scholarly journals Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow–Calf Welfare in Namibia: Part 1: Comparison between Farm Production System’s Effect on the Welfare of Beef Cows

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yolande Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Kevin Stafford
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Export Market ◽  
Grazing Land ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Commercial Farms ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Semi Arid ◽  
Arid Rangeland

A proposed animal welfare assessment protocol for semi-arid rangeland-based cow–calf systems in Namibia combined 40 measures from a protocol developed for beef cattle in New Zealand with additional Namibia-specific measures. Preliminary validation of the protocol had been undertaken with five herds in one semi-commercial village. The aim of the current study was to apply this protocol and compare animal welfare across three cow–calf production systems in Namibia. A total of 2529 beef cows were evaluated during pregnancy testing in the yards of 17 commercial, 20 semi-commercial, and 18 communal (total: 55) herds followed by an assessment of farm resources and a questionnaire-guided interview. Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate the difference in the welfare scores between the production systems. The results indicated a discrepancy of animal welfare between the three farm types, with a marked separation of commercial farms from semi-commercial, and communal village farms in the least. The differences in these production systems were mainly driven by economic gains through access to better beef export market for commercial farms and semi-commercial villages, as well as by the differences in the available grazing land, facility designs/quality, and traditional customs in the village systems. The results indicate an advantage of commercialization over communalization.

scholarly journals Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia: Part 1: Comparison between farm production system’s effect on the welfare of beef cows

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Kevin Stafford
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Export Market ◽  
Grazing Land ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Commercial Farms ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Semi Arid ◽  
Arid Rangeland

A proposed animal welfare assessment protocol for semi-arid rangeland-based cow-calf systems in Namibia combined 40 measures from a protocol developed for beef cattle in New Zealand with additional Namibia-specific measures. Preliminary validation of the protocol had been undertaken with five herds in one semi-commercial village. The aim of the current study was to apply this protocol and compare animal welfare across three cow-calf production systems in Namibia. A total of 2529 beef cows were evaluated during pregnancy testing in the yards of 17 commercial, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal (total: 55) herds followed by an assessment of farm resources and a questionnaire-guided interview. Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate the difference in the welfare scores between the production systems. The results indicated a discrepancy of animal welfare between the three farm types, with a marked separation of commercial farms from semi-commercial, and communal village farms in the least. The differences in these production systems was mainly driven by economic gains through access to better beef export market for commercial farms and semi-commercial villages, as well as by the differences in the available grazing land, facility designs/quality and traditional customs in the village systems. The results indicate an advantage of commercialisation over communalisation.

scholarly journals Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 250
Author(s):  
Yolande Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Kevin Stafford
Keyword(s):  
Production Systems ◽  
Cattle Breed ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Beef Cow ◽  
Commercial Farms ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Continuous Measures ◽  
Farm Types

This paper aims to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for assessing beef farms in various beef cow-calf production systems in Namibia. Forty measures, combined from a New Zealand-based protocol plus Namibia-specific measures, are applied to 55 beef farms (17 commercial farms, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal village farms) during pregnancy testing, and a questionnaire guided interview. The categorised measures on a 3-point welfare score (0: good, 1: marginal, and 2: poor/unacceptable welfare) are subsequently compared with the derivation of thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of herds for each measure. The overall combined thresholds of continuous measures across the three farm types show 10/22 measures that posed welfare compromise across Namibia, whereas commercial farms have 4/22 measures, and semi-commercial and communal village farms have 12/22 and 11/22, respectively, with high thresholds. Most measures-imposed thresholds are retained because of significant importance to the welfare of animals and preventiveness of the traits, while leniency was given to adjust good feeding and mortality measures to signify periods of drought. Handling measures (fearful, falling/lying) and abrasions thresholds are adjusted to reflect the temporary stress caused by infrequent cattle handling, and faulty yard designs/design and possible cattle breed influence on handling. Hence, Namibia needs prioritised investigation of underlying contributing factors and remediation to reduce the high thresholds.

scholarly journals Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and scoring of welfare assessment measures

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Kevin Stafford
Keyword(s):  
Production Systems ◽  
Cattle Breed ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Beef Cow ◽  
Commercial Farms ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Continuous Measures ◽  
Farm Types

The study aimed to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol, by validating potential categorisation thresholds for assessment of beef farms in various beef cow-calf production systems in Namibia. Forty measures combined from a New Zealand-based protocol plus Namibia-specific measures, were applied on 55 beef farms (17 commercial farms, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal village farms) during pregnancy testing, and a questionnaire guided interview. The categorised measures on a 3-point welfare score of 0: good 1: marginal and 2: poor/unacceptable welfare were subsequently compared with derivation of thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of herds for each measure. Overall combined thresholds of continuous measures across the 3 farm types, showed 10/22 measures that posed welfare compromise across Namibia, where commercial farms had 4/22 measures and semi-commercial and communal village farms had 12/22 and 11/22 respectively with high thresholds. Most measures-imposed thresholds were retained because of significant importance to welfare of animals and preventiveness of the traits, while leniency was given to adjust good feeding and mortality measures to signify periods of drought. Handling measures (fearful, falling/lying) and abrasions thresholds were adjusted to reflect the temporary stress caused by infrequent cattle handling, and faulty yard designs/design and possible cattle breed influence on handling. Hence, the country needs prioritised investigation of underlying contributing factors and remediation to reduce the high thresholds.

PSVII-13 Performance and environmental benefits from biochar supplementation in beef cattle grazing systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 448-449
Author(s):  
Emily Conlin ◽  
Herbert Lardner ◽  
Jennifer L Ellis ◽  
Ira B Mandell ◽  
Katharine M Wood
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Stable Form ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
Ch4 Emissions ◽  
Body Weights ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Rapid City

Abstract Worldwide, beef production systems represent a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG), and enteric methane (CH4) emissions are the primary concern. The objective of this experiment was to determine whether biochar (Oregon Biochar Solution, White City, OR) supplementation can reduce CH4 emissions from grazing beef cows. Biochar is a stable form of carbon produced through the pyrolysis of organic matter (typically forestry waste). Sixty-four cows and their calves were blocked by cow body weight and calf age, and randomly allocated to 8 paddocks, each with 8 cow-calf pairs. Using a crossover design, each paddock was assigned to one of two treatments: (1) biochar supplemented at approximately 3% of estimated dry matter intake (DMI) or (2) control (no biochar). Biochar was incorporated into a pellet containing 45% biochar, 42.5% wheat midds, 10% canola oil, and 2.5% dry molasses and fed in a portable trough once daily. Each period consisted of 28 days: 21 days for biochar adaptation and 7 days for data collection. Enteric gas emissions from each paddock were measured using C-Lock GreenFeed trailers (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA) with pasture DMI estimated using paddock entry/exit quadrats during each sampling week. Enteric CH4 emissions expressed as g CH4/d were 249 and 260 ± 50.3 g (P ≥ 0.37) for control and biochar, respectively. Similarly, g CH4/kg DM and g CH4/kg BW were not affected (P ≥ 0.44) by biochar supplementation on pasture. Biochar supplementation did not affect estimated DMI or cow/calf body weights (P ≥ 0.15). Results suggest that biochar was ineffective for reducing methane emissions from grazing beef cows; however, measures of animal performance were not affected by biochar consumption. Further work is required to determine if type or higher inclusions of biochar can reduce CH4 emissions from beef cattle.

Adaptive management of stocking rates to reduce effects of drought on cow-calf production systems in semi-arid rangelands

2009 ◽  
Vol 100 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 43-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Díaz-Solís ◽  
W.E. Grant ◽  
M.M. Kothmann ◽  
W.R. Teague ◽  
J.A. Díaz-García
Keyword(s):  
Adaptive Management ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Arid Rangelands ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Effects Of Drought ◽  
Stocking Rates ◽  
Semi Arid

scholarly journals Antagonism in the carbon footprint between beef and dairy production systems

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 17-20
Author(s):  
MM Scholtz ◽  
J Du Toit ◽  
FWC Neser
Keyword(s):  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Dairy Farming ◽  
Feed Water ◽  
Dairy Production ◽  
Pasture Production ◽  
Total Mixed Ration ◽  
Cow Calf

Primary beef cattle farming in South Africa is largely extensive, whereas dairy farming is based on both total mixed ration and pasture production systems. Under natural rangeland conditions, decomposition of manure is aerobic, which produces carbon dioxide (CO2), part of which is absorbed by the regrowth of vegetation rather than released into the atmosphere, and water (H2O) as end products. Thus the cow releases methane (CH4) and the manure CO2. This is in contrast to intensive cow-calf systems in large parts of Europe and North America, where large quantities of manure are stockpiled and undergo anaerobic decomposition and produce CH4. Thus both the cow and the manure release CH4, which result in a higher carbon footprint than the extensive cow-calf systems. In dairy farming, increasing cow efficiency through intensive feeding (same kg milk output by fewer animals) can reduce farm CH4 production by up to 15%. In addition, when differences in productivity are accounted for, pasture systems require more resources (land, feed, water, etc.) per unit of milk produced and the carbon footprint is greater than that of intensive systems. This raises the question as to why the carbon footprint of intensive dairy cow production systems is less, but the carbon footprint of intensive beef cow-calf production systems is higher. The explanation lies in the differences in production levels. In the case of beef cows the weight of the intensive cows will be ± 30% higher than that of the extensive cows, and the weaning weight of their calves will also differ by ± 30%. In the case of dairy cows the weight of the intensive cows will be ± 20% higher, but their milk production will be ± 60% higher. The higher increase in production (milk) of intensive dairy cows, compared to the increase in production (calf weight) of intensive beef cows, explains the antagonism in the carbon footprint between different beef and dairy production systems. Unfortunately, carbon sequestration estimates have been neglected and thus the quantitative effects of these differences are not known.Keywords: Cow-calf production, methane, pasture production, production levels, total mixed ration

scholarly journals Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow–Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 1: Assessing the Feasibility of Identified Animal Welfare Assessment Measures

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 1597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Kevin Stafford
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Beef Cow ◽  
Cattle Management ◽  
Assessment Measures ◽  
Animal Welfare Assessment ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
On Farm

Potential measures suitable for assessing welfare in pasture-based beef cow–calf systems in New Zealand were identified from Welfare Quality and UC Davis Cow-Calf protocols. These were trialled on a single farm and a potential protocol of 50 measures created. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the measures included in this protocol on multiple farms in order, to develop a credible animal welfare assessment protocol for pasture-based cow–calf farms systems in New Zealand. The assessment protocol was trialled on 25 farms over two visits and took a total of 2.5 h over both visits for a 100-cow herd. The first visit in autumn included an animal welfare assessment of 3366 cows during pregnancy scanning, while the second visit in winter included a questionnaire-guided interview to assess cattle management and health, and a farm resource evaluation. Through a process of eliminating unsuitable measures, adjustments of modifiable measures and retaining feasible measures, a protocol with 32 measures was created. The application of the protocol on the farms showed that not all measures are feasible for on-farm assessment, and categorisation of identified animal welfare measures into scores that indicate a threshold of acceptable and non-acceptable welfare standards is necessary.

scholarly journals Identification of Suitable Animal Welfare Assessment Measures for Extensive Beef Systems in New Zealand

Agriculture ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Kevin Stafford ◽  
Tim Parkinson
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Assessment Measures ◽  
Animal Welfare Assessment ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Cattle Systems

Farm animal welfare assessment protocols use different measures depending on production systems and the purpose of the assessment. There is no standardized validated animal welfare protocol for the assessment of beef cattle farms in New Zealand, despite the importance of beef exports to the country. The aim of this study was therefore to identify welfare measures that would be suitable for an animal welfare assessment protocol for use in extensive pasture-based cow–calf beef cattle systems in New Zealand. The proposed animal welfare assessment measures were selected from the Welfare Quality protocol and the rangeland-based UC Davis Cow–Calf Health and Handling assessment protocol. Measures that were deemed impractical and/or unsuitable were excluded from the protocol. After testing the applicability of selected measures at one farm, additional measures that were deemed to be practical to undertake in New Zealand were identified and incorporated into the protocol. The intention was to identify animal welfare indicators that were assessable in the yard during a single farm visit, a questionnaire guided interview, and a farm resource assessment visit that evaluated cattle health and management. Further testing of the 50 measures that were identified as being appropriate will be undertaken on commercial beef farms to develop a practicable welfare protocol for extensive pasture-based beef systems.

scholarly journals Os impactos das mudanças climáticas sobre os recursos hídricos e a produção animal em regiões semiáridas (Impacts of climate change on water resources and animal production in semi-arid regions)

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 598
Author(s):  
Gherman Garcia Leal de Araújo
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Water Resources ◽  
Water Supply ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Small Ruminants ◽  
Animal Production ◽  
Risk Monitoring ◽  
Semi Arid ◽  
Impacts Of Climate Change

As zonas áridas e semiáridas em todo mundo têm expressivos rebanhos de grandes e pequenos ruminantes, que fazem parte de importantes sistemas de produção e da geração de renda das populações. As mudanças climáticas estão atingindo a pecuária destas regiões e, consequentemente, suas produções estão sendo afetadas significativamente, por problemas de baixa oferta hídrica, queda na produção e disponibilidade de forragens, bem-estar animal, causadas por alterações da temperatura, radiação solar, evapotranspiração, baixa pluviosidade e umidade do solo. Este desafio está posto e só poderá ser superado com um esforço conjunto de várias instituições, envolvendo governos, organizações e instituições de pesquisas, que possam aportar recursos, conhecimentos, ferramentas e tecnologias capazes de proporcionar a sustentabilidade ambiental e econômica da atividade pecuária. Este artigo aborda alguns aspectos relacionados aos efeitos das mudanças climáticas sobre os recursos hídricos e as consequências sobre a produção animal. Descreve algumas ferramentas de zoneamento bioclimático e de monitoramento de risco pecuário, além de trazer algumas possíveis alternativas de mitigação aos efeitos das mudanças climáticas, particularmente, relacionadas a diminuição da oferta hídrica para os sistemas de produção de ruminantes, no semiárido. Arid and semi-arid areas in the world has significant herds of large and small ruminants, which are part of major production systems and the generation of income populations. Climate change is affecting the livestock of these regions and, consequently, their productions are being significantly affected by low water supply problems, decrease in the production and availability of feed, animal welfare, caused by changes in temperature, solar radiation, evapotranspiration, low rainfall and soil moisture. This challenge is set and can only be overcome by a joint effort of various institutions, involving governments, organizations and research institutions that can provide resources, knowledge, tools and technologies that provide environmental and economic sustainability of the livestock activity. This article discusses some aspects related to the effects of climate change on water resources and the consequences on animal production. Describes some tools of zones bioclimatic and livestock risk monitoring, and bring some possible alternatives to mitigate the effects of climate change, particularly related to decreased water supply to the ruminant production systems in semi-arid. Keyworlds: water, increase temperature, animal welfare, ruminants, production system.   

341 Meta-analysis of the Performance Responses of Replacement Heifers and Beef Cows to Monensin

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 191-192
Author(s):  
Mikayla F Moore ◽  
Shane Gadberry ◽  
David Lalman ◽  
Frank White ◽  
Sara Linneen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Production Systems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Physiological State ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Feed Additives ◽  
Production Cycle ◽  
P Value ◽  
Beef Cow ◽  
Cow Calf

Abstract Performance benefits of monensin have been extensively studied in finishing and stocker cattle, but considerably less published work is available evaluating response to monensin supplementation in cow-calf production systems. Feed additives are more difficult to study in cow-calf production systems due to unstable diet characteristics and cow physiological state throughout the production cycle. This meta-analysis investigated the impacts of monensin on performance of extensively raised beef cow-calf and developing replacement heifers. The replacement heifer analysis was conducted with a maximum of 48 treatment means in 18 experiments. The mature cow analysis included 21 publications and 26 mean comparisons. The metaphor package (version 2.4-0; Viechtbauer, 2010) for R (version 4.0.3; www.r-project.org) was used to determine the overall effect size of monensin compared to a negative control. Each study’s n, means, and SEM or P-value was used to calculate the mean difference and estimate of within study variance for responses of interest. For replacement heifers, average daily gain (+0.03 ± 0.008 kg/d), feed efficiency (+0.013 ± 0.008 gain:feed), and percentage cycling before the breeding season (+15.9 ± 5.13%) were increased (P < 0.01), while dry matter intake (-4.3%) and age at puberty (-8.9 ± 1.48 d) were decreased (P < 0.01). Six studies reporting ad libitum forage intake for mature cows showed that monensin decreased (P = 0.008) DMI by 0.85 ± 0.322 kg/day. Six studies showed monesin increased (P = 0.01) milk yield 0.39 ± 0.15 kg/day by mature cows in early lactation. There were no differences in artificial insemination pregnancy nor total pregnancy for either the heifer or mature cow data sets. This analysis also indicates potential for use of monensin in beef cow production systems, but further research is needed to elucidate the effects on DMI and milk production in beef cows.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document