Development of a welfare assessment protocol and assessment of dairy cattle welfare in Haryana and Punjab states of Northern India

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Animal Welfare Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.7120/09627286.31.4.008
M. Kamboj, C. Kumar, V. Mahla
{"title":"Development of a welfare assessment protocol and assessment of dairy cattle welfare in Haryana and Punjab states of Northern India","authors":"M. Kamboj, C. Kumar, V. Mahla","doi":"10.7120/09627286.31.4.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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\n 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\n 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)\n 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])\n 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\n 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\n 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.","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.31.4.008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在印度北部哈里亚纳邦和旁遮普邦制定福利评估协议和奶牛福利评估
本研究的目的是在印度两个主要的商业奶牛养殖邦的不同规模的农场中制定农场奶牛福利评估方案。为了制定方案,对基本的“综合诊断系统福利”(IDSW)框架进行了修改,以包括三个福利组成部分(动物住房和其他设施;饲料和饲养方法;动物健康、性能和行为)和20项福利指标(10项基于资源,10项基于动物)。每个指标都以总分为100分的价值尺度进行加权。采用Cronbach’s alpha和Guttman劈裂半系数对方案进行可行性、效度和信度检验。利用该方案,对旁遮普邦60个商业养殖场和哈里亚纳邦50个商业养殖场的福利进行了评估,将其分为三种成年畜群规模:小型(S < 20)、中型(M = 21-50)和大型(L > 50)。旁遮普省L(76.60[±1.70])和M(68.40[±2.27])规模畜群的福利得分高于S(60.80[±2.77])规模畜群。在哈里亚纳邦,L(68.1[±1.18])比S(60.50[±2.74])和M(59.35[±2.17])大。旁遮普邦的总体平均福利得分(68.60[±1.49])高于哈里亚纳邦(62.65[±2.02])。旁遮普邦超过75%的农场和哈里亚纳邦超过50%的农场的福利被认为是“可以接受的”。旁遮普邦的6项福利指标和哈里亚纳邦的8项福利指标受到的影响最大。四个指标(小气候保护措施、挤奶室的可用性、奶牛清洁度和繁殖效率)是这两个州最受损害的指标。为了改善这些州的奶牛福利,我们建议重点改善住房和饲养条件,特别是在中小型农场,同时采取热应激改善措施,改善所有农场的卫生和繁殖效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Animal Welfare
Animal Welfare 农林科学-动物学
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Animal Welfare is an international scientific and technical journal. It publishes the results of peer-reviewed scientific research, technical studies and reviews relating to the welfare of kept animals (eg on farms, in laboratories, zoos and as companions) and of those in the wild whose welfare is compromised by human activities. Papers on related ethical, social, and legal issues and interdisciplinary papers will also be considered for publication. Studies that are derivative or which replicate existing publications will only be considered if they are adequately justified. Papers will only be considered if they bring new knowledge (for research papers), new perspectives (for reviews) or develop new techniques. Papers must have the potential to improve animal welfare, and the way in which they achieve this, or are likely to do so, must be clearly specified in the section on Animal welfare implications.
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of bonobo emotional expressivity across observer groups and zoo housing environments. Human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions in animals under human care: A summary of stakeholder and researcher perceptions and future directions. Does tail docking prevent Cochliomyia hominivorax myiasis in sheep? A six-year retrospective cohort study. Standard methods for marking caudate amphibians do not impair animal welfare over the short term: An experimental approach. Why are some people in the UK reluctant to seek support for their pets?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1