Saber Y Adam^1,2,3, Taha H Musa³, Jaafar S Fedail³, Hassan H Musa³, Demin Cai⁴ and Abdelkareem A Ahmed^3,5,6

¹Animal Welfare Center, Nyala, South Darfur Province, Sudan
²Department of One Health, Medical and Cancer Research Institute; Animal Welfare Center, Nyala, Sudan
³Biomedical Research Institute, Darfur University College, Nyala, Sudan
⁴College of Animal Science and Technology, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, PR China
⁵Department of Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gaborone, Botswana
⁶Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Nyala, Nyala, Sudan

*Corresponding Author: Abdelkareem A Ahmed, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Nyala, Nyala, Sudan.

Received: March 07, 2023; Published: March 26, 2023

Abstract

Cattle in Sudan serves multiple purposes in agricultural systems, and producing milk is crucial for raising income and providing for domestic needs. However, there is no historical data on the assessment of cattle welfare in Sudan, especially in Nyala. The current study was carried out on 11 dairy farms with Frisian cows from January to March 2021. The primary goal of the study was to assess dairy cows' welfare issues. In this study, 155 female Friesian cows were randomly selected from the farms and examined. Data was collected by closely observing, and the following factors were evaluated: appropriate behaviors, emotional state, physical state, lameness, lesion and injury, health status, and cleanliness of the body. According to the study, the following percentages of animals were impacted: Among cows, 21.3% exhibited anxious behavior, 23.2% displayed fear, 54.2% had thin body conditions, and 27.1% had very thin body conditions. Twenty percent of cows had mildly damaged hocks, 13.5% had swollen knees without skin damage, and 11.6% had swollen knees with skin damage. Cows with dirty udders, dirty hindquarters, dirty lower legs, and dirty flanks comprised 32.3%, 52.3%, 49.7%, and 43.2% of the herd. Additionally, 69.0% of cows had ectoparasites, 28.4% had abnormal nasal discharge, 31.6% had abnormal ocular discharge, and 27.1% had hair loss. We conclude that the major welfare issues highlighted in this study include injuries, ectoparasites, unclean coats, and health status. Education and veterinary services are required to improve the wellbeing of the dairy cattle in the research region.

Keywords: Nyala City; Dairy Cattle; Welfare

References

1. Ahsav S., et al. “On-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle by animal-linked parameters in Bangladesh”. Research in Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries 3 (2016): 417-424.
2. Barbari M., et al. “Animal Welfare Assessment in Cattle Farms” (2022): 10.
3. Kumar C., et al. “Dairy cattle welfare in India: A review”. Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research (2017): 36.
4. Fraser D. “Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: The interplay of science and values”. Animal Welfare 12 (2003): 433-443.
5. M'Hamdi N., et al. “Welfare assessment in Tunisian Dairy Herds by animal-linked parameters and performance efficiency”. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science 3 (2013): 387-395.
6. Banda LJ and J Tanganyika. “Livestock provide more than food in smallholder production systems of developing countries”. Animal Frontiers 2 (2021): 7-14.
7. Rousing T., et al. “Aggregating Welfare Indicators into an Operational Welfare Assessment System: A Bottom-up Approach”. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 51 (2001): 53-57.
8. Kamuanga M., et al. “Livestock and regional market in the Sahel and West Africa:potentials and challenges” (2008).
9. Napolitano F., et al. “On-farm welfare assessment in dairy cattle and buffaloes: Evaluation of some animal-based parameters”. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4 (2010).
10. Waiblinger S., et al. “Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review”. Applied Animal Behavour Science 101 (2006): 185-242.
11. Rault JL., et al. “The Power of a Positive Human-Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare”. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7 (2020): 590867.
12. Rousing T., et al. “Indicators for the assessment of animal welfare in a dairy cattle herd with a cubicle housing system”. European Association for Animal Production (2000): 102.
13. Hemsworth PH., et al. “The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows”. Journal of Animal Science 80 (2002): 68-78.
14. Vermunt JJ. “One step closer to unravelling the pathophysiology of claw horn disruption: for the sake of the cows' welfare”. Veterinary Journal 174 (2007): 219-220.
15. M'Hamdi N., et al. “Dairy Cattle Welfare Status Measured by Animal-Linked Parameters Under Tunisian Rearing Conditions” (2012).
16. Dyer RM., et al. “Objective Determination of Claw Pain and Its Relationship to Limb Locomotion Score in Dairy Cattle”. Journal od Dairy Science 90 (2007): 4592-4602.
17. Gieseke D., et al. “Effects of cubicle characteristics on animal welfare indicators in dairy cattle”. Animal 14 (2020): 1934-1942.
18. Leach KA., et al. “Assessing lameness in cows kept in tie-stalls”. Journal of Dairy Science 92 (2009): 1567-1574.
19. Barker ZE., et al. “Management Factors Associated with Impaired Locomotion in Dairy Cows in England and Wales”. Journal of Dairy Science 90 (2007): 3270-3277.
20. Urge B. “Infestation of Ectoparasites in Dairy Calves Reared by Smallholder Farmers in Central Areas of Ethiopia”. Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research (2020): 26.
21. Capdeville J and Veissier I. “A Method of Assessing Welfare in Loose Housed Dairy Cows at Farm Level, Focusing on Animal Observations”. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-animal Science 51 (2001): 62-68.
22. Schukken YH., et al. “Risk factors for clinical mastitis in herds with a low bulk milk somatic cell count. 1. Data and risk factors for all cases”. Journal of Dairy Science 73 (1990): 3463-3471.
23. Waiblinger S., et al. “Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms”. Applied Animal Behavour Science 84 (2003): 23-39.
24. Quality^® “Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle”. Welfare Quality Consortium. Lelystad,The Netherlands (2009).
25. Breuer K., et al. “Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows”. Applied Animal Behavour Science 66 (20000: 273-288.
26. Krebs S., et al. “Using a Herd Health Monitoring System in the Assessment of Welfare”. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-animal Science 51 (2001): 78-81.
27. Pritchard JC., et al. “Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters”. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005): 265-283.

Citation

Citation: Abdelkareem A Ahmed., et al. “On-Farm Welfare Assessment of Dairy Cattle (Friesian) in Nyala City, Sudan". Acta Scientific Veterinary Sciences 5.4 (2023): 121-128.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Abdelkareem A Ahmed., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.