Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows

Abstract

Simple SummaryIn many cases, different animal welfare inspections are taking place at an animal farm over time, as the farmer has to comply with both the legislation and with various private standards. In this study, we compared official inspections carried out by CAB (the County Administrative Board, a governmental agency) with private inspections carried out by Arla Foods (a private company) on dairy farms in one Swedish county. For example, we looked at seasonal effects and compared the incidence of different non-compliances. This study shows that long time periods were sometimes allowed for correction, that follow-up systems are diverse, and that there were differences in the inspection result between CAB and Arla due to different focuses during the inspections. Dirty dairy cattle were, however, a common non-compliance found by both CAB and Arla. Tie-stall housing and winter season (Dec–Feb) were risk factors for non-compliance, while the risk was lower for both CAB and Arla to find non-compliances at organic farms compared to conventional farms. We conclude that the presence of both similarities and differences between different control systems underlines the need for transparency, predictability, and clarity of inspections.AbstractFarmers often have to comply with several sets of animal welfare regulations, since private standards have been developed in addition to legislation. Using an epidemiological approach, we analysed protocols from animal welfare inspections carried out in Swedish dairy herds by the County Administrative Board (CAB; official control of legislation) and by the dairy company Arla Foods (private control of Arlagården standard) during 2010–2013 in the county of Västra Götaland. CAB and Arla inspections were not carried out simultaneously. We aimed to identify common non-compliances, quantify risk factors of non-compliance, and investigate if non-compliances were based on animal-, resource-, or management-based requirements, as well as determining the time period allowed for achieving compliance. Non-compliance was found in 58% of CAB cases, and 51% of Arla cases (each case comprising a sequence of one or several inspections). Dirty dairy cattle was one of the most frequent non-compliances in both control systems. However, the differences in control results were large, suggesting a difference in focus between the two systems. Tie-stall housing and winter season (Dec–Feb) were common risk factors for non-compliance, and overall organic farms had a lower predicted number of non-compliances compared to conventional farms. The presence of both similarities and differences between the systems underlines the need for transparency, predictability, and clarity of inspections.

Assessment of Welfare Problems in Finnish Cattle and Pig Farms Based on Official Inspection Reports

“…We found more frequent prevalence of non-compliances in cattle farms with small herd size and tie-stall housing. Tie-stall housing is recognized as a risk factor for non-compliance in dairy cattle in Sweden [7]. The finding is probably explained by older premises with restricted space and facilities as nearly all new cattle houses in Finland are free stalls, and these stalls have a higher number of animals compared with tie-stalls [14].…”

“…Thus, the seasons during which cattle farms had more difficulties to fulfil all the animal welfare requirements were also the seasons when the weather in Finland is the most challenging: cold winter and rainy autumn seasons. Lundmark Hedman et al [7] have found that there is a higher probability of non-compliance in Swedish cattle farms during the winter season. The extreme winter temperatures (below −30 °C) freezes the water supply systems unless well insulated and this probably explains some non-compliance issues in winter.…”

“…In Finland, the data obtained have not been thoroughly evaluated and utilized for the development of animal welfare inspection system. In Sweden, the inspection data have been used to determine the incidence of specific welfare conditions and risk factors for poor welfare [3,6,7]. In France it has been used to improve compliance with EU animal welfare legislation and the efficiency of the inspection system [8], and in Great Britain to establish whether farm membership of a voluntary assurance, organic or welfare scheme has an impact on compliance with animal welfare legislation [9,10].…”

Welfare Challenges of Dairy Cows in India Identified Through On-Farm Observations

“…Tie stalls were the primary housing type for lactating cows on 39% of farms in the USA in 2014 [15]. Several countries have introduced bans on building new tie-stall systems, and complete bans are also being introduced-for example in Sweden, where approximately 32% of dairy cows were in tie-stall systems in 2015, the construction of new tie-stall barns has been banned since 2007 [16]. Likewise, in Norway, building new tie-stall barns is banned and a complete ban on tie-stalls is scheduled for 2034 [17].…”

“…Therefore, tied cows are prevented from the freedom to express normal behaviour-one of the 'five freedoms' of animal welfare [19]-suggesting that a basic need of the cattle observed in this study was denied. Recently, Lundmark Hedman et al [16] found that the incidence of non-compliance with either legislation or private standards on animal welfare on farms in Sweden was higher in farms with tie-stall housing than in free-stall (cubicle) systems, indicating their limited potential for good cow welfare; the authors concluded that a total ban on tie-stalls for dairy cows would have a positive impact on cow welfare. Popescu et al [20] identified several welfare problems in tied-housing systems, including poor body hygiene and mastitis-the latter being "at an alarming level"-as well as poor scores for positive emotional state (assessments were conducted using the Welfare Quality®protocol).…”