Murat GENÇ, Nilufer SABUNCUOĞLU, Ekrem LAÇİN, Ömer ÇOBAN

Türkiye'deki Bir Süt Çiftliğinde Welfare Quality® Kriterlerine Göre Hayvan Refahının Değerlendirmesi

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'de yetiştirilen süt sığırları için Welfare Quality® değerlendirme protokolünün pratik uygulamasını incelemek amacıyla yürütülmüş olup pilot bir görev üstlenmiştir. Çalışma, Atatürk Üniversitesi'nde bulunan serbest dolaşımlı, bağsız ve duraklı büyük bir süt çiftliğinde, Holstein, Esmer ve Simental sığırlardan oluşan sürüde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çiftlik yönetim programının standartlarının ve protokolden seçilen bazı refah kriterlerinin karşılanıp karşılanmadığı, Welfare Quality® yayınlarında tanımlanan puanlama yöntemleri ile belirlenmiştir. Süt örneklerinin Somatik Hücre Sayısı (SCC), hayvanların kaçınma mesafeleri ve vücut kondisyon skorları (BCS) da belirlenmiş ve kaydedilmiştir. Holstein, Esmer ve Simental sığırlarının vücut kondisyon skorları (BCS) sırasıyla 2.56, 3.16 ve 3.88 olarak belirlenmiştir. Denemede kullanılan 53 baş ineğin sadece %7'sinde topallık tespit edilmiş ve yere basamayan, adım atmada zorlanan, bir yere yaslanmadan duramayan hiçbir hayvanın varlığına rastlanılmamıştır. Ayrıca hayvanlar bazı sağlık göstergelerine göre de değerlendirmeye tabi tutulmuştur. Tüm hayvanlar içerisinde burun ve göz akıntısı olduğu tespit edilen hayvanların oranı sırasıyla %16 ve %9 olarak belirlenmiştir. Solunum güçlüğü çeken, ishal veya vulva akıntısı olan herhangi bir hayvana rastlanılmamıştır. Analiz edilen süt örneklerinin ortalama Somatik Hücre Sayısı (log 10) Avrupa Birliği'nin çiğ süt Somatik Hücre Sayısının eşiğinin altında ve 4.43 hücre/ml olarak tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, Welfare Quality® kriterlerine göre yapılan değerlendirmeye göre, Atatürk Üniversitesi süt çiftliğindeki hayvan refahı düzeyi %70,92 olarak belirlenmiş ve bu oranın somatik hücre sayısı hariç AB standartlarını karşıladığı kabul edilmiştir.

Animal Welfare Assessment Based on Welfare Quality® Criteria in a Dairy Farm in Turkey

This study served as a pilot to examine the practical implementation of the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle in dairy farms inTurkey. The study was carried out in the large-scale dairy farm of Atatürk University, in a free-stall-housed herd composed of Holstein, BrownSwiss and Simmental cattle. Whether the standards of the farm management programme and some of the welfare criteria chosen from theprotocol were met was determined with the scoring method described in the Welfare Quality® publications. The somatic cell count (SCC) ofthe milk samples, and the avoidance distance and body condition score (BCS) of the animals were also determined and recorded. The bodycondition scores (BCS) of the Holstein, Simmental and Brown Swiss cattle were determined as 2.56, 3.16 and 3.88, respectively. Only 7% ofthe 53 cows had lameness, and none of the animals were evaluated as ‘resting a foot, standing on the edge of a step, displaying stepping(weight shifting) or showing reluctance to bear weight’. The animals were also evaluated based on some health indicators. The percentagesof all animals displaying nasal and ocular discharge were 16% and 9%, respectively. No clinical signs were recorded for hampered respiration,diarrhea, vulvar discharge. The mean SCC of the milk samples was (log 10) 4.43 cells/ml and below the European Union’s raw milk SCCthreshold. In conclusion, according to the assessment based on Welfare Quality® criteria, excluding SCC, the animal welfare level at the dairyfarm of Atatürk University was scored as %70.92 and was considered to meet the relevant EU standards.

PDF

___

1. Botreau R, Capdeville J, Perny P, et al. (2008). Multicriteria Evaluation of Animal Welfare at Farm Level: An Application of MCDA Methodologies. FCDS. 33(4): 287.
2. Carlén E, Strandberg E, Roth A. (2004). Genetic Parameters for Clinical Mastitis, Somatic Cell Score, and Production in The First Three Lactations of Swedish Holstein Cows. J Dairy Sci. 87(9): 3062-3070.
3. De Vries M, Bokkers E, Van Reenen C, et al. (2015). Housing and Management Factors Associated with Indicators of Dairy Cattle Welfare. Prev Vet Med. 118(1): 80-92.
4. Fisher A, Morris C, Matthews L. (2000). Cattle Behavior: Comparison of Measures of Temperament in Beef Cattle. Proc N Z Soc Anim Prod. 60: 214-217
5. Fregonesi JA, Leaver JD. (2001). Behaviour, Performance and Health Indicators of Welfare for Dairy Cows Housed in Strawyard or Cubicle Systems. Livest Prod Sci. 68(2-3): 205-216.
6. Heath C, Lin Y, Mullan S, et al. (2014). Implementing Welfare Quality® in UK Assurance Schemes: Evaluating the Challenges. Anim Welf. 23(1): 95-107.
7. Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Perny, P. (2009). Overall Assessment of Animal Welfare: Strategy Adopted in Welfare Quality®. Anim Welf. 18(4): 363-370.
8. Keeling L, Evans A, Forkman B, et al. (2013). Welfare Quality® Principles and Criteria. In Improving Farm Animal Welfare. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
9. Mundan D, Memis H, Mehmet A, et al. (2017). Evaluation of Livestock Sector in Terms of Development and Industrialization: The sample of Adıyaman province. AKAD. 9(17): 237-244.
10. Yılmaz Hİ, Yardımcı N. (2014). Isparta Bölgesinde Süt Sığırcılığı Yapılan İşletmelerdeki Barınakların Hayvan Refahı Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(4): 27-34.
11. Yener H, Atalar B, Mundan D. (2013). Şanlıurfa İlindeki Sığırcılık İşletmelerinin Biyogüvenlik ve Hayvan Refahı Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Harran Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2): 87-93.
12. Molina L, Agüera E, Maroto-Molina F, et al. (2019). Assessment of on-Farm Welfare for Dairy Cattle in Southern Spain and its Effects on Reproductive Parameters. J Dairy Res. 86(2): 165- 170.
13. Tuyttens F, de Graaf S, Heerkens JL, et al. (2014). Observer Bias in Animal Behaviour Research: Can We Believe What We Score, If We Score What We Believe? Anim Behav. 90: 273-280.
14. Vasseur E, Gibbons J, Rushen J, et al. (2015). An Assessment Tool to Help Producers Improve Cow Comfort on Their Farms. J Dairy Sci. 98(1): 698-708.
15. Winckler C. (2019). Assessing Animal Welfare at the Farm Level: Do We Care Sufficiently About the Individual. Anim Welf. 28: 77- 82.
16. SPSS (2004). SPSS for Windows Release 13.0. SPSS Inc.
17. Morin PA, Chorfi Y, Dubuc J, et al. (2017). An Observational Study Investigating Inter-Observer Agreement for Variation Over Time of Body Condition Score in Dairy Cows. J Dairy Sci. 100(4): 3086-3090.
18. Ostojić Andrić D, Hristov S, Vesna K, et al. (2019). Study of Cows’ Behaviour and Welfare on Dairy Farms in Serbia. Acta Univ Agric Silvic Mendel Brun. 67(4): 973-979.
19. Popescu S, Borda C, Diugan EA, et al. (2014). The Effect of the Housing System on The Welfare Quality of Dairy Cows. Ital J Anim Sci. 13(1): 2940.
20. Radeski M, Janevski A, Ilieski V. (2015). Screening of Selected Indicators of Dairy Cattle Welfare in Macedonia. Maced Vet Rev. 38(1): 43-51.
21. Vučemilo M, Matković K, Štoković I, et al. (2012). Welfare Assessment of Dairy Cows Housed in a Tie-Stall System. Mljekarstvo. 62(1): 62.
22. Popescu S, Borda C, Diugan EA, et al. (2013). Dairy Cows Welfare Quality in Tie-Stall Housing System with or without Access to Exercise. Acta Vet Scand. 55(1): 43.
23. Regula G, Danuser J, Spycher B, et al. (2004). Health and Welfare of Dairy Cows in Different Husbandry Systems in Switzerland. Prev Vet Med. 66(1-4): 247-264.
24. Popescu S, Borda C, Sandru CD, et al. (2010). The Welfare Assessment of Tied Dairy Cows in 52 Small Farms in North-Eastern Transylvania Using Animal-Based Measurements. Slov Vet Res. 47(3): 77-82.
25. Kasikci G, Cetin O, Bingol, EB, et al. (2012). Relations Between Electrical Conductivity, Somatic Cell Count, California Mastitis Test and Some Quality Parameters in The Diagnosis of Subclinical Mastitis in Dairy Cows. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 36(1): 49-55.
26. Koeck A, Heringstad B, Egger-Danner C, et al. (2010). Genetic Analysis of Clinical Mastitis and Somatic Cell Count Traits in Austrian Fleckvieh Cows. J Dairy Sci. 93(12): 5987-5995.
27. Nada S, Ilija D, Igor T, et al. (2012). Implication of Food Safety Measures on Microbiological Quality of Raw and Pasteurized Milk. Food Control. 25(2): 728-731.
28. Talevski G, Čobanova-Vasilevska R, Srbinovska S, et al. (2009). Quality of the Sheep Milk as a Raw Material in Dairy Industry of Macedonia. Biotechnol Anim Husb. 25(5-6-2): 971-977.
29. Miele M, Veissier I, Evans A, et al. (2011): Animal Welfare: Establishing a Dialogue between Science and Society. Anim Welf. 20(1): 103-117.