Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:02:50.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare effects of a disease eradication programme for dairy goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

K. Muri ,
N. Leine  and
P. S. Valle
K. Muri*
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Biosciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, N-0033 Oslo, Norway
N. Leine
Affiliation:
Vennisvegen 950, 2975 Vang i Valdres, Norway
P. S. Valle
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Biosciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, N-0033 Oslo, Norway Kontali Analyse AS, Industriveien 18, NO-6517 Kristiandsund N, Norway
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The Norwegian dairy goat industry has largely succeeded in controlling caprine arthritis encephalitis (CAE), caseous lymphadenitis (CLA) and paratuberculosis through a voluntary disease eradication programme called Healthier Goats (HG). The aim of this study was to apply an on-farm welfare assessment protocol to assess the effects of HG on goat welfare. A total of 30 dairy goat farms were visited, of which 15 had completed disease eradication and 15 had not yet started. Three trained observers assessed the welfare on 10 farms each. The welfare assessment protocol comprised both resource-based and animal-based welfare measures, including a preliminary version of qualitative behavioural assessments with five prefixed terms. A total of 20 goats in each herd were randomly selected for observations of human–animal interactions and physical health. The latter included registering abnormalities of eyes, nostrils, ears, skin, lymph nodes, joints, udder, claws and body condition score. For individual-level data, robust clustered logistic regression analyses with farm as cluster variable were conducted to assess the association with disease eradication. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for comparisons of herd-level data between the two groups. Goats with swollen joints (indicative of CAE) and enlarged lymph nodes (indicative of CLA) were registered on 53% and 93% of the non-HG farms, respectively, but on none of the HG farms. The only other health variables with significantly lower levels in HG herds were skin lesions (P=0.008) and damaged ears due to torn out ear tags (P<0.001). Goats on HG farms showed less fear of unknown humans (P=0.013), and the qualitative behavioural assessments indicated that the animals in these herds were calmer than in non-HG herds. Significantly more space and lower gas concentrations reflected the upgrading of buildings usually done on HG farms. In conclusion, HG has resulted in some welfare improvements beyond the elimination of infectious diseases. The protocol was considered a useful tool to evaluate the welfare consequences of a disease eradication programme. However, larger sample sizes would increase the reliability of prevalence estimates for less common conditions and increase the power to detect differences between the groups. Despite the obvious link between disease and suffering, this aspect is rarely taken into account in the evaluation of disease control programmes. We therefore propose that welfare assessment protocols should be applied to evaluate the merits of disease control or eradication programmes in terms of animal welfare.

Keywords

caprine arthritis encephalitiscaseous lymphadenitisdairy goat welfaredisease eradicationparatuberculosis
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , February 2016 , pp. 333 - 341
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Algers, B 2004. Injury and disease. Proceedings of the Global Conference on Animal Welfare: an OIE Initiative, 23–25 February, Paris, France, pp. 179–184.Google Scholar
Asheim, LJ, Bøe, KE, Clemetsen, M, Drabløs, D, Eik, LO, Garmo, TH, Haug, I, Kvam, G-T, Nedkvitne, JJ, Nygård, B, Rønningen, O, Svendsen, B, Skurdal, E, Stuen, S, Ulvund, MJ, Waldeland, H and Ådnøy, T 2002. Geiteboka (The goat book), 3rd edition. Landbruksforlaget, Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegian).Google Scholar
Bergonier, D, de Crémoux, R, Rupp, R, Lagriffoul, G and Berthelot, X 2003. Mastitis of dairy small ruminants. Veterinary Research 34, 689–716.Google Scholar
Boissy, A, Fisher, AD, Bouix, J, Hinch, GN and Le Neindre, P 2005. Genetics of fear in ruminant livestock. Livestock Production Science 93, 23–32.Google Scholar
Brant, R 1990. Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics 46, 1171–1178.Google Scholar
Broom, DM 2006. Behaviour and welfare in relation to pathology. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97, 73–83.Google Scholar
Colditz, IG 2002. Effects of the immune system on metabolism: implications for production and disease resistance in livestock. Livestock Production Science 75, 257–268.Google Scholar
De Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, Dijkstra, T, van Schaik, G and de Boer, IJM 2011. Associations between variables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3213–3228.Google Scholar
Ferrante, V, Battini, M, Caslini, C, Grosso, L, Mantove, E, Noé, L, Barbieri, S and Mattiello, S 2012. Presence of abscesses as a welfare indicator in dairy goats: a preliminary study. Proceedings of the 46th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 31 July–4 August, The University of Veterinary Medicine (Vetmeduni Vienna), Vienna, Austria, pp. 224.Google Scholar
Fontaine, MC and Baird, GJ 2008. Caseous lymphadenitis. Small Ruminant Research 76, 42–48.Google Scholar
Greenwood, PL 1992. Effects of coats and disease status on performance of lactating dairy goats during winter. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 19, 281–284.Google Scholar
Greenwood, PL 1995. Effects of caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus on productivity and health of dairy goats in New South Wales, Australia. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 22, 71–87.Google Scholar
Hart, BL 1988. Biological basis of the behavior of sick animals. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 12, 123–137.Google Scholar
Leine, N, Sølverød, L, Kulberg, S and Djønne, B 2005. Friskere geiter – målsetting og resultat (Healthier Goats – goals and results). Proceedings of Husdyrforsøksmøtet 2005, 7–8 February, Sarpsborg, Norway. (In Norwegian).Google Scholar
Loretz, C, Wechsler, B, Hauser, R and Rüsch, P 2004. A comparison of space requirements of horned and hornless goats at the feed barrier and in the lying area. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 275–283.Google Scholar
Lyons, DM 1989. Individual differences in temperament of dairy goats and the inhibition of milk ejection. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22, 269–282.Google Scholar
Martínez-Navalón, B, Peris, C, Gómez, EA, Peris, B, Roche, ML, Caballero, C, Goyena, E and Berriatua, E 2013. Quantitative estimation of the impacts of caprine arthritis encephalitis virus infection on milk production by dairy goats. Veterinary Journal 197, 311–317.Google Scholar
Mazurek, M, Marie, M and Desor, D 2007. Potential animal-centered indicators of dairy goat welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 161–164.Google Scholar
Mellor, DJ 2012. Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare states. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 60, 1–8.Google Scholar
Millman, ST 2007. Sickness behaviour and its relevance to animal welfare assessment at the group level. Animal Welfare 16, 123–125.Google Scholar
Muri, K and Valle, PS 2012. Human–animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: assessment of pain and provision of veterinary treatment (Part 2). Animal Welfare 21, 547–558.Google Scholar
Muri, K, Stubsjøen, SM and Valle, PS 2013. Development and testing of an on-farm welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats. Animal Welfare 22, 385–400.Google Scholar
Muri, K, Tufte, PA, Skjerve, E and Valle, PS 2012. Human–animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: attitudes and empathy towards goats (Part 1). Animal Welfare 21, 535–545.Google Scholar
Nagel-Alne, GE, Asheim, LJ, Hardaker, JB, Sølverød, L, Lindheim, D and Valle, PS 2014a. The Norwegian healthier goats programme – a financial cost-benefit analysis. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 114, 96–105.Google Scholar
Nagel-Alne, GE, Krontveit, R, Bohlin, J, Valle, PS, Skjerve, E and Sølverød, LS 2014b. The Norwegian healthier goats program—modeling lactation curves using a multilevel cubic spline regression model. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 4166–4173.Google Scholar
Nord, K and Eik, LO 1998. Disease recordings in a goat herd before and after control of caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus and corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis infection. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://leine.no/htg/sjukdom/cae/cae-sanering.htm.Google Scholar
Nord, K, Rimstad, E, Storset, AK and Løken, T 1998. Prevalence of antibodies against caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus in goat herds in Norway. Small Ruminant Research 28, 115–121.Google Scholar
Peterhans, E, Greenland, T, Badiola, J, Harkiss, G, Bertoni, G, Amorena, B, Eliaszewicz, M, Juste, RA, Krassnig, R, Lafont, J-P, Lenihan, P, Pétursson, G, Pritchard, G, Thorley, J, Vitu, C, Mornex, J-F and Pépin, M 2004. Routes of transmission and consequences of small ruminant lentiviruses (SRLVs) infection and eradication schemes. Veterinary Research 35, 257–274.Google Scholar
Phillips, CJ, Pines, MK, Latter, M, Petherick, JC, Norman, ST and Gaughan, JB 2012. Physiological and behavioral responses of sheep to gaseous ammonia. Journal of Animal Science 90, 1562–1569.Google Scholar
Proudfoot, KL, Weary, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2012. Linking the social environment to illness in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 138, 203–215.Google Scholar
Rushen, J 2003. Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 199–214.Google Scholar
Samarbeidsrådet for Helsetjenesten for geit 2010. Statusrapport fra tiltaket Friskere Geiter fase I og II 2009 og vurdering av videreføring etter 2010 (Cooperation Council for the Goat Health Service. Status report from healthier goats phase I and II 2009, and an evaluation of a continuation after 2010). Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://geithelse.tine.no/forside/nyhetsarkiv/statusrapport-for-friskere-geiter. (In Norwegian).Google Scholar
Samarbeidsrådet for Helsetjenesten for geit 2011. Prosjektbeskrivelse: Friskere geiter – Sluttfaseprosjektet (Cooperation Council for the Goat Health Service. Project description: healthier goats – the final phase). Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://geithelse.tine.no/friskere-geiter/dokumenter/prosjektbeskrivelse-sluttfaseprosjekt-fase-3. (In Norwegian).Google Scholar
Smith, M and Sherman, D 2009. Goat medicine, 2nd edition, Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Statistics Norway 2014. Livestock husbandry. Preliminary figures, as of 1 January 2014. Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.ssb.no/jordhus_en/.Google Scholar
Toussaint, G 1997. The housing of milk goats. Livestock Production Science 49, 151–164.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S 2009. Animal welfare and housing. In Welfare of production animals: assessment and management of risks, 1st edition (ed. FJM Smulders and B Algers), pp. 79–111. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Webster, AJF, Main, DCJ and Whay, H 2004. Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation. Animal Welfare 13, S93–S98.Google Scholar
Webster, J 2005. The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: theory into practice. Revue Scientifique et Technique – Office International des Epizooties 24, 723–734.Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001. Qualitative assessment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 51, 21–25.Google Scholar