmed: 28619144
J Dairy Sci. 2007 Mar;90(3):1209-14
pubmed: 17297096
Environ Pollut. 2010 May;158(5):1159-68
pubmed: 19931958
Rev Sci Tech. 2015 Dec;34(3):713-27
pubmed: 27044147
J Parasit Dis. 2013 Oct;37(2):271-5
pubmed: 24431582
Vet Res. 1995;26(2):124-31
pubmed: 7735303
Animals (Basel). 2019 Jun 05;9(6):
pubmed: 31195720
Animals (Basel). 2019 Nov 14;9(11):
pubmed: 31739574
J Dairy Sci. 2007 Jul;90(7):3349-54
pubmed: 17582120
Rev Sci Tech. 2013 Dec;32(3):645-56
pubmed: 24761721
Vet Microbiol. 2017 Jul;206:102-112
pubmed: 28040311
Vet Q. 2006 Dec;28(4):122-9
pubmed: 17205832
Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports. 2018 Aug;13:92-97
pubmed: 31014895
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2018 Dec;65(6):1627-1640
pubmed: 29885021
J Dairy Sci. 2006 Jan;89(1):126-33
pubmed: 16357274
Vet Parasitol. 2006 Apr 15;137(1-2):1-10
pubmed: 16472920
J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2010 Oct;1(4):240-1
pubmed: 21731367
Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2019 Mar;16(3):214-220
pubmed: 30632791
Parasite. 2013;20:26
pubmed: 23985165
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014 Sep;80(18):5583-92
pubmed: 25002422
Vet Parasitol. 2009 Sep 16;164(1):70-9
pubmed: 19414223
J Dairy Sci. 2016 Mar;99(3):1695-1715
pubmed: 26774729
J Anim Sci. 1995 Sep;73(9):2733-40
pubmed: 8582865

Auteurs

Arvind Sharma (A)

Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton Campus 4343, Australia.

Catherine Schuetze (C)

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia.

Clive J C Phillips (CJC)

Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton Campus 4343, Australia.

Classifications MeSH