Criteria and Scoring Method for Evaluation of Dairy Cattle Enterprises in Terms of Biosecurity and Animal Welfare Conditions

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 45 - 50, 30.06.2019

Durhasan Mundan Yahya Öztürk

https://doi.org/10.24880/maeuvfd.546062

Öz

In this review, it is aimed to determine the
criteria to be used in the evaluation of cow comfort and biosecurity rules,
determination of application level of criteria and as a result, what required
preventive will be taken in dairy cattle enterprises. These criteria are
determined and measured by scientific variables. In this study, 40 criteria
were determined to measure biosecurity and animal welfare in livestock
enterprises. Biosecurity criteria and animal welfare standards are used to evaluate
the quality and security of dairy cattle enterprises. The evaluation of these
criteria is important for easy applicability. The necessary prevention will be
taken by reporting the cost of the negative criteria to the farmers and thus
the scoring of the enterprise will reach the highest level. It is important to
obtain a high score from this evaluation, to have the licensing of the
enterprises and the certificate of the disease-free enterprises.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Behavior, Biosecurity, Cow comfort, Economic impact, Scoring method, Welfare levels

Kaynakça

• 1. Uğur F. Sığır Yetiştirme (Ders Kitabı). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Yayınları No: 117. Birinci baskı. Pozitif Matbaa. 2014; ISBN: 978-605-4222-36-0.
• 2. Anonymous. Gıda, Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı, Gıda ve Kontrol Genel Müdürlügü, hastalıktan ari işletmeler, Genelge 2018/1, https://www.tarim.gov.tr/Belgeler/Mevzuat/Genelgeler/gkgm/AriIsletmeOnayliCiftlik.pdf, (Erişim 11.09.2018).
• 3. Antalyalı A. Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye’de hayvan refahı uygulamaları. AB Uzmanlık Tezi, Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı Dış İlişkiler ve AB Koordinasyon Dairesi Başkanlığı, 2007; Ankara.
• 4. Erşan, I., 2018. Avrupa Birliği hayvan hastalıkları politikasındaki gelişmeler ve yeni yasa teklifi, https://www.tarim.gov.tr/ABDGM/Belgeler/%C4%B0DAR%C4%B0%20%C4%B0%C5%9ELER/Uzmanl%C4%B1k%20Tez%20Eyl%C3%BCl%202015/Is%C4%B1k%20Ersan.pdf, (Erişim 16.08.2018).
• 5. Aksoy FT. Sürü Sağlığı ve Biyogüvenlik, http://www.ciftlikdergisi.com.tr/suru-sagligi-ve-biyoguvenlik.html (Erişim 18.05.2018).
• 6. Ellis KA, Mihm M, Innocent G, Cripps P, McLean WG, Howard CV, Grove-White DG. Assessing the Relationship Between Dairy Cow Cleanliness and Bulk Milk Hygiene on Organic and Conventional Farms. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 2006.
• 7. Wolf A. A Welfare Assessment System for Dairy Cows on Pasture and The Comparison to a Welfare Scoring System For Cows in Cubicles. Research Project Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, 2009.
• 8. Cook NB. The influence of barn design on dairy cow hygiene, lameness and udder health, Clinical Assistant Professor in Food Animal Production Medicine, Univeristy of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, WI 53706, 2004.
• 9. Keeling L, Jensen P. Behavioural Disturbances, Stress and Welfare. In: The Ethology of Domectic Animals, An Introductory Text. Ed. by P. Jensen. CABI Publishing, 2002; 79-99.
• 10. Swanson JC. Farm Animal Well-Being and Intensive Production Systems. J Anim Sci. 1995; 73: 2744-2751.
• 11. Broom DM. Welfare stress and the evolution of feelings. Adv Study Behav. 1998; 27: 371-403.
• 12. Dawkins MS. Animal Welfare and Efficient Farming: is Conflict Inevitable?, From http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN15383, 2016.
• 13. Duncan IJH, Poole TB. Promoting the welfare of farm and captive animals, In Managing the behaviour of animals, Edited by P. Monaghan and D. Wood-Gush, Chapman and Hall, Cambridge, UK, 1990.
• 14. Vetter S, Vasa L, Ózsvari L. Economic Aspects of Animal Welfare, Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2014; 11: 119-134.
• 15. Rowan AN. The Concept of Animal Welfare and Animal Suffering. In: Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics. Eds: L.F.M. van Zuphten and M. Balls. pp.157-168. Published: Elsevier Sci. BV, Amsterdam, 1997.
• 16. Sanhouri AA, Jones RS, Dobson H. Pentobarbitone inhibits the stress response to transport in male goats. Br Vet J, 1991; 147: 42–48.
• 17. Bartussek H, Leeb CH, Held S. Animal needs index for cattle, Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions, BAL Gumpenstein A 8952, Austria, 2000.
• 18. Schulte R, Earley B, Wouw S, Culleton N. Animal Welfare – Development of methodology for its assessment. Farm & Food Autumn, 1998.
• 19. Soudrum A, Andersson R, Foster G. Tiergerechtheitsindex-200, Institut für Organischen Landbau, Bonn, 1994.
• 20. Hocking PM, Channing CE, Robertson GW, Edmond A, Jones RB. Between breed genetic variation for welfare-related behavioural traits in domestic fowl. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2004; 89: 85-105.
• 21. Seo T, Date K, Daigo T, Kashiwamura F, Sato S. Welfare Assessment on Japanese Dairy Farms Using the Animal Needs Index, UK, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, 2007; 16: 221-223.
• 22. Bartussek H. An Historical Account of the Development of the Animal Needs Index ANI-35L as Part of the Attempt to Promote and Regulate Farm Animal Welfare in Austria: An Example of the Interaction Between Animal Welfare Science and Society, 2001, From http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/090647001316923036.