Suchergebnisse

In organic farming, the housing, feeding and management conditions, as set by EU legislation and organic farming associations, are supposed to be welfare friendly and beneficial to health. However, there is evidence that the adaptability of farm animals is often overstressed in organic farming (Sundrum, 2001). Production diseases are generally regarded as a serious problem in dairy farming due to their welfare relevance and economic impact (Kossaibati and Esslemont, 1997). However, there is only little information available about the situation on German organic dairy farms. While studies in other European countries revealed similar incidences as in conventional farming for the most important diseases (e. g. Weller and Cooper, 1996, Vaarst et al., 1998, Reksen et al., 1999, Weller and Bowling, 2000), farm structures and housing systems in many countries differ from the German farming conditions. It was the aim of the present study to assess (1) the health state in German organic dairy farming with regard to mastitis, lameness and metabolic disorders, to assess (2) the use of preventive measures in order to control diseases and (3), to investigate possible relationships of the health state with the specific housing conditions and/or the application of these measures.

Der Großteil der Bio-Betriebe ist auf eine Tierart spezialisiert. Ob es sich aus ökonomischer und ökologischer Sicht lohnt, zumindest eine zweite Tierart am Hof zu halten, zeigt eine Auswertung von Daten französischer Bio Betriebe. Vorab: Die ursprünglich erwarteten Vorteile haben sich bisher nur teilweise bestätigt.

Diese Studie beleuchtet, wie die vom BMEL geplante, dreistufige staatliche Tierwohlkennzeichnung auf Tierwohl und Umweltschutz wirkt. Zudem wird untersucht, wie die Kennzeichnung ergänzt werden könnte, um sowohl dem Tierwohl als auch dem Umweltschutz zu dienen. In den "Anmerkungen zur Studie" wird die Untersuchung auf die neuen Tierwohl-Kriterien ausgeweitet, die vom BMEL Anfang 2019 veröffentlicht wurden. Aus Tierschutzsicht besteht Verbesserungsbedarf vor allem bei der Einstiegsstufe. Negative Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt sind durch die Tierwohlkennzeichnung jedoch kaum zu erwarten. Die Studie schlägt Verbesserungen für die weitere Ausgestaltung der Tierwohlkennzeichnung vor und soll helfen, die Kennzeichnung bei Kaufentscheidungen für Fleischprodukte besser einzuordnen.

Die seit 2014 gemäß Tierschutzgesetz vorgeschriebene "betriebliche Eigenkontrolle", in der der Nutztierhalter geeignete tierbezogene Merkmale ("Tierschutzindikatoren") erheben und bewerten soll, zielt auf eine höhere Eigenverantwortung der Nutztierhalter für das Wohlbefinden der Tiere ab. Die Kontrolle soll einer stärkeren Sensibilisierung des Tierhalters dienen und ihn in die Lage versetzen, ggf. vorhandene Schwachstellen zu erkennen. Da das Tierschutzgesetz keine Verordnungsermächtigung enthält, fehlen bislang genauere Ausführungsbestimmungen zu Inhalt und Umfang der Eigenkontrolle. Um geeignete Indikatoren zu identifizieren, mit denen die wichtigsten aus der Praxis bekannten Tierschutzprobleme festgestellt werden können, haben etwa 50 Experten Indikatoren zur Bewertung von Tiergerechtheit unter den Gesichtspunkten Reliabilität, Validität und Praktikabilität ausgewählt. Die auf dieser Basis für die Rinder-, Schweine- und Geflügelhaltung (Hühner und Puten) ausgewählten, überwiegend tierbezogenen Indikatoren sollten in der betrieblichen Eigenkontrolle möglichst vollständig erhoben und ausgewertet werden. Die Einbindung in betriebliche Managementsysteme wird empfohlen. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird exemplarisch das vorgeschlagene Indikatorenset für Milchkühe vorgestellt. ; The "on-farm self-assessment" specified by the Animal Welfare Act from 2014 requires the livestock keeper to assess and monitor appropriate animal-based measures ("animal welfare indicators") with the aim to achieve higher individual responsibility of livestock keepers for the well-being of their animals. The assessment serves to raise awareness among livestock keepers and to enable them to identify any weaknesses existing. As the Animal Welfare Act does not contain any secondary legislation, there has so far been a lack of more precise provisions regarding the content and scope of the self-assessment system. In order to identify appropriate indicators which address the most important animal welfare problems known from practice, around 50 experts have selected indicators for assessing animal welfare with regard to reliability, validity and practicability. In on-farm self-assessment, the sets of largely animal-based indicators selected for cattle, pigs and poultry (hens and turkeys) should be surveyed and evaluated as completely as possible. Integration into farm management systems is recommended. This paper exemplarily presents the set of indicators proposed for dairy cattle.

The "on-farm self-assessment" specified by the Animal Welfare Act from 2014 requires the livestock keeper to assess and monitor appropriate animal-based measures ("animal welfare indicators") with the aim to achieve higher individual responsibility of livestock keepers for the well-being of their animals. The assessment serves to raise awareness among livestock keepers and to enable them to identify any weaknesses existing. As the Animal Welfare Act does not contain any secondary legislation, there has so far been a lack of more precise provisions regarding the content and scope of the self-assessment system. In order to identify appropriate indicators which address the most important animal welfare problems known from practice, around 50 experts have selected indicators for assessing animal welfare with regard to reliability, validity and practicability. In on-farm self-assessment, the sets of largely animal-based indicators selected for cattle, pigs and poultry (hens and turkeys) should be surveyed and evaluated as completely as possible. Integration into farm management systems is recommended. This paper exemplarily presents the set of indicators proposed for dairy cattle

This review constitutes a part of the Core Organic project 'ProYoungStock' – Promoting young stock and cow health and welfare by natural feeding systems. The overarching aim of the project is to improve young stock rearing systems concerning animal welfare-friendly husbandry, feeding and disease prevention by identifying approaches on different levels. More natural rearing systems are one approach to solve welfare problems in current calf rearing. Previous studies have shown considerable variations in herd characteristics and management strategies between organic dairy farms in Europe. The differences have been associated with regional and national conditions for organic farming. However, it is possible that differences in national legislation also play a part in these variations. Relevant EU and national rules on organic production and animal welfare were compiled in the following seven European countries: Sweden (SE), France (FR), Poland (PL), Germany (DE), Italy (IT), Austria (AT), and Switzerland (CH). The purpose was to provide information on drivers and barriers for cow-calf contact systems in organic dairy production and to identify possible areas for improvement and/or harmonization. Our results did not identify any major barriers in national rules for the use of rearing systems allowing cow-calf contact. Instead, cow-calf contact is promoted by the requirement to feed organic calves preferably maternal milk during the first three months of their life. Specifications regarding calf rearing derives from animal protection legislation rather than regulations of organic farming but milk hygiene regulations can also have an influence on practicability of cow-calf contact. Variations in national legislation can affect details of design and implementation of cow-calf systems, however, other factors (e.g. overall conditions for organic dairy farming, traditions, economics and disease prevention strategies) rather than regulations likely play more important roles.

This review constitutes a part of the Core Organic project 'ProYoungStock' – Promoting young stock and cow health and welfare by natural feeding systems. The overarching aim of the project is to improve young stock rearing systems concerning animal welfare-friendly husbandry, feeding and disease prevention by identifying approaches on different levels. More natural rearing systems are one approach to solve welfare problems in current calf rearing. Previous studies have shown considerable variations in herd characteristics and management strategies between organic dairy farms in Europe. The differences have been associated with regional and national conditions for organic farming. However, it is possible that differences in national legislation also play a part in these variations. Relevant EU and national rules on organic production and animal welfare were compiled in the following seven European countries: Sweden (SE), France (FR), Poland (PL), Germany (DE), Italy (IT), Austria (AT), and Switzerland (CH). The purpose was to provide information on drivers and barriers for cow-calf contact systems in organic dairy production and to identify possible areas for improvement and/or harmonization. Our results did not identify any major barriers in national rules for the use of rearing systems allowing cow-calf contact. Instead, cow-calf contact is promoted by the requirement to feed organic calves preferably maternal milk during the first three months of their life. Specifications regarding calf rearing derives from animal protection legislation rather than regulations of organic farming but milk hygiene regulations can also have an influence on practicability of cow-calf contact. Variations in national legislation can affect details of design and implementation of cow-calf systems, however, other factors (e.g. overall conditions for organic dairy farming, traditions, economics and disease prevention strategies) rather than regulations likely play more important roles.

International audience ; A survey was carried out to describe the extent and current practice of cattle disbudding/dehorning in the EU Member States. Disbudding was defined as removal of horns in calves of up to 2 months of age, whereas dehorning was defined as removal of horns in older animals. Specific questionnaires were created regarding dairy, beef, and suckler production systems and they were submitted to local experts of each country belonging to relevant institutions like universities, national farmers' associations, cattle breeders associations, farm veterinarians and practitioners. Figures on disbudding/dehorning practices were produced for each production system for both the whole European Union and the North, Centre, East and South EU macro-regions. A total of 652 questionnaires were collected and 64%, 24% and 12% of them related to dairy cattle, beef cattle and suckler cows, respectively. Data from the survey showed that in Europe, 81% of the dairy, 47% of the beef and 68% of the suckler currently keep disbudded/dehorned animals, while the prevalence of polled cattle is rather low, especially in the dairy cattle sector (5% of all cattle farms; <1% of dairy farms). Regardless of production system, prevalence of dehorned animals is the highest in the North macro-region. Polled cattle farms are almost exclusively located in the North where polled beef breeds are raised for fattening. Dehorning is performed primarily on loose housed cattle to reduce the risk of injuries for herdmates and the stockman. Dehorning is less frequently performed in organic farms. As method of horns removal, disbudding is generally preferred over surgical removal of the horns in older cattle. Hot-iron is the most used disbudding method especially in the North and Centre. Use of caustic paste is reported more frequently in the South and the East. In the large majority of EU farms, the stockman is the person in charge for disbudding and some kind of medication for pain relief is administered to the animals only in a small ...

A survey was carried out to describe the extent and current practice of cattle disbudding/dehorning in the EU Member States. Disbudding was defined as removal of horns in calves of up to 2 months of age, whereas dehorning was defined as removal of horns in older animals. Specific questionnaires were created regarding dairy, beef, and suckler production systems and they were submitted to local experts of each country belonging to relevant institutions like universities, national farmers' associations, cattle breeders associations, farm veterinarians and practitioners. Figures on disbudding/dehorning practices were produced for each production system for both the whole European Union and the North, Centre, East and South EU macro-regions. A total of 652 questionnaires were collected and 64%, 24% and 12% of them related to dairy cattle, beef cattle and suckler cows, respectively. Data from the survey showed that in Europe, 81% of the dairy, 47% of the beef and 68% of the suckler currently keep disbudded/dehorned animals, while the prevalence of polled cattle is rather low, especially in the dairy cattle sector (5% of all cattle farms; <1% of dairy farms). Regardless of production system, prevalence of dehorned animals is the highest in the North macro-region. Polled cattle farms are almost exclusively located in the North where polled beef breeds are raised for fattening. Dehorning is performed primarily on loose housed cattle to reduce the risk of injuries for herdmates and the stockman. Dehorning is less frequently performed in organic farms. As method of horns removal, disbudding is generally preferred over surgical removal of the horns in older cattle. Hot-iron is the most used disbudding method especially in the North and Centre. Use of caustic paste is reported more frequently in the South and the East. In the large majority of EU farms, the stockman is the person in charge for disbudding and some kind of medication for pain relief is administered to the animals only in a small percentage of farms (<30%). Surgical dehorning of more aged cattle is mainly performed with the wire/saw method. Compared to disbudding, it is more often carried out by a veterinarian and pre- and post operative medications (44% farms) is also more common.

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period, (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones, and (iv) the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different clinical and laboratory sampling procedures are proposed depending on the scenarios considered. The monitoring period of 45 days was assessed as not effective and at least 90 days (3 months) is recommended in affected areas where high awareness is expected; when the index case occurs in an area where the awareness is low the monitoring period should be at least 180 days (6 months). Since transmission kernels do not exist and data to estimate transmission kernels are not available, the effectiveness of surveillance and protection zones for CBPP was based on expert knowledge. A surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective, while a protection zone including establishments adjacent to affected ones is recommended. Recommendations, provided for each of the scenarios assessed, aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CBPP.

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period, (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones and iv) the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different clinical and laboratory sampling procedures are proposed depending on the scenarios considered. The monitoring period of 45 days was assessed as effective in affected areas where high awareness is expected, and when the index case occurs in an area where the awareness is low the monitoring period should be at least 180 days (6 months). Since transmission kernels do not exist and data to estimate transmission kernels are not available, a surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective based on expert knowledge, while a protection zone should also be developed to include establishments adjacent to affected ones. Recommendations, provided for each of the scenarios assessed, aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CCPP.

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for peste des petits ruminants (PPR). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective, except for the first affected establishments detected, where 33 days is recommended. It was concluded that beyond the protection (3 km) and the surveillance zones (10 km) only 9.6% (95% CI: 3.1–25.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1–5.5%) of the infections from an affected establishment may occur, respectively. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread (95% probability of containing transmission corresponds to 5.3 km). Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad-hoc requests in relation to PPR.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). ; The AGRI committee of the European Parliament requested EFSA to assess the welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems, including organic production, and to update its 2005 scientific opinion about the health and welfare of rabbits kept for meat production. Considering reproducing does, kits and growing rabbits, this scientific opinion focusses on six different housing systems, namely conventional cages, structurally enriched cages, elevated pens, floor pens, outdoor/partially outdoor systems and organic systems. To compare the level of welfare in the different housing systems and rabbit categories, welfare impact scores for 20 welfare consequences identified from the literature were calculated, taking their occurrence, duration and severity into account. Based on the overall welfare impact score (sum of scores for the single welfare consequences), obtained via a 2‐step expert knowledge elicitation process, the welfare of reproducing does is likely (certainty 66–90%) to be lower in conventional cages compared to the five other housing systems. In addition, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of kits is lower in outdoor systems compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Finally, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of growing rabbits is lower in conventional cages compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Ranking of the welfare consequences allowed an analysis of the main welfare consequences within each system and rabbit category. It was concluded that for reproducing does, as well as growing rabbits, welfare consequences related to behavioural restrictions were more prominent in conventional cages, elevated pens and enriched cages, whereas those related to health problems were more important in floor pens, outdoor and organic systems. Housing in organic rabbit farming is diverse, which can result in different welfare consequences, but the overall welfare impact scores suggest that welfare in organic systems is generally good. ; Peer reviewed

This opinion on the killing of rabbits for human consumption ('slaughtering') responds to two mandates: one from the European Parliament (EP) and the other from the European Commission. The opinion describes stunning methods for rabbits known to the experts in the EFSA working group, which can be used in commercial practice, and which are sufficiently described in scientific and technical literature for the development of an opinion. These are electrical stunning, mechanical stunning with a penetrative and non‐penetrative captive bolt and gas stunning. The latter method is not allowed in the EU anymore following Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, but may still be practiced elsewhere in the world. Related hazards and welfare consequences are also evaluated. To monitor stunning effectiveness as requested by the EP mandate, the opinion suggests the use of indicators for the state of consciousness, selected on the basis of their sensitivity, specificity and ease of use. Similarly, it suggests indicators to confirm animals are dead before dressing. For the European Commission mandate, slaughter processes were assessed from the arrival of rabbits in containers until their death, and grouped in three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of rabbits from containers), stunning (including restraint) and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Ten welfare consequences resulting from the hazards that rabbits can be exposed to during slaughter are identified: consciousness, animal not dead, thermal stress (heat or cold stress), prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures (indicators) are described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, indicators, origins, preventive and corrective measures are developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are also proposed.