Assessment of animal welfare status of livestock farming systems in Nagpur District of Maharashtra (India)

Introduction

As dairy farming has scaled up to meet global demand, cow welfare has become a major concern rather than just an afterthought (Fraser, 2008) [14] . Today, animal welfare is essential for farm productivity, as healthy cows thrive while poor conditions cause disease and heavy financial losses (Broom, 2010). Good welfare means a cow is physically and emotionally well, and protected from pain and distress by the "Five Freedoms" Freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from pain, injury and disease, Freedom from distress, Freedom from discomfort, Freedom to express behaviours that promote well-being. To measure this, modern farms evaluate both the environment, such as stall design, and the cow herself, focusing heavily on her hygiene and mobility (Blokhuis et al., 2010). Lameness stands out as one of the most painful and serious welfare issues a cow can face (OIE, 2019). Characterized by an abnormal gait due to foot or leg pain, it acts as a massive red flag indicating poor housing or unhygienic management (Cook, 2003) [10] . The fallout is incredibly costly for the farm, leading to a drop-in milk production, breeding problems, and early culling. Even slight limps increase a cow's stress and alter how she eats and rest, deeply compromising her overall quality of life (Whay et al., 2003). This painful condition is typically triggered by hard concrete floors, poor stalls, and wet, filthy environments that soften hooves and breed the infectious bacteria (Cook & Nordlund, 2009) [11] . The cleanliness of a dairy farm's flooring plays a massive role in the hoof health and overall mobility of the herd. When alleys and stalls are poorly managed, cows end up standing in wet manure and slurry, which physically softens their hooves and creates a perfect breeding ground for painful, infectious foot diseases (Cook, 2002). Farms with dirtier floors consistently record much higher locomotion scores, meaning more of their cows are visibly struggling to walk (Kara et al., 2011). Because of this strong link, keeping floors clean and dry isn't just about farm aesthetics; it is a critical, everyday necessity for preventing lameness and keeping the animals comfortable and productive (Relun et al., 2013). Dairy farms across India differ hugely in size, available resources and management styles. Small family-run farms usually stick to traditional housing, medium farms act as a middle ground with some improved Practices, and large commercial operations rely on fully mechanized systems (Birthal and Taneja, 2006; NDDB, 2022). Each setup impacts cow welfare in its own unique way. For instance, cows on smaller farms benefit from highly personalized care, but they might suffer because the farm lacks the budget for good infrastructure like proper drainage (Birthal and Taneja, 2006). On the flip side, larger farms might boast better facilities, but they struggle with overcrowding and can't monitor individual animals as closely (Barkema et al., 2015) [1] . Despite these clear differences, developing countries are still missing broad research that connects farm size to daily realities like housing, hygiene, and hoof health (WOAH, 2019). The Nagpur district in Maharashtra is a perfect place to fill this gap because it hosts such a diverse mix of farm sizes, management routines and farmer backgrounds. Comparing small, medium, and large operations here will help us figure out if scaling up a farm actually improves welfare or just introduces new stress factors. Furthermore, if the data shows a strong link between poor living conditions and lameness, it reinforces the idea that simply evaluating how a cow walks is a highly reliable way to check her overall well-being in the field (Whay et al., 2003). Ultimately, the dairy industry can only thrive long-term if it balances milk production with genuine animal care (Broom, 2010). That is exactly why this study was conducted to evaluate how everyday farming conditions directly affect cow welfare and mobility

Methodology

Location of the study: This research was conducted in and around the Nagpur district, located centrally on the Deccan Plateau in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. Widely known as the "Orange City" for its agricultural trade Sampling method: To get an accurate picture of the region's dairy landscape, the farms were selected using a stratified sampling method across ten different tehsils including Bhivapur (2), Hingana (9) Kalmeshwar (21), Kamptee (29), Katol (19), Kuhi (2), Mauda (2), Nagpur (2), Parshivni (2) and Umred (6) to capture both rural and periurban practices, total number of LFS under study was 94.The livestock farming systems were divided into three specific groups based on their total herd size: Small holders: <10 to 19> animals, Medium holders: 20 to 49 animals and Large holders: 50 < animals.

Data collection process

Information was gathered directly on the LFS through a combination of farmer interviews and hands-on observations. The research team measured the physical infrastructure of each farm, recording the dimensions of housing, as well as the space allocated for resting, feeding, watering, and milking. Alongside these environmental measurements, the researchers conducted on-the-spot evaluations of the cattle, scoring them on critical welfare indicators like lameness, body condition, overall hygiene, floor cleanliness, hock injuries and behavioural abnormalities.

Assessing dairy cattle welfare

To systematically evaluate the animals' well-being, the study utilized the Dairy Cattle Welfare Scale (DCWS), which was specifically adapted to suit Indian farming conditions (Kamboj and Kumar, 2016). Built upon an earlier integrated diagnostic framework, this scale uses 20 specific indicators that align with the globally recognized "Five Freedoms" of animal welfare (Calamari and Bertoni, 2009) [6] . To ensure a balanced assessment, these indicators evaluate both the farm's resources and the animals themselves, grouped into three weighted categories: Component A (Housing and Facilities): 6 environmental parameters, contributing up to 30 points. Component B (Feed and Feeding Practices): 4 management parameters, contributing up to 30 points. Component C (Health, Performance, and Behaviour): 10 direct, animal-based parameters, contributing up to 40 points.

Assessing lameness

To check the cows' mobility, the study used the widely trusted five-point scoring system created by Flower and Weary (2006) [13] . Cow walk was observed at a normal pace across a flat, non-slip surface, looking closely at her back posture and stride to spot any discomfort. Cows scoring a 1 or 2 were classified as non-lame. A score of 1 means the cow is completely sound with a level back and fluid strides, while a 2 indicates an imperfect gait where the back arches slightly only when walking.

Cows scoring between 3 and 5 were classified as lame. A 3 means mild lameness with a consistent back arch and a slight limp. A score of 4 points to moderate lameness, marked by short, stilted steps and a heavily arched back, finally, a 5 represents severe lameness, where the cow is extremely hesitant to move and might completely refuse to put weight on one of her legs.

Table 2:

The Lameness Score in cows recorded as per (Flower and Weary 2006) [13] Score Description of Gait and Posture 1 -Sound

The cow walks with a level back, showing long, fluid strides. All limbs bear weight evenly, and the hind feet land in or in front of the prints of the forefeet.

2-Imperfect Gait

The back is flat when standing but may show a slight arch when walking. Strides are slightly shortened, but the cow still tracks up (hind feet land near forefeet prints).

3-Mildly Lame

A consistent arch is visible in the back during both standing and walking. The cow shows a slight ""abnormal"" gait, often favoring one limb, and stride length is noticeably reduced 4 -Moderately Lame

The back is markedly arched. The cow is clearly hesitant to move and avoids bearing full weight on one or more affected limbs. Steps are short and ""stilted" 5-Severely Lame

The cow is extremely reluctant to move. It may refuse to bear any weight on one limb (three-legged gait) and exhibits a pronounced arched back at all times.

Evaluating floor cleanliness

To measure shed hygiene, the study relied on a four-point scale based on a Dairy Research Cleanliness Cluster Report 2011, which simply looks at the thickness of manure on the floor. A score of 0 means the floor is clean with barely a film of manure (under 0.5 cm), and a 1 means it is just a bit dirty with up to 1 cm of manure. These two were grouped together as the "Clean" category. On the flip side, a score of 2 means the floor is distinctly dirty with a 1 to 3 cm layer of manure. A 3 means the floor is very dirty, with manure over 3 cm thick enough to cover the toes of your rubber boots. Scores of 2 and 3 were grouped together as the "Dirty" category.

Statistical analysis

To make sense of all these observations, the data was analyzed using a suitable statistical procedure. The SPSS 20 software package was used to crunch the numbers, calculate standard errors and determine which findings were statistically significant.

Results and discussion

Welfare component scores

Component A: Out of a possible 30 points, the mean scores were 10.130±0.746 for small, 10.490±0.506 for medium and 13.455±0.509 for large farms, with a pooled average of 11.096±0.368. Large farms scored significantly higher because they have the budget for scientific infrastructure, while small farms rely on traditional setups. Overall, housing scored the lowest of all components, showing a region-wide lack of investment in proper facilities. The above observed results similar to previous studies (Deb et al., 2025; Sumer et al., 2024) [12] whereas, others studies reported different rankings (Mahla, 2018; Chandan, 2017; Kamboj and Kumar (2016) [19] . [12,18,19] . Component C: Interestingly, the trend flipped here. Out of 40 scores were 24.348±0.367 for small, 23.449±0.278 for medium, and 22.864±0.437 for large LFS, with a pooled score of 23.532±0.206. Small LFS scored significantly higher because fewer animals mean farmers can closely observe behaviour and catch diseases early. Large LFS struggle with this individual attention. This mirrors findings by Chandan (2017) and Kamboj and Kumar (2016), though Mahla (2018) [18,19] 2017) [7,16] , though others found medium LFS performing best (Deb et al., 2025) [12] or saw higher general averages (Kamboj and Kumar (2016; Mahala, 2018). Welfare Rank: The mean ranks were 2.870±0.070 for small, 2.837±0.053 for medium and 2.591±0.105 for large LFS (pooled 2.782±0.042). This indicates the vast majority of LFS fall into an "Average" welfare status, though large LFS rank slightly better, which aligns with previous observations (Sumer et al., 2024; Deb et al., 2025) [12] . [3] .

Correlations among components of overall welfare

Housing (Component A) is a massive driver of the Total Welfare Score (r = 0.750, p<0.01), echoing findings that infrastructure dictates a farm's overall quality (Barker et al., 2007) [2] . Feeding (Component B) was the second biggest contributor (r = 0.666, p<0.01), supporting the idea that nutrition is a welfare cornerstone (Broom, 2010). Health and behaviour (Component C) showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.362, p<0.01), which is typical for individual animal indicators (Bruijnis et al., 2012) [5] . [5] .

Correlations among lameness

Correlations lameness & floors cleanliness score:

There was a highly significant correlation between the Lameness Score and Floor Cleanliness Score (r = 0.371, p<0.01). Wet, dirty floors soften hooves and cause lesions, making hygiene a primary risk factor for lameness (Cook, 2002 [8,9,11,17] . Cows even change their gait on dirty floors to avoid slipping (Telezhenko, E. and Bergsten, C. (2005).

References

1. HW, von Keyserlingk MAG, Kastelic JP, Lam TJGM, Luby C, Sargent JP, Devries TJ. Invited review: Changes in the dairy industry affecting dairy cow health and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science. 2015; 98(11):7426-7445.
2. Barker ZE, Amory JR, Wright JL, Blowey RW, Green LE. Management factors associated with impaired locomotion in dairy cows in England and Wales. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007; 90(7):3270-3277.
3. Brenninkmeyer C, Dippel S, Brinkmann J, March S, Winckler C, Knierim U. Floor cleanliness in cubicle houses: Effects of design and management. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016; 99(6):4500-4512.
4. Broom DM. Animal welfare: An aspect of care, sustainability, and product quality. Animal. 2006; 4(5):703-711.
5. Bruijnis MR, Beerda B, Hogeveen H, Stassen EN. Assessing the welfare impact of foot disorders in dairy cattle by a modeling approach. Animal. 2012; 6(6):962970.
6. Calamari L, Bertoni G. A review: model to evaluate welfare in dairy cow farms. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2009; 8(Suppl):301-323.
7. Kumar CK, Kamboj ML, Chandra S, Kumar A. Dairy cattle welfare in India: a review. 2017.
8. Chaudhary S, Meena HR, Swain B. Effect of housing sanitation on welfare and health of dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Research. 2020;10(3):455-460.
9. Chaudhary S, Singh SV, Upadhyay RC. Impact of floor hygiene on hoof health in tropical dairy systems. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2020; 90(5):75-80.
10. Cook NB. Prevalence of lameness among dairy cattle in Wisconsin as a function of housing type and stall surface. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003; 223(9):1324-1328.
11. Cook NB, Nordlund KV. The influence of the environment on dairy cow behaviour, claw health and herd lameness dynamics. The Veterinary Journal. 2009; 179:360-369.
12. Deb D, Kalita G, Ranjana G, Abhishek P, Buragohain R, Das H. Welfare issues on dairy farms in Tripura, India, as identified through on-farm inspection. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2025; 1-13.
13. Flower FC, Weary DM. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science. 2006; 89(1):139-146.
14. Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare: The science in its cultural context. Wiley-Blackwell. 2008.
15. Kamboj ML, Kumar C. Ethological, management and welfare consideration for designing shelters for dairy animals. In: National seminar on New dimensional approaches for livestock productivity and profitability under era of climate change; 2014 Jan 28-30; AAU, Anand.
16. Kumar C, Kamboj ML, Chandra S. Welfare assessment of dairy farms based on animal-based indicator of welfare. Archives of Current Research International. 2025; 25(7):862-868.
17. Leach KA, Whay HR, Maggs CM, Barker ZE, Paul ES, Bell AK, Main DCJ. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Research in Veterinary Science. 2010;89(2):311-317.
18. Leach KA, Whay HR, Maggs PL, Main DCJ. Effects of hygiene on lameness prevalence. The Veterinary Journal. 2010;184(3):280-285.
19. Mahla V. Study on performance and welfare of dairy cattle in Punjab. Doctoral dissertation, ICAR-NDRI, Karnal. 2018.
20. National Dairy Development Board. Dairying in India: A statistical profile. 2022.
21. Patoliya P, Kataktalware MA, Raval K, Devi GL, Sivaram M, Praveen S, et al. Assessing lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in crossbred dairy cows across diverse management environments. BMC Veterinary Research. 2024; 20(1):229.
22. Schreiner DA, Ruegg PL. Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores and subclinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science. 2003; 86(11):3460-3465.
23. Sogstad ÅM, Østerås O, Fjeldaas T. Lameness associated with claw lesions in Norwegian dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2005; 70(3-4):209226.
24. Souza BS, Daros RR. Epidemiology of lameness in prepartum dairy heifers and its association with milk production, reproduction, and diseases in the postpartum period. Journal of Dairy Science. 2025; 108(8):8877-8886.
25. Souza R, Daros R. Behavioral and metabolic stress in lame heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2025; 270:106-115.
26. Sumer E, Kalita G, Goswami R, Rahman S, Ahmed FA, Chaudhary JK, Pakyntein S. Welfare status of crossbred dairy cattle in Khasi and Jaintia Hill Districts of Meghalaya. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2024; 13(10):5-9.
27. Telezhenko E, Bergsten C. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2005; 93(3-4):183-197.
28. Whay HR, Main DCJ, Green LE, Webster AJ. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animalbased measurements: Direct observation and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record. 2003; 153:197-202.
29. World Organisation for Animal Health. Terrestrial Animal Health Code: Animal welfare and dairy cattle production systems. 2019.