Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:33:04.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invited review: Importance of animal health and welfare for the stability of the three pillars of sustainability of livestock systems1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2016

P. Chemineau
P. Chemineau*
Affiliation:
UMR Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, INRA, CNRS, Université de Tours, IFCE, Agreenium, 37380 Nouzilly, France EAAP – The European Federation of Animal Science, Via Tomassetti 3, 00161 Roma, Italy
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The future livestock systems at the world level will have to produce more in the perspective of the population increase in the next 30 years, whereas reducing their environmental footprint and addressing societal concerns. In that perspective, we may wonder if animal health and animal welfare, which are two essential components of production systems, may play an important role in the stability of the three pillars of sustainability of the livestock systems. We already know that objectives driven by economy, environment and society may modify animal welfare and animal health, but is the reverse true? The answer is yes and in 11 cases out of 12 of the matrix health-welfare×3 pillars of sustainability×positive or negative change, we have many examples indicating that animal health and animal welfare are able to modify, positively or negatively, the three pillars of sustainability. Moreover, we also have good examples of strong interactions between health and welfare. These elements play in favour of an holistic approach at the farm level and of a multicriterial definition of what could be the sustainable systems of animal production in the future which will respect animal welfare and maintain a good animal health.

Keywords

animal healthanimal welfaresustainabilitylivestock systems
Type
Review Article
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 7 , Special Issue 2: Proceedings of the EAAP-European Federation of Animal Science in association with ALPA , October 2016 , pp. 208 - 214
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

1

Presented at the Symposium ‘System Approach for improving the sustainability of animal production, health and welfare’. EXPO Milan 2015. Scientific Committee for EXPO, University of Milan Statale, EAAP (European Federation of Animal Science) and ASPA (Animal Science and Production Association)

References

Agriculture Biologique, French Ministry of Agricutlure 2016. http://www.agencebio.org/la-marque-ab Google Scholar
Andres, VM and Davies, RH 2015. Biosecurity measures to control salmonella and other infectious agents in pig farms: a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 14, 317–335.Google Scholar
Arnould, C, Michel, V and Le Bihan-Duval, E 2011. Sélection génétique et bien-être des poulets de chair. INRA Productions Animales 24, 165–170.Google Scholar
Benoît, M and Laignel, G 2011. Long-term analysis of meat sheep farming systems in France. Which dynamics of evolution and which factors can explain the economical performance? INRA Productions Animales 24, 211–220.Google Scholar
Blokhuis, H, Miele, M, Veissier, I and Jones, B 2013. Improving farm animal welfare. Science and society working together: the welfare quality approach. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. p. 232.Google Scholar
Boissy, A and Lee, C 2014. How assessing relationships between emotions and cognition can improve farm animal welfare. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’Office International des Epizooties 33, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonneau, M, de Greef, K, Brinkman, D, Cinar, MU, Dourmad, JY, Edge, HL, Fàbrega, E, Gonzàlez, JH, Houwers, HWJ, Hviid, M, Ilari-Antoine, E, Klauke, TN, Phatsara, C, Rydhmer, L, van der Oever, B, Zimmer, C and Edwards, SA 2014a. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: the procedure, the evaluated systems and the evaluation tools. Animal 8, 2011–2015.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, Klauke, TN, Gonzàlez, J, Rydhmer, L, Ilari-Antoine, E, Dourmad, JY, de Greef, K, Houwers, HWJ, Cinar, MU, Fàbrega, E, Zimmer, C, Hviid, M, van der Oever, B and Edwards, SA 2014b. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: integrated evaluation. Animal 8, 2058–2068.Google Scholar
Bony, JBM 2000. Comparaisons de différentes natures de couchage pour les vaches laitières en logettes. Rencontres Recherche Ruminants 7, 82.Google Scholar
Caroprese, M, Albenzio, M, Marzano, A, Schena, L, Annicchiarico, G and Sevi, A 2010. Relationship between cortisol response to stress and behavior, immune profile, and production performance of dairy ewes. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2395–2403.Google Scholar
Dohoo, IR, DesCoteaux, L, Leslie, K, Fredeen, A, Shewfelt, W, Preston, A and Dowling, P 2003. A meta-analysis review of the effects of recombinant bovine somatotropin 2. Effects on animal health, reproductive performance, and culling. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 67, 252–264.Google Scholar
Dourmad, JY, Ryschawy, J, Trousson, T, Bonneau, M, Gonzàlez, J, Houwers, HWJ, Hviid, M, Zimmer, C, Nguyen, TLT and Morgensen, L 2014. Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment. Animal 8, 2017–2037.Google Scholar
Duncan, IJH 2005. Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’Office International des Epizooties 24, 483–492.Google Scholar
Dwyer, CM and Bornett, HLI 2004. Chronic stress in sheep: assessment tools and their use in different management conditions. Animal Welfare 13, 293–304.Google Scholar
EC Project Welfare Quality 2016. Retrieved from http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. The Veterinary Record 17, 357.Google Scholar
Freedom food scheme. Retrieved from http://www.ukagriculture.com/food/freedom_food.cfm Google Scholar
Geary, U, Lopez-Villalobos, N, O’Brien, B, Garrick, DJ and Shalloo, L 2013. Examining the impact of mastitis on the profitability of the Irish dairy industry. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 52, 135–149.Google Scholar
Guo, YQ, Liu, JJ, Liu, J, Zhang, YJ and Ren, EJ 2015. Progress in non-anthelmintic control of gastrointestinal nematode in sheep and goat. Chinese Journal of Veterinary Science 35, 517–524.Google Scholar
Guy, JH, Rowlinson, P, Chadwick, JR and Ellis, M 2002. Health conditions of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems: implications for welfare. Livestock Production Science 75, 233–243.Google Scholar
Huang, LC, Goh, YN and Mohaidin, Z 2014. Factors influencing consumer intentions to avoid broiler chicken meat and products in Malaysia. International Food Research Journal 21, 181–188.Google Scholar
Keane, OM, Budd, KE, Flynn, J and McCoy, F 2013. Pathogen profile of clinical mastitis in Irish milk-recording herds reveals a complex aetiology. Veterinary Record 173, 17.Google Scholar
Kiefer, L, Menzel, F and Bahrs, E 2014. The effect of feed demand on greenhouse gas emissions and farm profitability for organic and conventional dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 7564–7574.Google Scholar
KilBride, AL, Gillman, CE and Green, LE 2009. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of lameness in finishing pigs, gilts and pregnant sows and associations with limb lesions and floor types on commercial farms in England. Animal Welfare 18, 215–224.Google Scholar
Lancelot, R 2015. Maladies émergentes et changements climatiques. Video interview. Retrieved from http://www.cirad.fr/actualites/toutes-les-actualites/articles/2015/questions-a/interview-de-r.-lancelot-maladies-emergentes-et-changements-climatiques Google Scholar
Larrère, R 2007. Justifications éthiques des préoccupations concernant le bien-être animal. INRA Productions Animales 20, 11–16.Google Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Fernandez, X, Boivin, X, Pradel, P, Le Neindre, P and Veissier, I 2000. The impact of gentle contacts on ease of handling, welfare, and growth of calves and on quality of veal meat. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1219–1226.Google Scholar
Lescourret, F and Coulon, JB 1994. Modelling the impact of mastitis on milk production by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 2289–2301.Google Scholar
Madsen, EB 1987. Tail tip inflammation in young fattening bulls on slatted floors. In Welfare aspects of housing systems for veal calves and fattening bulls (ed. MC Schlichting and D Smidt), pp. 131–139. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Magdelaine, P and Mirabito, L 2003. Le bien-être animal: atout ou contrainte? Sciences et Techniques Avicoles, Hors Série, 51–56.Google Scholar
Mehlhorn, H, Walldorf, V, Klimpel, S and Schmahl, G 2008. Outbreak of bluetongue disease (BTD) in Germany and the danger for Europe. Parasitology Research 103 (suppl. 1), S79–S86.Google Scholar
Mirabito, L and Brunel, C 2003. Aménagement des bâtiments de dindes. Des solutions alternatives pour diminuer les lésions. Viande et Produits Carnés 24, 19–26.Google Scholar
Mounier, L, Veissier, I and Boissy, A 2005. Behavior, physiology, and performance of bulls mixed at the onset of finishing to form uniform body weight. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1696–1704.Google Scholar
Nicks, B and Vandenheede, M 2014. Animal health and welfare: equivalent or complementary? Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’Office International des Epizooties 33, 97–101.Google Scholar
Paillard, S, Treyer, S and Dorin, B (ed.) 2011. Agrimonde: scenarios and challenges for feeding the world in 2050. Quae, Versailles, France. 295pp.Google Scholar
Pellerin, S, Bamière, L, Angers, D, Béline, F, Benoît, M, Butault, JP, Chenu, C, Colnenne-David, C, De Cara, S, Delame, N, Doreau, M, Dupraz, P, Faverdin, P, Garcia-Launay, F, Hassouna, M, Hénault, C, Jeuffroy, MH, Klumpp, K, Metay, A, Moran, D, Recous, S, Samson, E, Savini, I and Pardon, L 2013. How can French agriculture contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Abatement potential and cost of ten technical measures. Synopsis of the study report, INRA France, 92pp. Retrieved from http://www6.paris.inra.fr/depe/Projets/Agriculture-et-GES Google Scholar
Peyraud, JL, Cellier, P, Aarts, F, Béline, F, Bockstaller, C, Bourblanc, M, Delaby, L, Dourmad, JY, Dupraz, P, Durand, P, Faverdin, P, Fiorelli, JL, Gaigné, C, Kuikman, PJ, Langlais, A, Le Goffe, P, Lescoat, P, Morvan, T, Nicourt, C, Parnaudeau, V, Rochette, P, Vertès, F, Veysset, P, Réchauchère, O and Donnars, C 2014. Nitrogen flows and livestock farming: lessons and perspectives. Advances in Animal Biosciences 5 (suppl. 1), S68–S71.Google Scholar
Ray, P, Zhao, Z and Knowlton, KF 2013. Emerging contaminants in livestock manure: hormones, antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes. Sustainable Animal Agriculture, 268–283. doi:10.1079/9781780640426.0268.Google Scholar
Ronzon, T, Treyer, S, Dorin, B, Caron, P, Chemineau, P and Guyomard, H 2011. Feeding the world in 2050: key findings and hopes for policy making and agricultural research from the Agrimonde foresight project. Food Ethics Magazine 6, 17–18.Google Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Baxter, EM, D'Eath, RB, Turner, SP, Arnott, G, Roehe, R, Ask, B, Sandoe, P, Moustsen, VA, Thorup, F, Edwards, SA, Berg, P and Lawrence, AB 2013. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig I: biological factors. Animal Welfare 22, 199–218.Google Scholar
Schmidt, B, Mulder, IE, Musk, CC, Aminov, RI, Lewis, M, Stokes, CR, Bailey, M, Prosser, JI, Gill, BP, Pluske, JR and Kelly, D 2011. Establishment of normal gut microbiota is compromised under excessive hygiene conditions. PLOS One 6, e28284.Google Scholar
Searchinger, T, Hanson, C, Ranganathan, J, Lipinski, B, Waite, R, Winterbottom, R, Dinshaw, A and Heimlich, R 2013. The Great Balancing Act. Creating a sustainable food future, instalment one. World Resources Institute, The Great Balancing Act Working Paper, Washington, DC, USA. Retrieved from http://www.worldresourcesreport.org.Google Scholar
Sevi, A, Massa, S., Annicchiarico, G, Dell’Aquila, S and Muscio, A 1999. Effect of stocking density on ewes’ milk yield, udder health and microenvironment. Journal of Dairy Research 66, 489–499.Google Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Arnould, C, Auperin, B, Bern, C, Le Bihan-Duval, E, Lefevre, F., Lensink, J and Mounier, L 2007. Impact des conditions de pré-abattage sur le stress et le bien-être des animaux d’élevage. INRA Productions Animales 20, 92–100.Google Scholar
Toma, L, March, M, Stott, AW and Roberts, DJ 2013. Environmental efficiency of alternative dairy systems: a productive efficiency approach. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 7014–7031.Google Scholar
van Asselt, ED, van Bussel, LGJ, van Horne, P, van der Voet, H, van der Heijden, GWAM and van der Fels-Klerx, HJ 2015. Assessing the sustainability of egg production systems in The Netherlands. Poultry Science 94, 1742–1750.Google Scholar
van Nieuwamerongen, SE, Soede, NM, van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, JE 2015. Development of piglets raised in a new multi-litter housing system vs. conventional single-litter housing until 9 weeks of age. Journal of Animal Science 93, 5442–5454.Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Baumont, C and Levy, F 2007. Les recherches sur le bien-être animal: buts, méthodologie et finalité. INRA Productions Animales 20, 3–10.Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Blokhuis, HJ, Geers, R, Jones, RB and Miele, M 2005. Le projet Welfare Quality: de l'attente des consommateurs à la mise en place de certifications bien-être en élevage. Bulletin de l’Académie Vétérinaire de France 158, 263–267.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) 1946. Definition of health. Retrieved from http://who.int/about/definition/en/print.html Google Scholar