{tekst}

ANIMAL WELFARE IN RELATION TO STANDARDS IN ORGANIC FARMING

Ever since our human ancestors begun to leave the hunting and gathering life for a stationary living with agriculture, animal husbandry has been a natural part of producing food. In the form of animals, nutrients, undigestible for humans, e.g. grass and leaves, could be altered to eatable proteins, energy, fat and minerals, and in our colder climate zones these nutrients could be stored in the animals until they were needed. It is no exaggeration to assert that animal husbandry has been necessary for man to survive in cold climate zones.

The agriculture developed, slowly in the beginning. Burn-beating, hay-making agriculture (slåtterjordbruk), farming with rotation of crops (växtföljdsjordbruk), and during the last 80 years, in Sweden especially during the last 50 years, the use of artificial fertilisers which now with political support and a maturing view on agriculture is changing towards organic farming. The main reason for this is the last decades focus on the detriments of artificial fertilisers and the impacts on circulation of nutritive substances and environment. But with the more industrial agriculture also went a big scale animal farming, focused on maximal production, not always on favourable terms for the animals.

Personally I have grown up on a farm, and then worked as a veterinarian in rural practice, which have given me the opportunity to follow the fast development in animal farming during the last 50 years. I have even been a part in this "progress".

To take a part in the development does not necessary mean that you sympathise with all you see, or with all you do. It has, especially during the last decade become more and more clear to me that a part of my work has been to be a "cleaning lady" after advisers and companies which have been leading the development in animal farming. The technicians have constructed ventilation systems, cubicles and pens (bås?) constructions, and I have dealt with calf pneumonias and mastitis. Feeding advisers have created foods for animals, I have taken care of disturbed stomachs, enteritis and disturbed immune systems. The economists have proposed large scale farming, the spreading of contagious diseases have been left for me to deal with.

To become aware of that I, by hopefully being a skilful veterinarian, have supported this development, maybe even maintained things that should have been left a long time ago, has become more and more frustrating to me.

With this background I see the organic animal farming as one, of maybe more, possible ways to leave behind the parts of the animal husbandry of today, which do not put the animals and their needs in focus.

The organic animal farming has in itself existed all the time during this development, but it was not until the 1970:s that it began to be formalised. The organic products had to, in one way or another, be certified in a way giving the customer information an knowledge what it meant to buy organic products. By and by even the politicians caught the organic trend and began with economical subventions (styrmedel) to support it. Aims were put up. One of them was the 10% level, meaning that the year 2000 10% of the farming area in Sweden should be organic.

The rest is well known to you. An international umbrella organisation, IFOAM, put up criterias to define, among other things, organic animal husbandry, and in every participating country a control work began, supervised by the central authorities. In my country the Swedish Board of Agriculture has appointed KRAV and the Demeter organisation to put up the regulations for organic production, and to control the producers.

The organic animal husbandry is not static. It is under progress. Many of the foibles (weaknesses?) in the beginning have, in connections with other parts, among them the veterinarians, been changed and corrected, and that work continues. In the year 1999 the EU decided certain common rules to be valid within the common market. I am referring to the decision 1804/1999. It is from those regulations I want to give some veterinary comments and thoughts about the organic animal farming.

It is easy to conclude that the regulations are produced as an advantage for the animals, but that is not obvious to me. The same thoughts have been presented in some papers from the Network for Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Culture, NAHWOA. No, the decisions behind some of the regulations are more in favour on peoples expectations and wishes on ecological products, and to keep the confidence in ecological products up. No chemicals, no medical drugs.

Many of the regulations are clearly in favour of the animals and their welfare, e.g. demands of a prolonged access to milk and increased possibility to live in an environment in favour of (which favours) natural behaviour. Others really have to be discussed.

Most of the regulations are to be praised, but as a veterinarian I believe that the best I can do for animal welfare is not only to give (I can do the best for animal welfare not only by giving) a big hand for regulations in favour of animal welfare, but also by taking to the stage weaknesses I see through my veterinary coloured glasses.

We shall also bare in mind that there are people starting organic farming from their images on organic ideals, and not from good knowledge in agriculture. Maybe that does not lad to any serious consequences what plant growing concerns, but when this happens to animal farming, the consequences can be serious.

And there is nothing in the organic regulations demanding any knowledge in animal farming. It is not even the best to strive for a life as natural as possible for the animals. The real nature is to tough for that.

So let´s take a look at some new regulations where I as a veterinarian have the opinion that the animal welfare might be influenced in a negative way.

"The use of chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics for preventive treatments is prohibited."

Here I would like to discuss the fear of using chemicals or medical drugs I notice among some organic farmers, an opinion which is greatly supported by the regulation just mentioned. The Swedish animal welfare legislation, which is said to be the toughest in the world, claims that animals have to be protected against diseases. But my enterpretation of the EU- regulation is that you are not allowed to protect animals against diseases when there are no other ways left than using chemical "allopatic" products. In my eyes the regulations here leave the animal welfare for the organic opinion of the general public and the customer. Let me give you some examples:

In the north of Sweden attacks from blackflies and mosquitoes can be deadly to animals. When these animals flutter about, humans, even the ecological farmers, protect themselves with chemical repellents, or protect themselves with tight clothes. Even the animals in conventional farming are protected with chemicals, e.g. spot on´s, but animals in organic farming are denied that protection, though they cannot run away from their paddock or protect themselves with clothes. When you see animals attacked by blackflies and mosquitoes, you realise that they suffer badly. I have found animals killed that way many times.

Another example is tick born diseases. There are chemical protectives on the market, but it is unclear if they can be used prophylactically in organic farms without loosing the organic status. Some tick born TBE-viruses can even be spread via the milk from goats to humans (have happened in Lithuania), if the milk is used unpasturized.

The same thing can be said about Parafilaria. There are no organic acceptable way to protect cattle against those fly attacks if you follow the EU-regulation.

And what about Haemonchosis in sheep and scabies in pigs. The eradication programs in conventional farms might leave only the animals in organic farming to suffer from these parasites and spread them.

There is also need to make clear if vaccines are seen as allopathic drugs, and this includes the vaccines where genetic engineering is included in the production. In my opinion vaccinations must be allowed in an animal disease control and welfare program.

Another thing we veterinarians in Sweden worry about is the prohibition to use synthetic vitamins in the ruminant food. These additives are necessary and important in our Nordic climate, with short grazing seasons and long, dark winters. The result might be lack of vitamins for high producing animals, which can influence among other things the resistance against diseases, But it can also influence the human customers who prefer to drink organic milk. And what about the vitamin E and selenium additives we find necessary in selenium deficient grazing and harvesting areas? And what about pain killers to animals in pain? What signals do parts of the this EU-regulation give to the consumers?

As a veterinarian it is more important to me protect the animals than the customers and consumers in this situation.

A consequence of the regulation one might not think about directly is that organic farms can serve as reservoirs for diseases which with prophylactic use of allopathic drugs can be kept under control. Parafilaria for instance have been mentioned. In conventional animal farming you can control the multiplication and spreading of the parasite by using ear-tags with repellents. But on an organic farm, not allowed to use these, the parasite can survive and multiply, with the result that the farms around the organic one have to continue to use the chemical ear-tags more then if the organic farm had not been there. The result might be that a regulation aiming for less use of chemicals will lead to increased use when you look at the total effect. And what about the customers confidence in organic farming when they hear that the organic animals are the only ones suffering from this problem?

SICK OR INJURED ANIMALS MUST BE TREATED

The EU regulation make examples how to maintain a good health status among the animals, and that is good. But what happens when an animal get sick or hurt in spite of that? What are the regulations then?

"If, despite of the above preventive measures, an animal becomes sick or injured it must be treated immediately, if necessary in isolation, and in suitable housing".

So sick and diseased animals are to be treated. So far so good, but still we face problems here. When is an animal sick, and what is a treatment? I am not quite sure that what a veterinarian claims to be a disease or a welfare problem is judged the same way by the animal owner. In Sweden KRAV has been absolutely clear on this matter. The veterinarians point of view is valid. But we still face problems here. Let me just mention sheep suffering from endoparasites. When are they sick, and what is natural?

And we face the same problem when it comes to treatment. The animal owner might prefer an other kind of treatment than the one the veterinarian believe is the best under the given circumstances and most effective, and sometimes even necessary.

HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT AND WELFARE

When it comes to treatments of sick animals the new EU regulation put restrictions on the veterinarians possibilities to act. I am referring to the following:

"Phytotherapeutic (e.g. plant extracts (excluding antibiotics), essenses, etc.), homeopathic products (e.g. plant, animal or mineral substances) and trace elements and products listed in Part C, section 3 of Annex 11, shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics, provided that their therapeutic effect is effective for the species of animal, and the condition for which the treatment is intended".

The first part, about phytotherapy and homeopathics of course have as a background that the animals shall be kept in a way which reduces disease problems, and that the use of chemical-synthetical drugs is to be reduced as much as possible.

One interpretation of the regulation, at least in Sweden, is that anyone except a veterinarian is preferred to treat sick animals in organic farming, as Swedish vets are not allowed to use homeopathy and phytotherapy. We must work only with methods based on science and proved experience. And the mentioned therapies, especially homeopathy, do not fill this demand. There are thousands of reports, most of them bad or very bad ones seen with the eyes of science, but there are still no proves that the homeopathic fundamentals "alike cures alike" and "potensation increases the effect" is true.

Funny enough you can enterpret the regulation in quite a different way. By concentrating on the second part of it, "provided that their therapeutic effect is effective for the species of animal,and the condition for which the treatment is intended". I have not yet found any reports or tests giving me necessary information on this.

And there are also other EU regulations which can be interpreted that homeopathic drugs must be registered the same way as ordinary medical drugs to be allowed to be used in food producing animals.

I have in many different ways tried to make the situation clear to me, what it means to me as a veterinarian, and to the farmer, but I have not succeeded. A lot of things, also concerning animal welfare, are still unclear to me. They who believe in homeopathy understand published reports in their favour, and the nonbelievers have another interpretation. But face the facts: There are no scientific indisputable reports being able to repeat supporting positive and controllable effects of homeopathy in the medical treatment of animals.

A consequence of this have already been mentioned. The organic animal farming gets a reputation not to treat sick animals in an appropriate way, which can influence the consumers view. In that case the result of this regulation will be right opposite the desired.

In reality I don´t think the regulation will mean so much to the individual farmer. They who are believers in homeopathy will continue to believe in it, and treat sick animals as before. Those who do not believe in it will not change their minds as a result of the regulation. But in the eyes of Swedish veterinarians and zoologists the EU-desicion is more than astonishing. We have already now examples from both the organic and conventional farming where animals have suffered and even died when the farmer have chosen homeopathy before traditional veterinary medicine. And we have seen spreading of a contagious disease, BVD, via an homeopathist. I believe this matter, sooner or later, is going to end up in court, when a case of homeopathic treatment leading to undue suffering for an animal is reported to the police, and we will finally get a juridical examination on what is valid.

I really want to stress that I with this contribution do not want to glorify the use of chemical drugs and medicines. We shall of course strive for an animal husbandry built on optimal environment, feeding, genetics and care minimising the use of such drugs, but when the need arises they shall be used, and this need, according to my opinion, shall be judged by a veterinarian with knowledge of organic animal farming. With this I mean a vet who can see animal problems as parts of environmental factors, organic feeding, breeds, genetics, animal behaviour and other factors in the background of the problem, a vet with an holistic view. A veterinarian who can see more than infectious matters as a background to the problem. But sometimes even infectious agents have to be considered.

MAXIMISED NUMBER OF TREATMENTS

When it comes to the regulation that animals loose their organic status ir they are treated 3 times or more with chemical-synthetic allopathic drugs or antibiotics within one year, I have still no experiences of the consequences. Of course I see the risk that organic animal owners in the choice between allopathic treatment and the loose of organic status with everything that goes with it, or no allopathic treatment and hope that the animal get healthy anyway, choose the latter. But I have the belief that the animal owner who have already treated an animal twice during this period think more on the animal than the organic status. As I have understood it, the last word on this matter is still not said.

GEOGRAPHICAL RESTRICTIONS

I have above in this paper in connection with blackfly attacks mentioned cold climate zones. A certain part of the food, most often about 50%, have to be harvested on the home farm, which means that farms geographically located outside what can be called the farming limits are excluded from organic farming, in spite of that mountain farming of for instance cattle and sheep can be very friendly to the animals and environment.

Also it can be very difficult to grow grain to pigs and to get straw. The demands on outdoor living or as close to outdorr living as possibel can cause problems, with for instance frostbites on the pig or lamb ears in the subarctic parts of Scandinavia. The regulations should in a flexible way respectfully open for local situations, based on an organic thinking. The regulations of today can cause geographical restrictions on organic animal farming. If the new EU-regulations had been written by organic interested and skilful farmers from northern, thinly populated areas, they would surely have looked different in many aspects.

SPLITTING MOTHER-OFFSPRING

But there are not only medical problems I see when I consider animal welfare in the organic farming. I can also put some ethological views on what I see, things I hope will be taken care of in future regulations. Let me give some examples:

In both conventional and organic dairy farming it is common to split mother and calf already a few days after partuition. This separation is very unnatural, which everybody who have heard mother and calf calling for each others after the separation knows, and one should try to find systems making it possible for calves to grow up a longer time with mother, stepmother or adult cows. The result of research at the agricultural university in Skara points in the direction that such systems are possible.

The reason for splitting mother and calf is, as you know, that the mother and milk shall be used for other purposes. But the research mentioned shows that it is possible to have the calf with its mother for a longer time without any considerable loss of bulkmilk . The cow produces more milk when the calf suckles. My view is that we should start planning for systems where the calf have access to its mother (or step mother) in an increased way compared to the standards of today. The calf could be together with its mother a couple of times every day, or spend parts of the day or night with her.

Another example to mention is the common splitting in groups of a sheep herd, with the purpose to be able to feed every animal after their production. A sheep herd consists actually of a lot of small herds with mothers and daughters sticking together. To be able to feed the animals right we break these social groups and put the animals in different pens. In the nature this works without splitting the groups. I believe it is possible to find feeding systems where we don´t need to split the family groups as we do today. I have seen an organic sheep farmer with 35 ewes solving this problem in an excellent way by using a feeding system where the animals had free access to good hay and silage all the time, plus a concentrate feeding giving also the younger ewes and lambs plenty of space to eat. It is worth trying to find similar systems in larger flocks.

We need a further discussion about the tying up of cows. According to organic regulations the cows shall have the possibility to move, but there are situations when such motion stress the animals more than when they are tied up. With this I do not recommend tied systems, just that we still not have all information and knowledge about freewalking systems (Exempel)

TRANSPORTS TO SLAUGHTER

And so the time comes for slaughtering. According to general organic regulations animals shall be slaughtered in an approved and controlled slaughter-house.

With the background of the closing down and centralisation of slaughter-houses going on right now, organic farmed animals have to be transported longer and longer distances, sometimes passing not approved slaughter-houses. In many cases this is neither organic nor animal welfare. To me it goes without saying that the organic farmed animals shall be slaughtered at the closest slaughter-house. Most of all I should like to have them slaughtered on the farm or at a nearby approved small farm slaughter.

To favour such a possibility I wish that central authorities increases the number of animals accepted for slaughter in those small farm slaughteries, which is possible with the EU-regulations. Such a decision should shorten the transports and maybe also improve the economy for small farm slaughter-houses.

Another way to go is to accept the same veterinary inspection of the animal as when inspecting deer in deer farms at slaughter, or the inspection of game (moose, bears) for hunters. But other EU-regulations might not accept this.

ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICE

There are organic farmers who believes that the natural life is always best for the animal. That is not true. The nature is cruel. The so called natural death rate is very much higher than one can accept in a controlled animal farming. To keep diseases and production problems which have turned out to cause serious problems in organic farming under control, I wish that organic farms had some sort of animal health service within their regulations. This can be carried through either with the help of the already existing animal health services, or by organising a new health control program within the organic organisations, with the help of veterinarians. Such a health program can look at environmental factors, parasite control, production results, slaughter results, post mortems etc. Everything with the purpose to find factors and weaknesses which influences the animal health.

But an animal health program must have the possibility to work prophylactic with effective methods, when other ways to solve problems are emptied. This must include the possibilities to use chemical-synthetic allopathic drugs, for instance effective dewormers and vaccines. This in one of the principle points in an animal health service. Strategic use of prophylactic measures is an advantage for the whole herd in stead of being bound to a later treatment of single, sick individuals. An elucidation and perhaps changing in the regulations to fit reality is desired.

A positive consequence of an organised animal health service in the organic farms is that buying of animals, when necessary, can be safer from an animal health point of view. Just buy from farms on the same or a higher level in the health service program.

THE ORGANIC MOVEMENT MUST NOT BE STATIC.

After have said all this there might be listeners who judge me as negative to the organic farming. That is wrong. Critical on some points maybe, but basically very positive to an organisation opening doors to an animal husbandry more on animal terms than what we in many cases see in conventional farming.

More and more reports show that the animal health status in most organic farming is satisfactory and that it is possible to maintain a good production. But there are some exceptions, which maybe will be discussed here by other speakers. The organic movement must seriously continue to handle these situations.

I also respond very positive to the politicians who with their decisions opens possibilities for organic farming to compete and survive in a world where mass production is an economic advantage. Because if the organic farming do not have the economic possibilities to compete with the big mass production, the positive trend for organic farming will soon be broken.

The criticism I present here is positively meant in situations where my opinion is that we might face trouble in the future if we don´t start working with them today. There are still bits and pieces to look for and work with before we reach an animal husbandry mostly based on the animals demands. But I am very hopeful as long as I see the direction the organic movement generally is going today.

The organic movement is not static, and must not be.

Animal welfare in relation to standards in organic farming.

Abstracts

The new EU-regulations or organic farming (1804/1999) are also influencing the animal welfare. A lot of positive regulations is to find, but also regulations that seem to mind more about the general public and customer and their view on organic farming, than the health and welfare of the animals.

This paper will dicuss some points where Swedish veterinarians find a further discussions and developments necessary. The organic movement is not static, and must not be.

The paper specially focus on the impact of the regulations and the recommendations that phytotherapeutic essences and homeopathic products take precedence over the so called chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary medical products, and that the use of the same is prohibitid for preventive treatments. Key questions here are the lack of scientific evidence concerning homeopathy in animals, and that Swedish veterinarians are not allowed to work with homeopathy, Some problems in our climate zones following the prohibition of certain profylactic treatments will also be mentioned.

Differences in interpretation of the regulations between animal owners and veterinarians will also be discussed. What is a disease that needs treatment? Who is to decide about the treatment? Parasitic infections are discussed as an illustrative example.

Other consequences of the regulations concerning the animal welfare to discuss are problems in certain geografical areas, for instance subarctical areas where necessary crops are impossible to grow.

Animal transports and splitting mother – offspring are briefly discussed as future problems to be handled in regulations, and the paper ends by presenting the need of regulated herd health control programs, which can detect and focus on welfare and production problems.

Kalle Hammarberg

Official Veterinarian in farm and slaughter house practice

Hudiksvalls Distriktsveterinärstation

Malnvägen 2

82450 Hudiksvall

Sweden