# Environmental Variables in the Mexican Tropics and Their Relationship to Management and Welfare in Crossbreed Zebu Cattle

## TL;DR

This study evaluates animal welfare in crossbreed Zebu cattle raised in the Mexican tropics, finding better conditions during the rainy season.

## Contribution

The study adapts and modifies the Welfare Quality protocol for tropical beef cattle management and introduces six new welfare indicators.

## Key findings

- Animal welfare indicators were better during the rainy season compared to the dry season.
- Modifications to the Welfare Quality protocol included prolonged absence of thirst and six new indicators for housing, health, and behavior.
- Welfare scores for feeding and behavior were significantly lower during the dry season.

## Abstract

Producing animal-based foods is a challenge for the agricultural sector due to growing human demand. This imbalance between supply and demand has led to an intensification of animal husbandry that is driven solely by economic interests, neglecting animal welfare and the humane treatment of animals raised for food. This document presents a study to measure the welfare conditions in which beef cattle live and are raised on small production units. The methodology used was the welfare quality protocol, adapted to livestock farming on grazing and predominant environmental and management conditions in the two-year seasons (rainy and dry).

Most animal welfare (AW) assessment protocols have been developed for intensive production systems and European cattle, raising concerns about their applicability in the tropics. To compare the results obtained by using the welfare quality (WQ) assessment for fattening cattle in the dry tropics, relevant modifications were implemented in 20 cattle production units (PUs) during the dry (DS) and rainy (RS) seasons. Regarding the principle of good feeding, only during the RS, between 20% and 25% of the farms maintained their animals in the acceptable and good categories, compared to the DS, where all PUs were classified as unacceptable (p < 0.04). Under the “Appropriate Behavior” principle, only 15% and 60% of the PUs maintained their animals at good and acceptable levels, respectively, in the RS, but not in the DS (p < 0.001). Conversely, during the DS, better scores were obtained for the measures and criteria in the Good housing group, with 45%, 50%, and 5% of PU classified as acceptable, good, and excellent, respectively, while for the RS, only 15%, 30%, and 5% reached these levels (p < 0.01). Meanwhile, under the “Good Health” principle, better animal health scores were observed during the RS, with 20%, 30%, and 50% of farms classified as acceptable, good, and excellent, compared to the DS, where only 70% and 10% of farms maintained their animals at good and excellent levels (p < 0.01). It is concluded that better animal welfare (AW) indicators were recorded during the RS, and the adjustments we applied to the conventional WQ protocol comprised a modification for the criterion that included the prolonged absence of thirst as well as adding six new indicators (measures) to the principles of housing, health, and behavior, which are considered essential for evaluating AW in cattle that are managed under extensive conditions by season.