Welfare issues in extensive and intensive
livestock systems &
Strategies for improvement
Professor Christoph Winckler and Dr. Christine Leeb
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences
(BOKU) Vienna, Austria
Welfare issues - Lameness
Welfare
Clinical/
Physical
Feelings/
Mental
Fraser & Broom, 1990
Duncan, 1993
“Naturalness”
Normal behaviour
Integrity
Rollin, 1993
Lameness
Intensive
Extensive
High productivity
Metabolic disorders
Hard surface
Close contact to humanssupervision
Middle/low productivity
Soft lying area
Risk of trauma/Injuries
Less contact to humans
Lameness in Dairy Cows
Country Farm type
n
Prevalence
Year
Source
UK
conv.
53
22%
2001
Whay et al.
D
organic
50
18 %
2004
Brinkmann & Winckler
A
conv./org.
80
36 %
2004
Mülleder & Waiblinger
A
conv.
30
31 %
2008
Dippel
A
organic
40
26 %
2011
Gratzer et al.
Aiming for improved welfare
• Legislation sets minimum requirements only
• Further development, e.g.
…to achieve better quality of life for the animals
…to achieve better working conditions and
improved income
• to meet consumer expectations
…to meet requirements as set by retailers etc.
...
Steps toward welfare improvement
Action/implementation
Risk factors
Key issues
Welfare Assessment
The journey to welfare
improvement (Whay, 2006)
Steps toward welfare improvement
Action/implementation
Risk factors
Key issues
 research topics
Welfare Assessment
Journey towards welfare improvement, Whay, 2006
Steps toward welfare improvement
Action/implementation
Risk factors
Key issues
Welfare Assessment
Housing
Nutrition
Breeding
www.welfare-quality.net
e.g. training
e.g. space, bedding
e.g. system, ration
INPUTS
Stockmanship
e.g. breeding goals
Pathology/physiology
Behaviour
e.g. social behaviour
Records
e.g. treatments, mortality
OUTCOME
WELFARE
On-farm assessment protocols
…with a strong focus on animal-based (outcome)
measures, e.g.
• Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme (BWAP)
• Welfare Quality®
• AWIN project (just started)
12 criteria
of animal
welfare in
Welfare
Quality®
Hunger
Thermal
comfort
Comfort
around resting
Thirst
Ease of
movemen
t
Expressing social
behaviour
No pain due to
management
procedures
Expressing other
behaviour
Good human-animal
relationship
Positive
emotional state
No
disease
No
injuries
Good
health/
injuries
Hunger
Thirst
Thermal
comfort
Comfort
around resting
 Skin lesions
 Lameness
Ease of
movemen
t
Expressing social
behaviour
Expressing other
behaviour
Good human-animal
relationship
Positive
emotional state
No
disease
No
injuries
Important properties of measures
• Validity, i.e. the extent to which the measure is
meaningful in terms of the animals’ welfare
state
• Reliability/robustness,
e.g. repeatability between
observers
Training effect on agreement between
observers in lameness scoring
March et al 2007
Important properties of measures
• Validity, i.e. the extent to which the measure is
meaningful in terms of the animals’ welfare
state
• Reliability/robustness,
e.g. repeatability between
observers
• Feasibility in the on-farm
context (animal handing,
time, money)
www.welfare-quality.net
Steps toward welfare improvement
Action/implementation
Risk factors
Key issues
Welfare Assessment
co
o
r
Knowledge is available
• Vast wealth of knowledge on risk factors for
many (though not all) welfare problems
Risk area
Factor/indicator
Risk
Lying area
Mats/Mattresses vs. deep beeded cubicles
***
Length of the cubicle [cm]
***
Width of the cubicle [cm]
*
pWald
Cow Comfort Index
***
Duration of standing up movement
***
Abnormal behaviours (connected to lying)
***
Dippel et al., 2009
• Can be recorded using checklists etc.
co
Steps toward welfare improvement
Action/implementation
Risk factors
Key issues
Welfare Assessment
Humans as key for improvement
Consumer
Scientist
Veterinarian
Advisor
Farmer
Humans as key for improvement
Scientist
Consumer
Scientist
Advisor
Farmer
Veterinarian
Implementation
• Translating knowledge into action by inducing
change in behaviour of humans through
- Education (increasing awareness of problems
and potential solution)
- Encouragement
- Enforcement (legislation, farm assurance)
Encouragement
• Ownership (of problems and solutions)
• Facilitation
• Incentives
(e.g. Sweden: maximum stocking density for
broilers depends on foot health)
Benchmarking
Mr F. Armer, Honey Suckle Farm, Mongolia
Date of Visit : 5th May 2001
Measure
Source of
Information
Unit of
Measure
A ctual
Result
Banding
Est. - Estimated by farmer, Obs.-Observed during visit, Rec.-Farm records
Health & Production
Nutrition
Annual Ave. milk yield
Thin cows (BCS <2)
Fat cows (BCS >3.5)
Bloated rumen
Hollow rumen
Milk fever cases
Other disease
Reproduction
Conception rate to 1 st Service
Assisted calving cases
Mastitis
Mastitis cases
Mastitis cases
Lameness
No. of lame cows
Lameness cases
Lameness cases
Claw overgrowth
Claw conformation
Non-specific Illness / M ortality
Obviously sick
Sudden death / casualty
External Appearance
Cow Cleanliness & Coat Condition
Dirty hind limbs
Dirty udder
Dirty flanks
Dull coat
Thick hairy coat
Hair loss
Injuries from the Environment
Hock hair loss
Sw ollen hock
Ulcerated hock
Non-hock injuries
Behaviour
Approachability
Maximum flight distance
Average flight distance
Lying Behaviour
Cow idling
Rising restriction
Est.
Obs.
Obs.
Obs.
Obs.
Est.
Est.
Litres
%
%
%
%
/100 cows/year
/100 cows/year
7800.00
3.45
27.59
24.14
13.79
0.00
1.63
B
A
E
D
B
A
A
Est.
Est.
%
/100 cows/year
61.00
*
B
Rec.
Est.
/100 cows/year
/100 cows/year
45.65
*
D
Obs.
Rec.
Est.
Obs.
Obs.
%
/100 cows/year
/100 cows/year
%
%
13.60
6.52
*
44.83
27.59
A
D
Obs.
Est.
%
/100 cows/year
0.00
1.09
A
B
Obs.
Obs.
Obs.
Obs.
Obs.
Obs.
%
%
%
%
%
%
82.76
10.34
0.00
6.90
10.34
10.34
A
B
A
C
B
C
Obs.
Obs.
Obs.
Obs.
%
%
%
%
65.52
37.93
10.34
58.62
D
D
C
B
Obs.
Obs.
meters
meters
3.00
1.65
B
C
Obs.
Obs.
%
%
10.50
40.00
E
D
Whay et al 2003
D
E
Benchmarking and health and welfare
planning
Absetzferkel
A
B
C
D
E
Anzahl beurteilte Gruppen /
Ferkel
% Ferkel mit
Augenausfluss
% Ferkel mit
Augenentzündung
% Buchten mit
Atemwegsproblemen
% Buchten starke
Atemwegspr.
Besuch 1
A099
4 / 70
32.5 - 70
>70 - 82.5
>82.5 - 90
>90 - 98.3
>98.3 - 100
97,5
0-0
>0 - 0
>0 - 0
>0 - 7.5
>7.5 - 40
8,8
0-0
>0 - 33.3
>33.3 - 50
>50 - 80
>80 - 100
75,0
0-0
>0 - 0
>0 - 0
>0 - 0
>0 - 100
0,0
Ziel: Atemwegsprobleme reduzieren
Vorbeugemaßnahmen:
Ursache der roten Augen herausfinden- Blutnehmen- Impfung
anpassen
Therapie:
Baytril
Leeb et al, 2010
On-farm lameness intervention
study
Assessment,
weak-point
analysis
1st visit
Winter 04/05
21 intervention
farms: Discussion
of measures,
training, individual
farmer-owned
lameness control
plan
Assessment
and
evaluation
of the plan
19 control farms
Assessment
2nd visit
4th visit
Winter 05/06
Assessment
Assessment
10th visit
Winter 08/09
March & Brinkmann 2011
On-farm lameness intervention
study
No. of farms
Examples of measures that implemented measures
out of farms that had been
recommended measures
Regular claw trimming
10/13
Cubicles (bedding,
maintenance, design)
11/20
Cleaning of floors in the
alleys
12/13
Grip of floors in the alleys
7/10
March & Brinkmann 2011
On-farm intervention study:
Reduction in lameness prevalence
2006 vs. 2005
2007 vs. 2005
Intervention (n=21)
Control (n=19)
2008 vs. 2005
2009 vs. 2005
0
5
10
15
20
Change in lameness prevalence (%)
March & Brinkmann 2011
ANIPLAN– 8 Principles
(Vaarst et al., 2011)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The process => continuous improvement
Farm specific
Farmer ownership
External person(s) should be involved
External knowledge
Organic principles framework
Written
Acknowledge good aspects
% of farms with
advice in category
Focus areas
(371 focus areas /119 farms)
400
350
UK
300
250
NO
200
NL
150
DK
100
DE
50
CH
0
AT
metabolic udder lameness fertility welfare
(Vaarst et al., 2011)
calves
other
harvest
Antibiotic udder treatments
(Ivemeyer et al, Livestock Science 145 (2012),
Udder treatments in year 0 (Y0) & year 1 (Y1) (medians, quartile)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Y0
0.4
Y1
0.3
0.23
0.3
0.17
0.08
0.11
0.32
0.16
0.18
0.48
0.48
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.37
0.2
0.44
udder treatments per cow and year
0.9
0
AT (37)
CH (15)
DE (28)
DK (15)
NL (10)
NO (6)
all (111)
GLM with udder treatments as repeated measures (factor: year)
Factors
intercept
year
country
FAUH
Level
1
F
91.21
8.85
5.71
3.00
P
<
within
0.001 Y0 > Y1
between
0.004
between
<
1 within = within subject effects; between = between subject effects, FAUH = focus area udder health
0.001
0.086
Implementation into farming life:
“Kuhpraktiker” & Stable schools
Day 1
Assessment of
animals
Day 2
Behaviour and
records
Day 5/6
AssessmentHealth and welfare planning
Stable school
Indikator
Ist - Situation
Zielgröße
Zielgröße
Durchschnitt
Betrieb
Betrieb
Projekt
Projektbetriebe
Ø 12 Monate
38%
Anteil Tiere - verschmutztes Euter (%)
Anzahl Kühe:
Ø aktuell
Ø Milch kg:
Eutergesundheit
Anteil Tiere - verschmutzte Zitzen (%)
292000
160000
<150.000
216.000
Anteil Tiere > 100. 000 (%)
53%
27%
< 25%
43%
Anteil Tiere > 400. 000 (%)
19%
9%
< 8%
11%
Behandlungen -akute Mastitis (%)
< 10%
20%
Behandlungen - Mastitis
inTrockenstehzeit (%)
< 10%
21%
Zellzahl Ø
Behandlungen mit Trockensteller(%)
39%
Bakteriologische Untersuchung:
Ist - Situation
Day 4
Stable school
Veränderungen/ Maßnahmen
Day 3
Animal health
and welfare
planning
Conclusion
Increase interest in welfare means
Previous focus was physical / health needs
Future focus is also mental / behaviour needs
Changing human behaviour requires change in our
approach
•From working with animals to work also with
humans
•From reactive - To proactive
Thank you – Questions?