A study aimed at identifying research priorities and the constraints to the maintenance of high standards of animal health and welfare on organic livestock farms in the UK has been conducted over two phases:
Phase 1: |
A postal survey of organic producers registered with the UK Soil Association was conducted during 1995-96 |
Phase 2: |
A follow-up study, using the results of the postal survey and case-studies is currently being undertaken. |
This paper will focus on the methodology adopted. A full description of the results of the first phase has been reported by Roderick et al.(1996).
Postal questionnaires were sent to 270 soil associations registered organic farmers. Closed questions were included covering specific enterprise practices. Producers' perception of disease was established by scoring a range of common diseases. Open ended questions were included to record producer comments. Descriptive analyses were conducted on the survey data.
A 'useful' response rate of 52 percent was achieved. The survey revealed trends in farm type e.g. by species (Figure 1), altitude, less-favoured area status and period under organic production. Key livestock management and husbandry techniques were described and variations between farms were identified. Generally, the producers did not perceive major animal health problems in their herds/flocks. Producers' perception of disease was similar to that expected in conventional systems. An example of the health assessment of dairy herds is given in Figure 2. A wide range of health control methods were commonly practised. This is demonstrated in Figure 3, which shows the use of a combination of antibiotics, homeopathy and other methods to control mastitis in dairy herds.
Fig 1:Classification of organic livestock systems
Fig 2: Farmers perception of disease in dairy herds
|
1=no problem; 2 = not common; 3 = slight problem; 4 = continuous problem; 5 = serious problem |
Fig 3: Mastitis control in organic dairy herds
|
|
Open-ended questions drew a large number of wide-ranging and informative comments. In particular producers required advice and extension on animal health control. Concerns about animal welfare were commonly expressed. Some respondents required a degree of flexibility in organic standards.
The survey proved to be a useful method to describe the basic health and welfare status and practices within the UK organic livestock sector. Trends and variations between farms and systems have been identified. The survey also provided a very useful first contact with producers.
The type of survey method used has a number of obvious and well documented weaknesses. Although the response rate was high for a survey of this type, it is not possible to assess whether the sample was representative. The method of disease perception scoring satisfied the objective of identifying the relative importance of various health concerns. However, this approach suffers from being a subjective measure providing non-parametric data. The technique is therefore of limited epidemiological value. More detailed studies would be needed to quantify the important health issues. Open-ended questions aimed at establishing the comments of producers revealed important areas of concern not covered by closed questions. Recommendations included the requirement for a follow-up study. This is now in progress as Phase 2.
Statistical analysis will be conducted on data from Phase 1 to identify the important farm level variables influencing animal health and welfare status and practices. Based on the results of the descriptive (Phase 1) and statistical (Phase 2) analyses, the survey farms will be classified by type and health and welfare characteristics. Case-studies will be implemented on key farms, for each of the characterized farm types, in order to explore in more detail specific influential factors and constraints. It is envisaged that case studies will involve informal (PRA, etc.) and formal (farm records and closed questions) methods.
Roderick, S., Hovi, M. and N. Short (1996): Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Farming: Research Priorities, AHT Report, University of Reading.
Phase 1 of this study was supported by the Animal Health Trust. Phase 2 is being supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), UK.
