1
|
D’Alessio RM, Mc Aloon CG, Correia-Gomes C, Hanlon A, O’Driscoll K. Evaluation of a scheme to identify risks for tail biting in pigs. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0305960. [PMID: 39208060 PMCID: PMC11361435 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305960] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2023] [Accepted: 06/07/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024] Open
Abstract
The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a tail-biting risk assessment scheme. The scheme consisted of trained private veterinary practitioners (assessors) applying a risk assessment tool on commercial pig farms to six pens per farm. The assessment tool included animal and non-animal-based observations which were used to determine the perceived risk of tail biting for each pen. For this study 27 farms were assessed, and a subsequent batch of pigs from each farm underwent post-mortem tail lesion scoring at the abattoir. The assessments revealed that a high percentage of pens had fully slatted flooring (92%) and mixed-sex populations (84%), with a significant proportion of pens containing pigs which were all tail docked (92%). Most pens (86%) did not allow all pigs simultaneous access to feeders. Enrichment was present in 88% of the pens, but most (46%) were supplied with only one item, and only 15% offering multiple enrichment types. The study found no significant associations between the risk of tail biting and visible injuries, dirty flanks, or tucked tails, as assessed by the assessors (P > 0.05). Similarly, the risk of tail biting reported per pen was not associated with aggressive, damaging, or exploratory behaviours (P > 0.05). At the abattoir, 96% of pigs' tails exhibited minor skin damage, with only 4% showing moderate to severe damage. Furthermore, no links were found between the scores obtained during slaughter and the risk of tail biting, as reported by the assessors (P < 0.05). Although the tool was useful in identifying several improvements that could be made at farm level in areas such as stocking density, enrichment provision and reducing tail docking, overall the results underscored the need for improved training of assessors, and the challenge of associating management practices and animal based measures with tail-biting risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roberta Maria D’Alessio
- Pig Development Department, Animal & Grassland Research & Innovation Centre, Teagasc Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
- UCD Veterinary Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Conor G. Mc Aloon
- UCD Veterinary Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | - Alison Hanlon
- UCD Veterinary Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Keelin O’Driscoll
- Pig Development Department, Animal & Grassland Research & Innovation Centre, Teagasc Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Martin H, Gribben L, Regan Á, Manzanilla EG, McAloon CG, Burrell AMG. Recording antimicrobial use on Irish dairy farms: Barriers and facilitators to using technology and sharing data. J Dairy Sci 2024; 107:5001-5015. [PMID: 38395392 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2023-24308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2023] [Accepted: 01/23/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024]
Abstract
Antimicrobial use (AMU) data are essential to monitor the effect of AMU reduction strategies in animal health. The use of technology and herd recording software to record AMU will be vital to scale the collation of these data in the future. The aim of this study was to determine the barriers and facilitators to Irish dairy farmers recording their AMU using a herd recording software and sharing AMU data. Thirty-three Irish dairy farmers involved in a study on AMU monitoring were asked to record their AMU using a herd recording software over a 12-mo period. At the end of the 12-mo period, 10 of these farmers were selected to take part in semi-structured interviews exploring their opinions on recording AMU, the use of herd recording software, and sharing AMU data. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Several barriers and facilitators to farmers recording their AMU using a herd recording software and sharing AMU data were identified. Barriers included the age and generation of the farmer, farm infrastructure, a lack of training and education, a lack of knowledge around the benefits of digital data, a lack of incentive to digitize records, and a fear of repercussions. Facilitators identified by the farmers included the benefits of having instantly available data for making herd management decisions, reduced paperwork, increased organization for inspections, and a potential positive effect on the image of the dairy industry. To increase the uptake of new technology to record AMU at farm-level, farmers will need support in terms of education and training around the software available to them and reassurance around the perceived risks of repercussions with sharing data in a digital format.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah Martin
- School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, D04 V1W8 Ireland; Pig Development Department, Teagasc Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 C996 Ireland.
| | - Laura Gribben
- Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5DL United Kingdom
| | - Áine Regan
- Department of Agri-food Business & Spatial Analysis, Teagasc, Athenry, Co. Galway, H65 R718 Ireland
| | - Edgar Garcia Manzanilla
- School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, D04 V1W8 Ireland; Pig Development Department, Teagasc Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 C996 Ireland
| | - Conor G McAloon
- School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, D04 V1W8 Ireland
| | - Alison M G Burrell
- Animal Health Ireland, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim N41 WN27, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Burrell AM, Balaine L, Clifford S, McGrath M, Graham DA, McCoy F, Dillon E, Regan Á. A multi-methods, multi-actor exploration of the benefits and barriers to milk recording on Irish farms using the COM-B model. Prev Vet Med 2024; 227:106195. [PMID: 38615535 DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2024.106195] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2023] [Revised: 03/25/2024] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/16/2024]
Abstract
Milk recording is a critical tool in dairy farming, providing individual cow information. When used effectively, this data contributes to on-farm productivity, herd health management decisions and supports prudent veterinary prescribing of antimicrobials. Although an industry and government priority, uptake has been relatively slow in Ireland. This multi-methods, three-part study aimed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the benefits to farm performance, and factors driving uptake of milk recording on Irish dairy farms. It involved an economic analysis of N=516 farms from 2008-2019, a workshop with N=26 stakeholders and an online survey of N=197 non-milk-recording farmers. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using econometric models and thematic analysis respectively. Results were synthesised using the COM-B model to gain a deeper understanding of what drives the target behaviour. The study revealed that agricultural education, farm location, farm specialisation in dairy and membership of a farmer discussion group were the main factors influencing uptake of milk recording. Milk recording was associated with a €39.04/cow increase in gross margin, a 177.58 litres/cow increase in milk yield and a reduction of 13,450 cells/ml in bulk milk tank somatic cell count readings. Infrastructural constraints, cost, lack of benefits and workload were the most reported perceived barriers to milk recording by farmers. The Behaviour Change Wheel illustrates how to utilise findings and systematically develop future interventions to increase milk recording uptake. This study highlights the importance of a multi-methods approach to agricultural technology adoption and the need for evidence-based methodology when developing behaviour change interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alison Mg Burrell
- Animal Health Ireland, 2 - 5 The Archways, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim N41 WN27, Ireland.
| | - Lorraine Balaine
- Agricultural Economics and Farm Surveys, Rural Economy & Development Programme, Teagasc Mellows Campus, Athenry, Co., Galway H65 R7182, Ireland
| | - Seán Clifford
- Agrifood Business and Spatial Analysis, Rural Economy & Development Programme, Teagasc Mellows Campus, Athenry, Co., Galway H65 R7182, Ireland
| | - Michelle McGrath
- Animal Health Ireland, 2 - 5 The Archways, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim N41 WN27, Ireland
| | - David A Graham
- Animal Health Ireland, 2 - 5 The Archways, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim N41 WN27, Ireland
| | - Finola McCoy
- Animal Health Ireland, 2 - 5 The Archways, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim N41 WN27, Ireland
| | - Emma Dillon
- Agricultural Economics and Farm Surveys, Rural Economy & Development Programme, Teagasc Mellows Campus, Athenry, Co., Galway H65 R7182, Ireland
| | - Áine Regan
- Agrifood Business and Spatial Analysis, Rural Economy & Development Programme, Teagasc Mellows Campus, Athenry, Co., Galway H65 R7182, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Uí Chearbhaill A, Boloña PS, Ryan EG, McAloon CI, Burrell A, McAloon CG, Upton J. Survey of farm, parlour and milking management, parlour technologies, SCC control strategies and farmer demographics on Irish dairy farms. Ir Vet J 2024; 77:8. [PMID: 38711109 DOI: 10.1186/s13620-024-00267-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2023] [Accepted: 03/06/2024] [Indexed: 05/08/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This cross-sectional study describes a survey designed to fill knowledge gaps regarding farm management practices, parlour management practices and implemented technologies, milking management practices, somatic cell count (SCC) control strategies, farmer demographics and attitudes around SCC management on a sample of Irish dairy farms. RESULTS We categorized 376 complete responses by herd size quartile and calving pattern. The average respondent herd was 131 cows with most (82.2%) operating a seasonal calving system. The median monthly bulk tank somatic cell count for seasonal calving systems was 137,000 cells/ml (range 20,000 - 1,269,000 cells/ml), 170,000 cells/ml for split-calving systems (range 46,000 - 644,000 cells/ml) and 186,000 cells/ml for 'other' herds (range 20,000 - 664,000 cells/ml). The most common parlour types were swing-over herringbones (59.1%) and herringbones with recording jars (22.2%). The average number of units across herringbone parlours was 15, 49 in rotary parlours and two boxes on automatic milking system (AMS) farms. The most common parlour technologies were in-parlour feeding systems (84.5%), automatic washers on the bulk tank (72.8%), automatic cluster removers (57.9%), and entrance or exit gates controlled from the parlour pit (52.2%). Veterinary professionals, farming colleagues and processor milk quality advisors were the most commonly utilised sources of advice for SCC management (by 76.9%, 50.0% and 39.2% of respondents respectively). CONCLUSIONS In this study, we successfully utilised a national survey to quantify farm management practices, parlour management practices and technology adoption levels, milking management practices, SCC control strategies and farmer demographics on 376 dairy farms in the Republic of Ireland. Rotary and AMS parlours had the most parlour technologies of any parlour type. Technology add-ons were generally less prevalent on farms with smaller herds. Despite finding areas for improvement with regard to frequency of liner changes, glove-wearing practices and engagement with bacteriology of milk samples, we also found evidence of high levels of documentation of mastitis treatments and high use of post-milking teat disinfection. We discovered that Irish dairy farmers are relatively content in their careers but face pressures regarding changes to the legislation around prudent antimicrobial use in their herds.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alice Uí Chearbhaill
- Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 C997, Ireland.
- School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 W6F6, Dublin 4, Ireland.
| | - Pablo Silva Boloña
- Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 C997, Ireland
| | - Eoin G Ryan
- School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 W6F6, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Catherine I McAloon
- School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 W6F6, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Alison Burrell
- Animal Health Ireland, 2-5 The Archways, Carrick On Shannon, N41 WN27, Co. Leitrim, Ireland
| | - Conor G McAloon
- School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 W6F6, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - John Upton
- Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 C997, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|