Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:30:12.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of organic, conventional and intensive beef farm systems: health, management and animal production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2012

I. Blanco-Penedo ,
M. López-Alonso ,
R. F. Shore ,
M. Miranda ,
C. Castillo ,
J. Hernández  and
J. L. Benedito
I. Blanco-Penedo*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Patoloxía Animal, Facultade de Veterinaria, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo 27002, Spain
M. López-Alonso
Affiliation:
Departamento de Patoloxía Animal, Facultade de Veterinaria, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo 27002, Spain
R. F. Shore
Affiliation:
NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP, UK
M. Miranda
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias Clínicas Veterinarias, Facultade de Veterinaria, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo 27002, Spain
C. Castillo
Affiliation:
Departamento de Patoloxía Animal, Facultade de Veterinaria, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo 27002, Spain
J. Hernández
Affiliation:
Departamento de Patoloxía Animal, Facultade de Veterinaria, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo 27002, Spain
J. L. Benedito
Affiliation:
Departamento de Patoloxía Animal, Facultade de Veterinaria, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo 27002, Spain
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The overall aim of the present study was to analyse and compare organic beef cattle farming in Spain with intensive and conventional systems. An on-farm study comparing farm management practices and animal health was carried out. The study also focussed on a slaughterhouse analysis by comparing impacts on the safety and quality of the cattle products. Twenty-four organic and 26 conventional farms were inspected, and farmers responded to a questionnaire that covered all basic data on their husbandry practices, farm management, veterinary treatments and reproductive performance during 2007. Furthermore, data on the hygiene and quality of 244, 2596 and 3021 carcasses of calves from organic, intensive and conventional farms, respectively, were retrieved from the official yearbook (2007) of a slaughterhouse. Differences found between organic and conventional farms across the farm analysis did not substantially reflect differences between both farm types in the predominant diseases that usually occur on beef cattle farms. However, calves reared organically presented fewer condemnations at slaughter compared with intensive and to a lesser extent with conventionally reared calves. Carcass performance also reflected differences between farm type and breed and was not necessarily better in organic farms.

Keywords

farming systemsorganic cattlegeneral healthorganic products
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , September 2012 , pp. 1503 - 1511
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baumgartner, J, Leeb, T, Gruber, T, Tiefenbacher, R 2003. Husbandry and animal health on organic pig farms in Austria. Animal Welfare 12, 631–635.Google Scholar
Blanco-Penedo, I, Shore, RF, Miranda, M, Benedito, JL, López-Alonso, M 2009. Factors affecting trace element status in calves in NW Spain. Livestock Science 123, 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabaret, J 2003. Animal health problems in organic farming: subjective and objective assessments and farmers’ actions. Livestock Science 80, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldow, G, Riddell, I, Stuart, H, Lowman, B 2007. Improving efficiency of the beef cow herd. Cattle Practice 15, 138–144.Google Scholar
Commission Regulation, 2006. Directive 103/2006 of 20 January 2006 adopting additional provisions for the application of the Community scale for the classification of carcases of adult bovine animals. Official Journal of the European Union L17/6-8.Google Scholar
Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Official Journal of the European Union 250/1–84.Google Scholar
CRAEGA, Xunta de Galicia, 2008. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://www.craega.es/ Google Scholar
Fall, N, Emanuelson, U, Martinsson, K, Jonsson, S 2008. Udder health at a Swedish research farm with both organic and conventional dairy cow management. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 83, 186–195.Google Scholar
Galyean, ML, Rivera, JD 2003. Nutritionally related disorders affecting feedlot cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 13–20.Google Scholar
Grandin, T 1997. The design and construction of facilities for handling cattle. Livestock Science 49, 103–109.Google Scholar
Hamilton, C, Hansson, I, Ekman, T, Emanuelson, U, Forslund, K 2002. Health of cows, calves and young stock on 26 organic dairy herds in Sweden. Veterinary Record 150, 503–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, I, Hamilton, C, Ekman, T, Forslund, K 2000. Carcass quality in Certified Organic Production Compared with Conventional Livestock Production. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 47, 111–120.Google Scholar
Hermansen, ZE, Zervas, G 2004. Round Table discussion of the organic animal production session. Livestock Science 90, 63–65.Google Scholar
Hovi, M, Sundrum, A, Thamsborg, SM 2003. Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livestock Science 80, 41–53.Google Scholar
Link, M, Schumacher, U 2004. Bioland position paper on foot and mouth disease. Proceedings of the 3rd SAFO Workshop, Falenty, Poland, pp. 21–23.Google Scholar
Lund, V, Algers, B 2003. Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming – a literature review. Livestock Science 80, 55–68.Google Scholar
MAPA (Ministry of Agriculture, Fish and Food, 2008). Encuestas ganaderas. Resultados definitivos por provincias y comunidades autónomas de años anteriores (censo exhaustivo). Resultados del año 2008. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://www.mapa.es/ Google Scholar
Nielsen, BK, Thamsborg, SM 2005. Welfare, health and product quality in organic beef production: a Danish perspective. Livestock Science 94, 41–50.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ, Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286.Google Scholar
Reksen, O, Tverdal, A, Ropstad, E 1999. A comparative study of reproductive performance in organic and conventional dairy husbandry. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2605–2610.Google Scholar
Sundrum, A 2001. Organic livestock farming: a critical review. Livestock Science 67, 207–215.Google Scholar
Sundrum, A, Andersson, R, Postler, G 1994. Animal needs index 200 – a guide for the assessment of housing systems. Köllen-Verlag, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
Sundrum, A, Schneider, K, Richter, U 2005. Possibilities and limitations of protein supply in organic poultry and pig production. Project Report. D4.1 (1) EEC 2092/91 (Organic) Revision. SSPE-CT-2004-502397. University of Kassel.Google Scholar
Vaarst, M, Hovi, M 2004. Organic livestock production and food quality: a review of current status and future challenges. Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO Workshop, Witzenhausen, Germany, pp. 7–15.Google Scholar
Vaarst, M, Bennedsgaard, TW, Klaas, I, Nissen, TB, Thamsborg, SM, Ostergaard, S 2006. Development and daily management of an explicit strategy of nonuse of antimicrobial drugs in twelve organic dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1842–1853.Google Scholar
Van der Meulen, J, Van der werf, JTN, Kijlstra, A 2006. Questionnaire survey of disease prevalence and veterinary treatment in organic pig husbandry in the Netherlands. Veterinary Record 159, 816–818.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2008. Preventing social stress among cattle in feed bunks. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/ Google Scholar