Organic livestock farming places strong emphasis on conditions that allow animals to exhibit behavioural needs. This involves the provision of a natural environment and, in particular, outdoor conditions and a reliance on natural forages. Such environments also allow animals to be effectively integrated into crop production. However, there are potential disease risks associated with these conditions, with control options being partly limited by restrictions on chemoprophylactic measures. Examples from dairy and poultry production demonstrate how a basic understanding of ethology and a knowledge of disease epidemiology can enhance the welfare of animals whilst satisfying the ecological objectives of organic farming. Existing epidemiological models and published data can be used to examine the potential ensuing health hazards and control possibilities and to suggest alternatives

Lockeretz, W.

Lund, V.

Roderick, S.

Vaarst, M.

English

M. Vaarst

S. Roderick

V. Lund

W. Lockeretz

CiteSeerX

Combining ethological thinking and epidemiological knowledge to enhance the naturalness of organic livestock systems

Organic Eprints

Practical Forage and Livestock Production87Combining Ethological Thinking and Epidemiological Knowledgeto Enhance the Naturalness of Organic Livestock SystemsM. VAARST1, S. RODERICK2, V. LUND3 and W. LOCKERETZ41 Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 50, DK – 8830, Tjele, Denmark.2 Organic Studies Centre, Duchy College, Rosewarne, Camborne Cornwall, TR14 0AB UK3 National Veterinary Institute, Pb. 8156 Dep., N-0033 Oslo, Norway4 Friedman School of Nutrition Science and  Policy, Tufts University, Boston MA02111, USAABSTRACTOrganic livestock farming places strong emphasis on conditions that allow animals toexhibit behavioural needs. This involves the provision of a natural environment and, inparticular, outdoor conditions and a reliance on natural forages. Such environments alsoallow animals to be effectively integrated into crop production. However, there arepotential disease risks associated with these conditions, with control options being partlylimited by restrictions on chemoprophylactic measures. Examples from dairy and poultryproduction demonstrate how a basic understanding of ethology and a knowledge ofdisease epidemiology can enhance the welfare of animals whilst satisfying the ecologicalobjectives of organic farming. Existing epidemiological models and published data can beused to examine the potential ensuing health hazards and control possibilities and tosuggest alternatives.INTRODUCTIONThe concept of naturalness underpins the special philosophy of organic livestock farming.This includes the idea that farm animals should live in an environment corresponding tothat which they are adapted to through evolution, and that they should be allowed toperform species-specific behaviour and be fed according to their physiological needs. InNorthern Europe, animals have increasingly been confined in artificial environments thatdo not allow them to exhibit their physiological and behavioural needs. Also, the time thefarmer has available for each animal has dramatically decreased. As a result, manyfarmers have lost a good understanding of animal behaviour, e.g. herding, controllingnatural breeding, and identifying sick animals for treatment. This becomes particularlydetrimental in organic farming, where management should be based on understanding ofanimal behaviour and where preventive health care is vital. This involves a certainfreedom of choice. ‘Care’ is understood as the counterpart of naturalness, expressinghumans’ special responsibility towards domestic animals (Alroe et al., 2001).Organic farming puts greater emphasis on animal needs and integration with theenvironment. However, naturalness has not always been embodied in practice. Forexample, organic dairy production tends to differ from conventional systems in provisionof feeds and disease controls. If naturalness is taken seriously, management will be basedmore on insights into animal behaviour, would involve more consideration of the animalas a part of a herd and would offer greater provision of a natural environment.Since the overall goal in organic farming is to create sustainable systems, thisphilosophical framework can create several dilemmas, particularly in relation toEnhancing the Naturalness of Organic Livestock Systems88integrating naturalness into the systems of production as well as the other animal health,economic and environmental objectives of organic farming. In this paper, we focus on thebasic understanding of ethology and knowledge of disease epidemiology, and how thecombination of knowledge in these two areas can help deal with this problem whilstsatisfying the ecological objectives of organic farming.APPLYING ETHOLOGICAL THINKINGImproved knowledge of animal behaviour can be viewed as important in organic farmingfor at least three reasons: 1) to solve immediate challenges in animal care and production;2) to understand what is required for animals to express their natural behaviour; and 3) toimprove the animals’ welfare in the long term.With few exceptions, all farm animal species are social. In the wild, group living canprovide many advantages for the individual, such as increased efficiency in detecting andacquiring food and better protection against predators, but there can also bedisadvantages, such as increased exposure to parasites and pathogens. Thus, naturalpopulations have optimal group sizes, adapted to their communication and recognitionabilities, season and developmental stage. When these more natural group structures areintroduced on the farm, animals are allowed a greater opportunity to express their socialbehaviour. However, the structure that best suits the animal may be uneconomical. Forexample, under wild conditions groups of mixed sexes and ages are most likely, yet undercommercial conditions would increase costs and cause management difficulties. Studiesof animals living under wild or semi-wild conditions can be used when developingalternative and more ‘natural’ systems. In organic farming this idea is being applied moreto pig and poultry production than to dairy farming.DISEASE EPIDEMIOLOGY AND ‘NATURAL LIVING’Conversion to organic production may result in changes in disease epidemiology,possibly as a consequence of changing farmers’ attitudes and perception, treatmentthresholds or prohibition of preventive medication, changes in cost-benefit relationships,new feeding strategies or change in disease factors associated with greater outdoor access.Although focusing on natural living potentially gives many welfare benefits and reducesmany of the behavioural and bacterial disease problems in crowded and poorly ventilatedindoor systems, free-range organic animal husbandry has raised the question of whetherthe animals’ welfare is at risk. There may be specific diseases that justify this concern,and the few studies published so far indicate that the major health concerns are related toparasitic and other infections connected with outdoor rearing (Thamsborg et al., 2003).Organic animal husbandry places particular emphasis on health promotion and diseaseprevention, including breed selection, animal husbandry practice, feeding natural forages,free-range conditions and appropriate stocking densities (CEC, 1999). Patterns of diseaseare influenced by biological, economic, cultural and environmental factors.Epidemiological studies that include such factors can enhance our understanding of howto promote health and manage disease organically.The aim in organic farming is co-operation with nature, including improving theanimals’ ability to deal with disease challenges. One can debate whether outdoor andfree-range systems enable a more balanced immune response or present an animalwelfare issue. The animals need to build up their ability to handle infections, e.g. throughPractical Forage and Livestock Production89low stress levels and low dosage exposure to infective agents in cases where immuneresponse can develop. However, we also need to discuss what disease levels are‘tolerable’ in organic farming, since the aim is not to eradicate diseases at any price.Ultimately, the organic farmer can intervene with treatment or other forms of care. It isnot relevant to raise concern about ‘suffering’ of organic animals, and the emphasis onanimal health and welfare in organic production should not be ignored. With correctfeeding, stocking, breeding, and care, the risk of disease need not be a major concern.COMBINING ORGANIC THINKINGThe aim of organic farming is to develop viable agro-ecosystems whose parts supporteach other to create a better and more productive whole (Lund et al., 2004). Integration ofmore than one livestock species and of livestock with cropping can be the basis of abalanced and sustainable farming system, allowing nutrient recycling and effectiveresource use. Due consideration must be taken of the whole system. For example, if notmanaged properly, natural animal behaviour can cause problems. Under naturalconditions pigs and chickens spend most of the day looking for food. Restricted foraging(e.g. where animals are fed concentrated diets from a feeder) can lead to behaviouraldisturbances, and it has been suggested as a cause of feather pecking in chickens(Blokhuis, 1986). The organic requirement to provide animals with roughage and givethem access to grass helps to mitigate some problems related to foraging behaviour, but achallenge remains for production systems to use animal behaviour as an asset, and notsimply solve behavioural problems. This must be done as an integrated part of the wholeorganic system. However, some conflicts are difficult to avoid and care must be taken tosolve these in a constructive way, still including the animal welfare objectives.Example 1: Group living in dairy calvesGiven the choice, most farm animals would live in groups for at least part of their lives,and this is a requirement in housed organic animals. This is contrary to how most youngdairy calves are reared in North-west Europe, where individual housing is most common.If learning from how a ‘natural’ system works, there would be a calving season, cowswould naturally bond with their own calves and there would be a small but stablegrouping of calves of the same age within the herd. The advantages of being in a grouplike this is the learning element: the calves will gradually move from playing to forming ahierarchy, which will be supported by the stability of the group. How can this be broughtinto daily practice in large European dairy herds?The argument for single-calf housing often refers to disease risk (e.g. pasteurellosis),suckling on other calves in the group, and that single penned calves are less demanding tomanage, and disease is easier to monitor. The ease of disease surveillance may, in part,explain why disease incidence is higher in group-housed calves: they are more time-consuming to observe and manage. Yet, from an ethological and natural perspectivegroup-housing would be most beneficial. Solutions are required that enable calves to livewithin groups and yet remain healthy. One key could be the emphasis on stability,allowing calves to build up a common immunity, as well as gradually forming a groupstructure and hierarchy without being disturbed by new animals and new infections.Stable groups, reared together, will assist in promoting good health and supporting thecalves’ needs for developing social behaviour. The next step could be groups of dairyEnhancing the Naturalness of Organic Livestock Systems90cows with calves, thus facilitating the learning process through adult contact. Goodexamples of such systems exist, but are still more complex, e.g. in larger herds on limitedspace and with no distinct calving season.Example 2: Integration of poultry in the crop rotationFree-range systems are required in organic poultry production, and these systems doprovide an opportunity for group living, albeit in single-age groups. However, this systemcould present increased parasite and predation risk. In large-scale poultry production, all-in / all-out systems will typically be introduced as a necessary means to prevent diseases,which implies single-age groups. The inclusion of cockerels in poultry flocks can,however, improve group dynamics. Group size is another feature that for economicreasons usually deviates greatly from what is considered the optimum in natural habitats.Mobile houses offer opportunities for smaller groups and are better suited to integratingpoultry into the farming system. A mobile poultry system that fits into a crop rotation builds soil fertility and uses farmresources more efficiently, including ‘wastes’. There also are natural parasite controlbenefits from pasture rotation, which could extend to benefit ruminants within the croprotation. However, annual cropping does not allow the establishment of trees and bushesthat resemble the natural environment of the species (i.e. jungle shrub) and which satisfythe animals’ basic instinct to escape predation. One way to grow annual crops and stillprovide a more natural environment for poultry could be to grow tall crops such as maize,although this may be difficult to combine with mobile systems. A trade-off must be madebetween the poultry’s need for a natural environment, and the epidemiologicalrequirements of parasite control. Integration of animals with orchards or fruit plantationsappears to suit organic systems better than integration with annual crops; a good exampleof layer birds both benefiting from, and contributing to, a raspberry crop is provided byReid (2002).CONCLUSIONSIn organic farming, naturalness and a natural life are considered important for animalwelfare. This paper has highlighted the significant difficulties associated with combiningthese with the other objectives of organic farming, particularly high standards of animalhealth and the requirement for economic efficiency. However, the paper has alsoillustrated that, with a basic understanding of behavioural needs and knowledge ofdisease risks and patterns, combined with an innovative approach, sustainable, functionaland mutually beneficial animal and crop system are feasible. This knowledge must besupported by the practical implementation of appropriate housing facilities and grazingarrangements, disease surveillance and good human-animal relationships. Existingepidemiological models and published data can be used to examine the potential ensuinghealth hazards and control possibilities and to suggest alternatives. Finally, whilst theprinciples of naturalness are embedded within the legal framework for organic farming, itis imperative that producers not only fulfil these legal requirements, but also embrace theunderlying principles when developing and managing organic livestock systems.Practical Forage and Livestock Production91REFERENCESALROE H.F., VAARST M. and KRISTENSEN E.S. (2001) Does organic farming face distinctivelivestock welfare issues? A conceptual analysis. Journal of Agricultural and EnvironmentalEthics, 14, 275-299.BLOKHUIS H.J.(1986) Feather pecking in poultry: its relation with ground pecking. AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science, 16, 63-67.CEC (1999) Council Regulation No. 1804/1999 supplementing Regulation No 2092/91 on organicproduction. Official Journal of the European Communities, 42, L222, 1-28.LUND V., ANTHONY R. and RÖCKLINSBERG H. (2004) The ethical contract as a tool inorganic animal husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17, 23-49.REID F. (2002) Integrating layer chickens into a certified organic raspberry and vegetable farm.In: Proceedings of the 14th IFOAM Organic World Congress, 21-24 August, Victoria, Canada,p.80.THAMSBORG S.M., RODERICK S. and SUNDRUM A. (2003) Animal Health and Diseases inOrganic Agriculture: an Overview. In: Vaarst M., Roderick S., Lund V. and Lockeretz W. (eds.):Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Animal Husbandry, pp 227-252. Wallingford UK: CABI.

Combining Ethological Thinking and Epidemiological Knowledge to Enhance the Naturalness of Organic Livestock Systems

Combining Ethological Thinking and Epidemiological Knowledge to Enhance the Naturalness of Organic Livestock Systems

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX

Organic Eprints