Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Study Areas
2.2. Welfare Assessments
2.3. Data Analysis
2.4. Categorisation and Refinement of Measures
3. Results
3.1. Categorisation Results
3.2. Refined Thresholds
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Measures | Imposed Categorisation Thresholds (%) (Based on New Zealand Protocol) | Namibia Scoring Thresholds (%) | Namibia Scoring Thresholds Adjustment |
---|---|---|---|
# Thin cows | 10 | 10 | 30% in drought |
# Emaciated cows | - | 10 | |
Poor rumen fill | 50 | 50 | |
Dirtiness | 20 | 5 | reduced |
Swelling | 2 | 2 | |
Hair loss | 2 | 2 | |
Abrasion | 2 | 2 | 7% initial threshold to allow improvements |
Extraneous brands/cuts | - | 5 | |
Long/sharp horns | - | 10 | 40% initial threshold to allow improvements |
Blindness | 2 | 2 | |
Ocular discharge | 2 | 2 | |
Nasal discharge | 2 | 2 | |
Diarrhoea | 10 | 5 | reduced |
Lameness | 2 | 2 | |
Dystocia | 2 | 2 | |
Tick burden | - | 10 | |
Fly burden | - | 10 | |
Mortality rate | 2 | 2 | 7% in drought |
Fearful/Agitate | 5 | 5 | 7% initial threshold to allow improvements |
Fall/lie | 2 | 5 | 7% initial threshold to allow improvements |
Stumble | 5 | 5 | |
Run exit | 10 | 10 |
Appendix B
References
- FAN Meat. Farmers Pocket Guide to the Namibian Meat Scheme. In Farm Assured Namibian Meat Scheme; Meat Board of Namibia: Windhoek, Namibia, 2018; Available online: https://www.nammic.com.na/index.php/library/summary/56-guide/176-fan-meat-pocket-guide (accessed on 18 September 2019).
- MAWF. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry Annual Report 2016/2017; Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF): Windhoek, Namibia, 2017; pp. 23–30.
- Cook, N.B. Assessment of cattle welfare: Common animal-based measures. In Advances in Cattle Welfare; Tucker, C.B., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2018; pp. 27–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaurivi, Y.B.; Hickson, R.; Laven, R.; Parkinson, T.; Stafford, K.J. Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow-Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures. Animals 2020, 10, 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sandøe, P.; Corr, S.; Lund, T.; Forkman, B. Aggregating animal welfare indicators: Can it be done in a transparent and ethically robust way? Anim. Welf. 2019, 28, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, J. Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2005; p. 296. [Google Scholar]
- Winckler, C. Assessment of cattle welfare: Approaches, goals, and next steps on farms. In Advances in Cattle Welfare; Tucker, C.B., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2018; pp. 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaurivi, Y.B.; Laven, R.; Parkinson, T.; Hickson, R.; Stafford, K. Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow–Calf Welfare in Namibia: Part 1: Comparison between Farm Production System’s Effect on the Welfare of Beef Cows. Animals 2021, 11, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaurivi, Y.B.; Laven, R.; Hickson, R.; Stafford, K.; Parkinson, T. Assessing Extensive Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia: Feasibility of adapting a New Zealand animal welfare assessment protocol. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2020. under review. [Google Scholar]
- Welfare Quality. Welfare Quality. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle. In Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle (without Veal Calves); Welfare Quality®: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 1–142. [Google Scholar]
- Kubasiewicz, L.M.; Rodrigues, J.B.; Norris, S.L.; Watson, T.L.; Rickards, K.; Bell, N.; Judge, A.; Raw, Z.; Burden, F.A. The Welfare Aggregation and Guidance (WAG) Tool: A New Method to Summarize Global Welfare Assessment Data for Equids. Animals 2020, 10, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Holechek, J.L.; Thomas, M.; Molinar, F.; Galt, D. Stocking desert rangelands: What we’ve learned. Rangelands 1999, 21, 8–12. [Google Scholar]
- Grandin, T. Handling facilities and restraint of extensively raised range cattle. In Livestock Handling and Transport, 4th ed.; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2014; pp. 94–115. [Google Scholar]
- Mellor, D.J. Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare. Animals 2017, 7, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roche, J.; Dillon, P.; Stockdale, C.; Baumgard, L.; Van Baale, M. Relationships Among International Body Condition Scoring Systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 3076–3079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hulsen, J. Cow Signals: A Practical Guide for Dairy Farm Management; Roodbont Publishers: Zutphen, The Netherlands, 2005; p. 96. [Google Scholar]
- Mee, J.F. Denormalizing poor dairy youngstock management: Dealing with “farm-blindness”. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, S140–S149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anonymous. Namibia Devastating Drought: Our Strategy so Far. New Era, 7 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Siegmund-Schultze, M.; Lange, F.; Schneiderat, U.; Steinbach, J. Performance, management and objectives of cattle farming on communal ranges in Namibia. J. Arid. Environ. 2012, 80, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MCA Namibia (Ed.) Community-Based Rangeland and Livestock Management: Namibia; MCA Namibia: Windhoek, Namibia, 2014. Available online: http://www.the-eis.com/data/literature/Community20based20rangeland20management20CBRLM20Final20Report.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2020).
- Moran, J. Tropical Dairy Farming: Feeding Management for Small Holder Dairy Farmers in the Humid Tropics; Csiro Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2005; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
- De Vries, M.; Bokkers, E.A.M.; Van Schaik, G.; Engel, B.; Dijkstra, T.; De Boer, I.J.M. Exploring the value of routinely collected herd data for estimating dairy cattle welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 715–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hickson, R.; Corner-Thomasa, R.; Martina, N.; Kenyona, P.; Lopez-Villalobosa, N.; Morrisa, S. Stayability of beef-cross-dairy breeding cows to six years of age. In Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, Dunedin, New Zealand, 28 June–1 July 2015; pp. 159–163. [Google Scholar]
- Petherick, J.C. Animal welfare issues associated with extensive livestock production: The northern Australian beef cattle industry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 92, 211–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madzingira, O. Animal Welfare Considerations in Food-Producing Animals. In Animal Welfare; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; p. 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bailey, D.W.; Mosley, J.C.; Estell, R.E.; Cibils, A.F.; Horney, M.; Hendrickson, J.R.; Walker, J.W.; Launchbaugh, K.L.; Burritt, E.A. Synthesis Paper: Targeted Livestock Grazing: Prescription for Healthy Rangelands. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 72, 865–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simon, G.E.; Hoar, B.R.; Tucker, C.B. Assessing cow-calf welfare. Part 1: Benchmarking beef cow health and behavior, handling; and management, facilities, and producer perspectives. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 3476–3487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mõtus, K.; Reimus, K.; Orro, T.; Viltrop, A.; Emanuelson, U. On-farm mortality, causes and risk factors in Estonian beef cow-calf herds. Prev. Veter Med. 2017, 139, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kandiwa, E.; Madzingira, O.; Mushonga, B.; Samkange, A.; Bishi, A.; Nyoni, N. A 13-Year Retrospective Study of the Beef and Dairy Cattle Losses at Neudamm Farm in the Khomas Region of Namibia. Alex. J. Veter Sci. 2017, 55, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaurivi, Y.B.; Laven, R.; Hickson, R.; Parkinson, T.; Stafford, K.J. Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow-Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 1: Assessing the Feasibility of Identified Animal Welfare Assessment Measures. Animals 2020, 10, 1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, K.; Blair, B.; Ramirez, C.; French, D. The Impact of Nuisance Flies on Growing Dairy Heifers. i-ACES 2014, 1, 31–36. [Google Scholar]
- Mashebe, P.; Lyaku, J.R.; Mausse, F. Occurrence of Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases of Livestock in Zambezi Region: A Review. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 6, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pascucci, I.; Monaco, F.; Maseke, A.; Khaiseb, S.; Molini, U.; Scacchia, M. Lumpy skin disease an emerging threat to Europe: Description of symptoms and lesions shown in outbreaks in Namibia. Large Anim. Rev. 2017, 23, 83–86. [Google Scholar]
- MLA Meat; Livestock Australia. Animal Health and Welfare: Flies. Available online: https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/animal-health-welfare-and-biosecurity/parasites/identification/flies/ (accessed on 14 September 2020).
- Haikukutu, L. Genetic Diversity of the Bovine Leukocyte Antigen (BoLA) and Its Association with Resistance to Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases in Selected Beef Cattle Breeds in Namibia; University of Namibia: Windhoek, Namibia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Katiyatiya, C.L.F.; Muchenje, V.; Mushunje, A. Seasonal variation in coat characteristics, tick loads, cortisol levels, some physiological parameters and temperature humidity index on Nguni cows raised in low- and high-input farms. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2014, 59, 733–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stafford, K.J.; Mellor, D. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. Veter J. 2005, 169, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paskin, R.; Pauw, R.; Mack, S.; Maki-Hokkonen, J. Livestock identification and recording: The Namibian experience. In Proceedings of the ICA/FAO Seminar, Tunisia, North Africa, 24–25 April 2004; pp. 84–91. [Google Scholar]
- Adcock, S.J.J.; Tucker, C.B.; Weerasinghe, G.; Rajapaksha, E. Branding Practices on Four Dairies in Kantale, Sri Lanka. Animals 2018, 8, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S.; Stookey, J.M.; Welford, R. Behavior of cattle during hot-iron and freeze branding and the effects on subsequent handling ease. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75, 2064–2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, C.B.; Mintline, E.M.; Banuelos, J.; Walker, K.A.; Hoar, B.; Drake, D.; Weary, D.M. Effect of a cooling gel on pain sensitivity and healing of hot-iron cattle brands1. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 5666–5673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tucker, C.B.; Mintline, E.M.; Banuelos, J.; Walker, K.A.; Hoar, B.; Varga, A.; Drake, D.; Weary, D.M. Pain sensitivity and healing of hot-iron cattle brands. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 5674–5682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knierim, U.; Irrgang, N.; Roth, B.A. To be or not to be horned—Consequences in cattle. Livest. Sci. 2015, 179, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stankowich, T.; Caro, T. Evolution of weaponry in female bovids. In Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences; The Royal Society: London, UK, 2009; Volume 276, pp. 4329–4334. [Google Scholar]
- Stafford, K.J.; Mellor, D.J. Addressing the pain associated with disbudding and dehorning in cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 135, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windig, J.J.; Hoving-Bolink, R.A.; Veerkamp, R.F. Breeding for polledness in Holstein cattle. Livest. Sci. 2015, 179, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broom, D.M. Animal welfare complementing or conflicting with other sustainability issues. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 219, 104829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francisco, C.L.; Cooke, R.F.; Marques, R.S.; Mills, R.R.; Bohnert, D.W. Effects of temperament and acclimation to handling on feedlot performance of Bos taurus feeder cattle originated from a rangeland-based cow-calf system1. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 5067–5077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Simon, G.E.; Hoar, B.R.; Tucker, C.B. Assessing cow-calf welfare. Part 2: Risk factors for beef cow health and behavior and stockperson handling1. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 3488–3500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cziszter, L.T.; Gavojdian, D.; Neamt, R.; Neciu, F.; Kusza, S.; Ilie, D.-E. Effects of temperament on production and reproductive performances in Simmental dual-purpose cows. J. Veter Behav. 2016, 15, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cooke, R.F.; Schubach, K.M.; Marques, R.S.; Peres, R.F.G.; Silva, L.G.T.; Carvalho, R.S.; Cipriano, R.S.; Bohnert, D.W.; Pires, A.V.; Vasconcelos, J.L.M. Effects of temperament on physiological, productive, and reproductive responses in Bos indicus beef cows1. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cooke, R.F.; Arthington, J.D.; Austin, B.R.; Yelich, J.V. Effects of acclimation to handling on performance, reproductive, and physiological responses of Brahman-crossbred heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 87, 3403–3412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Welfare Criteria | Animal Welfare Measure/Indicator | Scoring Description | Categorical Ranking |
---|---|---|---|
Absence of hunger | Body condition score (thin cows) | % thin/emaciated cows in herd of score (score 1–2.5) on 1–5 scale [15]. | 0: 0–5.0% 1: 5.1–10% 2: >10% |
Rumen fill score (poor rumen fill) | % of animals with hollow/empty rumen observed in the race [16]. | 0: 0–20.0% 1: 20.1–50% 2: >50% | |
Distance to grazing | The questionnaire asked how far cattle had to walk to access grazing. (This included the distance to grazing for cattle that daily come to drink after grazing at water points that are provided close to yards). | 0: 0–1.60 km 1: 1.61 km–3.2 km 2: >3.2 km | |
Absence of thirst | Distance and availability of water | Average distance to access water. (Distance to water was estimated as the distance to grazing as water points are close to yards and cattle come to drink after grazing in some herds). | 0: 0–1.6.0 km 1: 1.61 km–3.2 km 2: >3.2 km |
Comfort around resting | Dirty body | Total number of animals assessed as having a dirty tail, hind and flank (>25% of combined areas covered with dirt or manure). | 0: 0–10.0% 1: 10.0–20% 2: >20% |
Ease of movement | Absence of hazardous objects/environment | Hazardous objects observed in the yard and paddocks (i.e., sharp objects lying around, steep hills). | 0: no hazards 1: 1 or 2 hazards 2: 3 or more hazards or cattle had died in any hazard |
Welfare Criteria | Animal Welfare Measure/Indicator | Scoring Description | Categorical Ranking |
---|---|---|---|
Absence of injuries/physical impairment | Abrasions, Swelling Hair loss/hairless | % of observed cows with abrasions/fresh scratches, swelling or hairless patches (>1 cm). | 0: 0.0% 1: 0.1–2% 2: >2% |
Extraneous cattle markings/ branding wounds (e.g., multiple brands, dew lap cutting) | % of observed cows with brand mark wounds (>2 cm) or more than one extraneous brand mark (i.e., stock brand, initials or name of a farmer branded). | 0: 0.0% 1: 0.1–5% 2: >5% | |
Size and shape of horns | Number of observed cows with sharp/long horns (>5 cm in length, sharp and forward facing to pose a risk of injuring others). | 0: 0–5.0% 1: 5.1–10% 2: >10% | |
Absence of disease | Blindness, Ocular and Nasal discharges | % of observed cows with blindness in one or both eyes. % of observed cows with ocular and nasal discharges extending 2 cm. | 0: 0.0% 1: 0.1–2% 2: >2% |
Lameness | % of observed cows with gait abnormality. | 0: 0.0% 1: 0.1–2% 2: >2% | |
Diarrhoea | % of observed cows with evidence of diarrhoea (more than a hand wide on both sides from the base of tail). | 0: 0–10% 1: >10–20% 2: >20% | |
Dystocia | % of cows recorded with difficult births. | 0: 0.0% 1: 0.1–2% 2: >2% | |
Mortality rate | Sum of accidental deaths, deaths, due to disease, or culling because of disease/accidents in the last 12 months. | 0: 0.0% 1: 0.1–2% 2: >2% | |
Fly burden Tick burden | Proportion of observed cows with more than an estimated 20 flies (i.e., horse flies). Proportion of observed cows with more than an estimated 20 ticks on any part of the body of a cow. | 0: 0–5.0% 1: 5.1–10% 2: >10% | |
Painful procedures | Disbudding Castration | Specify age at disbudding and use of anaesthetics. Specify age at castration and use of anaesthetics. | 0: No disbud/castration 1: ≤2 months 2: >2 months 0: No disbud/castration 1: use of anaesthetics 2: no anaesthetics |
Ear tagging/ notching | Specify age at ear tagging and ear notching and with/without the use of anaesthetic. | 0: no tag or use anaesthetics 1: tag with no anaesthetics 2: notching/cutting with no anaesthetics | |
Hot-iron branding | Record branding events and the use of local anaesthetic (from the questionnaire). | 0: no branding or use anaesthetics 1: one brand (compulsory) 2: more than 1 brand | |
Use of electrical prodders | Estimated proportion of cows prodded with an electrical goad while drafted or standing in the race, pens or yards. | 0: no prodding 1: few/occasional prod (≤1% cows) 2: many/frequent prod (>1% cows prodded) |
Welfare Criteria | Animal Welfare Measure/Indicator | Scoring Description | Categorical Ranking |
---|---|---|---|
Stockpersonship animal-based measures in and out of race | Fearful/agitated | % cows showing fearful/agitated behaviour (climbing on others or attempting to escape). | 0: 0.0% 1: 0.1–5% 2: >5% |
Falling | % cows lying in or falling in race/forcing pen or on exiting. | 0: 0.0% 1: 0.1–2% 2: >2% | |
Stumbling | % cows stumbling while exiting to paddocks. | 0: 0.0% 1: 0.1–5% 2: >5% | |
Running | % cows running out of the race/holding pens into paddocks. | 0: 0–5.0% 1: 5.1–10% 2: >10% | |
Animal handling stockpersonship and resource-based measures | Mis-catching (in chute/race) | # of cows mis-catch with gates on any part of the body either in the race or chute head bale. If no race, available mis-catch was recorded if more than one attempt was made to capture/restrain an individual animal with ropes or if a cow did not stand still when a rope was secured around the legs. | 0: no mis-catch 1: mis-catch ≤1% 2: mis-catch >1% |
Hitting | % of cows hit or poked with moving aids. | 0: no hitting 1: occasional/few hit 2: frequent hit/poke (>10% cows) | |
Tail twisting | Estimate the proportion of cows with tail twisted while drafted or standing in the race or pens. | 0: no twisting 1: occasional/few twist (≤10% of cows) 2: frequent twist (>10% of cows) | |
Noise of handlers Noise of equipment/ machinery Dogs noise around the yard | Evaluate noise of handlers, noise of equipment (race or chute gate) and machinery (generators etc.) and observe the presence and noise frequency of dogs around the yard. | 0: no noise/dogs 1: minor audible/occasional noise 2: unpleasantly/persistent noisy handlers/equip/dogs | |
Health checks | Frequency of health checks on cows during pregnancy. | 0: daily 1: once-twice/week 2: more than weekly | |
Yarding frequency | Frequency of yarding of cows per year for handling or restraining. | 0: >4 times 1: 3–4 times 2: 0–2 times | |
Yard flow/handling of cattle | Yard flow of cattle influenced by handling facilities design/quality. | 0: very effective cattle flow 1: effective but with flaws 2: difficult flow |
Measures | Imposed Categorisation Thresholds (%) | Commercial (n = 17) | Semi-Commercial (n = 20) | Communal (n = 18) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean(%) | Orange Threshold | Red Threshold | Ratio of Threshold | Mean (%) | Orange Threshold | Red Threshold | Ratio of Threshold | Mean (%) | Orange Threshold | Red Threshold | Ratio of Threshold | ||
# Thin cows | 10 | 7.2 | 2.5 | 11.6 | 1.2 | 70.7 ⁿ | 65.6 | 102.6 | 10.3 * | 97.7 ⁿ | 97.6 | 102.7 | 10.3 * |
# Emaciated cows | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.1 ⁿ | 5.4 | 23.8 | 2.4 * | 82.9 ⁿ | 81.8 | 98.0 | 9.8 * |
Poor rumen fill | 50 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 6.3 | 0.1 | 49.1 ⁿ | 44.7 | 72.9 | 1.5 | 76.2 ⁿ | 74.3 | 95.7 | 1.9 |
Dirtiness | 20 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 3.6 | 0.2 |
Swelling | 2 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 3.8 | 1.9 | 4.9 | 2.2 | 9.1 | 4.6 * | 3.3 | 1.7 | 6.7 | 3.3 * |
Hair loss | 2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 7.2 | 3.6 * | 6.8 | 3.5 | 14.9 | 7.5 * |
Abrasion | 2 | 3.2 | 1.9 | 6.6 | 3.3 * | 8.7 | 4.8 | 18.9 | 9.5 * | 20.4 ⁿ | 16.9 | 35.7 | 17.8 * |
Extraneous brands/cuts | 5 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 8.1 | 3.0 | 15.1 | 3.0 * | 10.7 | 4.0 | 19.1 | 3.8 * |
Long/sharp horns | 10 | 7.2 | 3.1 | 13.6 | 1.4 | 45.5 ⁿ | 40.1 | 70.6 | 7.1 * | 59.3 ⁿ | 54.9 | 88.3 | 8.8 * |
Blindness | 2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
Ocular discharge | 2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
Nasal discharge | 2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
Diarrhoea | 10 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 6.9 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 3.5 | 14.9 | 1.5 |
Lameness | 2 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 5.1 | 2.8 | 10.5 | 5.3 * |
Dystocia | 2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 4.5 | 2.3 * | 1.9 | 1.3 | 3.8 | 1.9 |
Tick burden | 10 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 17.3 | 1.7 | 6.0 | 2.8 | 12.2 | 1.2 |
Fly burden | 10 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 14.1 | 3.5 | 25.2 | 2.5 * | 9.5 | 3.3 | 17.2 | 1.7 |
Mortality rate | 2 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 5.4 | 2.7 * | 12.3 ⁿ | 9.5 | 23.9 | 11.9 * | 13.2 ⁿ | 10.7 | 22.7 | 11.4 * |
Fearful/Agitate | 5 | 6.2 | 3.4 | 12.7 | 2.5 * | 7.1 | 4.5 | 14.8 | 3.0 * | 7.4 ⁿ | 5.2 | 15.6 | 3.1 * |
Fall/lie | 2 | 6.5 ⁿ | 4.8 | 12.9 | 6.4 * | 6.4 | 2.7 | 12.7 | 6.4 * | 5.7 ⁿ | 3.8 | 12.0 | 6.0 * |
Stumble | 5 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 7.5 | 1.5 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 6.2 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 3.2 | 0.6 |
Run exit | 10 | 5.6 | 3.5 | 11.2 | 1.1 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 6.2 | 0.6 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 6.0 | 0.6 |
Measures | Imposed Categorisation Threshold (%) | Mean (%) | Orange Threshold (%) | Red Threshold (%) | Ratio of Red Thresholds/Imposed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
# Thin cows | 10 | 59.9 | 29.4 | 166 | 16.6 * |
# Emaciated cows | 10 | 31.2 | 0.9 | 62.4 | 6.2 * |
Poor rumen fill | 50 | 44.2 | 20 | 121.8 | 2.4 * |
Dirtiness | 20 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 0.9 |
Swelling | 2 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 5.2 | 2.6 * |
Hair loss | 2 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 6.6 | 3.3 * |
Abrasion | 2 | 10.6 | 6.5 | 25.2 | 12.6 * |
Extraneous brands/cuts | 5 | 6.8 | 2 | 8.9 | 1.8 |
Long/sharp horns | 10 | 38.2 | 14.7 | 82 | 8.2 * |
Blindness | 2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
Ocular discharge | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
Nasal discharge | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
Diarrhoea | 10 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 6 | 0.6 |
Lameness | 2 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 3.4 | 1.7 |
Dystocia | 2 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 3.3 | 1.7 |
Tick burden | 10 | 6.4 | 1.6 | 8.9 | 0.9 |
Fly burden | 10 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 13.5 | 1.4 |
Mortality rate | 2 | 9.8 | 6.9 | 18.1 | 9.1 * |
Fearful/Agitate | 5 | 6.9 | 4.3 | 14.2 | 2.8 * |
Fall/lie | 2 | 6.2 | 3.6 | 12.7 | 6.4 * |
Stumble | 5 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 5.4 | 1.1 |
Run exit | 10 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 7.7 | 0.8 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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
Kaurivi, Y.B.; Laven, R.; Hickson, R.; Parkinson, T.; Stafford, K. Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures. Animals 2021, 11, 250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020250
Kaurivi YB, Laven R, Hickson R, Parkinson T, Stafford K. Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures. Animals. 2021; 11(2):250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020250
Chicago/Turabian StyleKaurivi, Yolande Baby, Richard Laven, Rebecca Hickson, Tim Parkinson, and Kevin Stafford. 2021. "Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures" Animals 11, no. 2: 250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020250