Livestock Injury And Mortality Investigations A Reference Guide For: Fill & Download for Free

Sheltering of old, unproductive and abandoned cows in traditional cow shelters (gaushalas) is an ancient practice in India. Cows are venerated as mother goddesses by the Hindu majority population of the country and their slaughter is illegal in most states. Shelters are funded by the public, businesses, including corporate philanthropy, charitable societies, temple trusts and government. The manager of the shelter provides an interface between visitors, workers and cattle and is best able to understand the challenges of running shelters. The objective of this study was to collect and analyze information about the routine operations of the shelters and elicit managers’ attitudes towards cows and cow welfare. We visited 54 shelters, which admitted cattle all year, vaccinated them against endemic diseases and dewormed them. Limited biosecurity measures and erratic waste disposal raise concerns about public health. All the managers felt that the welfare of cows in their respective shelters was important and should be improved, but they were less certain that their knowledge of animal welfare was adequate. There was more recognition of local community support than government support and both were acknowledged to be more moral than financial support. Engagement and training of shelter managers as vital stakeholders in welfare improvement processes will enhance the sustainability of these traditional institutions.AbstractGaushala management is a specialized profession requiring particular skills relating to the management of cow shelters or gaushalas, which are traditional and ancient Indian institutions that shelter old, unproductive and abandoned cows, The 1800 registered cow shelters in India have managers who are important stakeholders in the management of cows in these unique institutions. It is important to survey the routine management of these shelters and attitudes of the managers towards cow welfare to identify the constraints and welfare issues. We visited 54 shelters in six states of India for a face-to-face structured interview of the managers. Quantitative data collection included questions on demographics, routine management operations, protocols followed in the shelters and attitudes of the managers towards cow welfare. All shelters except one were managed by males, half of them were in the age range of 45–65 years, were university graduates or post-graduates, with 5–15 years shelter management experience, and with the majority having lived in rural areas for most of their lives. Each shelter housed a median of 232 cattle were housed, out of which 13 were lactating cows. The majority of managers vaccinated their animals against endemic diseases like foot and mouth disease, haemorrhagic septicaemia and black quarter (gangraena emphysematosa) and administered endo-and ectoparasiticidal treatments, however, hardly any screened the cattle for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Only 17% of the shelters had in house veterinarians and most cows died of old age, with an annual mortality rate of 14%. The majority of the shelters allowed the cows to reproduce. Access to pasture was available in only 41% of the shelters, while most allowed some access to yards. Most (57%) had limited biosecurity measures, but 82% of the shelters disposed of the carcasses by deep burial on their own premises or through the municipality, with 18% disposing of them in open spaces or nearby creeks. About one half of the shelters maintained records of the protocols followed routinely. Charitable societies ran half of the shelters, mostly through public donations, with accounts audited regularly. Most managers thought that shelter cows’ welfare was important and that they should attempt to improve it. They were less in agreement that their knowledge of animal welfare was adequate. Local support, more moral than financial, was recognized more than government support. Managers perceived cow welfare as important from a religious perspective, citing the mother god and caring for abandoned animals as frequent themes in their definition of cow welfare. Caring for animals, mother and goddess were key elements in managers’ perception of animal welfare. The recommendations arising from this survey include that the shelter managers should be involved in the decision-making process for the welfare of cows in shelters, which is vital for the sustainability of these unique institutions. Welfare could be improved by strict compliance with biosecurity measures and disease surveillance protocols, avoidance of unrestricted reproduction in cows and separation of males and females.Keywords: shelters, cows, managers, survey, attitudes, welfare, India1. IntroductionIn India cows in their late lactation, with reduced production and competing with other cows for the costly feed, are often abandoned to the streets. In urban areas, they then forage on garbage dumps, potentially consuming plastics and wires, as well as potentially suffering fatal traffic injuries [1]. Abandoning of cows in streets is contentious as these cows are often injured, even causing human mortality, and potentially causing a public health risks to humans and animals [2,3]. According to the Indian government, stray animals caused 1604 road accidents in 2016, leading to 629 human deaths [4]. Stray cows in the roads and streets have specifically been implicated as the causes of these road accidents [5]. In the villages, crop-raiding by abandoned cows has led to human–animal conflict, with farmers sometimes having to abandon cropping and cows beaten and chased away. In this scenario, gaushalas are the only alternatives to shelter these stray cows, as a religious ban on cow slaughter is increasing their numbers every year.The sheltering of old, abandoned, unproductive, infertile and infirm cows in shelters, referred to as “Gaushalas” is a traditional practice in India. The exact origin of these shelters is not known but documentary evidence of their existence is available from the 3rd to 4th century BCE [6]. Over time they diversified, based on their religious affiliations and ownership [7]. Cows are worshipped as a mother goddess by many Hindus, who constitute the majority population. Cow slaughter is illegal in most Indian states [8,9]. Both the Muslim invasion and the later European colonization created socio-political conditions linking the cow with symbols of purity and Hindu identity. More recently, political parties strengthened the cow protection and cow sheltering movement [10,11,12]. Mahatma Gandhi emphasized the role of shelters in the economic growth of India rather than their religious role, by advocating the dairying and breeding of shelter cows based on the scientific principles [13]. In the early independence years, the role of gaushalas changed from sacred cow sanctuaries to potential breeding and dairying centers for high yielding cows, with active financial support from the government [14].India is the largest producer of milk and has the largest number of dairy cows in the world (58.5 million), as well as the largest cattle population (190.9 million). The last livestock census (2012) reported 5.2 million stray cattle [15]. In a government survey conducted in 1956 there were 1020 gaushalas in 21 states of India [16], which has grown to the current 1837 registered gaushalas, according to the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), the statutory body under the Government of India’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 (PCA, 1960). However, there are reports that the total number, including unregistered gaushalas, is approximately 5000 [17,18].Managers are employed by the trustees, charitable societies, temple trusts, municipalities or government, according to who owns the shelter. A two thousand-year-old Hindu text, the ‘Arthashastra’, describes the administration of gaushalas, including a position of ‘Godyaksa’ (Superintendent of Cows) [6]. Nowadays managers provide an interface with visitors, who come to donate, worship, feed or just see the cows. Managers have multiple roles, as cashiers, cattle and worker superintendents, and receptionists. Despite this, their attitudes towards cow welfare and gaushalas have never been studied. Studies investigating attitudes towards animal welfare issues are common in developed countries [19,20,21], including aspects of dairy farm management [22,23,24], and even dairy farms in India [25,26,27].The paucity of studies on gaushala management is evident [6,28,29], even though there are qualitative studies critical of the management of cow shelters in a philosophical context [9,12]. There is a lacuna in literature on the quantitative assessment of the routine management of cow shelters in the contemporary context, when the sheltering of cattle has gained importance in the wake of an increasing problem of street cows and the impetus for strengthening the shelters from the Indian government.Therefore, a survey was designed to collect and analyze information about the routine animal husbandry operations and practices of shelters and to elicit the attitudes of managers of the gaushalas to cows and their welfare. Information about the routine working of the gaushalas, husbandry practices followed, demographics of the sheltered animals, preventative health and biosecurity measures undertaken, income and expenditure of the gaushalas, constraints and visitor profile are important to objectively assess the welfare of the cows in these shelters. The opinions and attitudes of these managers towards cows and cow welfare is also important to provide feedback to the stakeholders—shelter owners, donors, trustees and the government. This feedback can help in initiating training programs and selecting appropriate candidates for recruitment as shelter managers.2. Materials and MethodsHuman ethics approval for this study was provided by the University of Queensland’s Human Ethics Committee (approval number 2016001243). Interviews were conducted with shelter managers between November 2016 and July 2017, as a part of a welfare assessment of cows in shelters in six states of India (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh) [30]. These states were selected on the basis of having the largest concentration of shelters in India and a tradition of sheltering cows (Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Punjab and Haryana) and one state (Himachal Pradesh), which was actively establishing cow shelters to tackle the stray cattle problem (Figure 1). As there is no list of all shelters in India, a list of shelters supported by the AWBI was used in the selection process, which was to an extent random but had to consider the logistics for visiting them. Local veterinarians and shelter staff helped in locating the shelters and introducing the interviewer to the managers. The local veterinarians and shelter staff had no role in influencing the managers’ responses to our questionnaire or in any other way affecting the assessment of the shelters. Each shelter manager of the 54 cow shelters assessed was interviewed for approximately 35 min, before assessing the animals and resources present for the objective assessment of the overall welfare of cows in shelters. The sample size of shelters (n = 54) was determined using a power calculation [31] which determined that 50 shelters would adequately represent the number of shelters in major Indian states having shelters. The study was designed to detect an odds ratio of 4 with a power of 0.8 and α = 0.05. The prerequisite for shelter selection was that they should be sheltering at least 30 cattle and should not be selling more than 20 litres of milk per day. A good geographical distribution of the shelters in each state was ensured for sampling in the study along with a mixture of good or bad shelters. Shelters were selected on the basis of recommendations of the AWBI, veterinarians working in the state animal husbandry departments and through a snowballing technique.Figure 1Figure 1Schematic map of India depicting states covered under the gaushala study.Questionnaire DesignInterviews with the shelter managers in Hindi were conducted using a questionnaire with multiple-choice, semi-closed and open-ended questions, to collect socio-demographic data, data about shelter management and husbandry practices and attitudinal data of the managers to cows and cow welfare (Appendix A). The first section had three screening questions about whether the shelter housed at least 30 animals, whether infertile, abandoned, rescued, stray, old and infirm cows were being sheltered, whether the shelter had any religious connection and age of the shelter. The second section on demographics asked their gender, usual place of residence, age, religion and religiosity and education level. They were then asked to describe their job in the shelter, their level of understanding and knowledge about cow shelters, source of gaining this knowledge, any animal welfare activity outside of the shelter, and the length of time they had spent working in that shelter. The third section addressed cattle numbers and cattle management: the number of lactating cows, mean milk yields, the proportion of horned cattle, the number of other cattle (bulls, bullocks, non-lactating cows and heifers, males and female calves, less than 6 months of age), the fate of calves born in the shelter (sold, donated or reared); vaccination and deworming practices, including frequency of use and for which pathogens; veterinarian involvement (in house or visiting; frequency of visits), number of male and female workers and the length of time they had worked there, whether there was induction training, whether the manager kept records, sold livestock products and ran a biogas plant at the shelter.The fourth section asked about the status of the shelter (public or private trust, government, charitable society, board of directors, municipality, individual or any other), the source of funding, annual income and expenditure, including whether audited, affiliation with the AWBI. The fifth section addressed husbandry: mortality and its major causes, whether colostrum was fed to calves, whether cows and calves were separated after birth, the cattle feeding regime, including whether visitors fed the cows, the time spent by the cattle outdoors in the yard or at pasture, whether the cows bred or not, and if they did the purpose of the breeding; whether there were any animal enrichment and/or biosecurity measures (the latter particularly during the introduction of new animals, disposal of carcasses, and isolation of diseased animals), the disposal of cow excreta, the maintenance of cows in segregated groups; use of loading/unloading ramps; whether animal experimentation was allowed; natural disasters plans; volunteering by the public, and any public relation or outreach activity done by the shelter.Finally managers responded to attitude questions on a Likert scale (1, strongly disagree to 5, strongly agree): the welfare of this gaushala’s cows is satisfactory and important to me; my knowledge of animal welfare is adequate; the feed the cows receive is adequate; I am willing to adopt measures that will improve the welfare of the cows, if provided to me; the local community and government financially and morally support the gaushala; I intend to make improvements to the welfare of the cows under my care; in the past I have tried to make improvements to the welfare of the cows in my care; the staff at this gaushala have a close relationship with the cows. Finally, an open-ended question was asked: what you understand by the term ‘welfare of cows’?3. Statistical AnalysisData was screened for errors, and analysis completed with statistical software [Minitab 17 Statistical Software (2010). State College, PA: Minitab, Inc. (Data Analysis, Statistical & Process Improvement Tools)]. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the questionnaire results and respondent demographics, complimentary data, and responses to attitude questions (refer Supplementary Materials) expressed as numbers and percentages.The association of the dependent variables, income of the shelter and mortality rate of cow shelter with various categorical and continuous independent variables was explored using a general linear model (GLM). Logistic regression analyses (either binary, nominal or ordinal, as appropriate to the response structure) were used to analyze the significance of relationships between type of administration, affiliation with AWBI and financial support of the government (which had Likert scale response), the income of the shelter, mortality rate, disease outbreaks in the last five years, biosecurity measures, breeding of cows in shelters, time cows spent outdoors, training of workers, frequency of veterinarian visits, frequency of deworming, ectoparasiticidal treatments and vaccination, numbers lactating cows in the shelters, total milk yield of the shelters and the total number of animals in the shelters. Cross tabulations between dependent variables and independent variables were also inspected, ensuring that all individual expected counts were ≥1. An iterative reweighted least squares algorithm with a logit link function was used in the models. All models achieved convergence. All probability values were considered significant at p < 0.05.The type of administration of the shelter (whether managed by a public trust, private trust, government or a charitable society), Affiliation with the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and Income of the shelter were used as outcome variables against animal health and welfare based variables: mortality rate, vaccination status, vaccination frequency, status and frequency of deworming and ectoparasiticidal treatment, total number of animals in the shelter, milk yield of cows in the shelter, number of dairy cows in the shelter, frequency of veterinarian visits to the shelter, training of workers, biosecurity measures for new cattle admitted, time spent by the cows outdoors and disease outbreaks in five years. According to the nature of outcome variable (continuous, binary or ordinal) GLM, ordinal or nominal regression models were used to explore associations between these variables.We used a one-way ANOVA to determine whether any significant differences in the responses to the twelve attitude questions existed. Each attitude question was taken as a response and the other 11 questions were used as factors with the possible answers to each question as levels of the factor variable (1, strongly disagree to 5, strongly agree). The level of significance was fixed at 5%. Tukey’s method was used to compare the means for each pair of factor levels to control the rate of type 1 error. Chi-square test for association was used to test for any differences in the disposal of male and female calves.Thematic analysis of the open-ended question about what the gaushala manager understood by the term ‘welfare of cows’ was conducted by a single thematic coder, using NVivo Pro 12 software (NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 12, 2018, Learn More About Data Analysis Software | NVivo). This extracted the main trends from the word frequency and word cloud functions. Conjunctives (such as ‘and’) and words which were irrelevant to the study theme (such as ‘a’ or ‘it’) were manually excluded from the output and the analysis repeated.4. Results4.1. Respondent DemographicsAll 54 shelter managers completed the questionnaire, a 100% response rate. There was only one female shelter manager. The majority of the managers had lived most of their lives in villages (63%), some in urban areas (28%), country towns (7%) and suburban areas (2%). Most were aged 46–55 years (26%), or over 65 years (22%), with fewer 36–45 years (18%), 56–65 years (17%), 26–35 years (15%) and 18–25 years (2%). Of the managers, 28%were university graduates, 24% were post-graduates, 21% ended their education after passing grade 12 and 9% at grade 10, 13% were diploma holders, and 5% were either below grade 10 pass or had no formal education.Almost all of the managers were Hindus (96.3%), with many considering themselves very (55.5%) or moderately (43%) religious. Nearly all (94%) considered their job as being team leaders supervising staff working directly with the cows; only 6% indicated that they worked directly with the cows. The majority of the managers (67%) believed themselves to have a good knowledge and understanding of cow shelters, 18% considered themselves to be experts, 13% considered that they had some knowledge and 2% little knowledge. A majority (81%) indicated that their knowledge of cow welfare came from hands-on experience of working on farms, 7% had formal qualifications on welfare, and 3% from newspapers, periodicals, television programs and the internet. Although most (59%) were not involved with any animal welfare organisations, some (61%) were involved in other animal welfare activities: animal activism, humane education or feeding stray animals. Only 30% were involved with professions unrelated to animal welfare before joining the shelters, 33% had a long experience of similar work in animal welfare, more than 15 years, followed by 21% between 5–9 years, 17% between 10–15 years, 13% between 2–3 years, 11% between 3–5 years and only 5% being there for less than a year. Of the managers, 28% had spent 10–15 years working at their current shelter, followed by 19% 3–5 years, 17% 5–9 years, 17% >15 years, 13% 2–3 years and 7% < one year.4.2. Establishment of the Shelters and Their Financial PerformanceHalf of the managers reported the shelter’s religious connection to Hinduism (27 shelters), 11% to Jainism, 9% to Jainism and Hinduism, 8% to others (Sikhism and Islam), and 22% had no religious connection. The oldest shelter in our study was established in the year 1766 according to the records available to the shelter managers, five shelters were established in the 19th century, five in the first half of the 20th century and the rest were established in the second half of the 20th century and in the 21st century. Almost half of the shelters (48%) visited in this study were administered through charitable societies, 33% by public trusts, 13% by private trusts and the rest (6%) by government, municipalities or temple trusts. Philanthropy by the public, business houses, trusts and funding by the state governments were the principal sources of funding for the shelters. Only 46% of the shelters were affiliated to the AWBI. Regular auditing of the shelter funds was done in 96% of the shelters.Out of the 54 shelter managers interviewed in the study, 50 provided the estimated income and expenditure of their shelters. The median annual expenditure of the shelters was 3,525,000 Indian rupees (approximately US$ 50,000). The median annual income was 125,000 rupees (approximately US$ 1800). The maximum annual expenditure being incurred by a shelter was 150,000,000 Indian rupees (approximately US$ 2,000,000). In addition, five of the shelters reported no incomes and the maximum annual income reported was 12,444,000 Indian rupees (approximately US$ 174,000).Income was provided by sales of milk, manure, urine and hides. Milk was sold in only 37% of the shelters, and most of the milk produced was distributed free of cost to the workers by the gaushala managers. Dung was sold as manure in 54% of the shelters. Partial disposal of dung by shelters was done in the form of donation of manure free of charge to the local farmers (37%), sale as manure alone (37%) and sale as vermicompost and manure (17%). Biogas as an alternative dung-generated fuel was produced in only 19% of the shelters. In 9% of the shelters dung was not disposed of but left lying as a mound within the shelter premises. In the case of urine, 76% of the shelters just let it drain off without proper sewerage facilities to treat the slurry, and 24% of the shelters collected urine to use as a biopesticide or in traditional medicine. Hides of dead animals were sold in 11% of the shelters.Recording of milk yield in the shelters was done only in half of the shelters. Calving and mortality records were maintained in 63% and 81% of the shelters, respectively. Health records were maintained in 80% of the shelters. An inventory of veterinary drugs was maintained in 76% of the shelters. Feed records were maintained in 91% of the shelters, while 76% of the shelters maintained records of any sales.4.3. Cattle, Worker and Visitor DemographicsThe median number of animals housed in the shelters was 232. The median number of cows, heifers, bulls, bullocks, female and male calves were 137, 48, 12, 9, 11 and 15, respectively. The median number of lactating cows in the shelters was 13, with a median milk yield of 12 l/d/ shelter. Nearly all (90%) cattle were horned. In each shelter the calves were usually reared there (mean/shelter/year, n = 64, 59% of total calves), some donated to villagers if requested (n = 31, 29%) and a small proportion sold (n = 13, 12%), with no significant difference between males and females (Chi Square = 0.98, p = 0.61).The median number of male workers was six and females two, with 32% of the shelters having no female worker. The maximum number of male and female workers in a shelter was 300 and 110, respectively. Induction training of the workers was performed in 65% of the shelters. Anecdotally, we were told that females more often worked in those shelters that provided worker accommodation within the shelter premises.Regular volunteering in the shelters by the local public was reported in 30% of the shelters, occasional volunteering in 26% of the shelters and the absence of volunteering in 44%. In order to have an outreach to the public, 72% of the shelters organized activities such as the celebration of cow specific holy festivals (like ‘gau ashtami’, ‘govardhan pooja’), recitation of religious scriptures by saints, open days and community feasts, according to their financial capacities.All shelters allowed visits for a variety of purposes: exclusively for religious reasons was reported by 9% of the managers, 39% for seeing or feeding the cows and 52% for all the above reasons. Most of the shelters (98%) did not allow anyone to conduct experiments on their animals. Nearly all shelters (96%) allowed visitors to feed the cattle, and 87% of the shelters monitored it. Most of the shelters allowed feeding of homemade food to cows by the visitors after proper monitoring of the contents of the food. However, on special occasions, there were more visitors offering food to the cows.4.4. Health Management, Breeding, Housing and Disaster ManagementAlmost all the shelters (96%) vaccinated their cattle against foot and mouth disease (FMD), haemorrhagic septicaemia (HS) and black quarter disease (BQ) in 85% of the shelters and FMD and HS only in 11%. There was only one shelter that vaccinated against brucellosis along with the other diseases, and one shelter did not vaccinate their animals at all. Most of the shelters (81%) vaccinated the cattle twice a year and 15% thrice a year. Endoparasiticidal treatment was given biannually in 35% of the shelters, three times a year in 17%, four times a year in 30%, once a year in 5% and three shelters never gave it. Regular schedules of endo and ectoparasiticidal treatment were used by 7% and 50% of shelters, respectively. In addition, 21% of the shelters treated four times a year, 11% twice a year, 5% three times a year, 3% once a year and 7% of the shelters never treated with either parasiticidal treatment.Only 17% of the shelters employed in-house veterinarians but a further 26% had veterinarians on call. Some 13% of the shelters had daily veterinarian visits, 13% weekly, 13% fortnightly and 5% monthly visits. The median mortality rate of the cattle in shelters was 30 animals/year or 13.8%. Old age was ranked as the main cause of mortality (53%), followed by animals brought in in a moribund state (28%), disease (8.5%), chronic debility (5.5%), other causes (3%, such as fatal injuries due to fights within herd mates, impaction of the gastrointestinal tract with plastics) and malnutrition/ fodder shortage (2%).Biosecurity measures in the shelters in the form of separate sheds, were followed in 57% of the shelters during the introduction of new animals, isolation wards for separating and treating sick cows (72%); disposal of carcasses took place by deep burial within the shelter premises in 43% of the shelters, whereas 39% shelters allowed the municipalities to dispose of the carcasses. However, 18% of the shelters left the carcasses in the open or just threw them in a nearby creek or ravine. Disease outbreaks in the last five years, predominantly FMD, were reported by 43% of the shelters.The majority of the shelters (91%) allowed the cows to reproduce; 44% of which was mating by bulls housed with the cows and 44% was planned, with cows taken to bulls when oestrus was observed. The purposes of breeding was usually (56%) for indigenous breed conservation, breed improvement and increased productivity; with 44% allowing it without any purpose. Colostrum was fed to all calves born in the shelters and 94% of the shelters fed it immediately after the birth. Calves were kept with their mothers in most (57%) shelters. In 68% of shelters the cows were segregated into different sheds according to their age and length of stay. Access to pastures was available only in 41% of the shelters, whereas 81% had access to yards. Approximately the same proportion of shelters sent their cows outdoors to the yards for less than (46%) and more than (44%) 6 h. Cows were not allowed outdoors in 9% of the shelters, mostly due to the absence of yards and pastures. Loading and unloading ramps for the cows were available in 57% of the shelters.Most shelter managers (76%) expressed ignorance about any disaster management plans for their shelters, and 74% believed that their shelter was not located in a disaster-prone area (areas prone to flooding, avalanches, landslides, and bushfires). Animal enrichment measures were employed in 52% of the shelters but were mostly restricted to the provision of playing devotional music.4.5. Association of Shelter Administration, Affiliation, Income and Financial Support of Government with Various Health and Welfare ParametersNo significant association was observed between the income of the shelters with other independent variables using a General Linear Model, though there was a trend towards shelters affiliated to the AWBI having more income (p = 0.07). There was a significant positive association between the mortality rates with total milk yield/day (SE of coefficient = 0.001, F = 10.37, p = 0.004) and presence of an in-house veterinarian (SE of coefficient = 166, F = 4.86, p = 0.002). The r2 (adjusted) for the model was 61%.There was a significant association between the type of administration of the shelters (government, public trust, private trust or a charitable society) and the presence of biosecurity measures for newly admitted animals (OR = 18.94, 95% CI 2.73–131.22, p-value 0.003). Shelters run by charitable societies were less likely (10/26) to use biosecurity measures for newly admitted animals than the public trust run shelters (14/18). Acknowledgement by the managers of financial support of the government to the shelters was associated with frequency of vaccination (OR = 10.23, 95% CI 1.34–78.15, p = 0.02). Those shelters that disagreed that government provided financial support were relatively more likely to vaccinate their cattle twice a year (5/13) than those who agreed that government provided financial support (3/21).4.6. Attitude of Managers to Cow Welfare and Support for the ShelterManagers’ attitudes are presented as bar charts (Figure 2), with comparison between mean responses presented in Appendix B. Most managers agreed that welfare was important to them (Figure 2), that they were willing to adopt measures to improve welfare, that feed was adequate and that they had made or intended to make welfare improvements. There was less agreement that their knowledge of animal welfare was adequate and that the local community morally supported the shelter. There was only marginal agreement that the local community morally and financially supported the shelter and that the government morally supported the shelter. There was no clear agreement that government financially supported the shelter.