Figures and tables to IMPRO final report

Transcription

1 Figures and tables to IMPRO final report 1 WP2 Figure 1. Location of farms in France, Spain, Germany and Sweden. Table 1. Some characteristics of the visited organic dairy farms Country Total agricultural area (hectares) Median Number of calvings Amount (kg) milk sold per dairy cow and year % autom. milking systems % using antimicrob ials % using homeopat hy % using phytother apy France Germany Spain Sweden

2 Figure 2: Proportion of herds identifying the respective area as a target for improvement in Germany (DE), Spain (ES), France (FR) and Sweden (SE). Table 2. Key performance indicators (medians) (see D2.6 for definitions) Country high SCC a Incidence of increased SCC long calving intervals ketosis SARA b Cow mortality Calf mortality France Germany Spain Sweden a SCC = somatic cell counts; b SARA = sub-acute rumen acidosis Table 3. Some changes in key performance indicators (see D2.6 for details): Country high SCC a Incidence of increased SCC long calving intervals ketosis SARA b Cow mortality Calf mortality France Germany * Spain Sweden a SCC = somatic cell counts; b SARA = sub-acute rumen acidosis 2

3 2 WP3 Figure 3. Participatory approach for the conception of the tools * Co-construction monitoring tool: farmer and advisor definefarm specific indicators and alert thresholds to monitor herd health Proactive herd health monitoring Monitoring the herd health situation at least 4 times per year by the farmer and advisor Herd health alert triggered Reinforce disease prevention protocols for the specific animal health problem NO herd health alert triggered Discuss disease prevention protocols of choice Figure 4. General framework of the Herd Health and Production Management (HHPM) program. *Step added to the initial HHPM program after end-users consultation 3

4 Farmer choses his/her advisor in animal health Meeting on the farm of the farmer, the advisor and a scientist Discuss monitoring indicators already used Discuss appropriateness of indicators proposed by scientists Adopt scientists indicators Propose alternative and/or additional indicator(s) No monitoring at all Co-construction of a farm-specific herd health monitoring tool using a selection of indicators Figure 5. Method proposed for the co-construction of farm specific herd health monitoring tool by the farmer and animal health advisor and with a researcher facilitating the process Figure 6. Design of the prevention tool, the example of the risk factors for locomotor disorders in dairy cows in a straw yard housing system (L= identification number of the risk factor) 4

5 Before start study Implementation Short term effect Long term effect Use of the tool (compliance, use as intended ) Existing animal health monitoring and disease prevention practices Implementation of recommendations Tools abilities (does it allow doing what it was intended for?) Changed animal health monitoring and disease prevention practices Changed animal health monitoring and disease prevention practices Existing relationship farmer/advisor Changed relationship farmer/advisor Changed relationship farmer/advisor Herd health situation Changed herd health situation Figure 7. Framework for the evaluation of the implementation and short and long term effects of a herd health management tool (the research protocol in IMPRO included the elements depicted by the orange boxes). R F A F A Figure 8. Proposed protocol for the implementation of the Herd Health Management and Production (HHPM) program on the participating farms (R=researcher, F= organic dairy farmer, A= advisor in animal health) 5

6 Figure 9. Number of indicators per health topic selected by farmers in France and in Sweden for the monitoring protocol specific to their farm Figure 10. New insights gained by the farmers and advisors in each country with the implementation of the monitoring and preventive protocols and the HHPM tool (in % of participants - SE: Sweden, FR: France). 6

7 3 WP5 Table 4. The preference scores for the different management areas (min-max) and final partworth utility scores (5%-95%) for the related management levels. Higher values indicate a higher preference for the respective management area or measure. Attribute Preference score Part-worth 5% 95% Level (min - max) utility (St. dev.) percentile percentile Barn ( ) Sufficient feed 9.17 (5.59) Clean water troughs (5.79) Clean calving pen (6.32) Calf ( ) Colostrum supply (5.22) Disinfect calf pens 0.23 (5.28) Measure chest girth (5.44) Claw ( ) Trim hoofs 7.28 (4.97) Check lame cows 0.15 (4.72) Place footbath (5.41) Pasture ( ) Remove weed (6.93) Monitor grass growth (6.12) Rotational grazing 6.46 (6.50) Udder ( ) Milker s gloves (7.60) Prestripping 2.20 (8.31) Milk (sub)clinical last 3.68 (8.81)

8 Table 5. The results of the ordered probit model with the predictors of intention to improve the health status of their herd. Independent variables consisted of the four constructs of the Theory of Planned Behaviour model (outcome attitude, subjective norm, perceived control and background attitude) as well as socio-demographic and farm characteristics. Effect Parameter estimates Std Error t value Approx Pr > t Outcome attitude Subjective norm (injunctive) < Perceived control < Background attitude (importance of improving herd physical performance) Age (in years) Milk buyer (other) Target voluntary waiting period (days) Type of housing for lactating cows (tie stall) Ranking of importance of sources of advice on animal health (other farmers) Ranking of importance of sources of advice on animal health (own expertise) Ranking of importance of sources of advice on animal health (books, manuals)

9 Costs, price (e.g. feed price, milk price, labour costs) 1. Determine disease incidence Herd records (e.g. number of dairy cows, milk production) Treatment records (e.g. number of clinical cases, cullings) Cost-benefit module (D5.3) 2 Failure costs estimation Effort made to reduce disease incidence 3 Frontier construction (technical and current) Assessment of minimum and maximum attainable level of disease incidence Technical frontier Current frontier 4 Report on outcome Figure 11. Theoretical framework of the animal health management frontier 9

10 12.000, ,00 Failure costs 8.000, , ,00 Meff Mfarm Keff Kfarm 2.000, Effort Figure 12: Animal health management frontier for mastitis (M) and ketosis (K) in which the solid lines are the current frontiers and the dotted lines are the technically efficient frontiers. 4 WP6 Figure 13: Main screen of the IMPRO Toolbox. 10

11 Impact Figure 14: Equifinal approach. 11