The Veterinary Record Link to Vetlife website
HOME CURRENT ISSUE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARCHIVE SEARCH SUBSCRIPTIONS JOBS FEEDBACK HELP
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Main, D. C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Green, L. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Main, D. C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Green, L. E.

The Veterinary Record, Vol 153, Issue 8, 227-231
Copyright © 2003 by British Veterinary Association

Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle

D. C. J. Main PhD, CertVR, DWEL, MRCVS1, H. R. Whay BSc, PhD1, A. J. F. Webster MA, PhD, MRCVS1, and L. E. Green BVSc, MSc, PhD, MRCVS2

1 Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU
2 Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL

To evaluate the effect of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Freedom Food (FF) scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle in England, 28 FF and 25 non-FF farms were assessed during the winter of 2000 to 2001. The assessments were based on a protocol which included the examination of the farms' records, the farmers' estimates of the incidence of disease, and independent observations of the behaviour and physical condition of the cows. The data were analysed to identify which measures of welfare were affected by FF membership and to assess the number of farms on which intervention would be required, as defined by a panel of 50 experts. The FF farms had better results for 12 of the welfare indicators, including those for mastitis, non-hock injuries, cow cleanliness and body condition, and poorer welfare indicators for eight of the measures, including hock injuries, lameness and restrictions in rising behaviour. Except for the prevalence of dull coats (which was lower on the FF farms) there were no significant differences in the proportions of FF and non-FF farms on which intervention was required according to the experts' assessment.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
K. M. D. Rutherford, F. M. Langford, M. C. Jack, L. Sherwood, A. B. Lawrence, and M. J. Haskell
Hock Injury Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors on Organic and Nonorganic Dairy Farms in the United Kingdom
J Dairy Sci, June 1, 2008; 91(6): 2265 - 2274.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Vet Rec.Home page
H. R. Whay, D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green, G. Heaven, H. Howell, M. Morgan, A. Pearson, and A. J. F. Webster
Assessment of the behaviour and welfare of laying hens on free-range units
Vet Rec., July 28, 2007; 161(4): 119 - 128.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME CURRENT ISSUE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARCHIVE SEARCH SUBSCRIPTIONS JOBS FEEDBACK HELP
Copyright © 2003 British Veterinary Association