Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:12:07.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Welfare Quality® assessment protocol: how can it be adapted to family farming dual purpose cattle raised under extensive systems in tropical conditions?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A Hernandez ,
C Berg ,
S Eriksson ,
L Edstam ,
A Orihuela ,
H Leon  and
C Galina
A Hernandez
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Skara, Sweden
C Berg*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Skara, Sweden
S Eriksson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Skara, Sweden
L Edstam
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Skara, Sweden
A Orihuela
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, 62210 Morelos, México
H Leon
Affiliation:
Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas, 29059, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, México
C Galina
Affiliation:
Departamento de Reproducción, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 04510 DF, México
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: author: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Family farming is still the main source of income for many people in the tropical regions of the world. At the same time, modern society is quickly becoming more aware of the welfare of animals for human consumption. The main objective of this study was to illustrate the need to modify certain aspects of the original Welfare Quality® (WQ) protocols developed by the EU-funded WQ project, under the conditions of small community farmers in the tropics. Thirty-four dual purpose farms in the State of Chiapas, Mexico, which had their main production focus on milk but for whom beef production was also of significant value, were evaluated utilising a merged version of the WQ protocols for dairy and beef cattle. Based on their average score, the farms obtained at least an acceptable level in each indicator of welfare. However, after merging indicators from the dairy and beef cattle protocols of WQ in order to adjust it to the prevailing conditions in the tropics, a number of sections are not applicable. This is particularly true of the section related to good housing, where most of the items do not apply due to the absence of infrastructure; the farms obtained a very high score in this section but further studies to verify whether this reflects an accurate assessment of the welfare status should be carried out. In general, the approach of the WQ protocol was useful, however certain aspects are quite different from the conventional intensive farming systems predominantly used in Europe and there is a need to implement a number of modifications.

Keywords

animal welfareBos indicusBos taurusdual purpose cowssustainabilitytropics
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 177 - 184
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Absalón-Medina, VA, Blake, RW, Fox, DG, Juárez-Lagunes, FI, Nicholson, CF, Canudas-Lara, EG and Rueda-Maldonado, BL 2012 Limitations and potentials of dual-purpose cow herds in Central Coastal Veracruz, Mexico. Tropical Animal Health Production 44: 1131–1142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-011-0049-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmed, MMM and El Hag, FM 2003 Energy supply to livestock from tropical rangeland during the dry season. Tropical Animal Health and Production 35: 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022829719848CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, HJ 2008 International cooperation in animal welfare: The Welfare Quality® Project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50(Suppl I): S10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corro, M, Rubio, I, Castillo, E, Galindo, L, Aluja, A, Galina, CS and Murcia, C 1999 Effect of blood metabolites, body con-dition and pasture management on milk yield and postpartum intervals in dual-purpose cattle farms in the tropics of the State of Veracruz, Mexico. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 38: 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(98)00117-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, SM, Redbo, I and Wiktorsson, H 2001 Behaviour of zebu and crossbred cows in restricted suckling groups. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00116-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission 2006 Special Eurobarometer 238. Risk Issues: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Fröberg, S, Aspegren-Güldorff, A, Olsson, I, Marin, B, Berg, C, Hernández, C, Galina, CS, Lidfors, L and Svennersten-Sjaunja, K 2007 Effect of restricted suckling on milk yield, milk composition and udder health in cows and behaviour and weight gain in calves, in dual-purpose cattle in the tropics. Tropical Animal Health Production 39: 71–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fröberg, S, Gratte, E, Svennersten-Sjaunja, K, Olsson, I, Berg, C, Orihuela, A, Galina, CS, García, B and Lidfors, L 2008 Effect of suckling (‘restricted suckling’) on dairy cows’ udder health and milk let-down and their calves’ weight gain, feed intake and behavior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galina, CS, Calderon, A and McCloskey, M 1982 Detection of signs of estrus in the Charolais cow and its Brahman cross under continuous observation. Theriogenology 17: 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-691X(82)90175-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González-García, E, Gourdine, JL, Alexandre, G, Archimede, H and Vaarst, M 2012 The complex nature of mixed farming systems requires multidimensional actions sup-ported by integrative research and development efforts. Animal 6:763–777. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111001923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huertas, SM, Paranhos da Costa, M, Manteca, X, Galindo, F and Morales, MS 2009 An overview of the application of the ani-mal welfare assessment system in Latin America. In: Keeling L (ed) An Overview of the Development of the Welfare Quality® An overview of the application of the ani-mal welfare assessment system in Latin America. In: Keeling L (ed) An Overview of the Development of the Welfare Quality® Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future per-spectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458Google Scholar
Masahiko, H, Taketomi, I, Matsumoto, Y and Kubo, S 2013 Trade-offs between feeding and social companionship in cattle: Intra-animal consistency over short and extended periods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 146: 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appl anim.2013.03.004Google Scholar
Orihuela, A, Galina, CS, Escobar, FJ and Riquelme, E 1983 Estrous behavior following prostaglandin F2a injection in Zebu cat-tle under continuous observation. Theriogenology 19: 795–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-691X(93)90323-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orihuela, A and Solano, VJ 1994 Relationship between order of entry in slaughterhouse raceway and time to traverse raceway. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90071-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popescu, S, Borda, C, Diugan, EA, Spinu, M, Groza, IS and Sandru, CD 2013 Dairy cows welfare quality in tie-stall housing system with or without access to exercise. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 55: 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-55-43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rigby, D and Caceres, D 2001 Organic farming and the sustain-ability of agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems 68: 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(00)00060-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C 2010 Dimensionierung und Gestaltung von Laufställen für behornte Milchkühe unter Berücksichtigung des Herdenmanage-ments. PhD, University of Kassel, Germany. [Title translation: Dimensioning and design of runways for dairy cows under consid-eration of herd management]Google Scholar
Smith, KT and Brower, TR 2012 Longitudinal study of green mar-keting strategies that influence millennials. Journal of Strategic Marketing 20: 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2012.711345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Baars, T and Menke, C 2001 Understanding the cow - the central role of human-animal relationship in keeping horned dairy cows in loose housing. In: Hovi M and Bouilhol M (eds) Human-Animal Relationship: Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock Systems, Third Workshop of the International Network on Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture (NAH-WOA) pp 64–78. 21-24 October 2001, Clermont-Ferrand, FranceGoogle Scholar
Wauchope, RD 1978 The pesticide content of surface water draining from agricultural fields. A Review. Journal of Environmental Quality 7:459–472. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1978.00472425000700040001xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® Project 2009 Welfare Quality® assess-ment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands. http://www.welfarequalitynet-work.net/downloadattachment/45627/21650/Cattle%20Protocol%20without%20Veal%20Calves.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hernandez et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 373.5 KB