Evaluation of organic, conventional and intensive beef farm systems: health, management and animal production

Animal (2012), 6:9, pp 1503–1511 &The Animal Consortium 2012 doi:10.1017/S1751731112000298 animal Evaluation of organic, conventional and intensive beef farm systems: health, management and animal production I. Blanco-Penedo 1a - ,M.Lo ´pez-Alonso 1 , R. F. Shore 2 , M. Miranda 3 , C. Castillo 1 , J. Herna ´ndez 1 and J. L. Benedito 1 1 Departamento de Patoloxı ´a Animal, Facultade de Veterinaria, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo 27002, Spain; 2 NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP, UK; 3 Departamento de Ciencias Clı ´nicas Veterinarias, Facultade de Veterinaria, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo 27002, Spain (Received 16 March 2011; Accepted 22 November 2011; First published online 21 February 2012) The overall aim of the present study was to analyse and compare organic beef cattle farming in Spain with intensive and conventional systems. An on-farm study comparing farm management practices and animal health was carried out. The study also focussed on a slaughterhouse analysis by comparing impacts on the safety and quality of the cattle products. Twenty-four organic and 26 conventional farms were inspected, and farmers responded to a questionnaire that covered all basic data on their husbandry practices, farm management, veterinary treatments and reproductive performance during 2007. Furthermore, data on the hygiene and quality of 244, 2596 and 3021 carcasses of calves from organic, intensive and conventional farms, respectively, were retrieved from the official yearbook (2007) of a slaughterhouse. Differences found between organic and conventional farms across the farm analysis did not substantially reflect differences between both farm types in the predominant diseases that usually occur on beef cattle farms. However, calves reared organically presented fewer condemnations at slaughter compared with intensive and to a lesser extent with conventionally reared calves. Carcass performance also reflected differences between farm type and breed and was not necessarily better in organic farms. Keywords: farming systems, organic cattle, general health, organic products Implications Organic farming promotes a combination of providing goodquality feedstuffs, appropriate livestock husbandry systems and correct management practices to promote animal health and welfare. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate the organic system compared with other systems on issues pertaining to animal health and product quality. This is the first study in the Spanish national context addressing this evaluation. Introduction The benefits of organic systems are primarily related to environmentally friendly production and to high animal welfare, whereas issues pertaining to animal health and product quality are more influenced by the specific farm management than by the production method (Sundrum, 2001; Vaarst et al. , 2006). For instance, overcrowding and mistakes in feeding regimes, particularly in the case of intensive practices, can lead animals into imbalances or damage their metabolic homoeostasis, and consequently can result in sub-clinical and clinical disease states (Link and Schumacher, 2004). Although such problems rarely occur in extensive beef production systems (Hovi et al. , 2003), animal health issues remain one of the main difficulties encountered by organic breeders of ruminants (Cabaret, 2003). Although there is a large body of research comparing organic and conventional farming systems, most of the studies have involved health assessment of dairy cows. Indeed, significant correlations between animal health (as measured by clinical examination) and production of milk (Sundrum et al. , 1994) have been reported two decades ago. In contrast, the literature for organic beef cattle and relationships between health and production is rather scarce. It should be noticed that in the organic beef production systems, the quality of meat products is a major factor that emphasises product quality rather than quantity (Hermansen and Zervas, 2004). Thus, it is adjusted to the expectations of consumers who tend to be wary of intensive production systems that a Present address: Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala SE-750 07, Sweden. - E-mail: i.blanco[email protected] 1503 have been associated with food crises (Sundrum, 2001). Farm processes and resultant food product quality are linked to (amongst other things) the health of the animal and its disease status. Thus, to improve meat quality, it is necessary to examine the whole production chain from breeding to meat processing. Therefore, slaughterhouse records can also be used to evaluate the impact that farming systems have on final beef performance (Vaarst and Hovi, 2004). It seems that the standards associated with organic farming do not per se ensure either high levels of animal health and welfare or safe livestock food products (Vaarst et al. , 2006; Fall et al. , 2008). Furthermore, there is lack of uniformity of standards because countries differ in characteristics such as climate, availability of resources (feedstuffs, litter, outdoor areas), herd structures, economic conditions and disease prevalence, cultural differences in the perception of problems and expertise to deal with them (Lund and Algers, 2003; Vaarst et al. , 2006). Thus, because there are different ways of adhering to organic principles and standards, developments in organic farming practice have to be set in a national, regional and local context (Vaarst et al. , 2006). In Spain, 97% of organic cattle livestock production is for beef cattle (MAPA, 2008), and the number of beef calves slaughtered in the north-western region of Spain accounted for 61.8% of the national scale (MAPA, 2008). To date, there has been no assessment of health status of organic and other beef cattle systems and the resultant quality of meat in Spain. The objective of this study was to analyse and compare organic beef cattle farming in Spain with intensive and conventional systems in terms of impacts on management practices and animal health and impacts on the safety and quality of cattle products. Material and methods Experimental design This was an observational 1-year study that considered beef cattle of NW Spain and consisted of data analysis from the farm and from the slaughterhouse. Farm phase analysis The study population has been described in an earlier paper (Blanco-Penedo et al. , 2009). In brief, beef cattle production systems are represented by a production cycle of 7 to 9 months of age for the calves, with a weight between 300 and 400 kg and a carcass yield of ,60%. Beef production in this area of Spain is quite distinctive and represents 32% of the market for Spanish consumers (MAPA, 2008). Intensive farming in this region is a calf system that has highly standardised livestock practices where calves are mainly fed imported or purchased concentrates and maintained indoors. Conventional beef production comprises of indoor management for unweaned young calves, maternal suckling and complementary concentrate-based diet. However, alternative systems have been designed by including a grazing period. The calves born between the autumn and winter season are reared with their mothers on pasture and are allowed to suckle freely while they are grazing on a rotational system, receiving complementary grass silage when grass available on pasture is limited. Calves finish indoors for 8 to 10 weeks before slaughter and are offered the concentrate and the grass hay ad libitum . In recent years, however, there has been an increase in the number of organic farms in this region. These have mostly been conventional farms that have adapted to the broad standards required of organic systems (EC 889/2008). For our study, 24 organic farms (,47% of the target population, the organic beef farms in NW Spain) were randomly selected from the Official Certification Body (CRAEGA, Xunta de Galicia, 2008) and stratified by area (number of farms proportional to the number of organic farms in each area). Farmers from conventional farms located in the neighbourhood of the eligible organic farms were invited to participate. The included number of conventional farms ( n 526) was not representative of the total conventional beef farms in this region but was considered adequate to provide comparative data. The final number corresponded to the organic and conventional farms that actively chose to participate. Farm phase analysis was only achieved in organic and conventional management types. The rationale to exclude intensive system was that intensive farms in this region are only calf systems. In total, data for 780 cows and 306 calves from the 24 organic farms and 498 cows and 288 calves from the 26 conventional farms were collected. During January to February 2008, farms were visited for 2 to 3 h. Farmers were interviewed face to face and responded to a complementary questionnaire that covered general information, animal nutrition and management practices in the farm. One person (first author) was assigned as the only interviewer. Information from the questionnaire was obtained by closed questions. Only open questions were used to capture farmer attitude. Data recorded on health management practices, diagnosis and treatments and beef production on the farm (animals sold to slaughter or life) for the 2007 calendar year were retrieved from the corresponding farm books. Collected data were evaluated and checked during the period of the experiment and the farmers were contacted again if necessary. Information on 26 surrounding conventional beef farms was likewise collected following the same procedure. Furthermore, a direct inspection performed by the first author was executed in order to check the fulfilment of organic legislation in the organic farms. Slaughterhouse phase analysis Hygiene and quality records of beef cattle slaughtered in a slaughterhouse in NW Spain were retrieved from the official 2007 yearbook. The data represented the annual work of this slaughterhouse. Calves that were born and reared in NW Spain were included in the study. A total of 5861 calves and their corresponding records were analysed comprising records of 244 calves from organic farms, 2596 calves from intensive farms and 3021 calves from conventional farms. The organic beef cattle represented the 84% of all certified organic calves slaughtered in NW Spain in 2007. Blanco-Penedo, Lo ´pez-Alonso, Shore, Miranda, Castillo, Herna ´ndez and Benedito 1504 The remaining 16% of certified organic calves were slaughtered at two different slaughterhouses and were not included in this study to avoid variability in hygiene control and carcass quality criteria. The mean (s.d.) age at slaughter was 295(52), 286(31) and 246(64) days for organic, intensive and conventional calves, respectively. Condemnations and pathological finding codes at the post-mortem inspection were retrieved from the Official Inspector’s Veterinary Record Book. Carcass quality classification was a visual evaluation of the carcass using the SEUROP system and a visual fatness score (EC 103/2006). These assessments were carried out by graders at the slaughterhouse. Statistical analysis All statistical analyses were carried out using STATA Software v. 11 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). For the farm phase analysis, the unit of study was the farm. Univariable analysis was carried out to study differences between farm types. For categorical variables, the statistical significance of differences between farming types was determined by the Fisher test. Variables that were normally distributed were analysed by Student’s t test or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Variables that were not normally distributed, even after data transformation, or that did not meet the underlying assumptions of the ANOVA were analysed by the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test. On the slaughter phase analysis, multivariable, multilevel statistical models were consistently used. Management type, age, breed and sex were the frequently used predictor variables in the different statistical models with farm as a random effect. The predictor variable of main interest ‘farm type’ was forced to stay in all models. The relations between the appearance of condemnations/pathological findings and farm type were studied using logistic regression models. Weight, carcass conformation and fatness scores were studied using linear mixed models, including the appearance of pathological findings in the analysis. The rationale for including the presence of pathological findings was based on assuming that the existence of previous disease has a potential effect on beef performance. Breeds and cross of breeds were divided in two major groups according to the distribution of the observations and named as modern crosses and indigenous crosses. The unit of time for the age was month. To perform the statistical analysis, SEUROP system was scored with numbers from 1 to 18 (1: highest to 18: lowest quality). The degree of fatness, which takes into account the amount of fat on the outside of the carcass and in the thoracic cavity (1: low; 2: slight; 3: average; 4: high; 5: very high), was evaluated with the slaughterhouse’s 5-point scale. Throughout the studies, model building was done by backward stepwise elimination of main effects with P ,0.2 ( F -test) as the exclusion and re-entering criterion. All possible first-order interactions were subsequently added to the model, and the backward stepwise elimination process was continued until all remaining effects had P ,0.05. Collinearity among predictor variables was investigated using the Spearman rank correlations test and was considered if correlated >60%. Highly correlated variables were not detected. Potential confounders were considered as present if a coefficient changed .20% when the variable was excluded from the model. Depending on model type, the fit of the models was evaluated using different approaches. In all analyses, statistical significance was taken to be indicated by P ,0.05. Results Farm phase analysis General information of the 24 organic and 26 conventional farms participating is summarised in Table 1. Livestock density unit per hectare (LU) was significantly fewer for organic farms; hence, the stock density on conventional farms was twice that of organic farms. The main differences between organic and conventional farms were related to husbandry practices. For the organic farms, the most common type of housing was an extensive system often with housing in covered yards followed by a semi-extensive system with cubicles using straw bedding or other litter materials. In contrast, extensive systems were very uncommon on conventional farms, which mostly had semi-extensive (54%) systems. In relation to other husbandry practices, organic farms significantly differ from conventional farms in the use of fertilisers and pesticides. The feeding management was similar on organic and conventional farms for cows and calves. However, concentrate in organic farms was exclusively offered to suckling and finishing calves. Farm buildings, at the stage of farm inspection on organic farms, offer to animals optimum conditions (natural ventilation and light, homogeneous stock density on pens). Livestock have free access to water and feed. Finally, poor animal welfare practices, such as tail cutting, castration and tethering, were not carried out in our organic farms, although some farms (33%) still (but not routinely) practised dehorning. In relation to reproductive performance, the average percentage (s.d.) of calving was significantly higher ( P ,0.05) on conventional (77% (21.5)) than on organic farms (63% (21.8)); with calculations based on the model proposed by Caldow et al. (2007). The percentage of fattened calves or designated breeding stock replacement animals did not differ between farming types (data not shown). Main results related to animal health management and routines of chemotherapeutical treatments are presented in Table 2. Conventional farms did not differ from organic farms in any of the preventive actions. In terms of treatments, the use of homoeopathy and phytotherapy did not differ between farm systems. The use of chemotherapy (antibiotics, antiinflammatories and hormones) was significantly higher in conventional than in organic farms. The number of veterinary interventions as an indicator of disease appearance is presented in Figure 1. The longer the organic farms had been established, the fewer interventions happened, even though the number of organic farms increased during the period 2000 to 2007. Organic beef cattle status 1505 A summary of the different disease events and incidences at the farm level are presented in Table 3. Overall, the most affected farm of each disorder presented higher occurrences in conventional than in organic farms. Compared with conventional farms, only reproductive disorders were significantly lower in organic farms. Slaughtering phase analysis Data distribution of observations according to the postmortem inspection from organic, conventional and intensive calves retrieved from the slaughterhouse in 2007 is presented in Table 4. In all, 26% of all animals had at least one pathological code recorded. The highest proportion of condemnations was because of pathologies observed in the lung, liver, kidney and digestive tract. Results from the logistic regression models of the appearance of the most common condemnations in organic, intensive and conventional calves are presented in Table 5. Farm type was a significant predictor in all the models. Higher risk of lung condemnations was significantly associated with intensive calves compared with the organic systems. Higher risk for infections caused by liver parasites and digestive tract lesions were significantly observed in organic calves differing from intensive and also from conventional calves (the last only for digestive lesions). In contrast, higher risks for liver abscesses for intensive and conventional calves were observed compared with organic calves. Apart from farm type, another significant predictor in all the models was the age. Elder calves presented more cases of condemnations. Sex and breed were significant in some of the models. Females were associated with a higher appearance of hepatic abscesses and lower risk for renal lesions. Breed was only found as a significant predictor in the model of lung condemnations with the rustic breeds being at lower risk. Results of carcass weight, SEUROP classification and fatness score models for the analyses of the effect of farm type on carcass quality with data from organic, intensive and conventional calves are presented in Table 6. In the model for carcass weight, two interactions were found. The first interaction in the model between farm type and breed showed that intensive calves of rustic breeds had significantly lower carcass weight than those of rustic breeds from organic farms. The second interaction of farm type and age showed that elder intensive calves presented higher carcass weights. Despite the fact that intensive system was the group that mostly interacted, the carcass weight of calves from intensive farms was less variable than those of calves from conventional and especially from organic farms (coefficients of variation: 17.2, 24.4 and 28.2, respectively). Table 1 Descriptive general information on some characteristics in the studied 24 organic and 26 conventional farms participating, obtained from the completion of questionnaires to farmers Organic ( n 524) Conventional ( n 526) Coefficient P -value General data Farm land (ha) 38.4 (29.4) 18.3 (16.3) H 2 51.73 ns LU 1.14 (0.41) 2.27 (2.85) F (1,48) 52.01 ns Herd size Cows 28.7 (18.3) 19.2 (22.2) H 2 50.67 ns Heifers 6.3 (5.0) 4 (6.2) F (1,47) 51.45 ns Calves 12.8 (8.2) 11.1 (17.5) F (1,49) 50.46 ns Husbandry practices Extensive management 63% 3.8% X 2 (1,50) 519.73 0.000 Fertilizers use 67% 61% X 2 (1,47) 50.17 ns Straw use 95% 100% X 2 (1,46) 51.33 ns Manure use 46% 84% X 2 (1,49) 57.87 0.005 Pesticides use 0% 23% X 2 (1,49) 56.05 0.018 Feeding management Output feed supply a 82% 69% X 2 (2,50) 50.65 ns Suckling period (months) 7.7 (2.1) 6.9 (1.3) F (1,47) 52.57 ns LU 5livestock density per hectare. Figures are presented as mean (s.d.) or percentage. a Output feed supply: purchased grown feeds and concentrates. Figure 1 Number of total veterinary interventions per year across all the organic farms of our study ( n 522). Health card information was not available from the initiation of organic status for two farms. The number of farms with organic status in each year is presented in brackets. Blanco-Penedo, Lo ´pez-Alonso, Shore, Miranda, Castillo, Herna ´ndez and Benedito 1506 From the other predictors investigated, females presented higher carcass weight. A third interaction was evaluated for age and sex, and was found to approach significance ( P 50.055). From the classification of carcasses under the SEUROP system, the interaction term between farm type and breed showed that conventional and intensive farms calves Table 2 Summary of total number of health management and chemotherapeutical treatments over the 24 organic and 26 conventional Spanish beef farms that participated in our study. Number of treatments on farms, treatment incidence a (in brackets) and AB rate according to farm type are also presented Organic Conventional Coefficient P -value Preventive health management Worming 19 (79.1%) 18 (69.2%) X 2 (1,50) 50.64 ns Vaccination 9 (37.5%) 6 (23.1%) X 2 (1,50) 51.24 ns Disinfection 11 (45.8%) 13 (50%) X 2 (1,50) 50.08 ns Alternative treatments Homeopathy 2 (8.3%) 6 (23.1%) X 2 (1,50) 52.02 ns Phytotherapy 5 (20.8%) 6 (23.1%) X 2 (1,50) 50.04 ns Zero annual treatment 3 (12.5%) 2 (7.7%) X 2 (1,49) 50.45 ns Number of treatments on farms AB 13 (1.1%) 98 (12.5%) X 2 (1,49) 59.11 0.004 Antiparasitics 26 (2.2%) 30 (3.8%) X 2 (1,49) 50.82 ns Antiinflammatories 0 (2) 30 (3.8%) X 2 (1,49) 512.5 0.000 Hormones 0 (2) 14 (1.8%) X 2 (1,49) 57.22 0.011 Steroids 1 (0.1%) 5 (0.6%) X 2 (1,49) 51.62 ns Other 7 (0.6%) 27 (3.4%) X 2 (1,49) 50.34 ns AB rate Cows with >3 AB treatments/lactation b 05 X 2 (1,49) 55.13 ns Calves with >2 AB treatments/year c 04 X 2 (1,49) 56.29 0.023 Calves with ,2 AB treatments/year c 06 X 2 (1,49) 54.01 ns AB 5antibiotics. a Treatment incidence calculation: number of new events/total number of animals at risk. The number of animals at risk were 1086 in organic farms and 786 in conventional farms. b Calculation: number of treatments with antibiotics /total number of cows per lactation present in the farm in 2007. c Calculation: number of treatments with antibiotics /total number of calves present in the farm in 2007. Table 3 Aggregate number of all veterinary treatments a in the studied 24 organic and 26 conventional farms in 2007. Information of disease incidence b (in brackets) according to farm type, and the maximum occurrence c in a farm are also presented Organic Maximum occurrence Conventional Maximum occurrence Coefficient P Cows Mastitis 1 (0.1%) 25% 1 (0.2%) 25% H 2 50.01 ns Reproductive disorders d 3 (0.4%) 7.1% 19 (3.8%) 50% H 2 58.39 0.005 Abortion e 3 (3.4%) 4.5% 37 (6.6%) 56% t 521.78 ns Podal disorders 1 (0.1%) 2.3% 16 (3.2%) 20% H 2 50.84 ns Milk fever 0 (2)(2) 2 (0.4%) 8.3% H 2 50.90 ns Ketosis 0 (2)(2) 1 (0.2%) 4.2% H 2 50.90 ns Digestive disorders 0 (2)(2) 3 (0.6%) 20% H 2 52.83 ns Other disorders 0 (2)(2) 7 (1.4%) 18% H 2 53.85 ns Calves Pneumonia 1 (0.3%) 7.1% 1 (0.3%) 7.7% H 2 50.90 ns Diarrhoea 3 (1%) 14% 36 (13%) 77% H 2 54.55 ns Weakness 2 (0.7%) 2% 1 (0.3%) 6.6% H 239 51.38 ns Cows and calves Mortality f 31 (2.9%) 14% 29 (3.8%) 33% t 520.55 ns The number of animals at risk were 780 cows and 306 calves (organic farms) and 498 cows and 288 calves (conventional farms). a Veterinary treated cases of each disease. A re-treatment within a certain qualification period was not counted as a new case. b Disease incidence calculation: number of new events of a disease/total number of animals at risk in 2007. c Maximum occurrence is the highest occurrence observed in a farm. d Reproductive disorders: retained placenta, dystocia, caesareans and infections after birth per cows at risk in 2007. e Abortion calculation: number of abortions/number of females that calved in 2007 (Caldow et al. , 2007). f Mortality calculation: number of death animals in 2007/herd size. Organic beef cattle status 1507 were associated with lower scores of SEUROP classification than those from organic farms in the case of rustic breed calves. The other predictors that were also significant in the model explained that males reached better scores in the SEUROP system and calves had slightly worse classification with increasing age. Calves with records of pathological findings were not associated with the scoring of the SEUROP system. In the fatness model, the interaction term explained that calves from intensive farms and rustic breeds, obtained fattier carcasses than those from organic farms. Females and the presence of condemnations were significantly related to leaner carcass and elder calves with fattier carcass. Discussion Most of the organic beef cattle farms in Galicia may have been more extensively outdoor conventional beef cattle farms that were able to convert to organic status most easily. This is supported by the significantly higher farmland area but lower LU of organic farms. Difficulties to deal with it seem in part to be related to the non-use of alternative treatments. However, this low use was common on both farms types and may be explained by their lack of scientific proof (Van der Meulen et al. , 2006). Although higher treatment incidence and wide range of diseases were observed on conventional farms, in general they did not differ significantly. The higher use of chemotherapeuticals we found on conventional farms is not conclusive of a better or worse health status in organic farms based on farm data. They also give no indication of whether such incidences of disease occur ‘because of’, or ‘in spite of’ adherence to the European Union Regulation. Interpretations of our findings do not exclusively involve the disease itself. It may have more to do with the effect of a lessintensive observation of animals in the organic systems. A different reason could be the restrictions in terms of chemotherapeutical treatments with the organic rules as a starting point. Organic rules restrain the administration of antibiotics, which may lead to think that organic farmers are more unwilling to consult veterinarians for diseased animals, but such indications could not be confirmed in our study as long as poor health (and welfare) status was not observed in organic farms. In contrast, it should be considered that preconditions of better health in organic farms were observed in our study – for example, contributing factors such as the limitation of intensification management (Sundrum et al. , 2005), as well as gained knowledge and experience of organic farmers on practices over time, which, over the long term, wouldbeexpectedtoresultinimprovedfarmhealth(Lundand Algers, 2003). These preconditions could explain the lower frequency of chemotherapeutical treatments, although the number of organic farms is indeed constantly growing, agreeing with the findings of Hamilton et al. (2002) who found a lower mean incidence for all veterinary treated cases in Swedishorganicallymanagedcowscomparedwithconventionally managed cows. However, our results contrasted with the findings of Vaarst and Hovi (2004) who found that the use of antibiotics on organic and conventional farms were similar. In our study, differences in farm size and reproductive performance may contribute to the slight differences in health (mainly reproductive) problems observed between organic and conventional farms. The lower incidence of reproductive disorders in organic farms could be interpreted as the lower number of births and a lower replacement index of the farms, thus accentuating differences with conventional farms. This lower reproduction performance on organic farms was described before (Reksen et al. , 1999) and was attributed to a deficit of nutritional energy during the winter season. However, in our study, the relatively poor fertility of organic farms was most likely related to the ‘natural’ physiology of Table 4 Summary of post-mortem condemnations from the carcass of 244 organic, 2596 intensive and 3021 conventional beef calves from the 2007 yearbook of a slaughterhouse Organic Intensive Conventional Liver a n 5826 26 431 369 Abscesses 1.33% 37.5% 29.5% Parasites infection 0.73% 2.1% 4.7% Degenerative proc. 0.4% 6.7% 6.2% Inflammatory proc. 0% 0.24% 0.24% Other causes 0.73% 5.7% 3.9% Lung a n 51507 59 912 536 Pneumonia 3.72% 59.9% 34.8% Inflammatory proc. 0% 0.2% 0% Other causes 0.2% 0.3% 0.8% Kidney a n 5663 10 290 363 Kidney abscesses 0% 0% 0.2% Degenerative proc. 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% Inflammatory proc. 0% 0.4% 0% Other causes 1.35% 42.8% 54.4% Digestive tract a n 5337 77 211 49 Inflammatory proc. 21.6% 61.7% 14.2% Other causes 1.2% 0.9% 0.3% Heart n 527 1 12 14 Pneumonia 0% 3.7% 3.7% Degenerative proc. 0% 3.7% 7.4% Inflammatory proc. 3.7% 3.7% 22.2% Malformation 0% 7.4% 7.4% Other causes 0% 25.9% 11.1% Legs a n 510 2 3 5 Inflammatory proc. 10% 0% 10% Traumatic injuries 10% 10% 30% Malformation 0% 10% 0% Other causes 0% 10% 10% Drug residues 0 1 0 Degenerative proc. 5degenerative processes; Inflammatory proc. 5inflammatory processes. Condemnations are presented as number of total cases per viscera ( n )andasa percentage of each viscera with a corresponding pathological lesion. a Significant differences in the number of total cases in the viscera between farm systems. Blanco-Penedo, Lo ´pez-Alonso, Shore, Miranda, Castillo, Herna ´ndez and Benedito 1508 rustic breeds (more used in our sampled organic farms), seasonal calving and an extensive management that is adapted to the optimum periods of grass growth. The pathological records of the animal at slaughter manifested the impact of husbandry and feeding practices on the health of animals. The high incidence of lung condemnations (mostly pneumonia) in intensive than in organic calves, similarlyobservedinpigs(Hansson et al. , 2000; Baumgartner et al. , 2003), may be explained by the permanent indoor conditions, which may have been overcrowded and/or poorly ventilated (Grandin, 1997). Conversely, the higher frequency of liver abscesses in intensive compared with organic calves may be related to feeding regimes. Unlike all intensive farms, organic farms provide only a low fraction of concentrate in the feed ration and this can prevent rumen acidosis and liver disorders (Owens et al. , 1998). Furthermore, calves that Table 5 Results of the final mixed logistic regression models on the effects of farm type on the appearance of predominant condemnations in the carcass of organic, intensive and conventional Spanish beef calves ( n 55861) Coefficient Odds ratio P -value 95% CI Lung condemnations Intercept 21.80 Farm type Organic Baseline Intensive 0.496 1.6 0.010 1.12 2.39 Conventional Breed 20.181 0.8 ns 0.57 1.21 Modern crosses Baseline Indigenous crosses 20.170 0.8 0.009 0.74 0.95 Age 0.082 1.1 0.000 1.04 1.12 Liver-abscesses Intercept 24.22 Farm type Organic Baseline Intensive 0.978 2.6 0.004 1.36 5.17 Conventional 0.758 2.1 0.025 1.09 4.14 Age 0.114 1.1 0.000 1.06 1.18 Liver-parasites infection Intercept 25.10 Farm type Organic Baseline Intensive 21.34 0.3 0.006 0.09 0.68 Conventional 20.520 0.6 0.256 0.24 1.46 Age 0.120 1.1 0.038 1.00 1.26 Sex Male Baseline Female 0.616 1.8 0.016 1.12 3.06 Kidney condemnations Intercept 24.24 Farm type Organic Baseline Intensive 1.12 3.1 0.004 1.41 6.64 Conventional 1.34 3.8 0.001 1.77 8.21 Age 0.098 1.10 0.000 1.05 1.15 Sex Male Baseline Female 20.247 0.8 0.007 0.65 0.93 Digestive tract condemnations Intercept 22.85 Farm type Organic Baseline Intensive 21.23 0.2 0.000 0.15 0.54 Conventional 22.98 0.05 0.000 0.02 0.10 Age 0.105 1.1 0.010 1.02 1.2 CI 5confidence interval. Carcass hygiene records were obtained from the 2007 yearbook of a slaughterhouse. Organic beef cattle status 1509 competed for feed in crowded penning (as might be most likely to occur on intensive farms) had twice as many instances of abscessed livers (Welfare Quality, 2008). For instance, the highest percentage of parasitic infections in the liver of organic calves may be related to the grazing management on organic farms similar to that reported earlier (Hansson et al. , 2000), in contrast to permanent indoor conditions and standardised parasite prophylaxis on intensive farms. Pathological findings in the kidney share the same significant predictors of previous models. Since the majority of renal condemnations were coded as ‘‘other causes’’ they could not be explained. Finally, the highest incidence of digestive tract condemnations for organically reared calves in our study probably reflected a predominantly sub-clinical pattern (because it was not observed in the farm phase analysis) and may be associated with diarrhoea or mucosal lesions that are related to feeding behaviour and supply in extensive systems (Vaarst and Hovi, 2004). Our study has demonstrated that the generally promoted view that organic farming concentrates more on product quality than on quantity (Hermansen and Zervas, 2004) may not be completely true and agree with Sundrum (2001) who reported that there was little evidence of any impact of organic production on product quality. Although the percentage of condemnations in organically reared calves was generally lower than those from intensive and conventional systems (better hygienic quality), other aspects of product quality (beef performance) that we analysed were of poor quality in organic farms. The highest mean and also most homogenous carcass weights of intensive calves may be partly related to the higher age at slaughter of animals from intensive farms and the lower breed diversity (mostly modern crosses), although the indigenous crosses seem to reach a better adaptability (and performance) in the organic than the intensive and conventional systems as manifested the interaction term in the three models. We assumed that other underlying mechanisms related to our main predictor, farm type, such as standardised husbandry and management of indoor practices, a low dependence on local feed and little influence of seasonal and environmental conditions and a high proportion of concentrate that leads to higher fat deposition and energy retention (Galyean and Rivera, 2003) may also contribute to the figures observed in intensive farms. In contrast, all these factors are likely to exert a maximal (and potentially adverse) effect on beef performance in organically reared calves that present a heterogeneous group of rustic breeds with slower biorhythms and fed higher proportion of roughage needing more time to fatten (Nielsen and Thamsborg, 2005). Conclusions By focussing on different levels of assessment, we can conclude that organic and conventional beef cattle farms did not substantially differ on animal health, but the lack of official farm data remains one of the most difficult aspect for a comprehensive picture of disease status on extensive beef production systems. However, the evaluation of condemnations at slaughter evidenced that organic calves presented fewer condemnations compared with intensive and to a lesser extent with conventional calves. The examination of the slaughter data is needed for an improvement of health assessment because it emanates the distribution of pathological events, is a good control measure of sub-clinical Table 6 Fixed effect coefficients and P -values for carcass weight, SEUROP system classification and fatness score from three linear regression models using the data of organic, intensive and conventional Spanish beef calves Weight ( n 55861) SEUROP ( n 55860) Fatness score ( n 55861) Coefficient P Coefficient P Coefficient P Intercept 92.9 3.29 20.28 Farm type Organic Baseline Intensive 3.55 ns 23.96 0.000 20.770 0.000 Conventional 9.81 ns 21.93 0.015 0.217 ns Breed Modern cross Baseline Indigenous cross 23.9 0.000 2.97 0.000 1.09 0.000 Intensive 3indigenous cross 221.5 0.000 1.71 0.002 0.448 0.000 Conventional 3indigenous cross 222.4 0.000 1.23 0.022 20.135 ns Age 8.72 0.000 0.087 0.003 0.052 0.000 Intensive 3age 3.48 0.026 – – – – Conventional 3age 0.321 ns – – – – Sex Male Baseline Female 2.45 0.012 21.35 0.000 20.342 0.000 Pathological findings Absent Baseline Present 21.48 ns 20.005 ns 20.047 0.029 Blanco-Penedo, Lo ´pez-Alonso, Shore, Miranda, Castillo, Herna ´ndez and Benedito 1510 disorders and shows associations with a specific farm type and corresponding husbandry practices. Carcass performance also reflected differences between farm type and breed and was not necessarily better in organic farms. Acknowledgements This study was supported by the Xunta de Galicia (Spain; PGIDT02RA6261001PR) and I.B.P. received a research fellowship (AP2003-3835) from the Ministry of Science of Spain. We thank farmers, veterinarian clinics, veterinarian inspectors and employees of the slaughterhouse Cocarga (A Estrada, Galicia) for the facilities to develop this study and Dr Marie Mo ¨rk for statistical assistance. References Baumgartner J, Leeb T, Gruber T and Tiefenbacher R 2003. Husbandry and animal health on organic pig farms in Austria. Animal Welfare 12, 631–635. Blanco-Penedo I, Shore RF, Miranda M, Benedito JL and Lo ´pez-Alonso M 2009. Factors affecting trace element status in calves in NW Spain. Livestock Science 123, 198–208. Cabaret J 2003. Animal health problems in organic farming: subjective and objective assessments and farmers’ actions. Livestock Science 80, 99–108. Caldow G, Riddell I, Stuart H and Lowman B 2007. Improving efficiency of the beef cow herd. Cattle Practice 15, 138–144. Commission Regulation, 2006. Directive 103/2006 of 20 January 2006 adopting additional provisions for the application of the Community scale for the classification of carcases of adult bovine animals. Official Journal of the European Union L17/6-8. Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Official Journal of the European Union 250/1–84. CRAEGA, Xunta de Galicia, 2008. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http:// www.craega.es/ Fall N, Emanuelson U, Martinsson K and Jonsson S 2008. Udder health at a Swedish research farm with both organic and conventional dairy cow management. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 83, 186–195. Galyean ML and Rivera JD 2003. Nutritionally related disorders affecting feedlot cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 13–20. Grandin T 1997. The design and construction of facilities for handling cattle. Livestock Science 49, 103–109. Hamilton C, Hansson I, Ekman T, Emanuelson U and Forslund K 2002. Health of cows, calves and young stock on 26 organic dairy herds in Sweden. Veterinary Record 150, 503–508. Hansson I, Hamilton C, Ekman T and Forslund K 2000. Carcass quality in Certified Organic Production Compared with Conventional Livestock Production. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 47, 111–120. Hermansen ZE and Zervas G 2004. Round Table discussion of the organic animal production session. Livestock Science 90, 63–65. Hovi M, Sundrum A and Thamsborg SM 2003. Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livestock Science 80, 41–53. Link M and Schumacher U 2004. Bioland position paper on foot and mouth disease. Proceedings of the 3rd SAFO Workshop, Falenty, Poland, pp. 21–23. Lund V and Algers B 2003. Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming – a literature review. Livestock Science 80, 55–68. MAPA (Ministry of Agriculture, Fish and Food, 2008). Encuestas ganaderas. Resultados definitivos por provincias y comunidades auto ´nomas de an˜os anteriores (censo exhaustivo). Resultados del an˜o 2008. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://www.mapa.es/ Nielsen BK and Thamsborg SM 2005. Welfare, health and product quality in organic beef production: a Danish perspective. Livestock Science 94, 41–50. Owens FN, Secrist DS, Hill WJ and Gill DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286. Reksen O, Tverdal A and Ropstad E 1999. A comparative study of reproductive performance in organic and conventional dairy husbandry. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2605–2610. Sundrum A 2001. Organic livestock farming: a critical review. Livestock Science 67, 207–215. Sundrum A, Andersson R and Postler G 1994. Animal needs index 200 – a guide for the assessment of housing systems. Ko ¨llen-Verlag, Bonn, Germany. Sundrum A, Schneider K and Richter U 2005. Possibilities and limitations of protein supply in organic poultry and pig production. Project Report. D4.1 (1) EEC 2092/91 (Organic) Revision. SSPE-CT-2004-502397. University of Kassel. Vaarst M and Hovi M 2004. Organic livestock production and food quality: a review of current status and future challenges. Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO Workshop, Witzenhausen, Germany, pp. 7–15. Vaarst M, Bennedsgaard TW, Klaas I, Nissen TB, Thamsborg SM and Ostergaard S 2006. Development and daily management of an explicit strategy of nonuse of antimicrobial drugs in twelve organic dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1842–1853. Van der Meulen J, Van der werf JTN and Kijlstra A 2006. Questionnaire survey of disease prevalence and veterinary treatment in organic pig husbandry in the Netherlands. Veterinary Record 159, 816–818. Welfare Quality  R 2008. Preventing social stress among cattle in feed bunks. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/ Organic beef cattle status 1511