6 results
Interactions between profit and welfare on extensive sheep farms
- AW Stott, B Vosough Ahmadi, CM Dwyer, B Kupiec, C Morgan-Davies, CE Milne, S Ringrose, P Goddard, K Phillips, A Waterhouse
-
- Journal:
- Animal Welfare / Volume 21 / Issue S1 / May 2012
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2023, pp. 57-64
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Extensive sheep farming systems make an important contribution to socio-economic well-being and the ‘ecosystem services’ that flow from large areas of the UK and elsewhere. They are therefore subject to much policy intervention. However, the animal welfare implications of such interventions and their economic drivers are rarely considered. Under Defra project AW1024 (a further study to assess the interaction between economics, husbandry and animal welfare in large, extensively managed sheep flocks) we therefore assessed the interaction between profit and animal welfare on extensive sheep farms. A detailed inventory of resources, resource deployment and technical performance was constructed for 20 commercial extensive sheep farms in Great Britain (equal numbers from the Scottish Highlands, Cumbria, Peak District and mid-Wales). Farms were drawn from focus groups in these regions where participative research with farmers added further information. These data were summarised and presented to a panel of 12 experts for welfare assessment. We used two welfare assessment methods one drawn from animal welfare science (‘needs’ based) the other from management science (Service Quality Modelling). The methods gave complementary results. The inventory data were also used to build a linear programme (LP) model of sheep, labour and feed-resource management month-by-month on each farm throughout the farming year. By setting the LP to adjust farm management to maximise gross margin under each farm's circumstances we had an objective way to explore resource allocations, their constraints and welfare implications under alternative policy response scenarios. Regression of indicators of extensification (labour per ewe, in-bye land per ewe, hill area per ewe and lambs weaned per ewe) on overall welfare score explained 0.66 of variation with labour and lambs weaned per ewe both positive coefficients. Neither gross margin nor flock size were correlated with welfare score. Gross margin was also uncorrelated with these indicators of extensification with the exception of labour/ewe, which was negatively correlated with flock size and hence with gross margin. These results suggest animal welfare is best served by reduced extensification while greater profits are found in flock expansion with reduced labour input per ewe and no increase in other inputs or in productivity. Such potential conflicts should be considered as policy adjusts to meet the requirements for sustainable land use in the hills and uplands.
Animal welfare and economic optimisation of farrowing systems
- B Vosough Ahmadi, AW Stott, EM Baxter, AB Lawrence, SA Edwards
-
- Journal:
- Animal Welfare / Volume 20 / Issue 1 / February 2011
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2023, pp. 57-67
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
In many countries, including the UK, the majority of domestic sows are housed in farrowing crates during the farrowing and lactation periods. Such systems raise welfare problems due to the close confinement of the sow. Despite the fact that many alternative housing systems have been developed, no commercially viable/feasible option has emerged for large scale units. Current scientific and practical knowledge of farrowing systems were reviewed in this study to identify alternative systems, their welfare and production potential. The aim was to establish acceptable trade-offs between profit and welfare within alternative farrowing systems. Linear programming (LP) was used to examine possible trade-offs and to support the design of welfare-friendly yet commercially viable alternatives. The objective of the LP was to optimise the economic performance of conventional crates, simple pens and designed pens subject to both managerial and animal welfare constraints. Quantitative values for constraints were derived from the literature. The potential effects of each welfare component on productivity were assessed by a group of animal welfare scientists and used in the model. The modelled welfare components (inputs) were extra space, substrate and temperature. Results showed that, when using piglet survival rate in the LP based on data drawn from the literature and incorporating costs of extra inputs in the model, the crates obtained the highest annual net margin and the designed pens and the pens were in second and third place, respectively. The designed pens and the pens were able to improve their annual net margin once alternative reference points, following expert-derived production functions, were used to adjust piglet survival rates in response to extra space, extra substrate and modified pen heating. The non-crate systems then provided higher welfare and higher net margin for sows and piglets than crates, implying the possibility of a win-win situation.
Trade-offs between indicators of performance and sustainability in breeding suckler beef herds
- B. VOSOUGH AHMADI, M. NATH, J. J. HYSLOP, C. A. MORGAN, A. W. STOTT
-
- Journal:
- The Journal of Agricultural Science / Volume 155 / Issue 1 / January 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 22 July 2016, pp. 156-170
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Management of beef suckler cattle herds requires a difficult but vitally important balance between farm profits, animal health and welfare and sustainable food production. A dynamic programming (DP) model was implemented to investigate the consequences of replacement and management decisions on the interactions and possible trade-offs between animal welfare, fertility and profitability in breeding beef suckler cattle herds. The model maximized profit from the current cow and all successors by identifying the best keep/replace decision. The 150 states incorporated in the DP model were all combinations of: ten cow-parity, five calving periods including one barren state (five in total) as fertility indicators and three body condition scores at weaning as an animal welfare indicator reflecting feeding and nutritional conditions of animals. Statistical models were fitted to data from a breeding suckler cattle herd, consisting of performance records of 200 cattle over 5 years, to parameterize the DP model. Estimated parameters used in the DP model were: (i) probabilities of transitions between states and (ii) probability of involuntary culling. These estimates were used in the form of conditional probabilities of successful or failed (as a result of involuntary culling) transitions to the next state. In addition, statistical models were used to estimate probability of calving difficulty. There was strong evidence (P< 0·001) that parity affected calving difficulty and weak evidence (P = 0·067) that parity affected the incidence of involuntary culling. The DP model outcomes indicated that cows calving very early, i.e. those who conceived in the first 21 days after artificial insemination, showed reduced frequencies of calving difficulty as well as voluntary culling, and so gave better financial returns than late-calving cows and barren cows. As a result, fewer replacements were needed that reduced the frequency of calving difficulty, further implying a win–win scenario for both profit and welfare. In contrast, in late-calving animals, the frequency of calving difficulty increased and they were less profitable and more prone to be culled. Results of sensitivity analysis showed that the optimum voluntary culling rate was sensitive to commodity market prices. These findings suggest well-informed nutrition and reproduction management could deliver a win–win outcome for profit and animal welfare.
Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes
- R. B. D’Eath, J. K. Niemi, B. Vosough Ahmadi, K. M. D. Rutherford, S. H. Ison, S. P. Turner, H. T. Anker, T. Jensen, M. E. Busch, K. K. Jensen, A. B. Lawrence, P. Sandøe
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
To limit tail biting incidence, most pig producers in Europe tail dock their piglets. This is despite EU Council Directive 2008/120/EC banning routine tail docking and allowing it only as a last resort. The paper aims to understand what it takes to fulfil the intentions of the Directive by examining economic results of four management and housing scenarios, and by discussing their consequences for animal welfare in the light of legal and ethical considerations. The four scenarios compared are: ‘Standard Docked’, a conventional housing scenario with tail docking meeting the recommendations for Danish production (0.7 m2/pig); ‘Standard Undocked’, which is the same as ‘Standard Docked’ but with no tail docking, ‘Efficient Undocked’ and ‘Enhanced Undocked’, which have increased solid floor area (0.9 and 1.0 m2/pig, respectively) provision of loose manipulable materials (100 and 200 g/straw per pig per day) and no tail docking. A decision tree model based on data from Danish and Finnish pig production suggests that Standard Docked provides the highest economic gross margin with the least tail biting. Given our assumptions, Enhanced Undocked is the least economic, although Efficient Undocked is better economically and both result in a lower incidence of tail biting than Standard Undocked but higher than Standard Docked. For a pig, being bitten is worse for welfare (repeated pain, risk of infections) than being docked, but to compare welfare consequences at a farm level means considering the number of affected pigs. Because of the high levels of biting in Standard Undocked, it has on average inferior welfare to Standard Docked, whereas the comparison of Standard Docked and Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked is more difficult. In Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked, more pigs than in Standard Docked suffer from being tail bitten, whereas all the pigs avoid the acute pain of docking endured by the pigs in Standard Docked. We illustrate and discuss this ethical balance using numbers derived from the above-mentioned data. We discuss our results in the light of the EU Directive and its adoption and enforcement by Member States. Widespread use of tail docking seems to be accepted, mainly because the alternative steps that producers are required to take before resorting to it are not specified in detail. By tail docking, producers are acting in their own best interests. We suggest that for the practice of tail docking to be terminated in a way that benefits animal welfare, changes in the way pigs are housed and managed may first be required.
Impacts of greening measures and flat rate regional payments of the Common Agricultural Policy on Scottish beef and sheep farms
- B. VOSOUGH AHMADI, S. SHRESTHA, S.G. THOMSON, A.P. BARNES, A.W. STOTT
-
- Journal:
- The Journal of Agricultural Science / Volume 153 / Issue 4 / May 2015
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 January 2015, pp. 676-688
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The latest Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms could bring substantial changes to Scottish farming communities. Two major components of this reform package, an introduction of environmental measures into the Pillar 1 payments and a move away from historical farm payments towards regionalized area payments, would have a significant effect on altering existing support structures for Scottish farmers, as it would for similar farm types elsewhere in Europe where historic payments are used. An optimizing farm-level model was developed to explore how Scottish beef and sheep farms might be affected by the greening and flat rate payments under the current CAP reforms. Nine different types of beef and sheep farms were identified and detailed biophysical and financial farm-level data for these farm types were used to parameterize the model. Results showed that the greening measures of the CAP did not have much impact on net margins of most of the beef and sheep farm businesses, except for ‘Beef Finisher’ farm types where the net margins decreased by 3%. However, all farm types were better off adopting the greening measures than not qualifying for the greening payments through non-compliance with the measures. The move to regionalized farm payments increased the negative financial impact of greening on most of the farms but it was still substantially lower than the financial sacrifice of not adopting greening measures. Results of maximizing farm net margin, under a hypothetical assumption of excluding farm payments, showed that in most of the mixed (sheep and cattle) and beef suckler cattle farms the optimum stock numbers predicted by the model were lower than actual figures on farm. When the regionalized support payments were allocated to each farm, the proportion of the mixed farms that would increase their stock numbers increased whereas this proportion decreased for beef suckler farms and no impact was predicted in sheep farms. Also under the regionalized support payments, improvements in profitability were found in mixed farms and sheep farms. Some of the specialized beef suckler farms also returned a profit when CAP support was added.
An analysis of cattle farmers' perceptions of drivers and barriers to on-farm control of Escherichia coli O157
- L. TOMA, J. C. LOW, B. VOSOUGH AHMADI, L. MATTHEWS, A. W. STOTT
-
- Journal:
- Epidemiology & Infection / Volume 143 / Issue 11 / August 2015
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 November 2014, pp. 2355-2366
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Structural equation modelling and survey data were used to test determinants' influence on farmers' intentions towards Escherichia coli O157 on-farm control. Results suggest that farmers more likely to show willingness to spend money/time or vaccinate to control Escherichia coli O157 are those: who think farmers are most responsible for control; whose income depends more on opening farms to the public; with stronger disease control attitudes; affected by outbreaks; with better knowledge and more informed; with stronger perceptions of biosecurity measures’ practicality; using a health plan; who think farmers are the main beneficiaries of control; and whose farms are dairy rather than beef. The findings might suggest that farmers may implement on-farm controls for E. coli O157 if they identify a clear hazard and if there is greater knowledge of the safety and efficacy of the proposed controls.