Next Article in Journal
Practical Method for Freezing Buck Semen
Next Article in Special Issue
Triacylglycerides and Cholesterol in Organic Milk from Chiapas, Mexico
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrolyzed Yeast Supplementation to Newly Weaned Piglets: Growth Performance, Gut Health, and Microbial Fermentation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/ani12030351
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Animal Welfare and Parasite Infections in Organic and Conventional Dairy Farms: A Comparative Pilot Study in Central Italy

by
Matteo Chincarini
,
Lydia Lanzoni
*,
Jorgelina Di Pasquale
,
Simone Morelli
,
Giorgio Vignola
,
Barbara Paoletti
and
Angela Di Cesare
Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Teramo, Loc. Piano d’Accio, 64100 Teramo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(3), 351; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030351
Submission received: 20 December 2021 / Revised: 21 January 2022 / Accepted: 22 January 2022 / Published: 1 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Organic vs. Conventional: Livestock Farming)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

European sustainability-oriented policies aim to encourage organic (ORG) farming practices since they are considered to be more resilient than conventional (CONV) ones and to grant higher animal welfare standards. On the other hand, animals farmed organically are considered at higher risk of parasitic infections, since grazing could expose animals to higher parasite load. Considering the contrasting data present in literature, the present work aims to investigate and compare the animal welfare conditions and gastrointestinal distribution in ORG and CONV dairy farms in central Italy. Animals from ORG farms involved in this study presented significantly less skin damages in the rear legs than animals from CONV farms. No significant differences were found for any of the other welfare-related parameters and for parasite prevalence. Results highlight that ORG farming did not have a negative impact on animal welfare and that pasture access, provided in ORG farms, did not negatively impact parasite prevalence.

Abstract

The study investigated and compared welfare conditions and gastrointestinal (GI) parasites distribution among organic (ORG) and conventional (CONV) farms in central Italy. Five ORG and five CONV farms were assessed for animal welfare with an adapted version of the AssureWel protocol. Faecal samples collected from the rectum of the animals both in ORG (n = 150) and CONV (n = 150) were analysed using conventional copromiscroscopy. The presence of skin damages in the rear legs was significantly predominant (p < 0.001) in CONV (26.7%) compared with ORG farms (10.0%). No differences were found for lameness, cleanliness, Body Condition Score, hair loss, body lesions and swelling prevalence. Data concerning the productive performances, e.g., total milk, fat and protein yields standardised in mature equivalent (ME) were collected. ME milk yield (ORG: 9656.9 ± 1620.7 kg; CONV: 12,047.2 ± 2635.3) and ME fat yield (ORG: 396.6 ± 66.8; CONV: 450.3 ± 102.8) were significantly lower in ORG farms (p < 0.001). Anthelmintics were used regularly in 4/5 CONV and 0/5 ORG farms. In 2 CONV farms (40%) and 4 ORGs (80%) at least one animal tested positive for GI parasites. No significant differences in parasites prevalence emerged (ORG = 10.7%; CONV = 8%). These data indicate that ORG farming does not influence parasite prevalence and animal welfare status.

1. Introduction

Some of the actions promoted by the European Green Deal [1], and in particular by the “Farm to Fork” strategy [2], aim to reduce inputs in primary production. Reduction of chemical pesticides by 50%, reduction of fertilizer by 20% and reduction of sales of antimicrobial molecules and their use in animal husbandry, including aquaculture, by 50% within 2030 are encouraged. An increase in the European Utilised Agricultural Area dedicated to Organic will also be encouraged, with the aim of increasing it by 25% within 2030. Particularly, the Italian organic market is a growing sector as shown by the national registers where it has been reported that the consumption of organic products has tripled over the last 10 years. Particularly, an increase of 2.3% in the selling of dairy products was observed between 2019 and 2020 [3].
As for all European Countries, the Italian, organic production is regulated by the European Council Regulation No. 2018/848 [4], that defines several differences between organic (ORG) and conventional (CONV) farm systems [5]. ORG dairy cattle farming is characterised by high-roughage diets based on home-grown feedstuffs, outdoor access on pasture and restrictive use of antibiotics. Furthermore, ORG farms are considered to improve animal welfare compared with CONV farms and to be more respectful of the environment [6,7], even if contrasting data are available in literature. For instance, ORG farming, which has to guarantee by law the access of animals to pasture, is often perceived as more animal friendly than CONV farming [8]; also, this farming system favors aspects related to the concept of naturalness and life quality of the animals [9]. Nevertheless, little evidence is available on a higher standard of animal welfare in ORG vs. CONV farms to date [10,11].
Parasitic infections are a critical health-related issue of ORG farming, since grazing may expose animals to high parasite load [11]. The annual cost ascribed to helminth infections in dairy cattle and livestock industries in Europe is estimated to be €941 million and €1.8 billion, respectively [12]. Helminthoses have a negative impact on feed intake, growth, productivity, reproductive standards, animal health and welfare, and may increase greenhouse gas emission associated with ruminant productions [13]. Gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN) and liver flukes are considered to be a major constraint among helminths affecting cows. The control of GIN in conventional (CONV) dairy farms relies primarily on the use of anthelmintic products. This approach is increasingly unsustainable as anthelmintic resistance (AR) is spreading and it is predicted to grow in the next future [13,14]. On the other hand, the control of GIN is challenging in ORG farms where cattle are grazed and the use of anthelmintic is limited. The correct and sustainable management of GIN is therefore pivotal to increase the profitability of both ORG and CONV cattle industries.
Responding to the European Green Deal indications, increasing organic farming compared to the conventional one, could represent a problem for animal health and in particular for the management of parasitosis. Under this perspective, this case study was carried out to better understand and compare the animal welfare conditions and GIN distribution in ORG and CONV farms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Farm Selection

Ten dairy farms located in central Italy were included in the study during February–March 2020. Five of the farms were managed conventionally (CONV) while the other five followed the rules for organic (ORG) production [Reg. (UE) 2018/848] [4] and were required to be licensed by an organic certifying agency. Conventional herds were identified by obtaining a list of farms from the Italian Breeders Association (AIA) and organic farms from a central database. The herd size of the farms included in the study was representative of the Italian average number of lactating cows (Italian Friesian Holstein) both for conventional (110 head/farm) [15] and organic farms (48 head/farm) [16]. A sample of 30 lactating cows was randomly selected from each farm (i.e., 150 from 5 ORG and 150 from 5 CONV farms). The average parity order of the selected animals was 2.2 ± 1.4 (mean ± standard deviation). ORG farms included in the study were provided with native grassland and surface cultivated land grazing areas nearby the stables. Animals were free to access pasture whenever weather conditions allowed and housed in the stall during the night. ORG farms were located in mid-hill areas of the central Apennines, characterised by wet pastures during the winter season. CONV farms didn’t provide pasture access to animals. All the cows both in CONV and ORG farms were housed in free range stalls and had access to a resting area provided with straw-bedded cubicles. Free stall alleys were cleaned once a day using scrapers while the straw bedding was replaced whenever needed. Animals in CONV farms were fed with Total Mixed Rations (TMRs) without limitation in the forage-concentrate ratio. On the contrary, cows in ORG farms were provided with TMR composed by at least the 60% (dry matter) of roughage, beside grazing.
At least one anthelmintic treatment per year was performed in CONV farms selected for the present study while cows in ORG farms were not treated with anthelmintic compounds. None of the farmers performed regular monitoring of endoparasites.

2.2. Welfare Assessment

Welfare evaluation was performed by a veterinarian experienced with farm animals, using a modified version of the AssureWel protocol [17]. The following measures were assessed individually and scored as reported in Table 1 (please see the guidelines at: http://www.assurewel.org/dairycows.html; accessed 10 December 2020). Animals were kept at the self-closing feeding rack during the evaluation period. The body condition score (BCS) was evaluated observing the animal from behind and from the side. At the same time, recording of cleanliness of hind quarters and udders was performed. Finally, the type and the region of any skin damage was recorded. Afterwards, cows were individually released for the mobility assessment. For this last evaluation, each cow was observed from the side and the rear, while making between 6–10 uninterrupted strides. Furthermore, the number of broken tails were recorded. After the assessment of the last animal, the farmer was asked to walk for five minutes in the barn. During this period, the response of the cattle to the stockperson (possible options were: sociable, relaxed or nervous) was evaluated. Finally, from the farm registers the number of mastitis per 100 cows in the last 12 months were recorded.
The assessment started in the morning, two hours after milking and took no more than 45 min for each farm. Since housing conditions can influence legs and locomotion problems [18,19] only farms with cubicle housing were selected.

2.3. Milk Yield and Quality

Data on the productive performances were obtained from the regional breeders association (AIA) recording, choosing the official monitoring closer to the farm visit. Specifically, the following characteristics of milk variables standardised by AIA in mature equivalents have been evaluated per cow: (i) total milk yield in kg (ME milk), (ii) total fat yield in kg (ME fat), (iii) total protein yield in kg (ME protein). This standardisation represents the individual cumulative 305-day production adjusted for age and month of calving. Moreover, fat and protein percentage were calculated from the ME data.

2.4. Parasitological Sampling and Analysis

A fecal sample was collected from the rectum of each cow. All samples were placed in individual bags, identified, stored at refrigeration temperatures (4 °C) and transported to the Laboratory of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases of the University of Veterinary Medicine of Teramo for examination.
All the samples were analyzed within 24–48 h using conventional copromicroscopic techniques. Specifically, all the faecal samples were examined by qualitative flotation with zinc sulfate (p.s. 1350) solution and by sedimentation method [20,21]. Stool samples were also tested using a modified McMaster technique, with a sensitivity of 50 oocysts per gram of faeces (OPG)/eggs per gram of faeces (EPG) [20].
Parasitic elements were identified based on morphological and morphometrical characteristics by light microscopy, under 100× or 400× magnification [22,23].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Data collected for the welfare assessment were grouped for the statistical analysis.
The mobility score variable was grouped in two levels (score 1, 2 and 3 grouped as lame; score 0 considered as not lame) as well as the cleanliness score variable (clean: score 0; unclean: score ≥ 1). The same criteria were used to pool the presence of swellings, lesions, or hair loss in the different areas of the body (presence or absence of the alteration) and considered as “skin damage”. After a preliminary exploration of the data, the lesions affecting the head, the neck, the body, and the front legs were combined in a single variable while the region of the rear legs was kept as a separate variable.
The variables referred to parasitic infections were grouped into presence/absence of endoparasites (i.e., positive/negative to at least one endoparasite) and into presence/absence of Strongilidae, Coccidia and Trichuris spp. (i.e., positive/negative to at least of them).
The effect of the farming system (ORG and CONV) on animal welfare and parasite infection was analysed with Pearson’s Chi-squared test (when p < 0.05 Cramer’s V effect size has been reported). Moreover, the same variables were analysed with Pearson’s Chi-squared test to evaluate the effect of parity order. All analyses have been performed with R [24].
A logistic model (estimated using ML) was fitted to predict mobility score with farm type, cleanliness, head, and body skin damage (indicated as BodySkinDamage), Rear Leg Skin damage and a new BCS score (considering BCS < 2 as “thin body condition” and values 2:3 as “normal BCS”). Model fit was then evaluated visually through binned residual plot [25].
Differences in milk production (ME milk yield in kg) and quality (ME milk fat and protein in kg) were evaluated with multivariate analysis of variance after checking for: normality, multicollinearity, and homogeneity of covariances. Follow-up Welch t-test was performed on the dependent variable. Fat and protein percentages, calculated from the ME data, were analysed using Welch t-test.

3. Results

3.1. Welfare Assessment

No broken tails were registered and the response of cattle to stockperson was always recorded as either “sociable” or “relaxed”.
The differences in the variables related to animal welfare between the two farming systems (ORG vs. CONV) are reported in Table 2.
No significant differences were identified between the ORG and CONV farms for lameness, cleanliness, Body Condition Score (BCS) and head and body damage prevalence.
The presence of skin damages in the rear legs differed by farm type since 26.7% of the animals in the CONV farm presented at least one lesion in the rear legs, against the 10.0% of the ORG farms (X2(1) = 12.9; p < 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.21).
Considering the results from logistic regression (Figure 1) conditions that were found positively associated with impaired mobility were uncleanliness (log-odds = 1.15, 95% CI [0.56, 1.74], p < 0.001), presence of lesions in the rear legs (log-odds = 0.66, 95% CI [−9.17 × 10³, 1.31], p = 0.049) and a BCS with under condition score (log-odds = 1.83, 95% CI [−0.03, 3.90], p = 0.053).
The number of recorded cases of mastitis per 100 cows for the previous 12 months for ORG and COV farms were 3.6 ± 2.9 and 10.8 ± 4.1, respectively. These differences were not found to be statistically significant at the Pearson’s Chi-squared test.

3.2. Milk Yield and Quality

ME protein Kg (CONV = 378.7 ± 80.7; ORG = 299.3 ± 49.9), was removed from the analysis because of the high correlation with ME milk Kg (r2 > 0.8) and thus due to possible problems with multicollinearity in the model. A significant difference was found between the ORG and CONV farms for ME milk (kg) and ME fat (kg) (p < 0.001).
No statistically significant differences were found at the Welch-t test for protein percentage by farm type whereas fat percentage was higher in ORGs than in CONV farms (p < 0.001).
Differences in milk production and quality between the two farming systems have been reported in Table 3 and in Figure 2.

3.3. Parasitological Assessment

At least one animal tested positive for endoparasites in 4/5 ORG (80%) and 2/5 CONV (40%) farms, respectively. Overall, at least one parasite was found in 10.7% and 8% cows from ORG and CONV farms, respectively (Table 4).
Strongylidae eggs (ORG = 4%; CONV = 5.3%) were found in animals from both ORG and CONV farms with no significant statistical differences. Trichuris spp eggs were detected in 1 (0.6%) cow from a CONV farm. Eimeria spp. oocysts were also found in 6.7% and 5.3% cows from ORG and CONV farms, respectively. Eggs of rumen and liver flukes were not found at the sedimentation test. No significant differences in OPG/EPG values were identified between ORG and CONV farms.

4. Discussion

4.1. Welfare Assessment

Different welfare indicators have been evaluated, and among these, some differences between the two farming systems were found.
The prevalence of lameness herein obtained is similar to one of the other studies conducted in ORG farms [26] and in CONV farms using cubicle housing [27]. However, no statistically significant differences between farm type were identified in the present study in accordance with the results of Bergman et al. [28]. Other scientific papers have shown that organic herd management system is associated with a reduction of the incidence of lameness [19,29,30,31]. This is likely due to the access to pasture, which in ORG farms must be granted by law [4], that can prevent lameness in animals [32,33,34]. To support this, Silva et al. [35] reported a low prevalence of lameness in cows that had access to pasture on both CONV and ORG farms.
In the present study, animals with BCS < 2 were associated with an increased risk of mild or severe lameness (Figure 1) [36,37,38]. Accordingly, a low BCS could be considered a cause of lameness, as it is related to the thickness of the digital cushion [39,40]. On the other hand, lame animals could be less able to compete with sound herd mates for food intake, and this, when prolonged, can determine a low body condition in affected animals [41]. Therefore, it is still not clear whether a low BCS may be the cause of higher lameness prevalence or vice versa. The link between the presence of rear legs lesions and lameness has been previously associated with the floor type (if the concrete is either damaged or eroded), the automatic scraper and the presence of pushing or sharp turning near the parlor exit or entrance [29]. In this study, unclean animals were more prone to lameness. This is in line with the results of previous studies demonstrating that infectious lameness could be attributed to an unhygienic environment [42,43].
No statistically significant differences were identified between ORG (with pasture access) and CONV (without pasture access) farms in terms of animal cleanliness. Body dirtiness increases the risk of developing health-related issues such as mastitis [44,45] and foot problems [46], with a negative impact on productivity. Animal cleanliness can be influenced by several factors such as stall design [27], lying surface properties, use of bedding [47], herd size [48] and pasture access [49,50]. However, restraining animals from grazing should not be considered the only solution to avoid uncleanliness [51]. Indeed, the season and environmental and weather conditions are the main factors influencing animal cleanness [51]. For this study, the data collection was performed in February–March, i.e., during a season generally associated with high precipitation and wet pastures in central Italy. Thus, the absence of statistically significant differences between ORG and CONV farms herein obtained confirms that animal dirtiness cannot be prevented by only restraining animals from grazing.
The data reported in this study suggest that ORG farming has a beneficial impact on rear leg conditions, as lesions in organically managed animals were significantly less frequent than in CONV farms, in accordance with the results of other studies [27,28,52,53,54]. An explanation for this association could be due to the pasture access guaranteed to ORG farmed animals, as the latter has been reported to be correlated with lower hock and knee lesions [32,55,56]. Although bedding conditions were similar among farms included in the present study (all farms provided straw-bedded cubicles), it should be taken into account that the presence of lesions in these regions, especially on the hock, is strongly indicative of uncomfortable resting areas (i.e., inappropriate cubicle dimensions, the abrasiveness or hardness of the lying surfaces and improper bedding quality) [57]. It is worthy to underline that skin damages or alterations reflect an impairment of cow’s welfare since they may be painful for the animals themselves and could be the result of repeated conflicts between cows (hierarchy) and their environment [27].
BCS is an assessment of the proportion of body fat, and it is included within welfare indicators for dairy cows because it is known to be associated with animal health, reproduction, productivity and historical levels of feed intake, as reviewed by Roche et al. [58]. The present results show that the BCS of animals was not affected by farm type (i.e., CONV versus ORG), in accordance with previous reports [5,59,60,61]. BCS is associated with the correct balance of the feeding requirements [62]. A major concern in ORG farms regards the risk of severe negative energy due to the limited proportion of concentrate feed related to the legislation [Reg. (UE) 2018/848] [4,5,58,59,60]. Furthermore, nutritional deficiencies may also occur in certain areas where the pasture is poor [10].
The results of the present study showed no differences between the farming systems in terms of mastitis. While the sample size was limited, the present findings are similar to other studies [63,64]. Although the literature shows controversial results, some evidence supports that cow managed in ORG systems are less affected by mastitis [35,51]. One of the major limits is explained by differences in the study design where mastitis are considered either only as clinical or as sub-clinical too. This latter implying the presence of bacteria and the increase of somatic cell count (please, for a detailed review see also Åkerfeldt et al. [10]).

4.2. Milk Yield and Quality

As expected, the present data show that milk production from ORG reared cows is affected by a reduction in terms of milk yields [65,66,67]. In an exhaustive review by Van Wagenberg et al. [68], the authors found that, despite the lower milk yield production by ORG farms, these latter had farm-gate price premiums up to 84% above the conventional prices. Still, variable costs and total costs per cow were lower, ending in higher farming income per animal. However, economical comparisons between ORG and CONV in dairy cattle are still controversial and need to be further addressed [68].
Contrasting results can be found in the literature for fat and protein content [68,69]. Particularly, Adler et al. and Rodríguez–Bermúdez et al. [70,71] found lower milk production in ORG farms but no differences in protein and fat percentage. Mullen et al. [63] found no differences in any of the parameters, while in contrast, Vicini et al. [72] found a higher protein content. No significant differences were found in terms of protein percentage, in agreement with Butler et al. [73]. On the other hand, a higher percentage of fat was found in milk from ORG farms in accordance with Butler et al. and Kouřimská et al. [73,74]. This difference could be attributable to several factors. For instance, feeding strategies, with access to grazing areas and at least 60% (dry matter) of roughage in daily ration, as stated by the EU legislation for ORG farms [4], could represent the main effective factor [64,75].

4.3. Parasitological Assessment

Organic dairy farming systems have been traditionally associated with an increased risk of exposure to a range of pasture born parasites, such as GIN [76,77]. Moreover, cattle grazing and fed with fresh grass are more likely to be infected with rumen (e.g., Calicophoron daubneyi) and liver (e.g., Fasciola hepatica) flukes [78]. Data herein generated demonstrated that there are no significant differences in GI helminthes infections between the two farming systems. These findings are in line with those of other studies showing that in the same geographical areas the prevalence of GIN infections in ORG farms may be similar, or lower, than that reported in CONV ones [79,80]. Tolerance to GIN may be indeed higher in livestock reared on ORG farms due to the continuous exposure to parasite infections that may lead to improved resilience [79]. The life cycle of rumen and liver flukes requires freshwater gastropods (e.g., different species of Lymnaeidae) which ensures the development of the parasites. Accordingly, their geographic distribution is not homogenous and it is strictly influenced by environmental conditions. On the other hand, the absence of Trematoda in the animal population examined in the present study should be evaluated with caution, considering that the diagnostic sensitivity of copromicroscopy after sedimentation technique is below 100% [81].
Despite the small sample size, helminthes and coccidian infections were present in cattle from both ORG and CONV farms, although with an apparent low infection rate. These infections are a potential threat for animal welfare and may cause relevant economic losses. Therefore, further studies are warranted to investigate the distribution of these parasites in a higher number of farms and animals, including both adults and replacement stocks. The actual impact of parasitism on the animal health, welfare and production should also be considered. Specific and sustainable control programs, planned according to different species circulating at the farm level, should be evaluated.

5. Conclusions

In line with the study objective, the similarities and differences between CONV and ORG farming systems in central Italy have been described. In this case study a limited number of farms were assessed for animal welfare, productivity and parasite prevalence. On the whole, allowing animals to pasture, as is requested for ORG farming, did not have a negative impact on animal welfare in the study population, confirming the value on animal welfare desired by the legislation. This was also highlighted by the little differences in parasite prevalence that should orient future research on integrated control measures and targeted selective treatments, also to improve organic production and better respond to the European policy of the European Green Deal [1] and the “Farm to Fork” strategy [2]. Further studies which include a larger number of farms could investigate those topics in more detail.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D.C., G.V., J.D.P. and M.C.; methodology, A.D.C., B.P., J.D.P. and M.C.; formal analysis, L.L., M.C.; investigation, A.D.C., J.D.P., L.L., M.C. and S.M.; data curation, M.C. and L.L.; writing—original draft preparation, A.D.C., L.L. and M.C.; writing—review and editing, A.D.C., B.P., J.D.P., L.L., M.C., S.M.; visualization, A.D.C., B.P., G.V., J.D.P., L.L., M.C. and S.M.; supervision, A.D.C., G.V. and M.C.; project administration, A.D.C. and M.C.; funding acquisition, A.D.C., G.V., J.D.P. and M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The present study had been founded by the University of Teramo, Italy (Founds for Basic Research Activities—FARBID) and by the Italian Ministry for Education, University and Research (Project “Demetra, Dipartimenti di Eccellenza 2018-2022, CUP_C46C18000530001). M.C. acknowledges funding from the Ministry of University and Research and European Social Fund (PON-AIM1857439-1).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The present study has been reviewed by the Ethical Commission from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Teramo and did not require any authorization under the EU Directive 2010/63. The sample was obtained from cows undergoing a routine veterinary faeces collection for parasitological diagnosis. Still for animal welfare assessment animals were observed without any restriction.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge all the farmers that participated in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal. Communication No. COM/2019/640. Brussels. 2019. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN (accessed on 25 November 2021).
  2. European Commission. Communication from The European Commission to The European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of The Regions: A Farm to Fork Strategy for Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System. Communication No. COM/2020/381. Brussels. 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0381 (accessed on 25 November 2021).
  3. SINAB Bio in Cifre 2020. Available online: http://www.sinab.it/sites/default/files/share/BIO%20IN%20CIFRE%202020.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  4. European Parliament; The Council of the European Union. Regulation (Eu) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products and Repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. J. Eur. Union 2018, 150, 1–92. [Google Scholar]
  5. Blanco-Penedo, I.; Fall, N.; Emanuelson, U. Effects of Turning to 100% Organic Feed on Metabolic Status of Swedish Organic Dairy Cows. Livest. Sci. 2012, 143, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Special Eurobarometer 504. In Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; Available online: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2229 (accessed on 10 December 2021).
  7. Wallenbeck, A.; Rousing, T.; Sørensen, J.T.; Bieber, A.; Spengler Neff, A.; Fuerst-Waltl, B.; Winckler, C.; Peiffer, C.; Steininger, F.; Simantke, C.; et al. Characteristics of Organic Dairy Major Farm Types in Seven European Countries. Org. Agric. 2019, 9, 275–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Reijs, J.W.; Daatselaar, C.H.G.; Helming, J.F.M.; Jager, J.H.; Beldman, A.C.G. Grazing Dairy Cows in North-West Europe: Economic Farm Performance and Future Developments with Emphasis on the Dutch Situation; LEI Wageningen UR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013; ISBN 978-90-8615-637-5. [Google Scholar]
  9. IFOAM Principles of Organic Agriculture. Available online: https://wwwifoambio/sites/default/files/poa_english_webpdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  10. Åkerfeldt, M.P.; Gunnarsson, S.; Bernes, G.; Blanco-Penedo, I. Health and Welfare in Organic Livestock Production Systems—A Systematic Mapping of Current Knowledge. Org. Agric. 2021, 11, 105–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wagner, K.; Brinkmann, J.; Bergschmidt, A.; Renziehausen, C.; March, S. The Effects of Farming Systems (Organic vs. Conventional) on Dairy Cow Welfare, Based on the Welfare Quality® Protocol. Animal 2021, 15, 100301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Charlier, J.; Rinaldi, L.; Musella, V.; Ploeger, H.W.; Chartier, C.; Vineer, H.R.; Hinney, B.; von Samson-Himmelstjerna, G.; Băcescu, B.; Mickiewicz, M.; et al. Initial Assessment of the Economic Burden of Major Parasitic Helminth Infections to the Ruminant Livestock Industry in Europe. Prev. Vet. Med. 2020, 182, 105103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rose Vineer, H.; Morgan, E.R.; Hertzberg, H.; Bartley, D.J.; Bosco, A.; Charlier, J.; Chartier, C.; Claerebout, E.; De Waal, T.; Hendrickx, G.; et al. Increasing Importance of Anthelmintic Resistance in European Livestock: Creation and Meta-Analysis of an Open Database. Parasite 2020, 27, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vercruysse, J.; Dijk, V.; Morgan, J.; Geary, E.R.; Samson-Himmelstjerna, V.; Claerebout, E. Control of Helminth Ruminant Infections by 2030. Parasitology 2018, 145, 1655–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. ANAFIBJ. Statistiche Nazionali. Available online: http://www.anafi.it/it/pubblicazioni-statistiche/statistiche-nazionali-2019 (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  16. Italian Statistic Institute: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT); Caratteristiche Strutturali delle Aziende Agricole. 6° Censimento Generale Dell’agricoltura. 2010. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/files/2011/03/1425-12_Vol_VI_Cens_Agricoltura_INT_CD_1_Trimboxes_ipp.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2020).
  17. AssureWel Dairy Cows. Available online: http://www.assurewel.org/dairycows.html (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  18. EFSA. Scientific Opinion on Welfare of Dairy Cows in Relation to Leg and Locomotion Problems Based on a Risk Assessment with Special Reference to the Impact of Housing, Feeding, Management and Genetic Selection. EFSA J. 2009, 7, 1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rutherford, K.M.D.; Langford, F.M.; Jack, M.C.; Sherwood, L.; Lawrence, A.B.; Haskell, M.J. Lameness Prevalence and Risk Factors in Organic and Non-Organic Dairy Herds in the United Kingdom. Vet. J. 2009, 180, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. MAAF. Manual of Veterinary Parasitological Laboratory Techniques; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Her Majesty’s Stationary Office: London, UK, 1986.
  21. Sloss, M.; Kemp, R.; Zajac, A.; American Association of Veterinary Parasitologists. Veterinary Clinical Parasitology; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0813817330. [Google Scholar]
  22. Verocai, G.; Chaudhry, U.; Lejeune, M. Diagnostic Methods for Detecting Internal Parasites of Livestock. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2020, 36, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zajac, A.; Conboy, G.A. Review of Veterinary Clinical Parasitology, 8th ed.; Wiley Blackwell: Danvers, MA, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-0-8138-2053-8. [Google Scholar]
  24. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gelman, A.; Su, Y.-S. Arm: Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models; R Package Version 1.11-2; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sjöström, K.; Fall, N.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Duval, J.E.; Krieger, M.; Emanuelson, U. Lameness Prevalence and Risk Factors in Organic Dairy Herds in Four European Countries. Livest. Sci. 2018, 208, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Blanco-Penedo, I.; Ouweltjes, W.; Ofner-Schröck, E.; Brügemann, K.; Emanuelson, U. Symposium Review: Animal Welfare in Free-Walk Systems in Europe. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 5773–5782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Bergman, M.A.; Richert, R.M.; Cicconi-Hogan, K.M.; Gamroth, M.J.; Schukken, Y.H.; Stiglbauer, K.E.; Ruegg, P.L. Comparison of Selected Animal Observations and Management Practices Used to Assess Welfare of Calves and Adult Dairy Cows on Organic and Conventional Dairy Farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 4269–4280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Barker, Z.E.; Leach, K.A.; Whay, H.R.; Bell, N.J.; Main, D.C.J. Assessment of Lameness Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors in Dairy Herds in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 932–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dippel, S.; Dolezal, M.; Brenninkmeyer, C.; Brinkmann, J.; March, S.; Knierim, U.; Winckler, C. Risk Factors for Lameness in Freestall-Housed Dairy Cows across Two Breeds, Farming Systems, and Countries. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 5476–5486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Richert, R.; Cicconi, K.; Gamroth, M.; Schukken, Y.; Stiglbauer, K.; Ruegg, P. Perceptions and Risk Factors for Lameness on Organic and Small Conventional Dairy Farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 5018–5026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Haskell, M.J.; Rennie, L.J.; Bowell, V.A.; Bell, M.J.; Lawrence, A.B. Housing System, Milk Production, and Zero-Grazing Effects on Lameness and Leg Injury in Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 4259–4266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Hernandez-Mendo, O.; Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Veira, D.M.; Weary, D.M. Effects of Pasture on Lameness in Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 1209–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Duval, E.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Lecorps, B. Organic Dairy Cattle: Do European Union Regulations Promote Animal Welfare? Animals 2020, 10, 1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Silva, J.B.; Fagundes, G.M.; Soares, J.P.G.; Fonseca, A.H.; Muir, J.P. A Comparative Study of Production Performance and Animal Health Practices in Organic and Conventional Dairy Systems. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2014, 46, 1287–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Randall, L.V.; Green, M.J.; Chagunda, M.G.G.; Mason, C.; Archer, S.C.; Green, L.E.; Huxley, J.N. Low Body Condition Predisposes Cattle to Lameness: An 8-Year Study of One Dairy Herd. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 3766–3777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Randall, L.V.; Green, M.J.; Green, L.E.; Chagunda, M.G.G.; Mason, C.; Archer, S.C.; Huxley, J.N. The Contribution of Previous Lameness Events and Body Condition Score to the Occurrence of Lameness in Dairy Herds: A Study of 2 Herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 1311–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Sadiq, M.B.; Ramanoon, S.Z.; Mossadeq, W.M.S.; Mansor, R.; Syed-Hussain, S.S. Association between Lameness and Indicators of Dairy Cow Welfare Based on Locomotion Scoring, Body and Hock Condition, Leg Hygiene and Lying Behavior. Animals 2017, 7, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Bicalho, R.C.; Machado, V.S.; Caixeta, L.S. Lameness in Dairy Cattle: A Debilitating Disease or a Disease of Debilitated Cattle? A Cross-Sectional Study of Lameness Prevalence and Thickness of the Digital Cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 3175–3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Oehm, A.W.; Knubben-Schweizer, G.; Rieger, A.; Stoll, A.; Hartnack, S. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Risk Factors Associated with Lameness in Dairy Cows. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Beer, G.; Alsaaod, M.; Starke, A.; Schuepbach-Regula, G.; Müller, H.; Kohler, P.; Steiner, A. Use of Extended Characteristics of Locomotion and Feeding Behavior for Automated Identification of Lame Dairy Cows. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kathambi, E.K.; Vanleeuwen, J.A.; Gitau, G.K.; Kamunde, C. Risk Factors Associated with Cows’ Lying Time, Stall and Cows’ Own Cleanliness in Smallholder Dairy Farms in Kenya. Vet. World 2019, 12, 1085–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Solano, L.; Barkema, H.W.; Pickel, C.; Orsel, K. Effectiveness of a Standardized Footbath Protocol for Prevention of Digital Dermatitis. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 1295–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. De Pinho Manzi, M.; Nóbrega, D.B.; Faccioli, P.Y.; Troncarelli, M.Z.; Menozzi, B.D.; Langoni, H. Relationship between Teat-End Condition, Udder Cleanliness and Bovine Subclinical Mastitis. Res. Vet. Sci. 2012, 93, 430–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tongel, P.; Brouček, J. Influence of Hygienic Condition on Prevalence of Mastitis and Lameness in Dairy Cows. Slovak J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 2, 95–99. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hultgren, J.; Bergsten, C. Effects of a Rubber-Slatted Flooring System on Cleanliness and Foot Health in Tied Dairy Cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 2001, 52, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Norring, M.; Manninen, E.; De Passillé, A.M.; Rushen, J.; Munksgaard, L.; Saloniemi, H. Effects of Sand and Straw Bedding on the Lying Behavior, Cleanliness, and Hoof and Hock Injuries of Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 570–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Ruud, L.E.; Bøe, K.E.; Østerås, O. Risk Factors for Dirty Dairy Cows in Norwegian Freestall Systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 5216–5224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Nielsen, B.H.; Thomsen, P.T.; Sørensen, J.T. Identifying Risk Factors for Poor Hind Limb Cleanliness in Danish Loose-Housed Dairy Cows. Animal 2011, 5, 1613–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Schuppli, C.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Weary, D.M. Access to Pasture for Dairy Cows: Responses from an Online Engagement. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 5185–5192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ellis, K.A.; Innocent, G.T.; Mihm, M.; Cripps, P.; McLean, W.G.; Howard, C.V.; Grove-White, D. Dairy Cow Cleanliness and Milk Quality on Organic and Conventional Farms in the UK. J. Dairy Res. 2007, 74, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Adams, A.; Lombard, J.; Fossler, C.; Román-Muñiz, I.; Kopral, C. Associations between Housing and Management Practices and the Prevalence of Lameness, Hock Lesions, and Thin Cows on US Dairy Operations. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 2119–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kielland, C.; Ruud, L.E.; Zanella, A.J.; Østerås, O. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Skin Lesions on Legs of Dairy Cattle Housed in Freestalls in Norway. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 5487–5496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Rutherford, K.M.D.; Langford, F.M.; Jack, M.C.; Sherwood, L.; Lawrence, A.B.; Haskell, M.J. Hock Injury Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors on Organic and Nonorganic Dairy Farms in the United Kingdom. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 2265–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Burow, E.; Thomsen, P.T.; Rousing, T.; Sørensen, J.T. Daily Grazing Time as a Risk Factor for Alterations at the Hock Joint Integument in Dairy Cows. Animal 2013, 7, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Jewell, M.T.; Cameron, M.; Spears, J.; McKenna, S.L.; Cockram, M.S.; Sanchez, J.; Keefe, G.P. Prevalence of Hock, Knee, and Neck Skin Lesions and Associated Risk Factors in Dairy Herds in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3376–3391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Potterton, S.L.; Green, M.J.; Harris, J.; Millar, K.M.; Whay, H.R.; Huxley, J.N. Risk Factors Associated with Hair Loss, Ulceration, and Swelling at the Hock in Freestall-Housed UK Dairy Herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 2952–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Roche, J.R.; Friggens, N.C.; Kay, J.K.; Fisher, M.W.; Stafford, K.J.; Berry, D.P. Body Condition Score and Its Association with Dairy Cow Productivity, Health, and Welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 5769–5801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Fall, N.; Grohn, Y.T.; Forslund, K.; Essen-Gustafsson, B.; Niskanen, R.; Emanuelson, U. An Observational Study on Early-Lactation Metabolic Profiles in Swedish Organically and Conventionally Managed Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 3983–3992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Roesch, M.; Doherr, M.G.; Blum, J.W. Performance of Dairy Cows on Swiss Farms with Organic and Integrated Production. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 2462–2475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Trachsel, P.; Busato, A.; Blum, J.W. Body Conditions Scores of Dairy Cattle in Organic Farms. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2000, 84, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Veissier, I.; Aubert, A.; Boissy, A. Animal Welfare: A Result of Animal Background and Perception of Its Environment. Anim. Front. 2012, 2, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Mullen, K.A.E.; Dings, E.H.A.; Kearns, R.R.; Washburn, S.P. A Comparison of Production, Reproduction, and Animal Health for Pastured Dairy Cows Managed Either Conventionally or with Use of Organic Principles. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2015, 31, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Garmo, R.T.; Waage, S.; Sviland, S.; Henriksen, B.I.F.; Østerås, O.; Reksen, O. Reproductive Performance, Udder Health, and Antibiotic Resistance in Mastitis Bacteria Isolated from Norwegian Red Cows in Conventional and Organic Farming. Acta Vet. Scand. 2010, 52, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Ahlman, T. Organic Dairy Production. Herd Characteristics and Genotype by Environment Interactions; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala, Sweden, 2010; ISBN 978-91-576-7472-2. [Google Scholar]
  66. Nauta, W.J.; Baars, T.; Bovenhuis, H. Converting to Organic Dairy Farming: Consequences for Production, Somatic Cell Scores and Calving Interval of First Parity Holstein Cows. Livest. Sci. 2006, 99, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sundberg, T.; Berglund, B.; Rydhmer, L.; Strandberg, E. Fertility, Somatic Cell Count and Milk Production in Swedish Organic and Conventional Dairy Herds. Livest. Sci. 2009, 126, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Van Wagenberg, C.P.A.; De Haas, Y.; Hogeveen, H.; Van Krimpen, M.M.; Meuwissen, M.P.M.; Van Middelaar, C.E.; Rodenburg, T.B. Animal Board Invited Review: Comparing Conventional and Organic Livestock Production Systems on Different Aspects of Sustainability. Animal 2017, 11, 1839–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Schwendel, B.H.; Wester, T.J.; Morel, P.C.H.; Tavendale, M.H.; Deadman, C.; Shadbolt, N.M.; Otter, D.E. Invited Review: Organic and Conventionally Produced Milk-An Evaluation of Factors Influencing Milk Composition. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 721–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Adler, S.A.; Jensen, S.K.; Govasmark, E.; Steinshamn, H. Effect of Short-Term versus Long-Term Grassland Management and Seasonal Variation in Organic and Conventional Dairy Farming on the Composition of Bulk Tank Milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 5793–5810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Rodríguez-Bermúdez, R.; Miranda, M.; Orjales, I.; Rey-Crespo, F.; Muñoz, N.; López-Alonso, M. Holstein-Friesian Milk Performance in Organic Farming in North Spain: Comparison with Other Systems and Breeds. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Vicini, J.; Etherton, T.; Kris-Etherton, P.; Ballam, J.; Denham, S.; Staub, R.; Goldstein, D.; Cady, R.; McGrath, M.; Lucy, M. Survey of Retail Milk Composition as Affected by Label Claims Regarding Farm-Management Practices. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2008, 108, 1198–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Butler, G.; Stergiadis, S.; Seal, C.; Eyre, M.; Leifert, C. Fat Composition of Organic and Conventional Retail Milk in Northeast England. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kouřimská, L.; Legarová, V.; Panovská, Z.; Pánek, J. Quality of Cows’ Milk from Organic and Conventional Farming. Czech J. Food Sci. 2014, 32, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Butler, G.; Collomb, M.; Rehberger, B.; Sanderson, R.; Eyre, M.; Leifert, C. Conjugated Linoleic Acid Isomer Concentrations in Milk from High- and Low-Input Management Dairy Systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009, 89, 697–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ellis, K.A.; Jackson, A.; Bexiga, R.; Matthews, J.; McGoldrick, J.; Gilleard, J.; Forbes, A.B. Use of Diagnostic Markers to Monitor Fasciolosis and Gastrointestinal Nematodes on an Organic Dairy Farm. Vet. Rec. 2011, 169, 524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Höglund, J.; Dahlström, F.; Engström, A.; Hessle, A. Antibodies to Major Pasture Borne Helminth Infections in Bulk-Tank Milk Samples from Organic and Nearby Conventional Dairy Herds in South-Central Sweden. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 171, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Forstmaier, T.; Knubben-Schweizer, G.; Strube, C.; Zablotski, Y.; Wenzel, C.; Manfredi, M.T.; Gazzonis, A.L.; Mortarino, M.; Villa, L.; Zanzani, S. Rumen (Calicophoron/Paramphistomum spp.) and Liver Flukes (Fasciola hepatica) in Cattle—Prevalence, Distribution, and Impact of Management Factors in Germany. Animals 2021, 9, 2727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Orjales, I.; Mezo, M.; Miranda, M.; González-Warleta, M.; Rey-Crespo, F.; Vaarst, M.; Thamsborg, S.; Diéguez, F.J.; Castro-Hermida, J.A.; López-Alonso, M. Helminth Infections on Organic Dairy Farms in Spain. Vet. Parasitol. 2017, 243, 115–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Sorge, U.S.; Moon, R.D.; Stromberg, B.E.; Schroth, S.L.; Michels, L.; Wolff, L.J.; Kelton, D.F.; Heins, B.J. Parasites and Parasite Management Practices of Organic and Conventional Dairy Herds in Minnesota. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 3143–3151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Rapsch, C.; Schweizer, G.; Grimm, F.; Kohler, L.; Bauer, C.; Deplazes, P.; Braun, U.; Torgerson, P. Estimating the True Prevalence of Fasciola Hepatica in Cattle Slaughtered in Switzerland in the Absence of an Absolute Diagnostic Test. Int. J. Parasitol. 2006, 36, 1153–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 12 00351 g001 550
Figure 1. Odds-ratios from logistic regression of factors influencing the mobility scores, 95% C.I (* p = 0.053, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01).
Figure 1. Odds-ratios from logistic regression of factors influencing the mobility scores, 95% C.I (* p = 0.053, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01).
Animals 12 00351 g001
Animals 12 00351 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparison of milk production (fat and yield in kg) in the different farms (organic and conventional), ME = mature equivalent. ****: p ≤ 0.0001, t-test as Welch t-test; Cohen’s d effect size: (0.62 for ME fat Kg, 1.01 for ME milk Kg).
Figure 2. Comparison of milk production (fat and yield in kg) in the different farms (organic and conventional), ME = mature equivalent. ****: p ≤ 0.0001, t-test as Welch t-test; Cohen’s d effect size: (0.62 for ME fat Kg, 1.01 for ME milk Kg).
Animals 12 00351 g002
Table
Table 1. Measures collected for animal welfare assessment (adapted from AssureWel [17]).
Table 1. Measures collected for animal welfare assessment (adapted from AssureWel [17]).
MeasuresDescriptionScore
MobilityGood/Imperfect0/1
Impaired2
Severely Impaired3
Body Condition ScoreThin 1
Moderate 2–3
Fat 4–5
CleanlinessNo dirt/only minor splashing 0
Very dirty: plaques > forearm length2
Hair Loss, Lesions and Swellings *No/slight skin damage/swelling 0
Hairless patch (1 or more ≥ 2 cm)H
Lesion (1 or more ≥ 2 cm)L
Mild swelling 1S
Substantial swelling (≥5 cm in diameter)2S
Response of cattle to stockpersonSociable0
Relaxed1
Nervous2
Broken tailsNumber of broken tails observed
MastitisNumber of recorded cases of mastitis per 100 cows for the previous 12 months.
* Evaluated on head and neck, body, front legs and rear legs.
Table
Table 2. Results of welfare assessment on animals housed in organic (ORG) and conventional (CONV) farms. n/tot = number of records on the total of assessed animals; % = percentage; mean ± sd is referred to single farms within farm type.
Table 2. Results of welfare assessment on animals housed in organic (ORG) and conventional (CONV) farms. n/tot = number of records on the total of assessed animals; % = percentage; mean ± sd is referred to single farms within farm type.
ORGCONV
Welfare Measuresn/tot (%)Mean ± s.d./Farmn/tot (%)mean ± s.d./Farm
Lame animals29/150 (19.3)5.8 ± 2.641/150 (27.3)9 ± 2.4
Unclean animals44/150 (29.3)8.8 ± 2.229/150 (19.3)5.8 ± 1.1
Animals with rear leg skin damage15/150 (10.0) B3 ± 0.740/150 (26.7) A8 ± 2.0
Animals with head and body damage
Total27/150 (18.0)5.4 ± 1.131/150 (20.7)6.2 ± 1.9
Animals with head and neck skin damage5/150 (3.3)1 ± 0.75/150 (3.3)1.2 ± 1.1
Animals with body skin damage7/150 (4.7)1.4 ± 1.111/150 (7.3)2 ± 1.2
Animals with front legs skin damage15/150 (10.0)3 ± 0.714/150 (9.3)3 ± 0.7
BCS
11/150 (0.7)0.2 ± 0.44/150 (2.7)0.8 ± 0.4
234/150 (22.7)6.8 ± 1.935/150 (23.3)7 ± 1.6
385/150 (56.7)17 ± 3.286/150 (57.3)17.2 ± 4.1
430/150 (20.0)6 ± 1.625/150 (16.7)6 ± 2.3
Means with different superscript (A,B) letters were found statistically different with p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Milk quantity and quality by farm type. Means with different superscript (A,B) letters were found statistically different with p < 0.001 at Welch t-test. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation.
Table 3. Milk quantity and quality by farm type. Means with different superscript (A,B) letters were found statistically different with p < 0.001 at Welch t-test. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation.
Milk Yield and QualityCONVORG
ME milk (kg)12047.2 ± 2635.3 A9656.9 ± 1620.7 B
ME fat (kg)450.3 ± 102.8 A396.6 ± 66.8 B
Fat (%) *3.7 ± 0.6 B4.1 ± 0.6 A
Protein (%) *3.1 ± 0.43.1 ± 0.2
* Fat and protein percentage were calculated from the Mature Equivalent data.
Table
Table 4. Results of the copromicroscopic examinations. Percentage (%) of positive cows and minimum and maximum OPG (oocysts per gram of faeces)/EPG (eggs per gram of faeces). All samples tested negative at the sedimentation technique.
Table 4. Results of the copromicroscopic examinations. Percentage (%) of positive cows and minimum and maximum OPG (oocysts per gram of faeces)/EPG (eggs per gram of faeces). All samples tested negative at the sedimentation technique.
ORGCONVTOTAL
FlotationMcMasterFlotationMcMasterFlotation
n/tot (%)OPG/EPGn/tot (%)OPG/EPGn/tot (%)
Coccidia10/150 (6.7)<50–150 8/150 (5.3)<50–15018/300 (6)
Strongilidae6/150 (4)<50–508/150 (5.3)<5014/300 (4.7)
Trichuris spp.0-1/150 (0.7)<501/300 (0.3)
Positive * cows16/150 (10.7)-12/150 (8)-28/300 (9.3)
Negative cows134/150 (89.3)-138 (150/192)-272/300 (90.7)
* Animals infected by one or more parasites.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chincarini, M.; Lanzoni, L.; Di Pasquale, J.; Morelli, S.; Vignola, G.; Paoletti, B.; Di Cesare, A. Animal Welfare and Parasite Infections in Organic and Conventional Dairy Farms: A Comparative Pilot Study in Central Italy. Animals 2022, 12, 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030351

AMA Style

Chincarini M, Lanzoni L, Di Pasquale J, Morelli S, Vignola G, Paoletti B, Di Cesare A. Animal Welfare and Parasite Infections in Organic and Conventional Dairy Farms: A Comparative Pilot Study in Central Italy. Animals. 2022; 12(3):351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030351

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chincarini, Matteo, Lydia Lanzoni, Jorgelina Di Pasquale, Simone Morelli, Giorgio Vignola, Barbara Paoletti, and Angela Di Cesare. 2022. "Animal Welfare and Parasite Infections in Organic and Conventional Dairy Farms: A Comparative Pilot Study in Central Italy" Animals 12, no. 3: 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030351

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop