Welfare Assessment of Dairy Cows in Small Farms in Bangladesh
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection and Processing
2.2. Farmers’ and Stock People’s Attitudes on Animal Welfare
3. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Systems of Dairy Farming Used
4.2. Milk Production and BCS
4.3. Factors Affecting Milk Yield
4.4. Relationship between BCS and Health and Building Parameters
4.5. Housing Facilities
4.6. Cleanliness of Animals and House
4.7. Clinical Examination
4.8. Health Management and Status
4.9. Principal Components in the Welfare Parameters
4.10. Farmers’ Perspectives on Animal Welfare
5. Discussion
5.1. Milk Yield and its Affecting Factors
5.2. BCS and its Relationship with Health and Building Factors
5.3. Housing Facilities
5.4. Cleanliness of House and Animals
5.5. Clinical Examinations
5.6. Skin Lesions on Different Body Parts
5.7. Health Management and Status
5.8. Farmers’ Understanding of Animal Welfare
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Knierim, U.; Jackson, W.T. Legislation in Animal Welfare. In Animal Welfare, 1st ed.; Appleby, M.C., Hughes, B.O., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 1997; pp. 249–261. [Google Scholar]
- Broom, D.M.; Fraser, A. Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 5th ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Rushen, J.; de Passillé, A.M.; Weary, D.M. The welfare of dairy cattle—Key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 4101–4111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stull, C.L.; Reed, B.A.; Berry, S.L. A comparison of three animal welfare assessment programs on California dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 1595–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, J. The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: Theory into practice. Rev. Sci. Tech. Oie 2005, 24, 723–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welfare Quality®. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle; Welfare Quality Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009; ISBN 978-90-78240-04-4. [Google Scholar]
- Bartussek, H. A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1999, 61, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keeling, L.; Veissier, I. Science and society improving animal welfare. In Proceedings of the Welfare Quality Conference: Developing a Monitoring System to Assess Welfare Quality in Cattle, Pigs and Chickens, Brussels, Belgium, 17–18 November 2005; pp. 46–50. [Google Scholar]
- Popescu, S.; Borda, C.; Sandru, C.D.; Stefan, R.; Lazar, E. The welfare assessment of tied dairy cows in 52 small farms in North-Eastern Transylvania using animal-based measurements. Slov. Vet. Res. 2010, 47, 77–82. [Google Scholar]
- Whay, H.; Main, D.; Green, L.; Webster, A. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: Direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. Rec. 2003, 153, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roche, J.R.; Macdonald, K.A.; Burke, C.R.; Lee, J.M.; Berry, D.P. Associations among body condition score, body weight, and reproductive performance in seasonal-calving dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 376–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roche, J.R.; Friggens, N.C.; Kay, J.K.; Fisher, M.W.; Stafford, K.J.; Berry, D.P. Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 5769–5801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roche, J.R.; Berry, D.P. Periparturient climatic, animal, and management factors influencing the incidence of milk fever in grazing systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 2775–2783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, D.P.; Lee, J.M.; Macdonald, K.A.; Stafford, K.; Matthews, L.; Roche, J.R. Associations among body condition score, body weight, somatic cell count, and clinical mastitis in seasonally calving dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 637–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sieber, M.; Freeman, A.E.; Kelley, D.H. Relationships between body measurements, body weight, and productivity in Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1988, 71, 3437–3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hristov, A.N.; Price, W.J.; Shafii, B. A Meta-analysis on the relationship between intake of nutrients and body weight with milk volume and milk protein yield in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 2860–2869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dikmen, S.; Orman, A.; Ustuner, H.; Ogan, M.M. Small ruminant: Sheep and goat production. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 303–305. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, C.J.C. The Welfare of Animals, The Silent Majority; Springer Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 79–89. [Google Scholar]
- Appleby, M.C.; Hughes, B.O. Animal Welfare; CABI: Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 1997; p. 316. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, C.J.C.; Morris, I.D. The ability of cattle to distinguish between, and their preference for, floors with different levels of friction, and their avoidance of floors contaminated with excreta. Anim. Welfare 2002, 11, 21–29. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez-Lainz, A.; Hird, D.W.; Carpenter, T.E.; Read, D.H. Case-control study of papillomatous digital dermatitis in Southern California dairy farms. Prev. Vet. Med. 1996, 28, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schukken, Y.H.; Grommers, F.J.; Van De Geer, D.; Erb, H.N.; Brand, A. Risk factors for clinical mastitis in herds with a low bulk milk somatic cell count. 1. Data and risk factors for all cases. J. Dairy Sci. 1990, 73, 3463–3471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hristov, S.; Stanković, B.; Zlatanović, Z.; Plavšić, B. The most significant predisposing factors and causes of lameness of dairy cows. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium of Agriculture ’Agrosym Jahorina’, Hotel Bistrica, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 15–17 November 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Zubrigg, K.; Kelton, D.; Anderson, N.; Millman, S. Tie-stall design and its relationship to lameness, injury, and cleanliness on 317 Ontario dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 3201–3210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, N.B. The influence of barn design on dairy cow hygiene, lameness and udder health. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Convention of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, Monona Terrace Convention Center, Madison, WI, USA, 26–28 September 2002; pp. 97–103. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, A.; Kennedy, U.; Schuetze, C.; Phillips, C.J.C. The welfare of cows in Indian shelters. Animals 2019, 9, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pawelek, R.; Croney, C. Animal welfare: Understanding and Addressing Issues Related to the Well-being of Livestock; Oregon State University, Extension Service: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2003; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Winckler, C.; Capdeville, J.; Gebresenbet, G.; Hörning, B.; Roiha, U.; Tosi, M.; Waiblinger, S. Selection of parameters for on-farm welfare-assessment protocols in cattle and buffalo. Anim. Welfare 2003, 12, 619–624. [Google Scholar]
- Bartussek, H.; Leeb, C.; Held, S. Animal Needs Index for cattle (Ani 35 L/2000-cattle); Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions BAL Gumpenstein: Irdning, Austria, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Blowey, R.; Peter, E. Mastitis Control in Dairy Herds, 2nd ed.; CABI: Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 2010; p. 272. [Google Scholar]
- Mdegela, R.H.; Ryoba, R.; Karimuribo, E.D.; Phiri, E.J.; Løken, T.; Reksen, O.; Mtengeti, E.; Urio, N.A. Prevalence of clinical and subclinical mastitis and quality of milk on smallholder dairy farms in Tanzania. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2009, 80, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arnott, G.; Ferris, C.P.; O’Connell, N.E. Review: Welfare of dairy cows in continuously housed and pasture-based production systems. Animal 2017, 11, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ramanathan, A.; Mallapur, A. A Visual Health Assessment of captive asian elephants (Elephas maximus) Housed in India. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2008, 39, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vanitha, V.; Thiyagesan, K.; Baskaran, N. Daily routine of captive Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in three management systems of Tamil Nadu, India and its implications for elephant welfare. J. Sci. Trans. Environ. Technov. 2010, 3, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahsan, S.; Islam, M.A.; Islam, M.T. On-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle by animal-linked parameters in Bangladesh. Res. Agric. Livest. Fish. 2016, 3, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Danscher, A.M.; Enemark, J.M.D.; Telezhenko, E.; Capion, N.; Ekstrøm, C.T.; Thoefner, M.B. Oligofructose overload induces lameness in cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 607–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breuer, K.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnett, J.L.; Matthews, L.R.; Coleman, G.J. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 66, 273–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kielland, C.; Ruud, L.E.; Zanella, A.J.; Østerås, O. Prevalence and risk factors for skin lesions on legs of dairy cattle housed in freestalls in Norway. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 5487–5496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baul, S.; Cziszter, L.T.; Acatincăi, S.; Gavojdian, D.; Tripon, L.; Erina, S.; Răducan, G.G. Phenotypic correlations among milk yield and chemical composition per normal lactation in Romanian black and white breed. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechno. 2012, 45, 275–277. [Google Scholar]
- Mondal, R.; Sen, S.; Rayhan, S. A comparative economc analysis of local breed and cross breed milk cow in a seleced area of Bangladesh. J. Sci. Found. 2010, 8, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, A.; Baset, M.; Fouzder, S. Study of management and production system of small scale dairy farm in a selective rural area of Bangladesh. J. Sci. Found. 2010, 8, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dürr, J.W.; Cue, R.I.; Monardes, H.G.; Moro-Méndez, J.; Wade, K.M. Milk losses associated with somatic cell counts per breed, parity and stage of lactation in Canadian dairy cattle. Livest. Sci. 2008, 117, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dechow, C.D.; Rogers, G.W.; Clay, J.S. Heritabilities and correlations among body condition scores, production traits, and reproductive performance. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallo, l.; Cassandro, M.; Mantovani, R.; Bailoni, L.; Contiero, B.; Bittante, G. Change in Body Condition Score of Holstein cows as affected by parity and mature equivalent milk yield. J. Dairy Sci. 1996, 79, 1009–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Østergaard, S.; Gröhn, Y.T. Effects of diseases on test day milk yield and body weight of dairy cows from Danish research herds. J. Dairy Sci. 1999, 82, 1188–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buckley, F.; O’Sullivan, K.; Mee, J.F.; Evans, R.D.; Dillon, P. Relationships among milk yield, body condition, cow weight, and reproduction in spring-calved Holstein-Friesians. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 2308–2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gergovska, Z.; Mitev, Y.; Angelova, T.; Yordanova, D.; Miteva, T. Effect of changes in body condition score on the milk yield of Holstein-Friesian and Brown Swiss cows. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 17, 837–845. [Google Scholar]
- Timmen, H.; Patton, S. Milk fat globules: Fatty acid composition, size and in vivo regulation of fat liquidity. Lipids 1988, 23, 685–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loker, S.; Bastin, C.; Miglior, F.; Sewalem, A.; Schaeffer, L.; Jamrozik, J.; Osborne, V. Genetic analysis of body condition score with milk production traits in Canadian Holteins. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Vancouver, Canada, 17–22 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Valde, J.P.; Lystad, M.L.; Simensen, E.; Østerås, O. Comparison of feeding management and body condition of dairy cows in herds with low and high mastitis rates. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 4317–4324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertoni, G.; Calamari, L.; Trevisi, E. How to define and evaluate welfare in modern dairy farms. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Production Diseases in Farm Animals, Leipzig, Germany, 29 July–4 August 2007; pp. 590–606. [Google Scholar]
- Lago, A.; McGuirk, S.M.; Bennett, T.B.; Cook, N.B.; Nordlund, K.V. Calf Respiratory disease and pen microenvironments in naturally ventilated calf barns in winter. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 4014–4025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brochart, M. Foot lameness of the cow, a multifactorial disease. In Cattle Housing Systems, Lameness and Behaviour; Springer Press: Dorbrecht, The Netherlands, 1987; pp. 159–165. [Google Scholar]
- Wells, S.J.; Trent, A.M.; Marsh, W.E.; Williamson, N.B.; Robinson, R.A. Some risk factors associated with clinical lameness in dairy herds in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Vet. Rec. 1995, 136, 537–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Code, C.F.B. Associate Committee on the National Building Code; National Research Council of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Magnusson, M.; Herlin, A.H.; Ventorp, M. Effect of alley floor cleanliness on free-stall and udder hygiene. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 3927–3930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernardi, F.; Fregonesi, J.; Winckler, C.; Veira, D.M.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Weary, D.M. The stall-design paradox: Neck rails increase lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 3074–3080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fregonesi, J.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Tucker, C.B.; Veira, D.M.; Weary, D.M. Neck-rail position in the free stall affects standing behavior and udder and stall cleanliness. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 1979–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Plesch, G.; Knierim, U. Effects of housing and management conditions on teat cleanliness of dairy cows in cubicle systems taking into account body dimensions of the cows. Animal 2012, 6, 1360–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elmoslemany, A.M.; Keefe, G.P.; Dohoo, I.R.; Wichtel, J.J.; Stryhn, H.; Dingwell, R.T. The association between bulk tank milk analysis for raw milk quality and on-farm management practices. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010, 95, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hristov, S.; Stanković, B.; Zlatanović, Z.; Joksimović-Todorović, M.; Davidović, V. Rearing conditions, health and welfare of dairy cows. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 2008, 24, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergsten, C. Effects of conformation and management system on hoof and leg diseases and lameness in dairy cows. Vet. Clin. N. Am.-Food A 2001, 17, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, W. Lameness in dairy cattle. Irish Vet. J. 2001, 54, 129–139. [Google Scholar]
- Whay, H. Locomotion scoring and lameness detection in dairy cattle. In Pract. 2002, 24, 444–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitaker, D.A.; Kelly, J.M.; Smith, E.J. Incidence of lameness in dairy cows. Vet. Rec. 1983, 113, 60–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nandi, S.; Roy, S.; Mukherjee, P.; Goswami, A.; Majumder, D. Epidemiology of lameness in dairy cattle of hilly region of west Bengal: The influence of pain on performance. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 2008, 20, 211–215. [Google Scholar]
- Mhamdi, M.; Darej, C.; Bouallegue, M.; Brar, S.K.; Hamouda, M.B. Welfare assessment in Tunisian dairy herds by animal-linked parameters and performance efficiency. Iran. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2013, 3, 387–395. [Google Scholar]
- Ozsvari, L. Economic cost of lameness in dairy cattle herds. J. Dairy Vet. Anim. Res 2017, 6, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sood, P.; Nanda, A.S. Effect of lameness on estrous behavior in crossbred cows. Theriogenology 2006, 66, 1375–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassall, S.A.; Ward, W.R.; Murray, R.D. Effects of lameness on the behaviour of cows during the summer. Vet. Rec. 1993, 132, 578–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aleri, J.W.; Nguhiu-Mwangi, J.; Mogoa, E.M.; Mulei, C.M. Welfare of dairy cattle in the smallholder (zero-grazing) production systems in Nairobi and its environs. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 2012, 24, Article 159. Available online: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/9/aler24159.htm (accessed on 10 January 2020).
- Main, D.C.; Whay, H.R.; Green, L.E.; Webster, A.J. Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food Scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 2003, 153, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rushen, J. Assessing the Welfare of Dairy Cattle. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2001, 4, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regula, G.; Danuser, J.; Spycher, B.; Wechsler, B. Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in Switzerland. Prev. Vet. Med. 2004, 66, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rutherford, K.; Langford, F.; Jack, M.; Sherwood, L.; Lawrence, A.; Haskell, M. Hock injury prevalence and associated risk factors on organic and nonorganic dairy farms in the United Kingdom. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 2265–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zurbrigg, K.; Kelton, D.; Anderson, N.; Millman, S. Stall dimensions and the prevalence of lameness, injury, and cleanliness on 317 tie-stall dairy farms in Ontario. Can. Vet. J. 2005, 46, 902–909. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Heringstad, B.; Chang, Y.M.; Gianola, D.; Klemetsdal, G. Genetic Association between susceptibility to clinical mastitis and protein yield in Norwegian dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 1509–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leslie, K.E.; Petersson-Wolfe, C.S. Assessment and management of pain in dairy cows with clinical mastitis. Vet. Clin. N. Am.-Food A 2012, 28, 289–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nguhiu-Mwangi, J.; Aleri, J.W.; Mogoa, E.G.; Mbithi, P.M. Indicators of poor welfare in dairy cows within smallholder zero-grazing units in the peri-urban areas of Nairobi, Kenya. In Insights from Veterinary Medicine; Payan-Carreira, R., Ed.; In Tech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2013; pp. 49–88. [Google Scholar]
Parameters | Measurement Type | Description/Measures |
---|---|---|
Milk yield | Questionnaire and farm records | Average milk yield (l) / cow / day |
House management | House-based measures; Questionnaire and direct observation | Flooring type (1: soil / 2: brick / 3: combined of soil and brick); frequency of faeces removal from the house (<1x/d, 1x/d or 2x/d) and floor cleanliness (1–clean, 2–mildly dirty, 3–moderately dirty, 4-very dirty) |
Mastitis incidence | Questionnaire | Number of cows having suffered with an udder infection (clinical mastitis) during the last 12 months |
Dystocia incidence | Questionnaire | Number of calvings where major assistance was required during the last 12 months. |
Vaccination schedule | Questionnaire | Use of vaccines against important diseases (FMD, anthrax, black quarter); classified as never used, occasionally used, routinely used |
Deworming schedule | Questionnaire | Use of anthelmintics; classified as 1, 2, or 3 times/year |
Parameters | Description/Measures |
---|---|
Clinical examination | General appearance (alert/dull/depressed); mucous membrane of eye conjunctiva (moist and pink/moist and pale pink/dry and white); teat condition (normal/deformed/cracked/dry), rumen condition (distended, hollow or normal). |
Body condition score | Visual appraisal by the assessor of individual BCS using a four-point scale, scored to whole units: 1–very thin (cavitation of tail head, depression at the tuber coxae region, transverse vertebral processes ends clearly visible, tail head, tuber coxae, spine and ribs visible) 2–thin (slight cavitation of tail head, flatness in the tuber coxae region, transverse vertebral processes ends clearly visible, spine and ribs visible but tail head not clearly visible); 3–fat (no cavitation around tail head but no folds of fatty tissue present, flatness in the tuber coxae region, ends of transverse vertebral processes slightly visible, ribs not visible); 4–very fat/ obese (no cavitation around tail head with presence of fatty tissue folds, convexity between the spine and tuber coxae, transverse vertebral processes not visible, extensive areas of fat under the skin). |
Cleanliness | The hindquarter, lower hind leg (hock), flank, udder , and teats were inspected to assess cleanliness. Cows were classified as clean if there was no or only minor contamination (<15 cm2) with either soil or manure, otherwise they were classified as dirty. |
Lameness | The cows were assessed from behind and from the side when walking on a surface on which they normally walked. A three-point scoring system was used (Breuer et al., 2000) 0 = not lame, timing of steps and weight-bearing equal on all 4 feet; 1 = lame, imperfect temporal rhythm in stride, creating a limp; and 2 = severely lame, strong reluctance to bear weight on one limb, or more than one limb affected. |
Skin lesions | Six body regions of cows (neck, brisket, carpal and tarsal joint, flank and tuber coxae) were evaluated from one side (randomly chosen). In each region, the number of cows with hairless patches and lesions/swellings of >15 cm2 were recorded. |
Nasal discharge | Scale: 0: Little or no evidence of discharge 1: Evidence of clearly visible flow/discharge from the nostrils; transparent to yellow/green and often of thick consistency |
Ocular discharge | Scale: 0: Little or no evidence of discharge, or 1: Evidence of clearly visible flow/discharge (wet or dry) from the eye, at least 3 cm long |
Vulval discharge | Scale: 0: Little or no evidence of discharge 1: Evidence of purulent effluent from the vulva, including on the underside of the tail |
Laboured respiration | Scale: 0: No evidence of abnormal respiration 1: Evidence of deep and laboured respiration; expiration usually accompanied by pronounced sound |
Diarrhoea | Scale: 0: Little or no evidence of abnormal consistency of faeces 1: Evidence of loose watery faeces around the tail |
Ectoparasitic infestation | Close inspection, including with a hair comb to find any mites or ticks |
Predictor | Coefficient | SE Coefficient | p-Value | Odds Ratio | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Floor cleanliness (1 clean to 4 very dirty) | |||||
Lameness | −0.103 | 0.059 | 0.069 | 0.90 | 0.80–1.01 |
Hind limb cleanliness | 0.041 | 0.021 | 0.053 | 1.04 | 1.0–1.09 |
Udder | 0.064 | 0.027 | 0.022 | 1.07 | 1.01–1.13 |
Hair loss | −0.153 | 0.060 | 0.011 | 0.86 | 0.76–0.97 |
Respiratory problem | 0.320 | 0.185 | 0.084 | 1.38 | 0.96–1.98 |
Mastitis | 0.129 | 0.061 | 0.036 | 1.14 | 1.01–1.28 |
Frequency of faeces removal (1: <1x/d, 2: 1x/d, 3: 2x/d) | |||||
Hind limb cleanliness | −0.048 | 0.026 | 0.066 | 0.95 | 0.91–1.00 |
Neck lesion | −0.258 | 0.095 | 0.007 | 0.77 | 0.64–0.93 |
Hair loss | 0.106 | 0.062 | 0.080 | 1.11 | 0.98–1.26 |
Deworming | −1.244 | 0.687 | 0.070 | 0.29 | 0.07–1.11 |
Mastitis | 0.157 | 0.065 | 0.016 | 1.17 | 1.03–1.33 |
Floor type (1: earth floor, 2: brick floor) | |||||
Flank cleanliness | −0.053 | 0.031 | 0.084 | 0.95 | 0.89–1.01 |
Hock lesion | −0.126 | 0.052 | 0.016 | 0.88 | 0.79–0.98 |
Ocular discharge | −0.514 | 0.176 | 0.004 | 0.60 | 0.42–0.85 |
Diarrhoea | 0.212 | 0.100 | 0.034 | 1.24 | 1.02–1.51 |
Deworming | −2.186 | 1.063 | 0.040 | 0.11 | 0.01–0.90 |
Vaccination | 2.609 | 1.444 | 0.071 | 13.60 | 0.80–230.67 |
Mastitis | 0.323 | 0.110 | 0.003 | 1.38 | 1.11–1.72 |
Body Regions with Injury | Farms | Cows | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Number of Farms (n = 70) | Percentage (%) | Number of Cows (n = 700) | Percentage (%) | |
Carpal joint | 39 | 55.71 | 64 | 9.14 |
Tarsal joint | 36 | 51.43 | 79 | 11.29 |
Neck | 31 | 44.29 | 39 | 5.57 |
Brisket | 24 | 34.29 | 30 | 4.29 |
Flank | 20 | 28.57 | 23 | 3.29 |
Tuber coxae | 19 | 27.14 | 27 | 3.86 |
© 2020 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/).
Share and Cite
Islam, M.A.; Sharma, A.; Ahsan, S.; Mazumdar, S.; Rudra, K.C.; Phillips, C.J.C. Welfare Assessment of Dairy Cows in Small Farms in Bangladesh. Animals 2020, 10, 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030394
Islam MA, Sharma A, Ahsan S, Mazumdar S, Rudra KC, Phillips CJC. Welfare Assessment of Dairy Cows in Small Farms in Bangladesh. Animals. 2020; 10(3):394. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030394
Chicago/Turabian StyleIslam, M. Ariful, Arvind Sharma, S. Ahsan, S. Mazumdar, K.C Rudra, and Clive J.C. Phillips. 2020. "Welfare Assessment of Dairy Cows in Small Farms in Bangladesh" Animals 10, no. 3: 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030394