Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:25:47.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare and management practices of free-ranging yaks (Bos grunniens) in Bhutan

Part of: AWF Wild Animal Welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

N Dorji ,
M Derks ,
PWG Groot Koerkamp  and
EAM Bokkers
N Dorji*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, College of Natural Resources, Royal University of Bhutan, Lobesa, Bhutan
M Derks
Affiliation:
Farm Technology Group, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
PWG Groot Koerkamp
Affiliation:
Farm Technology Group, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
EAM Bokkers
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence: [email protected]/[email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Inaccessibility of veterinary and livestock extension services, and shortages of labour and forage could potentially impact the welfare of yaks (Bos grunniens) in Bhutan. The objective of this study was to assess practices relating to the welfare and management of free-ranging yaks in Bhutan and explore variations between different yak-farming regions. We interviewed herders and observed the behaviour and health status of their animals, using an adaptation of the Welfare Quality® protocol, in three yak-farming regions (east, central and west) of Bhutan between October 2018 and January 2019. In total, for 567 cows and 549 calves, integumentary condition, body cleanliness, ocular and nasal discharge, diarrhoea, signs of damage, and gait were scored. In addition, we assessed 324 cows and 272 calves for avoidance distance and examined 324 cows for subclinical mastitis. The behaviour of the herds was observed in six consecutive 20-min blocks with each block divided into two stages. The first stage (5 min) consisted of counting the number of animals eating, lying down, standing idle and walking. The second stage (15 min) consisted of counting the number of events of agonistic, allogrooming, flehming, self-licking, rubbing/scratching and playing behaviour. Avoidance distance differed between regions for calves, but not for lactating cows. Integumentary lesions, dirty body areas, nasal discharge, ocular discharge, signs of diarrhoea, subclinical mastitis and lameness were virtually absent. A few instances of agonistic behaviour (6% of all counted behavioural events) and flehming behaviour (5% of all counted behavioural events) were observed. Yaks in the central and western regions exhibited more scratching and rubbing behaviour than those in the eastern region. Herders perform a variety of painful management practices (castration, ear tagging, nasal septum piercing) without analgesia, which is a prominent welfare issue. Furthermore, mortality among yaks is relatively high and water sources often dirty, creating a health risk. Nevertheless, the welfare status of yaks living in various regions of Bhutan was assessed as good at the time of visit.

Keywords

animal healthanimal welfarebehaviourlivelihoodpastoralistsyak
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , November 2022 , pp. 467 - 481
Copyright
© 2022 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Alam, MR, Gregory, NG, Uddin, MS, Jabbar, MA, Chowdhury, S, Sharmin, and Debnath, NC 2010 Frequency of nose and tail injuries in cattle and water buffalo at livestock markets in Bangladesh. Animal Welfare 19: 295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC and Mitchell, LA 2018 Understanding human and other animal behaviour: Ethology, welfare and food policy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 205: 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arave, CW and Albright, JL 1981 Cattle behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 64: 1318–1329CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, BM and Walker, SC 2015 lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using Eigen and S4 R Package Version 1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4Google Scholar
Battini, M, Andreoli, E, Barbieri, S and Mattiello, S 2011 Longterm stability of avoidance distance tests for on-farm assessment of dairy cow relationship to humans in alpine traditional husbandry systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135: 267–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertenshaw, C and Rowlinson, P 2009 Exploring stock managers’ perceptions of the human-animal relationship on dairy farms and an association with milk production. Anthrozoös 22: 59–69. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303708X390473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolker, BM, Brooks, ME, Clark, CJ, Geange, SW, Poulsen, JR, Stevens, MHH and White, JSS 2009 Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buzzard, PJ, Xu, D and Li, H 2014 Sexual/aggressive behavior of wild yak (Bos mutus Prejevalsky 1883) during the rut: influence of female choice. Chinese Science Bulletin 59: 2756–2763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-014-0247-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derville, M and Bonnemaire, J 2010 Marginalisation of yak herders in Bhutan: can public policy generate new stabilities that can support the transformation of their skills and organisations? and bonds to territories: a case study in France and Brazil. In: Coudel, E, Devautour, H, Soulard, C and Hubert, B (eds) Proceedings of the ISDA 2010 pp 10. Cirad-Inra-SupAgro: Montpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar
Dhendup, R 2015 Phenotypic characterization of yak hybrids (Dzo and Dzom) at Sakteng gewog. Department of Animal Science pp 68. College of Natural Resources, Royal University of Bhutan: Lobesa, Punakha, BhutanGoogle Scholar
des Roches, AB, Veissier, I, Boivin, X, Gilot-Fromont, E and Mounier, L 2016 A prospective exploration of farm, farmer, and animal characteristics in human-animal relationships: An epidemiological survey. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 5573–5585. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinno, A 2017 Dunn's test of multiple comparisons using rank sums. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dunn.test/dunn.test.pdfGoogle Scholar
DoL 2018 Livestock Statistics 2018 pp 342. Ministry of Agriculture and Forests: Thimphu: BhutanGoogle Scholar
Dorji, N, Derks, M, Dorji, P, Groot Koerkamp, PWG and Bokkers, EAM 2020 Herders and livestock professionals’ experiences and perceptions on developments and challenges in yak farming in Bhutan. Animal Production Science 60: 2004–2020. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN19090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebinghaus, A, Ivemeyer, S, Rupp, J and Knierim, U 2016 Identification and development of measures suitable as potential breeding traits regarding dairy cows’ reactivity towards humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 185: 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.09.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonson, AJ, Lean, IJ, Weaver, LD, Farver, T and Webster, G 1989 A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, FC and Weary, DM 2006 Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 139–146. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, J and Weisberg, S 2019 An R Companion to Applied Regression, Third Edition. Sage Publications: CA, USAGoogle Scholar
Gyamtsho, P 2000 Economy of yak herders. Journal of Bhutan Studies 2: 1–45Google Scholar
Hernandez, A, Berg, C, Westin, R and Galina, C 2018 Seasonal differences in animal welfare assessment of family farming dualpurpose cattle raised under tropical conditions. Animals 8: 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8070125CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herzog, HA, Betchart, NS and Pittman, RB 1991 Gender, sex role orientation, and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoös 4: 184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiliç, I and Bozkurt, Z 2013 The relationship between farmers’ perceptions and animal welfare standards in sheep farms. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 26: 1329–1338CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensink, J, Boissy, A and Veissier, I 2000 The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales Zootechnie 49: 313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, RV 2016 Least-Squares Means: The R Package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software 69: 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, P, Ding, L, Zhou, Y, Jing, X and Degen, AA 2019 Behavioural characteristics of yaks grazing summer and winter pastures on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 218: 1048262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luming, D, Ruijun, L, Zhanhuan, S, Changting, W, Yuhai, Y and Songhe, X 2008 Feeding behaviour of yaks on spring, transitional, summer and winter pasture in the alpine region of the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111: 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lürzel, S, Barth, K, Windschnurer, I, Futschik, A and Waiblinger, S 2018 The influence of gentle interactions with an experimenter during milking on dairy cows’ avoidance distance and milk yield, flow and composition. Animal 12: 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117001495CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mishra, N, Vilcek, S, Rajukumar, K, Dubey, R, Tiwari, A, Galav, V and Pradhan, HK 2008 Identification of bovine viral diarrhea virus type 1 in yaks (Bos poephagus grunniens) in the Himalayan region. Research in Veterinary Science 84: 507–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2007.05.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooring, M and Samuel, W 1998 Tick defense strategies in Bison: the role of grooming and hair coat. Behaviour 135(6): 693–718. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853998792640413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norring, M, Mintline, EM and Tucker, CB 2017 The age of surgical castration affects the healing process in beef calves. Translational Animal Science 1: 358–366. https://doi.org/10.2527/tas2017.0044CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popescu, S, Borda, C, Diugan, EA, Spinu, M, Groza, IS and Sandru, CD 2013 Dairy cows welfare quality in tie-stall housing system with or without access to exercise. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 55: 43–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qin, S, Zhang, X, Zhao, G, Zhou, D, Yin, M, Zhao, Q and Zhu, X 2014 First report of Cryptosporidium spp in white yaks in China. Parasites & Vectors 7: 230CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Team Core 2018 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Ripley, B, Venables, B, Bates, DM, Hornik, K, Gebhardt, A, Firth, D and Ripley, MB 2013 Package ‘MASS’, Cran R. http://www2.uaem.mx/r-mirror/web/packages/MASS/MASS.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sargeant, JM, Leslie, KE, Shirley, JE, Pulkrabek, BJ and Lim, GH 2001 Sensitivity and specificity of somatic cell count and California Mastitis Test for identifying intramammary infection in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 2018–2024. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74645-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sato, S, Sako, S and Maeda, A 1991 Social licking patterns in cattle (Bos taurus): influence of environmental and social factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevá, AD, Pena, HF, Nava, A, Sousa, AO, Holsback, L and Soares, RM 2018 Endoparasites in domestic animals surrounding an Atlantic Forest remnant, in São Paulo State, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Parasitology 27(1): 13–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1984-29612017078.Google ScholarPubMed
Stafford, KJ and Mellor, DJ 2005 The welfare significance of the castration of cattle: A review. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 53(5): 271–278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tshering, P 2015 Seasonal prevalence of parasites in yak (Bos grunniens) in Sakteng geog. Department of Animal Science pp 50. College of Natural Resources, Royal University of Bhutan: Lobesa, Punakha, BhutanGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, MAMJ, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006 Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 185–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wangchuk, K and Wangdi, J 2015 Mountain pastoralism in transition: Consequences of legalizing Cordyceps collection on yak farming practices in Bhutan. Pastoralism 5: 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-015-0025-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wiener, G, Jianlin, H and Ruijun, L 2003 The Yak, 2nd Edition. FAO: Bangkok, ThailandGoogle Scholar
Windschnurer, I, Schmied, C, Boivin, X and Waiblinger, S 2008 Reliability and inter-test relationship of tests for on-farm assessment of dairy cows’ relationship to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114: 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuliani, A, Mair, M, Kraševec, M, Lora, I, Brscic, M, Cozzi, G, Leeb, C, Zupan, M, Winckler, C and Bovolenta, S 2018 A survey of selected animal-based measures of dairy cattle welfare in the Eastern Alps: Toward context-based thresholds. Journal of Dairy Science 101: 1428–1436. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13257CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zi, XD 2003 Reproduction in female yaks (Bos grunniens) and opportunities for improvement. Theriogenology 59: 1303–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(02)01172-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Dorji et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 157.5 KB