Animal welfare and biosecurity assessment: a comparison between Italian and Irish beef cattle rearing systems
Francesca Fusi
A , Valentina Lorenzi A E , Giorgio Franceschini A , Riccardo Compiani B , Valeria Harper C , Jessica Ginestreti A , Giandomenico Ferrara A , Carlo Angelo Sgoifo Rossi D and Luigi Bertocchi A
A Italian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna ‘Bruno Ubertini’ (IZSLER), Via A. Bianchi 9, Brescia, Italy.
B Freelance Veterinary Practitioner, Lodi, Italy.
C Freelance Veterinary Practitioner, Modena, Italy.
D Department of Health, Animal Science and Food Safety, University of Milan, Via Celoria 10, Milano, Italy.
E Corresponding author. Email: valentina.lorenzi@izsler.it
Animal Production Science 61(1) 55-63 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN19611
Submitted: 29 October 2019 Accepted: 3 September 2020 Published: 28 September 2020
Abstract
Context: European beef production is facing fresh challenges on various fronts: increasing public concern on animal welfare; declining EU meat consumption; and, conversely, expected growth in global demand for meat. The Italian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA) has developed an assessment protocol for collecting information about beef cattle welfare and biosecurity conditions, with the intention of better understanding animal needs and disseminating best practices.
Aims: The protocol was applied on Italian and Irish farms, and the results were used as a starting point for a specific statistical analysis for comparing animal welfare and biosecurity levels in the two countries.
Methods: The protocol consists of animal-based measures and non-animal-based measures (management-based and resource-based indicators) and has been designed to determine the major hazards and benefits that can influence cattle health and welfare, including the presence of biosecurity issues. The outcomes of welfare and biosecurity assessments conducted during November 2016–July 2017 of 40 Irish beef herds reared indoors were compared with those of 85 Italian beef units assessed over the same period. Differences obtained within each beef-unit distribution were calculated by the VARNC index (diversity index), and a distance estimate of the beef-unit distribution from a hypothetical ideal condition was calculated by using the distance from ideal (dfi) index.
Key results: The dfi index revealed that Irish farms were closer to the ideal condition for the measures ‘experience and training of stockpersons’, ‘water provision’, ‘handling facilities’, ‘restraint facilities’, and ‘temperature, humidity and ventilations conditions’. Italian farms were closer to the ideal condition for ‘diet calculation and feed quality’, ‘feeding management’, ‘feeding place dimension’, ‘cleanliness of water points’, ‘cleanliness of floors’, ‘type of floors’, ‘cleanliness of animals’, and ‘integument alterations’. In contrast to the Italian farms, there was particular awareness of the importance of biosecurity on Irish farms.
Conclusions: The results revealed intrinsic management and housing differences between the two rearing systems, although only few dissimilarities were found in the animal outcomes: in fact, the assessment of the animal-based measures gave very similar results for the two countries, except for ‘cleanliness of the animals’ and ‘integument alterations’.
Implications: In the face of global challenges affecting the pursuit of farming sustainability, farmers should be encouraged to improve safeguards for animal welfare and reduce the spread of animal diseases. This can be achieved by facilitating knowledge exchange internationally.
Keywords: animal-based outcomes, biosecurity, farm sustainability, IZSLER/CReNBA, management-based indicators, resource-based indicators.
References
Agresti A, Agresti BF (1978) Statistical analysis of qualitative variation. Sociological Methodology 9, 204–237.| Statistical analysis of qualitative variation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
AVMA (2008) One Health: A New Professional Imperative. One Health Initiative Task Force Final Report, 15 July 2008. American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, IL, USA.
Bertocchi L, Fusi F, Angelucci A, Bolzoni L, Pongolini S, Strano RM, Ginestreti J, Riuzzi G, Moroni P, Lorenzi V (2018) Characterization of hazards, welfare promoters and animal-based measures for the welfare assessment of dairy cows: elicitation of expert opinion. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 150, 8–18.
| Characterization of hazards, welfare promoters and animal-based measures for the welfare assessment of dairy cows: elicitation of expert opinion.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29406088PubMed |
Broom DM (2017) Animal welfare in the European Union. European Parliament Directorate General for Internal Policies. PE 583.114. European Parliament, Brussels. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583114/IPOL_STU(2017)583114_EN.pdf [Verified 20 August 2018]
Cassini A, Högberg LD, Plachouras D, Quattrocchi A, Hoxha A, Simonsen GS, Colomb-Cotinat M, Kretzschmar ME, Devleesschauwer B, Cecchini M, Ouakrim DA, Cravo Oliveira T, Struelens MJ, Suetens C, Monnet DL, Burden of AMR Collaborative Group (2019) Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the EU and the European Economic Area in 2015: a population-level modelling analysis. The Lancet. Infectious Diseases 19, 56–66.
| Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the EU and the European Economic Area in 2015: a population-level modelling analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30409683PubMed |
Dawkins MS (2017) Animal welfare and efficient farming: is conflict inevitable? Animal Production Science 57, 201–208.
| Animal welfare and efficient farming: is conflict inevitable?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Eurobarometer (2016) Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare. November–December 2015. Special Eurobarometer 442 Report. Directorate-General for Communication, European Commission, Brussels. Available at https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2096_84_4_442_ENG [Verified 6 September 2020]
European Commission (2017) EU agricultural outlook. Outlook for the agricultural markets and income 2017–2030. European Commission, Brussels. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agricultural-outlook-2017-30_en.pdf [Verified 6 September 2020]
European Commission (2020) A farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM/2020/381 Final. European Commission, Brussels.
European Food Safety Authority (2012a) Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare: guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare. EFSA Journal 10, 2513
| Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare: guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
European Food Safety Authority (2012b) Scientific opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems. EFSA Journal 10, 2669
| Scientific opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32313568PubMed |
Elmore MRP, Elischer MF, Claeys MC, Pajor EA (2015) The effects of different flooring types on the behavior. health, and welfare of finishing beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 93, 1258–1266.
| The effects of different flooring types on the behavior. health, and welfare of finishing beef steers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
European Union (1998) Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Official Journal of the European Communities L 221. pp. 23–27. EUR-Lex. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.1998.221.01.0023.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:1998:221:TOC [Verified 6 September 2020]
European Union (2016) Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’). Official Journal of the European Union L 84. pp. 1–208. EUR-Lex. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.084.01.0001.01.ENG [Verified 6 September 2020]
Gibbs EPJ, Anderson TC (2009) ‘One world–one health’ and the global challenge of epidemic diseases of viral aetiology. Veterinaria Italiana 45, 35–44.
Grandin T (2014) A whole systems approach to assessing animal welfare during handling and restraint. In ‘Livestock handling and transport. 4th edition. Theories and applications’. (Ed. T Grandin) pp. 1–13 (CABI: Wallingford, UK)
Grandin T (2015) How to improve livestock handling and reduce stress. In ‘Improving animal welfare. 2nd edition. A practical approach’. (Ed. T Grandin) pp. 69–95 (CABI: Wallingford, UK)
ISMEA (2017) Le dinamiche recenti nel comparto delle carni. Tendenze bovino da carne. ISMEA (Istituto de Servizi Per Il Mercato Agricolo Alimentare), Rome. Available at http://www.ismeamercati.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeAttachment.php/L/IT/D/d%252F2%252Fe%252FD.51ba06fc2a384b503815/P/BLOB%3AID%3D8354/E/pdf [Verified 20 August 2018]
Italian Republic (2001) Decreto Legislativo n. 146 del 26 marzo 2001. Attuazione della direttiva 98/58/CE relativa alla protezione degli animali negli allevamenti. Gazzetta Ufficiale No. 95 24/4/2001. p. 21. Available at https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_generale/caricaDettaglioAtto/originario?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2001-04-24&atto.codiceRedazionale=001G0202&elenco30giorni=false [Verified 6 September 2020]
Knowles G (1999) A review of the road transport of cattle. The Veterinary Record 144, 197–201.
| A review of the road transport of cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lassen J, Sandøe P, Forkman B (2006) Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103, 221–230.
| Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lowe DE, Steen RWJ, Beattie VE (2001) Preferences of housed finishing beef cattle for different floor types. Animal Welfare 10, 395–404.
Marahrens M, Von Richthofen I, Schmeiduch S, Hartung J (2003) Special problems of long-distance road transports of cattle. DTW. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 110, 120–125.
Mayne CS, O’Kiely P (2005) An overview of silage production and utilisation in Ireland (1950–2005). In ‘Proceedings of the XIV international silage conference’. (Eds RS Park, MD Stronge) pp. 19–34. (Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands)
More SJ, Hanlon A, Marchewka J, Boyle L (2017) Private animal health and welfare standards in quality assurance programmes: a review and proposed framework for critical evaluation. The Veterinary Record 180, 612
| Private animal health and welfare standards in quality assurance programmes: a review and proposed framework for critical evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28465328PubMed |
Nielsen BL, Dybkjær L, Herskin MS (2011) Road transport of farm animals: effects of journey duration on animal welfare. Animal 5, 415–427.
| Road transport of farm animals: effects of journey duration on animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22445408PubMed |
Osburn B, Scott C, Gibbs P (2009) One world – one medicine – one health: emerging veterinary challenges and opportunities. Revue Scientifique et Technique 28, 481
| One world – one medicine – one health: emerging veterinary challenges and opportunities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20128454PubMed |
Palma E, Tilocca B, Roncada P (2020) Antimicrobial resistance in veterinary medicine: an overview. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21, 1914
| Antimicrobial resistance in veterinary medicine: an overview.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
SCAHAW (2001) The welfare of cattle kept for beef production. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, European Commission, Brussels. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/sci-com_scah_out54_en.pdf [Verified 20 August 2018]
Taylor JD, Fulton RW, Lehenbauer TW, Step DL, Confer AW (2010) The epidemiology of bovine respiratory disease: what is the evidence for predisposing factors? The Canadian Veterinary Journal. La Revue Veterinaire Canadienne 51, 1095–1102.
Warriss PD, Brown SN, Knowles TG, Kestin SC, Edwards JE, Dolan SK, Phillips AJ (1995) Effects on cattle of transport by road for up to 15 hours. The Veterinary Record 136, 319–323.
| Effects on cattle of transport by road for up to 15 hours.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 7604507PubMed |
Welfare Quality (2009) Welfare Quality assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality Consortium. Lelystad, The Netherlands. http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/en-us/reports/assessment-protocols/ [Verified 20 August 2018]
WHO (2015) Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. World Health Organization, Rome. Available at https://www.who.int/antimicrobial-resistance/publications/global-action-plan/en/ [Verified 25 August 2020]
Wilcox AR (1967) Indices of qualitative variation. Report ORNL-1919. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.
