immagine

Attività svolta

Desidero ricevere una copia cartacea
Informativa sulla privacy
Iscrizione alla newsletter

Conseguenze delle pratiche di riproduzione sul benessere in allevamento

Riassunto

Questo articolo fa il punto sull’influenza della pratiche di riproduzione sul benessere in allevamento. Quest’ultimo è definito da quattro grandi principi: buona alimentazione, buona salute, buon alloggiamento e comportamento appropriato. Dalla fecondazione al parto, le diverse pratiche di riproduzione hanno un impatto positivo o negativo sul benessere animale. Per il veterinario, in qualità di interlocutore ideale e garante del benessere degli animali, è fondamentale conoscere i limiti di ciascuna in quanto le aspettative dell’opinione pubblica, in questo campo, sono molto elevate.

 

Parole chiave: welfare, riproduzione, allevamento, dolore, parto, alloggiamento, dieta, salute, benessere.

 

Summary

The consequences of breeding practices on livestock welfare

This article reviews the influence of breeding practices on welfare in livestock farming. Welfare is defined by four main principles: good nutrition, good health, good housing and appropriate behaviour. From insemination to weaning, different reproductive practices have a positive or a negative impact on the welfare of animals. The veterinarian is the ideal interlocutor and guarantor of the welfare of animals. It is important to beware of one’s limitations because societal expectations of animal welfare are strong in this area.

Keywords: welfare, reproduction, breeding, pain, calving, housing, diet, health, behaviour.

 

Bibliogafia

1. Berckmans D. Precision livestock farming technologies for welfare management in intensive Livestock Systems. Revue Scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics). 2014; 33 (1): 18-196.

2. Boissy A, Le Neindre P. Behavioral, cardiac and cortisol responses to brief peer separation and reunion in cattle. Physiol. Behav. 1997; 61 (5): 693- 699. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0031-9384(96)00521-5.

3. Botreau R, Bracke MBM, Perny P et coll. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints. Animal. 2007; 1 (8): 1188-1197. https: //doi. org/10.1017/ S1751731107000547.

4. Botreau R, Veissier I, Butterworth A et coll. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare. 2007; 16: 225-228.

5. Botreau R, VeissierI I, Perny P. 2009. Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Animal Welfare 2009; 18: 363-370.

6. Bouissou MF, Boissy A, Le Neindre P, Veissier I. The social behaviour of cattle. In: Social behaviour in farm animals. LJ Keeling and HW Gonyou. 2001: 113-145.

7. Carthy TR, Berry DP, Fitzgerald A et coll. Risk factors associated with detailed reproductive phenotypes in dairy and beef cows. Animal. 2014; 8 (5): 695-703. https: //doi. org/10.1017/ S1751731114000354.

8. Chastant-Maillard S, du Roizel- Marlier T, Quentin X et coll. Indications zootechniques de l’ovariectomie. Point Vét. 2005; 36 (n°sp): 62-65.

9. Dargatz DA, Dewell GA, Mortimer TG. Calving and calving management of beef cows and heifers on cow-calf operations in the United States. Theriogenology. 2004; 61 (6): 997- 1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(03)00145-6.

10. Dawkins et coll. From an animal’s point of views: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behav. Brain Sci. 1990; 13: 1-61.

11. De Boyer des Roches A, Veissier I, Boivin X et coll. A prospective exploration of farm, farmer, and animal characteristics in humananimal relationships: An epidemiological survey. J. Dairy Sci. 2016; 99 (7): 5573- 5585. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10633.

12. Duncan IJH. Welfare is to do with what animals feel. J. Agri. Environ. Ethics. 1993; 6 (suppl. 2): 8-14.

13. Eaglesome MD, Garcia MM. Disease risks to animal health from artificial insemination with bovine semen. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics). 1997; 16 (1): 215-225.

14. Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. Vet. Rec. 1992; 17: 357.

15. Flower FC, Weary DM. Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf: 2. Separation at 1 day and 2 weeks after birth. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001; 70 (4): 275-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00) 00164-7.

16. Givens MD, Riddell KP, Walz PH et coll. Noncytopathic bovine viral diarrhea virus can persist in testicular tissue after vaccination of peri-pubertal bulls but prevents subsequent infection - ScienceDirect. Vaccine. 2007; 25: 867-876.

17. Godden, Sandra. Colostrum management for dairy calves. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. Dairy Heifer Management. 2008; 24 (1): 19-39. https: //doi. org/10.1016/j. cvfa. 2007.10.005.

18. Griffon L, Boulesteix P, Delpeuch A et coll. La sélection génétique des races bovines allaitantes en France: un dispositif et des outils innovants au service des filières viande. Inra Productions Animales. 2017; 30 (2): 107-124.

19. Grimard B, Agabriel J, Chambon G et coll. Particularités de la reproduction des vaches allaitantes de races françaises. Inra Productions Animales. 2017; 30 (2): 125-138. 20. Guerrier J, Fouilloux MN, Brunet JL et coll. Ouverture pelvienne: des paramètres génétiques aux index de sélection en station. Inra, Paris. 2012; 19: 85-88.

21. Huxley JN, Whay HR. Current attitudes of cattle practitioners to pain and the use of analgesics in cattle. Vet. Rec. 2006; 159 (20): 662-668. https: // doi. org/10.1136/vr. 159.20.662.

22. Idele. Indexation bovine laitière. La nouvelle méthode française d’évaluation génomique. Idele E, Paris. 2015.

23. Idele. Note IBOVAL: IFNxt: nouvel index facilité de naissance de taureaux viande utilisés sur support maternel laitier. Idele E, Paris. 2017.

24. Keeling LJ, Rushen J, Duncan IJH. Understanding animal welfare. In: Animal Welfare. 2nd e. édité par MC Appleby, JA. Mench, IAS Olsson et BO Hughes. Wallingford, UK. CAB International. 2011.

25. Kirkland PD, Richards SG, Rothwell JT, Stanley DF. Replication of bovine viral diarrhoea virus in the bovine reproductive tract and excretion of virus in semen during acute and chronic infections. Vet. Rec. 1991; 128 (25): 587-590.

26. Le Mezec P, Moureaux S. Bilan génétique de l’insémination artificielle en races bovines laitières. Idele E, Paris. 2017.

27. Leblanc S. Monitoring metabolic health of dairy cattle in the transition period. J. Reprod. Develop. 2010; 56 (S): S29-35. https://doi.org/10.1262/jrd.1056S29.

28. Lidfors LM, Moran D, Jung J, Jensen P, Castren H. Behaviour at calving and choice of calving place in cattle kept in different environments. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1994; 42 (1): 11-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90003-5.

29. Mainau E, Manteca X. Pain and discomfort caused by parturition in cows and sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. Special issue: Pain in farm animals. 2011; 135 (3): 241-251. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. applanim. 2011.10.020.

30. Mandel R, Whay HR, Nicol CJ, Klement E. The effect of food location, heat load, and intrusive medical procedures on brushing activity in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2013; 96 (10): 6506-6513. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6941.

31. Mee JF. Prevalence and risk factors for dystocia in dairy cattle: A review. Vet. J. Special issue: production diseases of the transition cow. 2008; 176 (1): 93- 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.12.032.

32. Mee JF, Cosme SM, Doherty M. Influence of modifiable risk factors on the incidence of stillbirth/perinatal mortality in dairy cattle. Vet. J. 2014; 199 (1): 19-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.08.004.

33. Meyling A, Mikél Jensen A. Transmission of bovine virus diarrhoea virus (BVDV) by artificial insemination (AI) with semen from a persistently infected bull. Vet. Microbiol. 1988; 17 (2): 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1135(88)90001-6.

34.Nakao T, Sato T, Moriyoshi M, Kawata K. Plasma cortisol response in dairy cows to vaginoscopy, genital palpation per rectum and artificial insemination. Zentralbl. Veterinarmed. A. 1994; 41: 16-21.

35. Petherick JC, McCosker K, Mayer DG et coll. Preliminary investigation of some physiological responses of bos indicus heifers to surgical spaying. Austr. Vet. J. 2011; 89 (4): 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2011.00696.x.

36. Phillips C. Cattle behaviour and welfare. 2nd e. Blackwell Science Ltd. 2002. https: // www.wiley.com/en-fr/Cattle+Behaviour+and+Welfare %2C+ 2nd+Edition-p-9780632056453.

37. Proudfoot KL, Jensen MB, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Dairy cows seek isolation at calving and when ill. J. Dairy Sci. 2014; 97 (5): 2731-2739. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7274.

38. Remnant JG, Tremlett A, Huxley JN, Hudson CD. Clinician attitudes to pain and use of analgesia in cattle: where are we 10 years on? Vet. Rec. 2017; 181 (15): 400-400. https:// doi.org/10.1136/vr.104428.

39. Renaud DL, Duffield TF, LeBlanc SJ et coll. Management practices for male calves on canadian dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2017; 100 (8): 6862-6871. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12750.

40. Reproscope. Reproscope. 2017. http: //164.177.30.205/pentaho/ api/repos/: public: reproscope: accueil_reproscope.wcdf/generatedContent?&userid=public_user&password =_Repr0sc0pe_Pu.

41. Saint-Dizier M, Chastant- Maillard S. Potential of connected devices to optimize cattle reproduction. Theriogenology, septembre 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2017.09.033.

42. Schuenemann GM, Nieto I, Bas S et coll. Dairy calving management: Effect of perineal hygiene scores on metritis. J. Dairy Sci. 2011; 94 (E-Suppl. 1): 744.

43. Spruijt BM, Hooff JA, Gispen WH. Ethology and neurobiology of grooming behavior. Physiological Reviews. 1992; 72 (3): 825-852. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.1992.72.3.825.

44. Stojkov J, von Keyserlingk MAG, Marchant- Forde JN, Weary DM. Assessment of visceral pain associated with metritis in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2015; 98 (8): 5352-5361. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds. 2014-9296.

45. Veissier I, Boissy A. Stress and welfare: Two complementary concepts that are intrinsically related to the animal’s point of view. Physiology & Behavior, Stress and Welfare in Farm Animals. 2007; 92 (3): 429-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh. 2006.11.008.

46. Veissier I, Boissy A, dePassillé AM et coll. Calves’ responses to repeated social regrouping and relocation. J. Anim. Sci. 2001; 79 (10): 2580- 2593. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.79102580x.

47. Veissier I, Le Neindre P, Trillat G. The use of circadian behaviour to measure adaptation of calves to changes in their environment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1989; 22 (1): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89) 90075-0.

48. Whay et coll. 2007. The Journey to Animal Welfare Improvement. Animal Welfare. 2007; 16: 117-122.

49. Wilson BK, Richards CJ, Step DL, Krehbiel CR. Beef species symposium: best management practices for newly weaned calves for improved health and well-being. J. Anim. Sci. 2017; 95 (5): 2170-2182. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016.1006.

50. Yart L, Dessauge F, Finot L et coll. Ovariectomy improves lactation persistency in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2012; 95 (7): 3794-3802. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.2011-5195.

 

TORNA INDIETRO
Abbonati per accedere

Dal web internazionale
12/03/2019

Valutazione nutrizionale del glutenolo, sottoprodotto dell’etanolo

La produzione di etanolo (impiegato come bio-carburante) a partire dal mais è ormai largamente diffusa in diverse parti del mondo, soprattutto negli Stati Uniti. Alcuni sottoprodotti di questa distillazione (come i DDGS ossia “distillers dried grains with solubles”) vengono impiegati nell’alimentazione animale.

 
 

Formazione a distanza abbinata a SUMMA

 

 

Formazione Settore Agro-Zootecnico