Special Issue for IECA2020

The ability of dairy farmers to keep their cows for longer could positively enhance the economic performance of the farms, reduce the environmental footprint of the milk industry, and overall help in justifying a sustainable use of animals for food production. However, there is little published on the current status of cow longevity and we hypothesized that a reason may be a lack of standardization and an over narrow focus of the longevity measure itself. The objectives of this critical literature review were: (1) to review metrics used to measure dairy cow longevity; (2) to describe the status of longevity in high milk-producing countries. Current metrics are limited to either the length of time the animal remains in the herd or if it is alive at a given time. To overcome such a limitation, dairy cow longevity should be defined as an animal having an early age at first calving and a long productive life spent in profitable milk production. Combining age at first calving, length of productive life, and margin over all costs would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of longevity by covering both early life conditions and the length of time the animal remains in the herd once it starts to contribute to the farm revenues, as well as the overall animal health and quality of life. This review confirms that dairy cow longevity has decreased in most high milk-producing countries over time and its relationship with milk yield is not straight forward. Increasing cow longevity by reducing involuntary culling would cut health costs, increase cow lifetime profitability, improve animal welfare, and could contribute towards a more sustainable dairy industry while optimizing dairy farmers’ efficiency in the overall use of resources available. Full article

In order to discuss the concepts of animal health and sustainability, we must remind ourselves that ASF (animal source foods) can play a large role in human health, but that animals are assumed to have a negative role in the environment. Indeed, ASF can compromise human health, both in excess and in deficiency, so a proper amount of them is important. In addition, the environmental impact of farmed animals: land occupation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy use and water utilization, acidification and eutrophication, must be minimized by reducing ASF consumption, as well as by increasing productivity. To achieve this, besides genetics, feeding and good management, the hygienic-sanitary and comfort conditions that ensure good health and welfare are essential. Impaired animal health can cause zoonosis and food-borne diseases and be responsible for economic and socio-economic losses (lower production-productivity and profitability) with consequential effects on the planet’s health too, and there are big differences between developing and developed countries. In the former, a prevalence of endemic infectious diseases and parasites is observed, and there is a lack of tools to restrain them; in the latter there is a decline of the above diseases, but an increase of stress-related diseases. Their reduction is equally important but requires a different strategy. In developing countries, the strategy should be to facilitate the availability of prevention and treatment means, while in developed countries it is necessary to use drugs correctly (to reduce residues, especially antimicrobials which are associated with important resistance risks to antibiotics) and improve the living conditions of animals (welfare). Full article