Evaluation of voluntary incentive-­based animal welfare programs to decrease antimicrobial use on source dairies and veal calf fattening operations

2021 ◽  
Vol 163 (9) ◽  
pp. 577-594
Author(s):  
J. Becker ◽  
A. van Aken
Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 1810
Author(s):  
Lara Moser ◽  
Jens Becker ◽  
Gertraud Schüpbach-Regula ◽  
Sarah Kiener ◽  
Sereina Grieder ◽  
...  

The “outdoor veal calf” system was developed to encounter the demand for a veal fattening system that allows for reducing antimicrobial use without impairing animal welfare. Management improvements including direct purchase, short transportation, vaccination, three-week quarantine in individual hutches, and open-air housing in small groups in a roofed, straw-bedded paddock with a group hutch were implemented in a prospective intervention study (1905 calves, 19 intervention and 19 control farms, over one year): antimicrobial use was five times lower in "outdoor veal" farms compared to control farms (p < 0.001), but it was crucial to ensure that antimicrobial treatment reduction was not associated with decreased animal welfare, i.e., that sick animals were not left untreated. Welfare was assessed monthly on the farms, and organs of 339 calves were examined after slaughter. Cough and nasal discharge were observed significantly (p ≤ 0.05) less often in intervention than in control farms, mortality (3.1% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.020) and lung lesion prevalence (26% vs. 46%, p < 0.001) were lower; no group difference was seen in abomasal lesion prevalence (65% vs. 72%). Thus, besides reduced antimicrobial use, calf health and welfare were improved in "outdoor veal calf" farms in comparison to traditional operations.


Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 1042
Author(s):  
Sirkka Schukat ◽  
Alina Kuhlmann ◽  
Heinke Heise

Farmers are considered a highly important stakeholder group for the successful implementation of higher farm animal welfare (FAW) standards, but so far little is known about their attitudes and the determinants of their participation in programs that request higher FAW standards. To close this research gap, fattening pig farmers in Germany were questioned via a large-scale online survey in 2018 (n = 239). Based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, a partial least squares path modeling (PLS) was run. Results show that the expected performance as well as the expected costs associated with the Initiative Animal Welfare (IAW) substantially influence fattening pig farmers’ behavioral intention to participate in the IAW. Furthermore, the decision is influenced by social determinants and facilitating conditions such as deadweight effects. Farmers’ hedonic motivation, fair remuneration and previous experiences with the establishment of higher FAW standards can influence their intention to take part in the IAW. In addition, farmers’ trust in the program is a major determinant. There are also moderating variables such as age and work experience that influence farmers’ intention to take part in the IAW. Our results have important managerial implications for the IAW and can help to design further tailor-made animal welfare programs (AWPs) that fulfill the requirements of both fattening pig farmers and the broader public not only in Germany but the European Union.


Author(s):  
V. V. Nedosekov ◽  
◽  
H. V. Petkun ◽  

Dairy animal welfare is of growing interest around the world, especially in developed countries, which have animal welfare programs and resources to establish optimal management systems for cows and understand that animal welfare is the foundation of innovative dairy farming. The article, based on the analysis, synthesis and generalization of world research and the results of own scientific expert assessment of animal welfare identifies the main problems of animal welfare on dairy farms, considers methods of assessing animal welfare in the world and substantiates the importance of implementing welfare programs and management protocols in dairy farming. Thus, in dairy farming, animal welfare is an important component based on world regulations. The analysis of regulations requires an understanding of the legislative aspects of different levels and examples of best practice: a) EU directives and practices, b) directives and practices of each European country c) national directives of non-EU countries, which must take into account all three legislative features. It has been shown that the EU has implemented a number of animal welfare acts, compromises between dairy producers and consumers on a number of instruments to harmonize law enforcement through audit, training, scientific expertise and consulting, and contributes to the stability of the EU food chain. In Ukraine, it is important to harmonize legislation with European Union norms and create a system for assessing the welfare of dairy animals, as well as information and educational activities and training on animal welfare on dairy farms for stakeholders and practical approaches to implementing animal welfare in production. We launched the European approach "Signals of cows" within the Ukrainian-Dutch project "Dairy farm", which allowed to work out the basic aspects of animal welfare in research farms NULES. In 2021, a new law on veterinary medicine was adopted, which implements 14 EU acts and includes a section on animal welfare, which is already a big step forward and opens new opportunities. However, in addition to the provisions on the welfare of calves (harmonization with Regulation 98/58 EC) do not consider regulations on the welfare of the dairy herd, which is not enough to develop the dairy industry in a global transformation. The article presents the basic indicators of welfare of cows, which are used in European countries and which we use in expert assessments. However, systemic data to assess the welfare of cows is not enough, because it is in the plane of consulting, which does not allow the analysis of the welfare of cows. In the context of globalization, the basic problem of animal welfare on dairy farms is the intensification, so the main welfare assessment programs (FARM, The Code of welfare, Welfare Quality and IDSW), which are widely used in milk production in accordance with current animal welfare standards. Intensification of animal husbandry, which provides greater economic efficiency, poses many threats to animal health and remains one of the biggest problems of animal welfare. The desire for profit reduces the ability to implement the principles of sustainable development. We consider it expedient to develop and implement programs for assessing the welfare of cows in Ukraine. So in the EU there is a voluntary WQ program that certifies producers and aims to meet the needs of society, develop a reliable monitoring system on farms and improve the welfare of cows in general. In New Zealand, the Code of welfare has been implemented, which forms awareness of farmers and care for animal welfare. Almost 98% of US farms are members of the FARM (USA) program, which is positioned as a voluntary program and a number of others. Thus, despite the fact that dairy farming is one of the strategic sectors of animal husbandry in Ukraine, the welfare of dairy farms is insufficiently studied and covered. In the perspective of research, it is important to analyze the experience of other countries in this area and the introduction of a system of welfare assessment, as well as the development and implementation of protocols on animal welfare in Ukraine based on the concept of "Five Freedoms". It is important to raise the awareness of stakeholders and officials to ensure proper compliance with EU animal welfare rules, taking into account national, regional and local networks, different support and understanding of the target audience (both farmers and producers, civil servants, scientists and educators, etc.). Also a priority is research on animal welfare, as well as the development of modern approaches to the legal provision of animal welfare, which will improve animal welfare. Thus, in order to ensure a high level of welfare of cows in relation to world standards of animal welfare, the priority is to assess the welfare of cows, improve the legal framework in Ukraine, further research in this area, implementation of effective programs to control the welfare of dairy animals.


Food Ethics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolin Winkel ◽  
Sirkka Schukat ◽  
Heinke Heise

AbstractThe subject animal welfare is increasingly in the public discourse. Consumers and policymakers are increasingly demanding products that are produced under increased animal welfare standards. The profession of the farmer involuntarily gets into disrepute. Many consumers want fundamental changes in pig farming, but are not aware of the consequences of implementation. In this representative study, consumers (n = 1101) were asked about their assessment of 33 animal welfare measures with regard to their importance and the feasibility of implementing those measures. With the help of a four-field matrix, both the perceived importance and the feasibility of the animal welfare measures surveyed were brought together. The results show four possibilities: important and easy to implement, important and not feasible, not important and easy to implement as well as not important and not feasible. The results show that any outdoor access to pasture ranks first, followed by any outdoor access to straw bedding. The results can make a significant contribution to future communication with critical consumers concerning the implementation of higher animal welfare levels, as it becomes clearer how realistic consumers are about the feasibility of several animal welfare measures. Furthermore, the results could prove useful for the design of animal welfare programs and could help famers making targeted decisions concerning stable construction and management.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessia Diana ◽  
Valentina Lorenzi ◽  
Mauro Penasa ◽  
Edoardo Magni ◽  
Giovanni L. Alborali ◽  
...  

AbstractAntimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock species and the associated antimicrobial resistance are a global concern, thus strategies for their reduction and a more judicious use are needed. Previous research has revealed a link between improved animal welfare, biosecurity and AMU reduction in pig and dairy sectors, however, little is known about the beef sector. This study aimed to investigate the impact of welfare standards and biosecurity on AMU in beef cattle. Data on performance traits and AMU were collected over a 3.5 year time from 27 specialised beef farms and a treatment incidence was calculated using the defined daily dose for animals. An on-farm assessment was carried out by assigning a score from 0 (very poor) to 100% (very good) to 3 sections: welfare, biosecurity and emergency management. The highest average score was obtained for the welfare section (76%) followed by emergency management (39%) and biosecurity (24%). This suggests that major focus on strategies for the implementation of biosecurity measures and emergency management is needed, due to the low scores reported. A statistically significant lower AMU was observed with improved level of welfare. These results may be helpful for farm benchmarking and highlight the importance of improved animal welfare for an efficient antimicrobial stewardship.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e0139536
Author(s):  
Alejandro Dorado-García ◽  
Haitske Graveland ◽  
Marian E. H. Bos ◽  
Koen M. Verstappen ◽  
Brigitte A. G. L. Van Cleef ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 1121-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heinke Heise ◽  
Ludwig Theuvsen

Farm animal welfare (FAW) is at the center of a controversial public debate, and the demand for higher farm animal welfare standards is growing. Nevertheless, there are hardly any dairy products from pure animal welfare programs (AWPs) on the market. Although dairy farmers are a very important stakeholder group for the successful implementation of AWPs, very little is known about their attitudes toward the introduction of such programs. For this study, 258 conventional dairy farmers in Germany were questioned about FAW and AWPs via an online survey. We identified five clusters (farmer groups) that significantly differ with regard to their attitudes toward AWPs, FAW, and their own willingness to improve the level of animal welfare or take part in specialized AWPs. Cluster A consists of farmers who strongly oppose AWPs; farmers in this cluster will probably not take part in AWPs, especially because they do not consider it profitable to do so. Farmers in cluster B also view AWPs and the associated market effects with some skepticism; however, they are willing to improve their level of animal welfare and, therefore, may someday become willing to participate in AWPs. Cluster C farmers have diverse attitudes toward AWPs; since they are slightly willing to improve the level of animal welfare on their farms and as they are comparatively most optimistic concerning the market effects of higher animal welfare standards, these farmers could also become AWP participants in the future. Farmers in cluster D have positive attitudes toward AWPs and show the highest willingness among the five clusters to improve animal welfare on their farms. However, when it comes to the market effects of higher national animal welfare standards and the market potential for more animal-friendly products, these farmers are the most skeptical; if the economic security of AWPs were guaranteed, Cluster D farmers would probably constitute an important target group. Farmers in cluster E have positive attitudes toward AWPs, show a high willingness to improve the own FAW, and tend to be less skeptical about the market effects of higher animal welfare standards; these farmers constitute the most important potential target group for AWPs. Our results can provide a starting point for the design of tailor-made AWPs that fulfill the requirements of both dairy farmers and the broader public.


2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 8-9
Author(s):  
Kristina Horback

Abstract California’s Proposition 12, also known as the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, will go into full effect starting in January 2022. This measure changes the minimum space requirement for egg-laying hens, calves raised for veal, and breeding sows within the state of California. These changes include housing that provides 1 to 1.5 square feet of floor space per hen within a cage-free system, 43 square feet of floor space per veal calf, and 24 square feet of floor space per sow. In addition, Proposition 12 would require producers to move the sows from gestation pens into farrowing crates for a maximum of 5 days before they are due to farrow. This measure also prohibits producers outside of California from importing their eggs, veal, or pork into the state unless they meet these minimum housing requirements. The goal of these requirements is to ensure that they animal can lie down, stand up, turn around, and fully extend their limbs without touching the sides of their stalls or another animal. While the intent of this new housing requirement may allow for a greater freedom of movement, animal welfare concerns are still prominent for group housing. For breeding sow, such concerns include injuries caused by social aggression, and, abnormal or harmful behaviors related to feed restriction. These welfare concerns can be addressed when considerations are given to the group composition (e.g., age and size of sows), pen mixing practices (e.g., pre or post breeding), feeding schedule [e.g., collective (trough, floor fed) or individual (electronic sow feeding, free access stalls)], and, pen structural quality (e.g., flooring, enrichment). Given that California represents approximately 15 percent of the American pork market, this measure will have considerable economic and ethical implications related to barn renovations, animal care staff training, and husbandry practices for the entire U.S. pork industry.


Agriculture ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 609
Author(s):  
Sirkka Schukat ◽  
Louisa von Plettenberg ◽  
Heinke Heise

In Europe, there is ongoing social criticism of conventional pig farming and demands for higher farm animal welfare standards. This applies primarily to products from pig production, as consumers criticize, among other things, the animals’ housing conditions, tail docking, neutering, or keeping them on slatted floors. Various animal welfare programs have tried to meet the consumers’ demands. Pig farmers are directly involved in the production process and are therefore key stakeholders for the successful implementation of animal welfare programs such as the German Initiative Animal Welfare. The Initiative Animal Welfare was founded in 2015 and serves as an example in this study, as it has been established for two rounds and involves high numbers of participants. However, little is known about the attitudes of pig farmers towards this specific animal welfare program. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate these attitudes towards animal welfare programs using the example of German pig producers and identify group differences. Based on an online survey of German conventional pig farmers, four clusters were formed which differ in their attitude to the Initiative Animal Welfare. Overall, all farmers, regardless of the cluster, feel publicly pressured by politics and the media. In addition, all farmers are skeptical about the effort involved in participating in the Initiative Animal Welfare (IAW), especially with regard to the additional documentation requirements and unannounced controls. The findings can provide guidance for the design of animal welfare programs taking into account the needs of farmers.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 543-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Purwins ◽  
Birgit Schulze-Ehlers

Despite frequent public criticism of modern husbandry practices, many animal welfare programs lack acceptance among both farmers and consumers. We contend that this lock-in originates from a lack of market orientation and consequential neglect of key stakeholders’ preferences in program design. Considering the case of a retailer-owned meat brand, we demonstrate the relevance of stakeholders’ inclusion when establishing animal welfare programs for pigs. Surveys among 62 farming members of a pig trading cooperative and 692 supermarket customers reveal the heterogeneity of beliefs and acceptance within both groups. While a Responsible Innovation approach, including key actors from the initial criteria selection, could be effective for raising acceptance, it would likely lead to lengthy time-to-market, prohibiting first-mover advantages. We suggest instead that beliefs and acceptance among farmers may be influenced through a communication strategy based on survey results and experimental research, as well as facilitating positive word-of-mouth.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document