Nikola Čobanović
Luisa Magrin- 1Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
- 2Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
Editorial on the Research Topic
Health and welfare problems of farm animals: prevalence, risk factors, consequences and possible prevention solutions
According to the forecasts, the global population is expected to grow by two billion by 2050 and, subsequently, the demand for animal products especially those obtained from animal welfare-friendly production systems to satisfy high consumer requirements (1–4). However, the vast literature points out that intensive farming systems aimed at maximizing productivity per animal generate negative impacts on the health and welfare of farm animals, such as increased emotional stress (5, 6), risk of injuries, and physiological and anatomical disorders (i.e., higher prevalence of lameness, etc.) (7), and reduced life expectancy (8, 9). There are many causes often linked to the nutritional and management practices and housing regimes adopted by the farmers (10, 11). Improving the health and welfare of farm animals can enhance their growth rate and reproduction, the quantity and quality of the final marketed product, and, as a consequence, the economic efficiency of the farms (12). Moreover, it may offer significant benefits for human health in the long term, contributing to a reduction in antibiotic use at non-therapeutic levels for growth promotion or disease prevention or in the use of some contaminants (i.e., pesticides) on crops to feed farm animals (13, 14). Despite increasing interest in this research field in the past several decades, the prevalence and consequences of health and welfare problems in intensive farming systems are alarming, and thus, there are still many concerns to be dealt with. Effective preventive and corrective procedures or protocols and new diagnostic methods to be implemented to identify animal welfare risks are crucial in ensuring animal and human health.
This Research Topic consists of a collection of nine studies, two on pigs and seven on dairy cows, that deal with some of the current health challenges for farm animals and with alternative approaches to assessing their welfare. Concerning the existing problems being experienced by farmers, lameness is still one of the most impactful issues regarding animal welfare and economic losses for cattle (15, 16). The potential effects of lameness on animal behavior and a viable treatment protocol for its recovery are some of the topics discussed in two studies of the collection (Gündel et al.; Sadiq et al.). Gündel et al. reported that Jersey cows could behave differently to lameness compared to other breeds and that feeding indicators might not be a useful tool for early detection of lameness. To obtain better recovery rates, treatment protocol consisting of therapeutic trim, hoof block, and pain management, in combination with early detection of cow lameness, was suggested by Sadiq et al.. Among the new alternatives to assess animal welfare, Rosengart et al. reported that thermography, coupled with Artificial Intelligence systems, could be a promising diagnostic tool for detecting diseased sows and piglets at the earliest time. In addition, Lutz et al. explored the accuracy of a quick and cost-effective data-based prediction of dairy cow welfare status. The authors demonstrated that data-based parameters have only potential to provide useful information on specific welfare aspects rather than to provide a comprehensive predictive tool for dairy welfare status at the herd level. In the study reported by Nadlučnik et al., differences between farmers' perceptions and real pig welfare conditions were evaluated. Despite the fact that farmers are aware of animal welfare importance, they follow only minimal statutory requirements, indicating that there is considerable room for improvement, especially regarding biosecurity on pig farms. Another topic covered in this Research Topic concerns the importance of the role of some environmental or resource-related actions as preventive measures to reduce animal stress. Specifically, two detailed systematic reviews reported the best feeding and social management (housing) practices for improving the welfare of pre-weaned calves [Carulla et al. (a); Carulla et al. (b)]. The authors reported that the most important gaps in knowledge regarding dairy calves are the lack of a clear protocol for administering milk replacers to reduce hunger and the best management of weaning to reduce stress, as well as the information regarding optimal time to separate the calf from its mother. One study investigated using the qualitative behavioral assessment whether the provision of different forms of environmental enrichment resources would impact the affective states of housed dairy cows (Russell et al.). The results obtained in this study demonstrated that simple modification to the housed environment, access to a novel object and outdoor space positively influenced the affective lives of commercially housed dairy cows. Lastly, this Research Topic also contains an innovative study, authored by Buonaiuto et al., who provided new predictive indicators (muscularity and body condition score) of the stayability and longevity in a dual-purpose cattle population.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Fedoroff NV. Food in a future of 10 billion. Agric Food Secur. (2015) 4:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s40066-015-0031-7
2. Gilbert M, Conchedda G, Van Boeckel TB, Cinardi G, Linard C, Nicolas G, et al. Income disparities and the global distribution of intensively farmed chicken and pigs. PLoS One. (2015) 10:5649–54. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133381
3. Gilbert M, Thomas LF, Coyne L, Rushton J. Review: mitigating the risks posed by intensification in livestock production: the examples of antimicrobial resistance and zoonoses. Anim. (2021) 15:100123. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2020.100123
4. Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Dairy and Dairy Products. In: OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2018–2027. Rome (2018). Available online at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/i9166e/i9166e_Chapter7_Dairy.pdf (accessed June 6, 2018).
5. Oltenacu PA, Broom DM. The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Anim Welf. (2010) 19:39–49. doi: 10.1017/S0962728600002220
6. LeBlanc SJ, Lissemore KD, Kelton DF, Duffield TF, Leslie KE. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. (2006) 89:1267–89. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72195-6
7. Huxley JN. Impact of lameness and claw lesions in cows on health and production. Livestock Sci. (2013) 156:64–70. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.012
8. Prunier A, Heinonen M, Quesnel H. High physiological demands in intensively raised pigs: impact on health and welfare. Anim. (2010) 4:886. doi: 10.1017/S175173111000008X
9. Koeck A, Loker S, Miglior F, Kelton DF, Jamrozik J, Schenkel FS. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J Dairy Sci. (2014) 97:5806–13. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-7785
10. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. Scientific opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems. EFSA J. (2012) 10:166. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2669
11. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. Scientific opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of dairy cows. EFSA J. (2012) 10:81. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2554
12. Bennett RM, Butterworth A, Jones PJ, Kehlbacher A, Tranter RB. Valuation of Animal Welfare Benefits. A Report to Defra. Reading: University of Reading (2012).
13. EMA and EFSA. EMA and EFSA Joint Scientific Opinion on measures to reduce the need to use antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry in the European Union, and the resulting impacts on food safety (RONAFA). EFSA J. (2017) 15:e04666. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4666
14. Goldberg AM. Farm animal welfare and human health. Curr Environ Health Rep. (2016) 3:313–21. doi: 10.1007/s40572-016-0097-9
15. Charfeddine N, Perez-Cabal MA. Effect of claw disorders on milk production, fertility, and longevity, and their economic impact in Spanish Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:653–65. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11434
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, calf welfare, data, farmer perceptions, lameness, muscularity and body condition score, thermography, qualitative behavioral assessment
Citation: Čobanović N and Magrin L (2023) Editorial: Health and welfare problems of farm animals: prevalence, risk factors, consequences and possible prevention solutions. Front. Vet. Sci. 10:1238852. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1238852
Received: 12 June 2023; Accepted: 26 June 2023;
Published: 04 July 2023.
Edited and reviewed by: Laura Ann Boyle, Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ireland
Copyright © 2023 Čobanović and Magrin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Nikola Čobanović, cobanovic.nikola@vet.bg.ac.rs