Next Article in Journal
Assessment of a Targeted Trap-Neuter-Return Pilot Study in Auckland, New Zealand
Previous Article in Journal
Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in the HIRA Gene Affect Litter Size in Small Tail Han Sheep
Article

Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows

1
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 234, SE-53223 Skara, Sweden
2
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7068, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
3
Department of Law, Åbo Akademi University, Gezeliusgatan 2, 20500 Åbo, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2018, 8(5), 72; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8050072
Received: 26 March 2018 / Revised: 3 May 2018 / Accepted: 7 May 2018 / Published: 8 May 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Cattle)
Farmers often have to comply with several sets of animal welfare regulations, since private standards have been developed in addition to legislation. Using an epidemiological approach, we analysed protocols from animal welfare inspections carried out in Swedish dairy herds by the County Administrative Board (CAB; official control of legislation) and by the dairy company Arla Foods (private control of Arlagården standard) during 2010–2013 in the county of Västra Götaland. CAB and Arla inspections were not carried out simultaneously. We aimed to identify common non-compliances, quantify risk factors of non-compliance, and investigate if non-compliances were based on animal-, resource-, or management-based requirements, as well as determining the time period allowed for achieving compliance. Non-compliance was found in 58% of CAB cases, and 51% of Arla cases (each case comprising a sequence of one or several inspections). Dirty dairy cattle was one of the most frequent non-compliances in both control systems. However, the differences in control results were large, suggesting a difference in focus between the two systems. Tie-stall housing and winter season (Dec–Feb) were common risk factors for non-compliance, and overall organic farms had a lower predicted number of non-compliances compared to conventional farms. The presence of both similarities and differences between the systems underlines the need for transparency, predictability, and clarity of inspections. View Full-Text
Keywords: animal welfare; audit; compliance; dairy cow; policy making; quality assurance scheme animal welfare; audit; compliance; dairy cow; policy making; quality assurance scheme
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Lundmark Hedman, F.; Hultgren, J.; Röcklinsberg, H.; Wahlberg, B.; Berg, C. Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows. Animals 2018, 8, 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8050072

AMA Style

Lundmark Hedman F, Hultgren J, Röcklinsberg H, Wahlberg B, Berg C. Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows. Animals. 2018; 8(5):72. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8050072

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lundmark Hedman, Frida, Jan Hultgren, Helena Röcklinsberg, Birgitta Wahlberg, and Charlotte Berg. 2018. "Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows" Animals 8, no. 5: 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8050072

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop