ÖMÜR KOÇAK, P. Dilara AKIN, HÜLYA YALÇINTAN, BÜLENT EKİZ

Besi Sığırcılığı İşletmelerindeki Farklı Barındırma Sistemlerinin Hayvan Refahı Bakımından ANI 35 L/2000 Yöntemi İle Karşılaştırılması [1]

Bu çalışmada, farklı barınak özelliklerine sahip besi sığırı çiftliklerindeki hayvan refahı düzeylerinin Animal Needs Index (ANI) 35L yöntemi ile karşılaştırmalı olarak ortaya konulması amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında 42 besi sığırı çiftliği, barınak yapısı (bağlı ya da serbest sistem), ahır içi mekanizasyon ile teknoloji ve işgücü kullanımı kriterleri gözetilerek 3 alt gruba ayrılmıştır: i) bağlı sistem kullanan aile işletmeleri (n=18), ii) bağlı sistem kullanan iyileştirilmiş işletmeler (n=11) ve iii) serbest sistemdeki işletmeler (n=13). Hareket olanağı, ahır içi iklim koşulları ve sosyal iletişim kategorileri bakımından serbest sistemdeki işletmeler bağlı sistemdeki işletmelere göre daha yüksek puanlar almışlardır (P

Assessment of Animal Welfare in Different Beef Cattle Housing Systems by ANI 35 L/2000 Method

The aim of the study includes assessment of animal welfare using ANI 35L system to compare different types of beef housing systems. 42 beef farms were divided into 3 sub groups according to housing type (tie stall or loose type), condition of mechanical and technical equipment and use of labour. The sub groups of the study are: i) family type tether system (n: 18), ii) improved farms with tether systems (n: 11), iii) loose housing system (n: 13). Points given to the loose housing system found higher when they compared to tether system farms in the locomotion, social interaction and light and air categories (P<0.001). In the flooring category, family type tether systems had the lowest points when they compared to other housing systems (P<0.01). Loose housing system had higher mean about total ANI points when they compared to tether systems. As a result of ANI assessment, 94.44% of farms from family type and 63.64% of farms from improved tether systems found not suitable for animal welfare according to the sum of ANI points. None of the loose housing system farms take a part in this welfare category. As a result of the study, opportunity of outside exercise helps farms to improve animal welfare and structural requirements of the stall areas and service roads in the tether systems cause various welfare problems for animals.

PDF

___

1. Fraser D: Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 113, 330-339, 2008. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.011
2. Turner J: The industrialization of animal genetics. In, Turner J (Ed): Animal Breeding, Welfare and Society. 20, Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
3. Amon T, Amon B, Ofner E, Boxberger J: Precision of assesment of animal welfare by the TGI 35 L Austrian needs index. Acta Agric Scand, Sect A, Animal Sci, 51, 114-117, 2001. DOI: 10.1080/090647001316923180
4. Broom DM: Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. J Anim Sci, 69, 4167-4175, 1991.
5. OIE: Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Article 7.1.1, Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare, World Orginazition for Animal Health (OIE), Paris, France, 2008. http://web.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/ en_chapitre_1.7.1.pdf. Accessed: 29.12.2014
6. Blokhuis HJ, Keeling LJ, Gavinelli A, Serratosa J: Animal welfares impact on the food chain. Trends Food Sci Tech, 19, 79-87, 2008. DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2008.09.007
7. Bartussek H, Leeb CH, Held S: Animal needs index for cattle, ANI 35 L/ 2000-cattle. Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions (BAL), 2000, http://www.bartussek.at/pdf/anicattle.pdf, Accessed: 29.12.2014.
8. Erdal İ, Güneş H: Siyah-Alaca ırkından erkek sığırların özel işletme koşullarındaki besi performansları üzerine araştırmalar. İstanbul Üniv Vet Fak Derg, 28 (2): 313-335, 2002.
9. Sensoy S, Demircan M, Ulupınar Y, Balta İ: Türkiye İklimi. http:// www.mgm.gov.tr/FILES/iklim/turkiye_iklimi.pdf. Accessed: 04.03.2015.
10. Earley B, Mazurek M, Murray M, Prendiville DJ: On farm welfare assessment of beef cattle using an environmentally-based welfare index and investigation of the human-animal relationship. Teagasc, Animal, Grassland and Bioscience Research Centre, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland. RMIS No.5477, Beef Production Series No. 87, 2009.
11. Anonim: Scientific opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems. EFSA J, 10 (5): 2669, 2012.
12. Bartussek H: A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livest Prod Sci, 61, 179-192, 1999. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00067-6
13. Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Ferrante V, Grasso F, Braghieri A: Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method. Small Rumin Res, 83, 49-57, 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.04.001
14. pinka M: How important is natural behaviour in animal farming systems. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 100, 117-128, 2006. DOI: 10.1016/j. applanim.2006.04.006
15. Anonim: Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA J, 10, 2767, 2012. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2767
16. Mason GJ, Burn CC: Behavioural restriction. In, Appleby MC (Ed): Animal Welfare. 2nd ed., CABI, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 2011.
17. Ninomiya S: Satisfaction of farm animal behavioral needs in behaviorally restricted systems: Reducing stressors and environmental enrichment. Anim Sci J, 85, 634-638, 2014. DOI: 10.1111/asj.12213
18. Ito K, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG: Lying behavior: Assessing within- and between- herd variation in free-stall-housed dairy cows. J Dairy Sci, 92, 4412-4420, 2009. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2009-2235
19. Ayyılmaz T, Uzmay C, Kaya İ: Süt sığırı ahırlarında inek konforu esaslı serbest durak tasarımı. Hayvansal Üretim, 52 (2): 46-57, 2011.
20. Österman S, Redbo I: Effects of milking frequency on lying down and getting up behaviour in dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 70, 167- 176, 2001. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00159-3
21. Hultgren J: Effects of two stall flooring systems on the behaviour of tied dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 73, 167-177, 2001. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00138-1
22. Mattiello S, Arduino D, Tosi MV, Carenzi C: Survey on housing, management and welfare of dairy cattle in tie-stalls in western Italian Alps. Acta Agr Scand, 55, 31-39, 2005. DOI: 10.1080/09064700510009270
23. Krohn, CC: Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/ pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments: III. Grooming, exploration, and abnormal behaviour. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 42, 73-86, 1994. DOI: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)90148-1
24. Alban L, Agger JF: Welfare in Danish dairy herds. 2- housing systems and grazing procedures in 1983 and 1994. Acta Vet Scand, 37 (1): 65- 77, 1996.
25. Regula G, Danuser J, Spycher B, Wechsler B: Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in Switzerland. Prev Vet Med, 66, 247-264, 2004. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.09.004
26. Popescu S, Borda C, Lazar E, Hegedüs CI: Assessment of dairy cow welfare in farms from Transylvania. 44th Croatian & 4th International Symposium on Agriculture, 16-20 February 2009, Opatija, Croatia, Proceedings, 752-756, 2009.
27. Cozzi G, Brscic M, Gottardo F: Main critical factors affecting the welfare of beef cattle and veal calves raised under intensive rearing systems in Italy: A review. ItaL J Anim Sci, 8, 67-80, 2009. DOI: 10.4081/ ijas.2009.s1.67
28. Popescu S, Borda C, Diugan EA, Niculae M, Stefan R, Sandru CD: The effect of the housing system on the welfare quality of dairy cows. Ital J Anim Sci,13, 15-22, 2014. DOI: 10.4081/ijas.2014.2940
29. Galindo F, Broom DM: The effects of lameness on social and ındividual behavior of dairy cows. J Appl Anim Welf Sci, 5, 193-201, 2002. DOI: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0503_03
30. Sogstad ÅM, Fjeldaas T, Østerås O, Plym-Forshell K: Prevalence of claw lesions in Norwegian dairy cattle housed in tie stalls and free stalls. Prev Vet Med, 70, 191-209, 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.03.005
31. Cook NB: Prevalence of lameness among dairy cattle in Wisconsin as a function of housing type and stall surface. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 223, 1324-1328, 2003. DOI: 10.2460/javma.2003.223.1324
32. Duncan IJH: Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals. Rev Sci Tech, 24 (2): 483-492, 2005.
33. Hultgren J: Cattle welfare aspects of animal hygiene. Proceedings, XI International Congress ISAH, 23-27 February 2003, Mexico City, 2003.
34. Rushen J, Butterworth A, Swanson JC: Animal behaviour and well-being symposium: Farm animal welfare assurance: Science and application. J Anim Sci, 89, 1219-1228, 2011. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2010-3589
35. Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH: Welfare monitoring schemes: Using research to safeguard welfare of animals on the farm. J Appl Anim Welf Sci, 12, 114-131, 2009. DOI: 10.1080/10888700902719856
36. Johnsen PF, Johannesson T, Sandøe P: Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: Many goals, many methods. Acta Agric Scand, Sect A, Animal Sci, 30, 26-33, 2001. DOI: 10.1080/090647001316923027
37. Mazurek M, Prendiville DJ, Crowe MA, Veissier I, Earley B: An on-farm investigation of beef suckler herds using an animal welfare index (AWI). BMC Vet Res, 6, 55, 2010. DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-6-55
38. Özen N, Şayan Y, Ak İ, Yurtman İY, Polat M: Hayvansal üretim- çevre ilişkileri ve organik hayvancılık. Türkiye Ziraat Mühendisliği 7. Teknik Kongresi, Ankara, 11-15 Ocak 2010.