Refine
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (4) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Animal health (1)
- Animal welfare (1)
- German dairy sector (1)
- Key indicators (1)
- National monitoring system (1)
- Self-assessment (1)
- Stroh (1)
- straw (1)
Institute
- Fakultät AuL (4) (remove)
Auch um die Milchviehhaltung gibt es seit einigen Jahren eine öffentlich geführte Tierwohldiskussion. Zwei Aspekte sind dabei immer wieder Gegenstand der Kommunikation: Die Anbindehaltung und der Weidegang. Auf Basis von qualitativen Interviews mit zivilgesellschaftlichen Verbänden und landwirtschaftlichen Verbänden wurden die Einstellungen und die Argumentationsmuster beider Verbandsgruppen zu den Haltungsformen Weidegang und Anbindehaltung ergründet. Von Interesse ist dieser Vergleich, da im Rahmen öffentlich-medialer Kommunikation die Diskussionsfronten zwischen beiden Verbandsgruppen verhärtet erscheinen. Die Analyse der Aussagen, die im Rahmen der qualitativen Interviewreihe dieser Studie getätigt wurden, erlaubt die begründete Annahme, dass beide Verbandsgruppen mit den Themenkomplexen Anbindehaltung und Weidehaltung in einem wissenschaftliche orientierten Kommunikationskontext differenziert umgehen. Eine klare Polarisierung der Einstellungen zwischen beiden Verbandsgruppen ist in einem solchen Umfeld nicht mehr wahrnehmbar gewesen.
German farmers are required by law to regularly self-assess the welfare of their animals. The project Q Check is aiming at developing a system that will assist farmers to objectively assess animal health and welfare in dairy cows. For this reason, a quarterly report will be compiled from animal-based key indicators to give an overview of the on-farm situation. The anonymised and aggregated reports can also be used for national animal welfare monitoring: Continuous collection of these key indicators enables the summary and publication of figures reflecting the current animal health and welfare status and progressions at federal state and at national level. Q Check is based on four data recording and analysis systems, which are already established in Germany and implemented on a national level. Out of these systems, the most suitable indicators to describe herd health have been selected by 215 experts within a twostage Delphi study. In addition, over 50 face-to-face interviews with stakeholders related to the German dairy sector have been performed in order to take into account the socio-scientific point of view. To complete the process, the selected indicators are currently being checked against mass data and hence tested for suitability regarding monitoring purposes. An automatic farm-specific evaluation of animal health, based on verified indicators, will provide support to farmers in fulfilling their legal requirements and in identifying weak points on the individual farms. A benchmarking system will be set up which will allow tracking the individual herd health indicators in the same farm in their course over time and compared with similar farms. These routinely provided horizontal and vertical statistics will facilitate targeted intervention and support objectified management decisions, implying that dairy farmers can benefit in several respects. In the course of the project, new tools for determining the risk of ketosis in the scope of milk recording will also be validated and implemented at national level to enhance monitoring of this major disease complex. The results of these nationwide, systematic investigations will contribute substantially to objectifying the discussion about the health and welfare situation of dairy cows.
Animal husbandry methods also play an important role in public discussion, as animal welfare is often valued in society by visual perceptions. In this context, there is often an idealized idea of livestock husbandry and nutrition, which is staged by ideal-typical images. In the minds of many citizens, nature-loving images trigger a positive imagination that results from the longings of urban living conditions. Media and stakeholder analyses indicate that the use of straw in livestock husbandry and nutrition also has a positive impact on the welfare of livestock. According to this, straw is preferred by the public for more animal welfare. But what is not considered is the fact that the straw must be of impeccable hygienic quality
Animal husbandry methods also play an important role in public discussion, as animal welfare is often valued in society by visual perceptions. In this context, there is often an idealized idea of livestock husbandry and nutrition, which is staged by ideal-typical images. In the minds of many citizens, nature-loving images trigger a positive imagination that results from the longings of urban living conditions. Media and stakeholder analyses indicate that the use of straw in livestock husbandry and nutrition also has a positive impact on the welfare of livestock. According to this, straw is preferred by the public for more animal welfare.
But what is not considered is the fact that the straw must be of impeccable hygienic quality. Fungal infestation and the formation of mycotoxins in straw can cause diseases in livestock with consequences for animal welfare.
The first evaluation of a perfect straw quality also takes place in science through sensory tests, i.e. through smell, grip, colour and impurities. Only in the case of abnormalities in the sensory tests are further examinations indicated, such as microbiological examination procedures.
The hygienic properties of straw were examined on the basis of these assessment criteria. In addition to the microbiological-hygienic tests, the sensors of the straw were also tested.
The results show that there are no abnormalities in the sensory examination of the hygiene status. This was to observe an impeccable hygiene status.
However, the microbiological-hygienic investigations showed that the straw had microbiological as well as mycotoxin loads above the orientation values. This can have negative health effects, such as diseases for farm animals.
The scientific results led to the conclusion: The public discussion about animal welfare, which is often conducted primarily on the basis of visual impressions, could gain in scientific resilience if it includes objective results such as microbiological analyses in addition to images in order to evaluate animal welfare in livestock farming