Kars İli Süt Sığırcılığı İşletmelerinde Hayvan Refahının Barınak ve Yetiştirme Şartları Açısından Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu araştırma, Kars merkez ve ilçelerinde TÜRKVET sistemine kayıtlı, farklı iki tip işletmede 48 adeti kapalı bağlamalı ve 6 adeti ise kapalı serbest dolaşımlı olmak üzere 54 adet süt sığırı işletmesinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Refah düzeyini belirlemede, Animal Needs Indeks (ANI) 35L yöntemi temel alınarak yapılmıştır. Ahır tiplerine göre hareket özgürlüğü kategorisi kriterlerden, avlu ya da mera kullanımı (gün/yıl); sosyal etkileşim kategorisi kriterlerinden, hayvan başına alan (m2/500 kg), gençlerin yönetimi ve avlu ya da mera kullanımı (gün/yıl); zemin durumu kategorisi kriterlerinden, yatma alan yumuşaklığı ve yatma alan temizliği; ahır içi iklim koşulları kategorisi kriterlerinden, açık alan kullanımı ve bakım kategorisi kriterlerinden, bölme, yemlik ve suluk temizliği, teknik ekipman durumu, deri durumu, hayvanların temizliği ve tırnakların durumunun istatiksel olarak önemli olduğu belirlenmiştir (P < ,05). Kapalı bağlamalı ahırlarda, barınak içi sıcaklık, nem ve sıcaklık nem indeksi (THI) ortalamaları sırası ile 23,76 0C, %37,83 ve 68,73 belirlenirken, kapalı serbest dolaşımlı ahırlarda aynı sıra ile 22,20 0C, %38,13 ve 66,98 olarak belirlenmiş ve istatiksel bir fark tespit edilmemiştir (P > ,05). Araştırma sonucunda, kapalı bağlamalı ahırların hayvan refahı açısından %2,1’nin sınırda uygun, %33,3’ünün kısmen uygun, %37,5’inin büyük ölçüde uygun, %27,1’nin uygun olarak belirlenirken, uygun olmayan ve çok uygun olan işletme belirlenmemiştir. Kapalı serbest dolaşımlı ahırların %16,7’sinin uygun ve %83,3’ünün çok uygun olduğu belirlenirken, uygun olmayan, nadiren uygun olan, kısmen uygun ve oldukça uygun ahır belirlenmemiştir. Hayvan refahı konusunda ilgili birimlerdeki yetiştiriciler ve personelin, bilinçlendirilmesi için eğitim almaları sağlanmalıdır. Hayvan refahı konusunda ilgili birimlerde çalışan yetiştiricilerin ve personelin eğitilmesi sağlanarak refah konusunda farkındalık artırılmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ANI-35/L
• barınak
• hayvan refahı
• süt sığırcılığı

Evaluation of Animal Welfare in Dairy farms in Kars Province for Barn and Breeding Conditions

Öz

This study was conducted in 54 dairy farms, including 48 tie-stall (TS) barns and 6 closed free-stall (CFS) barns, in two different types of farms registered to the TURKVET system in the city center and districts of Kars. The welfare level was determined based on the Animal Needs Index (ANI) 35L Model. Use of yard or pasture (days/year) among the criteria of the freedom of movement category according to barn types; space per animal (m2/500 kg), management of young and use of yard or pasture (days/year) among the criteria of the social interaction category; softness and cleanliness of the bedding space among the criteria of the floor condition category; the use of open space among the criteria of the light and air conditions category; and cleanliness of stables among the criteria of the stockmanship category; the condition of equipment, condition of integument, cleanliness of animals, and condition of hooves were found to be statistically significant (P < .05). The in-barn mean temperature, humidity and temperature humidity index (THI) were 23.76 °C, 37.83% and 68.73, respectively in the tie-stall barns, while the mean temperature, humidity and temperature humidity index (THI) were 22.20 °C, 38.13% and 66.98, respectively, in the closed free-stall barns and no statistical difference was found (P > .05). As a result of the research, 2.1% of the closed-tie barns were determined to be borderline suitable, 33.3% partially suitable, 37.5% largely suitable, 27.1% suitable in terms of animal welfare, while no unsuitable or very suitable enterprises were determined. While 16.7% of the closed free-stall barns were suitable and 83.3% were very suitable, no unsuitable, rarely, little, and fairly suitable barns were determined. The breeders and personnel working in relevant units should be trained on animal welfare to increase awareness on welfare.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ANI 35/L
• Barn
• Animal welfare
• Dairy farming

Kaynakça

1. 1.Aydemir C, Pıçak M. Development of raising livestock in the Southeast Anatolia Region and ıts position in Turkey. Electronic J Soc Sci. 2007;22(6):13-37.
2. 2. Canan S. Assessment of economic aspects of animal welfare in farm. J Institute Sci Tech. 2023;13(4):3021-3029.
3. 3. Öcal GO. Evaluatıon of Anımal Welfare in Dairy Farms of Ankara in Terms of Housıng and Breedıng Condıtıons. Masters Thesis. Ankara University; 2020.
4. 4. Rahaman I, Samanta R, Ghosh CP, Datta S. Dairy cattle welfare assessment-importance and significance: A review, The Pharm Innov J. 2021;10(2S):226-23.
5. 5. Simitzis P, Tzanidakis C, Tzamaloukas O, Sossidou E. Contribution of precision livestock farming systems to the improvement of welfare status and productivity of dairy Animals. Dairy. 2022;3(1):12-28.
6. 6. Bozkurt Z. Scientific approaches for on-farm animal welfare assessment. Kocatepe Vet J. 2016;9(3):236-246.
7. 7. Danışan S, Gücüyener Hacan Ö. A preliminary study on the investigation of learning ability of Arabian Horses through. Vet Sci Pract. 2024;19(1):35-45.
8. 8. Asan H, Özçelik Metin M. The evaluation of welfare quality in dairy cattle 2. good health, appropriate behavior. MAE Vet Fak Derg. 2016;1(2):65-74.

9. 9. Sert H, Uzmay A. Assessment of economical aspects and sustainability of global animal welfare practices. Adnan Menderes Univ, J Institute Soc Sci. 2017;4(4):263-276.
10. 10. Sabuncuoğlu N, Çoban Ö, Genç M, Lacin E. Animal welfare assessment based on Welfare Quality® criteria in a dairy farm in Turkey. Dicle Üniv Vet Fak Derg. 2020;13(2):157-161.
11. 11. Bartussek H, Leeb C, Held S. Animal Needs Index for cattle - ANI 35L/2000 - cattle. Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions BAL Gumpenstein, Irdning, Austria, 2000. Accessed: November 06, 2021. https://bartussek.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/anicattle.pdf.
12. 12. Amon T, Amon B, Ofner E, Boxberger J. Precision of assessment of animal welfare by the "TGI 35L" Austrian need index. Acta Agric Scand Sect A, Animal Sci. 2001;51(S30):114-117.
13. 13. Bartussek H. A review of the Animal Needs Index (ANI) for the assessment of animal’s well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livest Prod Sci. 1999;61(2-3):179-192.
14. 14. Bartussek H. A 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. Acta Agric Scand Sect A, Animal Sci. 2001:S30:34-41.
15. 15. Annen DN, Wieck C, Kempen M. Animal welfare on the farm: Legislation, certification standards and assessment frameworks. Technical Paper No. 11.01. Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Chair of Economic and Agricultural Policy, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany 2012. Accessed: April 01, 2022. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Animal-welfare-on-the-farm%3A-Legislation%2C-standards-Annen.
16. 16. Botner A, Broom D, Doherr MG, et al. Scientific opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems. EFSA panel on animal health and welfare (AHAW). EFSA J. 2012;10(5):1-166.
17. 17. Koçak Ö, Akın PD, Yalçıntan H, Ekiz B. Assessment of animal welfare in different beef cattle housing systems by ANI 35L/2000 method. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2015;21(4):575-583.
18. 18. Rousing T, Bonde M, Sorensen JT. Indicators for the assessment of animal welfare in a dairy cattle herd with a cubicle housing system. I Improving health and welfare in animal production. EAAP Publication. 2000;10:37-44.
19. 19. Bowell VA, Rennie LJ, Tierney G, at al. Relationships between building design, management system and dairy cow welfare. Anim Welfare. 2003;12(4):547-552.
20. 20. Seo T, Date K, Daigo T, et al. Welfare assessment on Japanese dairy farms using the animal needs index. Anim Welfare. 2007;16(2):221-223.
21. 21. Armbrecht L, Lambertz C, Albers D, Gauly M. Assessment of welfare indicators in dairy farms offering pasture at differing levels. Animal. 2019;13(10):2336-2347.
22. 22. Furnaris F, Ghimpeteanu OM, Predoi, GI. Dairy cows welfare assessment in a farm from south-eastern Romania. Agric Agric Sci Proc. 2016;10:403-407.
23. 23. Irico L, Tomassone L, Martano G, Gottardo F, Tarantola M. Animal welfare and reproductive performance in two piemontese housing systems. Italian J Anim Sci. 2018;17(2):499-504.
24. 24. Chen JM, Stull CL, Ledgerwood DN, Tucker CB. Muddy conditions reduce hygiene and lying time in dairy cattle and increase time spent on concrete. J. Dairy Sci. 2017;100(3):2090-2103.
25. 25. Cartes D, Strappini A, Sepulveda-Varas P. Provision of shelter during the prepartum period: Effects on behavior, blood analytes, and health status in dairy cows in winter. J Dairy Sci. 2021;104(3):3508-3521.
26. 26. Akbay AH. Accordance of Dairy farm in Tekirdağ province to animal welfare. Masters Thesis. Namık Kemal University; 2010.
27. 27. Keçici PD, Yalçıntan H, Öztürk H, Koçak O. Investigating current welfare status of the buffalo farms by ANI evaluation method. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2021;53(4):437.
28. 28. Keskin H: Evaluation of Animal Welfare by ANI 35 L / 2000 Method in Dairy Cattle Enterprises in Konya Province. PhD Thesıs. Selçuk University; 2021.
29. 27. Sakar ÇM, Ünal İ, Okuroğlu A, Coşkun Mİ, Keçici PD, Koçak Ö. Using ANI 35/L approach to evaluate the welfare status of locally adapted Anatolian Black cattle. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2022;54(5):272.
30. 30. Stuoge I, Ribikauskas V, Ribikauskienė D, Ruodka R, Jomantas J. Estimation of beef and dairy cattle welfare in organic farms of Lithuania. Bulg J Agric Sci. 2016;22(3):477-481.
31. 31. Lacetera N. Impact of climate change on animal health and welfare. Anim Front. 2018;9(1):26-31.
32. 32. Islam MA, Lomax S, Doughty A, Islam MR, Jay O, Thomson P, Clark C. Automated monitoring of cattle heat stress and its mitigation. Front Anim Sci. 2021;2:737213.
33. 33. Messeri A, Mancini M, Riccardo B, et al. Temperature-humidity index monitoring during two summer seasons in dairy cow sheds in Mugello (Tuscany). Int J Biometeorol. 2023;67(1):1555-1567.
34. 34. Galan E, Llonch P, Villagra A, Levit H, Pinto S, Del Prado A. A systematic review of non-productivity-related animal-based indicators of heat stress resilience in dairy cattle. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(11):1-19.
35. 35. VanderZaag A, Le Riche E, Balde H, et al. Comparing thermal conditions inside and outside lactating dairy cattle barns in Canada. J. Dairy Sci, 2023;106(7):4738-4758.
36. 36. Lovarelli D, Finzi A, Mattachini G, Riva E. Survey of dairy cattle behavior in different barns in northern Italy. Animals, 2020;10(4):1-16.