On-farm assessment of animal-based welfare indicators in sheep and goat production systems in Telangana

Introduction

Sheep and goats are integral to global livestock production systems and play a crucial role in supporting the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, particularly in developing countries. In India, these small ruminants significantly contribute to food security and rural income through the production of meat, milk, fibre, and manure (Srinatha et al., 2024; Dhara et al., 2024) [2,3] . Their socio-economic importance is reflected in their steadily increasing population, with recent estimates reporting 148.88 million goats and 74.26 million sheep (BAHS, 2024). Telangana, in particular, has a high concentration of sheep, highlighting the regional importance of small ruminant farming. Despite their adaptability to harsh environmental conditions, including feed scarcity and climatic stress, maintaining optimal welfare is essential for ensuring sustainable productivity (Koluman, 2023) [4] . Animal welfare is defined as the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies (OIE, 2022; Broom, 2022) [, 5] . Poor welfare is often associated with reduced growth, impaired reproduction, and increased disease incidence (Whay, 1997) [6] . Among various assessment approaches, animal-based health indicators are considered reliable as they directly reflect the actual condition of the animal. Common indicators include body condition score, lameness, lesions, parasitic infestation, faecal soiling, and ocular or nasal discharge (Hernandez et al., 2020; Nisan & Newas, 2022) [, 8] . However, welfare assessment in Indian small ruminant systems remains limited due to lack of standardized protocols and low farmer awareness. Therefore, integrating animal-based indicators into welfare assessment is essential for impoving animal health, productivity, and sustainability of livestock systems (Doyle et al., 2022) [9] .

Materials and Methods

Study Area and Design

The present study was carried out in selected semi-arid regions of Hyderabad and its adjoining districts-Medak, Rangareddy, Medchal, and Vikarabad-in Telangana, India. A cross-sectional field survey was undertaken on small ruminant farms to evaluate the welfare status of sheep and goats using animal-based indicators.

Study Period

The investigation was conducted from March to July 2025, a period characterized by high ambient temperatures, increased parasitic burden, and variability in feed resources. These seasonal factors are known to significantly influence the health and welfare of small ruminants.

Welfare Assessment Protocol

Welfare assessment was carried out using a modified Animal Welfare Indicators Network (AWIN, 2015) protocol for sheep and goats. The evaluation focused specifically on animalbased indicators, as they provide direct insight into the physiological condition and health status of animals. Initially, each flock was observed for approximately 20 minutes to assess general behaviour and condition. This was followed by individual animal assessments, with each animal examined for about 5 minutes to record specific health parameters.

Animal-Based Welfare Indicators

Scoring of indicators

All animal-based welfare indicators were scored using a structured coding system based on a modified AWIN (2015) protocol. Each indicator was assigned numerical categories to ensure uniformity and ease of statistical analysis. The classification and scoring scheme used for each parameter are presented in Table 1.

Statistical Analysis

The collected data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29). Descriptive statistical tools, including mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentage, were used to summarise the distribution and prevalence of animal-based welfare indicators.

Results

A total of 776 sheep and goats were assessed at the individual level using animal-based welfare indicators. Of these, 51.5% of the animals were reared under semi-intensive systems, while 48.5% were maintained under extensive production systems.

Assessment of body condition score (BCS) revealed that nearly half of the animals (49.5%) were in ideal condition. However, a considerable proportion of animals were classified as thin (34.7%), indicating potential nutritional deficiencies. Emaciated animals accounted for 5.5%, while only a small percentage were categorized as fat (9.5%) or obese (0.3%) presented below in table 2 Thermal stress assessment showed that 55.4% of animals were free from heat stress, whereas 34.1% experienced mild to moderate stress and 10.4% were severely affected. FAMACHA scoring indicated that only 16.1% of animals were in the optimal category, while a substantial proportion fell under acceptable (34.5%) and borderline (36.6%) categories. Alarmingly, 12.8% of animals were classified under danger and fatal categories, indicating significant anaemia.

Evaluation of human-animal interaction revealed that 49.1% of animals showed neutral behaviour, while 25.6% exhibited friendly responses and 25.3% demonstrated avoidance behaviour, reflecting variability in handling practices and levels of animal habituation.

Discussion

A total of 776 sheep and goats were evaluated using animalbased welfare indicators, providing insight into the health and management conditions of small ruminant production systems. Nearly half of the animals (49.5%) exhibited an ideal body condition score (BCS), indicating satisfactory nutritional status in a portion of the population. However, the high proportion of thin (34.7%) and emaciated (5.5%) animal's highlights underlying nutritional deficiencies and possible parasitic burdens, which are commonly reported in semiintensive and extensive systems (M'Hamdi et al., 2021; Nayak et al., 2021) [15,10] . The distribution of FAMACHA scores, with a considerable proportion of animals falling under borderline to fatal categories, further supports the presence of anaemia and internal parasitism. Lameness was identified as a major welfare concern, affecting 44.6% of animals in varying degrees. This is closely associated with the high prevalence of hoof overgrowth (43.2%), indicating inadequate hoof care and prolonged exposure to unsuitable walking conditions. Similar findings have been linked to pain, reduced mobility, and productivity losses (Hamer & Busin, 2020; Deeming et al., 2023) [11,12] . Hygiene-related indicators revealed that a large proportion of animals had dirty (43.2%) or matted coats (15.6%), along with faecal soiling (34.3%), suggesting poor environmental sanitation and parasite challenges. Comparable observations have been reported in smallholder systems with limited housing management (Atoma et al., 2024) [1] . [13] .

Thermal stress was evident in a substantial proportion of animals, with 34.1% showing mild to moderate stress and 10.4% severe stress, which is expected under semi-arid climatic conditions. Heat stress adversely affects physiological functions, immunity, and productivity. Behavioural assessment revealed that only 25.6% of animals exhibited friendly responses, while 25.3% avoided human contact, indicating variability in human-animal interactions.

Poor handling practices can increase fear and stress, negatively affecting welfare and productivity (Celozzi et al., 2022) [14] .

Conclusion

The study revealed that while some sheep and goats maintained acceptable welfare status, a considerable proportion showed signs of compromised health, nutrition, and management. Indicators such as low body condition, lameness, poor hygiene, ectoparasite infestation, and thermal stress highlight key welfare challenges under field conditions. The findings emphasize that animal-based indicators are effective tools for identifying on-farm welfare issues. Improving feeding practices, health care, parasite control, housing, and human-animal interactions is essential to enhance welfare, productivity, and sustainability in small ruminant farming systems.

References

1. Atoma T, Szonyi B, Haile AF, Fries R, Baumann MP, Randolph DG, et al. Assessment of health problems of sheep and goats based on ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection at Addis Ababa abattoir, Ethiopia. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2024;11:1406801.
2. Srinatha TN, Prashant P, Manish KL, Kiran SP, Naik PB, Hanji SS, et al. Market dynamics and profitability in small ruminant marketing in Southern Karnataka. Scientific Research and Reports. 2024;30(9):181-190.
3. Dhara KC, Banerjee D, Das PD, Datta A, Ghosh S. Sheep farming technology in Indian practice. In: Sheep farming-sustainability from traditional to precision production. 2024.
4. Koluman N. Goats and their role in climate change. Small Ruminant Research. 2023;228:107094.
5. Broom DM. Animal welfare concepts. In: Routledge handbook of animal welfare. Routledge; 2022:12-21.
6. Whay HR, Waterman AE, Webster AJF. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers. Veterinary Journal. 1997;154(2):155-161.
7. Hernández RO, Sánchez JA, Romero MH. Iceberg indicators for animal welfare in rural sheep farms using the five domains model approach. Animals. 2020;10(12):2273.
8. Nisan SN, Newas S. Welfare assessment of Black Bengal goat in small scale farming system. Chattogram Veterinary & Animal Sciences University; 2022.
9. Doyle RE, Campbell AJD, Dione MM, Woodruff ME, Munoz CA, Alemayehu G, et al. The role of animal welfare in improving the future of farming. Animal Production Science. 2022;62(11):937-943.
10. Nayak S, Rath PK, Panda SK, Mishra BP, Mishra R, Biswal SS. Etiopathological and hematobiochemical profiles in goats with gastrointestinal disorders. Veterinary World. 2021;14(7):1760-1760.
11. Hamer K, Busin V. Harnessing technology to control lameness in sheep. Veterinary Record. 2020;186(12):382383.
12. Deeming LE, Beausoleil NJ, Stafford KJ, Webster JR, Cox N, Zobel G. Evaluating the long-term conformation and hoof growth effects of starting hoof trimming at 5 months of age in dairy goats. Journal of Dairy Science. 2023;106(2):1065-1077.
13. Sejian V, Silpa MV, Reshma Nair MR, Devaraj C, Krishnan G, Bagath M, et al. Heat stress and goat welfare: Adaptation and production considerations. Animals. 2021;11(4):1021.
14. Celozzi S, Battini M, Prato-Previde E, Mattiello S. Humans and goats: Improving knowledge for a better relationship. Animals. 2022;12(6):774.
15. M'Hamdi N, Darej C, Attia K, Guesmi H, Znaïdi IEA, Bouraoui R, et al. Assessment of meat-type sheep welfare using animal-based measures. Animals. 2021;11(7):2120.