A veterinary expert announces in the trial of the Dos Torres cattle farmer accused of killing 36 cows that “all the cattle did not have access to water.”

The Public Prosecutor’s Office has made the indictment final and is requesting a sentence One year and eight months in prison This farmer was charged with pet abuse. The Public Prosecutor noted in his report that the accused kept the livestock for several days in a barn without sufficient water or grass, despite the fact that in an adjacent reserved plot of land – closed by a gate – there was a water well and abundant vegetation.

The Public Prosecutor confirmed that the farm owner, “through omission and compulsion to do so, did not allow the animals access to the third plot of land in May 2022, causing 36 of 96 cows “They will die of dehydration.”

The veterinary expert indicated in his testimony before the court that during the visit to this livestock farm during the inspection work with two Sebrona agents, when they arrived they were able to verify that “the animals did not enter the farm on time.” Near where there was water and grass“The bodies did not show an advanced state of decomposition,” indicating that the cows had died the day before or on those days, around the same time, due to lack of water. This expert veterinarian also stated that if the cage gate had been open, “they clearly would not have died.”

For its part, the farm owner’s defense denied any intention of ill-treatment on the part of his client, and confirmed that the access door to the area was supplied with water. Yes it was openAlthough he noted that it is a public road “with a lot of people passing by,” so it is possible that someone could close it.”

The defendant’s lawyer insisted that “it is not logical to believe that he is a rancher.” He was left to die for their animals, taking into account the resulting economic loss. In fact, the accused indicated that when Cibrona called him and told him there were dead cattle, he “froze.” “I’m a rancher, how can I let the cows die?” He declared in his defence.

The defense stressed that in any case this would be negligence or temporary abandonment, but “Without intent or intention to cause sufferingShe denounced that they “wanted to raise a media issue in which there was nothing,” referring to the complaint filed by the Pacman Animal Association.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office insisted on its final conclusions and requested a prison sentence One year and eight months in prisonKnowing that the facts have been proven and that the accused breached his duty of care by not ensuring that the livestock had access to water and food. The case was heard to pronounce the ruling.