Tackling the future challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry - vTI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

! Agriculture and Forestry Research, Special Issue No 362 (Braunschweig, 2012) ISSN 0376-0723 Download: www.vti.bund.de/en/startseite/vti-publications/landbauforschung-special-issues.html to produce on diets based more on roughage (Thomet and Steiger Burgos, 2007). Another example is the access to open range for organic hens, demanding social skills that have not been selected for during years when cage layers were the predominant conventional production method (Kjær and Sorensen, 1997). Animals selected for highest possible production are more sensitive for changes in environment than animals with a lower production potential (Kolmodin et al., 2002; Strandberg, 2007; Ravagnolo and Misztal, 2002). Thus dual purpose breeds or local native breeds, with lower genetic merits for production traits, could fit better to organic farms than more specialised high producing breeds, also when they are purchased from conventional breeders. Low-producing native breeds are mainly used in organic niche production or for hobby farming (Wanke and Biedermann, 2005; Rahman, 2006). Cross breeding with dual purpose breeds is another solution chosen by organic dairy farmers (Nauta, 2009; Heins et al., 2006, Spengler Neff et al., 2012). Thirdly, there is the question which breeding- and selection systems and reproduction-distribution technologies can be used in organic production. Even if the tools themselves are not problematic for welfare or environment, they can be questioned by some farmers and consumers due to ‘unnaturalness’ (Baars and Nauta, 1998). Should such methods (like sperm sexing or selection based on genomic data) be allowed in organic production? Genomic information could become very useful for small populations and for traits that are difficult and expensive to record, e.g. health traits and other traits important for welfare. Another concern is that technologies like sperm sexing and genomics could lead to increased losses of genetic variation in general (Bapst and Zeltner, 2002; Spengler Neff and Augsten, 2009; Nauta, 2010). However, if locally-adapted breeds are used then the likelihood of this being realised in the short term is small. Every technology used in breeding has its good and bad sides and responsibility of farmers and breeding companies in how to apply such technologies is of great importance for the organic sector. Another important aspect is the amount of direct and indirect costs of dedicated organic breeding for different species. Direct costs are the costs for selecting and breeding the animals themselves. These costs are very high because of several European rules in the area of preventing disease from spreading (EU, 1992). In a testing scheme of bulls the whole procedure for one bull will cost about 30,000 euro. This will be difficult to cover where the organic sector is small. However, for example in small populations a ‘young bull system’ (Bichard, 2004) can be used instead. It is a more realistic and cheaper alternative. A young bull system is based on an annual selection and supply (through AI) of a group of young bulls from the best animals of the population based on their estimated breeding value and phenotype. By using a group of 10-20 young bulls, always the best genetics will be used in average and risks are spread. This system is also coming up for breeding based on genomic selection (Veeteelt, 2008). The indirect costs reflect the production capacity of the animals. Many organic farmers have concerns about the loss of genetic input if they refuse stock from conventional breeding schemes (Nauta, 2009). For example, laying hens from conventional programs may lay up to 300 eggs per year on some organic farms. Can hens from organic breeding schemes compete with that? If not, producers need much higher prices for the eggs and therefore organic breeding will have a strong impact on market prices. Or the other way around; the market prices will have a strong impact on the possibilities of setting up an organic breeding scheme, and use organic breeding stock with lower merit for production. So, evidently there is a dilemma between strong intentions and staying in business and market. Finally, some social aspects are also important to consider. Natural mating may have a negative image. It can be regarded as an old fashioned way of breeding with large risks when it comes to transmission of diseases and farmers working conditions and safety. The power of breeding companies could also become an influencing factor. Will they feel threatened by organic farmers trying to start their own breeding schemes? Or will they see an additional market and provide their knowledge and service to these farmers? 316
RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.) (2012): Tackling the Future Challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry. Proceedings of the 2 nd OAHC, Hamburg/Trenthorst, Germany, Sep 12-14, 2012 Many organic farmers want to be in charge of decisions concerning selection of breeding stock and they do not want to be forced to use ‘certified organic’ breeding stock (Nauta, 2009). Breeding is also a matter of trust. Farmers first want to see the results before they chose a new breeding program and stock. Therefore an organic breeding scheme would have to be introduced step by step, providing learning by doing (Østergaard, 1997). In the Netherlands an increasing interest is seen in the setup of rotational breeding systems for pigs (Merks and Leenhouwers, 2010) and the supply of some organic AI bulls that farmers can start using now (Nauta, 2012; Spengler Neff, 2011). Surprisingly, newly converted farmers seem to be more open to using organic breeding stock (Nauta, pers. com., 2012). It is clear that for some species, in some organic systems, the use of animals bred for higher input, conventional systems is inappropriate. In these circumstances, taking on board the responsibility to breed locally-adapted livestock will bring benefits to farmers if collective breeding goals and shared ideals are realised. However, in other situations, particularly where there are relatively small differences between organic and conventionally reared animals, adjustments to existing sources of livestock for organic systems may be sufficient. This could be simply a matter of placing greater emphasis on functional fitness traits by the individual when choosing potential bulls or boars – or it could mean customising indices to better suit the needs of organic farming systems. References ADAS, 2002. http://orgprints.org/8122/1/OF0169_2151_FRP.pdf Ahlman, T., Berglund, B., Rydhmer, L., and Strandberg, E., 2010. Culling reasons in organic and conventional dairy herds and genotype by environment interactions for longevity. 2011. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1568- 1575. Anderson, K.E., (2010) Range egg production; is it better than in cages? 2010 MPF Convention, March 16- 18 2010, St Paul, Minnesota, USA, http://www.midwestpoultry.com Augsten, F., 2002. Rinderzucht – Quo vadis?, in: Agrarbündnis: Landwirtschaft 2002. Der kritische Agrarbericht. Rheda-Wiedenbrück. Baars, T., Endendijk, D., 1990. 21 Jaar Familieteelt, 1967–1988. Louis Bolk Instituut, Driebergen, 75 p. Baars, T., Nauta, W.J., 1998. Sires in clover. Breeding without bulls from embryo transplantation. NENOF- Newsletter, 7, 17-19. Baars, T., Schmidt, G., Olbrich-Majer, M., 2005. Linienzucht mit Kuhfamilien, Basis für eine biologische Rinderzucht. Verlag Lebendige Erde, Darmstadt, 160 pp. Bakels, F., 1982. Rinderzucht auf Lebensleistung. Vortragsmanuskript im Stierkatalog der Besamungsstation Uelzen. Bapst, B., 2000. Der ökologische Gesamtzuchtwert ÖZW. Ein grosser Schritt in Richtung Biokuh, FiBL- Bulletin, 4 p. Bapst, B., 2001. Swiss experiences on practical cattle breeding for organic dairy herds. In: M. Hovi & T. Baars (Eds), Breeding and Feeding for Health and Welfare in Organic Farming. Proceedings 4th Network for Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture (NAHWOA) Workshop, 24-27 March 2001, Wageningen, University of Reading, Reading, p. 44–50. Bapst, B., Zeltner, E., 2002. Results of an international questionnaire. FiBL, Frick, 2 p. Bapst., B., 2003. Jeder Betrieb muss sein eigenes Zuchtziel haben. Bio aktuell 2: 10-13. Bapst, B., Spengler Neff, A., 2003. Projekte zur Öko-Rinderzucht in der Schweiz. Ökologie und Landbau 128: 20. Bapst, B., Stricker, Ch., 2007. Schätzung der Genotyp x Umwelt-Interaktionen zwischen ökologisch und konventionell wirtschaftenden Betrieben anhand Schweizer Produktionsdaten; Ökuh-Projekt, Abschlussworkshop, June, 2007, Kassel. Baumann, W., 2012. Öko-Geflügelzucht besser aufstellen. Lebendige Erde 4: 18-19. Bestman, M.W.P., Wagenaar, J.P., 2003. Farm level factors associated with featherpecking in organic laying hens. Livestock Production Science 80, 133-140. Bichard, M., 2002. Genetic improvement in dairy cattle – an outsider’s perspective. Livestock Production Science 75: 1-10. Borsten, J., 2011. Geitenbrei op een rij. Louis Bolk Institute. http://orgprints.org/20832/1/2556.pdf 317
Page 1 and 2:
Sonderheft 362 Special Issue Tackli
Page 3:
Landbauforschung vTI Agriculture an
Page 7 and 8:
Foreword Organic animal husbandry s
Page 9 and 10:
RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.) (2012):
Page 11 and 12:
Content RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.)
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction RAHMANN G & GODINHO D
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
References RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (E
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Abstract RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Discussion RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (E
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Factors Plant Height (cm) RAHMANN G
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Results RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.)
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
FEC adjusted for dry matter 12000 1
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Conclusions RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272: RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.) (2012):
Page 277 and 278: Results RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.)
Page 291 and 292: Abstract RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.
Page 321: RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.) (2012):
Page 353 and 354: Introduction RAHMANN G & GODINHO D
Page 355 and 356: 349 Table 1. Breeding information o
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Kg liveweight (mean) RAHMANN G & GO
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Results RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.)
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
Page 473 and 474:
Page 475 and 476:
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Page 481 and 482:
Page 483 and 484:
Page 485 and 486:
Page 487 and 488:
Page 489:
348 Herwart Böhm (Hrsg.) (2011) Op
show all

Tackling the future challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry - vTI

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?