Italian Journal of Animal Science ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjas20 Farmers concerns in relation to organic livestock production Carmen L. Manuelian, Sophie Valleix, Héloïse Bugaut, Birgit Fuerst-Waltl, Luciana da Costa, Sara Burbi, Ulrich Schmutz, Adrian Evans, Nikolaos Katsoulas, Sofia Faliagka, Uygun Aksoy, Özge Çiçekli, Danuta Dróżdż, Krystyna Malińska, Lindsay Whistance, Marion Johnson, Lucas Knebl, Federico Righi & Massimo De Marchi To cite this article: Carmen L. Manuelian, Sophie Valleix, Héloïse Bugaut, Birgit Fuerst-Waltl, Luciana da Costa, Sara Burbi, Ulrich Schmutz, Adrian Evans, Nikolaos Katsoulas, Sofia Faliagka, Uygun Aksoy, Özge Çiçekli, Danuta Dróżdż, Krystyna Malińska, Lindsay Whistance, Marion Johnson, Lucas Knebl, Federico Righi & Massimo De Marchi (2023) Farmers concerns in relation to organic livestock production, Italian Journal of Animal Science, 22:1, 1268-1282, DOI: 10.1080/1828051X.2023.2252005 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2023.2252005 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 09 Nov 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 254 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjas20 ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE 2023, VOL. 22, NO. 1, 1268–1282 https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2023.2252005 RESEARCH ARTICLE Farmers concerns in relation to organic livestock production Carmen L. Manueliana,b , Sophie Valleixc , He loïse Bugautc, Birgit Fuerst-Waltld , Luciana da Costae f f , Sara Burbi , Ulrich Schmutz , Adrian Evansf , Nikolaos Katsoulasg , Sofia Faliagkag , Uygun Aksoy h € , Ozge Çiçeklih z_ dz_ i , Krystyna Malin , Danuta Dro skai , Lindsay Whistancej , Marion j k l Johnson , Lucas Knebl , Federico Righi and Massimo De Marchia a Dipartimento di Agronomia, Animali, Alimenti, Risorse naturali e Ambiente, University of Padova, Legnaro, Italy; bGroup de Recerca en Remugats (G2R), Departament de Ciencia Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain; cABioDoc Departement, VetAgro Sup, Lempdes, France; dDepartment of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria; eDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA; fCentre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR), Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom; gDepartment of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece; hAssociation of Ecological Agriculture Organization (ETO), Konak, _Izmir, Turkey; iFaculty of Infrastructure and Environment, Czestochowa University of Technology, Czestochowa, Poland; jOrganic Research Centre (ORC), Cirencester, Gloucestershire, UK; kForschungsring e.V, Darmstadt, Germany; l Dipartimento di Scienze Medico-Veterinarie, University of Parma, Parma, Italy ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The study describes organic producers’ perceptions of organic livestock production, product Received 30 May 2023 commercialisation, use of contentious inputs such as allopathic antibiotics, antiparasitics and Revised 13 August 2023 vitamins and bedding materials availability in Mediterranean (MED) and North/Western Accepted 21 August 2023 European (NWE) countries. A total of 426 MED (46.2%) and NWE (53.8%) responses were ana- KEYWORDS lysed revealing more difficulty finding information on alternatives to antiparasitics and antibiot- Organic farming; animal ics than on bedding materials. They identified ‘feeding/nutrition’, ‘animal health’ and ‘welfare’ as health; animal the most relevant topics in their farms. Whereas ruminants and monogastrics farmers in the management; phytotherapy; NWE region also indicated ‘organic regulation’ as relevant, farmers rearing ruminant species in contentious inputs the MED region identified farm profitability and commercialisation. Farmers still mainly relied in conventional treatments but they often applied phytotherapy, although >61% of the partici- pants did not treat their animals in the last year. If treated, most of them administered on aver- age one course of antibiotic treatment per animal (>62%). In the MED region, the main sources of information on alternative treatments were veterinarians (>60%) and the Internet (>32%). In the NWE region, it was other farmers for producers including ruminant species (>63%) and vet- erinarians (>77%) for monogastric farmers. In the NWE region, direct commercialisation and through a cooperative and/or food industry were the most frequent channel used; while, in the MED region, they were the food industry and/or direct commercialisation. In conclusion, this sur- vey provides novel cross-European insights into organic livestock producers’ concerns. A particu- lar value of the survey is that MED countries, which are often underrepresented, were well sampled. HIGHLIGHTS  Veterinarians were the main source of information on alternative treatments  The internet is gaining popularity to find information on alternative treatments  Perceptions slightly differed between North/Western and Mediterranean countries  Organic farmers still largely rely on conventional treatments  Phytotherapy is gaining popularity among organic farmers Introduction and nutritional products, and whose production is sen- Organic products are considered an attractive option sitive to the environment (Rana and Paul 2017), but for niche markets aimed at consumers who want safe producers still need to be aware of agroecological CONTACT Massimo De Marchi massimo.demarchi@unipd.it Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2023.2252005. ß 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE 1269 practices, the certification process and the marketing data collected through a large on-line survey about of organic products (Jouzi et al. 2017). Mirroring the farmers’ perception of organic livestock production, interest of consumers, the organic sector has grown product commercialisation, the use of contentious considerably in recent years in Europe. Between 2007 inputs in organic farming such as allopathic antibiotics, and 2015, organic poultry production showed the antiparasitics and vitamins and bedding materials greatest increase (þ108% heads), followed by beef availability. and dairy cattle (þ58% heads), pigs (þ46% heads), sheep (þ35% heads) and goats (þ15% heads) (Willer Materials and methods and Lernoud 2017). Moreover, organic milk production has almost doubled since 2007, from 2.7 to 4.7  103 Organic livestock farmers from 13 European Union (9 tons (Willer and Lernoud 2017). However, there is less EU; Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, research on organic than conventional production Ireland, Italy, Poland, Spain) and near-neighbouring (Jouzi et al. 2017; Manuelian et al. 2020). This seems countries (4 non-EU; Iceland, Norway, United Kingdom, contradictory because there are several practices per- Turkey) were surveyed. Information was collected ceived as contentious inputs in organic production through a self-administered anonymous questionnaire (e.g. use of allopathic antibiotics, antiparasitics and with multiple-choice or multiple-check questions; vitamins and availably of organic feed and bedding) open multiple-choice or multiple-check questions; that farmers need to face to make organic production semantic differential scale questions with scale from 1 more ‘organic’ and fulfil consumers’ expectations. (not relevant at all or very easy) to 7 (very relevant or In the European Union, farmers willing to sell in very difficult); and open short-answer questions. The these countries should follow the organic regulation online questionnaire was designed using the ‘Google (European Union 2018). Despite the organic production Form’ platform (Mountain View, CA). regulation in the European Union states that vitamins The questionnaire included 36 questions divided or provitamins used should be of natural origin, and into six sections: (i) knowledge and beliefs about phytotherapeutic and homoeopathic products should organic production; (ii) medication administration; (iii) be used as the first option, the regulation allows allo- vitamins and bedding; (iv) product commercialisation; pathic treatments (conventional medication) prescribed (v) general questions about the farm; and (vi) demo- by a veterinarian under specific situations without los- graphic questions (Supplementary Material S1). ing immediately their ‘organic’ status (European Union 2018). This suggests that organic legislation still allows Questionnaire development practices that consumers do not necessarily associate with ‘organic production’. Moreover, perception could A coordinator multi-country group of five academic be influenced by the geographical area. For example, experts in livestock and organic farming, social scien- German- and English-speaking countries and France tists and experts in designing questionnaires devel- have longer organic farming traditions and philosophies oped the questionnaire in English. Questions structure than Mediterranean countries (Lockeretz 2007), which and wording were designed following Dillman (2007) could influence farmers’ perceptions and worries recommendations and ordered from the most salient regarding organic livestock farming. to the least one, with objectionable and demographic Conducting a multi-country survey study by multi- questions at the end to reduce the non-response rate. language approach offers the possibility to cover a The total number of questions was minimised to avoid wide surface and participants’ characteristics to deterioration of data quality and were divided into achieve a better representativeness of organic farmers. sections to keep each section response time under the Moreover, web surveys have gained popularity due to threshold of 30 min suggested by Dufour et al. (2010). shorter delivery time, lower delivery cost, additional A control question –in two different sections and with design options and shorter data entry time (Fan and different wording– was included to ensure that only Yan 2010). In addition, web surveys also are more flex- certified organic farmers participated in the study. ible in terms of when the survey can be completed, The resulting questionnaire was evaluated during may be less intimidating than interviews and help the pilot testing by different researchers. They verified solve language limitations. if all the necessary questions were included, if all pos- Thus, the aim of this study was to describe the views sible answers were considered for each question, if of organic livestock farmers in the Mediterranean (MED) words were understandable and if the layout was clear and North/Western European (NWE) countries, by using and easy to follow. Any adjustment needed was 1270 C. L. MANUELIAN ET AL. discussed with the coordinator group and applied to Results for continuous variables are presented as the questionnaire. mean ± standard error, semantic differential scale as Then, the questionnaire was translated into seven median with interquartile range (IQR) and other dis- languages (French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, crete variables as relative frequency with 95% confi- Spanish, and Turkish), adapting Brislin’s translation dence interval (95%CI) for proportions expressed as model (Dufour et al. 2010) considering the English ver- percentage. The analysis was performed with SAS v9.4 sion as the original document. Briefly, an expert in ani- (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and Microsoft Excel 2016 mal production with a high English level whose (Microsoft Office Professional Plus, Microsoft mother tongue was the final target language trans- Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA). lated the questionnaire. Any disagreement between the English version and the translated one was dis- Results cussed, solved and corrected with the responsible in the coordinator group. The English version was always Participants’ characteristics considered as the original document and corrections From a total of 499 response, 426 questionnaires were were only made in the translated version to be sure of retained for the analysis. France (31.7%) and Spain maintaining the same original document. In a second (27.2%) were the countries with the largest contribu- pilot testing phase, the links to the English, French, tion to the sample, followed by Austria (11.0%) and Italian and Spanish questionnaires were tested with a Greece (9.9%; Supplementary Figure S1). Overall, par- group of four farmers followed by a personal interview ticipants were equally distributed between the MED and minor wording adjustments were made based on (46.2%) and NWE (53.8%) regions. their feedback. Participants’ characteristics are displayed in Supplementary Table S1. In both regions, men between 31 and 60 years old mainly filled out the questionnaire. Dissemination of the survey Participants identified themselves as consumers of The population sample was selected by a non-prob- organic products and indicated ethical considerations ability sampling technique (Baker et al. 2013) to as the main reason for becoming organic farmers. achieve similar participation within the MED and NWE Despite most participants coursed higher education regions. The questionnaire link was distributed directly studies, in MED countries a slightly greater participation to farmers or people related to/in contact with organic of farmers with a high school diploma participated livestock farmers by e-mail as this could be perceived when considering the different higher education study as a more ‘personal’ request and increases the levels listed. While questionnaires were mainly com- chance of response (Daikeler et al. 2020). Broadcasting pleted by the owner/co-owner in the MED region, both channels (e.g. email newsletters, websites, twitter feed) farm owner/co-owner or manager/herdsman partici- from associations or research institutes were also pated in the NWE region equally. Moreover, a greater used. Due to the difficulties recruiting participants in proportion of NWE than MED participants were affili- Denmark and Greece, the survey was conducted by ated with an organic producers’ association. telephone in these countries. The questionnaire was Concerning the type of production (Supplementary available for 4 months (Nov. 2018–Feb. 2019). Table S2), in both regions, most farmers reared only one species, but in the NWE region more producers had multispecies farms, which increased the propor- Statistical analysis tion of what we classified as ‘mixed farms’. In both Prior to the analysis, questionnaires in disagreement regions, participation of ruminant farms was more fre- with the control question or duplicate participation quent, and beef, dairy cattle and sheep production were discarded (73 out of 499). Questionnaires were were the most frequent activities. classified by the region (MED: Greece, Italy, Spain, In general, in both regions, farms employed a Turkey; NWE: Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, median of 2 persons (IQR: 1 to 3 persons; n ¼ 424 Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, United Kingdom) and farms), with IQR slightly wider in monogastric farms in by the species in the farm (only ruminants: cows, the MED (1 to 5 persons; n ¼ 30 farms) than NWE sheep and goats; only monogastrics: laying hens, region (1 to 3.5 persons; n ¼ 30 farms) and wider than poultry-meat, pigs, equine, rabbits, fishes and bees; in ruminant (1 to 3 persons; n ¼ 238 farms) and mixed mixed: both ruminants and monogastrics). farms (2 to 3 persons; n ¼ 117 farms). ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE 1271 Farms in the NWE than the MED region had a lon- ‘feeding and nutrition’, ‘animal health’ and ‘animal wel- ger organic tradition, in particular when referring to fare’ (Figure 2). In the MED region, ruminants farmers farms raising ruminant species. In the NWE region, half also identified ‘diseases (incidence, treatment, preven- of the ruminant farms had been certified as organic in tion)’, ‘farm profitability’, ‘commercialisation of the the last 8.5 years (IQR: 2 to 18 years; n ¼ 116 farms); organic products’ and ‘labour’ as relevant as the issues monogastric farms, in the last 7.5 years (IQR: 3 to previously mentioned (Figure 2). Similarly, mixed farm- 14 years; n ¼ 28 farms); and mixed farms, in the last ers also mentioned ‘diseases (incidence, treatment, pre- 14 years (IQR: 4 to 20 years; n ¼ 78 farms). In the MED vention)’, ‘farm profitability’, ‘commercialisation of the region, half of the ruminant farms had been certified organic products’ and ‘farm dimension and land avail- as organic in the last 4 years (IQR: 1 to 13 years; ability’ as the most relevant issues (Figure 2). In add- n ¼ 123 farms); monogastric farms, in the last 7 years ition, monogastrics farmers only identified as less (IQR: 3 to 10 years; n ¼ 31 farms); and mixed farms, in relevant ‘farm profitability’ (Figure 2). In the NWE the last 10 years (IQR: 5 to 16 years; n ¼ 39 farms). region, ruminants and monogastrics farmers also indi- cated ‘regulation’ as relevant as ‘feeding and nutrition’, ‘animal health’ and ‘animal welfare’ (Figure 2). Knowledge and beliefs about organic production In the MED region, ruminants and mixed farmers matters identified ‘welfare’, ‘animal health’, ‘land availability’ In the MED region, ruminants farmers believed that it and ‘access to the organic market’ as the most impor- was more difficult to find comprehensive information tant barriers to becoming an organic producer regarding alternatives to ‘allopathic antibiotics’ and (Figure 3). Monogastrics farmers also included ‘allopathic antiparasitics’; monogastrics and mixed ‘production cost’ (Figure 3). In the NWE region, rumi- farmers also added ‘synthetic vitamins’ to the most nants and mixed farmers’ most important barriers difficult topics (Figure 1). In the NWE region, ruminant were ‘legislation restrictions’ and ‘production cost’; farmers also identify those three arguments as more and for monogastric farmers ‘infectious diseases, vita- difficult to find comprehensive information on alterna- min deficiencies and parasite control effectivity’ tives (Figure 1). On the other hand, monogastrics and (Figure 3). In general, lower punctuation was assigned mixed farmers only indicated ‘allopathic antibiotics’ to those barriers in the MED than in the NWE region. and ‘allopathic antiparasitics’, respectively, as the most difficult topic (Figure 1). Finding information about Frequent health issues declared by the farmers ‘rules and regulations on organic production’ and and preference of treatments ‘bedding alternatives’ seemed easier compared to the other topics in both regions (Figure 1). Despite most farmers indicated not administering anti- Moreover, the most relevant issues identified by the biotic treatments during 2018 (MED, 62.2%–64.5%; farmers in both regions and for all productions were NWE, 61.3%–77.8%), the proportion was usually lower Figure 1. Difficulty (median) declared by the farmers to find comprehensive information on animal organic production regarding different topics (1 ¼ very easy; 7 ¼ very difficult). MED, Mediterranean; NWE, North/Western Europe; mixed, ruminants and monogastrics. 1272 C. L. MANUELIAN ET AL. Figure 2. Importance (median) indicated by farmers to several issues as organic livestock producers (1 ¼ not relevant at all; 7 ¼ very relevant). MED, Mediterranean; NWE, North/Western Europe; Mixed, ruminants and monogastrics. in the MED than the NWE region (Supplementary problems/external parasites’ (26.1%) and ‘respiratory Table S3) as a greater proportion of farmers treated diseases’ (26.1%). For mixed farmers, they were more than 80% of their animals with antibiotics in the ‘internal parasites’ (58.7%), ‘mastitis’ (33.3%) and MED (11.5%–19.4%) than NWE region (4.5%–10.4%; ‘lameness’ (33.3%). Additionally, ‘abnormal behaviour’ Supplementary Table S3). In both regions and all spe- was also frequently selected (21.7%) by monogastric cies categories, most of them (MED, 62.5%–93.3%; farmers in the NWE region. NWE, 70.0%–76.5%) administered on average one Due to the interaction observed between health course of antibiotic treatment per animal issues and species category, and the low number of (Supplementary Table S3). responses for each health issue within the region, the As displayed in Table 1, the three most frequent information regarding the preference of treatments is diseases in the MED region for ruminants were not presented by species category and region. ‘mastitis’ (50.0%), ‘pre-stomacal/gastrointestinal dis- Although conventional treatments were still used eases and diarrhoea’ (34.2%) and ‘internal parasites’ (50%) for almost all health issues, farmers recorded (30.0%). For monogastric and mixed farms, they were the use of alternative treatments (i.e. plant products, ‘pre-stomacal/gastrointestinal diseases and diarrhoea’ homeopathy and/or probiotics) in all pathology (44.8% and 35.3%, respectively), ‘internal parasites’ groups (Figure 4). Exclusive use of alternative treat- (44.8% and 38.2%, respectively) and ‘skin problems/ex- ments was above 50% when referring to ‘pre-stoma- ternal parasites’ (37.9% and 35.3%, respectively). In the cal/gastrointestinal diseases and diarrhoea’ (66.8%; NWE region, the three most frequent diseases for 95%CI, 60.4%–73.3%), ‘abnormal behaviour’ (62.5%; ruminants were ‘internal parasites’ (50.9%), ‘lameness’ 95%CI, 42.1%–82.9%), ‘skin problems/external para- (42.7%) and ‘mastitis’ (40.0%). For monogastrics, they sites’ (59.5%; 95%CI, 52.1%–66.9%), ‘neonatal/develop- were ‘internal parasites’ (60.9%), ‘pre-stomacal/gas- ment abnormalities’ (57.7%; 95%CI, 37.7%–77.7%) and trointestinal diseases and diarrhoea’ (34.8%), ‘skin ‘footpad lesions’ (57.4%; 95%CI, 44.2%–70.6%). ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE 1273 Figure 3. Importance (median) of several issues when becoming organic producers based on the farmers’ perception (1 ¼ not relevant at all; 7 ¼ very relevant). MED, Mediterranean; NWE, North/Western Europe; Mixed, ruminants and monogastrics. Amongst all proposed alternative treatments (plant In all species categories, NWE producers usually products, homeopathic products and/or probiotics), obtained information about the use of natural prod- plant products were chosen more frequently, exclu- ucts and plant extracts through different sources of sively or along with other alternative or conventional information (83.3%–87.7%), whereas MED producers treatments (Figure 5) and, particularly, when treating relied either on one (32.3–45.0) or several (55.0%– ‘skin problems/external parasites’ (87.5%; 95%CI, 64.5%) sources (Supplementary Table S3). In the 81.4%–93.6%) and ‘internal parasites’ (82.4%; 95%CI, MED region, the most important source for all farm- 75.9%–88.8%). Homeopathy was selected exclusively ers was ‘veterinarians’ (60.5%–70.0%) followed by or along with other alternative or conventional treat- ‘the internet’ (32.5%–53.3%; Table 1). In the NWE ments by about 50% of the farmers treating region, the most important source for ruminants and ‘metabolic disease’ (60.0%; 95%CI, 49.1%–70.9%), mixed farmers was ‘other farmers’ (63.2% and 66.7%, ‘lameness’ (48.1%; 95%CI, 37.0%–59.3%), ‘mastitis’ respectively) and for monogastrics farmers were (48.1%; 95%CI, 37.0%–59.3%) and ‘reproductive disea- ‘veterinarians’ (77.8%; Table 1). Moreover, for rumi- ses/infertility’ (48.1%; 95%CI, 37.0%–59.3%). Probiotics nants and mixed farmers, ‘cooperative/association of were rarely selected exclusively or along with other farmers’ seemed more relevant in the NWE (28.1% alternative or conventional treatments and only in and 30.7%, respectively) than in the MED region cases of ‘pre-stomacal/gastrointestinal diseases and (11.7% and 2.6%, respectively; Table 1). diarrhoea’ (27.0%; 95%CI, 17.1%–37.0%). 1274 C. L. MANUELIAN ET AL. Table 1. Frequent health issues and sources of information about the use of natural products and plant extracts by productive category and region (MED, Mediterranean; NWE, North/Western Europe) expressed as relative frequency (95% confidence interval). Trait Ruminants Monogastrics Mixeda Frequent health issues b MED (n ¼ 120) MED (n ¼ 29) MED (n ¼ 34) NWE (n ¼ 1110) NWE (n ¼ 23) NWE (n ¼ 75) Internal parasites 30.0 (21.8–38.2) 44.8 (25.9–63.7) 38.2 (22.0–54.5) 50.9 (41.6–60.2) 60.9 (39.8–82.0) 58.7 (47.6–69.8) Mastitis 50.0 (41.1–58.9) 6.9 (0–16.5) 32.4 (16.7–48.0) 40.0 (30.9–49.1) 4.3 (0–13.2) 33.3 (22.7–43.9) Lameness 28.3 (20.3–36.4) 3.4 (0–10.4) 32.4 (16.7–48.0) 42.7 (33.5–51.9) 17.4 (1.0–33.8) 33.3 (22.7–43.9) Pre-stomacal/gastrointestinal diseases/diarrhoea 34.2 (25.7–42.6) 44.8 (25.9–63.7) 35.3 (19.3–51.3) 24.5 (16.5–32.5) 34.8 (14.2–55.4) 20.0 (11.0–29.0) Respiratory diseases 30.8 (22.6–39.1) 24.1 (7.9–40.4) 23.5 (9.3–37.7) 23.6 (15.7–31.5) 26.1 (7.1–45.1) 25.3 (15.5–35.1) Skin problems/external parasites 19.2 (12.2–26.2) 37.9 (19.5–56.4) 35.3 (19.3–51.3) 20.0 (12.6–27.4) 26.1 (7.1–45.1) 28.0 (17.9–38.1) Reproductive diseases/infertility 26.7 (18.8–34.5) 3.4 (0–10.4) 8.8 (0–18.3) 30.9 (22.3–39.5) 17.4 (1.0–33.8) 24.0 (14.4–33.6) Footpad lesions 14.2 (8.0–20.4) 13.8 (0.7–26.9) 8.8 (0–18.3) 4.5 (0.7–8.4) 8.7 (0–20.9) 1.3 (0–3.9) Metabolic diseases 6.7 (2.2–11.1) – – 11.8 (5.8–17.8) – 9.3 (2.8–15.9) Abnormal behaviour 0.8 (0–2.5) 3.4 (0–10.4) 2.9 (0–8.6) 0.9 (0–2.7) 21.7 (3.9–39.6) 4.0 (0–8.4) Others 5.0 (1.1–8.9) 10.3 (0–21.9) 14.7 (2.9–26.5) 2.7 (0–5.8) – – Sources of information sources about the use of natural MED (n ¼ 120) MED (n ¼ 30) MED (n ¼ 38) products and plant extracts useda NWE (n ¼ 114) NWE (n ¼ 27) NWE (n ¼ 75) Veterinarian 64.2 (55.6–72.7) 70.0 (53.7–86.3) 60.5 (45.1–76.0) 38.6 (29.7–47.5) 77.8 (61.3–94.2) 45.3 (56.1–77.3) Other farmers 25.0 (17.3–32.7) 30.0 (13.7–46.3) 23.7 (10.2–37.1) 63.2 (54.3–5.6) 33.3 (14.7–52.0) 66.7 (56.1–77.3) Internet 32.5 (24.2–40.8) 53.3 (35.6–71.1) 39.5 (24.0–54.9) 31.6 (23.1–40.1) 59.3 (39.8–78.7) 48.0 (36.8–59.2) Magazines/journals 13.3 (7.3–19.4) 16.7 (3.4–29.9) 23.7 (10.2–37.1) 36.8 (28.0–45.7) 18.5 (3.1–33.9) 46.7 (35.4–57.9) School/courses 18.3 (11.4–25.2) 26.7 (10.9–42.4) 26.3 (12.4–40.2) 21.9 (14.4–29.5) 29.6 (11.6–47.7) 28.0 (17.9–38.1) Specialised meetings 16.7 (10.0–23.3) 20.0 (5.8–34.2) 15.8 (4.3–27.3) 23.7 (15.9–31.4) 22.2 (5.8–38.7) 32.0 (21.5–42.5) Independent consultant 15.0 (8.6–21.4) 16.7 (3.4–29.9) 13.2 (2.5–23.9) 26.3 (18.3–34.4) 18.5 (3.1–33.9) 25.3 (15.5–35.1) Cooperative/association of farmers 11.7 (6.0–17.4) 10.0 (0–20.7) 2.6 (0–7.7) 28.1 (19.9–36.3) 11.0 (0–23.5) 30.7 (20.3–41.0) Feed industry 9.2 (4.0–14.3) 10.0 (0–20.7) 2.6 (0–7.7) 3.5 (0.1–6.9) 11.0 (0–23.5) 6.7 (1.1–12.3) a Mixed, ruminants and monogastrics. b Question with multi-check response. Preference of vitamins use and voluntary On the other hand, in the NWE region, only monogastric vaccination farms either used or not voluntary vaccination whereas in ruminants (23.3%) and mixed (17.9%) farms, fewer In the MED region, most farmers do not include vitamin farmers applied voluntary vaccination (Table 2). additives in the animals’ feed (67.5%–89.7%; Table 2). However, in the NWE region, the proportion of farmers Housing and bedding materials preference that knowingly used vitamin additives (42.3%–50.0%) was similar to those that declared not using them In the MED region, most ruminant (59.0%), monogastric (50.0%–57.7%; Table 2). Considering the farmers that (60.0%) and mixed (46.2%) farmers kept their animals in added vitamins (MED, 55; NWE, 151), in both regions ‘free-stalls with an external paddock or in free-range most of them used natural vitamins (MED, 53.7%; NWE, with movable sheds’ (Table 2). Moreover, a same propor- 55.4%; Supplementary Table S2). tion of mixed farmers also kept their animals on ‘pasture’ In the MED region, ruminants and monogastrics farm- (46.2%; Table 2). In the NWE region, most ruminants ers either used or did not voluntary vaccination whereas (27.6%) and monogastric (48.1%) farmers kept their ani- in mixed farms fewer farmers applied voluntary vaccin- mals either in ‘free-stalls with an external paddock or in ation (23.1%) than those who did not use it (Table 2). free range with movable sheds’ (Table 2). Ruminants ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE 1275 Figure 4. Treatments selected by livestock producers based on the health issue. Black, only conventional treatments; Grey, con- ventional and alternative treatments; white, only alternative treatments. farmers also kept their animals in ‘free-stall with stalls or 50% of the production (Table 3). A small proportion cubicles with loose housing’ in a high proportion (25.9%; of participants manufacture their own products, but Table 2). On the other hand, most mixed farmers kept this proportion was slightly higher on ruminant and their animals either on ‘pasture’ (32.1%) or in ‘free-stalls mixed farms in the NWE than MED region (Table 3). with an external paddock or in free range with movable In the MED region, most farmers raising ruminant sheds’ (29.5%; Table 2). species sold their products only through one com- From the different bedding materials proposed in mercial channel, whereas monogastric farms either Table 2, straw was the most frequently used one, regard- used one or more channels (Table 3). In the NWE less of the region and species category. However, a region, all farmers’ categories used up to 3 different lower proportion was observed in the MED (48.4%– channels (Table 3). 83.7%) than the NWE (78.6%–93.1%) region. In rumi- Looking into the specific commercialisation chan- nants and mixed farms, sawdust and synthetic mat- nels that farmers selected, preferences showed some tresses were used more often in the NWE (Ruminants, differences between regions, with sales ‘to a coopera- 11.2% and 14.7%, respectively; Mixed, 16.7% and 7.7%, tive’ as more relevant in the NWE than the MED respectively) than the MED region (Ruminants, 3.3% and region (Table 3). Moreover, in the MED region, 7.3%, respectively; Mixed, 2.6% and none, respectively). ‘internet sales’ represented a relatively important Moreover, wood shavings were used more often in the share, particularly for mixed farms (Table 3). In the NWE (14.1%) than the MED region (2.6%). MED region, most ruminant farmers sold ‘to the food industry’, ‘directly on their own farms’ and/or ‘in local markets’. Most monogastrics farmers sold ‘in local mar- Commercialisation and added value of organic kets’, ‘directly on their own farms’ and/or ‘to the food products industry’. Most mixed farms sold ‘directly on their own In both regions, most monogastric and mixed farm- farms’, ‘to the food industry’, ‘in local markets’ and/or ers sell all their production as organic (Table 3). ‘internet sales’. In the NWE region, most ruminant However, ruminant farmers had greater difficulty sell- farmers sold ‘to a cooperative’, ‘directly on their own ing their production as organic because a greater farms’ and ‘to the food industry’. Most monogastrics proportion stated that they sold as organic less than farmers sold ‘directly on their own farms’, ‘in local 1276 C. L. MANUELIAN ET AL. Figure 5. Alternative treatments are preferred for several health issues. Dark grey, using plant products treatments; Grey, using homeopathic treatments; light grey, using probiotics treatments; solid colours, exclusive selection of an alternative treatment. Data above 100% are due to using a multi-check question. markets’, ‘to the food industry’ and/or ‘to a coopera- however, during 2018 internet access in Northern tive’. Most mixed farms sold ‘directly on their own Europe, Western Europe and Southern Europe was farms’, ‘to a cooperative’ and/or ‘in local markets’. 95%, 94% and 88%, respectively (Kemp 2019). Moreover, rural areas can lag behind in digital access and new information and communication technology Discussion (ICT), and there are digital disparities even within a Limitations of the study developed economy (Basu and Chakraborty 2011). Nevertheless, organic livestock farms tend to be man- Despite it is not possible to generalise from the results aged by younger farmers with a higher level of educa- due to the intrinsic limitations of the study design, the tion than conventional ones (Rigby et al. 2001; Kings total number of responses (nearly 500) is remarkable and Ilbery 2010; European Commission 2016). as well as the high participation of MED organic farm- Although we did not survey conventional farms, our ers. It is worth noting that less than 3.8% of animals participants’ profile in terms of age and education for each species in Europe are raised organically level, in particular in the NWE region, were in agree- (Willer et al. 2020), and we are not aware of a similar ment with the current situation on organic farms survey among organic livestock farmers in Europe. (Padel 2001; European Commission 2016; Blanco- Other limitations worth to mention is that we con- Penedo et al. 2019). These factors combined with rural ducted a web survey not allowing us to calculate the isolation and the need for connectivity to share and response rate because we did not know how many acquire information (Burbi and Rose 2016) could farmers had access to the questionnaire. In addition, internet access could be a barrier in our study, ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE 1277 Table 2. Use of vitamin additives, voluntary vaccination and type of barn by productive category and region (MED, Mediterranean; NWE, North/Western Europe) expressed as relative frequency (95% confidence interval). Trait Ruminants Monogastrics Mixeda Use of vitamin additives MED (n ¼ 123) MED (n ¼ 31) MED (n ¼ 39) NWE (n ¼ 116) NWE (n ¼ 28) NWE (n ¼ 78) Yes 32.5 (24.3–40.8) 32.3 (15.9–48.6) 10.3 (0.8–19.7) 45.7 (36.7–54.7) 50.0 (30.6–69.4) 42.3 (31.4–53.2) No 67.5 (59.2–75.7) 67.7 (51.4–84.1) 89.7 (80.3–99.2) 54.3 (45.3–63.3) 50.0 (30.6–69.4) 57.7 (46.8–68.6) Voluntary vaccination MED (n ¼ 123) MED (n ¼ 31) MED (n ¼ 39) NWE (n ¼ 116) NWE (n ¼ 28) NWE (n ¼ 78) Yes 53.7 (44.9–62.4) 48.4 (30.9–65.9) 23.1 (9.9–36.2) 23.3 (15.6–30.9) 46.4 (27.1–65.8) 17.9 (9.5–26.4) No 46.3 (37.6–55.1) 51.6 (34.1–69.1) 76.9 (63.8–90.1) 76.7 (69.1–84.4) 53.6 (34.2–72.9) 82.1 (73.6–90.5) Type of barnb MED (n ¼ 122) MED (n ¼ 30) MED (n ¼ 39) NWE (n ¼ 116) NWE (n ¼ 27) NWE (n ¼ 78) Mixed (free-stall with external paddock/free range in movable sheds) 59.0 (50.3–67.7) 60.0 (42.6–77.4) 46.2 (30.6–61.7) 27.6 (19.5–35.7) 48.1 (28.4–67.9) 29.5 (19.4–39.6) Pasture 20.5 (13.4–27.6) 13.3 (1.2–25.4) 46.2 (30.6–61.7) 19.0 (11.9–26.1) 25.9 (8.6–43.3) 32.1 (21.7–42.4) Free-stall with stalls/Cubicles with loose housing 9.0 (4.0–14.1) 3.3 (0–9.7) 2.6 (0–7.5) 25.9 (17.9–33.8) 11.1 (0–23.5) 26.9 (17.1–36.7) Free-stall with bedding/Loose housing in straw 7.4 (2.8–12.0) 10.0 (0–20.7) 5.1 (0–12.0) 20.7 (13.4–28.0) 11.1 (0–23.5) 14.1 (6.4–21.8) Animal tethered (not free to move) 6.6 (2.2–10.9) – 10.3 (0.8–19.7) 6.9 (2.3–11.5) – 2.6 (0–6.1) Other 0.8 (0–2.4) 13.3 (1.2–25.4) 2.6 (0–7.5) 2.6 (0–5.5) 3.7 (0–11.2) 1.3 (0–3.8) Bedding materialsc MED (n ¼ 123) MED (n ¼ 31) MED (n ¼ 39) NWE (n ¼ 116) NWE (n ¼ 28) NWE (n ¼ 78) Straw 83.7 (77.3–90.2) 48.4 (30.9–65.9) 69.2 (54.8–83.6) 93.1 (88.5–97.7) 78.6 (62.7–94.5) 92.3 (86.4–98.2) Waste hay 12.2 (6.4–17.9) 6.5 (0–15.1) 10.3 (0.8–19.7) 19.0 (11.9–26.1) 7.1 (0–17.1) 24.4 (14.9–33.8) No bedding/compacted soil 6.5 (2.2–10.8) 12.9 (1.2–24.6) 23.1 (9.9–36.2) 0.9 (0–2.5) 3.6 (0–10.8) – Sand 2.4 (0–5.2) – – 1.7 (0–4.1) – 1.3 (0-3.8) Sawdust 3.3 (0.1–6.4) 3.2 (0–9.4) 2.6 (0–7.5) 11.2 (5.5–16.9) 3.6 (0–10.8) 16.7 (8.4–24.9) Mattress for animals 7.3 (2.7–11.9) – – 14.7 (8.3–21.1) – 7.7 (1.8–13.6) Wood shavings 3.3 (0.1–6.4) 6.5 (0–15.1) 2.6 (0–7.5) 4.3 (0.6–8.0) 3.6 (0–10.8) 14.1 (6.4–21.8) Coconut fibre 0.8 (0–2.4) – – – – – Other 3.3 (0.1–6.4) 6.5 (0–15.1) 12.8 (2.4–23.3) 6.0 (1.7–10.3) 7.1 (0–17.1) 5.1 (0.3–10.0) a Mixed, ruminants and monogastrics. b Question with multi-check response. c Yes-No question for each type of bedding material. suggest a greater use of ICT and internet access, of the agricultural sector in the European Union increasing the chances to participate in an online (European Comission 2016; Blanco-Penedo et al. 2019). survey. Participants’ distribution by age group was in agree- Therefore, despite the limitations of this survey ment with the current situation on organic farms study, we are confident that the results we are pre- (Padel 2001; European Comission 2016; Blanco-Penedo senting could help fill the gap of information regard- et al. 2019), as was their higher education level (Padel ing the perception of organic farmers in organic 2001; Kings and Ilbery 2010). Most participants indi- livestock production. cated ethical considerations as the main reason for becoming organic farmers, which is in agreement with the reported ideology behind this type of production Participants’ characteristics (Lockeretz 2007). Participants’ profiles in terms of gender matched the The existing longer organic farming tradition and characteristics of the agricultural sector: the lower par- philosophy in German- and English-speaking countries ticipation of women mirrored the gender gap typical and France (Lockeretz 2007) could support the greater 1278 C. L. MANUELIAN ET AL. Table 3. Commercialisation of the production/products by productive category and region (MED, Mediterranean; NWE, North/Western Europe) expressed as relative frequency (95% confidence interval). Trait Ruminants Monogastrics Mixeda Sell as organic MED (n ¼ 122) MED (n ¼ 31) MED (n ¼ 39) NWE (n ¼ 115) NWE (n ¼ 27) NWE (n ¼ 78) 50% of the production 28.7 (20.7–36.7) 9.7 (0–20.0) 12.8 (2.4–23.3) 30.4 (22.1–36.7) 11.1 (0–23.5) 15.4 (7.4–23.4) 51–70% of the production 6.6 (2.2–10.9) 6.5 (0–15.1) 5.1 (0–12.0) 7.0 (2.3–11.6) – 1.3 (0–3.8) 71–99% of the production 17.2 (10.5–23.9) 9.7 (0–20.0) 10.3 (0.8–19.7) 17.4 (10.5–24.3) 7.4 (0–17.8) 16.7 (8.4–24.9) 100% of the production 47.5 (38.7–56.4) 74.2 (58.9–89.5) 71.8 (57.7–85.8) 45.2 (36.2–54.3) 81.5 (66.1–96.9) 66.7 (56.3–77.1) Manufacture their own products MED (n ¼ 118) MED (n ¼ 31) MED (n ¼ 39) NWE (n ¼ 115) NWE (n ¼ 27) NWE (n ¼ 78) Yes 18.6 (11.7–25.6) 19.4 (5.5–33.2) 23.1 (9.9–36.2) 24.3 (16.5–32.2) 18.5 (3.1–33.9) 37.2 (26.5–47.9) No 81.4 (74.4–88.3) 80.6 (66.8–94.5) 76.9 (63.8–90.1) 75.7 (67.8–83.5) 81.5 (66.1–96.9) 62.8 (52.1–73.5) n of commercial channels MED (n ¼ 114) MED (n ¼ 29) MED (n ¼ 39) NWE (n ¼ 115) NWE (n ¼ 26) NWE (n ¼ 77) 1 68.4 (59.9–76.9) 48.3 (29.3–67.3) 53.8 (38.3–69.4) 51.3 (42.2–60.4) 42.3 (22.3–62.3) 32.5 (22.1–42.9) 2 18.4 (11.3–25.5) 20.7 (5.3–36.1) 20.5 (7.9–33.1) 34.8 (26.1–43.4) 38.5 (18.8–58.1) 32.8 (26.1–43.4) 3 10.5 (4.9–16.1) 27.6 (10.6–44.6) 23.1 (9.9–36.2) 12.2 (6.2–18.1) 19.2 (3.3–35.2) 22.1 (12.9–31.3) 4 2.6 (0–5.6) 3.4 (0–10.4) 2.6 (0–7.5) 1.7 (0–4.1) – 1.3 (0–3.8) Commercial channelsb MED (n ¼ 114) MED (n ¼ 29) MED (n ¼ 39) NWE (n ¼ 115) NWE (n ¼ 26) NWE (n ¼ 77) Directly in the farm 33.3 (24.7–41.9) 44.8 (25.9–63.7) 69.2 (54.8–83.6) 45.2 (36.2–54.3) 61.5 (41.9–81.2) 67.5 (57.1–77.9) To the food industry 53.5 (44.4–62.6) 34.5 (16.4–52.6) 33.3 (18.6–48.1) 31.3 (22.9–39.7) 26.9 (9.0–44.8) 23.4 (14.0–32.8) To a cooperative 15.8 (9.1–22.4) 13.8 (0.7–26.9) 10.3 (0.8–19.7) 51.3 (42.2–60.4) 26.9 (9.0–44.8) 46.8 (35.7–57.8) In local markets 22.8 (15.1–30.5) 65.5 (47.4–83.6) 25.6 (12.0–39.3) 22.6 (15.0–30.2) 42.3 (22.3–62.3) 32.5 (22.1–42.9) Internet (web market) 11.4 (5.6–17.2) 17.2 (2.9–31.6) 25.6 (12.0–39.3) 7.0 (2.3–11.6) 7.7 (0–18.5) 9.1 (2.7–15.5) To other farmers 6.1 (1.8–10.5) – – 0.9 (0–2.6) 11.5 (0–24.4) 3.9 (0–8.2) Others 4.4 (0.6–8.1) 10.3 (0–21.2) 10.3 (0.8–19.7) 6.1 (1.7–10.4) – 9.1 (2.7–15.5) a Mixed, ruminants and monogastrics. b Question with multi-check response. proportion of NWE than MED participants affiliated to Farmers’ position on bedding alternatives in an organic producers’ association we observed. As organic production well as the greater participation of younger farms in the MED than the NWE region and the greater partici- Most farmers declared using straw as bedding mater- pation of multispecies farms in the NWE than the MED ial, in agreement with other studies on dairy cattle region. Moreover, a huge growth of organic product carried out at the European level (Blanco-Penedo et al. sales (þ175.8% from 2008 to 2018) and organic pro- 2019). Although the origin of the straw was not speci- ducers (þ85.5% from 2008 to 2018) has been regis- fied in the survey, the availability of organic straw for tered in the last decade (FiBL 2020). bedding/litter is quite limited. For example, in Spain In both regions, the amount of labour observed in only 3.4% of cultivated surface for cereal-grain produc- our study is in agreement with a study of European tion was managed organically in 2018 (MAPA 2020). organic dairy cattle farms that showed a median of That means that the lack of organic straw forces 2–3 full-time workers (Blanco-Penedo et al. 2019). In organic farmers to use conventional straw as bedding addition, the wider range we recorded in monogas- material—which is allowed in organic production— trics than in ruminant farms is in line with the results which carries the residues of pesticide treatments dur- obtained in several European countries in a recent ing its production. Therefore, there is little incentive to bibliographic review (Orsini et al. 2018). look for alternatives. That could explain why farmers ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE 1279 perceive that they can easily find information on alter- In both regions, a high proportion of ruminant and natives for bedding materials in organic production. monogastric producers indicated internal parasites as However, as the availability of organic straw is limited, a major health problem, in agreement with reviews by farmers need information about alternatives to straw Sutherland et al. (2013) and Escobar (2016). Parasite (e.g. untreated wood shavings leaf litter, bracken) in infestation is more frequent in poultry and pigs under organic production and awareness on that topic has organic production because animals have regular out- to be raised. Moreover, more research to develop and door access compared to intensively conventionally test potential bedding material for organic production managed animals (Kijlstra and Eijck 2006). Parasites and dissemination of the findings are needed. may be one cause of ‘pre-gastric or gastrointestinal/- diarrhoea’ problems, a common health issue selected by farmers. Farmers’ position on alternatives for synthetic In the NWE region, behavioural problems in animals vitamins and allopathic treatments were quite frequent in monogastric farms and rarely The lower number of farmers that included vitamin indicated in ruminant farms. In pigs, Alban et al. additives in the MED region could be partially (2015) reported that, based on post-mortem inspec- explained by the farmers perception of difficulty in tion, behavioural problems such as skin lesions and finding alternatives to ‘synthetic vitamins’ in organic tail biting seem to be more frequent in organic than production. This is supported by the fact that in the in conventional production probably because tail NWE region, more farmers incorporate vitamin supple- docking is not allowed in the former. In poultry, fea- ments and they find it less difficult to identify alterna- ther pecking continues to be a problem in organic tives to ‘synthetic vitamins’ than on ‘allopathic production since beak trimming is prohibited, and antibiotics’ or ‘allopathic antiparasitics’. Nevertheless, infestation by mites (Dermanyssus gallinae), coccidia animal concentrate feed usually incorporates a syn- (Eimeria spp.) and gastrointestinal nematodes are fre- quent (Zeltner and Maurer 2009). thetic vitamin pre-mix to ensure that the animals’ In agreement with a survey conducted in 2019 in needs are met since there is a high variability and Ohio (USA; Brock et al. 2021), farmers indicated a very instability of the natural forms in food. Thus, some low use of conventional treatments, especially those farmers’ lack of awareness of the detailed composition in the NWE region. The USA farmers stated that they of the concentrate fed could influence the results relied more on other methods of improving the cow’s even if, by law, feed ingredients must be clearly immune system than the use of vaccines. However, labelled. To better understand farm vitamin use fur- Brock et al. (2021) reported greater voluntary vaccin- ther questions should be asked. ation among organic dairy producers than in the pre- Results indicated that farmers in both regions and sent survey. The organic regulation in the USA (NOP- in all productions are worried the most about ‘feeding standard, National Organic Program) is more restrictive and nutrition’, ‘animal health’ and ‘welfare’. This could than the EU (European Union 2018) regarding the use explain their belief that it is more difficult to find com- of conventional treatments, as NOP states that animals prehensive information regarding alternatives to in organic production cannot receive allopathic treat- ‘allopathic antibiotics’ and ‘allopathic antiparasitics’ ments if milk and meat is marketed as organic without than to alternative ‘bedding materials’, as these mat- the animal permanently losing its organic status ters worried them the most. Moreover, the higher (Brock et al. 2021). Moreover, further reductions in score assigned in the MED than the NWE region to antibiotic use are discussed in Europe and some ‘animal health’ and ‘welfare’ could partially be due to organic standards such as the NOP have a zero anti- the lower tradition of organic production in the MED biotic use standard. than the NWE region (Lockeretz 2007). Although few producers indicated having treated In both regions, mastitis was identified as one of some of the health problems listed, there is still a the most problematic issues on ruminant farms since greater use of allopathic than alternative treatments. it is a pathology perceived as one of the main prob- Nevertheless, only phytotherapy, homeopathy or/and lems in dairy farms (Hovi et al. 2003), both organic probiotics were listed as possible alternative treat- and conventional (Sutherland et al. 2013). The rele- ments, and other disease-prevention strategies were vance of mastitis was also reported by organic dairy not evaluated. The use of phytotherapy seems to be producers in Ohio (USA) who reared Holsteins, Jerseys rising, particularly when treating health issues such as and crossbreeds (Brock et al. 2021). ‘pre-gastric/gastrointestinal diseases and diarrhoea’, 1280 C. L. MANUELIAN ET AL. ‘skin problems’ and ‘footpad lesions’ (>50% in the sur- represented by having conducted the survey online, vey). Although mastitis was one of the most prevalent but it could also be a characteristic of the organic pathologies, the exclusive use of alternative treat- livestock sector due to the profile of the producers ments reported by the participants is slightly above being younger and having a higher level of educa- 30%. Peer-review publications of ethnoveterinary stud- tion (Padel 2001; Kings and Ilbery 2010). ies (involving the use of medicinal plants and manage- ment) as alternatives to antibiotics and antiparasitics Conclusions in Europe are scarce and mainly conducted in Italy, Spain and Turkey (Mayer et al. 2014). However, the This study suggested that organic farmers in the MED last report of the EMA-ESVAC showed that veterinary and NWE region face more difficulty in finding infor- antimicrobial sales for food-producing species in 2018 mation on alternatives to antiparasitics and antibiotics were high in Spain and Italy (>200 mg/PCU) compared than on bedding materials, however, they mainly used to France and Austria (<50 mg/PCU) (EMA-ESVAC, straw. Although veterinarians were the main source of 2020). In fact, Spain and Italy were the 2nd and 3rd information on alternative treatments, in the MED highest countries for antimicrobial sales for food-pro- region they also relied on the internet while in the ducing species in 2018 (EMA-ESVAC, 2020), which NWE region they asked other farmers. In both regions, could explain the greater proportion of animals farmers identified ‘feeding/nutrition’, ‘animal health’ treated with antibiotics we observed in the MED than and ‘welfare’ as the most relevant issues in their farms. NWE region. However, in the NWE region, ruminants and monogas- trics farmers also indicated regulation related to organic production as a relevant issue, whereas, in the Farmers’ position on commercialisation and MED region, farmers rearing ruminant species were added value of organic products also quite worried about farm profitability and product In the MED region, aspects related to ‘farm profit- commercialisation. Farmers still mainly relied on con- ability’, ‘commercialisation of the organic prod- ventional treatments, and among the alternatives, ucts’, ‘labour’ and ‘farm dimension and land they applied more frequently phytotherapy. However, availability’ had higher score than in the NWE. This most farmers declared not to use antibiotics in the could be explained by the greater relevance of the last year, and if used, only applied one course of anti- economic aspects we observed in the former than biotic treatment per animal, which is in agreement in the later when deciding to become an organic with the EU organic regulation. In relation to product producer. commercialisation, in the NWE region, direct commer- Moreover, ‘internet sales’ seemed to be more rele- cialisation and through a cooperative and/or food vant in the MED than NWE region. Short food supply industry were the most frequent channels used. While, in the MED region, the food industry and/or direct chains (direct sales, local markets and the internet) commercialisation including internet sales were the are those in which there is no, or only one, inter- most frequent ones. Therefore, this survey has pro- mediary between producer and consumer and are vided novel cross-European insights into the concerns typical of the organic markets in MED countries and use of contentious inputs in organic livestock pez Garcıa et al. 2015). On the other hand, sales (Lo farming in the MED and NWE regions. Moreover, the to the agrifood industry are more often found in survey has filled an important knowledge gap on the NWE countries (Lo pez Garcıa et al. 2015). The relative MED organic livestock systems which is often under- importance of sales through the internet observed in sampled or ignored. our survey could be influenced by the method used for compiling and disseminating the survey. Nevertheless, the online sales position in our results Acknowledgements could suggest that organic farms seek to expand The authors are grateful to the farmers that participated in their market without losing contact with the con- the study (www.organic-plus.net/farming-partners), Lıdia sumer, as well as adding value to their products Dominguez DVM (Spain), Dr. Anna Benedet (University of through direct marketing (Orsini et al. 2018). Padova, Italy), Dr. Gunnar Vittersø and Dr. Hanne Torjusen (Forbruksforskningsinstituttet, Norway) for their contribution Likewise, the use of the internet by farmers in the in the translation of the survey; to Tove Serup (Innovation MED region stands out as one of the main sources Centre for Organic Farming, Denmark), Dr. Anne-Kristin Løes of information on the use of natural products or (Norwegian Centre for Organic Agriculture, Norway), Dr. plant extracts. The use of the internet could be over- Ben Raskin (Soil Association, UK) and Judica€el Renard ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE 1281 (ABioDoc Departement, VetAgro Sup, France), various OPLUS Data availability statement partners, organisations/businesses (France, ‘Le Groupement de l’Agriculture Bio des Hautes-Pyrenees GAB65’, ‘Chambre No data were deposited in an official repository. The data presented in this study are available free of charge for any d’Agriculture Pays de la Loire—Loire-Atlantique’; Spain, user upon reasonable request from the corresponding ‘Generalitat de Catalunya-Produccio agroalimentaria ecolo g- author. ica PAE’, ‘Associacio de Cabrum de Catalunya’, ‘Sociedad Espan~ola de Agricultura Ecologica SEAE’, ‘Associacio  de la Produccio Agraria Ecolo gica de Mallorca APAEMA’; UK, the References Soil Association, the BDA Certification-Demeter, the Organic Food Federation) and individuals linked to livestock produc- Alban L, Petersen JV, Busch ME. 2015. A comparison tion for facilitating farmers participation; and Dr. between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing Mauro Penasa for his comments on the final manuscript. pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and con- ventional indoor conditions. Porcine Health Manag, 1(1):4. doi: 10.1186/2055-5660-1-4. Baker R, Brick JM, Bates NA, Battaglia M, Couper MP, Dever Ethics statement JA, Gile KJ, Tourangeau R. 2013. Summary report of the Procedures adopted in this study do not fall into the scope AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. J Surv Stat of an animal ethics evaluation. Data was processed in Methodol. 1(2):90–143. doi: 10.1093/jssam/smt008. accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation Basu P, Chakraborty J. 2011. New technologies, old divides: linking internet access to social and locational characteris- 2016/679 (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. The tics of US farms. GeoJournal. 76(5):469–481. doi: 10.1007/ study has been reviewed and approved by the Research s10708-010-9370-x. Commission of DAFNAE at UNIPD stating that the questions Blanco-Penedo I, Sjo €stro €m K, Jones P, Krieger M, Duval J, van do not conflict with the Declaration of Helsinki. Soest F, Sundrum A, Emanuelson U. 2019. Structural char- acteristics of organic dairy farms in four European coun- tries and their association with the implementation of Disclosure statement animal health plans. Agric Syst. 173:244–253. doi: 10.1016/ j.agsy.2019.03.008. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest asso- Brock CC, Pempek JA, Jackson-Smith D, Weaver K, da Costa ciated with the article. The authors alone are responsible for L, Habing GG. 2021. Organic dairy producer experiences the content and writing of this article. and decisions related to disease prevention and treat- ment. J Dairy Sci. 104(5):5867–5880. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020- 19621. Funding Burbi S, Rose KH. 2016. The role of Internet and social media C.L. Manuelian is currently a postdoctoral researcher funded in the diffusion of knowledge and innovation among with a Marıa Zambrano grant from the Spanish Ministry of farmers. Proceedings of the12th IFSA Symposium Social Universities (funded by European Union-Next Generation EU; and Technological Transformation of Farming Systems: MZ2021-86). This project has received funding from the diverging and Converging Pathways; Jul 12–15; Newport, UK: harper Adams University. p. 537–547. European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro- Daikeler J, Bosnjak M, Lozar Manfreda K. 2020. Web versus gram under grant agreement no. [774340—Organic-PLUS]. other survey modes: an updated and extended meta-ana- lysis comparing response rates. J Surv Stat Methodol. 8(3): ORCID 513–539. doi: 10.1093/jssam/smz008. Dillman DA. 2007. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored Carmen L. Manuelian http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0090- design method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA. 0362 Dufour S, Barkema HW, DesCo ^teaux L, DeVries TJ, Dohoo IR, Sophie Valleix http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4404-7460 Reyher K, Roy JP, Scholl DT. 2010. Development and valid- Birgit Fuerst-Waltl http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4336-5830 ation of a bilingual questionnaire for measuring udder Luciana da Costa http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9514-4047 health related management practices on dairy farms. Prev Sara Burbi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9035-7374 Vet Med. 95(1–2):74–85. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.02. Ulrich Schmutz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5426-8219 018. Adrian Evans http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6891-8465 Escobar EN. 2016. A review on the use of herbs and spices Nikolaos Katsoulas http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9883-0245 as alternative compounds to manage helminthosis in Sofia Faliagka http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3740-8574 small ruminants. J Livestock Sci. 7:244–249. Uygun Aksoy http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8562-7918 European Comission. 2016. Facts and figures on organic agri- € Ozge Çiçekli http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0017-3863 culture in the European Union; [accessed 2021 Feb 10]. Danuta Dro z_ d_z http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8669-184X https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/Organic_2016_ Krystyna Malin ska http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4590-5546 web_new.pdf. Lindsay Whistance http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6356-3802 European Medicines Agency, European Surveillance of Marion Johnson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2394-4197 Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (EMA-ESVAC). 2020. Federico Righi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9274-4143 Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 European Massimo De Marchi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7814-2525 countries in 2018; [accessed 2021 Nov 19]. https://www. 1282 C. L. MANUELIAN ET AL. ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/sales-veterinary-anti- Manuelian CL, Penasa M, da Costa L, Burbi S, Righi F, De microbial-agents-31-european-countries-2018-trends-2010- Marchi M. 2020. Organic livestock production: a bibliomet- 2018-tenth-esvac-report_en.pdf. ric review. Animals, 10(4):618. doi: 10.3390/ani10040618. European Union. 2018. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the MAPA. 2020. Avance del Anuario de Estadıstica 2019 European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 [Preview of the 2019 Statistical Yearbook]. Madrid (Spain): on organic production and labelling of organic products Catalogo de Publicaciones de la Administracio n General and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. del Estado. Official J EU. 61: l 150. Mayer M, Vogl CR, Amorena M, Hamburger M, Walkenhorst Fan W, Yan Z. 2010. Factors affecting response rates of the M. 2014. Treatment of organic livestock with medicinal web survey: a systematic review. Comput Hum Behav, plants: a systematic review of European ethnoveterinary 26(2):132–139. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015. research. Forsch Komplementmed. 21(6):375–386. doi: 10. FiBL. 2020. FiBL Statistics—Statistics [accessed 2020 Feb 10]. 1159/000370216. https://statistics.fibl.org/. Orsini S, Padel S, Lampkin N. 2018. Labour use on organic Hovi M, Sundrum A, Thamsborg SM. 2003. Animal health farms: a review of research since 2000. Org Farming, 4:7– and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: 15. current state and future challenges. Livest Prod Sci, 80(1– Padel S. 2001. Conversion to organic farming: a typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociol Rural, 2):41–53. doi: 10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00320-2. 41(1):40–61. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00169. Jouzi Z, Azadi H, Taheri F, Zarafshani K, Gebrehiwot K, Van Rana J, Paul J. 2017. Consumer behavior and purchase inten- Passel S, Lebailly P. 2017. Organic farming and small-scale tion for organic food: a review and research agenda. J farmers: main opportunities and challenges. Ecol Eco. 132: Retail Consum Serv, 38:157–165. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser. 144–154. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.016. 2017.06.004. Kemp S. 2019. Digital 2019: global. 31 January 2019; Rigby D, Young T, Burton M. 2001. The development of and [accessed 2020 Sept 2]. https://datareportal.com/reports/ prospects for organic farming in the UK. Food Policy, digital-2019-global-digital-overview. 26(6):599–613. doi: 10.1016/S0306-9192(01)00023-9. Kijlstra A, Eijck IAJM. 2006. Animal health in organic livestock Sutherland MA, Webster J, Sutherland I. 2013. Animal health production systems: a review. NJAS-Wagen J Life Sci, and welfare issues facing organic production systems. 54(1):77–94. doi: 10.1016/S1573-5214(06)80005-9. Animals, 3(4):1021–1035. doi: 10.3390/ani3041021. Kings D, Ilbery B. 2010. The environmental belief systems of Willer H, Lernoud J (Eds.) 2017. The world of organic agricul- organic and conventional farmers: evidence from central- ture: statistics and emerging trends 2017. Bonn southern England. J Rural Stud, 26(4):437–448. doi: 10. (Germany): Research Institute of Organic Agriculture 1016/j.jrurstud.2010.05.003. (FiBL), Frick, and IFOAM – Organics International. Lockeretz W 2007. (Ed.) Organic farming an international his- Willer H, Schlatter B, Travnıcek J, Kemper L, Lernoud J (Eds.) tory. Oxfordshire (UK): Cromwell Press. 2020. The world of organic agriculture: statistics and pez Garcıa D, Valle J, Velazquez S. 2015. Hıbridas y multi- Lo emerging trends 2020. Bonn (Germany): Research Institute n para el mer- canal. Estrategias alternativas de distribucio of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, and IFOAM–Organics cado espan ~ol de alimentos ecolo gicos hortofrutıcolas International. [Hybrid and multichannel. Alternative distribution strat- Zeltner E, Maurer V. 2009. Welfare of organic poultry. egies for the Spanish fruit and vegetable organic food Proceedings of the 8th European Symposium on Poultry market]. Rev Esp Est Agrosociales y Pesqueros. 241:49–80. Welfare; May 18–22; Cervia, Italy. p. 104–112.