Animal Health and Welfare in Norway
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Comparison of organic and conventional food and food production Part II: Animal health and welfare in Norway Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare and the Steering Committee of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety Date: 30.04.14 Doc. no.: 11-007-2 ISBN: 978-82-8259-135-5 VKM Report 2014: 22-2 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) 11-007-2-Final Contributors Persons working for VKM, either as appointed members of the Committee or as ad hoc experts, do this by virtue of their scientific expertise, not as representatives for their employers. The Civil Services Act instructions on legal competence apply for all work prepared by VKM. Acknowledgements The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (Vitenskapskomiteen for mattrygghet, VKM) has appointed a project group consisting of both VKM members and external experts to answer the request from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. The members of the project group are acknowledged for their valuable work on this opinion. The members of the project group 2 preparing the draft opinion on Animal Health and Welfare are: VKM members: Knut E. Bøe (Chair), Panel on Animal Health and Welfare Kristian Hoel, Panel on Animal Health and Welfare Olav Østerås, Panel on Animal Health and Welfare Aksel Bernhoft, Panel on Animal Feed Birger Svihus, Panel on Animal Feed (until 4 December 2013) External experts: Inger Hansen, Bioforsk, Tjøtta Randi Oppermann Moe, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Siri Christine Seehus, Queen Maud College of Early Childhood Education, Trondheim Anne - Cathrine Whist, Norwegian University of Life Sciences/Norwegian Veterinary Institute 2 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) 11-007-2-Final Assessed by The report from the project group has been evaluated and approved by Panel on Animal Health and Welfare of VKM. Part 2 was adopted by Panel on Animal Health and Welfare: Knut E. Bøe (chair), Bjarne O. Braastad, Ulf Erikson, Brit Hjeltnes, Kristian Hoel, Stein Mortensen, Rolf Erik Olsen, Espen Rimstad and Olav Østerås Part 2 was also commented by Panel on Animal Feed: Aksel Bernhoft (Chair), Marit Aursand, Live Nesse, Birger Svihus, Einar Ringø, Bente Torstensen, Robin Ørnsrud Scientific coordinator from the secretariat: Ingfrid Slaatto Næss, Panel on Animal Health and Welfare Final adoption of part 1-5 by the Scientific Steering Committee: Jan Alexander (Chair), Gro-Ingunn Hemre (Vice-chair), Åshild Andreassen, Augustine Arukwe, Aksel Bernhoft, Knut E. Bøe, Margaretha Haugen, Torsten Källqvist, Åshild Krogdahl, Jørgen Lassen, Bjørn Næss, Janneche Utne Skåre, Inger-Lise Steffensen, Leif Sundheim, Ole Torrissen 3 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) 11-007-2-Final Summary The Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA) requested an assessment of current knowledge regarding conventional and organic food production and a review of scientific literature that compare these two food production systems in order to provide support in their management of food safety. NFSA needed to clarify the extent to which existing research demonstrates whether there are differences with respect to human health and animal health and welfare between organic production systems and products and conventional production methods and products. Furthermore, if there are significant differences in the production systems, how would these differences impact public human health and animal health and welfare? The assessment was divided between five different panels. The Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, via an appointed project group, summarised and evaluated current knowledge based on comparisons between conventional and organic animal production and how the different production factors influence the animal health, animal welfare and feed for cattle, poultry, swine, sheep, goat and bees when organic production systems are used compared to conventional production systems. The assessment is based on comprehensive literature searches using relevant keywords and combination of keywords. The conclusions given below are results of reviews of relevant scientific literature and of expert opinions of the panel. The mean herd size in conventional Norwegian animal production is small compared to the major European agricultural countries, both due to government regulations on herd size (pigs and poultry) and milk quotas (cows and goats) and distribution of agricultural land. Further, the Norwegian animal welfare regulations for conventional animal production are strict compared to those of other countries in Europe, possibly with the exception of Sweden and Switzerland. Hence, the differences between animal welfare regulations in Norway for organic and conventional animal production are less than in most other countries. It is also important to be aware that the authorities’ regulation of the distribution and sales of medicine for use in animal production is very different between the Nordic countries and the rest of Europe and overseas countries. In Norway and other Nordic countries, only veterinarians are allowed to prescribe antibiotics for animal use. This is probably, together with freedom from several of the main serious infectious diseases in animal production, the reason why the use of antibiotics is considerably lower in Norway compared to the countries outside the Nordic countries. Due to these aspects, the project group agreed on that this assessment should strictly be based on the differences between the Norwegian regulations for organic animal production and the Norwegian regulations for conventional animal production concerning animal health and animal welfare. The main differences in the regulations for organic and conventional farming related to animal health and welfare were found to be space allowance, access to pasture and outdoor areas, feeding practices, use of organic grown feed, use of concentrate, fertilizers (organic manure), double withdrawal time after use of medications and some restrictions on the frequency of use of medication for the same animal. The Panel on Animal Health and Welfare reached the following conclusions regarding organic and conventional husbandry systems: The frequency of medication of animals are found to be lower in organic compared to conventional farming for many diseases, except for milk fever in dairy cattle. However, 4 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) 11-007-2-Final looking at objective subclinical measures which are not imposed by farmers’ attitude to call for veterinary assistance, like somatic cell count and metabolic parameters, and after adjusting for confounding factors, the conclusions are that there is no difference in objective disease occurrence between organic and conventional farming except for less clinical mastitis and more milk fever in organic herds. For dairy cattle, the difference between the two systems in proportional rate of antimicrobial resistant bacteria is small and insignificant. The presence of antimicrobial resistant bacteria in both production systems are very low in Norway, compared to other countries in Europe and overseas countries. For cattle, the increased access to pasture and outdoor areas, the use of group housing for milk feeding calves and the increased space allowance for growing cattle is positive for animal welfare in organic production. However, grouping of young calves, suckling for three days, as well as pasturing, could have some hygienic challenges due to more exposure for pathogens and parasites, but these challenges can be overcome with good management. The practise of suckling in three days makes a challenge to control that the calves get sufficient amount of colostrum. For sheep and goats, the differences in animal health and welfare are small. Both predators and prevention of parasites on pasture are huge challenges in both systems. For pigs, the access to outdoor area and provision of roughage is positive for animal health and welfare in organic production. On the other hand, prevention and control of parasites and pathogens from wildlife as well as predators may be a challenge for pigs with access to outdoor areas. These challenges can however be overcome by good management. For poultry, the increased space allowance in organic production, the use of slow growing breeds, the use of roughage and natural light is beneficial for both health and welfare. Access to outdoor areas is positive for animal welfare, but increases the risk of parasites and infectious diseases. There might also be an increased risk of death caused by predators. These challenges may to a great extent be overcome by good management. Differences of organic and conventional feed production concerning use of pesticides, fertilisers, chemically synthesized solvents, flavours and colours, and synthetic amino acids on animal health and welfare remains to be shown. The nutrient contents, bioactive secondary plant compounds as well as contaminants such as mycotoxins and pesticide residues, may differ between organically and conventionally produced plants for feed. The impact on animal health and welfare is sparsely documented. For honeybees, the ban in organic farming against feeding bee colonies with pollen supplements in periods with low pollen availability, as well as the ban (EU regulation) against caustic soda to disinfect equipment, causes welfare and health challenges compared to conventional honey production. 5 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) 11-007-2-Final Norsk Sammendrag Mattilsynet har bedt VKM om en vurdering