Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals

Broom, Donald M.; Galindo, Francisco; Murgueitio, Enrique

doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2025

Cited by 224 publications

(204 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

186

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Grazing is often considered the most sustainable way of producing milk, owing to lower production costs, higher quality products and greater social acceptance (Broom et al, 2013). In many parts of the world, pasture-based systems are synonymous with compact seasonal calving to match feed demand and pasture growth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproductive performance of Jersey and Fleckvieh × Jersey heifers and cows maintained on a pasture-based feeding system

Goni¹,

Muller²,

Dube³

et al. 2015

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crossbreeding is regarded as a faster way than using pure dairy breeds to improve the reproductive performance of dairy cows, which is pivotal to farm income. The reproductive performances of Jersey and Fleckvieh × Jersey (F × J) heifers and cows were compared in a pasture-based production system. Heifers were inseminated when showing signs of heat from 13 months old and cows from 40 days post calving. Using insemination records and pregnancy check results, fertility traits were derived and compared between breeds, using analysis of variance for continuous records. Age at first insemination and conception age for heifers did not differ between the two breeds, resulting in a similar age at first calving. For cows, the mean (± SE) interval from calving to first insemination was shorter for F × J cows, being 76.7 ± 2.2 days compared with 82.4 ± 2.5 days for Jersey cows. A larger proportion of F × J cows were inseminated within 80 days post calving, compared with the Jersey cows (0.70 and 0.54, respectively). Furthermore, the proportion of cows confirmed pregnant by 100 days in milk was higher for F × J cows in comparison with Jersey cows, being 0.79 and 0.66, respectively. Although the absolute number of days between calving and conception (days open) was slightly less for F × J cows in comparison with Jersey cows (104.8 ± 6.8 and 114.8 ± 8.1 days, respectively), the difference was not significant. These results indicate the potential of improving reproductive performance of Jersey cows through crossbreeding with the dual-purpose Fleckvieh.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproductive performance of Jersey and Fleckvieh × Jersey heifers and cows maintained on a pasture-based feeding system

Goni¹,

Muller²,

Dube³

et al. 2015

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This definition stresses the importance of good health and animal needs (either physical or emotional) to achieve good standards of welfare. Animal welfare is considered to be a necessary element of sustainable animal production (Broom et al, 2013). Increasingly, society demands that animal welfare be integrated into the concept of sustainable livestock production (Appleby, 2005).…”

Section: Contribution Of Livestock To Global Greenhouse Gas Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Increasingly, society demands that animal welfare be integrated into the concept of sustainable livestock production (Appleby, 2005). A growing number of consumers demand ethical production systems and refuse to buy products if they are produced under morally unacceptable circumstances (Broom et al, 2013). For example, Clonan et al (2015) found that welfare is a choice criterion for 88% of surveyed consumers when buying any meat.…”

Section: Contribution Of Livestock To Global Greenhouse Gas Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective

Llonch

Haskell

Dewhurst

et al. 2017

Animal

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Livestock production is a major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, so will play a significant role in the mitigation effort. Recent literature highlights different strategies to mitigate GHG emissions in the livestock sector. Animal welfare is a criterion of sustainability and any strategy designed to reduce the carbon footprint of livestock production should consider animal welfare amongst other sustainability metrics. We discuss and tabulate the likely relationships and trade-offs between the GHG mitigation potential of mitigation strategies and their welfare consequences, focusing on ruminant species and on cattle in particular. The major livestock GHG mitigation strategies were classified according to their mitigation approach as reducing total emissions (inhibiting methane production in the rumen), or reducing emissions intensity (Ei; reducing CH 4 per output unit without directly targeting methanogenesis). Strategies classified as antimethanogenic included chemical inhibitors, electron acceptors (i.e. nitrates), ionophores (i.e. Monensin) and dietary lipids. Increasing diet digestibility, intensive housing, improving health and welfare, increasing reproductive efficiency and breeding for higher productivity were categorized as strategies that reduce Ei. Strategies that increase productivity are very promising ways to reduce the livestock carbon footprint, though in intensive systems this is likely to be achieved at the cost of welfare. Other strategies can effectively reduce GHG emissions whilst simultaneously improving animal welfare (e.g. feed supplementation or improving health). These win-win strategies should be strongly supported as they address both environmental and ethical sustainability. In order to identify the most cost-effective measures for improving environmental sustainability of livestock production, the consequences of current and future strategies for animal welfare must be scrutinized and contrasted against their effectiveness in mitigating climate change.Keywords: animal welfare, climate change, livestock, mitigation, sustainability ImplicationsLivestock is a major contributor to climate change. In the context of an expected increase in the consumption of animal products, livestock producers must reduce their impact on the environment. A number of strategies have been proposed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from livestock, including ruminants. These strategies are based on changes in feeding, breeding and management practices. However, their implications for the animal's health and welfare still need to be explored. This paper tabulates and discusses the potential welfare hazards and benefits of implementing the most prominent strategies and identifies the most costeffective (GHG reduction v. welfare) strategies to mitigate climate change. Contribution of livestock to global greenhouse gas emissionsThe global livestock sector contributes significantly to anthropogenic GHG emissions. Direct emissions (through enteric fermentation and losses from manure) from livest...

show abstract

“…The most important animals for food production are those that eat food that humans cannot eat. Hence, herbivores eating forage plants, not cereals, are much more important than pigs or poultry, which compete with humans for food (Broom et al, 2013). Similarly, herbivorous fish are more important than those fish that eat other fish.…”

Section: Efficient Use Of World Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Livestock production can also result in pollution, locally and on a world-wide scale, e.g., via greenhouse gas production. Greenhouse gas production should be reduced and may have to be balanced against efficiency of use of world resources (Broom et al, 2013).…”

Section: Harmful Environmental Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Components of sustainable animal production and the use of silvopastoral systems

Broom

2017

R. Bras. Zootec.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-There is an urgent need for sustainable animal production systems. A system or procedure is sustainable if it is acceptable now and if its expected future effects are acceptable, in particular in relation to resource availability, consequences of functioning, and morality of action. What might make any animal usage system unsustainable? The system might involve depletion of resources such that a resource becomes unavailable or a product of the system might accumulate to a degree that prevents the functioning of the system. However, any effect which the general public find unacceptable makes a system unsustainable. A production system might be unsustainable because of inefficient usage of world food resources; adverse effects on human health; poor animal welfare; harmful environmental effects, such as low biodiversity or insufficient conservation; unacceptable genetic modification; not being "fair trade", in that producers in poor countries are not properly rewarded; or damage to rural communities. Consumers might judge, because of any of these inadequacies, that the quality of the product is poor. Animal welfare is a component of sustainability and good quality of product. Three-level plant production, including pasture, shrubs with edible leaves, and trees that may also have edible leaves, are an example of a silvopastoral system. The production of leaves and other material that can be eaten by the animals is much greater than can be achieved by pasture-only systems. Results presented from tropical and sub-tropical studies show that production of cattle and other animals can be better, biodiversity much increased, animal disease reduced, and animal welfare improved in three-level silvopastoral systems.

show abstract

Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals

Cited by 224 publications

References 44 publications

Reproductive performance of Jersey and Fleckvieh × Jersey heifers and cows maintained on a pasture-based feeding system

Reproductive performance of Jersey and Fleckvieh × Jersey heifers and cows maintained on a pasture-based feeding system

Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective

Components of sustainable animal production and the use of silvopastoral systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About