Systemic enablers and barriers to extending the productive life of Swiss dairy cows

The economically and environmentally optimum length of productive life of European dairy cows, which is commonly described in terms of the number of completed lactations or productive life days (milking days) before a cow is replaced, is between six and seven lactations. However, the current average length in Switzerland, and many other countries, is approximately half that figure, which is both inefficient and ethically questionable. The aim of this study is to investigate systemic barriers to, and enablers for, the extension of the length of productive life of dairy cows in Switzerland. Data were collected by means of 29 qualitative expert interviews. Interviewed experts were selected by purposive sampling to cover a broad range of different stakeholder groups within the Swiss dairy farming system. The analysis of the interviews was done by classifying statements to inductive codes based on their content. The results show that breeder associations encourage extended service life by advertising that longer life increases milk yield per day of life. Information on the benefits of extended service life is readily available, but is not a focus of farmer education so farmers are not motivated to use the available calculation tools. Milk prices are low, so farmers try to maximise production while minimising costs so make breeding decisions based on production rather than robustness. Swiss vets are highly educated and familiar with herd management so could potentially motivate a change in the mindset of dairy farmers. However, vets are expensive so few farmers seek advice from veterinarians on herd management. In conclusion, the existing system is so deeply entrenched that no actors feel they can bring about comprehensive change on their own. Any actor who could initiate change in their part of the system fears that they would then no longer be in harmony with the rest of the system. Therefore, they are committed to behaviours that they know are not optimal and overcoming these lock-ins can only take place slowly. Collaborative reflection at industry level, led by breeder’s associations, vets, and advisors, and the further development of the existing decision support tools, may lead to optimisation of the system, and to a longer productive life of dairy cows

Implementation of husbandry practices improving quality and sustainability: a living lab approach

The living lab approach to innovation is receiving increasing attention also in the agricultural sector in view of the current environmental, economic, and social challenges. This contribution presents some preliminary results of INTAQT project (EU Horizon 2020), which aims to perform an in- depth multi-criteria assessment of the relationships between animal husbandry and qualities of products. In specific, this research aims to identify and implement on-farm changes in the production processes (e.g. feeding regimes, outdoor access, herd management), which are expected to improve intrinsic quality traits of the products and/or sustainability traits of the farms. A participatory approach was used to establish farmer field-groups (living labs) representative of the different geographic regions and of the main production systems involved in the project. Each farmer field group involves from 5 to 8 farms. The groups are established considering different husbandry systems according to a gradient of intensification (extensive vs intensive systems): 3 groups for dairy farms (Ireland, northern Italy and France); two groups for beef farms (Switzerland and northern Italy); two groups for poultr (France and Italy). The methodological approach is based on 5 steps: (1) tarting analytical phase: a critical analysis of trade-offs / synergies between sustainability and quality traits for each farmfield group; (2) decision phase: development of practices to improve the identified synergies / mitigate trade-offs; (3) implementation phase: implementation of practices for at least one year. During this time, 2-3 meetings of the whole farmers group on farms allow farmers discussions about their experiences, successes and drawbacks; (4) concluding analytical phase: the aim is to analyse the effects of the implementation of the practices during a last meeting in the farmer’s groups and presentation of the analysis results; (5) scientific data analysis and interpretation. The first results of this approach will be presented and discussed. The ambition is to establish a network of living labs usable as pilot and demonstration enterprises regarding practice improvements for better food quality and sustainability

Implementation of husbandry practices improving quality and sustainability: a living lab approach

International audienceThe living lab approach to innovation is receiving increasing attention also in the agricultural sector in view of thecurrent environmental, economic, and social challenges. This contribution presents some preliminary results ofINTAQT project (EU Horizon 2020), which aims to perform an in- depth multi-criteria assessment of the relationshipsbetween animal husbandry and qualities of products. In specific, this research aims to identify and implement on-farmchanges in the production processes (e.g. feeding regimes, outdoor access, herd management), which are expectedto improve intrinsic quality traits of the products and/or sustainability traits of the farms. A participatory approachwas used to establish farmer field-groups (living labs) representative of the different geographic regions and of themain production systems involved in the project. Each farmer field group involves from 5 to 8 farms. The groups areestablished considering different husbandry systems according to a gradient of intensification (extensive vs intensivesystems): 3 groups for dairy farms (Ireland, northern Italy and France); two groups for beef farms (Switzerland andnorthern Italy); two groups for poultry (France and Italy). The methodological approach is based on 5 steps: (1) tartinganalytical phase: a critical analysis of trade-offs / synergies between sustainability and quality traits for each farmfield group; (2) decision phase: development of practices to improve the identified synergies / mitigate trade-offs; (3)implementation phase: implementation of practices for at least one year. During this time, 2-3 meetings of the wholefarmers group on farms allow farmers discussions about their experiences, successes and drawbacks; (4) concludinganalytical phase: the aim is to analyse the effects of the implementation of the practices during a last meeting in thefarmer’s groups and presentation of the analysis results; (5) scientific data analysis and interpretation. The first resultsof this approach will be presented and discussed. The ambition is to establish a network of living labs usable as pilotand demonstration enterprises regarding practice improvements for better food quality and sustainabilit

Report: Deliverable 2.2.2 Passive transfer of immunity from cows to calves and antibodies in nursing cows’ milk

The transfer of sufficient immunoglobulin G (IgG) to the neonatal calf through colostrum is essential to provide the calf with immunological protection and resistance against disease. Studies on the efficiency of colstrum intake and levels of IgG absorption in calves reared with cow contact are contradictory . On-farm trials were conducted in Switzerland (CH) and France (FR) to test if (1) passive transfer of immunity from cows to calves and (2) if immune (IgG) and antimicrobial (lactoferrin content=LF) parameters in dairy cows’ milk would change by nursing. Calves’ plasma and milk from cows being milked and additionally suckled twice daily for 30 minutes after milking (CH) or between morning and evening milking (FR) was compared to milk from dairy cows only milked. In CH trials IgG content in calf serum did not differ between feeding groups at any observation point, but showed a clear change over time in form of a marked drop followed by an increase again. This was mainly due to the fact that colostrum mangement between suckling and teat bucket fed calves did not differ in these trials. In FR, the IgG concentration in calves’ serum was similar in the different groups and no interaction was observed with the week. The passive immunity transfer was adequate for most calves, except for 3, 2 and 4 calves (out of 14) in groups Control, Dam and Mixed respectively whose plasma IgG concentration was below the threshold of 10 g/L (Besser et al., 1991). The plasma IgG concentration decreased significantly from week 3 to 10 and was significantly higher in female than in male calves. In Swiss trials neither IgG content (mg/L) nor lactoferrin content (LF) in cows' milk differed between feeding regimes. While IgG considerably decreased after 3 weeks, LF content stayed constant, but was more variable in nursing cows. By contrast, in French trials milk IgG was significantly higher in Mixed-cows in week 3, compared to Control and Dam-cows. This finding is very surprising considering that in week 3, all Mixed and Dam cows were suckling their calves. Therefore, differences do not seem to be due to calves’ suckling. Further investigations need to be done in order to try to understand the French results. Also contrary to the Swiss results, milk LF concentration increased steadily from week 3 to 13 and in Week 13. Milk LF was significantly higher in Control cows compared to Dam and Mixed-cows. Again, this result is very surprising and does not seem to be related to calves’ suckling as in week 13, all calves were weaned in all groups. Here again, further investigation needs to be done in order to try to understand this result that could be linked to milk SCC, slightly higher in average in Control cows in week 13

The INTAQT project: stakeholders’ opinions on future multicriteria scoring tools for animal products

Agri-food chain actors (AFAs) lack reliable information to meet consumer expectations in relation to multiple facets of intrinsic quality of chicken meat, beef, and dairy products from the various European livestock systems. One of the challenges of the INTAQT project is to build, with AFAs, multi-criteria scoring tools related to products global quality. This tool should combine safety, sensory, and nutritional results obtained during the project-based on collection of poultry/beef/dairy samples and possibly other quality criteria. Multi-actor participatory approach was applied to present and discuss the concept of a multicriteria scoring tool, collecting opinions, fears, and expectations on this tool. On a consumer side, it was felt that such a multi-criteria score placed on products could be a clear and simple representation of a complex reality. However, some disadvantages were expressed about its reliability or implementation. For their part, AFAs had varying opinions on the tool’s target, mainly about its possible use as an internal tool or for consumer information, with different pros and cons expressed on both aims. Fears dealt with the building of the tool, and its relevance, representativeness, practical use, and the potential dangers, especially if safety aspects were included. However, both consumers and AFAs agree on the need to include in this tool extrinsic criteria such as farming system sustainability and animal welfare

The INTAQT project: stakeholders’ perceptions and points of view on products quality

The INTAQT project aims to characterize the links between husbandry systems and the quality of poultry meat, beef and dairy products after consulting at national and Europea levels the actors of each sector on their expectations. The first step was to identify their perceptions and points of view in terms of product quality and this communication focuses on results obtained with producers, processors, retailers and some representatives of citizens’ associations. In addition to the intrinsic quality criteria already foreseen in the project (health, nutrition, organoleptic), stakeholders spontaneously expressed the importance of considering extrinsic criteria related to sustainability (animal welfare, environment, socio-economic aspects) as well as technological quality. The other criteria were mentioned in a variable way depending on the type of stakeholder, the country and the sector concerned. These results are consistent with consumers’ views and they have been taken into account to include other quality criteria in the project

The INTAQT project: stakeholders’ expectations on husbandry systems and innovative practices

The INTAQT project aims to establish the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic quality criteria of animal products and European husbandry systems. Another aim is to evaluate the impact of innovative husbandry practices on the quality of the products. In order to determine, which husbandry systems and practices the project should study, a European-wide stakeholder consultation of the chicken, beef and dairy value chains was conducted. Stakeholders were presented with a preselection of husbandry systems and were requested to modify or add systems according to their interest, and to name innovative practices to be tested. In total, 161 face-to-face interviews took place between October 2021 and March 2022, followed by 12 national and 3 European group meetings. Overall, stakeholders of all value chains were satisfied with the initially selected systems. Suggestions covered both mainstream systems as well as new, innovative ones, which are emerging due to the growing societal rejection of intensive farming practices. These included systems that improve the farms’ self-autonomy, use local resources or a circular economy, or improve animal welfare and environmental impact. Similarly, actors in all three value chains suggested innovative practices that centre on increased animal welfare and environmental sustainability, thus reflecting a willingness to respond to societal demands

The INTAQT project: stakeholders’ expectations on husbandry systems and innovative practices

The INTAQT project aims to establish the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic quality criteria of animal products and European husbandry systems. Another aim is to evaluate the impact of innovative husbandry practices on the quality of the products. In order to determine, which husbandry systems and practices the project should study, a European-wide stakeholder consultation of the chicken, beef and dairy value chains was conducted. Stakeholders were presented with a preselection of husbandry systems and were requested to modify or add systems according to their interest, and to name innovative practices to be tested. In total, 161 face-to-face interviews took place between October 2021 and March 2022, followed by 12 national and 3 European group meetings. Overall, stakeholders of all value chains were satisfied with the initially selected systems. Suggestions covered both mainstream systems as well as new, innovative ones, which are emerging due to the growing societal rejection of intensive farming practices. These included systems that improve the farms’ self-autonomy, use local resources or a circular economy, or improve animal welfare and environmental impact. Similarly, actors in all three value chains suggested innovative practices that centre on increased animal welfare and environmental sustainability, thus reflecting a willingness to respond to societal demands

The INTAQT project: stakeholders’ perceptions and points of view on products quality

International audienceThe INTAQT project aims to characterize the links between husbandry systems and the quality of poultry meat, beefand dairy products after consulting at national and European levels the actors of each sector on their expectations.The first step was to identify their perceptions and points of view in terms of product quality and this communicationfocuses on results obtained with producers, processors, retailers and some representatives of citizens’ associations. Inaddition to the intrinsic quality criteria already foreseen in the project (health, nutrition, organoleptic), stakeholdersspontaneously expressed the importance of considering extrinsic criteria related to sustainability (animal welfare,environment, socio-economic aspects) as well as technological quality. The other criteria were mentioned in a variableway depending on the type of stakeholder, the country and the sector concerned. These results are consistent withconsumers’ views and they have been taken into account to include other quality criteria in the projec