Tackling the future challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry - vTI

Results
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
The comparison of AW differences in private organic standards and governmental rules in Europe
with the EU general and organic legislation on one hand and on the other hand with high-level private
non-organic AW standards (like Freedom Food, UK or Neuland, Germany) showed differences
on different levels and of different accuracies (preciseness). Some were of major and other of minor
relevance (from an ethological point of view). The aspects were grouped into specific aspects like
accommodation, feeding and health care. The main differences are summarised below, which were
found in at least 5 standards (first number indicates the total number of differences, the second figure
the more relevant ones based on literature and expert opinions). Marked with * indicates major
weaknesses in organic regulation/standards compared with high non-organic AW standards from
ethological expert point of view. Areas for further development of organic rules/standards are written
in Italics; some have been found also in few organic standards.
Cattle (70/20): Areas for further development of organic standards: more space and light requirements*;
more specific feeding requirements (e.g. roughage)*; More restricted tethering, adequate
anaesthesia for castration and non-allowance of certain surgical practices (e.g. dehorning). Main
differences of EU organic regulation compared with general EU AW legislation: slatted floors forbidden
or limited, specific bedding requirements, outdoor access, longer weaning periods and provision
of calving pens.
Pigs (51/16): Areas for further development of organic standards: more space allowance*, slatted
floors forbidden or restricted*, possibilities for investigation and manipulating activities, limitation
of certain surgical practices, adequate anaesthesia for castration. Main differences of EU organic
regulation compared with general EU AW legislation: availability of litter, provision of roughage,
no hormonal treatments,
Poultry (48/17): Areas for further development of organic standards: lower indoor and outdoor
stocking densities*, higher frequency of regular visits*, better defined outdoor run and pasture.
Main differences of EU organic regulation compared with EU AW legislation: more light requirements,
more perches and nests, access to dust baths, better access to fresh water and restrictions in
breeding (mainly broilers).
Transport of animals (28/9): more drinking, resting and feeding possibilities before transport*,
provision of bedding material for the youngest in transport vehicles,, adequate pathway/ramps design,
the separation of unfamiliar groups, reduced length of journey. Only main difference of EU
organic regulation compared with EU AW legislation: interdiction of sedatives/tranquilisers
Slaughter of animals (39/9): time between stunning and bleeding*, more lairage requirements
(start of lairage, space, lighting, floors etc.), the avoidance of group mixing, the, specific education
of the staff. Only main difference of EU organic regulation compared with EU AW legislation: nonuse
of electric stimulation.
Where and how to improve AW in organic farming?
There are several areas, where animal welfare can be improved in organic agriculture. The most
crucial weaknesses in organic standards are related to transport and slaughter, where almost no specific
requirements are set..
One of the major challenges of improving animal welfare, not only in organic farming but also generally,
is the scepticism of farmers against new (over-prescriptive) rules.
A possibility to overcome this scepticism is to develop complimentary instruments for selfassessment
tools for farmers and inspectors how animal welfare can be developed on a farm. For
improving AW in organic farming it is desirable to put stronger emphasis on animal-related criteria
and indicators. Organic standard setting organisations should take a lead in this approach.
447