Production and management systems do significantly effect animal health and therewith the use of drugs and prophylactic treatments. This may lead to residues and a change for the worse in food safety. The consequent implementation and use of hygiene and management tools and measures is needed, as well as a combination of these measures with effective programmes (e.g. vaccination, procedure with cleaning and disinfection, all in all out etc.) in order to limit the use of drugs in sick animals so they are used only when absolutely necessary. A better education among producers is also an important step towards higher food safety on farm level

Gauly, Matthias

English

Gauly Matthias

University of Szeged

Volume 50(3-4):109-113, 2006Acta Biologica Szegediensishttp://www.sci.u-szeged.hu/ABSARTICLELivestock Production Systems, Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Georg August University, Göttingen, GermanyImportance of animal husbandry and production management on food safety in livestock production systemsMatthias GaulyABSTRACT                        Production and management systems do significantly effect animal health and therewith the use of drugs and prophylactic treatments. This may lead to residues and a change for the worse in food safety. The consequent implementation and use of hygiene and manage-ment tools and measures is needed, as well as a combination of  these measures with effective programmes (e.g. vaccination, procedure with cleaning and disinfection, all in all out etc.) in order to limit the use of drugs in sick animals so they are used only when absolutely necessary. A better education among producers is also an important step towards higher food safety on farm level Acta Biol Szeged 50(3-4):109-113 (2006)KEY WORDSfood safetylivestock production systemsmanagement systemsgenotypebeef cattledairy cattlechickens, pigsAccepted Dec 15, 2006*Corresponding author. E-mail: mgauly@gwdg.de109Food safety is a significant concern of consumers. Ironi-cally, there is an inverse relationship between food safety and consumer concern about food safety. As the food supply has become increasingly safe, people become .... increas-ingly „hysterical“ about what „agribusiness“ is doing to their health“ (Cheeke 2004)This statement seems to be really true at least for Western European countries, where food safety is of major concern for consumers, but in reality food became more safe over the last decade. For example in Denmark every year 20,000 samples are taken from fattening pigs at commercial slaughter houses and are tested for antibiotics and chemotherapeutics, hormones and growth promotants, pesticides and heavy metals. Over the last decade only 0.01 to 0.05% positive samples were found (Nielsen 2002) containing antibiotics and/or chemo-therapeutics. However consumers are reacting very sensitive to any anticipated episodic events like the BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy) crises has shown. Thus consumption rates are immediately decreasing (Figure 1). Because food production is a very complex procedure and products from animals bear a potential health risk for consum-ers, depending on management qualities on farm and produc-tion levels, food safety has to start on the farm. These on-farm efforts will greatly influence everything else that must be done during the processing and distribution of food.The potential risks for consumers are mainly microbes including zoonotic bacteria (e.g. Salmonella, Campylobacter, Escherischa coli, Brucella, Mycobacteria), residues or contaminants of feed additives (antibiotics, antiparasitics), growth promotants and various chemicals including pesti-cides, disinfectants, environmental contaminants. Therefore the ways to ensure food safety have to start in principle on production level. These are:1. the elimination (e.g. Mycobacteria, Brucella), control and/or reduction of zoonotic bacteria on farm level (e.g. Listeria, EHEC, Clostridia, Salmonella, Toxoplasma, Cam-pylobacter), 2. the reduction of prophylactic and therapeutic use of drugs by improving management factors andthe reduction of chemical contamination.If these ways are followed consequently on farm and all other production levels a number of conflicts are arising. For example the elimination or control of bacteria mostly comes along with an increase of the prophylactic use of drugs and/or of disinfectants. This conflict can be seen for example in Denmark, where antibiotics in feed have been banned -since the year 2000, which lead to an increased use of therapeutics on farms (Figure 2).The animal husbandry and production management influ-ences food safety in livestock production on different levels. Many factors may have a direct or indirect effect on food safety e.g. the used genotype, the type of farm (organic or conventional, low- or high-Input system), the farmers educa-tion, buildings (production technique/ procedure/ stocking rate), feed stuffs, health and hygiene management etc.. In this paper some examples are given from various production systems.Genotype and food safetyBreeds have genetically based differences in the resistance 110Gaulyagainst various infections like for example parasites. Pasture management and strategic anthelmintic use are the classical methods to control for example gastrointestinal nematodes. The increase of resistance of internal parasites to anthelmintic treatments and concerns over possible chemical residues, environmental impact and cost of treatments have led to an increasing interest in alternative control methods. The use of more resistant genotypes is one of them. It can lower the total amount of drugs administered and possible chemical residues. Therefore the choice of genotype directly effects the food safety on production level. Estimated heritabilities for indicator traits of parasite re-sistance in different species proving the possibility to breed for these traits (Table 1). Management systems and food safety in beef cattleJäger et al. (2005) examined the excretion of faecal stages of different parasites (Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium parvum, Eimeria spp., Strongyloides papillosus and S. stron-gyles) and their extensities and intensities in suckler calves of beef cattle herds kept in differenthousing systems. C. parvum infections showed for example the highest extensi-ties when animals were kept indoors on deep litter without run-out (Figure 3). Whereas the lowest Eimeria extensities and intensities were found in animals kept indoors on slatted floor and animals kept outside. Coccidiosis is one of the most important endoparasitic protozoal infections in calves. It can be a serious clinical problem, causing diarrhoea and reduced growth. Its economic importance lies mainly in the lowered productivity caused by reduced growth rates, delayed age at first service and calving, reduced live performance and total economics. Therefore it has to be treated. The paper clearly showed, that the management system influenced frequencies of subclinical and clinicial diseases and the total amount of drugs needed. Thus an increase of prophylactic and therapeu-tic use of drugs as consequences on food safety (residues).Management systems and food safety in dairy cattleFossler et al. (2004) studied the connection between the management system and the isolation of Salmonella in dairy cows (n = 20,089) and pre-weaned calves (n = 4,673) on 129 farms. Of the faecal samples taken, 4.9% from cows and 3.8% from calves were Salmonella positive. The factors associated with increased odds for Samonella shedding were:no routine feeding of medicated milk replacer, use of calving pen as a hospital area for sick cows more then once a month, not storing all purchased concentrate or protein feeds in an enclosed building, not using monensin in weaned-calf or bred-heifer diets,8284868890929496981 99 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 00 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2EU - 15 G ermany  11/2000 - BSE case report Figure 1. Meat consumption (kg) per capita in the EU-15 and Germany (incl. innards) after first case report of BSE (ZMP, 2003).0501001502002501990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001F eed  antib io tic s The rap eutic s ������Figure 2. Application of antibiotics in Danish animal production (Dan-ske Slagterier 2002).Species Breed/Genotype Indicator trait HeritabilitySheep MerinolandRhönRhönRhönFaecal egg countFaecal egg countHaematocritAntibody titer0.170.12 – 0.350.080.30Chicken Lohmann Brown Lohmann LSLFaecal egg countFaecal egg count0.100.19Table 1. Heritabilities of indicator traits for parasite resistance in sheep (Haemonchus contortus-resistance) and chickens (Asca-ridia galli-resistance) (Gauly et al. 2001, 2002).Free range Floor system CageShell surfaceInside shell (bacterial penetration)Egg yolk53.0 %5.0 %3.1 %28.1 %2.5 %0.6 %11.3 %0.0 %0.0 %Table 2. Frequency of egg contamination with bacteria (E. coli, Proteus and others) in relation to management system (Matthes 1983).111Animal husbandry and production managementcow access to surface water,disposal of manure in liquid form on land andeating or grazing roughage by cows from fields having surface application of manure during the growing season.Factors not associated with increased odds for Samonella shedding were herd size and farm type (organic/conventional). The authors concluded that management factors do influence the prevalence of Salmonella and therewith food safety.Shitandi and Sternesjo (2004) evaluated the prevalence of multidrug resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Kenyan milk and investigated the differences in antimicrobial resistance between large- and small- scale producers. Susceptibility profiles for penicillin G, tetracycline, erythromycin, trim-ethoprim/sulfamethazine, and chloramphenicol were deter-mined for Staph. aureus (n = 402) isolated from cows with subclinical mastitis. There was a significant difference in the overall mean resistance profile between large- and small-scale farm isolates. The overall prevalence of multidrug resistance differed significantly between isolates from small (34.3%) and those from large farms (18.0%). Additionally, the produc-ers were interviewed about their usage of antimicrobial drugs and their attitudes towards education in related fields. There was an evident difference between the producer types in their documentation of the use of antimicrobial drugs. Small-scale farms were less inclined to documentation, and treatment re-cords were available from 22% of the small-scale farms, com-pared with 73% of the large-scale farms. Farmers expressed a need for more information in 5 areas, ranking preventive management highest; followed by affordable tests to control residues in milk; preparation of antimicrobial drugs; public health concerns; disposal of surplus antimicrobial drugs; and antimicrobial drug residue persistence in milk. It was concluded that herd size might be an indirect risk factor in the development of antimicrobial resistance in Staph. aureus within the region. The results further suggested that lack of understanding of risks related to antibiotic contamination of food, poor or no treatment records, and lack of a monitoring system were the major risks for contamination. In conclu-sion the education among dairy producers greatly affects the occurrence of antimicrobial residues in milk (Shitandi and Sternesjo 2004).051 01 52 02 51 2 3 4 5Age (weeks)Maintenance on deep litter with run-out Maintenance on deep litter without run-outextensity (%)Figure 3. Age dependent extensity of Cryptosporidium spp. oocyst excretion of German Angus beef cattle calves maintained in housing on deep litter with (n = 50) and without run-out (n = 73) (Jäger et al. 2005).01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0F ree  range F lo o r Ba ttery cageA sca rid ia  g a lliH e te ra k is  g a llin a ru mC a p illa ria  o b sig n a ta�Figure 4. Prevalence (%) of gastrointestinal helminths in relation to production system (Permin et al. 1999).3 62 7 ,92 21 1 ,5051 01 52 02 53 03 54 0F lo o rC o ncre te flo or S q ua re b a r iron S la tted  ca st iro n flo o r S la tted  p la stic  flo o r% animals with abrasions Figure 5. Frequency of intense abrasions in nursery pigs caused by floor system (Hoy 2003).7 ,92 3 ,84 0 ,24 2 ,1051 01 52 02 53 03 54 04 5nil lo w med ium high �Figure 6. Relationship between degree of abrasions in nursery pigs and the frequency of arthritis treatments (Hoy 2003).112GaulyManagement systems and food safety in chickensIt has been proved in many systems that excellent hygiene management can significantly lower the use of drugs. In industrialised countries most laying hens are kept in cages where they are separated from their faeces. Faeces are the main source of many infections. As a result the prevalence and economic importance of infections in chickens has been very low in recent decades (Permin et al. 1999). Besides positive hygiene effects, cages had other major advantages like eco-nomical factors, productivity (eggs, food conversion rate etc.), less stress for the animals because of smaller group sizes, less bird aggression and cannibalism and low mortality rates. The major disadvantage of cages is that the expression of some essential behaviour forms is limited or not possible includ-ing nesting behaviour, dust bathing and stretching. There-fore lately, animal welfare issues and changes in consumer demands have resulted in new upcoming EU-regulations. These include a ban of conventional cages after the year 2012. Only so called enriched cages (claw abrasives, nests, dust bathes, perches) and floor housing systems will be allowed in most European countries (Germany will ban all forms of cages) after the new regulations. The use of floor systems will result in a renewed importance of different diseases. It was demonstrated by various authors that in floor systems there is an increase of bacterial and viral diseases (Table 2), parasite infections (Figure 4), mortality, total drug treatment, dirty and cracked eggs and chemical residues in food products (Table 3) as well as in the environment. Therefore floor systems are negatively correlated with food safety!Management systems and food safety in fattening pigs Hoy (2003) showed that the frequency of intense abrasions in nursery pigs are related to the quality of floor systems (Figure 5), which is correlated with the frequency of arthri-tis treatments needed for the subsequent life of the animals (Figure 6).The major ways to improve hygiene on pig farm level are vaccinations, all in-all out management, cleaning and disin-fection and the control of the transfer of animals, staff ,feed stuff etc.. The effects of vaccination against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae on fattening performance in pigs and the ef-fects of cleaning and disinfection on performance and health in pigs are shown in tables 4 and 5. It was clearly shown that housing and management influence pig health, which is directly correlated with food safety!Overall conclusionsProduction and management systems do significantly effect animal health and therewith the use of drugs and prophylactic treatments. This may lead to residues and a change for the worse in food safety. The consequent implementation and use of hygiene and management tools and measures is needed, as well as a com-bination of these measures with effective programmes (e.g. vaccination, procedure with cleaning and disinfection, all in all out etc.) in order to limit the use of drugs in sick animals so they are used only when absolutely necessary. A better education among producers is also an important step towards higher food safety on farm level.AcknowledgementsThis study was presented on the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on “Food Safety and Security” held between 13-15 September, 2004, at Lake Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzstan. The workshop was funded by NAT0. Co-directors were Prof. Dr. A. Aldashev, National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic, and Prof. Dr. L. Erdei, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.Table 3. Antibiotic residues in eggs in relation to management system (Hafez et al. 1988; Friedrich et al. 1985).Residues in egg after treat-ment (days)Antibiotic,concentrationDays of treat-mentCage Floor systemNicarbazin (2 mg/kg Futter)Tetracyclin(500 mg/l water)Enrofloxacin(50 mg/l water)297416268> 6037> 46Table 4. Effects of vaccination against Mycoplasma hyopneu-moniae on fattening performance in pigs (Welp et al. 1999).Vaccination Yes Non =Daily weight gain (g)Feed conversion rate 1 :Mortality (%)12.0006972.972.5420.0006823.033.54Table 5. Effects of cleaning and disinfection on performance and health in pigs (Anonymous 1998).Cleaning and disinfection yesCleaning and disin-fection noFarms (%)Daily weight gain (g)Costs for vet and disinfection/animal (€)Mortality (%)47.96830.973.0852.16490.943.4113Animal husbandry and production managementReferencesAnonymous (1998) Auswertung des Hessischen Verbandes für Leistungs- Und Qualitätsprüfung in der Tierzucht e V für das Jahr 1998.Cheeke PR (2004) Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture. Pearson Prentice hall, 3rd ed., Upper Saddle River, N.J., USADanske Slagterier (2002) Danske Slagteriers resultatopgørelse for 2002/2003. http://www.danskeslagterier.dk/smcms/Danske_Slagterier/Videnscenter/Tal_omsvineproduk/DS_resultatopg_00_01/Index.htm?ID=136.Fossler CP, Wells SJ, Kaneene JB, Ruegg PL, Warnick LD, Bender JB, Godden SM, Halbert LW, Campbell AM, Zwald AM (2004) Prevalence of Salmonella spp on conventional and organic dairy farms. J Am Vet Med Assoc 225:567-573.Friedrich, A, Hafez HM, Woernle H (1985) Studies on Nicarbazin residue in eggs and faeces of cage and deep litter reared birds due to feed con-tamination. Tierärztliche Umschau 40:190-199.Gauly M, Preisinger R, Bauer C, Erhardt G (2001) Genetic differences of Ascaridia galli egg output in chickens following a single dose infection. Vet Parasitol 103:99-107.Gauly M, Kraus M, Vervelde L, van Leeuwen MAW, Erhardt G (2002) Estimating genetic differences in natural resistance in Rhön and Meri-noland sheep following experimental Haemonchus contortus infection. Vet Parasitol 106:55-67.Hafez HM, Woernle H, Friedrich A (1988) Mitclorpindol residues in egg from caged and deep litter reared hens. Tierärztliche Umschau 43:126-131.Hoy S (2003) Schürfwunden: Kleine Ursache, große Wirkung. DLZ Agrar-magazin 54:120-124.Jäger M, Bauer C, Gauly M, Failing K, Erhardt G, Zahner H (2005) En-doparasites in calves of beef cattle herds: management systems depend-ent and genetic influences. Vet Parasitol (submitted)Matthes S (1983) Hohenheimer Arbeiten 126:86-101.Nielsen B (2002) Kontrolle über Tier und Fleisch. Ein Schwerpunkt des dänischen Qualitätssicherungssystems ist die Lebensmittelsicherheit. Fleischwirtschaft 82:33-34.Permin A, Bisgaard M, Frandsen F, Pearman M, Nansen P, Kold J (1999) The prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in different poultry production systems. British Poultry Sci 40:439–443.Shitandi A, Sternesjo A (2004) Prevalence of multidrug resistant Staphylo-coccus aureus in milk from large- and small-scale producers in Kenya. J Dairy Sci 87:4145-4149.Welp G, Hemme K, Markus W (1999) Damit Mycoplasmen nicht die Lungen schädigen. Schweinzucht und Schweinemast 47:20-21.ZMP Zentrale Markt- und Preisberichtstelle für Erzeugnisse der Land-, Forst- und Ernährungswirtschaft GmbH, 2003 http://www.zmp.de/Lo-gin/default_vieh.asp.

Importance of animal husbandry and production management on food safety in livestock production systems

http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/22780/1/50109.pdf

Importance of animal husbandry and production management on food safety in livestock production systems

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Szeged