Tackling the future challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry - vTI

! 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
In Switzerland a prototype checklist for cattle was developed in a diploma work at Inforama (HF) in
Zollikofen (Knutti, 2012), which was tested on several organic farms in Switzerland. The main aim
was to have a simplified system of observational indicators, which both the farmer as well as the
inspector could use on a selected minimum number of animals. The following criteria were used:
Nutritional condition; degree of dirtiness; injuries and lesions (differentiated in subcategories) and
management indicators like state of claws, and kind of behaviour. A simple score of 1-3 is used,
which indicates if on a farm the AW situation is good, can be still improved or is not satisfactory
and must be changed.
Table 1. Prototype cattle checklist/protocol for organic farmers and inspectors in
Switzerland
Animal related indicators Support tools Score 1 Score 2 Score 3
Nutritional condition with body condition
score system of FiBL):
good lean/fatless too fat
Degree of dirtiness supported with pictures none medium strong
Injuries and lesions (further
differentiated)
supported with pictures none little strong
Lameness none little strong
State of claws supported with pictures well-managed ok Not well managed
Stable-related indicators Support tools Score 1 Score 2 Score 3
Hygienic conditions: fodder,
water, place
clean ok not hygienic
Floor not slippery slightly slippery very slippery
Air quality good sticky very sticky
Use of cleaning brushes well-used not well-used not used at
all/none
Overall result For all selected animals /
For whole stable/unit
Source: Knutti, 2012
The first feedback from farmers, where during inspection visits this checklist was used, as well as
from certifiers was positive. The time needed (20 minutes) was seen as acceptable. Different overall
assessment systems can be applied; this is up to the certification body: e.g. Knutti (2012) proposes
that no score 3 is found. The possibility to compare the self-assessment with the assessment of the
inspector was perceived positively. Another positive point was that the main goal of this approach
is an improvement of the husbandry practises with the use of observational check-points as opposed
to sanctions of non-fulfilment of standards requirements.
Discussion
The authors recommend standard setting organisations to introduce in addition to the more general
animal welfare conditions for all animals, some more specific ethological AW criteria for the different
main animal groups, e.g. for cattle: social grooming and grazing; for pigs: rooting, separate
lying, activity/dunging and feeding areas, free farrowing, group housing and for poultry: nesting,
wing stretching/flapping, foraging, dust-bathing, perching and preening.
Furthermore it is desirable to assess and monitor the impact of housing systems and space requirements
on animal welfare by using more outcomes/or animal-related parameters. Indicators such as
body condition scores (relevant for different animal categories), lameness, skin lesions and injury
and prevalence of abnormal behaviour/stereotypies (e.g. feather pecking, tail biting, oral stereotypies
in sows, etc.) have to be taken into account.
448