Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin



    Anforderungen an die Bedingungen der Haltung, Fütterung und Unterbringung von Rindern gemäß § 2 des Tierschutzgesetzes und ihre Realisierung bei der Umstrukturierung landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe im Land Brandenburg (2001)

    Peters, Jens
    Berlin, 2001 — 187 Seiten
    Institut für Tierschutz und Tierverhalten

    Königsweg 67
    Gebäude 21, 1. OG
    14163 Berlin
    Tel.: +49 30 838 62901 (Sekretariat)
    email: tierschutz@vetmed.fu-berlin.de

    Abstract / Zusammenfassung

    As a result of the politic and economic changeover in 1989 many agricultural enterprises of the then GDR faced the threat ogf non-existence due to the transition to the marketing economy. Often the only solution was to restructure the enterprise or to found a new one. The Restructured enterprise s of Brandenburg had to fight economic difficulties. Under these conditions the danger arose that animal protection had to step aside in view of other problems. The object of he present study is to assess the state of the art of the Animal Protection Law an to realise the requirements to be met in compliance with §2 in restructured or newly founded enterprises in Brandenburg with different livestock keeping systems. Additionally, the reader is given a survey of the individual aspects of a keeping system suitable for animals and assessment systems of the state of meeting the natural needs of animals in an enterprise.§2 of the Animal Protection Law requires the keeping care duty to be met for domestic animals. The official explanation to they Animal Protection Law is in that the animal has to be given appropriate nutrition and care. The congenital species-specific and essential behaviour patterns of an animal are not allowed to be limited or changed a s to avoid pain, suffering or damage which can be caused to (1) the animal itself or (2) to an animal kept under such conditions by another animal.Livestock keeping systems meet the requires, if all the facilities with respects to shape, size and physical properties of the used materials satisfy the animal"s needs. The other needs, such as oxygen, food, water, disease prevention and protection from physical damage, also have to be met.To assess the suitability of such keeping systems the criteria or indicators from the following areas are: stable contrition, animal hygiene, animal behaviour and management. The indicators of the behaviour are: eating, social, resting and conform behaviour.The investigations were carried out according to Bock and in complacence with TGIF 2001994. The TGIF 200-1994 involves the decisive criteria in assessing keeping systems: assessment of the technical indicators of the keeping system related to the speciesspecific behaviour of the animals, the criteria of animal hygiene and care related do animal health or to the infection riskassessment of the functional interrelations of the movement, eating, social, resting and comfort behaviour. The assessment system after Rock is based on the concept of needs satisfaction and damage prevention by Tschanz. The system allows to assess the keeping methods plus animal behaviour.The enterprises A, B and C have been recruited from former agricultural cooperatives. They were restructured thus becoming agrarian societies.The stables were built before 1989.The enterprise D was founded after the political changeover and is specialised now on mother cow keeping. lit incorporates completely new, modern stables in the shape of outdoor front stables to accommodate the animals. The enterprises A, B and D use stables where cows ore allowed to move freely in combination with access to pasture, whereas the enterprise B keeps part of the animals emporarely there. The enterprise C adopts a tethering scheme all the year round.The experimental results show that the state of animal protection differs between the enterprises investigated. None of the keeping systems under study attains the necessary level of livestock keeping in all parameters analysed. The majority of the parameters of the four enterprises does not comply with the real requirements of livestock keeping. The enterprises were compared by using TGIF. As far as movement behaviour is concerned, The enterprise C is nearest to the real requirements of livestock keeping. The enterprise A come last. In the assessment of eating behaviour the running stable of the enterprise B ranks first and the enterprise D fourth. The best social behaviour is shown by the animals of enterprise C in the sense of TGI.The social behaviour can only be insufficiently realised in enterprise B. Enterprise D ist best in relation to resting and comfort behaviour. The conditions of hygiene are best provided by enterprises A and C, whilst enterprise B shows the most severe shortages in hygiene. The necessary level of care, its regard to animal welfare, is only achieved in enterprise B, whilst it is inadequate in enterprise C.A comparison of the enterprises was made by using the assessment system after Bock,,, Enterprise B obtained the best results in he assessment of nutrition behavior. The enterprises A and D, however, show greater deficiencies. The resting behaviour is best realised by the, animals of enterprise B, whilst in the enterprises A and B some deficiencies can be seem. Theenterprises A and D met the requirements of movement behaviour, whereas it was insufficientin enterprise B. In the enterprises studied, these are deficiencies in the fields of feedingresting an movement. The animal keeping level is only insufficient in enterprise C.Theclimatic factors relating to good livestock keeping has to be improved in all enterprises"studied. ~LFurthermore, a comparison was made with regard to the applicability and the results of the tosystems. The two systems are well usable and allow for assessments. In the use of thesystems, however, there were some items which should be remedied or improved