Applying

HACCP-based
Quality Risk Management
on dairy farms

edited by:

Jos Noordhuizen
Joao Cannas da Silva
Siert-Jan Boersema
Ana Vieira
Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms
 Applying HACCP-based
Quality Risk Management
on dairy farms

edited by:
Jos Noordhuizen
Joao Cannas da Silva
Siert-Jan Boersema
Ana Vieira

Wageningen Academic
P u b l i s h e r s
 This work is subject to copyright. All rights
are reserved, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned. Nothing from this
publication may be translated, reproduced,
stored in a computerised system or published
in any form or in any manner, including
electronic, ­mechanical, reprographic
or photographic, without prior written
permission from the publisher,
Wageningen Academic Publishers,
P.O. Box 220, 6700 AE Wageningen,
ISBN: 978-90-8686-052-4 the Netherlands,
e-ISBN: 978-90-8686-633-5 www.WageningenAcademic.com
DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-633-5
The individual contributions in this
publication and any liabilities arising from
First published, 2008 them remain the responsibility of the authors.

The publisher is not responsible for possible

© Wageningen Academic Publishers damages, which could be a result of content
The Netherlands, 2008 derived from this publication.
 In memory of two outstanding veterinary pioneers and colleagues
Otto Radostits and Jim Jarrett,
whose primary interests were the veterinary profession and the dairy cattle sector
Contents

List of abbreviations 9
Preface 11

Chapter 1. Introduction 13
Chapter 2. Assessment of strengths and weaknesses 21
Chapter 3. Good Dairy Farming codes of practice 33
Chapter 4. The HACCP-concept, the 7 principles and 12 steps (general
issues) 63
Chapter 5. Flow diagrams of the production process 79
Chapter 6. Identification of hazards and evaluation of risks 95
Chapter 7. Critical Control Points (CCP) and Points of Particular
Attention (POPA): their standards & tolerances or targets, their
monitoring, and corrective measures 109
Chapter 8. Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk
Management programme 127
Chapter 9. Documentation in HACCP-like Quality Risk Management
programmes 157
Chapter 10. Validation & verification of the HACCP-based Quality Risk
Management programme 163
Chapter 11. Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms
open to the general public 169
Chapter 12. Applications of the HACCP principles to milking goat farms in
France 199
Chapter 13. Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding
Quality Risk Management 219
Chapter 14. Communication in the veterinary advisory practice: practical
application of behavioural economics and communication skills 249
Chapter 15. Final remarks 271

Literature references 291

Acknowledgements 305
Index 307

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 7

List of abbreviations

BCS body condition score (a scoring method)

CCP critical control point (control means here: mastering)
CMT California mastitis test (for assessing somatic cell count in milk)
DM dry matter (as a component of feed analysis)
FC faeces consistency (a scoring method)
GAP good agricultural practice
GDF good dairy farming code of practice
GMA good medicine application code of practice
GMP good manufacturing practice
GVP good veterinary practice
HACCP hazard analysis critical control points
HFS herd fertility scheme
HHPM Herd Health & Production Management programmes
HTAP herd treatment advisory plan
Lux an index for light intensity in (animal) houses
NEB negative energy balance (a physiological or pathophysiological state
after calving in high yielding dairy cows)
POPA point of particular attention (a critical point in the on-farm production
process not meeting the formal CCP criteria). Also called “general
measure of control” (GMC) or “critical management point”(CMP).
QRM Quality Risk Management (programme)
RF rumen fill (a scoring method)
SCC somatic cell count (commonly in individual cow milk or bulk tank
milk)
STEC see VTEC
SWA strengths and weaknesses assessment
SWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (observational field survey
on one or more particular farming domains)
TEC teat end callosity (a scoring method)
TMR total mixed ration
UHC udder health control programme
VTEC verocytotoxin producing E. coli (nowadays indicated as STEC: shigella
toxin producing E. coli)

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 9

Preface

The main objective of the editors with this book is to support field veterinarians and
other professionals, who are interested in adequately supporting the dairy farmers
and herd managers, in their goal to implement a proper Quality Risk Management
programme based on the HACCP (hazard analysis critical control points) concept
and principles. Several text books dealing with theoretical concepts, principles and
methods of HACCP are available elsewhere. The main focus of this book is, on the
contrary, the practical situation on the dairy farm and the adoption of the HACCP-
like Quality Risk Management programme by the dairy farmer in his (strategic)
management for animal health and welfare, and public health and food safety.

The editors emphasise that the implementation of a HACCP-like Quality Risk

Management programme is only properly feasible, if the coach-advisor is first
appropriately trained and has acquired sufficient knowledge and skills in this
domain. He/she should also be aware of the fact that additional skills are required in
domains such as: behavioural economics, communication, marketing, management
and entrepreneurship, farm economics and Quality Risk Management economics,
domains which are addressed in the last chapters. Above all, he/she should have
in-depth knowledge about the dairy sector and its developments, as well as about
theoretical and – above all – practical zootechnics and veterinary medicine.

With regard to the dairy farmer (and his co-workers) it should be stressed that
adoption of Good Manufacturing codes of Practice will facilitate the implementation
of the Quality Risk Management programme based on the HACCP-concept. The same
is applicable to veterinary Herd Health & Production Management programmes: once
these are fully operational on the dairy farm and include good record keeping practices,
it becomes much easier to implement a Quality Risk Management programme. In
this book will be demonstrated the development of the HACCP-like Quality Risk
Management programme for dairy farms through the field case examples that we
present in the first series of chapters of this book; other chapters address the example
applications of this programme on dairy farms open to the general public and on city
farms, as well as on milking goat farms.

This book is a large extension and elaboration to the website www.vacqa-international.

com. Some additional information and inventory sheets for determining strong and
weak points (hazards and risks) on a dairy farm can be found on this site. Moreover,
many different templates and records for an on-farm HACCP-like Quality Risk
Management handbook can be downloaded for adjusting them to and applying them
in your own particular situation.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 11

Preface

The editors wish you fruitful reading and a proper knowledge acquisition, and,
thereafter, an adequate and durable implementation of your Quality Risk Management
programme based on the HACCP-concept and principles on (dairy) farms.

Jos P. Noordhuizen
Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Nantes, Nantes, France
University of Ghent, Merelbeke, Belgium
Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Lyon, Marcy l’Etoile, France

Joao Cannas da Silva

VACQA-International, Santarém, Portugal

Siert-Jan Boersema
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Ana Vieira
VACQA-International, Santarém, Portugal

12 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

Chapter 1. Introduction

Quality has become a major driving force in many production enterprises. In the
classical context, the quality concept addresses the product only. Quality as a subjective
entity comprises both technical and technological characteristics, as well as emotional
and ethical aspects. Many definitions of quality can be found in literature, each trying
to address quality from one or more of the forenamed points of view. Most important
is that a product should fulfil the demands put forward by the consumers and is
attractive enough to be bought (Evans and Lindsay, 1996).

In dairy production, milk is a product with a long history of product quality testing,
particularly with respect to, for example, cleanness, hygiene, microbiological
contamination, somatic cell counts, and antimicrobial residues. Most of the regular
quality failures in this area are caused by managerial faults, followed by cow problems
(Animal Health Service Netherlands, 1981; Kivaria et al., 2004). This has been the
basis for the implementation of udder health control programmes by veterinarians
in the 60’s (Hassan, 2001; Kingwill et al., 1970; Bramley and Dodd, 1984). These
programmes focussed on weaker and stronger points on the dairy farm and their
associated management issues in order to design a plan of action comprising
elements in the domain of clinical and subclinical mastitis, drying off therapy and
teat dipping, milking machine function and milking procedure. Later on, Herd Health
& Production Management (HHPM) programmes have been introduced to support
farm management in decision-making, to reduce (failure) costs and increase farm
income (Brand et al., 1996; De Kruif et al., 2007).

Many things have changed in dairy husbandry over the last decades. Mixed farming has
changed into mono-species farming, e.g. dairy cattle alone; changes from smallholder
dairy farms to larger farm sizes; from family-run operations up to 150 cows to large
dairy enterprises of more than 1000 cows. Labour productivity has increased mainly by
a higher level of milking technology (milking machines, rapid exit systems, carrousel
systems and milking robots), new feed technologies (total mixed rations; movable
feed racks; concentrates dispensers), new technologies in land exploitation (GPS for
harvesting and fertilising; wrapped bales; chopped silage systems), input of sires with
high genetic merit, improved artificial insemination and embryo transfer procedures
and an increase of the number of cows per man and per hectare (Schon et al., 1992;
Brand et al., 1996). A consequence of this intensification has been the occurrence
of so-called production diseases or management-diseases (mastitis; claw disorders;
metabolic disorders; poor weight gain in young stock) and reduced reproductive
performance figures at herd level. In different countries, veterinary herd health and
production management advisory services for the different farming areas have been
implemented by bovine practitioners and farmers to better deal with these diseases

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 13

Chapter 1

and disorders (Brand et al., 1996). The herd, that is the population, has hence become
the unit of interest, next to the individual animal.

Subsequently, the early detection of disease and, more in particular, of the risks
contributing to disease occurrence at the herd level has become much more relevant
(investing in disease prevention or health promotion) than diagnosing and treating
diseased cows (disease losses) alone. The farmers’ attitude regarding disease is changing
towards more disease risk awareness. Therefore, that same dairy farmer needs support
in disease risk identification and risk management for preventing diseases. Here lays
an opportunity for the veterinarian with knowledge, skills and experience in risk
management regarding animal diseases and total farm management.

During the last decades, the consumer has obtained a large influence on the production
process on (dairy) farms through the retailers. Consumers, i.e. retailers, currently have
a great impact on animal welfare, but also on animal health and food safety issues
on farms. This is partly caused by animal disease outbreaks and subsequent disease
eradication campaigns such as in the case of swine fever, blue tongue and foot-and-
mouth disease during which – sometimes – thousands of animals were killed and
of which the pictures travelled around the world. Partly this is caused by a changing
attitude of citizens towards animal production ethics including welfare.

Since the year 2000 more emphasis is being put on the relevance of the dairy
production methods as being pivotal for quality features like animal health, animal
welfare, and public health including food safety. In Europe it has even been suggested
through the General Food Law (EC regulation 178-2002) and in the latest Hygiene
directives (852/853/854-2004 EC) that consumer protection (food safety) can be better
achieved by controlling feed production according to Good Manufacturing Practice,
food processing and distribution following HACCP principles, and through the
adoption by (dairy) farmers of a HACCP-like (hazards analysis critical control points)
programme to control the risks of disorders in animal health and animal welfare, as
well as public health. The rationale behind this policy is in the fact that outbreaks
of public health disorders, food poisoning and contamination had a great impact
on public perception of safety: dioxins, lead-contaminated cattle feed, salmonellosis,
cryptosporidiosis, leptospirosis.

The control of risks during the primary production process, e.g. on the dairy farm,
will reduce the risks of contamination or infection through raw or processed products
further down the dairy chain up to the consumer (Maunsell and Bolton, 2004). The
control of foodborne diseases, like VTEC, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, and
listeriosis should preferably be conducted at farm level. There are three reasons for
this statement: (1) reservoirs of agents associated with the named diseases do exist on

14 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Introduction

farms, (2) named diseases rarely result in signs which can be noted at meat inspection,
(3) by identifying problem farms, action can be taken to prevent agents from entering
the links further down in the food chain (Hancock and Dargatz, 1995; Notermans
and Beumer, 2002).

Demands from retailers regarding product quality will further increase. During the
last years, residue issues like those related to anti-parasitic products, Aflatoxin M1,
lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd) have become relevant for retailers with respect to further
product quality and food safety improvement.

Controlling forenamed risks should contribute to a reduction of the operational costs,

i.e. economic losses, on the dairy farm. Currently, the dairy farm represents the link in
the whole food chain which has not a quality assurance programme covering animal
health and welfare or public health. The implementation of HACCP-like programmes
on dairy farms may well represent the supportive tool dairy farmers are waiting for
in order to upgrade their quality driven production methods (Noordhuizen and
Welpelo, 1996). Dairy farmers have become more aware of the relevance of complying
to quality demands from consumers, irrespective of the labour burden and many
unclear issues the new legislation brings along.

Over the past decades, several initiatives have been taken to develop programmes
to support the dairy farmer in his decision-making process. Examples are the udder
health schemes named above, herd fertility programmes, and the veterinary Herd
Health & Production Management (HHPM) programmes (Brand et al., 1996). The
latter programmes have proven to be economically successful in reducing overall farm
operational costs and improve farm income (Sol et al., 1984). These programmes
focus on regular and routine monitoring of animals/herd, the animals’ environment
and the management, and the on-farm available data in order to evaluate herd and
animal performance, and to detect pending problems at an early stage and conduct
intervention. Many practising veterinarians, as well as other extension people, have
established their position in supporting operational farm management as a farm
consultant and advisor (Cannas da Silva et al., 2006). It is very well possible that
veterinarians can play a further role in dairy farm management advice through the
application of Quality Risk Management programmes.

According to some authors, the HACCP-concept (hazard analysis critical control

points) is best applicable on dairy farms to control the risks of animal health, animal
welfare and public health, as compared to both Good Manufacturing Practice-
like codes and the International Standardisation Organisation-9000-system issues
(Noordhuizen and Welpelo, 1996; Cullor, 1995, 1997).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 15

Chapter 1

The main features of each and their differences leading to this conclusion are shortly
presented in Table 1.1.

HACCP with regard to food safety has been defined as ‘a systematic approach to the
identification and assessment of the microbiological hazards and risks associated with
the manufacturing, distribution and use of a particular foodstuff and the definition
of means for their control’ (Mayes, 1992). In the food industry, the HACCP-concept
has developed into a universal method for the prevention of microbiological threats
(Hudson,1991). HACCP has been included in the Codex Alimentarius in 1989 (Codex
Alimentarius committee on food hygiene, 1991).

In 2004, the HACCP concept and principles have been incorporated into ISO-22000
in order to develop a more uniform international norm for food quality assurance in
Europe and to create more unity in the use of HACCP-principles by the food producing
and processing industry and retailers. The International Standardisation Organisation
(ISO) developed a Food Safety Management System (FSMS) and called this ISO
22000. ISO 22000 is a combination of the quality management standard ISO 2001 and

Table 1.1. Short overview of differences between three quality control concepts (GMP, HACCP
and ISO are explained in the text).

GMP codes HACCP ISO-9000

Field of interest Production Process + System as a

process product whole
Type of approach Top-down Bottom-up Bottom-up
Health status demonstrable? No Yes Yes
Corrective actions specified? No Yes No
Is documentation needed? Yes, some Yes Yes, much
Is it simple to execute? Yes Yes No
Is it highly farm-specific? No Yes ?
Is a lot of labour input necessary? No No Yes
Is there a high degree of self-management No Yes -
involved?
What is the expected benefits to costs ratio? Low High Moderate
Is there implicit potential to develop into a quality No Yes Not applicable
system?
Can it be functionally linked with quality Poorly Yes Yes
assurance systems?
Is it in principle fit for certification? No Yes Yes

16 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Introduction

HACCP as described in the Codex Alimentarius (1991). This new norm is not meant to
replace already existing quality assurance programmes and can be implemented in the
management of companies in the whole food chain; from primary production towards
retailers. As regards its content, ISO 2001 and ISO 22000 are very similar, although ISO
22000 is developed for mainly focussing on the food industry, whereas ISO 2001 was
not developed for a specific industry. More than in HACCP, the focus in ISO 22000 is
on policy, targets, internal and external communication, and planning. Even though,
ISO 22000 is not yet compulsory to be implemented by industries in the food chain.
This standard supports the constant improvement of industries’ management through
following the HACCP-concept and principles, and earlier ISO standards (NEN-EN-
ISO, 2005). In this respect, the approach comes close to the earlier presented principles
of total quality management, TQM (Schiefer, 1997).

The application of the HACCP-concept to animal health on dairy farms is a logical

move because HACCP first of all focuses on microbiological hazards and risks as
can be found in public health and animal health. Moreover, it focuses on hazards of
a different kind like chemical and physical contamination of products, but also on
disorders of another type like welfare disorders.

There are few publications on the application of the HACCP-concept on dairy farms.
Examples are Bender (1994) on the more qualitative control of salmonellosis in dairy
herds, and Hancock and Dargatz (1995) on the general HACCP implementation issues
regarding public health and food safety hazards on farms. Recent publications are:
Lievaart et al. (2005), Boersema et al. (2007), A. Vieira (personal communication).

The HACCP-concept comprises 7 principles and 12 developmental steps in which

these principles have been included (Codex Alimentarius, 1991; FDA, 1999; Cullor,
1995, 1997). The 7 principles are particularly oriented towards risk assessment, risk
management, specific documentation and verification procedures.

Risk identification and risk management are key issues in the HACCP concept.
Therefore, we will first start with a chapter on the determination of strong-and-
weak points on a dairy farm in several farming areas (Chapter 2). These strong-and-
weak points assessments will lead to an inventory of risk conditions in a particular
farming area; examples of such areas are: udder health, claw health, herd fertility,
milk production & nutrition, the rearing of young stock. It is therefore paramount
that a proper preparation of the veterinarian in the domain of risk identification takes
place. For this purpose we handle the strong-and-weak points assessments as can be
found on the website of VACQA-International. These assessments can also be dealt
with in a stand-alone setting, i.e. without a Herd Health & Production Management
programme or without a Quality Risk Management programme.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 17

Chapter 1

Secondly, because of the fact that the implementation of a HACCP-based Quality

Risk Management programme needs a certain appropriate attitude and mentality
towards ‘ quality’, we will then address this attitude and mentality building through
the presentation of guidelines and working instructions under the heading of Good
Dairy Farming codes of practice in Chapter 3.

The different chapters on risk identification and good dairy farming codes of practice
form the core business of the HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programme. The
concept, the 7 principles and the 12 developmental steps for the design of a HACCP-
like programme, will be elaborated in Chapter 4.

From that chapter onwards, we will detail the design of the HACCP-like programme
by addressing the different steps and components in the different chapters and by
presenting examples of field cases and HACCP-templates from the handbook to
illustrate these design and implementation procedures. The chapters will follow the
sequence of the contents of the HACCP handbook.

The elementary approach is as follows:

1. A Quality Risk Management programme based on the HACCP-concept can be
best designed and implemented when beforehand the appropriate foundation has
been laid. This foundation comprises: (1) a professionally executed veterinary
Herd Health & Production Management programme; (2) the development and
implementation of Good Dairy Farming codes of practice (guidelines and working
instructions); or, preferably, (3) both. In any case, there should be a basic record
keeping system available and updated on the farm in order to facilitate performance
evaluation and events’ assessment.
2. The starting point for the development of a Quality Risk Management programme
on the basis of the HACCP-concept is either a complaint from the farmer about
the performance of his herd, a deviation in herd performance as detected by the
veterinarian in his Herd Health & Production Management programme, or the wish
of the dairy farmer to be supported routinely in his quality control activities.
3. In all situations, an assessment of strengths-and-weaknesses (SWA) regarding
animals and their environment, and the management is warranted. This SWA
provides the basic elements for both operational veterinary Herd Health &
Production Management and Quality Risk Management at a more tactical level.
For Herd Health & Production Management (HHPM) programmes, it provides
clear-cut issues for control and for intervention, for the Quality Risk Management
(QRM) it represents the first analysis of hazards and associated risks. These
features already show that activities in the areas of Good Dairy Farming (GDF),
Herd Health & Production Management (HHPM), and Quality Risk Management
(QRM) can and should be integrated as much as possible.

18 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Introduction

It can be concluded that veterinarians may play a role in these areas, because they are
most strategically positioned in the field and have the best basic skills and knowledge to
conduct such programmes. In many countries, veterinary Herd Health & Production
Management programmes are operational; in other countries veterinarians largely
contribute to dairy farm success by designing and implementing Biosecurity Assurance
Plans (BAMN, 2000). The veterinary-zootechnical background of the veterinarian
must be thorough and of high quality; a thorough training in individual animal
medicine largely contributes to his standing (Cannas et al., 2006). In some instances
veterinarians contribute to the development of Good Dairy Farming guidelines. But
before being able to integrate all forenamed components into an integrated Quality
Risk Management programme based on the HACCP-concept and principles, it is
required that he adopts and acquires new skills and knowledge before being able to
function as a ‘quality coach-consultant’ on the dairy farm.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 19

Chapter 2. Assessment of strengths and weaknesses

2.1. Introduction

In veterinary Herd Health & Production Management programmes it is common use

to make an inventory of the herd performance status at the start of a programme as
well as each 6 or 12 months as an evaluation of progress (Brand et al., 1996; De Kruif
et al., 2007). The activities comprised under ‘inventory’ are often called ‘monitoring’.
Monitoring is an important component of Quality Risk Management programmes
following the HACCP concept as well.

Monitoring is ‘an act of conducting a planned sequence of observations or measurements

of certain control parameters to assess whether a certain point in the production process
is under control or functioning correctly’.

It is highly indicated to conduct also an inventory (i.e. monitoring) regarding the

prevailing risk conditions on the dairy farm in animals, their surroundings, the
management and the farm records.

Such risk conditions can be found through a strengths-and-weaknesses assessment

(SWA) on the farm. A SWA, as presented on the VACQA-International website, is
an observational field survey on one or more particular domains of the farm, like
udder health, claw health, milk production and nutrition, young stock rearing or
herd fertility, with the aim to assemble the stronger and the weaker points regarding
animal health, animal welfare, public health, and management. SWA addresses both
the animals, their environment, the management and additional areas like veterinary
surveillance and records. The choice of SWA depends on the problem area on the
dairy farm: in case of mastitis problems, the SWA on udder health is taken; in case
of lameness problems the SWA on claw health; in case of disturbed cow comfort or
impaired welfare, the SWA for cow comfort & welfare is taken. From a psychological
point of view it is highly recommended not only to look for weak points on the farm
but also for strong points. The latter can be highly motivating to acquire farmer’s
cooperation in the follow-up of the SWA regarding advice or interventions. After a
period of getting acquainted, different SWA can be handled at the same time to get
an overview over the whole farm.

These SWA can contribute greatly to the development of Quality Risk Management
programmes because they can easily form part of the hazard identification and risk
assessment component, as well as the monitoring component of such HACCP-based
programmes (see Chapter 4 and further).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 21

Chapter 2

In this chapter we will deal with the procedure to conduct a SWA in the domain of
udder health on a dairy farm, as an example. In subsequent chapters the procedure
of SWA will return. It should be born in mind that the SWA can also be used for
evaluating the advice we have given earlier as well as evaluating the functioning of
the HACCP-like programme.

2.2. Strengths-and-weaknesses assessment

A SWA can be conducted by using the scoring sheets which can be found and
downloaded at www.vacqa-international.com. Figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 show SWA
print screen examples from this website. Figure 2.1 shows the general outline of the
website with – at the left side – the contents of the site. Figure 2.2 and 2.3 present more
details for scoring strong and weak points in udder health.

If the SWA sheets for a certain area are not available at this website, you may use the
ones that are presented there as kinds of templates (examples) for developing such
new ones for your own purpose.

Once this exercise has been conducted, you can discuss the outcome with other
specialists, such as a nutritionist or farm economist, to obtain a second opinion.

Figure 2.1. General outlines of the VACQA-International.com website (contents of the website
on the left hand).

22 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Assessment of strengths and weaknesses

Figure 2.2. Example of a VACQA-International.com website screen, with scoring clusters for
udder health (left side), an example of scoring items (middle of screen) and HELP-function (right
hand) activated.

Figure 2.3. Example of a VACQA-International.com website screen for udder health, with scoring
clusters (left hand), scoring items (middle) and support sub-screen (right hand) for teat end
callosity scoring.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 23

Chapter 2

2.2.1. Handling SWA in practice, an example

Let us first see how SWA sheets operate in the field. For that purpose we will use the
sheets for the area of udder health as they can be deduced from the forenamed website
(Figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3).

The VACQA sheets for udder health comprise different categories of risks, so-called
clusters. In order to keep a clear overview for the analysis, there were 9 clusters
distinguished, comprising, for example, Clinical Monitoring, Hygiene, Housing,
Milking Machine. Each cluster comprises between 4 and 14 items which can be scored
as ‘good’, ‘moderate’ or ‘bad’. The items scored as bad can be considered as risk factors
contributing to one or more disorders of udder health, or as indicators for management
failures. These udder health disorders are for example: udder infections/mastitis;
udder contaminations leading to lowered milk quality (chemical; microbiological;
physical in nature); teat lesions; specific zoonotic agents in udder or milk.

One can choose between scoring the herd as a whole or a sample of cows from the
whole herd, or samples in different lactation stages (dry cows; early lactating cows;
cows in mid-lactation; end lactation cows; heifers). For the purpose of illustration we
will stick to whole herd scoring in our SWA sheets. Furthermore, one has to choose
which clusters to score and which not. This depends on the farm-specific situation.
It is possible that, for example, the cluster Veterinary Udder Health Control is not
applicable to a farm; then, this cluster is eliminated from scoring. In each cluster
one scores the items; it is however not compulsory to score all items. The items to
be scored within a cluster also depend from the on-farm situation. In practice, the
SWA procedure will always comprise an inspection tour on the farm premises and a
discussion with the farmer and or farm workers.

Table 2.1 gives, shortly, the overall combined SWA scoring sheet for udder health
scoring on a particular dairy farm. The results of the SWA should be interpreted
correctly and integrated into a synthesis in order to be able to draw the proper
conclusions. The presumed results from the SWA as addressed in Table 2.1 can be
assembled and brought to the conclusions as listed in Table 2.2.

24 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Assessment of strengths and weaknesses

Table 2.1. The SWA for udder health on a particular dairy farm (clusters and scoring items are
written in shorthand). (SWA= strengths and weaknesses assessment; G= good; M= moderate;
B= bad).

G M B

1. Clinical monitoring
Fresh cows with udder oedema; metabolic disorders
Unbalanced udder/quarters
Hair clipping in wet season done
Teat end callosity scoring results
Most recent CMT scores
Recent bulk tank cell counts
Recent bulk tank bacteria counts
Milk refusals by factory per year
2. Hygiene at/around milking
Hygiene score in waiting area
Hygiene/cleanness in milking parlour
Hygiene/cleanness of milking clusters
Hygiene/cleanness of cows around milking
Milkers wearing gloves at milking; personal hygiene
3. Milking equipment
Milking machine checks twice yearly
Milking machine checks when functioning
Faults of milking machine as reported
How often are teat cup liners renewed
How often is pulsator checked/cleaned
How often is vacuum regulator checked/cleaned
How many liner slips occur per 100 cows
Is milk filter checked after each milking
Is milking machine cleaned/disinfected properly
Are cleaning products/detergents approved
Is cleaning water temperature in order
4. Milking procedures
How is cow behaviour during milking
Are mastitic cows milked after the others
Are low SCC cows milked prior to high SCC cows
Are teat cups/liners washed after a mastitic cow
Is CMT, sampling & culturing done for subclinical mastitis
Is pre- or post-dipping/spraying applied properly
How is interaction between milker and cows
Is udder preparation done properly

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 25

Chapter 2

Table 2.1. Continued.

G M B

4. Milking procedures (continued)

Is the prep-lag time of 45 to 90 sec respected
Is vacuum shut off properly before cluster removal
Is feed given immediately after milking to keep cows standing
5. Housing conditions
How is cow behaviour in waiting area
Is there water/urine/manure in the waiting area
How is the barn kept clean and dry
Are cubicles sizes adequate; proper bedding material
Are shoulder rails and brisket boards alright
6. Climatic conditions
Is light regimen in milking parlour appropriate
Is ventilation in barn and milking parlour appropriate
How is the humidity level in the milking parlour
How is the temperature in the milking parlour
7. Mastitis management
Is fore-milking applied for mastitis detection
Are aseptic measures taken at treatment
Are mastitis working instructions in place
Are udder health treatments recorded properly
Are antimicrobial drugs properly stored
Are mastitis cows properly identified and separated
Is a Herd Treatment Advisory Plan operational/upgraded
Is mastitis milk discarded as waste
Is mastitis milk properly identified
Is a mastitis cow CMT checked before milk delivery
8. Veterinary udder health control
Farmer participate in udder health scheme
How often is udder health status analysed
What is the yearly mastitis incidence
Are milk samples taken for bacteriological culturing
Is antibiotic sensitivity testing routinely done
What is the % of cows with SCC > 200.000/ml
What is the increase in % cows with SCC > 200.000
What is the cure rate of clinical mastitis cases
Does farmer require health certificates for newly purchased cows
Are biosecurity measures taken for new cows/heifers

26 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Assessment of strengths and weaknesses

Table 2.1. Continued.

G M B

9. Other managerial issues

milking time interval studies; ketosis/acidosis; minerals/vits;
water quality (chemical; microbiological); CMT for subclinical
mastitis; dry off procedure and therapy; production groups; dry
cow groups; culling policy; culling rate

Table 2.2. An example of presumed results from a SWA in 9 clusters for udder health as the area
of concern (Note: only the items scored as ‘bad’ have been listed for illustration purpose).

Area of concern Item scored as bad

Clinical monitoring Some unbalanced udders

Teat end callosity scores deviant
Bulk tank somatic cell counts are regularly peaking
Hygiene Hygiene score of cows in waiting area is poor
Milkers are not wearing gloves at milking
Milking equipment Cleaning water temperature is too low at start
There are some liner slips
Some teat cup liners with cracks
Milking procedures Mastitis cows or high SCC cows not milked last
No cluster cleaning between cows
Teat dipping done incorrectly
Prep-lag time often too short
1 towel for several cows
Housing conditions Dirty waiting area and exercise areas
Cows lay improperly in cubicles
Bedding material in cubicles is poor (too little)
Climatic conditions Ventilation is inappropriate; too much humidity and ‘thick’ air
Milking parlour humidity and temperature are too high at milking
Mastitis management Fore-milking not done routinely Treatment is not done aseptically
No treatment advisory plan present
No checks before delivery and no working instructions
Veterinary udder health control No udder health control programme present
Yearly incidence estimated as 30%
No samples taken for culturing
Info on other items is lacking
Other issues Selective dry off treatment done

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 27

Chapter 2

The interpretation of these sheets is as follows:

• First, there is no bacteriological profile available for the herd; hence, all treatments
done are for the good or the bad. The clinical mastitis cases are estimated at 30%
which is over the herd health target of <25% as is, for example, also handled in
veterinary Herd Health & Production Management programmes (Brand et al.
1996; De Kruif et al., 2007). The clinical mastitis situation can be considered a
hazard in this example.
• There is a certain level of subclinical mastitis, given the somatic cell count rises in
the bulk tank milk. There is no udder health control programme in place.
• Moreover, mastitis management is deficient: appropriate measures for curing and
preventing mastitis are lacking. Selective dry cow treatment is inappropriate in
this situation.
• Secondly, there are a few items which point to poor hygiene and poor management
of housing & climate leading to poor cow comfort and possibly stress situations.
• Thirdly, milking machine function and milking procedures show some deficiencies
which may well contribute to the occurrence of udder infections.

Then, based on the results of such scoring, the general farm inspection tour and the
discussion with the farmer, a first operational Plan of Action with items for the short
term and items for the longer term can be identified. This operational plan of action
firstly deals with operational farm management issues. On the other hand, it can also
be used in the context of a Quality Risk Management programme according to the
HACCP concept as will be shown in subsequent chapters.

Next the results can be used for further defining the risks related to the hazard of
concern (udder health problems in the example of Table 2.1) as well as the weighing
of the respective risks. Further information on these principles and procedures can
be found in Brand et al. (1996).

Which plan of action is exactly chosen depends on many issues: attitude of the farmer,
his motivation for change, the communicative skills of the veterinarian, the decision
process in the Team, the level of herd health targets.

Operational actions for the short term are:

• set practically feasible goals for udder health management on the farm, together
with the farmer, for the coming 6 or 12 months;
• start sampling mastitis cow’s milk for bacteriological culturing in order to design a
proper herd treatment advisory plan, and a proper udder health control plan;
• check whether the pathogens detected at clinical mastitis are the same as those
found in subclinical mastitis cases (by using the California Mastitis Test and
culturing test-positive animals).

28 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Assessment of strengths and weaknesses

If these actions have been taken, one can proceed to the following actions as parts of
the udder health management plan:
• start dry off treating all cows to be dried off, based on the results of the bacteriological
culturing;
• adapt the milking procedure as much as possible: fore-milking to detect suspect/
infected cows; use one dry towel per cow at preparation; monitor and when needed
adapt pre-lag time; clean clusters between cows; conduct teat dipping properly;
• change the teat cup liners because there were some with cracks; check the warm water
equipment for temperature standards and replace (parts of) it when needed.

Operational actions for the longer term are:

• talk to the farmer (and milker) about adopting another working practice,
comprising hygiene at and around milking; prevention of liner slips;
• speak about adjusting climate control in order to increase ventilation in both the
barn and the milking parlour;
• address the quality of the cubicles and bedding material; increase the volume of
bedding material and clean up daily; adjust cubicles when needed;
• discuss about increasing hygiene and cleanness of exercise areas and waiting areas
by e.g. increasing the frequency of the manure scraper to 6 times daily;
• since teat end callosity scores show deviant proportions, it is advisable to check
the milking machine (again) but then under working conditions to see whether
deficiencies can be found and which issues need adjustment. Check also the
frequency and quality of herd claw trimming.

The short term and longer term actions are not separate issues; they are interrelated.
The relevant point here is that short term actions have a higher priority. Moreover,
often it will appear that longer term actions can only be taken on the basis of results
of the short term actions. Longer term actions often will also take a longer time to
accomplish, e.g. for the case of adjusting housing facilities. Finally, commonly farmers
can handle only 5 actions, interventions or advises at the time. Therefore, they need
coaching for improvement all the way through.

The first sampling round of cows with clinical mastitis showed that, for example,
Staphylococcus aureus was the predominant micro-organism involved, followed by
a few mixed streptococci infections and rare environmental pathogens like coliform
bacteria. The main hazard for this area of udder health in this simple example, hence,
has been established as being Staphylococcus aureus udder infections. Of course on
most dairy farms there will be several hazards at the same time. For the purpose
of simplicity in this chapter, we have retained only one hazard. Further and more
complex hazard situations are addressed in following chapters where we present
examples of a fictive Farm FX.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 29

Chapter 2

It is always possible that the SWA sheets do not show all prevailing risk factors on a
farm. In those cases a much more detailed risk analysis has to be carried out. The same
is applicable to the question which risk factor is more important than an other. This
refers to the procedure of risk weighing, which is addressed in Chapter 6.

The findings from milk sampling and bacteriological culturing trigger for the design of a
farm-specific udder health control programme and the establishment of a herd treatment
advisory plan by the veterinarian. These two form the basis for further detailing of
the Plan of Action. Execution of a plan of action warrants a coaching role from the
veterinarian. Changes in routine management are often not easily adopted nor carried
out; hence, one needs to invest time and communication to facilitate changes.

After the installation of the udder health control plan and a herd treatment advisory plan,
it must be kept in mind that an evaluation should be done to investigate the effects of
our interventions and advice. Such evaluations should be conducted regularly (every
6 or 12 months), and that is why implementing udder health (or other advisory)
programmes is a matter of coaching the farmer and guiding him along the pathway
to improvement. The forenamed SWA sheets can (at least) also be handled for this
purpose of evaluation. Moreover, when the different scoring dates and results have
been saved for each SWA, the spider-grams will easily show the progress on e.g. udder
health control. Two examples of spider-grams are presented in Figure 2.4 and 2.5.

Early lactation

1
Clinical monitoring
2

3
Milking equipment Mastitis
4

5
Climate
Clinical Mastitis Climate Milking
monitoring equipment
Items of particular attention
Milking equipment
• Were these machine checks conducted when the machine was at work (= ‘ wet check’)?
• Are teat cup liners changed on regular schedule that follows manufacturer’s specifications
for number of milkings per liter?
Figure 2.4. An example of a graphical representation of SWA-scoring results on a particular
dairy farm on date 1 (‘spider gram’). Score 1= good; score 3= moderate; score 5=bad.

30 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Assessment of strengths and weaknesses

Clinical monitoring 2
Hygiene Veterinary 3

4
Milking Mastitis
procedure 5

ed ing
rin l

e
g

H e
Housing Climate

pr Mi g
e
M y
is
ito ica

ien
ur
sin
at
ar

tit

oc lk
on in

lim
rin

ou

yg
as
m Cl

C
te

H
Ve
Items of particular attention
Hygiene at and around milking
• Is contamination of milk from milker’s hands prevented by using rubber gloves or by
applying high standards for personal hygiene in the milking parlour?: Early lactation
Milking procedures
• Are the clinically infected cows milked after the non-infected cows?: Early lactation

Figure 2.5. An example of a graphical representation of SWA-scoring results on a particular

farm on date 2 (‘spider gram’). Score 1= good; score 3= moderate; score 5=bad.

As a rule of thumb one has to keep in mind that a Plan of Action has to be regularly
adjusted to new situations, for example after the first measures have been taken by
the farmer.

2.3. Positioning the strengths-and-weaknesses assessment, SWA

This chapter has been positioned at the beginning of this book on purpose, because
(1) SWA can be conducted during curative practice at any time on any dairy
farm, (2) SWA is a formal component of Herd Health & Production Management
(HHPM) programmes too (Brand et al., 1996; De Kruif et al., 2007), and (3) SWA
can be considered as a preparatory stage to the development, introduction and
implementation of HACCP-like Quality Risk Management (QRM) programmes on
dairy farms. Risk identification is, next to hazard identification, a core component of
the QRM programme.

When you would compare the stages as addressed in this chapter with (some of) the
steps which will follow in the subsequent chapters on QRM, you will undoubtedly
discover many similarities. Therefore, this chapter can be considered as preparatory
and introductory to the development of the HACCP-like programme.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 31

Chapter 3. Good dairy farming codes of practice

3.1. Introduction

In industrial enterprises, the implementation of good manufacturing codes of practice

(GMP) has become a standard operating procedure. It is a way to clarify to the inside
company stakeholders the vision on the company’s attitude and mentality, and how
the company workers must function, setting guidelines for all kinds of different issues,
functions and processes. GMP refers to a certain mentality and attitude of working
with the objective to reduce different kinds of mistakes and risks. Hence, they may
also help in acquiring the trust of the company’s customers.

GMP has become compulsory for animal feed producing companies, under EU rules
like the General Food Law (EU regulation 178-2002) and the Hygiene directives
(852/853/854-2004), in order to safeguard animals from becoming infected by
undesired micro-organisms (e.g. Salmonella spp.) or contaminated by unwanted
noxae (e.g. lead, aflatoxins) in feedstuffs.

For dairy farmers the development and implementation of good dairy farming codes of
practice can be a part of veterinary Herd Health & Production Management programmes;
they can, furthermore, also be a first step on the way to developing a Quality Risk
Management programme. In these situations it can be highly worthwhile to invest in
such codes of practice to get acquainted with the phenomenon, to experience whether
the farm can benefit from using these codes of practice, and to make the farm workers
more familiar with the use of such management instruments. In this way the codes of
practice can be considered a foundation for Quality Risk Management programmes.

The FAO has issued a set of guidelines under the heading of Good Agricultural Practice,
GAP, in order to improve economic, social and environmental sustainability for
agriculture (FAO, 2003). GAP offers means to stakeholders involved to reach certain
objectives of food security, food quality, production efficiency, and environmental
benefits in the medium and long term. GAP may be part of a management strategy
for on-farm decision-making and assessing on-farm practices in order to improve
output and efficiency. GAP covers a whole range of guidelines. For animal production,
health and welfare the Annex to GAP provides indicators to further develop codes of
practice (Annex to COAG/2003/6/FAO).

3.2. Good dairy farming codes of practice, GDF

GDF is one component of Good Agricultural Practice (or good farming practice).
GDF can be divided into several, further specified codes of practice. These codes will

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 33

Chapter 3

be referred to as ‘guidelines’. In Figure 3.1 some different codes of practice under GDF
have been listed.

There are much more guidelines to be developed than those listed in Figure 3.1. Several
farming areas can comprise their own guidelines. It will depend on the primary needs
on a particular dairy farm whether or not such additional guidelines are needed to be
developed. Further down we only show some examples of these guidelines. By using
these examples as a template, you can more easily develop the specific guidelines that
you need for a particular farm area.

The different codes of practice can be used to develop on-farm guidelines and
operational working instructions. Especially in complex management systems, these
practical guidelines and working instructions can assist in facilitating management
and organisation on the farm. In order to be effective, these guidelines and working
instructions should be complied with at any time by farmer and co-workers.

In the subsequent sections, we present the following guidelines and working

instructions:
• Hygiene instructions for visitors (guideline), Box 3.1.
• Good housing hygiene of neonatal calves (guideline), Box 3.2.
• Good Medicine Application code of practice (guideline), Box 3.3.

The guideline on Good Housing Hygiene of Neonate Calves, as presented below in

Box 3.2 was adapted after Boersema, 2007, unpublished data.

Good Health Good Feeding Practice

& Welfare
Practice
Good Health Practice
Good Good Dairy Good Animal
Agricultural Farm Practice Care Taking Good Medicine
Practice Practice Application Practice

Good Housing & Climate

Good Record Practice
Keeping &
ID Practice

Figure 3.1. Overview of different codes of practice under the heading of Good Agricultural
Practice (adapted after FAO, 2003).

34 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

Box 3.1. An example of a GDF guideline on a dairy farm: hygiene instructions for
visitors.

Hygiene instructions for visitors

Welcome to our dairy farm!

We expect you to strictly follow the instructions on hygiene given below; thank you!

1. Cars and trucks.

Use the indicated parking areas only (see dairy farm map at P).
2. Do change your boots and clothes in the hygiene barrier (see dairy farm map at HB)
before entering our farm. Report your arrival by following the telephone instructions in
the HB.
3. If you need to make contact with animals, take along disposable gloves from the stock
in the HB. If you need utensils, take them too from the HB. Never use your own!
4. After having entered the farm, the farmer or a co-worker will tell you the working order
of the farm and the issues of your concern. At all times, follow the hygiene instructions
all the way.
5. Follow the routine working order of the farm as indicated by our co-worker. Use
disinfection tubs whenever they are present; change boots/clothes and wash hands
when indicated.
6. Do not make any unnecessary contact with our cattle, nor with pets or other animals
present.
7. When your farm visit has ended, clean the boots, and put them together with the
clothes in the indicated area of the HB. All materials introduced by you on our farm is
considered as dirty and risky material, and cannot leave our farm (irrespective whether it
was used or not). Wash your hands thoroughly before leaving the farm.
8. Record medicinal products used or delivered in the record system (medicine log) as is
indicated in the HB.
9. Register your name and the time of your visit in the visitors log in the HB.
10. Delivered materials should be stored in the right place in the HB as indicated there.

Thank you for your visit to us and for complying to our hygiene rules! You have contributed
to our efforts to minimise the risks of introducing pathogens to our dairy farm!

Preferably, guidelines should be designed for 1 page A4 formats in order to retain

optimal readability, facilitate rapid and easy reading, and not hampering routine daily
operational management too much.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 35

Chapter 3

Box 3.2. An example of a GDF guideline on a dairy farm: good housing hygiene for
neonate calves.

Good housing hygiene of neonate calves

General hygiene rules:

• Animal care-taker has clean boots and clothes which are used for neonate calf housing
only.
• Work with clean hands, or use gloves; wash hands regularly during the day.
• (Teat) buckets, thermometers, measuring devices and mixers are clean and disinfected
before each use.
• After each feeding, the teat buckets, thermometers, measuring devices and mixers are
cleaned and disinfected again and dried.
• Stomach tube feeders must be clean and disinfected before each use and disinfected
between 2 calves.
• Overall feeding order must be from the youngest to the eldest calves.
• Feed the calves at fixed moments of the day; conduct the feeding always in the same
way and in the same order by the same person, as much as possible with the same clean
outfit.

Golden Rules:
• Remove straw and manure.
• Clear the walls and the floors with water under high pressure.
• Disinfect walls and floors with proper disinfectant (e.g. hypochloric solution).
• Rinse walls and floors with water thoroughly.
• Let it all dry or leave the hutch for at least one week empty.

Housing of neonate calves:

• Neonate calves should at least remain 7 to 10 days in individual hutches of sufficient
surface and under optimal climate.
• Bring neonate calves in a clean, individual hutch with clean, dry and thick straw bedding.
• Neonate calves not meant for replacement rearing but for sale should be housed in
another house.

In Box 3.3 we present the guidelines for Good Medicine Application for dairy farms;
at the end of these guidelines several pictures are provided how to handle medicinal
products. This guideline was originally developed in 2005 for Elanco Benelux by a
consortium of people from veterinary practice and the Utrecht Faculty of Veterinary
Medicine, The Netherlands (Fink-Gremmels, Hellebrekers, Theeuwes, Gruijs &
Noordhuizen).

36 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

Box 3.3. Guidelines for Good Medicine Application code of practice (GMAP).

The GMAP is an essential component of any Quality Risk Management programme for
livestock operations because hazards in the area of food safety and public health are
associated with the use of medicinal products. The guidelines provided in GMAP are meant
to reduce the hazards and risks associated with the application of medicinal products, and,
hence, can be considered as management tools.

The current GMAP guidelines have been developed according to evidence-based medicine.
The guidelines comprise 7 paragraphs:
1. storage and keeping of veterinary medicinal products (e.g. cooled or not);
2. probability diagnosis (based on anamnesis, clinical inspection, herd level or individual
level, antibiograms);
3. choosing veterinary medicinal products (criteria, species, indication, efficacy, hazards,
price);
4. careful application of NSAID’s to limit inflammation processes;
5. technical application in detail (techniques, sites, hygiene, safety);
6. evaluation of the use of veterinary medicinal products;
7. using utensils like syringes and needles; waste management.

These 7 paragraphs will be dealt with in more detail here-after.

One should be aware of the fact that starting point for this GMAP is the fact that food
animals are meant for human consumption, and that diseased livestock will probably be
treated and hence represent a potential hazard for public health and food safety. A proper
mentality and attitude regarding diseased food animals is paramount at reducing the risks
mentioned.

Moreover one should be aware of the fact that there is an occupational risk too when
treating your animals, either when injecting them or preparing water or feed medication.
Contact of your skin with antimicrobial drugs or when inhaling medicinal products as
powder may jeopardise your health, ultimately causing antimicrobial resistance or allergic
reactions. The latter may lead to e.g. bacterial diseases which are no longer easy to treat
effectively. Prudent use and precautions are paramount when applying such medicinal
products.

In case of doubt, consult your veterinarian and physician!

 »

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 37

Chapter 3

Calamities:

If you injected yourself by accident a medicinal product, you should immediately

consult your veterinarian and physician (GP). Make sure that you have the leaflet of
that product at hand, as well as the syringe and needle.
If you have inhaled a medicinal product, you should immediately consult your
veterinarian and GP. Make sure you have the leaflet of the product at hand.

Telephone number of veterinarian: .................................................................................................

Telephone number of GP: . ..................................................................................................................

The above-named warning and the rules in case of calamities should appear on the front
page of the on-farm GMA guideline.

The subsequent paragraphs will deal with the different issues of good medicine application
on the dairy farm. It must be clear that prior to the field application of medicines, there is
a process of purchasing medicinal products by the veterinary practice taking into account
issues like pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, proper medical indications, prescription
procedures, forma contracts between farmer and veterinarian or veterinary practice, and so
on and so forth.

1. Storage of veterinary medicinal products

–– The leaflet of every medicinal product will tell you how you should store that
medicinal product, e.g. cooled or not. You should check these prescriptions each
time you receive new medicinal products, and act accordingly.
–– Never place medicinal products in direct sunlight or close to heating equipment. Do
not place medicinal products in the cold with the risk of freezing. Once frozen, the
medicinal products are no longer active.
–– The ‘best before date’ or preservability is determined by its active substance, nature
of its composition, and package material. Obviously there is large variation between
medicinal products. Preservability refers to chemical, physical and microbiological
features. Again, the leaflet will indicate such things. Do not use medicinal products
of which the expiration date has been passed!
–– After the first injection, the injection fluid can only be used for a limited period of
time. The date of first injection must be written on the label of the flask. Normally,
you will not use antibiotics later than 1 month after the first injection was given.
–– Make sure you have updated leaflets of all medicinal products at the farm, as well as
stock records.
 »

38 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

2. Probability diagnosis
–– Use medicinal products only when you have established that an infectious agent
plays a role, and that a possible improving effect can be expected from a medicinal
product or anti-parasitic product. A proper anamnesis, as well as a thorough clinical
inspection is of utmost importance to arrive at a probability diagnosis.
–– You have to determine whether a herd problem or an individual problem is at hand.
Commonly the discrimination level is at 10% diseased animals in a pen or herd. Herd
level disorders can be a reason to start water or feed medication.
–– Be sure that at all times the results of laboratory examinations and postmortem
are available to your veterinarian. They can be supportive in choosing the proper
medicinal products.
–– Antibiograms, disease histories and virus-isolations of the most recent cases can also
be supportive in choosing the proper medicinal products.
–– At each case you have to determine whether and if so, when, the veterinarian has to
be consulted. A proper Herd Treatment Advisory Plan (HTAP) is a good tool to do so.
When there is any doubt, you should always consult your veterinarian. See Annex 3B
to see an example of a HTAP, a working instruction.
3. Choosing the medicinal product
–– The choice of the right medicinal product is defined by the species and the disease
indication. This information can be obtained from the leaflet or the HTAP.
–– When choosing the product, the efficacy and side-effects are weighted too. In some
cases, there are prescribed lists of allowed medicinal products for a certain species.
–– The price of a product can play a certain role but can never be a determinant of
choice!
–– It is highly recommended that you make your veterinarian develop a Herd Treatment
Advisory Plan (HTAP) and have it updated together every 3 or 6 months.
–– The hazards for yourself and your co-workers must be taken into consideration
when choosing a medicinal product. Inhalation must be avoided at all means (wear
mouth piece); skin contact must be prevented (wear gloves); accidental injection
must be prevented too.
4. Application of NSAID’s
–– NSAID’s (non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs) should also be put on the HTAP by
the veterinarian, for example because they support the antimicrobial therapy, but
also because they can improve the animal’s welfare. Always start with taking the
rectal temperature of animals before any treatment.
–– If NSAID’s are considered for application, remember that they must be given at
the early stages of the disease process, because then they have the highest effect.
Generally speaking, main indications for applying NSAID’s are disorders with pain
(swelling) and fever; for example coliform mastitis with general disease signs.

 »

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 39

Chapter 3

5. Details of applying medicinal products

–– The ways of applying medicinal products are limited: some shall only by given by
injection, while others shall only be given through drinking water or feed, or other
topical application. Make your veterinarian design a Herd Treatment Advisory Plan
and update this Plan together every 3 or 6 months. In Annex 3C and 3D examples
are given of this type of HTAP. Moreover, the leaflet gives further details on e.g.
injection site, route of administration (i.m., s.c., i.v.) and proper methodology to
inject.
–– In cases where large volumes of injection fluids are administered, the veterinarian
should also indicate on the HTAP how much can be injected at which sites at one
time. Alternative injection sites left and right on the body are an option.
–– The HTAP should also comprise information about syringes and needles to use for
injections, predominantly to avoid tissue damage.
–– Disposable needles should be collected after being used in a specific ‘dump-box’
with a small opening; do never throw such needles away in the dustbin!

The following paragraphs contain the different technical protocols (also named working
instructions) for the different procedures of administering medicinal products.

5.1. Injection fluids

–– First clean your hands thoroughly before handling the medicinal products; put on
gloves.
–– Take a clean new needle and the proper syringe, according to the instructions of
your veterinarian (HTAP). Durable syringes are an option.
–– Check again whether you have taken the right medicinal product; check the date of
first handling as written on the label.
–– Let a little air into the syringe.
–– Put a needle on the flask, the syringe on top of it, and get the fluid into the syringe
until the proper dosage has been reached.
–– Eliminate the remaining air from the syringe.
–– Put the protection cap on the syringe immediately.
–– In case you have got some of the product on your hands, wash it off before
proceeding.
–– Put the flask back in its storage place.
–– Carry the syringe and needles in a tray; never in your pocket or coat!
–– Determine the right injection site and proper direction of injecting on the animal;
if needed, let someone else fixate the animal (your own health and safety are top
priorities!).
–– Put the syringe on the animal and carefully empty the syringe.
–– Put syringe and needle in the appropriate dump-box.
 »

40 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

–– Durable syringes and needles must be put in a container marked ‘dirty’; this
container is emptied at the end of the day, cleaned and disinfected.
–– After the administration, dispose of the gloves worn and wash your hands carefully.
–– Conduct the recording procedures; respect the withdrawal period.
–– Evaluate the effects of the treatments.
5.2. Administration of fluid medicinal products in drinking water or milk
–– Check whether you have taken the proper medicinal product.
–– Check the date of first handling the product as written on the label.
–– Determine the proper dosage in relation to the number of animals to be treated. The
veterinarian has documented this in the HTAP and information can also be found in
the leaflet: dosage in mg/kg body weight or in mg per feeding per animal.
–– Put on gloves and a mouth-mask when opening and handling the fluid, and when
defining the right quantity. Any contact of you and the fluid must be avoided! Put
the box back in its storage place.
–– Mix the medicinal product through the feeding.
–– Wash your hands thoroughly afterwards and clean them with a disposable towel or
a newly washed towel; put the towel on the wash basket. Any contact with micro-
organisms from the animal and yourself must be avoided!
–– Conduct the appropriate recording procedure. Respect the withdrawal period.
–– Evaluate the effects of the treatments.
5.3. Medicinal products in pellets or powder through drinking water or milk
–– Check whether you have taken the right medicinal product.
–– Check the date of first handling of the product as written on the label.
–– Determine the appropriate dosage in relation to the number of animals to be
treated. The veterinarian and the leaflet provide the information on mg/kg body
weight or mg per feeding per animal.
–– Put on gloves and mouth mask before proceeding. Any contact between you
(inhalation) and the powder/pellets must be avoided!
–– Open the packaging material, determine the dosage by weighing the powder or
pellets, and mix the product in the mixing device.
–– When mixing the product, preferably an air-outlet system should be operating in
order to eliminate micro-clouds of powder from the air.
–– After application, wash your hands thoroughly and dry them with a disposable
towel or a newly washed unused towel which then must be put in the washing
basket. Any contact between you and the powder, or microorganisms from the
animals must be avoided.
–– Conduct the appropriate recording procedure and respect the withdrawal period!
–– Evaluate the effects of the treatments.

 »

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 41

Chapter 3

6. Evaluation of the treatment effects

–– It is highly indicated to evaluate the effects of treatment regularly because this
can provides you with issues to improve medical treatment and even to reduce
treatment costs. Conduct such evaluation together with your veterinarian.
–– The number of days between first observed signs of disease and start of the
treatment can be parameters; the number of days between start of treatment and
recovery is another parameter for dealing with treatment evaluations. It is advised
to assign diseases to different clusters, like respiratory disorders, gastro-intestinal
disorders, etc. The availability of results from laboratories and postmortems can be
very helpful in these evaluations. Discuss with your veterinarian what can be done
with the evaluation results.
7. How to handle utensils and equipment
–– Syringes and needles have been addressed above. In this paragraph we emphasise
the relevance of properly handling disposables, durable utensils and equipment,
and other materials.
–– Revolver-syringes and other durable syringes must be cleaned after being used, and
put into boiling water for 10 minutes; durable needles the same. After cooling down
these materials must be stored in a clean and closed storage place, or in disinfection
solutions as indicated by your veterinarian.
–– Never use crooked or damaged needles; these must be put into the dump-box. If a
needle gets crooked during treatment, replace it by a new one.
–– Here-after we present a series of pictures on what is good and what is poor in
handling and administering medicinal products by injection and utensils. These are
meant as a reminder and to avoid safety problems for yourself and the animals.

Your safety and your health always prevail!!

 »

42 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

Storage of medicinal products

Not like this!

Not like this! Not like this!

Rather like this!

Transportation of medicinal products on the farm

Carry medicinal products …. or like this!

and syringes like this….

Not like this, with too many Do NOT carry syringes with
different products, only one (open) needles in your
syringe, and one open needle! pocket!

 »

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 43

Chapter 3

Choosing the appropriate medicinal product

(diagnosis; indication; species; route of administration; volume)

Read the product leaflet

carefully for dosage and
Read the product leaflet withdrawal period too! See also
carefully! your HTAP!

Choosing the appropriate instruments (syringes; needles)

Make sure that you have noted the date of

first injection on the label of the bottle with
injection fluid.

Let some air in the

syringe, take the bottle,
inject the needle, inject
the air in the syringe
into the bottle, take the
proper volume out of the
bottle, eject the last bit of
air, put the protection cap
on the needle when you
are to transport the
syringe.

 »

44 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

Site and direction of injections

Proper site and direction for injecting

Not like this!

... nor like this!

After the injection(s), dispose of needles properly, clean syringes, wash hands
and clean them with a clean towel

Make sure that your recording of the use of medicinal products is done
correctly!

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 45

Chapter 3

3.3. Working Instructions, as part of the GDF guidelines

Working instructions can be developed for specific (problem) farming areas, additional
to the guidelines. Working Instructions are management instruments which are one
level more specified than guidelines. The latter address more general rules of attitude
and mentality, while working instructions represent technical instruction notes and
are linked to a certain guideline.

These working instructions serve the daily operational management in different

domains. Examples of working instructions are: Prevention & Control of Diarrhoea
in Neonate Calves; Optimal Heat Detection; Optimal Insemination Strategy; Optimal
Use of Foot Baths; Optimal Milk Replacer Feeding; Optimal Handling of Cull Cows;
Optimal Handling of Dead Animals; Herd Treatment Advisory Plan. The Herd
Treatment Advisory Plan is a working instruction linked to the guideline of Good
Medicine Application.

An example of a working instruction is given below (Box 3.4). It regards the working
instruction for Cleaning the Hygiene Barrier at the entrance of the farm. This working
instruction is related to the guideline on Hygiene Instructions for Visitors, given
earlier (Box 3.1). This working instruction format can be used as a checklist at the
same time; the responsible person signs it. After a certain month has passed by, the
document is stored in the archives of documents (see Chapter 10).

Another working instruction example is the one on Diarrhoea in Neonate Dairy

Calves, as listed in Figure 3.2. This example shows a different format than a ‘full text
instruction’ as given earlier. It will depend on the dairy farmer which kind of format
he prefers or which he feels is most effective for his particular situation.

A particular working instruction relevant with regard to optimal animal health and
welfare, as well as to food safety risks (residues of antimicrobials) is the Herd Treatment
Advisory Plan, HTAP. This HTAP should be present on all dairy farms, even on those
without a Quality Risk Management programme. It must be designed as an integral
part of a veterinary Herd Health & Production Management programme. Its main
function is to provide the farmer with guidance in the choice of medicinal products
for particular veterinary medical indications, while at the same time providing safety
for the animal and the user. An example is given in Box 3.5.

The veterinary coach-consultant working in a Herd Health & Production Management

programme or a Quality Risk Management programme should deliver this HTAP
right at the start of these Herd Health & Production Management or Quality Risk
Management activities, and update it at least once every 3 or 6 months.

46 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

Box 3.4. An example of a working instruction on a dairy farm: cleaning the hygiene
barrier (HB).

Working instruction for cleaning of the hygiene barrier:

Who is responsible?
Daily cleaning: Clean towels available O
Clean clothes available O
Boots are clean or cleaned O
Wash tub to be cleaned thoroughly O
Deliveries of medicinal and other products checked O
Clean materials are used according to instruction O

Twice a week cleaning: Dustbin is emptied, cleaned and dry O

Storage of needles and chemicals is emptied and cleaned O
The floor is cleaned, disinfected and dried O

Once a week cleaning: Check soap and disinfectant containers O

Clean walls, windows and doors O
Check visitors log on completeness O
Check the deliveries log on completeness O

Once a month: Clean the refrigerator O

Empty the whole HB area, clean, disinfect and dry O
Check the expiration date of medicinal/chemical products O
Renew the visitors log page O
Renew the deliveries log page O
If a shower is present and used in the HB, clean/disinfect it O

In general, a HTAP should contain the following headings or items (see Box 3.5 and
Annex 3.B, 3.C, 3.D):
• indications & diagnoses;
• first and second choice medicinal products per indication and per species (group);
• potential hazards, if any, for humans (e.g. prostaglandins; powder antibiotics);
• route of administration (e.g. intramuscularly);
• dosage;
• type of syringe and needle (if not the standard one of the farm);
• conservation & storage rules;
• withdrawal periods for milk and meat; record keeping rules;
• name, address and telephone number of veterinarian.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 47

Chapter 3

Yellow paste-like/
watery Diarrhoea

Record number, age, clinical signs, pen nr. of

the affected calf

Calf not willing to Calf not willing to

Calf willing to drink, drink, suckling drink, suckling
suckling strongly, weakly, standing, weakly, lying,
standing normal/deep eyes deep eyes

Separate calf from peers

1. Injection 2.5 cc Immediate:

1. Feed 1 day each enrofloxacin (1x3 days) 1. Injection 5cc
feeding time half 2. Electrolyte therapy for enrofloxacin
daily amount with 1 one day 2. Consult a vet
extra electrolyte
feeding
2. Add 100-125 ml
colostrum to fed
milk for 10 days Therapeutic plan by
veterinarian is well
recorded and
executed
1. Increase
amount of milk
125 ml each feeding
2. Keep on adding
colostrum

Regroup calf with peer group

after 10 days

Figure 3.2. An example of a working instruction on a dairy farm: diarrhoea in neonate calves.

It should be clear that this HTAP is closely associated with the guideline of Good
Medicine Application practice, presented earlier. In this guideline the farmer or his
co-workers can find additional instructions about handling and cleaning utensils and

48 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

Box 3.5. An example of a HTAP on a dairy farm.

Herd Treatment Advisory Plan for ‘Miscellaneous Disorders’

Farm code: Veterinarian:

Practice code:
Practice telephone:
Last update: Editor:

Disorder/disease: Treatment/advice: Withdrawal period Remarks:

Milk Meat

Dystocia (with Hydrotherapy 10 min, 4 times/day.

damage to birth Wide spectrum antibiotics A 2 days 10 days
canal) once daily at 5 ml/100 kg for 3
consecutive days; NSAID for 3 days
Retained afterbirth Call the vet for diagnosis. Separate
(sick Cow, fever > the cow, give fresh water; check
39.5°C, feed refusal, rectal temperature several times
milk yield loss) a day.
Insert capsules with antibiotics C, 3 days 8 days
after cleaning perineum
Retained afterbirth Check rectal temp 2x/day.
(cow not sick; temp < If cow is suspect, apply antibiotic B 2 days 10 days
39°C; no feed refusal; for 3 days. Separate cow
milk yield OK) .

handling medicinal products. An example of a HTAP for ‘miscellaneous disorders’ is

given in Box 3.5.

Such HTAP should further be developed for e.g. mastitis, for disorders in young stock
rearing, for infectious diseases, for claw disorders, when such areas represent problem
areas.

Other, highly important working instructions regarding animal health on the dairy
farm can be found in the Biosecurity Assurance Plan (BAP). This BAP addresses the
prevention of infectious diseases from entering the dairy farm, and, if present after
all, the prevention of the spread of such diseases on the dairy farm premises. The
core elements of the BAP are the risk identification, the risk management and the

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 49

Chapter 3

risk communication, followed by working instructions to deal with general risks (e.g.
related to hygiene). BAP focuses on infectious diseases only; it comprises a physical
management instrument to control the risks of the introduction and the spread of
infectious diseases on the farm (BAMN, 2000).

The Farm Quality Management Team should first consider the relative relevance of the
different infectious diseases in order to establish an order of importance. Then the BAP
is designed around the high priority diseases. Such diseases may be viral (foot-and-
mouth disease; brucellosis; tuberculosis; bovine virus diarrhoea; bovine herpes virus
I causing infectious bovine rhino-tracheitis) or bacterial (salmonellosis; leptospirosis;
mycobacteriosis causing Johne’s disease; mastitis); they may also be related to animal
health & welfare and/or to public health. The high priority diseases refer to those
already prevalent on the farm and to those which the farmer desires to keep out of his
farm, because of their economic impact or other reasons. This leaves aside the formal
control and prevention procedures regarding highly contagious diseases like foot-
and-mouth disease, although even for those diseases the farmer can take additional
biosecurity measures to keep such diseases away from his premises (e.g. by stopping
purchasing cattle, by installing hygiene rules for visitors, etc.).

Next, the Team must determine the most important domains of exposure to these
pathogens. Such domains are commonly associated with:
• new entries into the herd (cattle; embryos; semen);
• feedstuffs (roughages; concentrates; by-products);
• drinking water (microbiological contamination);
• animal contacts (different age groups; different herds/farms; purchased cattle);
• wildlife contacts;
• rodents and pets;
• vehicles;
• people.

Next to exposure, the Team has to answer questions about pathogen transmission on
the farm. These questions are related to the high priority diseases as determined earlier.
Examples of transmission routes, pathogen shedding and survival in the environment
are presented in Table 3.1 (adapted after BAMN, 2000).

In the third place, it is advisable to draw a farm map with all buildings, facilities and
pasture plots, as well as a geographical map with the natural barriers and borders
which may contribute in the prevention and reduction of infectious diseases. Such
maps will assist in clarifying to the farm-workers where hazards and risks occur, and
what options are feasible to avoid or reduce such risks.

50 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

Table 3.1. An example of various characteristics of transmission, incubation, shedding and

survival for different cattle pathogens (adapted after BAMN, 2000).

Example diseases

Cryptosporidiosis
Paratuberculosis
Johne’s disease

Salmonellosis
Staph aureus

Bovine virus
diarrhoea
mastitis

Transmission routes

Faecal - oral yes yes yes yes

Nasal secretions, ? yes yes
saliva
Milk yes yes yes yes
In utero yes yes yes
Sexual yes
Incubation period days/months years 5 to 10 years 1 to 4 years days
Duration of clinical days/years weeks/ 2 weeks 1 to 7 years days-weeks
signs months
Duration of shedding days/years month/years 10 to 14 days weeks/years days
Survival in environment ? months/years < 14 days months 1 year
Growth in environment yes? no no yes

Fourth, the Team should conduct the risk analysis for determining and weighing the
risk factors associated to the high priority diseases defined earlier. This exercise will
result in risk conditions which are general in nature and risk conditions which are
more disease-specific.

The general risk conditions can be converted into guidelines or working instructions
for a certain domain. One general issue regarding infectious diseases is to limit the
movements of animals of all ages on the dairy farm and limiting the contacts of animals
with people, vehicles and vectors. In the context of biosecurity, all animal groups
(different young stock age groups, dry cows, lactating cows) must be considered as
separate management units; all contacts between these groups must be avoided!

It can furthermore be indicated to survey the movement lines of people, animals,

feedstuffs, vehicles to find out where the ‘hottest spots of crossings’ are on the farm.
Those hot spots represent the areas where transmission of pathogens can more easily
occur than in other places, for example through manure on boots, clothes, vehicles.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 51

Chapter 3

Many general risks can already be controlled by simple measures like purchasing
semen or embryos from sources with good health reputation and or certificates;
or purchasing feedstuffs from feed-mills applying good manufacturing practice to
control e.g. salmonellosis; or buying cattle from herds with certain animal health
certificates.

The fifth and final step in the designing of a BAP is the set-up of the BAP itself,
taking into account the results of the preceding 4 steps, hence, the maps, the high
priority diseases and their associated risk conditions, the exposure areas, the pathogen
characteristics of transmission, shedding and survival. These issues will re-appear in
the working instructions. There need to be working instructions for Hygiene of People
Visiting the farm; Hygiene & Disinfection Schemes for Vehicles entering/leaving the
farm; Handling of Purchased Cattle; Handling of Cull Cattle; Handling of Dead Cattle;
etc. Specific risk conditions may require specific instructions; for example in the case
of salmonellosis or mycotoxicosis in order to protect the people working on the farm
from becoming infected or contaminated.

The different steps to be taken in designing a BAP are short-listed in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Short overview of the 5 steps in designing a biosecurity assurance plan.

Step 1 Inventory of hazards (infectious diseases) of the highest concern by Farm Quality
Management Team
Step 2 Inventory of exposure assessment and transmission issues, related to results of step 1
Step 3 Drawing a dairy farm map and a geographical map of the dairy farm in its surroundings
Step 4 Conduct a risk analysis as associated with the selected hazards of concern; ‘hot spots’
inventory
Step 5 Formulate the biosecurity assurance plan on paper; design the necessary working
instructions

3.4. Concluding remarks

Good Dairy Farming guidelines and working instructions, as well as biosecurity

assurance plans are management instruments. They put together the update and
relevant knowledge about the hazards and their associated risks regarding infectious
diseases that have been prioritised on a specific dairy farm.

52 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

In some instances they may look redundant; but we should not forget that a dairy
farmer has to handle hundreds of (part)-processes and functions during decision-
making on his farm every day. Some will slip away, others will lack consistent
attention. An instrument focussing his attention on particular problem areas will
assist him in taking the proper measures and observe the relevant issues. This is even
more relevant for dairy farms with more than one farm worker; on some farms the
personnel situation may be quite complex and then it is paramount that every co-
worker approaches a certain farming field in the same way as others. In the latter case
it is a component of farm organisation.

During the process of assessing strong and weak points on a dairy farm (Chapter
2), the interpretation of the results and the design of an action plan, there will come
a moment that –as part of that action plan- we need to develop and implement
guidelines and working instructions for particular problem areas. These guidelines
and working instructions assist in facilitating operational management on the dairy
farm. The same applies for biosecurity assurance plans.

When – as a next phase – a dairy farmer desires to develop and install a Quality Risk
Management programme, based on the HACCP concept and principles, it will be
much more easy to convince the people working on the farm to comply to the rules set
by such a programme, when these people have got used to the rules and instructions
as issued by GDF guidelines. In other words, adoption is much quicker. Therefore, the
development and implementation of GDF guidelines is often considered a founding
phase prior to HACCP introduction. The proper attitude and mentality have then
been built. This is the main reason why we have positioned this chapter after the
monitoring of strengths and weaknesses on the dairy farm (Chapter 2), and before
introducing the concept and principles of HACCP (Chapter 4).

Finally, you will find hereafter two elaborated examples of working instructions for a
particular dairy farm FX with two problem areas: one in udder health & milk quality
(Box 3.6); one in young stock rearing (Box 3.7). Dairy farm FX will be addressed in
the subsequent chapters to illustrate the design and application of a HACCP-based
Quality Risk Management programme.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 53

Chapter 3

Box 3.6. Working instruction for dairy farm FX with a problem in udder health and milk
quality (adapted from Bray and Shearer, 1994).

Farm FX: Working instruction on ‘Cleaning the milking machine’

Company: Date of last revision:

Responsible person: Editor:
Aim of this working instruction:

Daily
• Wash the outside of milk line, receiver jar and trap, and milking claws and hoses.
Every two weeks or 1200 milkings
• Replace teat cup liners.
Monthly
• Remove pulsators and clean them.
• Replace filters and/or clean vacuum controllers.
• Wash trap inside and out.
Every 6 months
• Monthly cleaning as usual.
• Replace all pulsators rubber parts.
• Replace all pulsators hoses, air tubes.
• Replace receiver jar gasket.
• Replace all milk hoses.
• Replace rubber hoses and rubber hose nozzles used to wash udder (rubber hoses
harbour bacteria).
• Flush pulsator and vacuum lines.
• Check tension and quality of belts on vacuum pumps.
Yearly
• Do monthly and 6-monthly cleaning as usual.
• Replace all wash line hoses.
• Replace trap gasket.
• Replace wash manifold cups.
• Replace belts on vacuum pump.

54 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

Box 3.7. Working instruction for dairy farm FX with a problem in young stock rearing.

Farm FX: Working instruction on ‘Colostrum feeding’

Company: Date of last revision:

Responsible person(s): Editor:
Aim of this working instruction:

Collection & storage of colostrum:

• Collect a minimum of 5.5 L within 2 hours after calving/birth aseptically.
• Feed the colostrum immediately after collection and freeze the remaining.
• Store the colostrum in a clean bucket in a cool dark place.
• If stored for more than 24 hrs colostrum must be frozen in volumes of 2 L at -21 °C for a
maximum of 1 year.
• When freezing, put date of collection and cow identification on plastic bag.
• Prevent dirt, flies, animals from contaminating colostrum.
• Never add water or mastitic milk to colostrum.
• Check cow timely before calving for paratuberculosis; when positive, take actions
according to Work Instruction ‘paratuberculosis’ (Johne’s disease).
Colostrum feeding
• Never feed mastitic or antibiotic or blood containing milk to neonate calves.
• Measure colostrum quality (IgG) by colostrometer.
• Colostrum temperature must be > 23 °C.
• If too little colostrum is available from dam, use colostrum from other dams of high
parity or from deepfreezer.
• Feed colostrum with a clean disinfected teat bucket.
• Do not leave the calf with the dam for more than 4-5 hrs.
• If calf does not drink voluntarily, use a clean stomach tube to feed colostrum.
• Calves must be fed a minimum of 100 gr IgG (2 L) immediately after birth and another
100 gr IgG (2 L) within 12 hrs after birth.
• Following colostrum feedings of 1.5 L at 6-8 hrs intervals.
• Feed colostrum for at least 3 days of life.
• Calf IgG levels can be checked with a refractometer on site (2-5 days of age).
• When thawing colostrum from freezer, do it ‘au bain Marie’, and not by microwave nor
heating > 50 °C because of IgG breakdown.
• At feeding, colostrum temperature must be at 39 °C ± 2 °C.
Other colostrum management issues
• Keep record of calf when it receives colostrum from another dam.
• Apply the highest hygiene standards in the calving pen.
• Apply the highest hygiene standards in the single calf hutches.
• Provide optimal calf comfort in the single hutches (bedding; climate; feeding).
• Apply the highest personal hygiene standards (clean boots; clothes; hands).
• Clean all equipment after each feeding.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 55

Chapter 3

Annex 3A. Guidelines and working instructions on hygiene

A dairy farm produces ‘raw materials’ for food processing: milk and beef. The cleaning
and maintenance of areas where such raw materials are being produced (cow houses;
waiting area; milking parlour) and being stored (bulk milk tank) must, therefore, meet
with the highest hygiene standards.

In this section we address the different elements which are relevant for cleaning and
disinfection in order to achieve high hygiene levels. Most important are the working
instructions and checklist for hygiene. They should contribute to a better awareness
about hygiene among farm workers and improve compliance. Remember that the
presented working instructions and checklists must be adapted to each specific
farm.

About the procedure for cleaning & disinfection

In the procedure of cleaning there are 6steps to be followed:
• pre-treatment in order to eliminate loose dirt;
• cleaning to loosen dirt by applying certain products;
• rinsing to eliminate loosened dirt and neutralise cleaning product residues;
• disinfection to destroy bacteria that survived preceding cleaning steps;
• rinsing to eliminate residues of disinfectants;
• drying to eliminate the last rinsing water.

These 6 steps are integrated into 3 different working methods, depending on the areas
where more or less contact does exist with the raw material (milk) being produced.
These 3 are:
• Cleaning and drying
For areas where no direct contact exists between surfaces to be cleaned and milk.
• Cleaning, rinsing and drying
For areas, materials and equipment where or on-which contact of residues of
cleaning products with milk must be avoided.
• Cleaning, rinsing, disinfection, rinsing and drying
For surfaces of equipment and materials which are in direct contact with milk
being produced and which are not subjected to heat-treatment.

Hygiene rules to be followed

Next to applying one or more of the three methods named above, the farm workers
responsible for executing hygiene measures should follow themselves some strict
rules. These rules form part of Good Dairy Farming codes of practice. Examples are:
• instructions developed and applied must be strictly followed;

56 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

• personal hygiene of people involved is a prerequisite (hands; nails; clothes;

boots);
• equipment that can be taken apart should be regularly subjected to cleaning &
disinfection methods (e.g. milking machine);
• in cases of purchase or in situations of reconstruction, the surveillance of
hygienically working remains paramount;
• in cases of replacing certain parts the mounting instructions must be followed
strictly;
• the working instructions on hygiene must be executed and complied with….
–– at the right moment;
–– at the proper frequency;
–– by using adequate dosage of products;
–– while using clean materials and equipment;
–– without neglecting rinsing after the cleaning & disinfection steps.

Checkpoints in the cleaning & disinfection procedure

In order to provide the farmer with the certainty that the effects of cleaning &
disinfection procedures are being achieved, it is worthwhile to insert a few checkpoints
in the whole procedure. These checkpoints too form part of the Good Dairy Farming
codes of practice.
Examples of checkpoints are:
• timing of the cleaning & disinfection → should not be conducted during moments
that the milk is being produced (= not during milk harvesting);
• proper dosage of cleaning/disinfection products → a too low dosage will negatively
impact the effect; a too high dosage is too expensive and environmentally
unfriendly;
• use of clean working materials → to prevent re-contamination;
• duration of the different steps → disinfection should at least take 5 min to be
effective;
• rinsing after disinfection of surfaces in contact with milk → to avoid contamination
of milk by product residues;
• separation of dirty and clean parts of equipment, materials and surfaces → to avoid
recontamination and insufficient cleaning;
• temperature of refrigerator, of milking machine rinsing water and bulk milk tank →
checking at each milking to avoid deviations and milk losses;
• storage places of chemical products → not too close to the bulk milk tank;
• checking expiration date of cleaning & disinfection products regularly → to avoid
loss of efficacy.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 57

Chapter 3

Other issues of concern

To be sure that products meant for hygienic purposes which are delivered to the farm
are in good order, they must be checked upon delivery. Checkpoints in this case are:
• expiration date;
• damaged packing material;
• correctness of packaging label;
• recording in the ‘Chemicals Log’ and the bill put in the archive;
• if cool storage is needed, check on this;
• delivered products must never be stored directly on the floor.

58 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

Annex 3B. Herd Treatment Advisory Plan (HTAP) for young stock up to 4
months age

A working instruction

Farm code: Veterinarian:

Practice address:
Telephone number:
Date of update:

Disorder/ Treatment/Advice Withdrawal Withdrawal Follow-up

Disease period milk period beef

Diarrhoea Replace all milk by NA NA If no improvement

electrolytes for the next 48 after 48 hrs or if case
hours worsens, call vet for
advice
Pneumonia: calf Call the vet NA NA
severely ill
Pneumonia: calf Antibiotics P intra- NA NA If no improvement
slightly ill muscularly (IM) 1x/day for after 48 hrs or case
5 consecutive days (dosage worsens, call the vet
xxx)
Omphalitis Antibiotics D IM 1x/day for at NA NA If no improvement
least 10days (dosage yyy) after 48 hrs, or case
worsens, call the vet

Another example of a HTAP. The xxx and yyy refer to a dosage of the antibiotics which needs to be
specified in mg/kg body weight or ml/kg body weight.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 59

Chapter 3

Annex 3C. Herd Treatment Advisory Plan (HTAP) for clinical mastitis cases

A working instruction

Farm code: Veterinarian:

Practice:
Telephone number:
Date of update:

Disease type Treatment / Advice Withdrawal Withdrawal Follow-up

period milk period beef

Acute severe Take milk sample If no improvement

mastitis Milk frequently after 3 days or
Antibiotic L IM 2x/day for 2 60 hrs 16 days worsening, call the
days (xx) veterinarian
Injector A in udder 1x/day 48 hrs 7 days
Subacute mild Take milk sample If no improvement
mastitis Antibiotic L IM; 1st day 72 hrs 10 days after 3 days or
double dosage,2nd day worsening, then call
single dosage (xx) the veterinarian
Injector S in udder 1x/day for 72 hrs 12 days
3 days
Milk frequently during the
day
Mastitis in dry Take milk sample If no improvement
period Antibiotic L IM; 1st days 72 hrs 10 days after 3 days or
double dosage; 2nd day worsening, then call
single dosage (xx) the veterinarian
Injector A in udder 2x/day 48 hrs 7 days
for 3 days

Another example of a HTAP. The xx refer to the dosage in mg/kg or ml/kg body weight to be
specified in the HTAP (IM= intramuscularly).

60 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Good dairy farming codes of practice

Annex 3D. Herd Treatment Advisory Plan (HTAP) for claw and leg lesions

Disorder Treatment / Advice Withdrawal Withdrawal Follow-up

period milk period beef

Peri-arthritis Antibiotic N 1 ml/20 kg IM 2 days 5 days If no improvement,

for 3 days call the vet
Peri-arthritis + Call the vet,
Arthritis prognosis poor
Mortellaro CTC spray locally 2-3 times 0 0 When endemic
disease after each milking after situation, design
or cleaning and drying claws; a full programme
Digital Locally hoof gel; 1 day 5 days separately
dermatitis Antibiotic C IM 2 ml/50 kg for
3-5 days
Interdigital CTC spray locally after 0 0 Design a separate
dermatitis cleaning and drying claw programme when
Formalin footbath 3-4% 0 0 prevalence is high (>
every 4 weeks for 3 days 30%)
Check calves!
Interdigital OTC 10% IM 1 ml/25 kg for 3 days 28 days Check calves too!
Phlegmon 3 days
(footrot) Antibiotic E 1 ml/50 kg 0 8 days
subcutaneously (SC) for 3
days
Sole ulcer Corrective claw trimming 0 0
+ hoof block under healthy
claw
Laminitis Functional trimming 0 0 Design separate
(haemorrhages) programme when
prevalence is high (>
20%)
Check calves!

Another example of a HTAP. (IM= intramuscularly).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 61

Chapter 4. The HACCP-concept, the 7 principles and 12 steps
(general issues)

4.1. Introduction

The HACCP-concept has originally been developed in the food industry to control
food safety and the risks of food-borne diseases in the USA NASA space programme
(Pierson, 1995). Originally, the Pillsbury Company started with the development of
the concept in 1959 and evaluated and subsequently adopted in this primary HACCP-
concept the US Army concept of ‘Modes of Failures’. The latter was being used to both
predict what could go wrong and select key points in the process for monitoring (as
preliminary stages of critical control points in HACCP). In 1971 the principles of
HACCP and their application were first published and presented at the US Conference
on Food Protection (Pierson, 1995). The history and a conceptual overview have been
presented by Hulebak and Schlűsser (2002).

The starting point for the development of a Quality Risk Management programme
on the basis of the HACCP-concept is either a complaint from the farmer about
the performance of his herd, a deviation in herd performance as detected by the
veterinarian during his Herd Health & Production Management programme visits, or
the wish of the dairy farmer to be supported routinely in his quality control activities.
An assessment of the strengths-and-weaknesses (SWA) on a dairy farm with regard to
the animals and their environment, and the management (Chapter 2) is a primary step
toward the development of a HACCP-like programme for dairy farms. For developing
Quality Risk Management (QRM) programmes, it represents the first analysis of
hazards and associated risks (see further).

In dairy production, contrary to industrial branches, we speak about HACCP-like

applications because our ‘raw material’ regards living animals, cows and calves. These
cows show biological variation, which can be illustrated by sero-prevalence data of a
certain infectious disease in the herd. It is only by arbitrary decision that we handle cut-
off points to call a proportion of the herd ‘sero-positive’ and another proportion ‘sero-
negative’. At the same time we know that false-positive and false-negative test results
occur simply because our diagnostic tests will hardly ever show 100% sensitivity and
100% specificity at the same time (Noordhuizen et al., 2001). This is a phenomenon
of continuous dynamics, different from diagnosing physical entities like temperature
or metal fragments present or not. In the latter situations, we can set absolute target
values and a certain tolerance level to consider an item positive or negative; it is the
difference between black-white and grey zones on the one hand, and black-and-white

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 63

Chapter 4

only on the other hand. This will have consequences for the design and application of
the HACCP-concept to the dairy farm as we soon will see.

At the start of designing a HACCP-like programme for a dairy farm on request of the
farmer or the owner, it is highly indicated to form a ‘Farm Quality Management Team’
(this is the Step 1 from the implementation procedure). This Team commonly comprises
the dairy farmer (or on large dairy enterprises the farm manager or maybe even a
special farm quality manager), the veterinary practitioner and an independent animal
nutritionist. When needed, the Team can always be expanded with other specialists
but should never exceed the number of 7 persons to keep discussions manageable. The
type of specialist will also depend of the type of hazard(s) under hands (e.g. zoonoses,
highly contagious diseases, welfare disorders). If more professional advice would be
needed, these persons can be consulted on a specific basis and moment in time. Team
members should be well aware of the fact that both the design and the implementation
of the HACCP-like programme must be conducted in terms of discussion, coaching,
and advice. One cannot just leave the farmer with a bundle of work sheets or action
plans. In many cases farm workers need additional and continuous training on-site
before programme implementation can be carried out; coaching of the farm-workers
and the farm-technicians by the veterinarian is paramount. Discussion and subsequent
adoption is highly relevant, and farm advisors should invest in this issue. When farm
workers understand the meaning of their actions, they tend to be more involved and
interested in the work they carry out (A. Vieira, personal communication).

When deemed appropriate, the Team also answers the question about the destiny of
the product delivered: is raw milk delivered to the dairy factory for processing into
milk for consumption, or is it meant for cheese-making (raw milk cheese or cheese
from pasteurised milk), or is it for extracting certain proteins for medical use? These
three examples may have an impact on the hazards and risks to be dealt with (see at
paragraph 2.2 in Chapter 2). On the other hand, farmers do sometimes not have any
idea what happens to the milk they deliver, which phenomenon can be considered as
a breakdown in the whole food chain.

It should always be kept in mind that a HACCP-like programme is farm-specific,

because no farm is the same, management qualities differ, and husbandry conditions
differ. However, for the design of such a programme we can still use the same basic
blue prints.

Once the Team has been assembled, the general objectives of the farm and farmer are
to be defined. At the same time it is to be established what the major demands of the
customer (e.g. the milk processing factory, or the consumer of farm-made products)

64 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 The HACCP-concept, the 7 principles and 12 steps

are. Thereafter, a time-table with defined development activities and deadlines needs
to be established. In this time-table, first, the main hazards are to be identified.

Next step is the execution of a Strengths-and-Weaknesses assessment (SWA) to obtain

the first major constraints and risks prevailing on the farm; this step, preparatory to
the identification of risks, was addressed in Chapter 2. Then, the Team conducts a risk
assessment given the hazards of concern. The next step is designing flow diagrams of
the dairy farm operation and the geographical map of the farm in its surroundings
(Chapter 5). These elements will be dealt with in subsequent chapters.

4.2. The 7 principles of the HACCP-concept

In Table 4.1, the seven principles of the HACCP-concept have been listed. It is
paramount to stick as close as possible to these principles because they form the
skeleton of the HACCP-like programme and these represent the linking with the
other links in the food chain. Each of the principles will be elaborated into more detail
in subsequent chapters when we start implementing the 12 steps for the design of our
HACCP-like programme on a dairy farm. The seven principles are fully integrated
into these twelve steps.

Table 4.1. The seven principles of the HACCP-concept (adapted after Cullor, 1995).

Principle 1 Identify the most relevant hazards and risks associated with the production process
in all its stages until delivery, and analyse them. Hazards may be microbiological,
chemical, physical or managerial in nature.
Assess the likelihood of occurrence and impact of the risks, and identify preventive
measures for control.
Principle 2 Determine the points/procedures/steps in the process that can be controlled to
eliminate the hazards/risks or reduce their impact (critical control points, CCP; points
of particular attention, POPA)
Principle 3 Establish target levels, or standards + tolerance levels which must be met to ensure
that the CCP or POPA is under control
Principle 4 Establish a monitoring system to ensure a proper control of the CCP’s and POPA’s by
scheduled testing and / or observations.
Principle 5 Establish corrective actions to be taken when monitoring indicates that a CCP or
POPA is out of control; these actions must restore control
Principle 6 Establish procedures for verification which includes supplementary testing and
procedures to confirm that the HACCP-programme is functioning effectively
Principle 7 Establish documentation concerning all procedures and records appropriate to
these principles and their application

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 65

Chapter 4

In Table 4.1 you can read the terms ‘hazards and risks’ (Principle 1). These hazards and
risks refer to the different diseases and disorders that we want to handle. Hazards are
agents or noxae which may be microbiological, chemical, physical or managerial in
nature, and which may cause a certain risk which is deemed unacceptable to animals,
professionals, consumers or products. Risk refers to the probability of occurrence of
a certain hazard and to the impact this occurrence may have. Hazards are different
between countries, regions and farms because the prevalence of diseases differs largely
between farms; risk conditions also differ largely between farms because husbandry
methods and farm management qualities differ substantially. Therefore we need a
farm-specific HACCP-like programme.

Examples of microbiological hazards and risks are zoonoses threatening public

health: Salmonella spp., Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Brucella abortus bang, Listeria
monocytogenes, Johne’s disease, Campylobacter spp., Leptospira hardjo, and E. coli
O157 H7. But also mastitis and other bacterial, or viral and parasitological diseases
(e.g. Cryptosporidium parvum) are involved (Hassan, 2001; Goodger et al., 1996;
Tesh and O’Brien, 1991; Chauvin, 1994; Sanaa, 1994; Thorel, 1994; Heuvelink et al.,
1998; Nydam et al., 2005; Oliver et al., 2005; Jayarao and Henning, 2001; ICMSF,
1988).

Examples of chemical hazards and risks are: residues of antimicrobial drugs,

contamination of milk by milking machine cleaning detergents, mycotoxines, oil
leaking on grass or corn from tractors used for silage-making (Niza-Ribeiro, 2003).

Examples of physical hazards/risks are poorly maintained equipment and their parts
in the housing facility of cows leading to trauma. A poorly maintained slatted floor
with too many unequal or broken slats or iron pins in the feed rack are a threat to
cattle health and welfare.

Examples of managerial hazards and risks are poor identification of animals, poor
colostrum management, poor feed harvesting, personal health status of people may
sometimes represent a risk, and poor record keeping.

Risk factors can be general in nature (for example poor hygiene in the milking parlour)
or very disease-specific (improper milking cluster washing greatly contributes to
Staphylococcus aureus mastitis). They can be assessed in a qualitative sense, semi-
quantitative or calculated through epidemiological techniques yielding odds
ratios; subsequently the risk factors can be ranked in order of relevance (Table 4.2;
Noordhuizen et al., 2001).

66 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 The HACCP-concept, the 7 principles and 12 steps

Table 4.2. Overview of risk factors for Mortellaro disease in dairy cows and their odds ratios,
adapted after Frankena et al., 1992 in Noordhuizen et al., 2001 (OR >1 means increased risk; OR
<1 means reduced risk; OR= 1 means no association. HF= Holstein Frisian; FH= Dutch Frisian;
MRY= Meuse Rhine IJssel).

Variable Specification Odds ratio, OR

Parity of the cows 1 1.3

2 1.1
3 1.0 (reference)
Predominant breed of the cows in the herd > 50% HF 1.2
> 50% FH 1.02
> 50% MRY 0.1
HF * FH crossbreed 1.0 (reference)
Lactation stage Dry 0.3
Pre-top 0.8
Top (50-70 days) 1.7
Past-top 1.0 (reference)
Access to pasture Limited 1.5
Free 1.0 (reference)
Average walking distance to the pasture plots > 200 m 5.4
< 200 m 1.0 (reference)
Walking path quality Metalled 2.6
Non-metalled 1.0 (reference)

An example of semi-quantitative risk assessment is by using expert opinions on given

subjects like particular diseases. A commercially available software programme using
adaptive conjoint analysis can be used for ranking risk factors in order of importance
(Sawtooth Software, USA, 2000; van Schaik et al., 1998; Fels-Klerx et al., 2000; Angus
et al, 2005). Adaptive conjoint analysis has also succesfully been applied to the domain
of cattle welfare (J.J. Lievaart, personal communication). Some further elaboration
and clarification of adaptive conjoint analysis applications are given in Annex 4A at
the end of this Chapter.

The qualitative assessment of risk factors should be conducted by the Farm Quality
Management Team whenever the other methods are not available.

Series of different SWA sheets (strengths; weaknesses) for several farming areas can
be downloaded from www.vacqa-international.com. These SWA sheets are simple
and easy instruments to score the stronger and the weaker points on the dairy farm.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 67

Chapter 4

Moreover, they have been provided with instruction pictures and reference values.
Examples have been given in Chapter 2. The hazards and risks are further addressed
in Chapter 6.

In Principle 2 we speak about critical control points, CCP. These are points at different
steps in the production process where risks should be controlled. CCP’s can be single
points in the process, series of points, observations, procedures or test sites. Formally
speaking a CCP can only be considered as such when it meets several formal criteria.
These criteria are:
• the CCP must be associated with the hazard or risk under study;
• it must be measurable or observable;
• it must have a target value or a standard with tolerance levels;
• it must be provided with corrective measures;
• corrective measures must guarantee the full restore of control after it was lost.

Obviously, when dealing with live animals, cows, the last criterion is very hard to
meet. We have explained the phenomenon of biological variation in paragraph 4.1
of this chapter. Therefore, we introduce another term: ‘point of particular attention,
POPA’. A POPA can be considered as a CCP not meeting all the criteria described
before, hence full restoration of control cannot be achieved, in other words the risk
can not be fully eliminated. At a POPA we strive for reduction of the impact of a risk.
Note in this context that a zero-risk level does not exist in the real world. POPA’s are
distributed in the production process on the dairy farm just like CCP’s. Failures in
prevention programmes (e.g. biosecurity) and failures to reduce contamination to an
acceptable level would also lead to a loss of control at a POPA or CCP (Griffin et al.,
1998; Bricher, 2004).

The named biological variation in animals is also the reason why absolute standards
and their tolerance values sometimes are not available in dairy husbandry regarding
issues like animal health, public health, and cattle welfare (Principle 3). In those cases
when we deem the issue sufficiently relevant, we have to rely on target values, for
example the target for clinical mastitis for a given year on a particular farm is set at
25%, a POPA. There is no guarantee that we can indeed reach that target, in spite of
an udder health control programme or other activities. An example of a standard and
tolerance is the initial temperature of the rinsing water used for cleaning the milking
machine after milking: the standard is set at 80 °C; the tolerance is set at + or -2 °C.
This can be considered as a true CCP.

On each individual farm, we assemble all CCP and POPA into an on-farm monitoring
system (Principle 4). In that monitoring system we have defined what must be
monitored, how it must be monitored (e.g. visual inspection, measuring, sampling

68 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 The HACCP-concept, the 7 principles and 12 steps

for laboratory examination), in which frequency it must be monitored and by whom

it must be monitored. A specific document of monitoring is necessary (see Chapters
7 and 10). When laboratory examinations form part of the programme, then this
is a component of the monitoring system too. An example is the collection of milk
samples from mastitis cases and their subsequent bacteriological culturing in order to
obtain a bacteriological profile regarding udder health disorders. Another example is
the routinely collection of blood samples in order to get information about the threat
of fasciolasis in the herd. Or, the collection of colostrum samples for testing colostrum
quality (IgG levels).

Under Principle 5 the corrective actions are defined and described for each CCP and
most preferably for each POPA. In the example of the CCP regarding the temperature
of the rinsing water for cleaning the milking machine after milking, the corrective
actions in case of drops below the standard temperature are either to reset the water
boiler on the right temperature, or to replace the old boiler with a new one. It is
thinkable that an alarm device is installed to check this temperature automatically. In
the example of udder health disorders, the corrective action may be the implementation
or adaptation of an udder health control programme by the veterinarian, including
working instructions like a herd treatment advisory plan, or a hygiene instruction for
the milker(s).

Principles 6 and 7 are dealing with the evaluation of the functioning of the HACCP-
like programme on a farm and the documentation that is needed to demonstrate to
third parties that it is functioning effectively and correctly. The evaluation is first of
all an internal evaluation, for example once yearly by the Farm Quality Management
Team; next it should comprise an external validation by a certified auditing institution.
The latter step is a matter of future development, but crucial for proper certification of
the dairy farm regarding public health status, animal health status and animal welfare
status.

These seven principles are fully integrated into the 12 developmental steps for
designing an on-farm Quality Risk Management programme according to the
HACCP-concept.

4.3. The 12 steps for designing a HACCP-like programme

Table 4.3 (adapted after Cullor, 1995), comprises the 12 steps as defined for the design
of a HACCP-like programme for Quality Risk Management. Some issues have already
been addressed in earlier paragraphs, some others are new.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 69

Chapter 4

Table 4.3. Overview of the 12 steps to design a farm-specific Quality Risk Management
programme based on the HACCP-concept (the principles refer to the ones named in Table
4.2).

Step 1 Assemble a multidisciplinary, facility-based Farm Quality Control Team, including the
farmer, the veterinarian, the nutritionist and economist; it can ad-hoc be extended with
other specialists when deemed necessary
Step 2 Describe the final product, and the method of distribution if applicable (e.g. formulation;
processing requirements)
Step 3 Identify the intended use of the (raw) product and the targeted purchaser (e.g. the milk
factory)
Step 4 Develop a flow diagram which describes the production and distribution process. Work
from whole farm level to the detailing of separate steps up to the detailing within steps
Step 5 Verify the flow diagram on-site on its correctness with the Team members and the farm
workers; adjust when needed
Step 6 Prepare a list of steps in the production process at which targeted risks occur. Identify
the hazards and prioritise them; identify the risks; conduct risk weighing (probability *
impact) [Principle 1]
Step 7 Identify the critical control points, CCP, in the production process required to eliminate or
to reduce the hazards and risks. Identify when needed the points of particular attention,
POPA [Principle 2]
Step 8 Establish critical limits (tolerances) and standards, or specific targets for triggering the
implementation of corrective and preventive measures associated with each CCP and
POPA identified at step 7 [Principle 3]
Step 9 Establish an on-farm monitoring programme and its requirements regarding each CCP
and POPA (laboratory examinations included). Use the results of monitoring to adjust the
procedures and maintain control of the production process. Use monitoring also for herd
performance assessment [Principle 4]
Step 10 Determine corrective measures, to take when monitoring results indicates that a value
falls outside its target or tolerance level and hence control is lost [Principle 5]
Step 11 Establish effective record-keeping procedures that document that the HACCP-like
programme has been implemented, is operational and effective [Principle 6]
Step 12 Establish procedures to verify that the HACCP-like programme is working correctly (e.g.
internal reviews yearly; external verification and audits; periodic revalidation of the
programme) [Principle 7]

Step 1 regarded the formation of a Farm Quality Management Team; in step 2 the
farming goals and final product(s) as delivered by the farm are described; and step 3
regards the destiny of and requirements set for these products delivered by the dairy
farm. First new items (step 4 and 5) refer to the development and verification of flow
diagrams of the on-farm production process, including all the different steps and their

70 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 The HACCP-concept, the 7 principles and 12 steps

interactions. In full text such a diagram is called the production process decomposition
diagram. It is the basis for discussions in the Farm Quality Management Team and it
assists in visualising to its members as well as to farm workers the different subsequent
steps. This flow diagram is handled extensively in Chapter 5. The other steps 6-12,
including the 7 Principles of HACCP, are dealt with in subsequent chapters. This
Table 4.3 will be referred to in the subsequent chapters when we elaborate each subject
in detail.

The axiom for designing a Quality Risk Management programme on dairy farms
based on the HACCP-concept is the following: if a HACCP-like programme is to be
adopted by the dairy farmer, it has to fulfil two basic requirements.
1. it should provide an individual farmer with clear procedures for the elimination
or reduction of hazards and risks related to different kinds of disorders or
mismanagement on the farm in the areas of public health, animal health, and
animal welfare; and
2. it should make the execution of these procedures demonstrable to third parties, like
authorities, consumer organisations and retailers, with regard to the certification of
the public health, and animal health and welfare status, as well as to the measures
taken to improve or retain that status.

Only if we bear this axiom in mind during all developmental stages of the programme,
we will be successful.

When we put all results from the developmental stages together in a loose page
classifier, we may call this the Handbook of the HACCP-like Quality Risk Management
programme. Each page must be uniquely identified by a code referring to the area of
concern, a date of last upgrade, author and a page number. The contents of such a
handbook may look as presented in Table 4.4.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 71

Chapter 4

Table 4.4. A short overview of the contents of a handbook of a HACCP-like programme for
Quality Risk Management on dairy farms.

Section 1 Identification of the farm (name, address, telephone numbers)

List of farm co-workers with telephone numbers
List of farm advisors (name, address, telephone numbers)
List of people to call in case of emergency (doctor, veterinarian, city hall, feed mill,
nutritionist)
List comprising the members of the Farm Quality Control Team (names, addresses,
telephone number)
Statement paper expressing the mission of the farm and the product(s) to be delivered
for a specific destiny
Declarations of those professionals who are serving the farm operation, stating they
will comply to the rules set within the programme
Contracts as prevailing between farmer and milk processing factory, or veterinarian
Animal Health certificates (e.g. IBR, BVD, leptospirosis, salmonellosis, Johne’s disease)
issued by the proper authorities
Section 2 SWA inventory on the farm (strong points; weak points) as preparatory for the analysis
of hazards and risk conditions, but also functional for the design of work instructions
Section 3 Good Dairy Farming codes of practice or guidelines (e.g. good veterinary practice;
good hygiene practice; good medicine application practice); also including work
instructions and biosecurity assurance plans
(Note that this section may very well be part of on-going herd health programmes!)
Section 4 Production process diagrams in different levels of detailing
Geographical maps indicating the position of the farm and is land
Section 5 Selected hazards and risks lists.
Defined CCP and POPA in the different process steps
Target, and standards + tolerances list for each CCP and POPA
Detailed lists of the monitoring procedures
Lists with corrective measures to restore control or reduce the impact of a hazard or
risk
Lists with preventive measures
The records comprised in the HACCP-like programme
Section 6 Support programmes with work instructions for operational management (e.g. dress &
boot code; handling of hazardous materials; handling of waste materials; maintenance
of vehicles and equipment; calibration of measuring devices; reparation of total mixed
rations; harvesting & silage-making instructions)
Section 7 Training programmes in the framework of the Quality Risk Management programme
(these are meant for farm workers)

72 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 The HACCP-concept, the 7 principles and 12 steps

Table 4.4. Continued.

Section 8 Internal review (effectiveness, feasibility, compliance) and External auditing

procedures (correct functioning of the programme) and associated documents like
checklists, or evaluation papers
After an annual review, sections or items within sections have to be upgraded or
adjusted; old pages have to be deleted and new ones added
All programme documents should be stored for 2 years

4.4. Concluding remarks

In industrial branches which are applying the HACCP concept and principles, it is
common use to develop and implement quantitative quality performance evaluation
parameters. These parameters are usually physical in nature. Many examples of such
quantitative parameters and related graphs are given in Evans and Lindsay (1996).

In the dairy sector such quantitative parameters are not abundantly available, not
in the least because, next to physical parameters, most parameters are biological in
nature, all with their natural, biological variation. Examples of measured variables
in the dairy sector are: somatic cell counts and bacterial counts in bulk tank milk,
kgs of milk produced per cow per day or lactation with milk fat and milk protein
contents, temperature of milking machine cleaning water; these can be considered as
‘hard’ variables. On the contrary, parameters like mean yearly clinical mastitis rate,
yearly lameness incidence, animal welfare status, mean sero-titer level in the herd for a
given viral disease can be considered ‘soft’ data. In HHPM programmes, performance
evaluation is conducted on the basis of these latter parameters, accepting a certain
bias in data collection.

Nevertheless, attempts have been made to develop and introduce quantitative process
performance evaluation parameters for certain farm areas. An example is the paper by
Niza-Ribeiro et al. (2004) on process capability indexes for somatic cell counts in dairy
herds. However, information as addressed in these papers is very scarce in literature,
and the available information is far from being applied in the dairy sector.

In the current situation it should be accepted that, due to a lack of sufficient scientific
data, process evaluation parameters like process capability indexes are not available
in the dairy sector for common use. Therefore, we are forced now to rely on what we
have available and can make available for our purposes. On the other hand, it would
be desirable that research is undertaken to develop such quantitative parameters.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 73

Chapter 4

Annex 4A. An elaboration and clarification of adaptive conjoint analysis

(ACA) applications

In Table 4A.1 the attributes (periods in an animal’s life) and levels (hazards occurring
in a period) of an example of the semi-quantitative ACA-assessment is shown. The
aim of this computerised questionnaire is to find out in four series of different kinds of
questions what the main hazards in the eyes of the farmer or veterinarian are. Examples
of the different kinds of questions are displayed below: rating questions (Figure 4A.1),
importance questions (Figure 4A.2), pairs questions (Figure 4A.3) and calibration
questions (Figure 4A.4). At the end of the questionnaire, the ranking of answers can
be calculated. Answers are statistically evaluated for consistency in answering. These
components are derived from an internal report by Boersema (2006).

Table 4A.1. Attributes (respective rearing periods are in darker shade) and levels (lighter shade)
used in an ACA survey on young stock rearing. In each rearing period, significant hazards are
identified, where-after associated risk factors need to be determined.

Period I: Colostrum period until transition to milk

Birth problems & stillbirth
Diarrhoea in newborn calf
Aberrant umbilical cord
Insufficient feed intake
Pneumonia caused by choke
Johne’s Disease infection
Wrong identification
Malformations at birth
Calf gets hurt (f.e. dung remover, pen etc.)
Period II: Milk period until weaning
Diarrhoea in older calf
Wrong teat removal
Overcrowding
Aberrant umbilical cord
Poorly growing calves
Couching
Johne’s Disease infection
Pain during / after dehorning

74 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 The HACCP-concept, the 7 principles and 12 steps

Table 4A.1. Continued.

Period III: Weaning until insemination

Older calf not pregnant before 15 mo old
Lameness
Lungworm
Worm infection / suddenly losing weight
Fasciola hepatica infection
Trichophyton verrucosum infection
Fattening
Johne’s Disease infection
Diarrhoea after weaning
Transfer of diseases from neighbouring cattle
Period IV: Pregnancy period until 4 weeks before calving
Abortion
Poorly growing pregnant heifers
Lameness
Lungworm
Worm infection / suddenly losing weight
Mastitis
Trichophyton verrucosum infection
Fasciola hepatica infection
Overcrowding
Fattening
Period V: Four weeks before calving until calving
Heifer has difficulties with calving
Mastitis
Abomasal displacement
Milk fever in heifers
Lameness
Fasciola hepatica infection
Lungworm
Udder oedema
Overcrowding
Feed intake deviations
Worm infection / suddenly losing weight

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 75

Chapter 4

Table 4A.1. Continued.

Period VI: Heifer in first lactation

Long-lasting milk fever
Mastitis
Lameness
Abomasal displacement
Feed intake deviations
Udder oedema
Heifers with wrong udders / teats
Fasciola hepatica infection
Worm infection
Lungworm infection
Retained placenta

Please rate the following Period I: Colostrum periods

in terms of how important they are.
Not _________ Somewhat ___ Very ________ Extremely
important important important important

Birth problems & stillbirth (I) ° ° ° ° ° ° °

Diarrhoea in newborn calf (I) ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Aberrant umbilical cord (I) ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Insufficient feed intake (I) ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Pneumonia caused by choke (I) ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Johne’s Disease infection (I) ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Malformations at birth (I) ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Calf gets hurt (f.e. alley scraper, ° ° ° ° ° ° °
pen, etc) (I)

Figure 4A.1. An example of ‘rating’ questions.

76 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 The HACCP-concept, the 7 principles and 12 steps

Under the same circumstances, how important would the difference be to you?
Not _________ Somewhat ___ Very ________ Extremely
important important important important

Birth problems & stillbirth (I)

---instead of--- ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Calf gets hurt (f.e. alley scraper,
pen, etc) (I)

Figure 4A.2. An example of ‘importance’ questions.

If all circumstances were the same, which would be the most hazardous pair for you?

Wrong teat removal (II) or Overcrowding (II)

Birth problems & stillbirth (I) Insufficient feed intake (I)

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Strongly _______ Somewhat _______ Indifferent _______ Somewhat _______ Strongly
prefer prefer prefer prefer
left left right right

Figure 4A.3. An example of ‘paired’ questions.

Please type a number between 0 and 100 where 0 means ‘not threatening
for animal health & welfare’ and 100 means ‘definitely threatening’
How likely will the displayed hazards be threatening?
Calf gets hurt (f.e. alley scraper, pen, etc) (I)
Pain during/ after dehorning (II)

Figure 4A.4. An example of ‘calibration’ questions.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 77

Chapter 5. Flow diagrams of the production process

5.1. Introduction

Step 4 in the developmental process for designing a HACCP-like programme for

Quality Risk Management comprises the drawing of flow diagrams of the production
process on the dairy farm (production process decomposition diagrams). Flow diagrams
are structured and schematic representations of the production process on a particular
dairy farm in all its relevant steps. They should be created on-site with the farmer and
the farm-workers. All process steps should preferably fit on one page A4 or A3, or
when desired on one readable computer screen in order to keep the overview and
readability. They are meant to:
1. form the basis for the programme development by identifying and structuring the
different steps in the production process;
2. facilitate discussions within the Farm Quality Management Team about hazards
and risks, the CCP and POPA and their monitoring, as a communication tool;
3. assess the movements of animals, people and equipment, and their mutual contact
points as related to transfer of infectious agents, as well as the destiny of the milk
delivered;
4. design working instructions for particular areas;
5. show third parties the exact location of farm buildings, pasture plots, roads, fences,
cow/calf groups.

The flow diagrams are best followed by location maps and a geographical map of the
farm and its surroundings including the position of the land, and natural barriers
like channels, rivers, ditches or mountains, and possibly villages and other activities.
Besides the supportive information for on-site workers, these maps are also useful for
external professionals who are to do a job on the farm, e.g. a contractor (FAO, 1997;
CAC, 1999; Quinn, 2001; T. Mota, unpublished data, 2003).

5.2. Principles and procedure for designing flow diagrams

The basic blue print of a general flow diagram of a dairy farm is presented in
Figure 5.1. This general picture can serve the further detailing – when needed – and
specification for each individual farm, because the HACCP-concept requires a farm-
specific approach.

In general we distinguish 2 types of flow diagrams:

1. The general farm flow diagrams (examples in Figures 5.1 and 5.2).
2. The detailed, more specific flow diagrams, commonly associated with the hazard
of concern and the related process step (examples in Figures 5.3 and 5.4).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 79

Chapter 5

calves, contacts,
Pasture surface water
Outer farm

Inner farm Bulk Milk

milk truck
tank
sold Youngstock barn
Milking parlour Dairy
-machine factory
Calving pen
Lactating cow barn -technique
-housing -treatment
-feeding • lactating
-care • dry
Dry cow barn

Diseased cow barn

Inner farm

Outer farm purchase sold alive

culled for slaughter origin, transportation,
certificate, quarantine

Figure 5.1. Example of a simplified General Flow Diagram of the production process on a dairy
farm.

The general flow diagrams are a must for keeping the overview; they should be
designed as an overall diagram and be kept as simple and practical as possible.

Next step in the field is to focus in more detail on the area of concern, that is: where
the significant hazards have been defined, related to certain process steps (see also the
examples for Farm FX in the boxes at the end of each chapter). For such areas, detailed
flow charts are necessary for getting a proper insight.

It depends on the farming area and the step of concern to what extent the detailing
needs to be done. The rule of thumb is two-fold: they should show enough detail to
get sufficient insight in the process steps and details, while they should not comprise
too much detail to keep items readable.

It is advisable to handle the 6 rules for defining standard operating procedures, SOP,
to create the flow diagrams properly (Stup, 2001). This will allow people, like third
parties, who are familiar with the SOP rules to easily look into the flow diagrams.
Table 5.1 gives an example of these SOP rules and of the way they are handled to
define a flow diagram content; in Table 5.1 the issue of cows being fetched for milking

80 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 

Fertilizers Water Crop protection

Sowing seed chemicals

Land exploitation

Grassland
Roughages Roughage storage pasturin g
Feedstuff Roughage composition
Storage
Manure storage

Housing far- Drinking

Drying off water
off
Veterinary
Feeding far-off drug
Housing
close-up Feeding close-up Feeding cows Housing Semen
milking
Feeding cows
calves Feeding calving Purchased
and cattle
Calving sick cows
Housing Culled cattle
Pasture

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

youngstock
Housing sick
cows
Milking Cleaning /
Chemicals
Cleaning /
Milking, cooling cooling water
and storage

Newly born Purchassed Rodent

Semen calves heifers control Milk Dairy factory

Figure 5.2. Another, more elaborated example of a General Flow Diagram of the production process on a dairy farm, with its process steps

81
Flow diagrams of the production process

and interactions.
Chapter 5

Table 5.1. Brief overview of the rules of thumb regarding the definition of SOPs in a process.
Between brackets the applicability to dairy cows being fetched for milking (adapted after Stup,
2001).

Rule 1 Is the step essential for the fulfilment of the given activity?
(yes because cows are in pasture and need to be brought to the milking parlour)
Rule 2 Are there safe and unsafe ways to complete the step?
(yes; cows could be moved in calmly or aggressively)
Rule 3 If the step is executed in different ways, will that affect animal health or welfare?
(yes, cows are animals of routine; disturbing that causes stress; variation must be
minimised as much as possible, hence minimising risks)
Rule 4 If the step is executed in different ways, will that affect animal/herd performance?
(yes, variation leads to stress, possibly affecting health, milk yield and milk quality)
Rule 5 Will variation in the way the step is executed, affect efficiency substantially?
(yes, for reasons previously mentioned)
Rule 6 Is there another significant reason for the step to be executed in a certain way?
(yes, because stress can increase – next to previously named issues – the risk of injuries to
the animals)

is addressed (answers to the questions should be ‘yes’ in order to retain a particular

step in the flow diagram).

Generally speaking, the procedure on the farm regarding the design of the flow
diagrams is as follows:
1. Visual inspection of the farm, its buildings, lay-out, equipment, animal places,
routing of animals, people, vehicles. This will result in a rough sketch
2. The sketch is taken to the Farm Quality Management Team members and discussed
regarding certain specifications found during inspection.
3. The sketch is adapted and converted into a flow diagram.
4. The flow diagram is validated by the Team and the farm workers on-site.
5. When deemed necessary, the Team proceeds in designing the detailed flow charts
according to the same principles.

5.3. Developing the flow diagrams

First stage is to distinguish the ‘inner’ and the ‘outer’ world of the farm. All issues
outside the farm premises can be considered as ‘external’.

Next stage, within the farm, the different locations, houses, for different cattle groups
(e.g. calves, maiden heifers, pregnant heifers, dry cows, lactating cows) as well as

82 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Flow diagrams of the production process

specific activities (e.g. milking; calving; feed harvesting; calving pen; sick cow pen;
quarantine facility, cull cow facility, dead animals facility) are identified.

In the third stage, we have to identify the routing of the animals from one site to
another. In the ‘outer world’, we distinguish the pasturing –if applicable–, the different
roads for cars, trucks, people, cattle (farm-raised and purchased), entering and
leaving the farm, the location of the silage humps, the surface water routing, and the
potential points of contacts with, for example, neighbouring farms or cattle. The level
of detailing at this stage depends on the degree of fine-tuning deemed necessary by
the Farm Quality Management Team. It can be advisable to leave the detailing to next
stages of these flow diagrams (see further down).

The final, fourth stage in flow diagram development is to identify the external
professionals visiting the farm; examples are: the veterinarian, AI technician, extension
officers (nutritionist; economist), cattle traders, milk truck driver, feed truck driver,
and other people servicing the farm or delivering products. This information is
necessary for designing e.g. the distinction between ‘dirty’ and ‘clean’ roads, as part of
a biosecurity assurance plan (BAMN, 2000) as is further detailed in Chapter 3.

With reference to the HACCP-like handbook of the Quality Risk Management

programme (see Chapter 4), it is highly advisable to ‘mark’ the different major steps
in the production process flow diagrams, for example with ‘A’ or ‘AA’, or ‘I’, etc. for
the overall flow diagrams, and the detailing of those steps as ‘A-1’ or ‘I.1’ etc. in
the detailed flow diagrams (see example of Farm FX). This will largely contribute
to structuring right from the beginning and facilitate the later description of the
items in the handbook, like hazards, risks, monitoring, GDF guidelines and working
instructions.

The detailing in Figures 5.3 or 5.4 is depending on the step itself and the hazard of
concern. The details in the step ‘Veterinary Drug Treatment’ (Figure 5.4) are less
elaborated than those in the step ‘Milking Cows’ (Figure 5.3) simply because the
latter has much more details to cover. In this stage 2 of designing specific farm flow
diagrams, it is of utmost importance that appropriate awareness is created within the
Farm Quality Management Team because the risk factors, the CCP’s and the POPA’s
will commonly be assigned to the items in these stage 2 flow diagrams at a later stage
(see Chapter 6).

When deemed necessary, some items in these stage 2 flow diagrams can even be
further detailed, but we have to take care not to overload farm workers with highly
sophisticated but unreadable flow diagrams.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 83

Chapter 5

Milking machine
ready

Collect animals

Entry into milking

parlour

Cow identification
Udder towels
Udder preparation
Concentrates
Attach milking
cluster
Deliverable milk
Collect milk and
transport
Non-deliverable milk
Dip or spray Post milking
treatment

Let animals leave

milking parlour

Cleaning water Clean the milking Waste water

parlour

Water Clean and disinfect Rinsing water

milking machine

Cleaning and
disinfecting agents

Figure 5.3. Example of a detailed flow diagram of one step (Milking Cows) as deduced from the
general production process flow diagram in Figure 5.2.

84 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Flow diagrams of the production process

Sick cow Culling

Herd
Herd formulation and/
or consult the vet

Healthy cow Preventive treatment Medicinal drugs

Record sick cows and

treatment

Withdrawal period

Treatment result

Figure 5.4. Another example of a detailed flow diagram, for the process step Veterinary Drug
Treatment, as deduced from the General Flow Diagram in Figure 5.2.

5.4. Introducing the case farm FX

We now further introduce the case Farm FX (Box 5.1). This dairy farm will be followed
up through subsequent chapters in order to illustrate the different designs and
applications. Take notice of its code FX for further reference in the book. The cases
where this example farm is addressed can be recognised by the boxes throughout
the text. Two working instructions for farm FX were already presented at the end of
chapter 3.

In Figure 5.5 we have presented the specified flow diagram of Farm FX with regard
to the hazard of ‘Udder Health & Milk Quality’, and more specifically, the area of
Staphylococcus aureus udder infections. Pre- and post-milking process steps are
addressed, as well as milking itself. The SOP rules (Stup, 2001; see Table 5.1) have been
used to draw the flow diagram. We can consider the earlier presented Figure 5.3 as a
further detailing of one particular area of concern out of the Figure 5.5: the milking
process; the same applies to Figure 5.4.

On Farm FX we were also confronted with another hazard area, namely ‘diarrhoea
in neonate calves’ from the process of young stock rearing. Therefore, we also

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 85

Chapter 5

Box 5.1. Farm FX

This dairy farm has 152 Holstein-Frisian crossbred cows, housed in a loose housing system
with a common resting zone in cubicles. Cows are milked twice daily in a 2x8 herringbone
parlour where automatic cluster detachment is conducted. The herd is divided into 2
groups: lactating and dry cows. The average age of the cows is 5 years. The average milk
yield level is 8500 kg/cow/year, with 3.9% milk fat and 3.2% milk protein; the average
level per cow per day is 27.6 kg. Female calves are reared on the farm as replacements.
Sometimes, cattle are bought, but then their milk yield potential should be above 8500
kg. Milk collection is once every two days. The bulk tank has an automatic washing and
refrigerating system.

The main problems are in the area of Staphylococcus aureus udder infections, and in calf
rearing (diarrhoea in neonate calves).

developed flow diagrams for this process of young stock rearing (Figure 5.6) and,
more specifically, for the period from Birth to Colostrum, because in this period the
diarrhoea in neonatal calves does occur (Figure 5.7).

All flow diagrams of farm FX have been checked on-site on their reliability by
the farmer and his co-workers, as well as by other members of the Farm Quality
Management Team. Remark that there are differences in both set-up and lay-out of the
different flow diagrams for this Farm FX, as well as the other flow diagrams presented
in this chapter. Some of them use straightforward the SOP rules as listed in Table 5.1
(Stup, 2001); others are designed in a rather free-style manner.

86 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 

Collect Teat-end Attach

1 animals 10.1 13
washing milking Post milking
5 cluster
Tank treatment
9
Waiting Teat-end
14
2 area drying Clean New
6 Collect D milk Cows leave
milking group of
milk and cluster milking parlor animals
Milking Foremilk trans por
parlor checking ND milk
3
7 10
14.1 14.2
Robotic 8 Waste
milking Cow ID Is milk 11 15 Clean milking parlor
4 deviating 10.2
? Remove
4.1 milking
Concentrates
4.2.2 cluster Water
YES
8.1
Dosage
4.2.1 PTA 12
Clean and desinfect
NO Monitor teat- 16
milking machine
FM 8.2 ID end condition
4.2

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

Record

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 UDDER STAGE 3 STAGE 4

PRE- PREPARATION MILKING POST-MILKING
MILKING

Figure 5.5. The flow diagram of the hazard area ‘Udder Health & Milk Quality’, where the specific hazard of Staphylococcus aureus udder

87
Flow diagrams of the production process

infections are addressed on Farm FX.

88
1.Help with 2.Separation of 3.Navel 4.Identification calf
Birth A delivery calf from dam disinfection
Samples in freezer
Chapter 5

Colostrum B
period 1.Collecting 2.Storing 3.Preparation 5.Evaluation 6.Navel
(1-4 d) colostrum colostrum colostrum period inspection
Bull calves 4.Feeding
Separated period
(-10 days) OUT
Female calves
Milkreplacer C
period 1.Grouping 2.Navel 3.Milkreplacer 4. Hay provision + 5.Milk 6.Dehorning 7.Grouping
(-2 mo) inspection choice concentrate supply preparation

1.Weighting / measuring height 2.Evaluate daily intake of water 3.Grouping

Weaning D and forage

Rearing E 1.Grazing 2.Deworming 3.(Mortellaro) 4.Weighting / 5.Vaccination 6.Grouping

period/ puberty Hoof treatment measuring height
(2-8 mo) 1a.Feeding
a1.Grouping
a2.Heat a3.Weighting / a4.Sire a5.Insemination
Insemination F AI detection measuring height selection
/breeding 1. Pregnancy
period (8-15 mo) Bull b2.Weighting / b4.Mount- control
b3.Grouping
measuring height detection
b1.Bull selection
+testing fertility
Pregnancy G
period 1.Pregnancy 2. Weighting / 4.Grouping 5. Body
(≥15 mo) control measuring height older cows condition score
3. Feeding
1. Three weeks Bought heifers J
Close up quarantine
H
(2-3 weeks 1.Grouping 2.Rumen fill
prepartum) close up score
3. Feeding

Calving I
1.Help with delivery 2.First time milking 3.Care postpartum

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

Figure 5.6. Flow diagram for Young Stock Rearing on Farm FX, where there exists a hazard area of diarrhoea in neonatal calves.
 Flow diagrams of the production process

Flow diagram Freeze superflous

Birth-Colostrum Period colostrum

Cool storage
Help with delivery (max 4 litres) Warming colostrum

Birth Collection of colostrum Checking temperature

Feeding

Inspection umbilical cord

Record deviations

Daily routine 1st 3 days

Figure 5.7. The more detailed flow diagram for the period from Birth to Colostrum, as deduced
from the flow diagram on young stock rearing (Figure.5.6). This flow diagram relates to the
second hazard area on Farm FX: diarrhoea in neonatal calves.

5.5. Concluding remarks

Flow diagrams can be manifold and differ largely in lay-out and contents. That is logic
given the fact that dairy husbandry systems in the field differ largely too, but can also
be due to the fact that at farm level we aim for simplicity and practicality. In some
situations this requires a more free-style approach, while in other situations the SOP
rules can be followed all the way through without loosing readability and practicality.
After all, the flow diagrams are developed together with the farmer; moreover, the
farm workers too should understand what is going on in flow diagrams. Some other
examples of flow diagrams are listed in Annex 5A at the end of this chapter.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 89

Chapter 5

In multifunctional farms, where next to dairy farming other activities are undertaken
(e.g. recreation, camping, care for mentally disabled persons, cheese making from
raw milk, animal, cuddling) the complexity can be much higher (M. Barten, personal
communication; see also in Chapter 11). But then again, it is a matter of introducing
different levels of flow diagrams (‘slice the elephant’) to illustrate clearly what is going
on where and how, and to get the proper and fully understandable flow diagrams on
the table.

As long as the basic principles of creating flow diagrams are understood and we
can use the SOP rules like instruments for the design and the templates from the
example farms as our blue prints for this design, we are quite able to create these flow
diagrams. Moreover, they must always be verified on the farm by visual inspection and
in discussions with the farm workers before they are made operational.

Now that we have developed the respective flow diagrams, we can move to the next
step in the developmental sequence of HACCP-like Quality Risk Management
programmes: the identification of the priority hazards and their associated risks,
and thereafter, the definition and selection of critical control points and points of
particular attention.

90 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Flow diagrams of the production process

Annex 5A. Examples of production process flow diagrams

In this Annex you will find other examples of production process flow diagrams. It may
help you in designing the specific flow diagrams needed for each particular farm.

Specify

Grassland Purchase / Materials Pregnant heifers

management Harvest

Rearing /
Storage Replacement

Roughage,
concentrates, Dosage Feeding
byproducts

Water Dosage Water supply

Air Climate barn Air

Semen & Dosage Treatment Female calves

medicinal drugs & care
Cleaning &
disinfection Dosage Calving Male calves
materials

Dosage Milk harvesting Colostrum, pen

milk

Dosage Milk storage Cows

Delivery Waste / Dead

cattle

Manure

Milk

Figure 5A.1. Example of a flow diagram, focussing on feed and feeding management on a
dairy farm.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 91

Chapter 5

FLOW DIAGRAM / RAW MILK PRODUCTION PROCESS

1 2 3 4 5

Dairy Healthy Milking Fresh raw Cooling storage Cooled raw milk
herd untreated milk delivered to the
cows industry

Documentation / records
Previous steps / Side processes 1. Animal information
• Animal feeding 2. Animal information
• Animal treatements 3. Milking procedure
• Land explotation 4. Temperature monitoring
• Cleaning procedures 5. Delivered quality / quantity

LEGEND OF STANDARD SYMBOLS (ACCORDING TO NEN 3283:1967 STANDARD)

Document symbol Control symbol Product symbol

Decision Feedback control circle Process symbol

Figure 5A.2. Example of a general flow diagram of the production process steps on dairy farms,
designed following standard operating procedures (NEN 3283-1967).

92 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Flow diagrams of the production process

Offered
Born on site Newly entered

Purchased
Quarantine

LIVESTOCK SPECIES:
Culled
Treatment
Dead Ruminants Non-ruminants
Storage
Sold alive
Horse Treatment
Vaccination protocol
Cattle Sheep Dog & deworming
Goats Cat Waste
Pigs
Labour
Rabbits Chemicals &
Cow Poultry desinfectants
stable
Horse
stable Chicken
Manure house
Goat
stable Production
facility
Rabbit
Sold to external Other (chicken
house
company options house)
Guinea pig
house
Pig Chicken
house Eggs pasture plot
Pig pasture
plot
Nursery
Quality control Sold in farm shop
storage Consumed on-site

Pasture
plot Visitors

Pasture
plot
3,4,5,6,7,8, FEED SECTION
9,10,11,12 Deliver on farm
Forages Storage
External land plots (Hay) Preparation
Concentrates Ration calculation Waste
Feed additives Left-overs disposal
Purchased

Drinking water source Distribution system Plots

Houses Human circuit Well water
Stables

Figure 5A.3. Flow diagram of the children’s farm in Zeist, The Netherlands.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 93

Chapter 6. Identification of hazards and evaluation of risks

6.1. Introduction

By using the outcomes from the strengths-and-weaknesses assessment, SWA, from

Chapter 2 and the flow diagrams presented and discussed in Chapter 5, it must be
much easier to identify the hazards and risks. Once the latter has been done, we can
position them in the flow diagrams to the sites where they occur or have their main
impact. But first, the major hazards and risks have to be identified and weighted for
relevance on the farm by the members of the Farm Quality Management Team. After
that, it is highly advisable to have a double check on-site and discuss the findings
with the people working on the farm. Finally, the Team makes an inventory of the
preventive measures as already are being applied on the dairy farm.

6.2. Procedure for identifying hazards and risks

The Farm Quality Management Team has to define the hazards which are most relevant
for that particular farm. The record keeping system on the farm can elucidate the
hazards from the – recent – past; the veterinarian can use his own practice recording
system to provide complementary information to this process. Moreover, regional
animal health services or diagnostic laboratories can provide hazard information
from the region of the farm. Finally, the dairy farmer can express his perceived but
not (yet) actual hazards he wishes to deal with in a preventive manner.

The hazards are to be defined for the areas of public health (including food safety),
animal health and animal welfare, respectively. The Team has to determine a ranking
order of importance for these different hazards and to decide about the priorities of
dealing with the most relevant ones.

The risk conditions which are associated with the defined hazards need to be specified
for the particular farm. For that purpose one can use the lists of generic risk factors
as present on the website www.vacqa-international.com for the different farming
areas, and as introduced in Chapter 2. When for a certain farming area such generic
lists are not available, the Team has to conduct a fact-finding in literature regarding
the risk factors of a certain hazard, or assemble an expert team to detect through
them the most relevant risk factors. The latter can be executed through a relatively
simple conjoint analysis interview (Van Schaik et al., 1998). It is of utmost importance
that risk factors are weighted for their relevance, because in many disease situations
there are far too many risk factors contributing somehow to disease occurrence to
be handled practically; a selection has to be conducted for the most relevant ones.
Risk factor weighting is in principle on the basis of Probability (prevalence) × Impact

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 95

Chapter 6

(disease effect). In all situations, the extracted risk factors have to be checked on the
farm for their farm-specific relevance.

The Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show examples of risk factor profiles from various epidemiological
studies: Table 6.1 in a more qualitative sense, Table 6.2 in a quantitative sense with
odds ratios being calculated (Noordhuizen et al., 2001).

Table 6.1. An example list of most important risk factors as determined for the introduction of
M. paratuberculosis on dairy farms (ranking in descending order of relevance as determined
by veterinary specialists), adapted after Vos (1999).

Description of the risk factor

Purchase of cattle from an unknown source or origin

Young stock with access to pasture plots (and having contact with faeces)
Supply of manure of unknown microbiological quality from an other farm used as fertiliser on
pasture where young stock grazes
Cattle having contact with feral ruminants, and, hence, with their faeces
Cattle returning from a cattle market place, cattle show or (export) collection point
Young stock drinking from surface water which is known to have contacts with other farms
Own cattle being transported on a truck with cattle from other farms (health status unknown)
Visitors being allowed not to comply to certain hygiene rules on the farm and its entrance
Young stock drinking surface water not interconnected with other farms

6.3. Risk factor weighting

The next stage in the procedure is to assign a certain weight to the risk conditions
found on the farm. After the identification of the hazards and risk factors, we need
to weigh the risk factors in order to find out which one is truly relevant (a true risk)
and which one is not. These weighted risk factors (true risks) are then assigned to
the different sites in the flow diagrams (Chapter 5). In the ‘hazards and risks lists’
in the HACCP handbook, these sites are commonly identified by a code which is
most understandable by the farm manager and farm workers. Such codes are usually
abbreviations of the particular step or site of concern. For example the step Milk
Harvesting may become ‘MH’; and the step Cattle Treatment may become ‘CT’.

These weights can be used to prioritise the risks, and, hence, facilitate to address the
most relevant ones, the ones that are considered ‘true risks’. Weighing can be done in
three ways:

96 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Identification of hazards and evaluation of risks

Table 6.2. An example of results from an epidemiological study into Mortellaro disease in dairy
cows. The read-out parameter is the odds ratio (OR> 1 means risk increase; OR <1 means risk
decrease; OR= 1 means no association between risk factor and disorder, or reference value).
Adapted after Frankena et al., 1992 in Noordhuizen et al., 2001. HF= Holstein Frisian; FH=
Dutch Frisian; MRY= Meuse Rhine IJssel breed.

Description of the risk factor Specification Odds ratio, OR

Parity of the cows 1 1.3

2 1.1
3 1.0 (reference)
Predominant breed of the cows in the herd >50% HF 1.2
>50% FH 1.02
>50% MRY 0.1
HF * FH crossbreed 1.0 (reference)
Lactation stage Dry 0.3
Pre-top 0.8
Top (50-70 days) 1.7
Past-top 1.0 (reference)
Access to pasture Limited 1.5
Free 1.0 (reference)
Average walking distance to the pasture plots >200 m 5.4
<200 m 1.0 (reference)
Walking path quality Metalled 2.6
Non-metalled 1.0 (reference)

1. Through quantitative epidemiological methods which result in a list of odds ratios

in descending order of importance (Noordhuizen et al., 2001). Sometimes such
odds ratio lists are available in literature, but we have to take into account that those
lists originate from different countries or regions with different husbandry systems
and different local conditions. The results are therefore not to be generalised
for other regions, nor other individual farms. To conduct an epidemiological
observational-analytic survey your self in your region may be time-consuming
and costly. Therefore estimation might be preferable.
2. Through application of adaptive conjoint analysis, ACA, which is a computerised
questionnaire-like survey which is commonly used in product marketing to obtain
and weigh people’s preferences towards attributes of a certain product. Preferences
are converted into quantitative scores, hence providing a ranking order. The
same approach can be applied in a certain domain of animal production, like,
for example, in animal health: udder infections. For further reading on ACA we

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 97

Chapter 6

like to refer to other publications like for example van Van Schaik et al. (1998),
Fels-Klerx et al. (2000), Angus et al., (2005), Valeeva et al. (2005), Boersema et al.
(2007). The outcome of an ACA exercise in an on-farm situation involving experts
like the dairy farmers, veterinarians, nutritionists, or other extension specialists, is
a close-to-reality ranking of risk factors in order of importance. The ACA results
commonly do not differ largely in their ranking order from the risk factor lists
obtained by epidemiological observational-analytic surveys.
3. When both preceding methods are no option, you may consider applying
qualitative methods to obtain a certain weight, and hence, a ranking order of risks
on the farm. The members of the Farm Quality Management Team should discuss
the possibilities in details, and assign a weight to the potential hazards and risks
list by applying the formula Probability of occurrence times Impact of the risk = P
× I. Next, they have to decide, using the results from P × I, about the cut-off point
above which to address a certain hazard or a risk on the farm; this is the phase of
risk weighting to define true risks.

6.4. Designing the hazards and risks list

Table 6.3 gives an example of a hazard and risks list, including the reference in the
HACCP-handbook, the type of risk (microbiological; chemical; physical; managerial),
the coded process step (like MH or CT) as a reference to the HACCP handbook, the
risk weight result. The risk factors in Table 6.3 can be used for determining CCP’s and
POPA’s, which will be done in the Chapter 7.

Table 6.3. An example of a ‘hazards and risks list’ from the HACCP handbook developed so
far, for the domain of physical and chemical contamination of milk on the dairy farm at the
production process step Milk Harvesting and the process step Cattle Treatment (after Lievaart
et al., 2005).

Reference in Type of Risk factor Process step flow Risk True

the HACCP hazard diagram weight risk?
handbook

CT1 Chemical Wrong drug used Cattle Treatment, CT 4 No

CT2 Chemical Wrong drug dosage applied Cattle Treatment, CT 4 No
CT3 Chemical Drug beyond shelf life Cattle Treatment, CT 2 No
CT4 Chemical Cow’s ID fails in withdrawal Cattle Treatment, CT 6 Yes
period
CT5 Physical Needle of syringe broken Cattle Treatment, CT 1 No
MH1 Chemical Drug residues in milk Milk Harvesting, MH 6 Yes

98 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Identification of hazards and evaluation of risks

Another example of a hazards and risks list is presented in Table 6.4. This Table
regards the microbiological contamination of milk during milk harvesting and cattle
treatment. As can be noted, pathogens of zoonotic nature are concerned.

The great difference between Table 6.3 and Table 6.4 is that, with the zoonotic
pathogens taken into account, in Table 6.4 the approach should be at the whole herd
level, through biosecurity measures and guidelines for Good Dairy Farming Practice
(like good milking hygiene practice; farm visitors protocol; working instruction for
new cattle entering the farm), rather than at the level of individual cows in process
steps as was used in Table 6.3. These guidelines, protocols, working instructions, and
biosecurity measures have already been addressed in Chapter 3.

This whole farm approach at herd level is visible in Table 6.4 where process steps
are addressed and not individual cows, and by the fact that the codes of the HACCP
handbook refer to the same pages (MH6 and CT11).

The hazards and risk factors identified, and the risks weighted on the farm need
further attention through the determination of control points (CCP and POPA), of
monitoring including testing, and a set of corrective and preventive measures on the
farm. These issues will be addressed in subsequent chapters.

Another example of a hazards-and-risks-list refers to the farming domain of ‘Feed &

Feeding Management’. These lists are short-listed in Table 6.5. For an extended list of

Table 6.4. An example of a ‘hazards and risks list’ regarding the microbiological and chemical
contamination of milk on a dairy farm during the production process steps Milk Harvesting
(MH) and Cattle Treatment (CT). M= microbiological; C= chemical (toxins). Risk factors have
not been detailed for reasons of readability.

Reference in Hazard detail Type of Risk Process step flow Risk True
the HACCP hazard factors diagram weight risk?
handbook

MH6 CT11 Brucella abortus M MH; CT 2 No

MH6 CT11 Mycobacterium bovis M MH; CT 3 No
MH6 CT11 Listeria monocytogenes M MH; CT 8 Yes
MH6 CT11 Salmonella dublin M MH; CT 3 No
MH6 CT11 Campylobacter jejuni M MH; CT 4 Yes
MH6 CT11 Staphylococcus aureus M; C MH; CT 6 Yes
MH6 CT11 E. coli O157H7 M MH; CT 6 Yes
MH6 CT11 Yersinia enterocolitica M MH; CT 2 No

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 99

Chapter 6

Table 6.5. Short-list of some hazards in the domain of Feed & Feeding Management on a dairy
farm. Possible areas of concern are veterinary public health (VPH), animal health (AH) and
animal welfare (AW).

Hazards Area of Risk factors (examples) Risk weighting

concern results
(probability x
impact)

Pasturing & grazing

Poor grass growth AH Poor botanic composition; poor seed 1 * 2= 2 Low
selection; poor seeding process; too
much water drainage; poor grassland
management; weather conditions
Toxic plants in/around VPH; AH; Deficient grassland management 1 * 2= 2 Low
the grassland plots AW
Heat stress AH; AW Pasturing without any shadow facilities 2 * 2= 4
Moderate
Infection transfer AH; VPH Too short interval between cattle grazing 2 * 3= 6 High
from cows to calves in and young stock grazing; or after spread
pasture of slurry; contacts with different age
groups or neighbouring cattle
Fungi detected in VPH. (AH) Deficient soil management; insects; seed 1 * 3= 3
grassland (mycotoxins) selection and safety; poor grassland Moderate
Harvesting & silaging
Oil leakage at silaging VPH Poor maintenance of tractors and 1 * 1= 1 Low
(tractors; wagons) wagons; lack of check-ups
Agent transmission VPH. AH No cleaning/disinfection of equipment 1 * 3= 3
through dirty, hired before entry to farm, neither when Moderate
equipment leaving the farm
Fungi formation in corn VPH; (AH) Poor harvesting and or conservation 2 * 3= 6 High
silage (mycotoxins) procedures
Feeding management
Agent transfer VPH; AH Poor farm hygiene procedures; poor slurry 1 * 2= 2 Low
through manure/slurry handling practice; cross-over spots on
contaminated feed farm where slurry and feed cross
Traumatic reticulitis AH Unknown origin of feedstuffs; no prior 1 * 3= 3
due to foreign bodies checks on purchased feedstuffs; no Moderate
in feedstuff checks when feed is distributed
Chemically or AH; AW Unknown water sources or unknown 2 * 2= 4
microbiologically quality; insufficient quality testing Moderate
contaminated water frequency; management failures with
chemicals and or slurry or dead rodents/
birds
100 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms
 Identification of hazards and evaluation of risks

those hazards and risks we refer to the Annex of this chapter . The goal of the farming
domain ‘Feed and Feeding Management’ is to provide cattle with fresh or silage feed,
or purchased feedstuffs, which are optimal for the production performance of cows,
without hampering their health and welfare status, and not provoking any hazards for
public health including food safety.

The next stage in the developmental procedure of the Quality Risk Management
programme is to define the critical control points, CCP, and the points where particular
attention is needed, POPA. These issues are dealt with in Chapter 7.

Box 6.1. Further elaboration of the case Farm FX: hazard and risks in udder health.

The first major hazard identified by the Team is ‘udder infections by Staphylococcus aureus’,
as could be determined on the basis of laboratory investigations of milk samples from
mastitis cows at the start of the whole procedure.
The associated, and true risk factors now have to be identified. The first step to identify risk
factors was by using the assessment of strong and weak points on the farm, a SWA (see text
at paragraph 4.2.1). Next step is the weighing of the risk factors to find the most relevant
ones, the ‘true ones’. This second step is taken in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6. Example of a ‘Hazards & Risks List’ from the HACCP handbook. The area of
concern is microbiological hazards, namely Staphylococcus aureus udder infections,
during the process step of ‘Milk Harvesting (MH)’ on Farm FX. Risk is weighted on the
basis of expected probability × impact.

Reference in Type of hazard Risk factor Process step Risk True

the HACCP flow diagram weight risk?
handbook

MH3 Microbiological Contamination through Milk Harvesting,

the hands of the milker MH 3x2 Yes
MH4 Microbiological Improper washing Milk Harvesting,
MH 2x3 Yes
MH5 Microbiological Cleaning water Milk Harvesting,
MH 1x1 No
MH6 Microbiological Contaminated cloth Milk Harvesting,
MH 3x2 Yes
MH7 Microbiological Incorrect drying Milk Harvesting,
MH 2x2 Yes

 »

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 101

Chapter 6

Risk factors identified on the farm as potentially contributing to the hazard occurrence and
with the highest weight and, hence, identified as ‘true risks’ are:
• contamination of the udder and teats by the hands of the milker;
• inappropriate washing and cleaning of the udder and teats when preparing for milking;
• lack of appropriate fore-milking;
• the microbiological quality of the washing water;
• the use of only 1 towel for cleaning the teats/udder of several cows;
• dirty conditions in cubicles, alleys and waiting area;
• deficient ventilation in the barn and milking parlour causing high humidity;
• too low temperature at end of washing/cleaning process of milking machine.

Box 6.2. Further elaboration of the case Farm FX: hazard and risks in calf rearing.

The second major hazard identified on farm FX regards the ‘diarrhoea in neonate calves
(from birth to 7 days old)’.
The associated risk factors potentially contributing to this problem, showing the highest risk
levels after weighing (Table 6.7) and hence identified as true risks are:
• poor colostrum quality (too low IgG levels; mastitic dams);
• poor colostrum management (feedings too late; poor storage; old stock);
• poor hygiene practices (unhygienic collection; unhygienic feeding; birth problems);
• poor housing conditions of newborn calves (overcrowding; too few single boxes, calves
born on slatted floor or in cow barn);
• absence of vaccination in pregnant heifers 3-4 weeks prior to calving (related with Rota/
Corona virus and E. coli infections) and/or preventive antimicrobials.

 »

102 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Identification of hazards and evaluation of risks

Table 6.7. Example of a ‘Hazards & Risks List’ form the HACCP handbook. The area
of concern is microbiological, namely infectious diarrhoea in neonatal calves, during
the process step of young stock rearing on Farm FX. Risk is weighted on the basis
of probability (prevalence) × impact. Risk factors have not further been defined for
reasons of readability.

Process step Hazard Type of hazard Risk Risk True

Ref. HACCP-book factor(s) weight risk?

Birth-Weaning1 (BW1) Birth problems Biological 6 Yes

Birth-Weaning2 (BW2) Wrong ID calf Management 4 No
(recording)
Birth-Weaning3 (BW3) Diarrhoea in Biological 6 Yes
neonate
Birth-Weaning4 (BW4) Navel disorders Biological 4 No
Birth-Weaning5 (BW5) Arthritis Biological 6 Yes
Birth-Weaning6 (BW6) Wrong extra teat Physical 2 No
removed
Birth-Weaning7 (BW7) Poor weight gain Management 6 Yes
(feeding)
Birth-Weaning8 (BW8) Diarrhoea in calf Biological 4 No
Birth-Weaning9 (BW9) Respiratory Biological 4 No
disorder
Birth-Weaning10 (BW10) M. paraTBC Biological 4 No
infection
Birth-Weaning11 (BW11) Wrong drug Chemical, 2 No
application Physical

6.5. Inventory of preventive measures

Following the identification of the priority hazards and their associated risks, we
make an inventory of preventive measures which are already being taken on the farm.
Preventive measures may be related to:
• vaccination programmes regarding viral, bacterial or parasitic diseases;
• operational veterinary Herd Health & Production Management programmes,
including, for example, herd fertility schemes, udder health control programmes,
parasite control programmes;
• risk management programmes including those to ascertain a targeted biosecurity
level or the application of certain guidelines and working instructions.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 103

Chapter 6

Once, this inventory has been made, we can evaluate these measures on their efficacy
and when needed adjust these measures. On the other hand it can be worthwhile to
consider the application of other preventive measures, given the hazards that have
been defined by the Team previously. This activity resorts under Chapter 7 when
we speak about monitoring and corrective measures for critical control points and
points of particular attention. It goes beyond the contents of this chapter to elaborate
all possible preventive measures on a dairy farm. We refer to scientific literature and
internet searches to find details on preventive measures from one or more of the
three categories named. When applicable to farm FX we will present them. Table 6.8
comprises just a couple of general measures of prevention as an example; in Annex 6A
this table is further elaborated.

6.6. Concluding remarks

As can be noted from the previous chapter, tables and figures, the hazards can be
manifold. The three main categories (microbiological; physical and chemical hazards)
are even expanded with a fourth one, which comprises more specifically the managerial
hazards on a dairy farm. This complexity of different hazards and associated risk
factors necessitates the design of clear and practical hazard-and-risks-lists as presented
above. This is the only way to provide the farmer and his co-workers with a clear
and concise overview. Such hazards-and-risks-lists are also highly comprehensive for
external advisors like the veterinarian and nutritionist.

The hazards-and-risks-lists need to be updated at least once a year by the members

of the Team, and when needed with support from additional specialists. Such an
update is indicated as well because of the new knowledge that comes forward, e.g.
from quantitative epidemiological studies about diseases and welfare disorders.

104 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Identification of hazards and evaluation of risks

Table 6.8. An example of an inventory list for General Measures of Prevention in various areas of
dairy farming. Dates refer to the frequency of executing the measures (dpp= days postpartum).

General measures of prevention Planned Measures Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4

yes/no? executed yes/no

Hygiene & Housing

Barn climate checked
Cubicles cleaned
Bedding added
Use of medicinal drugs
Records are updated
Drug storage cleaned
HTAP upgraded
Record keeping Health
Sick cow records OK
Lab results archive
Vaccination programme
See details separately
Udder Health programme
Udder hair is clipped
Milkers are evaluated
Milking machine checked twice
yearly
Mastitic cows < 60 dpp are
sampled for culturing
Cow treatments in HTAP
Claw Health programme
Herd claw trimming 2x/yr
Cleaning of barn floor
Formalin footbath used

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 105

Chapter 6

Annex 6A. General measures of prevention for hazards and risks

Below you will find an example of a list of General Measures of Prevention. The idea
is that the veterinarian – together with the farmer or manager – sets up this list,
following the different areas of dairy farming and farm management.

Under each paragraph different items have been named. Each item has been considered
in this example as relevant to be monitored and checked on this particular farm. First
of all it is discussed which item is relevant to consider, and whether the execution of
such a measure is planned. Next, as can be seen on the list, this list is positioned on a
site where it can be easily checked each day. The responsible person has to list whether
or not the respective measure has been executed; moreover, the exact date of each
execution of measures is listed under Date 1-4. In case that deviations are detected,
one has the opportunity to take further actions.

This list assists in creating awareness in the farmer or manager, but also among those
people who work on the farm. In such a way, it can be considered as a management
- organisational instrument.

General measures of prevention Planned Measures Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4

yes/no? executed
yes/no

Hygiene & housing

Barn climate checked
Cubicles cleaned
Bedding added
Housing hygiene checked
Use of medicinal drugs
Records are updated
Drug storage cleaned/wk
HTAP’s upgraded
Record keeping Health
Sick cow records are OK
Lab results archived
Vaccination programme
See details separately
E.coli prophylaxis in the dry period
Against BVD virus
Official vaccinations

106 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Identification of hazards and evaluation of risks

General measures of prevention Planned Measures Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4

yes/no? executed
yes/no

Udder health programme

Udder hair is clipped
Cows kept standing after milking
Barn climate is correct
Lying area clean + dry
Milkers are evaluated
Milking machine checked twice
yearly
Vacuum is checked
Pulsator is checked
Regulator is checked
Teat cup liners replaced
Rubber materials checked
Teat End Callosity scored
Mastitic cows < 60 dpp are
sampled for culturing
Teat disinfection checked
Dry udder preparation
First streaks checked
Mastitis cows milked last
Cow treatments in HTAP
Claw health programme
Herd claw trimming 2x/yr
Cleaning of barn floor
Formalin footbath used
Floor checked for broken and
unequal slats
Locomotion is scored
Claw lesions at trimming are
recorded
Young stock claws sprayed or
formalin bathed
HTAP is followed
Pathways to pasture are checked
for gravel
Water troughs in barn and pasture
are checked

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 107

Chapter 6

General measures of prevention Planned Measures Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4

yes/no? executed yes/no

Reproductive performance
Dry cows are kept inside
Dry cows in 2 groups
Heat detection evaluated OK
Body condition scoring is done
and OK
Detected/suspect heats are
recorded
Expected heat date list is used
Light regime in barn OK
Separate calving pen
Cleaning/disinfection of calving
pen is OK
if DIYS-AI is used, is it evaluated
regularly and OK
Nutrition of cows & calves
Rations are calculated at each
change
Mineral status is checked
Feedstuff quality checked
(mycoses and soil included)
Body Condition Scored
Rumen Fill scored
Faeces Consistency scored
Undigested Fraction in Faeces
scored
Concentrates increase after
calving in > 3 weeks
Young stock growth performance
checked 2x/yr
General management
Biosecurity Plans in place and
functioning
Herd Health & Production
Management programme in place
Good Dairy Farming guidelines
and working instructions in place

OK= correct and in order.

HTAP= herd treatment advisory plan; DIYS-AI= do it your self artifical insemination.

108 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

Chapter 7. C
 ritical Control Points (CCP) and Points of Particular
Attention (POPA): their standards and tolerances or
targets, their monitoring, and corrective measures

7.1. Introduction

The CCP’s and POPA’s are usually derived from the risk factors that have been
identified during the strengths-and-weaknesses-assessment (Chapter 2) or in the step
of analysing hazards and risks in more detail (Chapter 6). Moreover, a CCP has to
meet several formal criteria before it can be considered as such. These criteria have
been listed in Chapter 4, and are shortly presented under paragraph 7.2. At the same
time it was determined that in living animals like cows and young stock there exists
biological variation in many parameters while exact standards or absolute objective
threshold values are not available (e.g. in the serum-titre distribution of antibodies
against a certain viral disease agent in a herd) like there are in physical processes.

In those situations where one or more of the CCP criteria cannot be met, and while
the control point still is considered of paramount importance, we can consider such
a control point as a POPA. In dairy cattle farming there are much more POPA’s than
CCP’s.

Furthermore, in addition to the definition of several formal standards, we add the

definition of specific targets in various domains; this is highly comparable to the
situation in veterinary Herd Health & Production Management, HHPM, programmes
(Brand et al., 1996).

All CCP’s and POPA’s together should be brought into an on-farm monitoring system.
The monitoring is meant to trigger for corrective actions once control is lost, in other
words when the risk that a hazard may occur (e.g. increase in mastitis cases) or has
occurred (e.g. antibiotic residues in milk detected at the milk factory) increases. It
would be best when corrective measures are designed and implemented only after a
cost-benefit assessment has taken place.

It must be emphasised here that too many CCP and POPA will hamper a smoothly
functioning monitoring process, and hence, impact the routine daily management
practices on the dairy farm too much. The way to avoid such overload is addressed
in the next section.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 109

Chapter 7

7.2. CCP and POPA

Shortly, the formal criteria to be met by a control point to be defined as critical (CCP)
are that:
• it must be associated with the hazard/risks of concern potentially occurring within
in or related to the process;
• it must have a standard value with tolerance limits;
• it must be measurable or observable;
• it must be crucial for process (step) control;
• corrective actions to restore control must be available;
• once control is lost, these corrective measures must be able to fully restore
control.

As was indicated in Chapter 4, with live animals and their biological variation on
dairy farms it is often very hard or not even feasible to obtain full restoration of
control. Therefore, more often target values rather than absolute standards apply in
animal production. Then we deal with POPA’s.

There is a decision-tree approach to determine whether a certain control point, a step

in the process, a procedure or a series of steps, is indeed critical or not. The sequence
of 4 questions to be answered in this decision-tree is presented in Figure 7.1 (adapted
after FAO, 1997; Griffin et al., 1998; T. Mota, unpublished data, 2003).

For reasons of feasibility and practicality on the farm, the number of CCP’s and
POPA’s on the farm should be restricted. This is particularly the case on farms with
less than two persons working, for example the farmer and his son or wife part-time,
or a co-worker.

Moreover, the CCP’s and POPA’s should form part of an on-farm monitoring system,
through which observations, measurements, investigations, and tests have to be
conducted; all these together also must remain within a feasible context. This is one of
the reasons to integrate operational veterinary Herd Health & Production Management
programmes with the HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programmes.

7.3. Standards & tolerances, and targets

As was stated above, the physical processes on a dairy farm will usually be accompanied
by standards and their tolerance limits.
An example is the temperature of the warm cleaning water to wash the milking
machine: at start it should be at 80 °C while at the end of the washing procedure, the
temperature should still be at 60 °C, the tolerance being ±2 °C. Another example is the

110 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Critical Control Points (CCP) and Points of Particular Attention (POPA)

Do preventive control
Q1 measures exist?
Modify step, process or
Yes No product

Is control at this step

necessary for safety? Yes

No Not a CCP STOP

Is the step specifically designed to eliminate or

Q2 reduce the likely occurrence of a hazard to an Yes
acce p table level?

No

Could contamination with identified

hazard(s) occur in excess of acceptable
level(s) or could these increase to
Q3 unacceptable levels?

Yes No Not a CCP STOP

Will a subsequent step eliminate

identified hazard(s) or reduce likely
Q4 occurrence to acceptable levels?

Yes No CCP

Not a CCP Or make it a POPA STOP

Figure 7.1. The decision-tree approach to determine whether a control point is critical (CCP) or
not; in the latter case it might be defined as a point of particular attention (POPA).

vacuum level of the milking machine. It can be set at 48 kPa with ±2 kPa tolerance.
Climate control in the cow barn or young stock barn has also several (physical)
standards, regarding for example the ventilation capacity, the relative humidity, and

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 111

Chapter 7

speed of the air stream. When the cleaning water temperature or the vacuum level or
the ventilation falls below the set standards and beyond the tolerance limits, then action
is needed because otherwise certain hazards may occur. Low cleaning temperatures
may induce higher bacteria counts in the milk at next milking, while a too low or too
high vacuum level may induce poor milking and damage to the udder tissue, and may
lead –through increased teat end callosity (TEC) possibly to mastitis (Neijenhuijs et
al., 2001), and, finally, poor ventilation may induce respiratory disorders and poor
cow comfort, hence lowering productivity and welfare. These physical entities may be
covered through electronic surveillance and bio-sensors, as is proposed in precision-
dairy-farming (Berckmans, 2004).

In the situation where we deal with live animals, like cows and young stock, such
standards and tolerance limits are hardly or not known. We have explained that by
pointing to diagnostic tests where false-positive and false-negative test results most
frequently occur. There we do not have a clear-cut break-off point; we usually set a
more or less arbitrary limit by scientific agreement. Moreover, when dealing with
health, welfare and other disorders, the population is our primary unit of concern, not
the individual animal. In a population there is always room for a base level occurrence
of disorders, even when the known risk factors do not play a substantial role. In those
situations we better introduce ‘targets’ instead of standards and their tolerances.

A farm-specific target for clinical mastitis cases per year could – realistically – be set at
<25% while for another farm this figure would perhaps be <15% or <35%, depending
on the situation that this farm has started from. A comparable target could be set for
clinical lameness cases: <20% per year; or diarrhoea cases in neonate calves: <5% per
year; or interval from calving to first service <70 days; etc.

It is clear that such targets have to be adjusted or updated at least once yearly, depending
on the interval as defined by the Team. They have extensively been described in Brand
et al. (1996). It appears highly valuable to conduct thorough inspection of the dairy
farm, and to perform strengths-and-weaknesses (SWA) assessments to be able to
define the farm-targets as best as possible. The SWA assessments presented in Chapter
2 will be very helpful.

The standards & tolerance limits, as well as the targets have to be defined within the
HACCP-team, once the production process flow diagrams have been designed, the
major hazards and risks determined, and the CCP’s and POPA’s identified.

Examples of CCP’s and POPA’s are presented in Table 7.2, and Table 7.3. The website
www.vacqa-international.com comprises several standards & tolerance limits, as well
as target levels for different elements in the strengths-and-weaknesses assessment

112 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 
Table 7.2. Example of a part of a list of CCP and POPA, their target values, monitoring, corrective measures, and record keeping procedure
for the production process step ‘Cow Treatment’ and the hazard of residues in milk and animal health hazard on a dairy farm. GMAP=
good medicine application code of practice (as a guideline; see Chapter 3); HTAP= veterinary herd treatment advisory plan (as a working
instruction; see Chapter 3).

Process step CCP or POPA Standard Monitoring Reference to Corrective Records

- element tolerance or Instruction measures
target how frequency who

T1 POPA Use only proper Check label At each use Farmer GMAP Use proper drugs; Drug record
drug properly HTAP consult veterinarian
T2 POPA No residues Check the At each Farmer GMAP Respect withdrawal Drug record
proper drug delivery HTAP period
T3 POPA Proper dosage Check the At each use Farmer GMAP Adjust dosage Drug record
syringe HTAP
T4 CCP Cow ID; no Visual At each drug Farmer GMAP Mark the right cow Drug record
tolerance inspection use HTAP

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

113
Critical Control Points (CCP) and Points of Particular Attention (POPA)
 Table 7.3. Example of a part of a list of CCP and POPA, their target values or standards, monitoring issues, reference to working instructions,

114
corrective measures, and record keeping procedures for the process step ‘Feed and Feeding Management’ on a dairy farm, as related to the
hazard of salmonellosis in lactating cows. PEP= pasture exploitation planning; GMP= codes of good manufacturing practice.
Chapter 7

Process step CCP or POPA Standard or Monitoring Reference to Corrective Records

-element target Instruction measures
how frequency who

F4 POPA Criteria set Check > 2x yearly Sampling by Sampling Adjust Lab record
by lab drinking water farmer; laboratory Procedures drinking
microbiological testing water system
quality
F5 POPA Target 0 Check manure or If suspect; Sampling by Sampling Lab record
slurry on pathogen otherwise 2x farmer; laboratory Procedures
yearly testing
F6 POPA Target 0 Check cows on On clinical Sampling by vet Sampling Eradicate Lab record;
shedding of indication; + Laboratory Procedures positive Health
salmonella spp veterinary testing testing cows record
inspection
F7 POPA Target 0 Check pasture 2x yearly + Farmer + vet or PEP Pasture
exploitation on indication nutritionist record
schemes to detect of suspect
risk plots case
F8 POPA Target 0 Check feed On indication Sampling PEP
harvested from by farmer;
pasture Laboratory
testing
F9 POPA Target 0 Check GMP and At each Farmer Feed Mill
pathogen freedom delivery a record; Lab
for concentrates GMP check record
F10 POPA Target 0 Check purchased At each herd Farmer + vet and Biosecurity Biosecurity Biosec
cattle for entry Laboratory Plan; Sampling Plan; record

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

pathogens Procedures Quarantine
 Critical Control Points (CCP) and Points of Particular Attention (POPA)

parts for udder health, claw health, herd fertility, milk production & nutrition, and
young stock rearing (see Chapter 2 for details). Such standards or targets may well be
adapted to local situations due to differences in e.g. husbandry systems.

Box 7.1. Farm FX: Standards/Targets, CCP and POPA for Staphylococcus aureus udder
infections.

The target for clinical udder infections on this farm have been set at a level of <30% cows
per year; the target for Staphylococcus aureus clinical cow cases has been set at <25% of all
clinical cases per year. As explained earlier, a formal standard with tolerance limits cannot
be set for clinical mastitis. The target for average bulk milk somatic cell count was set at
<250,000 per ml milk.

The major risk factors as identified in previous steps point to the application of CCP’s and
POPA’s. The monitoring of these CCP’s and POPA’s is addressed in the next section on
monitoring, as well as the related corrective measures.

Box 7.2. Farm FX: Standards/Targets, CCP and POPA for diarrhoea in neonate calves.

The target value for neonatal diarrhoea on this farm has been set at <5% per year calculated
on the number of neonates per year. For diarrhoea as well no formal standards with
tolerance limits can be set.

The hazard of neonatal diarrhoea on this farm was defined by laboratory testing as being
associated with E. coli infections and the other identified risk factors.

It was further determined by the Farm Quality Management Team that various control
measures could (strongly) reduce the incidence and prevalence of neonatal diarrhoea but
not fully eliminate the risk. Hence, we deal with POPA’s and not CCP’s in this respect. See the
previous chapter for the major risk factors identified on this farm where the POPA’s should
apply to. They are addressed in the next section on monitoring.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 115

Chapter 7

7.4. Monitoring

The CCP’s and POPA’s defined earlier in the design process of the HACCP-like
programme are to be assembled within a unique on-farm monitoring system. Such a
monitoring system comprises:
• the hazards/risks of concern;
• the step in the production process where monitoring should be conducted;
• the methods by which the monitoring is executed (e.g. observation; measuring;
cow-side testing; laboratory testing; certain instruments like hearth girth measuring
device for calves);
• the frequency of monitoring (e.g. twice daily; once daily; weekly; monthly);
• the person who is responsible for the monitoring (e.g. farmer; farm worker;
veterinarian; nutritionist, etc); and
• the documents needed for this monitoring (e.g. hazards-and-risks-list; SWA).

Costs-benefits assessment of possible monitoring methods should determine the best

choice for a given farm.

Results of monitoring are to be recorded in a special Monitoring Results Sheet: both

the positive and the negative results. The latter are of interest because these can be
handled to trigger further action, such as problem analysis or further laboratory
testing. Moreover, they are handled by the persons who conduct the internal and
external validation of the functioning of the HACCP-like programme.

Monitoring as described above strongly approaches the clinical monitoring as is

conducted during programmes of veterinary Herd Health & Production Management
(Brand et al., 1996; Mulligan et al., 2007; Zaaijer and Noordhuizen, 2003). In such
programmes focussed on operational management, issues regarding animal health,
reproduction, productivity, welfare and cow comfort, and other management areas
are frequently monitored for decision-making and action planning. Moreover, issues
regarding housing and climate, or feeding and pasture exploitation, and hygiene are
monitored as well because these often represent potential risk factors contributing
to the occurrence of various disorders. It can, however, be stated that during these
herd health programmes the monitoring approach is usually less structured, often
rather qualitative in nature and less formal than in the HACCP-like programmes is
demanded.

On the other hand, the integration of monitoring practices in veterinary Herd Health
& Production Management programmes (HHPM) with the monitoring demands
in HACCP-like programmes will assist in the adoption of the latter programme in
routine management practice by the dairy farmers. HACCP approaches imbedded

116 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Critical Control Points (CCP) and Points of Particular Attention (POPA)

in HHPM can easily address operational management issues too, and, hence, reduce
quality failure costs in their broadest sense. It makes the integrated approach quite
efficient and cost-effective. In situations where the Team expects failures, one may
consider the design and implementation of a specific training programme of short
duration about the ways monitoring should be conducted on a given farm.

7.5. Corrective measures

Corrective measures may comprise a whole spectrum of measures for the different
components, steps and CCP’s or POPA’s of the production process. Corrective measures
must be defined as being focussed on one or more particular CCP’s or POPA’s and
being complementary to codes of practice under the heading of Good Dairy Farming,
as are presented in Chapter 3. However, these corrective measures are much more
specific than those guidelines because they are associated with a particular CCP or
POPA.

Based on the Good Dairy Farming guidelines, the Farm Quality Management Team
can additionally design technical working instructions (sometimes named Operational
Management Sheets) for specific farm operations like milking machine maintenance,
walk-through claw bath use, working instructions within a biosecurity plan (e.g. cattle
quarantine instructions; cleaning & disinfection instructions), or veterinary herd
treatment advisory plans. Working instructions are highly specific for the hazard or
risks of concern and must be made as farm-specific as possible too. Table 7.4 presents
a shorthand comparison of HHPM and HACCP-like programme contents. Although
the semantics may be the same, it must be clear that in a HACCP-like approach, key
elements such as ‘structure’, ‘formalisation’, ‘strict uniform procedures’ and ‘planning’
are dictating the way that procedures must be followed. In a HHPM setting, the
approach is rather qualitative and more free-style in nature.

The Farm Quality Management Team should take the feasibility of certain corrective
measures on a particular farm into consideration. Corrective measures should not
disturb the routine management procedures too much when ever possible; their
execution should be feasible within the management practice on the farm. On the
other hand, when alternative measures are not available, or will not result in the
expected best effect, there remains little choice.

It would be optimal if corrective measures are eventually chosen following a cost-

benefit assessment on the dairy farm in order to make the corrective measures chosen
as cost-efficient as possible.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 117

Chapter 7

Table 7.4. A shorthand comparison of HHPM and HACCP-like programme contents.

HHPM programmes: HACCP-like programmes

Targets Standards & Targets

Herd inspection (cattle; environment) Hazards identification
Herd performance evaluation Risk identification
Problem Analysis CCP’s and POPA’s
Plan of Action Monitoring scheme
Corrective measures (advice/interventions) Corrective measures for CCP/POPA
Follow-up Follow-up; recording
Adjustment of plan of action Adjustment of process steps
Internal validation
Adjustment of managerial practices Adjustment of managerial practices
External verification
Optional: biosecurity plans Biosecurity plans 
Optional: GDF guidelines GDF guidelines  a must
Optional: working instructions Working instructions 

Box 7.3 is an example of a formal Corrective Action sheet, in this case for the area of udder
health & milk quality, and focussed on the aspect of ‘incorrect udder preparation’.

Corrective Action Lists are designed following the same SOP rules as addressed
earlier.

First, the area of concern is mentioned (teat-end preparation in the forenamed example).
Next, every relevant item is mentioned on the list to avoid misinterpretation about the
meaning. Third, with regard to the monitoring it must be stressed that the relevant
issues should be listed (see example) also comprising the person made responsible
to execute the activity. The rationale behind this set-up is that (1) there should not be
any misunderstanding among the farm workers what should be done, by whom and
how, (2) this corrective action list forms part of the HACCP handbook. The former
puts the responsibility to at least one person in particular who can be evaluated on his
performance. The latter means that it must be shown to third parties inspecting the
farm for internal validation of the proper HACCP functioning, as well as to those who
perform an external audit. The relevance of putting ‘future measures’ in this list is that
these actions are preventive in nature, like the QRM programme requires.

118 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Critical Control Points (CCP) and Points of Particular Attention (POPA)

Box 7.3. Example of a formal Corrective Action sheet for udder and milk quality.

Sheet of Corrective Action

- INCORRECT UDDER PREPARATION -

RESPONSIBLE: . ....................................................................................................................
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION TO IMPLEMENT:

Repeat teat-end preparation - Steps 5 and 6

MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT IN THE FUTURE:

In the 5th step - do the washing of the teats in the proper way, never washing the udder
without drying
In the 6th step - only use one cloth per cow/teat and verify if they are in the best hygienic
conditions

REGISTRATION:

Date and milking Action executed Motive presented Person responsible

(Morning/
Afternoon)

7.6. Concluding remarks

The number of critical control points and points of particular attention can be high.
At all times we have to watch for overloading the farmer and his co-workers with too
many CCP’s and POPA’s. The monitoring of these must fit into daily management
routines and must be practical. A cost-benefit assessment to find the lowest costs
methods for monitoring is warranted. Too costly or too much time-consuming
monitoring activities will decrease the motivation of the people.

As was shown by the different Tables and Figures, the ‘hazards-and-risks-list’ mentioned
in the previous chapter, can be expanded with the CCP’s and POPA’s. But also the

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 119

Chapter 7

monitoring activities, the corrective actions and the records involved can be added to
that list to make it more comprehensible.

In the examples of Farm FX, as shown hereafter (Box 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6), reference can
be made to specific working instructions and GDF guidelines when needed. From
these last two Tables for Farm FX it can be concluded that there are –again- different
formats for describing corrective actions. It will depend on the husbandry system and
management features which format is to be applied.

The extended ‘hazards-and-risks-list’ including the CCP’s, POPA’s, monitoring

activities, the corrective measures, and the record keeping can be considered the core
component of the HACCP handbook in our Quality Risk Management programme.

Box 7.5. Farm FX: Monitoring and corrective measures for ‘diarrhoea in neonate
calves’.

Monitoring of birth management:

• Clean & disinfect calving pen; dry new straw bedding
• Navel disinfection immediately after birth
• Housing in individual clean disinfected box
–– visual inspection at each birth (farmer)
–– visual inspection by veterinarian each farm visit

Colostrum management:
• Immediately after birth aseptic collection of colostrum by the farmer;
–– check colostrum quality (IgG) by colostrometer in each dam (farmer)
• Supply 2 L good colostrum within 2 Hrs after birth
• Supply 5-6 L the first day, and subsequent 2-3 days too
–– check serum IgG level in calves in risk period (veterinarian by refractometer or at
laboratory)
–– surplus colostrum of good quality can be stored in freezer with date, dam
identification (farmer)
–– visual inspection on signs of clinical disease (diarrhoea) at least twice daily (farmer)

Additional measures can be found in the working instruction on ‘Hygiene in the calving pen
and around birth’ and the code of practice on ‘Good Medicine Application’ (see in chapter 3)

120 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 

Box 7.4. Farm FX: Monitoring and Corrective Measures for ‘Staphylococcus aureus udder infections’.

The monitoring of the respective CCP’s and POPA’s for Farm FX, as well as the corrective actions and records to be kept are developed for
Farm FX.

Step of the Hazard Probable Preventive CCP Critical Limits ´or CCP’S Monitoring Corrective Records
process of identification occurrence measures POPA Targets´ Actions
production

Stage 2 Step 4 MH3 Yes Use of gloves CCP4 Validation of the Samples taken by Clean the See protocol
contamination or keep the POPA4 critical limits by the responsible hands/gloves of GDF and
from the hands hands in taking samples of the milking of the milker records of
of the milker conditions of from hands or process, 1xweek observation
hygiene gloves in the milking
Score ≤ 1 process
MH4 improper Yes Only wash POPA5 Minutes spent Monitoring of Repeat See protocol
washing the teat-end in the washing; the time and teat-end of GDF and
Minimal temperature of temperature by preparation records of
water should the water the responsible observation
be used of the milking
process, 1xweek

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

in the milking
process
MH5 No Guaranty of POPA6
poor quality of water quality
cleaning water

121
Critical Control Points (CCP) and Points of Particular Attention (POPA)
122
Box 7.6. Farm FX: Monitoring and corrective measures for some calf rearing problems.
Chapter 7

Some risk areas, their target levels, CCP/POPA, and the monitoring scheme are presented, as well as intervention activities and prevention.

The terms GI, GMA, GH and GCFP in the last two columns refer to guidelines and working instructions (see also Chapter 3).

Proces- Hazard Farm specific CCP/ Monitoring Intervention Prevention

step POPA
Norm/ target Risk How to check Where/ Check freq Who
& tolerance chance when to checks
P*I check

A1 Birth <5% POPA Manual/ Calving pen Farmer/ Follow GI1

problems History advisor
A4 Wrong Within 3days CCP Record Calf pen Before day 3 Farmer/ Immediate Follow
identification keeping advisor tagging or worksheet
calf before day 3 ID
B5 Diarrhoea in <2% POPA Visual / clinical During Daily (twice) Farmer/ Follow Follow GH1
neonate signs feeding advisor GMA1
B6/C2 Aberrant <2% POPA Palpation After Daily (twice) Farmer/ Follow GI1
naval feeding during first advisor
week of life
C6 Wrong extra- 0% CCP Visual Before teat Once after Farmer/ Follow GI1
teat removed removal dehorning advisor
D1/2 Poor weight <10% calves POPA Heart girth Before Once at Farmer/ Inform Follow
gain beneath measurement weaning 8 weeks advisor advisor GCFP
target-weight (depending (GCF1+2)
-70-80 kg on length
at 2 mo milk replacer
(weaning) period)

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Critical Control Points (CCP) and Points of Particular Attention (POPA)

Annex 7A. Examples of CCP and POPA, norms and tolerances, targets,
monitoring and corrective measures

In this Annex you will find some more examples of CCP and POPA definition,
standards & tolerances, target levels, monitoring and corrective measures in the
area of Feed & Feeding Management of a particular dairy farm. These examples may
further assist in designing the appropriate HACCP-like lists for the dairy farm.

Table 7A.1. Example of some of the hazards identified on a dairy farm as related to feed and
feeding management, associated weighted risk factors, and definition of CCP or POPA.

Hazard type X Associated risk & weighing CCP or Standard &

Probability x Impact = Risk level1 POPA tolerance;
target

Pasturing & Grazing:

Poor grass growth A 1x2=2 POPA Optimise
Toxic plants in/around V,A,W 1 x 2 = 2 POPA Zero
grassland
Heat stress A, W 2x2=4 POPA Optimise
Infection transfer at pasturing V, A 2x3=6 POPA Zero
from cattle to young stock
Fungi on grass (mycotoxins) V (A) 1x3=3 POPA Optimise
Harvesting & Silaging:
Oil leakage at silaging (dioxins) V 1x1=1 POPA Optimise
Agent transmission through V, A 1x3=3 POPA Optimize
dirty hired equipment
Fungi formation in corn silage V, (A) 2x3=6 POPA Optimise
(mycotoxins)
Agent transfer through manure V, A 1x2=2 POPA Zero
contaminated feed
Traumatic reticulitis due to feed A 1x3=3 POPA Zero
Chemically or microbiologically A, W 2x2=4 POPA Optimise
contaminated drinking water

X = main area of concern; V = veterinary public health/food safety; A = animal health/productivity;

W = animal welfare
1three levels are identified: high risk; moderate risk and low risk. Note that the outcome applies to

this particular farm and not to all farms.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 123

Chapter 7

Table 7A.2. Examples of monitoring elements in the area of feed and feeding management,
methodology, frequency and person responsible (see also Table 7A.2).

Hazard Monitoring item Methodology Frequency Responsible

person

Poor grass Check botanic Visual At start + during Farmer

growth composition; seed Information season
selection and seeding check Before start + during
process; water drains; Visual; season
grassland management calendar From 2 to 4 times per
year
Toxic plants in Check for toxic plants in Visual Once every 2 weeks Farmer
pasture season
Heat stress in Check for shadow Visual Once a year Farmer
pasture facilities
Infection transfer Check interval between Visual Each grazing plot Farmer
at pasturing from grazing cows and young Calendar change
cows to young stock; check grazing plan From 2 to 4 times per
stock year
Serology or culturing Laboratory Veterinarian
Mycotoxins in Check soil management; Visual From 2 to 4 times per Farmer
pasture insects; harvesting Calendar year
season; seed selection Season related
and safety; grassland In season: 2 times
improvement plans

124 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Critical Control Points (CCP) and Points of Particular Attention (POPA)

Table 7A.3. Examples of corrective and preventive measures to respectively restore lost control,
eliminate risk factors or reduce their impact (see also Tables 7A.1 and 7A.2).

Hazard type Monitoring Results Corrective Measures & Prevention

Poor grass growth Botanic composition is poor Check water drainage and correct
when needed
Check grassland management practice:
adjust stocking density; adjust timing
of cows in/out pasture plots (use
calendar & planning); adjust application
of fertilizer
Check seed selection and seeding
practice; adjust choices or practices
Toxic plants in Toxic plants detected Eliminate these plants; apply proper
pasture chemicals in right dosage and at the
right time
If the neighbour is involved, contact
him about joint action, otherwise apply
double fencing
Heat stress in Heat stress occurs; no shadow Keep cows in barn during day-time,
pasture pasture them at night
Provide extra drinking water and ample
ventilation
Consider planting trees or shadow
facilities
Infection transfer Infection transferred Cure diseased animals; check
from cows to calves veterinarian
in pasture Prevent next transmission by
separating calves from cows grazing
Mycoses in pastures Fungi found Adjust time of harvesting grass and
maize; do not damage the plants
Apply proper soil management
practice: plough back stubbles
Check plant seed quality and seed
disinfection
Apply weeds control; apply plot-
oriented fertilising
Use fungicides when deemed
necessary

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 125

Chapter 8. S
 upport programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk
Management programme

8.1. Introduction

Developing and implementing a Quality Risk Management, QRM, programme which

is based on the concept and principles of HACCP requires preparatory activities, as
well as supportive activities. The former have been highlighted in Chapter 2 on the
inventory of strong-and-weak points on a dairy farm and in Chapter 3 on Good Dairy
Farming guidelines. Moreover, it has been pointed out that an operational veterinary
Herd Health & Production Management, HHPM, programme on the dairy farm
(Brand et al., 1996; Mulligan et al., 2007) will, when executed in a professional way,
facilitate the development and implementation of a HACCP-based QRM programme,
and as such it could be considered as a preparatory activity. This is caused by the fact
that record-keeping, monitoring of animals and their environment, interventions,
actions for the short and the longer term, and reporting already form part of these
HHPM programmes (Radostits, 2000).

In addition to these preparatory activities, a HACCP-based QRM programme will

require support programmes in order to facilitate the smoothly running of this QRM
programme, once it is implemented.

Among these support programmes the following components can be distinguished:

• Yearly strategic planning issues of the dairy farm business (8.2).
• Economics (8.3).
• Herd Health & Production Management programmes, HHPM (8.4).
• Cattle welfare & Cow Comfort (8.5).
• Technical training programmes for farmer and farm workers (8.6).
• Human resource management & working conditions for employees (8.7).

The different support programme components are separately addressed hereafter.

8.2. Yearly strategic planning of the dairy farm business

In the yearly strategic planning are comprised elements like objectives for the next
year for the different farming areas, and an evaluation of the performance of the past
year (see also the various paragraphs in Chapter 12). Moreover, other domains can be
addressed in strategic planning, such as farm economics related to disease occurrence,
aspects of udder health control, fertility management, claw health and dairy
replacement rearing (Esslemont et al., 1985; Waltner-Toews et al., 1986; Heinrichs,

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 127

Chapter 8

1993; Mulligan et al.,2007). Brand et al. (1996) have described the ‘management
planning circle’ comprising the setting of targets for various farming areas (e.g. udder
health, claw health, calf rearing, herd fertility, production), the determination of
materials and methods necessary to achieve the targets, the evaluation of performance
figures in the respective farming areas, and the adjustment of targets, management
practices or methods when targets have not been achieved.

Planning also comprises the definition of contracts with suppliers and buyers, and
with contractors. The latter are for example those who execute particular jobs on the
farm like grass or corn harvesting and silage making, ploughing and renovation of
grassland, manure collection and spreading over the pasture plots. This usually refers
to seasonal work, meaning that many other farmers would require such contractors
to execute these tasks. It is highly indicated to design contracts with those people to
be sure that the planned work is carried out indeed and in periods the farmer likes
them to.

In daily management procedures several aspects return seasonally. Sometimes these

aspects are detected through performance problems encountered on the dairy farm,
some other times they are seasonally bound to certain months in the year, and again
other times they are to be addressed from a prevention point of view.

For those situations, a yearly farm management action planning chart can be very
helpful for daily farm management. A general example for a particular dairy farm is
given in Figure 8.1. Another example for the area of feed and feeding management to
be filled in by the farmer is given in Figure 8.2. The Farm Quality Control Team is the
body to discuss about and compose such wall charts and revise it each year. Charts
like those presented in Figures 8.1 and 8.2 are visualising periodical and planned
activities; they will help the farmer and farm-workers to remind the planned actions
and execute them in time. The charts may also serve the evaluation the following year
(see also Chapter 9 on internal validation).

128 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

March

Sept
May

Aug

Nov
Dec
Feb

Apr

Oct
Jun
Jan

Jul
CMT herd screening
Milking machine & technique
Herd claw trimming
Formaline foot bathing
Maiden heifers to be bred
Lungworm vaccination
Screen rearing young stock
Check barn climate
Check on liver fluke
Faeces check on nematods 5 wks
Check on ectoparasites
Feeding management at change from
barn to pasture
Start calves in pasture
Evaluation pasturing cows
Suppl. feeding at pasturing
Feeding management at change from
pasture to barn
Roughage analysis
Barn feedstuff balance
Evaluation barn feeding
Check concentrate automates
Grassland exploitation
Grassland planning
Forage harvesting planning
Feed purchase planning
Estimate # kgs of concentrates/cow
Estimate # kgs of concentrates/100

Figure 8.1. Example of a Farm Management Planning Calendar for general health and
nutrition.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 129

Chapter 8

Handbook

Frequency
item #

MRCH

NOV
AUG
MAY

OCT

DEC
APR

JUN
JAN
FEB

SEP
JUL
Action

Grassland management 2x/yr

Grazing system evaluation 1x/yr
Harvesting procedures 1x/yr
Harvesting equipment 1x/mo
Silage making procedure 1x/2 mo
Silage sampling 1x/yr
TMR weighing calibration 1x/mo
Silage contamination 1x/mo
Feeding automates calibration 1x/3 mo
Feed rack maintenance 1x/6 mo
Feed bunk maintenance 1x/6 mo
Hygiene & maintenance equipment 1x/3 mo
Test water for cattle 1x/yr

Figure 8.2. Example of a Farm Management Action Planning wall chart for the area of Feed and
Feeding Management (handbook item refers to a specific paragraph and item in the HACCP-
based-QRM handbook on the farm).

8.3. Economic losses due to health and production disorders

A generally accepted definition of economics is: ‘Economics is the science that is working
on how individuals and society make choices to employ scarce resources over possible
alternative uses’. The three key elements in this definition are choices, scarcity and
alternatives. Economics strives to support decision making (making choices) on e.g.
a farm. Making decisions is necessary when resources are scarce, which in economic
terminology means that resources are finite. Three types of resources are generally
distinguished: natural and biological resources (land), human resources (farm labour)
and manufactured resources (capital). These resources can be employed for different
activities. Within a farm, capital can be used to expand the number of dairy cows, but
can also be used to improve the hygiene in a barn. Since capital is ‘scarce’, choices have
to be made where to employ it. Economic analysis aims at supporting those decisions
(H. Hogeveen and A.G.J. Velthuis, 2007, personal communication).

The assessment of economic losses due to health-, welfare- and production disorders
in cows and or young stock, or due to milk quality failures, is another component of

130 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

farm planning. Because of the chronic nature of production disorders, economic loss is
spread over the year, and the economic loss of certain factors, such as milk production
decreases, cannot directly be seen. Farm accounting reports give all kinds of detail
about the costs of production but these are in terms of feeding costs, machinery costs,
costs for animal improvement, etc. The factor health costs only comprise costs for
drugs and the veterinarian, which is only a small proportion of the total economic loss
of a production disorder as will be shown later. The total costs of disease can be large.
For instance, for the Dutch dairy situation, it was estimated that the costs of health and
fertility problems account for 10% of the gross production value (Dijkhuizen, 1990).

A proper understanding of the costs of a disease is important to support decisions

of farmers with regard to e.g. animal health. It is important that this understanding
goes beyond the knowledge of costs of a disease as it is given by calculations of others.
All calculations of costs of disease and cost-effectiveness of preventive and curative
measures can be regarded as averages for a certain situation. Costs of disease vary
from farm to farm. This is not only dependent on the incidence of disease but also on
the level of cost factors (Huijps et al., 2007). In order to support decisions of farmers,
the advisor must be able to interpret such published data to translate them to the
specific situation of an individual farm. Therefore, insight in the theories behind
economic calculations in the field of animal diseases is necessary. For that purpose
we refer to publications by Dijkhuizen and Morris (1996), McInerney (1996), Mourits
et al. (1997), Huirne et al. (2002) and Tozer and Heinrichs (2001).

Under practical circumstances it is very difficult to make an estimation of the costs of

disease, because production functions differ between farms; moreover, many farmers
do not optimise production. In this paragraph, we will therefore be pragmatic and
consider the factors that determine the cost of disease as they are described by Halasa
et al. (2007). In their paper, economic consequences of (clinical or subclinical) mastitis
were described. Their framework is applicable to production diseases in general. They
distinguish factors (Table 8.1). Although the relative cost of the factors might differ
between countries and between regions, the economic principles behind them are the
same and will be explained below.

8.3.1. Production losses

Milk production losses are the most important part of this factor. Most diseases give a
more or less substantial loss in milk production and affect the output of a farm, given
a certain level of input, directly. The economic damage of a lower milk production
per cow depends on the structure of the farming business. Milk payment systems may
differ (payment based on kilograms of milk or kilograms of milk components such
as fat and protein, or milk quality features such somatic cell count level and bacteria
counts). Moreover, the calculations of the economic damage due to decreased milk

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 131

Chapter 8

Table 8.1. An overview of the factors relevant in calculating disease losses (after Halasa et al.,
2007).

Production losses Labour

Veterinary services Product quality
Diagnosis setting Other diseases
Veterinary medicinal products Culling
Discarded milk Investments in prevention

production differ between a quota system (as applied in the EU countries) and a non-
quota system. Diseases might also lead to weight decrease of animals and that would
give a decrease in meat production, which is a side product of the dairy production.
Moreover, reproductive problems many times have an effect on the calving interval
and thus on the production of calves. The associated damage of a loss in meat and calf
production is relatively easy to calculate using the price of meat and calves.

8.3.2. Veterinary service

Besides delivering drugs (in many countries still an important veterinary practice
service), the veterinarian spends time on setting a diagnosis of a disease. Veterinary
service may be mandatory for each treatment, if required by national legislation, or is
only provided upon request by the farmer.

8.3.3. Diagnosis setting

Costs for diagnostics can be made in some circumstances by either the veterinarian
or the farmer himself. An example of often applied diagnosis is the use of bacterial
culturing to get more insight in the cause of mastitis.

8.3.4. Veterinary medicinal products

Drugs necessary to treat infected or affected animals are a direct cause of economic
damage, owing to their direct cost, and indirectly through increased treatment labour
costs. The cost of drugs varies between countries, depending on the legislation and
the infrastructure of the country.

8.3.5. Discarded milk

Economic damage due to discarded milk is comparable with that from decreased milk
production. However, there is one difference: the discarded milk is actually produced
by the cows, which means that feeding costs for that amount of milk have to be taken
into account in the calculations, as well as in the calculations for milk production loss.
The economic damage of 100 kg of discarded milk is therefore larger than for 100 kg
of decreased production.

132 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

8.3.6. Labour
Cost of labour is difficult to interpret. Opportunity costs of labour may differ from
farm to farm. If the labour is external, then the cost of labour for the time that has
been used to prevent mastitis is quite easy to calculate (hours x hourly wage). If the
labour comes from the farmer’s free time, the opportunity costs are zero. However,
if because of disease the farmer spends less time on other management tasks, the
opportunity costs are the decrease in income due to skipping these tasks. Although
hard to estimate correctly, the loss of labour joy represents a major loss on dairy farms
affected by diseases.

8.3.7. Product quality

This factor includes meat and milk quality. Some diseases (especially mastitis) have an
effect on the quality of milk. The associated economic damage is difficult to calculate
and the direct effect of this economic damage for the individual dairy farmer is even
more difficult to estimate. The only changes in milk quality that have a direct effect
and can be estimated, are the factors that are part of the milk payment system, for
instance, bacterial count and somatic cell count. Bacterial count and/or somatic cell
count do change with the mastitis status of a cow and therefore, in most countries,
there is a regulatory limit (payment schemes or bonus/malus type of systems) for bulk
milk bacterial count and bulk tank somatic cell count. Another milk quality factor
that can be affected by diseases is antimicrobial growth inhibition in milk due to
antibiotic residues. The costs for decreased milk quality depend on the milk quality
payment scheme that is used, but these costs can be considerable.

8.3.8. Other diseases

The factors described above (milk production losses, drugs, discarded milk, veterinary
service, labour, product quality, diagnostics) can be regarded as direct costs of
diseases. Besides these direct costs, cows with a certain disease may be a risk factor
for other animals. In the case of infectious diseases, this is due to the shedding of
bacteria or viruses, which can spread a disease. Within an animal there might also
be an association between specific diseases and other cattle diseases. Ketosis is for
instance a risk factor for mastitis (Swinkels et al., 2005). The proportion of disease,
which is caused by one animal that was diseased, can be regarded as indirect costs of
that disease.

8.3.9. Culling
Culling is a difficult factor to estimate since it is a result of other effects (except in
the case of death from causes other than culling). Culling is a decision of the dairy
farmer. A cow is culled when replacement is the optimal decision. Cows with diseases
have a higher risk of being culled. The cost of premature replacement of animals due
to mastitis is probably one of the largest areas of economic loss. However, it is very

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 133

Chapter 8

difficult to calculate precisely (Lehenbauer and Oltjen, 1998). When a cow is culled,
there are direct costs that are the costs of rearing or buying a replacement animal
(mostly heifers). Indirect costs are e.g. a decreased efficiency of milk production by
the replacement animal, since the milk yield of multiparous cows is higher than that
of primiparous cows (although the genetic milk production potential may be higher
in lactating heifers than in multiparous cows). Moreover, the milk production of a
lactating heifer might be disappointing (lactating heifers have a relatively high culling
rate). On the other hand, there are returns of culling a cow like the price of meat, and
– indirectly – a better herd production efficiency and an improved labour joy after
a cow was culled which needed much attention and care. The costs of involuntary
culling differ over time, depending on milk production, parity, lactation stage and
reproductive status.

8.3.10. Investments for prevention

Disease management includes the use of materials and commodities that cost money.
These materials can be either renewable (for instance disinfectants and drugs could
be seen as a specific type of renewable materials) or non-renewable (for instance a
new milking parlour). The purchase of renewable materials has short term economic
consequences and the costs can be easily calculated. The purchase of non-renewable
materials has long-term consequences. Purchase costs have to be divided over various
years by depreciation. Moreover, because capital is tied up by such purchases, interest
rates have to be calculated as well. Finally most non-renewable materials require
maintenance and this also generates costs. Although the benefits in terms of reduced
disease incidence may outweigh the costs of these materials and investments, this cost
factor is part of the costs of disease.

8.3.11. Cost calculations for some diseases

There is a wide range of methods available to calculate the costs of disease and the
economic efficiency of disease control measures (Dijkhuizen et al., 1991). In this
paragraph these methods will not further be explained. Moreover, in the scientific
literature numerous papers have been published on the economic effects of disease
and the cost-effectiveness of disease prevention. It goes too far to give a complete
review of the costs associated with all diseases in dairy production. We will just give
a few examples of recent calculations on animal diseases:
• the cost of mastitis on a dairy farm;
• the cost-effectiveness to treat subclinical mastitis with antibiotics; and
• the cost of ketosis on a dairy farm.

The costs of mastitis: Several reports have addressed the economic losses as related
to mastitis and udder health management (Hogeveen and Osteras, 2005; Swinkels et
al., 2005). In a recent study (Huips et al., 2007), costs of mastitis were calculated for

134 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

average Dutch circumstances (Hogeveen and Osteras, 2005). The average costs for a
case of clinical mastitis were estimated to be € 210, varying from € 235 for clinical
mastitis in the first month post partum to € 164 for clinical mastitis in the last part of
lactation. The costs for subclinical mastitis were dependent on the number of cows
with an increased somatic cell count and were due to milk production losses. For a
farm with an average production of 8,500 kg per 305 days, these costs varied from €
53 per cow per year when the bulk milk somatic cell count was lower than 100,000
cells/ml to € 120 per cow per year when the bulk milk somatic cell count was higher
than 400,000 cells/ml. Using an average incidence for clinical mastitis (30%) the total
costs of mastitis for a Dutch dairy farm with 65 cows were calculated to differ from
€7,453 (bulk milk somatic cell count lower than 100,000 cells/ml) to €11,808 (bulk
milk somatic cell count larger than 400,000 cells/ml). Costs for production losses are
the largest proportion (53%) of these costs. Some of the assumptions made for this
basic calculation can be found in Table 8.2.

As stated before, the economic consequences of disease may differ between farms.
Moreover, the incidence and severity of disease may also differ. To illustrate this,
data have been collected on 64 dairy farms. The incidence of clinical mastitis differed
largely between farms (see Table 8.2). The bulk milk somatic cell count and thus the
number of cows with an increased somatic cell count, also differed largely between
farms. From an economic point of view the variation in costs of, for instance, milk
production losses, labour and culling is much more interesting. The costs associated

Table 8.2. Costs of mastitis calculated for the average Dutch situation (Basic) and according
to data collected on 64 Dutch dairy farms. The mean, minimum and maximum values are
presented (after Huijps et al., 2007).

Farmers data

Basic Min Mean Max

Farm size (number of cows) 65 28 83 160

Farm size (kg quota) 650,000 195,000 702,621 1,500,000
Yearly mastitis incidence (%) 30 6 29 100
Bulk milk somatic cell count (cells/ml) 200,000 60,000 178,484 300,000
Costs milk production losses (€/kg) 0.12 0 7.47 12
Costs per visit of veterinarian (€/visit) 20 0 23.50 100
Costs of drugs (€/treatment) 20 5 33.18 110
Value of farmer’s labour (€/hour) 18 0 18.83 200
Costs of culling (€/culled cow) 480 0 382.50 750
Total costs for mastitis (€/cow present) 80-185 17 78 198

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 135

Chapter 8

with a decreased milk production due to disease differed from 0 to 12 cents per kg
(under quota circumstances). Also the costs for labour differed largely between farms
(0–200 € per hour). In these costs for labour, some farmers did not look at opportunity
costs per se, but took also the willingness to pay to prevent the labour associated with
clinical mastitis into account. A large variation could be seen in costs for culling.
Under practical circumstances, the costs for mastitis per cow present on a farm varied
between € 17 and € 198.

Costs of treatment of subclinical mastitis cases due to Streptococcus uberis: Traditionally,

subclinical mastitis cases are not treated with antibiotics except during the dry period.
However, recently this practice seems to be changing. By some veterinarians, treatment
of some types of subclinical mastitis is regarded to be effective. Various factors play a
role on the cost-effectiveness of treatment, amongst others probability of spontaneous
cure, probability of the cow becoming clinically diseased, spread of infection to other
cows, cure rate under treatment and physiological effects of the infection. Since the
decision on antibiotic treatment of subclinical mastitis involves much uncertainty and
variability, the economic calculations were carried out with a stochastic Monte Carlo
model (Steeneveld et al., 2007). This model simulates the dynamics of an infection for
a cow known to have subclinical mastitis caused by Streptococcus uberis. Besides the
effect of treatment on the infection status and economic damage of the cow, possible
infections in other cows are also taken into account. The average economic damage
(with basic input parameters) when a cow with chronic subclinical Streptococcus
uberis mastitis (diagnosed after 2 subsequent cow somatic cell count measures above
250,000 cells/ml) is not treated is € 110 (Table 8.3). With treatment, the average
damage was higher, € 122, with a long (8 days) treatment, the average damage was
even more higher. For the average cow, treatment is not economically efficient.
The reduced costs for milk production losses, clinical flare-ups and culling did not
outweigh the additional costs of drugs and discarded milk. However, the spread of
economic damage indicates that the risk of high damage is much higher when a cow
with chronic subclinical mastitis caused by Streptococcus uberis is not treated. This
indicates that, although for the (Dutch) situation on average treating a subclinically
Streptococcus uberis infected cow is not cost-efficient, the economic risks are higher
when a cow is not treated.

Costs of ketosis: An interesting aspect of ketosis is that ketosis does increase the risk
of clinical mastitis and left displaced abomasum. In a recent Dutch study, costs of
(clinical and subclinical) ketosis were calculated using a Monte-Carlo simulation
model to simulate a herd with 65 dairy cows (Shrestha et al., 2007). Costs for ketosis
were calculated for a situation with and without a milk quota (Table 8.4). Incidence
of clinical ketosis was 3.5%, while the incidence of subclinical ketosis was 6.7%. The
resulting yearly costs due to ketosis were estimated to be respectively € 1,778 and €

136 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

Table 8.3. Economic consequences (in euros per case) of chronic subclincal mastitis caused by
Streptococcus uberis after the day of diagnosis as calculated under default circumstances (after
Steeneveld et al., 2007).

No treatment2 Treatment2

Costs of drugs 0 27
Costs of discarded milk 0 21.42 (8.45, 37.57)
Costs of milk losses during subclinical infection 6.59 (0.65, 19.07) 3.33 (0, 15.11)
Costs milk losses after infection 20.74 (0, 51.42) 25.85 (0, 58.81)
Costs of clinical flare-up 9.75 (0, 58.20) 4.51 (0, 48.95)
Costs of culling 41.03 (0, 377.55) 22.73 (0, 220.08)
Costs of newly infected cows1 31.81 (0, 124.54) 16.69 (0, 76.75)
Total costs 109.92 (4.41, 473.09) 121.53 (39.85, 394.26)

1Including costs for milk production losses, clinical mastitis and culling.
2Average and (between brackets) 5% and 95% percentiles are presented for when treatment as

well as no treatment is given respectively.

2,353 for a situation with and without a milk quota. As can be noticed from Table 8.4,
natural occurring variation did give a large difference in costs per year. The largest
proportion of costs is caused by milk production losses. However, culling give the
highest risk of high costs. The costs due to increased risk of other diseases as mastitis,
left displaced abomasums and decreased fertility are substantial, but in relation to
the costs due to milk production losses and culling relatively low. Under a non-quota
situation, costs for milk production losses are higher than under a quota situation
(see Table 8.4).

On a dairy farm, production diseases are responsible for a large part of the cost price
of milk. To support the decisions concerning health and disease, an understanding
of the economics of diseases is important. It is not enough to use an average cost
calculation per case of disease and multiply the number of cases with that average
cost figure. It is paramount to understand the principles behind the farm economics,
so that farm-specific calculations can be made. Knowledge about basic economic
principles, such as the production function, is therefore relevant. At this moment,
economics are only 30-40% of the motivation of dairy farmers to change mastitis
management (Valeeva et al., 2007). This might also be the case for other disorders.
However, in European dairy farming, the forces of the free market are going to play an
increasingly important role in the income of the dairy farmer. Therefore, the costs of
production and thus the animal disease status will become more and more important.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 137

Chapter 8

Table 8.4. Dynamics of ketosis and other disease events caused by ketosis and the resulting
economic effects for a Dutch dairy farm with 65 cows under quota and non-quota circumstances.
The mean, 5 % percentile and 95 % percentile are presented (after Shrestha et al., 2007).

Quota Non quota

5% Mean 95% 5% Mean 95%

Dynamics
Probability of clinical ketosis 1 3.5 7 1 3.4 7
Probability of subclinical ketosis 3 6.6 11 3 6.8 11
Probability of culling (%) 0 2.0 6 0 2.0 6
Probability of mastitis (%) 0 0.6 4 0 0.6 4
Probability of LDA (%) 0 0.13 0 0 0.15 0
Probability of Cystic Ovary (%) 0 0.16 0 0 0.15 1
Costs
Costs of milk losses (€) 405 807 1,267 678 1,366 2,149
Costs of culling (€) 0 751 2405 0 1,172 3,902
Costs of mastitis (€) 0 120 840 0 115 840
Costs of treatment (€) 0 78 300 0 73 250
Costs of left displaced abomasum, 0 16 0 0 18 0
LDA (€)
Costs of prolonged calving interval (€) 0 6 26 0 6 25
Costs of feed (€) - - - -624 -396 -197
Total costs (€) 1,588 1,778 3,506 702 2,353 5,170

In this respect the goal with regard to animal health should not be a maximum level
of animal health, but an economically optimal level of animal health.

8.4. Herd Health & Production Management programmes (HHPM)

8.4.1. General elements regarding HHPM

Programmes of HHPM have been extensively described by Brand et al. (1996) and De
Kruif et al. (2007). In the following section we, therefore, only highlight some aspects
of direct interest because they are related to the implementation of HACCP-based
Quality Risk Management programmes.
HHPM comprises 3 main components:
1. an elementary programme of routine monitoring of animals, farm conditions &
management, and available data;

138 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

2. an advanced programme for problem analysis and solving on the farm (e.g. udder
health; claw health; metabolism & nutrition related disorders)
3. preventive actions regarding disorders in different farming areas.

The following activities are envisaged during the implementation of HHPM

programmes:
1a. Activities at the start:
• Conduct a strengths-weaknesses assessment in the different farming areas, like
milk production, nutrition, milk quality, udder health, lameness, reproduction,
calf rearing. The VACQA-International website provides means for such actions
(see Chapter 2).
• Discuss with the farmer the different priorities among detected weaknesses to
approach. Some should have higher, others lower priority (see also Chapter 2).
Set targets for each area.
• Explain to the farmer the way this programme is set up and conducted by the
veterinarian during and after planned farm visits. Settle the fees for visits and
follow-up activities (e.g. hourly fees).
• Start at the first farm visit the monitoring component of the programme.

1.b. The monitoring component of the programme

Irrespective whether there is a herd problem or not, the routine monitoring of animals,
farm conditions & management, and available data should be done during each farm
visit (see also Chapter 2 on the VACQA website elements of monitoring). This activity
should be well-planned in time and properly executed.

The ultimate objective of this monitoring is to obtain signals that certain areas of
farming are either performing as desired, or show room for improvement, or even
deserve immediate attention. It refers to a rather qualitative approach of pending
herd problems in trying to detect such in an early stage. Monitoring should also be
used to evaluate the outcome of advice given earlier, for example to see whether body
condition has been restored again, or whether nutrition efficiency has been improved
over the past period. Monitoring provides means to have a continuous insight into the
production process in its various features and to support control of the production
process, like the early warning in a HACCP-based QRM.

Examples of monitoring in the three different areas are:

Animals:
• Body condition scoring, BCS
–– Rumen fill scoring, RF
–– Faeces consistency scoring, FC
–– Scoring undigested fraction in faeces, UFF

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 139

Chapter 8

• Teat end callosity scoring, TEC

• Growth rate checks on young stock (by weight scale or heart girth
measurements)
• Reproductive examinations (and findings like cystic ovarian disease)
• Clinical disease cases as indicator (e.g. ketosis & acidosis for nutritional disorders;
negative energy balance as related to reproductive disorders)
• Locomotion scoring
• Cow hygiene scoring (udder and hind legs)
Farming conditions & management:
• General hygiene practices at farm entrance, on farm premises, and in barn, at feed
bunk, cubicles, alleys
• Housing conditions (including maintenance)
• Barn microclimate (ventilation; temp; relative humidity)
• Hygiene in milking parlour
• Milking hygiene and practice of milkers
• Ration composition and feeding management
• Grassland management
• Feed storage (grass and corn silage quality)
• Colostrum feeding management
Data inspection:
• AI information on sires
• Milk recording data (kgs; milk fat; milk protein)
• Milk quality data (cell counts; bacteria counts; other)
• Analysis of different feedstuffs (roughages and concentrates)
• Result sheets from laboratories (including autopsy results)

After conducting the monitoring, one has to carry out an interpretation of all findings
(synthesis). When deemed necessary, sampling for additional laboratory examination
is done (e.g. blood, milk, faeces, urine) and a herd probability diagnosis is set. On
the basis of this herd probability diagnosis a Plan of Action is designed with advice
and intervention for the short and the longer term. This plan of action is discussed
with the farmer on feasibility and practicality before it is finalised. In some cases it is
beneficial that the veterinarian makes cost-benefit calculations to show the foreseen
outcome of certain actions After the start of the intervention or advice activities, a
date for follow-up farm visits is fixed. In cases where monitoring points to a current
problem, it is indicated that a more in-depth analysis of the particular farming area
is started (see below at 2).

Monitoring activities appear to make a farmer more aware of issues that take place
on his farm and contribute to reduce ‘farm blindness’. This is the socio-psychological
part of its use.

140 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

2. Advanced programmes for problem analysis and solving

Once the routine monitoring programme part has been established, it is time to move
onwards to problem (if any) analysis, based on the strengths-weaknesses assessment
and the subsequent discussion on priorities in problem approach with the farmer.

The following steps are distinguished (see also the schematic overview in Figure 8.3):
Step 1: what is the complaint of the farmer exactly? (drop in milk production).
Step 2: specify this complaint into more detail: what problem exactly affects which
cows since when, where, in what signs expressed, and which changes have
occurred before the signs became manifest, and is this complaint cyclic over
the years or seasons?? (drop in milk production kg since cows were turned into
pasture, it mainly affects the older cows in late lactation) Check the available
data sources on the farm for validating the complaint.
Step 3: conduct a thorough inspection of the animals: the herd in general + the
specific problem group. Check also farm conditions and managerial issues
as indicated by the problem definition under step [2]. Farm conditions and
management often regard risk factors contributing to the disorder. The
strengths-and-weaknesses assessment, carried out in the beginning of HHPM
could be used as basis for further in-depth analysis!
Step 4: classify the obtained information according to animal-related issues;
management-issues; farm conditions related issues.
Step 5: design a differential diagnoses list in order of relevance from 1 to 5.
Step 6: exclude diagnoses from the list of step [5] or confirm them, e.g. by sampling
animals and subsequent laboratory investigations. If needed call third parties
for additional advice, e.g. nutritionist or milking machine engineer.
Step 7: design a probability diagnosis for each particular component of the complaint
(e.g. reproduction problem like suboestrus could be caused by lameness and/or
negative energy balance).
Step 8: set up a draft-action plan for the shorter and the longer term including
interventions when indicated.
Step 9: discuss this action plan with the farmer, and check feasibility and acceptance
level. Adjust the plan when needed, put the date and the names of those who
agreed.
Step 10: indicate a time window for the follow-up, and describe what the farmer is
expected to do and what not; the same for the vet or other advisors. Indicate
prognosis and expectancies; tell which animals can serve as improvement
indicators and which cannot. Check improvement or other performance
yourself during each follow-up visit to the farm. The follow-up window may
comprise weeks or months; at least one visit should be made (and can easily
be coupled to a routine programme of monitoring as presented under step
[1] where farm visits are made once every 2 or 4 wks. Work on the planning

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 141

Chapter 8

Complaint of farmer or
problem detected during farm visit

Specify the syndrome through

anamnesis, animals, the herd as a
whole, available data

Inspection of the Inspection of the Inspection of the

problem animals farm conditions farm data

Classify the findings and rank them

in order of relevance

Set an etiological differential

diagnosis
Additional sampling
and or investigations
(laboratory e.g.)
Set a probability diagnosis

Define a Plan of Action (short term;

long term) including advice and
interventions.
Discuss with farmer for feasibility

Start the interventions (treatments)

Determine schedule for follow up visits

and Effect evaluations

Adjust interventions or advice when

deemed necessary

Figure 8.3. Overview of the different steps in the problem analysis procedure in HHPM.

of prevention by using the records of the farm and the results of monitoring
and analysis. An example could be the elaboration of working instructions
(see Chapter 3).

3. Preventive actions
Preventive actions on dairy farms can be manifold. Different vaccination strategies can
be developed for farm-specific (health) situations. Furthermore, several guidelines and
working instructions can be applied like those addressed in Chapter 3 (e.g. biosecurity
assurance plans; good medicine application guideline; herd treatment advisory plan).

142 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

And finally, risk identification and risk management schemes can be developed in
HHPM.

It is beyond the scope of this book to elaborate further on these issues and we refer to
the respective text books. It should be clear, however, that there are many similarities
between HHPM and HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programmes.

8.4.2. The HHPM protocol, agreements, and farm visits

Dairy Herd Health & Production Management programmes should be executed
according to a preset protocol. First, because the veterinarian should have a
standardised method to work. Second, because the farmer should be (made) aware of
the activities that are undertaken and of the purpose of those activities; farmers do
not like surprises in this respect. Protocols have been developed for different farming
areas (Brand et al., 1996).

A protocol starts with the defined objectives for a certain area (e.g. udder health, or
claw health). Farming objectives, e.g. more milk per cow per year, should be translated
into technical targets. Examples of such targets are: shortening of the calving interval
by 15 days, optimise disease control and prevention, reduction of the clinical lameness
incidence with 10%, reduction of the clinical mastitis incidence with 15%, reduction
of the diarrhoea incidence with 20%.

It should be clear on beforehand what the weak and the strong points on a dairy farm
are, and what priorities the farmer sets for improving health status or farm productivity
(see VACQA website and Chapter 2).

When the objectives and herd health targets have been set, and the weak and strong
points of the farm are known, the veterinarian discusses with the farmer about his
priorities. For example, one farmer may have a priority in solving suboptimal milk
production, while an other is more interested in controlling clinical mastitis, and
yet another in optimising calf rearing. Once those priorities have been established,
the following step in the protocol is to define the methodologies for approaching the
priority area. In that way it is made clear to the farmer what he can expect during the
execution of a HHPM programme. The final element in the protocol is always the
evaluation of herd performance.

Subsequently agreements about the execution of the herd health programme have to
be made. These agreements comprise the following issues:
• farming areas which will form part of the programme (e.g. udder health;
productivity & nutrition; claw health; young stock rearing; control of highly
contagious diseases, etc);

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 143

Chapter 8

• animal identification and recording system that is needed at the farm and records
needed for veterinary advisory work (usually the minimum basis for recording is
a farm logbook and a wall chart with all events at herd level);
• frequency of farm visits (commonly for a 80-100 cow head herd this will be once
every 4 weeks; for larger herds more frequently);
• activities at the farm: monitoring elements (see below); farm visit advisory report;
status evaluation;
• planning of activities over the coming 6 or 12 months, and structure of the farm
visits. The farmer should know by and large what activities he can expect the next
visit(s);
• development of e.g. Udder Health Treatment Advisory Plan, based on clinical
mastitis, subclinical mastitis, bulk milk cell count patterns, bacteriological findings,
milking machine function and milking technique; development of a Claw Health
Advisory Plan, a Young Stock Disease Prevention Plan, etc.

Farm visit evaluation reports are used for the follow up visits to the farm in order to
keep up motivation of the farmer, to keep track of management changes based on vet
advice given and to check which issues have not been addressed by the farmer and
why not. They commonly comprise 1 page A4.

In conclusion, a veterinary herd health programme for dairy farms has to be executed
following preset protocols for both routine monitoring activities, analysis and
prevention activities. Only then, such programmes become recognisable in structure
and execution for farmers. Farmers are strongly focussed on planning and expectations
regarding such programmes. The ‘product’ of herd health should therefore be sharply
defined and described.

Monitoring of animals, farm environment and management, as well as data is an easy

method which can generate quite useful information for decision-making. Monitoring
does not cost much time and therefore can be very cost-effective. It should, however,
not be restricted to one area, say fertility. Dairy farming and dairy production are
multidisciplinary activities which are integrated by the farmer and co-workers in a
rather holistic type of approach. The aim of monitoring is hence to provide signals of
farm-broad performance.

See further Chapter 2, where the VACQA-International website has been presented,
with examples of field scoring sheets for monitoring strong and weak points on a
dairy farm in different farming areas. When comparing the HHPM approach with
the different chapters on HACCP-based Quality Risk Management, it must be clear
that there are many similarities. However, the four key words of the HACCP-like

144 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

programmes are: Organisation, Planning, Structure, Formalisation. These four features

are most frequently lacking in current HHPM programmes.

8.4.3. Handling Staphylococcus aureus udder infections in HHPM (adapted after

Zadoks et al., 2002)
Staphylococcus aureus problems can maybe be controlled, but commonly not eradicated.
The most important source of infection for other cows is the infected cow. However, the
pathogen is also prevalent on the udder-skin, in bedding material, in flies, in forages.
The number (rate) of new infections depends on the number of existing infections;
however, new infections do occur independent of whether infections exist or not.
Infections in heifers and in cows during the dry period have been reported. Especially
in the case of Staphylococcus aureus one can say that ‘once a weak quarter, always a
weak quarter’ where (re-)infection is involved. Other bacteria do not play a ‘protective’
or ‘competitive’ role; nor do they increase the risk of (repeated-) infection. Teat end
callosity increases the risk of infection (Neijenhuijs et al., 2001, 2005). The transmission
occurs primarily in the milking parlour from one milking cluster to another, or from
the hands of milkers. Therefore, hygiene at milking and milking practices, as well as
milking machine maintenance are paramount issues in this context.

Newly emerging are coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) and also Mycoplasma

spp. with regard to udder infections. It is beyond the scope of this book to address all
possible situations on a dairy farm. One has always to bear in mind that the udder
health dynamics in time, associated with shifts in pathogen profiles, necessitates the
consequent adjustment of management practices regarding udder health. In this
section we will stick to the handling of Staphylococcus aureus on the dairy farm, just
as an example.

Management Practice regarding Staphylococcus aureus problems in three steps:

Step 1: A mastitis problem caused by Staphylococcus aureus is identified by:
–– its prevalence/incidence within the herd (clinical & subclinical, new and or
repeated infections);
–– the pattern of varying bulk milk somatic cell counts;
–– the number of cows with increased somatic cell count;
–– the number of cows with infection but without increase of SCC;
–– the culling of (chronically) infected cows.
Step 2: Once the problem has been identified, the ‘Five Point Schedule’ for mastitis
control applies: milking machine function; milking technique evaluation; teat
dip/spray before and or after milking; drying off therapy for all cows; adequate
treatment of clinical cases -see further; culling of chronically infected cows
(Brand et al., 1996). Additional measures refer to:
–– separation of ‘clean’ and infected cows;

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 145

Chapter 8

–– introduction of a sequence in cows to be milked: low somatic cell count cows

first; high somatic cell count (mastitis) cows last;
–– disinfection of milking clusters between cows; good milking hygiene;
–– fly control;
–– provision of cow comfort and hygiene (see above in this chapter);
–– biosecurity assurance plans (see also Chapter 3).
Step 3: Determine whether to treat (and when) or to cull an infected cow. Weighing
factors in this decision making are:
–– duration of the infection;
–– time of occurrence in the lactation;
–– severity of the infection;
–– value of the cow;
–– parity of the cow;
–– (sub)types of Staphylococcus aureus;
–– timing of treatment (in lactation or at drying off, or both);
–– duration of the treatment if any;
–– type(s) of antibiotics to be applied and available;
–– route(s) of administration of the antibiotics (see Chapter 3).

Different criteria can be followed to make a decision, the ‘rules of thumb’ are:
a. Probabilities of recovery of a Staphylococcus aureus infected cow (after treatment in
lactation or at drying off) are reduced when:
–– somatic cell counts are high (> 1 or 2 million/ml);
–– more quarters are affected;
–– affected quarters are hind-quarters;
–– subsequent milk samples for bacteriological culturing were positive;
–– old parities are involved;
–– problems occur in early lactation;
–– treatment is of short duration (< 3 days) and poor (injectors only);
–– the bacteria are not sensitive to penicillin or other tested antibiotics.
b. Probabilities of recovery of a Staphylococcus aureus infected cow (after treatment in
lactation or at drying off) are increased when:
–– young parities are involved (e.g. parity 1);
–– the bacteria are penicillin sensitive;
–– only 1 quarter is involved;
–– cow is close to drying off;
–– somatic cell counts are not too high (< 1 million/ml);
–– treatment duration is prolonged (3 days injectors + injections).

Further reading on this subject can be found at: htpp://www.nmconline.org/ and in

Journal of Dairy Science (1994) volume 77: 75-79, (1997) volume 80: 2803-2808,
(2000) volume 83: 278-284.

146 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

8.4.4. Example of an Udder Health Treatment Decision scheme (work instruction)

The scheme presented in Figure 8.4 can be considered as a part of a HHPM programme;
it could be a component of a Herd Treatment Advisory Plan (see also Chapter 3). But
it can also be handled in the context of HACCP-based QRM programmes. Figure 8.4
is an example of how a work instruction may look like when it is not in a text format.
Some farmers appear to prefer this format above text formats, because they are easier
to follow and it visualises the different steps in a sequence to be followed. Some
previous explanation and training on this subject, however, seems warranted in order
to be sure that farm workers will comply with the procedure.

8.4.5. Critical issues for dairy farm residue prevention

In this paragraph are listed the 10 major issues for preventing residue problems on
dairy farms as described by and adapted after the American Veterinary Medical
Association and the National Milk Producers Federation in the USA in 1991.

1. Practice a sound and healthy herd management:

a. apply a proper mastitis control programme;
b. keep the cattle in a clean, fresh and healthy environment;
c. employ a proper nutrition and reproduction programme;
d. make sure that a sound vaccination programme and an appropriate parasite
control programme are in place;
e. make sure the herd is protected against introduction of diseases by developing
and implementing a biosecurity assurance plan;
f. develop and apply a proper surveillance programme for newborn calves and
replacement heifers.
2. Establish a valid working relationship between veterinarian - client - patients:
a. the veterinarian and the client have established a good working relationship
and a proper understanding for making clinical judgements regarding the
health of cattle and the need for medical treatment;
b. take into account all variables to assure the absence of violative drug residues.
3. Use only (FDA and or EC) approved drugs and follow the guidelines provided by the
veterinarian, e.g. through his HTAP (herd treatment advisory plan, Chapter 3):
a. understand the difference between the different drugs and regulations;
b. understand exemptions to the rule;
c. create a list of approved medicinal products;
d. keep records of products used (see also Chapter 3: Good Medicine Application
code of practice).
4. Make sure that all drugs have labels that comply with official labelling
requirements.
5. Store all medicinal products correctly (see Chapter 3: Good Medicine Application
code of practice).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 147

Chapter 8

Milk is deviating?

Clinical mastitis Increased somatic cell count?

Healthy Subclinical
Take milk sample and put in freezer mastitis

How severe is Milk these as first group How often already increased?
mastitis case?

First time Repeated case

Not sick With fever Severely sick increased

Intramamm Intram + Call the Check quarter Check quarter with CMT;
therapy for 3 Injection veterinarian with CMT; sample sample from freezer to lab
days Therapy for 3 in freezer for bacteriological
days culturing

Is the milk after treatment still deviating? Which lactation Staph. aureus Other
stage?
CNS

Early/mid Late Recovery not

Culture milk Check cell count at probable when more
sample; therapy nextmilk recording Treat How quarters, old parity,
after vet date quarter many
consulting intramam quarters cull cow
for 3 days involved?

Check cell count at next 1 quarter > 1 quarters

milk recording

Dry involved quarters Dry off the cow

off with injector; for
untreated quarters milk
withdrawal period

Check cell count at first milk recording after

next calving

Consider on the basis of cow data

whether treatment, dry off or
culling should be applied

Figure 8.4. An example of an Udder Health Treatment Decision scheme for a particular farm A.
CMT= California Mastitis Test; intramam= intramammary infection; CNS= coagulase-negative
staphylococci.

148 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

6. Administer all medicinal products correctly and identify treated animals (see
chapter 3: Good Medicine Application code of practice).
7. Maintain and use proper treatment records on all animals treated.
8. Use drug residue screening tests on the farm. Test milk or urine by appropriate
tests before the milk leaves the dairy farm.
9. Implement employee and family awareness of the proper use of medicinal products
to avoid the marketing of adulterated milk, and to avoid public health threats
(occupational disorders).
10. Complete the residue prevention programme every year.

8.5. Cattle welfare & cow comfort (tactical considerations)

It has been described elsewhere that appropriate cattle welfare, or, in other practical
terms, an adequate cow comfort largely contributes to optimal health and performance
of cows on the dairy farm (Noordhuizen and Lievaart, 2005). The Five Freedoms as
described by FAWC (1992) and Webster (2001) are commonly considered as the basis
to assess cattle welfare, and are as follows; freedom from
1. hunger, inappropriate feed and thirst;
2. physical and physiological discomfort;
3. fear, distress and chronic stress;
4. pain, injury and diseases;
5. physical limitations to express normal species-bound behaviour.

However, these five freedoms are not easy to handle in the daily field practice
(Noordhuizen and Metz, 2005). Bracke et al. (2001) have converted these five
freedoms into 12 so-called primary and secondary biological needs. Table 8.5 presents
an overview of these biological needs. The biological needs are much easier to convert
into clinical-observational and zootechnical parameters under field conditions than
the five freedoms. The VACQA-International website www.vacqa-international.com
will provide field assessment scoring sheets for cattle welfare & cow comfort on the
dairy farm.

Another concept, currently addressed in literature and practice, concerns the Cow
Comfort concept (Noordhuizen and Lievaart, 2005). This concept is based on the
philosophy that cows experience better welfare and better health, and even produce
better, when their comfort needs are being met. Moreover, cow comfort represents a
practical approach to cattle welfare. Good Cow Comfort comprises 4 domains:
1. Optimal feed & feeding management, and drinking water.
2. Optimal housing & climatic conditions.
3. Optimal animal health.
4. Species-bound specific behaviour.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 149

Chapter 8

Table 8.5. Overview of biological needs for cattle welfare and cow comfort scoring (adapted
after Bracke et al., 2001).

Primary needs

1. Feed and feed related behaviour

2. Water and drinking related behaviour
3. Resting, laying and sleeping
4. Movement (locomotion)
5. Social comfort (rank; interactions; agonistic & antagonistic behaviour)
6. Animal health
7. Security (fear, flight behaviour and aggression)
Secondary needs

8. Excretion (manure and urine)

9. Thermoregulation
10. Exploration and orientation
11. Body care (grooming: comfort behaviour)
12. Reproduction

Cow Comfort regards the practical and clinically observable aspects of dairy
cattle welfare associated with the cattle and their environment. The 4 domains are
interrelated. For example, a certain housing situation will more or less provoke
agonistic and antagonistic behaviour in cattle; the management of different lactation
groups will be different from managing all lactating cows in only one group; poor
climatic conditions may induce other behaviour of cows (e.g. in hyperthermic stress).
The strengths-and-weaknesses assessment sheets regarding disorders on the VACQA
website comprise already many elements of Cow Comfort; a specific scoring sheet
cattle welfare & cow comfort exists in a short and a longer version.

The 4 domains of Cow Comfort show close relationships with the primary biological
needs defined by Bracke et al. (2001) either directly or indirectly. For further details
we refer to Noordhuizen and Lievaart (2005). The dairy processing industry will –
under the pressure of consumer groups and retailers- increasingly pay attention to
cattle welfare & cow comfort as a quality issue, and set target levels for cattle welfare
& cow comfort.

The advantage of these cattle welfare & cow comfort scoring sheets is that next to
certain farming areas needing improvement, other farming areas are shown where
farm management is performing well. Especially for the dairy farmer, this positive

150 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

approach is very motivating (Noordhuizen and Metz, 2005). The methodology of

scoring from 1 to 5 is more often reported as a proper means to assess animal related
issues such as animal welfare (Candiani et al., 2007).

This is elaborated below as an example, where the welfare issues on 100 dairy farms
in two different regions were scored (Table 8.6). Scores were given on a scale, varying
from 1 (poor-bad) to 3 (moderate) or to 5 (good). At the end of the scoring exercise,
an end-score is obtained for the farm as a whole. Also end-scores for each cluster
(biological need = farming area) are obtained, as well as end-scores for individual
items within each cluster. In this way, one has 3 levels of assessing cattle welfare & cow
comfort: (1) the farm as a whole, (2) each cluster, (3) each item.

Poorest scoring results were obtained for the farming areas ‘Housing’, ‘Health
management’ and ‘Pasturing’. Commonly poor housing results were found in the
older farms, which had not (yet) adapted their housing system and equipment to new
demands; poor health management refers to deficient disease control programmes,
lack of veterinary herd health programmes, or poor vaccination schemes; pasturing
was often lacking.

Disadvantage of this rather qualitative and subjective scoring method is that not
all elements which determine cattle welfare status, e.g. emotion, perception, or

Table 8.6. Results of cattle welfare and cow comfort scoring in the field on 100 dairy farms
(adapted after Noordhuizen and Metz, 2005).

Areas with highest scores (score 5 = good) Areas with lowest score (score 1 = poor)

Light regime during the day Poor maintenance of slatted floor

Light regime during the night Poor cubicle design and sizes
Feed is freely available Poor/absent bedding material
Easy access to concentrate feeders No regular herd claw inspection/trimming
Absence of draught in barns No regular body condition scoring
Pasturing of cows is applied Poor mastitis detection procedures
Easy rising and laying down Poor mastitis prevention measures
Participation in HHPM Pasture plots not available
Sufficient space/cow in barns Too long distance to pasture plots
Easy entering/exiting feed rack Pathways to pastures of poor quality (gravel)
Good quality foot path to pastures Too long time spent in waiting area
Herd body conditions scores fine Poor provision of shade, water, additional feed
in pasture season
Behaviour of cows is normal; no aggression

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 151

Chapter 8

ethics are taken into account. Even with formal methods of Risk Assessment (CAC,
1999; OIE, 2004; EFSA, 2005) this objective can not be achieved (M.B.M. Bracke,
personal communication). Risk Assessment in the animal production sector is often
more qualitative than quantitative in nature, due to lacking scientific information.
Sometimes such qualitative risk assessment yields rather low Kendall’s coefficients of
concordance (SPSS, 2001) for different groups of experts (ethologists; veterinarians)
interviewed (Bracke, personal communication).

Therefore, new methodologies, such as Semantic Modelling, are being developed to

overcome these problems; the results are very promising (Bracke et al., 2001, 2004).
Semantic Modelling, for example for the domain of animal welfare, handles descriptive
and normative attributes in the area of physiology and animal behaviour, and ethical
attributes, as associated with the biological needs of animals, separately and convert
these to a weighted welfare index. Semantic Modelling aims at a quantified assessment
of animal welfare, based on a systematic, formalised review and analysis of all available
scientific information, and using relational database processing in its modelling.
Scientific information from different disciplines is converted into a weighted welfare
score (Bracke et al., 2001, 2004). Differences between risk assessment and semantic
modelling have been tabulated by Bracke (personal communication).

Another option refers to the application of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) methods
to welfare assessment, where expert opinion is investigated in order to obtain an
overview of the most important factors and conditions contributing to or hampering
welfare (J.J. Lievaart, personal communication). In the latter method it all depends
on the extent to which interviewed experts appear to be true experts. Expert answers
to the computerised questions are for that purpose weighted and statistically tested
on consistency in their answering (Bouma et al., 2004). See Chapter 4 and Annex 4A
for further explications.

Cattle welfare is an issue of concern, not only for dairy processing industries, but equally
to authorities (EU) and retailers (see website of www.EUREP-GAP.org); moreover, an
increasing number of dairy farmers is well aware of the relevance of emphasising
cattle welfare in their farm business. To a large extent the terms of reference of named
retailers platform are quite similar to the kind of good dairy farming codes of practice
we have addressed in Chapter 3.

8.6. Training programmes for farmers and farm workers

Any veterinary advisory programme focussing on improving animal health and

welfare, as well as public health including food safety, such as Herd Health &
Production Management programmes and Quality Risk Management programmes,

152 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

should comprise a component of on-site training. ‘Training’ has been identified by the
OIE and FAO (OIE, 2006) as elementary to the application of good farming practices
associated with, for example, food safety in animal production. Next to training
one should pay attention to the proper ‘conduct’ of farm workers, involved in the
execution of Quality Risk Management programmes on a HACCP-basis. ‘Conduct’
relates to attitude and mentality building among farm workers, which requires a
certain training as well. Good dairy farming guidelines and working instructions
(Chapter 3) contribute to the achievement of proper conduct.

The on-site training may comprise (a wide variety of) professional short courses, tailor-
made to the needs of a particular dairy farm and the quality of the farm workers on that
farm. Farming areas which regularly appear to be in need for such courses are:
• udder health;
• nutrition;
• claw health (including preventive and corrective claw trimming practice);
• animal treatment procedures (see also chapter 3 at GMA guidelines);
• awareness of prevalent risk factors regarding animal health, public health, animal
welfare and product quality disorders;
• awareness of potential public health threats originating from handling and
administering medicinal products to animals (occupational disorders);
• biosecurity assurance plans;
• general and specific hygiene plans on the farm.

The courses are most often associated with the introduction and implementation
of Good Dairy Farming guidelines and the working instructions on the dairy farm
in particular farming areas. Moreover, introducing and implementing the QRM
programme will undoubtedly also need the assistance of tailor-made support-training-
programmes for particular areas.

For example, the implementation of biosecurity assurance plans on a dairy farm requires
the full commitment of all farm workers. These plans are not easy to understand for
people who have worked with the principles involved: risk identification and risk
management. Training of farm workers in those principles and using the farm itself as
the example will help the adoption of these. The same may apply to hygiene principles
and procedures. If one or more of these principles are neglected, the whole application
will fail.

Such courses should be highly practical, of short duration (1 to 2 hours maximum per
session), highly subject-focussed, executed on-site, participation of all farm-workers.
They should allow an ample discussion when the farm workers ask for it. If deemed

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 153

Chapter 8

necessary, the training courses are repeated every year, for example as a refresher
course comprising new developments or techniques.

Preferably the farm workers receive a certificate of attendance of such a course,

signed by the Farm Quality Management Team members; hence illustrating that farm
management appreciates their attendance and participation for improvement of the
farm performance. It could be considered to take a kind of exam at the end of the
course, for example through simple and practical multiple choice questions.

Finally, it is worthwhile to ask the course attendants for suggestions, because in that
way they will feel involved, and at the same time this will reinforce mutual trust and
confidence.

8.7. Human resource management, including employee working conditions

As a farm expands, management responsibilities tend to concentrate in one or just a

few managers, and additional people are hired to carry out the majority of the daily
production labour (Hadley et al., 2002). When more employees are added, managers
must find other, better ways to ensure that they are performing high quality work.
Human resource management includes the set of practices (including ‘attracting’,
‘developing’ and ‘maintaining’ a quality workforce) that managers use to ensure this
quality (Desler, 2003; Schermerhorn, 2005).

Whenever more structure and organisation is applied in the on-farm management,

for example by implementing a HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programme,
the role a veterinarian will play in human resource management will increase as
well. It is, however, questionable whether a veterinarian should play a role in the
attraction-process of on-farm workforces. On the other hand, farm managers, who
attract workforces, should have a clear understanding of the job or task description
and the required qualities or skills of such people. Veterinarians advising farmers in
the framework of a HACCP-like QRM-programme, give farmers more insight in their
on-farm production system. This insight gives farmers a clear idea what jobs or tasks
exactly need be done and what kind of person is needed.

An appropriate insight in the production system also reveals where the threats for
human health are sited. This could help adapting working routines in such a way, that
the highest level of health care for the workers will be met. Veterinarians play a more
important role in ‘developing and maintaining quality workforces’, since this includes
training and enlarging knowledge and skills. In QRM-programmes, in which every
target of every step (with tolerances) and corrective actions are written down, everybody
is supposed to know what target should be met and what to do in case something goes

154 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Support programmes in a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

wrong. In this way it is easier for employees to perform high quality work, hence
they will be more motivated and experience a proper working environment. Other
human resource management issues integrated in QRM programmes are e.g. Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP= written instructions to eliminate variations introduced
in the production process when individuals perform tasks in different ways), other
working instructions and continuous training in veterinary or zootechnical issues.
These forenamed issues will increase the (quality of) knowledge of workers and
should ensure stability in the production process in which risks of deviations remain
at acceptable levels. Moreover, the HACCP-like programme provides an internal (and
external) evaluation and validation of the production system as a whole, including
e.g. performance reviews and evaluation of work conditions of employees. During
these evaluations, auditors take a close look at what workers actually do, providing
the HACCP-Team with information which enables them to optimise the efficiency of
workers. (see also the validation and verification steps in Chapter 9 and 10; Desler,
2003; Schermerhorn, 2005).

8.8. Concluding remarks

As has been stated before, a Quality Risk Management programme is a dynamic and
flexible kind of activity. This means that it could change over time, always adapting
to new situations or developments. Just because of this dynamics, there will always
be a need for designing new support programmes as dictated by the new situations,
and new training programmes, as dictated by new developments. Every time it is the
individual farm and its specific needs that will be the basis for developing tailor-made
support and training programmes. Visualised, this phenomenon in time may look as
is illustrated in Figure 8.5.

P QRM programme 1 QRM programme 2 QRM programme 3

time

Figure 8.5. Visualisation of the development of a HACCP-based QRM, with support and training
programmes. P = preparatory programmes (like Herd Health & Production Management
programmes); dark grey boxes are training modules, specifically defined for this particular
farm; light grey boxes are respectively QRM programme version 1, version 2 and version 3;
black boxes are respective support programmes running with the QRM programme.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 155

Chapter 8

The effect of on-site training programmes for various farming areas and subjects
should not be underestimated. They not only contribute to a proper attitude and
mentality, training programmes also contribute to a better technical functioning of
people working on the farm, as well as to their well-feeling and pleasure in work.
They also increase involvement and responsibility of farm workers. It has even been
suggested that farm workers are regularly monitored for the detection of healthy
carriers of bacterial or parasitic agents which could be transmitted to animals, and,
hence, jeopardising animal and public health (OIE, 2006). It will depend on national
or regional acceptance and traditions whether this monitoring would be applied or
not. At least it should be part of the consideration, especially when problems of such
kind appear on the farm in the animals or among people.

Veterinarians who desire to implement HACCP-like QRM programmes should not

only have an adequate knowledge bout the HACCP-concept and principles. They
also should take into consideration the most relevant issues of human resource
management, farm economics, behavioural economics, communication, business
environment and benchmarking, as well as the development and impact of EU
regulations. Several of these subjects are also addressed in the following chapters.

156 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

Chapter 9. D
 ocumentation in HACCP-like Quality Risk
Management programmes

9.1. Introduction

In the previous chapters many different documents related to the implementation and
functioning of a HACCP-like programme of Quality Risk Management have been
introduced and illustrated.

In this chapter we will summarise these different documents and assign them to
respective categories, featuring in the handbook of the HACCP-like QRM programme.
When needed, more documents will be presented and their use explained. Documents
are necessary, not only for the on-farm operational managerial matters, but also for
the purpose of conducting, evaluating and adjusting the HACCP-like Quality Risk
Management programme. Ultimately, they may assist in requiring a farm certification
if warranted.

9.2. Summary of documents of the HACCP-like programme

The documents in the preceding chapters can be categorised under different headings.
Table 9.1 provides an overview of these categories and documents within categories.
The steps in the developmental procedure for a HACCP-like Quality Risk Management
programme, related to these documents, are given as well. The 12 steps Table has been
presented in Chapter 4.

Most of the documents – but not all – named in Table 9.1 can be downloaded from
the website www.vacqa-international.com. This website comprises many different
documents in various formats, which are not all dealt with in this book.

In addition to the type of documents which are short-listed in Table 9.1, there are
other documents which can be of interest when developing and implementing Quality
Risk Management programmes following the HACCP-principles and concept. The
options for that purpose are nearly infinite. We will just present a few examples.

Among these is the General Preventive Measures planning list (GPM), an overview
Table which can be developed on the dairy farm once the QRM programme has been
installed and running. It is created on the basis of the results of the first 6 or 12
months. This GPM is presented in the Annex 6A of this book, given its volume. The
planning list is meant to timely focus the attention of the farmer and or manager to
issues which have, for example, shown before to represent (season-related) problems

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 157

Chapter 9

Table 9.1. Short overview of types of documents handled within the HACCP-like programme of
Quality Risk Management (see chapter 4 for the 12 steps of the HACCP-like plan for programme
development).

Type of documents Step in the HACCP development Chapter

procedure reference

The 12 developmental steps for a HACCP- A reference chart for the a Chapter 4
like programme and the HACCP handbook preparatory phase
contents
Strengths-and-weaknesses assessment sheets Preparatory stages as basis for Chapter 2;
from the VACQA-International website identifying hazards and risk factors Chapter 6
(Step 6)
Strengths-and-weaknesses assessment results Preparatory stages as basis for Chapter 2;
(spider grams & histograms) from the VACQA- identifying hazards and risk factors Chapter 6
International website (Step 6)
Good Dairy Farming guidelines & Working Preparatory stages; Step 10 Chapter 3
Instructions
Flow diagrams of the production process Step 4, 5 Chapter 5
Hazards & Risks Tables Step 6 Chapter 6
General Measures of Prevention Step 6 Chapter 6
CCP and POPA listings (including standards + Step 7, 8 Chapter 7
tolerances, or target figures)
Monitoring schemes Step 9 Chapter 7
Events Log Step 9 Chapter 7
Corrective Measures Log or Improvement Logs Step 10 Chapter 7
Support programme documents Support (Step 11) Chapter 8
Documents related to on-site training Support (Step 11) Chapter 8
Documents for internal validation Step 11, 12 Chapter 9
Documents for external verification of the Step 12 Chapter 9
HACCP functioning (including auditing)

in the herd, or which could be considered relevant from the point of view of general
prevention.

Other additional documents regard the inventory logs on Forage Feeds & Grassland
Improvement (Table 9.2) and on Chemicals’ Storage & Stock (Table 9.3).

The list in Table 9.2 is not comparable to a Grassland Planning & Exploitation Calendar
which can be used under operational conditions on a dairy farm for planning of

158 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Documentation in HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programmes

Table 9.2. Example of headings of an inventory log on Feed Forages & Grassland Improvement,
taking notice of undesired plants in pasture and the treatment to eliminate them.

Farm code:

Date: Plant identified: Identified by: Actions taken: Remarks:

Chemical used: Date of pasture Withholding Date of pasture Remarks:

treatment: period: back in use:

Table 9.3. Example of headings on an inventory log of Chemicals’ Storage and Stock.

Farm code:

Date of Type of Targeted use: Quantity Quantity Quantity

purchase: chemical: used… used… used …
Date… Date… Date…
Remainders… Remainders… Remainders…

pasturing and or mowing, harvesting, and management activities for all pasture plots
which are prevailing on a farm each season.

Adjacent to this Table 9.3 is the following Table 9.4 on waste management on the dairy
farm. This list could comprise expired antibiotics and chemotherapeutics, milking
machine cleaning and disinfection products, other chemicals, and even the footbath
contents after treating claws on the farm (e.g. formalin solution). This represents an

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 159

Chapter 9

Table 9.4. Document for handling remainders of chemicals, expired antibiotics, packaging
materials in the context of waste management on the dairy farm.

Product Expiration Place of Targeted Quantity Empty bottles Date and

name date storage use remaining or containers Signature
and packaging
materials sent to …

environmental issue and the owner (or farmer) has the responsibility to society to
send the meant products to a company which is certified to deal with those waste
materials. This forms part of the environmental hazards control on the farm. One
could add a column on the destination of used syringes and needles as well.

9.3. Concluding remarks

It is obvious that many different documents could be developed in the course of

a HACCP-based QRM programme. However, it must be kept in mind that these
documents must serve an appropriate goal on the farm when implementing them,
must fit the practical and daily management on the dairy farm, and should not
become a burden to farmer, manager, or farm workers. On the other hand, farmers
and farm-workers should be stimulated and motivated to keep records in good order
and up-to-date.

The documents named in the Tables can be considered the core components of the
HACCP-like handbook (see Chapter 4). This handbook has the same names of chapters
on all dairy farms, but the contents of these chapters and the specific documents within
each chapter will differ largely from farm to farm, due to the specifications of each
individual farm. The handbook contents can also be used at internal validation, as well
as for external verification activities (see Chapter 10). In that way a farmer can prove
to the ‘outside world’ (authorities, retailers, consumers) what the status on his farm is
regarding public health & food safety issues, as well as animal health & welfare issues.
Because preventive and corrective measures are to be described beforehand, these too
can be used to the purpose of internal validation and external verification. The dairy
farming production has, hence, become more transparent to the outside world.

160 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Documentation in HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programmes

The handbook (and hence its documents) must be updated and upgraded at least once
a year, for example after each external audit. The dates of updating and upgrading
must appear on each document. The documents can also be scanned and stored on
CD ROM, for example as PDF-files.

Older documents are to be stored in the archives for 5 years, either as paper documents
or as CD ROM. In those archives the farmer also keeps the other documentation, such
as laboratory results, reports of farm visits by the veterinarian, reports of problem
analysis by the veterinarian or other farm advisors, and those documents which are
associated with e.g. on-going veterinary Herd Health & Production Management
programmes. Several analysis procedures and examples of analyses regarding herd
health or production problems on the dairy farm have been extensively described
by Brand et al. (1996). The methods – including their frequency for calculation –
as presented by these authors, can be useful for internal validation purposes in a
HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programme.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 161

Chapter 10. Validation & verification of the HACCP-based
Quality Risk Management programme

10.1. Introduction

An integral component of any HACCP-like programme is the validation and

verification (see also Chapter 4). Validation refers to the internal monitoring and
scrutinising that the HACCP-based QRM programme is functioning as desired
and expected. Validation may result in an adjustment of the QRM programme, its
procedures or components. Internal validation can and must be carried out by (a
member of) the Farm Quality Management Team, for example the veterinarian. It
should be done at least once every year. On the other hand, it must be emphasised
that internal validation is also a responsibility of the farmer or farm manager to be
addressed in the daily farming routine.

Verification refers to the external assessment whether the QRM programme is in fact
HACCP-like, and meets the formal criteria for HACCP programmes as have been
pointed out by authors like Pierson (1995), Noordhuizen and Welpelo (1996), Quinn
(2001) and by Van der Meulen and Van der Velde (2004). Commonly this verification
is conducted through auditing by (certified) external parties.

10.2.Validation

Validation is most commonly an action oriented towards the functioning of the QRM
programme, that means to be carried out on the farm itself. Validation regards an
on-going, continuous process of checking, whilst the QRM programme is introduced
and running. All tools and flow charts developed, and documents introduced and all
changes made are continuously monitored and checked on proper functioning. For
this so-called internal validation several options prevail. Among these are:
• Herd performance figures, as known from HHPM programmes (Radostits and
Blood, 1985; Brand et al., 1996).
• Evaluating laboratory testing results indicating freedom of certain (viral, bacterial
and other) diseases, as well as associated with certain CCP/POPA monitoring
activities.
• Animal Health certificates, as component of formal (regional) disease control
programmes. Examples are: BVD, BHV-1, leptospirosis, salmonellosis, tuberculosis,
brucellosis, Q-fever, neosporosis, blue tongue.
• The SWA sheets as addressed in chapter 2 (VACAQ-International website).
• Evaluating on-farm working instructions, and corrective measures; evaluate the
need to adjust production process diagrams, after consultation of employees.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 163

Chapter 10

To facilitate the internal validation, the auditor may use the following documents:
• Specific internal auditing logs (see Table 10.1).
• Specific internal auditing checklists (see Table 10.2).

Because the SWA sheets are focussing on both the stronger and the weaker points on
certain farming domains, they may be used for the internal validation. A strategic
plan of action, based on the results of the SWA scoring and focussing on the year(s)
to come, can form a part of the internal validation process.

During the whole process of developing, introducing and implementing the

different components of the HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programme as
addressed in previous chapters, each component and tool has to be checked on site
for appropriateness and functionality. Their (internal) validation must be a routine
daily practice of the farmer or farm manager. Validation is not a task for ‘outsiders’
of the farm only!

When deemed necessary, other internal validation documents can be developed and
specified for a particular farm with a specific additional service or product (see also
Chapter 11). The headings of an Internal Auditing Log may look as are presented in
Table 10.1.

Table 10.1. An example of headings in an Internal Auditing Log for validation of the proper
functioning of the HACCP-based QRM on the dairy farm.

Farm code: Auditing person:

Date: Farming area Findings at auditing: Actions required: Person responsible

audited: for action taking:

164 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Validation & verification of the HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

Table 10.2. An example of an internal auditing checklist. This checklist has to be signed by
farmer and auditor(s), and dated upon its completion.

Farm code: Date: Internal auditor:

Are Are all Actions Date &

controls & records required & signature of
procedures up-to-date & by whom auditor
still the completed executed?
same as in time?
in QRM
handbook?

Front section of handbook

Phone/address /name facts Yes/no
Milk cooling
Tank cooling time is correct Yes/no Yes/no
Tank thermometer Yes/no Yes/no
Refrigerating service Yes/no Yes/no
Plate cooler is correct Yes/no Yes/no
Calibration of thermometer Yes/no Yes/no
Cooling tower maintenance Yes/no Yes/no
Cleaning & Sanitising
Wash up procedure displayed Yes/no Yes/no
Temperature of detergent is OK Yes/no Yes/no
Machine checked Yes/no Yes/no
Rubber ware replaced Ye/no Yes/no
Medicinal drug use
ID of treated cows is correct Yes/no Yes/no
Treated cows are recorded Yes/no Yes/no
GMA guideline followed Yes/no Yes/no
HTAP updated in time Yes/no Yes/no
Udder hygiene
Udder sanitation is correct Yes/no Yes/no
Water quality
Quality tests conducted twice yearly Yes/no Yes/no
and are in order
Cattle houses & environment
Cleaning procedures correct Yes/no Yes/no
Manure scrapers present/correct Yes/no Yes/no
Maintenance is correct Yes/no Yes/no

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 165

Chapter 10

Table 10.2. Continued.

Farm code: Date: Internal auditor:

Are Are all Actions Date &

controls & records required & signature of
procedures up-to-date & by whom auditor
still the completed executed?
same as in time?
in QRM
handbook?

Cattle houses & environment (continued)

Exits to pasture have no gravel Yes/no Yes/no
Barn climate is correct Yes/no Yes/no
Herd health status
Participates in HHPM Yes/no Yes/no
Cattle Health certificates Yes/no Yes/no
Johne’s disease control programme Yes/no Yes/no
in place and in order
Milking machine function
Regular services done and correct Yes/no Yes/no
Milk filtration is correct Yes/no Yes/no
Waste management
Effluents management is correct Yes/no Yes/no
Human health precautions OK Yes/no Yes/no
Forage feeds
Mycoses detected Yes/no Yes/no
Weeds detected & eliminated Yes/no Yes/no
Chemicals stock/use recorded Yes/no Yes/no
Treated plots identified Yes/no Yes/no
Concentrate feeds
GMP produced feeds purchased Yes/no Yes/no
By-products are safe Yes/no Yes/no
Trainings conducted Yes/no Yes/no

166 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Validation & verification of the HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

10.3. Verification

Verification refers to another component regarding the functioning of an applied

Quality Risk Management programme based on HACCP principles and concept.
Verification regards the assessment of the functioning of the programme by external
auditing institutions.

When the HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme on the dairy farm will
form part of a whole dairy chain quality assurance programme, there will be a need for
certification of the farm. Such certification should be done by these external, officially
approved institutions. That is why one often speaks about ‘external verification’.

Commonly, the auditing team is a multidisciplinary team with adequate knowledge

about and experience in HACCP procedures; at least one member of the Farm
Quality Management Team will accompany the auditor(s) during their audit. They
will start with verifying the internal validation records (see preceding paragraph)
and the HACCP documentation. Note that in the case of external verification, the
auditor will also address other internal validity issues of the HACCP-like Quality
Risk Management programme. He/she will discuss with owner/farmer and employees
about how communication proceeds and how it is effective (see also Chapter 14),
about how working instructions are carried out and complied with, what needs to be
adjusted in working instructions and why, about the way they respond or react in case
of emerging problems. Most of the times, a member of the Team will join the external
auditor, e.g. the farmer or manager, and sometimes maybe the veterinarian.

An external audit is finished with a written report, highlighting the deficiencies which
need attention and improvement. Ideally, the external audits, with positive results,
will ultimately lead to a certification of the particular farm. It would be best when
such HACCP-like certification would be comparable to HACCP certification in other,
more industry-like branches.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 167

Chapter 11. A
 pplication of the HACCP principles to
multifunctional farms open to the general public

11.1. Introduction

Multifunctional farms are those farms which have different functions at the same
time. They may comprise commercial dairy farms which produce milk and sometimes
also cheese, but which also provide one or more additional services to the lay public
like camping, or receiving groups of children or mentally disabled people. They may
also refer to institutions which are fully focussed on specific services such as city or
children’s farms comprising several species in cities and often under local governmental
auspices. Children’s farms are present all over Europe. They are represented by, for
example, Kinderboerderijen (The Netherlands), City farms (UK), Fermes d’enfants
and Fermes d’animation (France), Jugendfarmen and Aktivspielplatze, (Germany),
Pedagogic farms (Quintas pedagogicas, Portugal), Kinderzoo (Austria), Fattorie
Aperte and Fattorie Didattiche (Italy) or others.

In The Netherlands there are, for example, 400 of such institutions (‘Children’s farms’)
receiving a total of between 15 and 20 million registered visitors per year. These farms
offer practical activities, training, information, a social meeting place, recreational
facilities, animal ‘therapy’, tasting fresh animal products, and – to children – the
service of ‘animal cuddling’. The latter service is the main issue on Children’s farms.

Multifunctional farms actively promote the equal access and involvement of children,
young people and adults through practical experience through a wide range of
educational, recreational, social and economic activities. These activities are focussed
on farming, hence empowering people to improve their own life and environment
(EFCF, 2005). The need for such farms has increased over the past decades, not in the
least because the knowledge gap between professional farming and urban populations
has increased dramatically.

Veterinarians are involved in these farms through the need for curative interventions
and to conduct a surveillance of animal health and animal welfare. The management
of these farms is sometimes complex due to the great variety of animal species, and
to the potential hazards related to public health. Especially, microbiological, chemical
and physical hazards may occur on these farms when lay people (including young
children), not familiar with animal handling, get access to these farms.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 169

Chapter 11

From a public health safety point of view it is worthwhile to consider the application of
HACCP concept and principles to these types of farms. It would make such farms much
safer to the general public and will safeguard visitors from the forenamed hazards.

In some countries there exists a particular ‘hygiene code for city farms’. This initiative
was taken after outbreaks of certain zoonoses, like with E. coli strains (STEC),
campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, cryptosporidiosis, affecting lay people. Up to 10%
of Dutch city farms may harbour zoonotic pathogens (Heuvelink et al., 1998, 2002),
which emphasises the need for strict adherence by visitors and farm workers to hygiene
rules on these farms. By applying HACCP principles and concept such hazards and
risks may be better controlled (ICMSF, 1988). Moreover, HACCP application may
contribute to freedom of financial liability claims related to, for example, injuries or
illnesses attracted on these farms. Because HACCP-based programmes to control food
safety will become compulsory for dairy farms probably within a few years according
to the suggestion in EC Hygiene directive 853-2004, it seems logical to control safety
risks for visitors to dairy farms, also using a HACCP-based approach. Finally, such
farms under a HACCP-like regime can be certified which assists in getting people’s
confidence.

11.2. Potential activities and services of city (or commercial dairy) farms

The activities and services of city farms or commercial dairy farms open to the general
public can be manifold. It mainly depends on the needs and cultures of the host
communities which activities and services are exactly provided. Table 11.1 presents a
short-list of such activities and services.

Farms with animals have to safeguard their visitors and animals from hazards in the area
of public health, animal health and animal welfare respectively. This includes physical
hazards (trauma) due to aggressive or unexpected behaviour of animals. In that respect
they too have to comply to the General Food Law (EC regulation 178–2002). When
these farms provide visitors with facilities to produce food products on-site, they also
have to comply to the new Hygiene directives (EU 852/853/854–2004).

11.3. HACCP applications

When applying the HACCP concept and principles to city farms and other (dairy)
farms providing activities and services to lay people, the same axioms apply as named
in Chapter 4, namely that the blue print of the HACCP approach may be the same, but
the farm-specific elaboration will be totally different between farms. Therefore, two
examples will be presented in this chapter. Example 1 refers to a commercial dairy farm

170 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

Table 11.1. Short overview of activities and services which can be provided by city farms and
commercial dairy farms.

Food growing and food production in community gardens, with instructions

Animal handling, animal husbandry and animal welfare related activities
Conservation and nature preservation related activities (farm camping)
Young children activities, including animal cuddling
Young children city farm clubs (play schemes; excursions)
Senior citizen city farm clubs (including grandparents with grandchildren)
Visits and programmes for particular groups (e.g. mentally disabled persons)
Venues for arts and crafts workshops (classes; demonstrations; practicals)
Visits of school classes; activities for instructing school children
Summer holiday camp for children
A social meeting place in the format of a ‘farm café’
Venue for seasonal festivals, special events, or celebrations
Evening recreation, conservation projects, training programmes
Venue and support for local self-support groups
Basis for volunteering and for learning new skills
Production of (raw) food products of animal origin

where additionally activities for lay people are provided: ‘animal cuddling’. Example 2
refers to city farm ‘The Bank’, where no commercial dairy activities take place.

11.4. Application of HACCP-principles to control public health threats on

dairy farms open to the general public (Example 1)1.

11.4.1. Introduction
In many European countries the number of dairy farms has diminished strongly and
will probably decrease further in the coming years for reasons described below. The
Centre for Statistics in the Netherlands calculated that the number of holdings with
cows in milk and cows in calf diminished from 46,977 in 1990 to 23,527 in 2005 (LEI-
CBS, 2006).

Urbanisation and decreased economic margins between farm income and production
costs lie often at the bottom of the decision to stop farming. Furthermore, many
young people are no longer motivated to take over the farm. Remaining farmers often
increase herd size and implement new technologies to increase herd productivity per
man and per hectare. Sometimes threats are turned into opportunities by applying
1 Adapted after an original paper published in Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 2007/2008 by M.
Barten, J.P.T.M. Noordhuizen and L.J.A. Lipman (by courtesy of the Journal editors).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 171

Chapter 11

services or products aimed to citizens as a strategy to make a (better) living in the

future. Excluding farms with an extra branch in relation to conservation plans of
landscape and nature, 81.830 Dutch agricultural farms added an extra branch in
extended agriculture in 2005 (LEI-CBS, 2006).

Besides economic benefits, the development of opening farms to citizens is often

beneficial for a more positive public image of the agricultural sector. The general
public nowadays has little knowledge about agro-production. Strict hygiene rules
and up-scaling of farms contributed to the fact that only a minority of people has
an origin, connections or an affinity with farming, farmers or the origin of the food
products they buy. Consequently, the perception of the public is largely determined by
animal health and food safety calamities that occur and the image built by the media
(Noordhuizen, 2004a). Negative publicity by animal welfare organisations around bio-
industry and modern management on farms, for example dairy farms with robotic
milking or farms where cows are kept indoors all year round, can damage a good
public image. The sympathy and understanding of citizens is, however, indispensable
for the agricultural sector, and even more in densely populated countries, to maintain
its right of existence. Farms open to the public can make a contribution to this by
giving people the opportunity to get more acquainted with the sector.

In the wide variety of products and services that have been developed, e.g. bed and
breakfast, traditional or biological production of food, camping, games and sports,
the direct contact with animals comprises a service offered on many farms open to the
public. This service can be aimed at different groups of people, like children, mentally-
or physically disabled people or people who want to reenter employment. Besides
advantages of opening farms to the general public, potential threats have to be taken
into account. Outbreaks of zoonoses (King, 2004; Lejeune and Davis, 2004; Desachy,
2005), for example due to contacts between humans and sick or latent carrier animals,
or due to consumption of non pasteurised milk (Prater, 2003) can render people
ill, which could result in insurance claims (Jayarao and Henning, 2001; Hensel and
Neubauer, 2001). People can also get injured due to contact with animals (Hendricks
and Adekoya, 1998) or by dangerous machinery on the farm (Cogbill et al., 1985;
Elkington, 2002; Franklin et al., 2000; Meijers and Baerg, 2001). Besides direct financial
consequences, negative publicity can cause indirect financial losses. This can harm
an individual farm but also the whole branch. Laws aimed to protect human health
like the Dutch Occupational Health and Safety act can render farmers liable when no
adequate measures were taken to prevent people from getting injured or ill.

In this paragraph, the on-farm service of ‘animal cuddling’ is taken as an example to

describe how the principles of HACCP (Cullor, 1995; Pierson, 1995) can be applied
to control public health issues on dairy farms open to the public. The application

172 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

of HACCP can help in providing clients with more certainty about the quality
of products and services (Noordhuizen and Welpelo, 1996; FAO, 1997; Codex
Alimentarius Comm., 1991/website). The ultimate objective of such application is
to safeguard visitors from the various hazards. Furthermore, the potential (advisory)
role of veterinarians to assist farmers in their application of HACCP will be illustrated
and discussed.

11.4.2. The HACCP team (step 1 of the 12 developmental steps in HACCP)

Before HACCP principles are applied, the multidisciplinary HACCP team has to be
assembled as has been mentioned in Chapter 4 (Pierson, 1995; Codex Alimentarius
Comm., 1991/website). When only one or two people are running the farm business,
which is a common situation on most dairy farms, the HACCP team will be relatively
small. Because different skills, specific knowledge and expertise appropriate to the
product or process are needed for the development of a HACCP plan, it is likely that
in a small HACCP team not all expertise is immediately available. In such situations
it is recommended to involve external support for specific areas. Veterinarians trained
in the field of Quality Risk Management and in veterinary public health can make
an important contribution in fields as hygiene, public health (zoonoses), animal
health and animal welfare, or animal handling practice. The HACCP team hence can
comprise the farmer, an employee and a veterinarian. Specialists can be added to the
HACCP team when needed to advise in certain areas like for taking care of certain
target groups of visitors, or for designing suitable housing systems for animals to be
cuddled.

11.4.3. Description of the provided service and the target group (step 2 and 3 of the 12
developmental steps in HACCP)
After the HACCP team has been assembled, a clear description of the targeted service
and the target group itself is needed. ‘Animal cuddling’, which is taken as an example
in this chapter, can be offered in different appearances. Contact with animals can
be provided directly or through a fence. Furthermore, the service can be aimed
at different groups of people with different objectives. Besides giving pleasure to
children, contact with animals can also be beneficial for diseased people, people with
a drug or alcohol addiction, and overworked and disabled people by giving them a
sense of responsibility, self-esteem or positive feelings. Depending on the mental and
physical condition of the target group, additional safety demands on the service may
be necessary (Brison et al., 2006; Franklin and Crosby, 2002; Pickett et al., 2005).

The service has to be clearly defined before animals are selected for animal cuddling.
Dependant on the goal of the service and the target group, some animal species
or individuals will be more suitable for animal cuddling than others. Animal
characteristics, like age, body size, natural behaviour have to be considered, but also

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 173

Chapter 11

unpredictable animal and possibly human behaviour are an inevitable part of the
selection and Quality Risk Management programme design process.

11.4.4. Development of flow diagrams of the production process (step 4 and 5 of the
12 developmental steps of HACCP)
A flow diagram describes the different steps of a production process in their logical and
chronological order, with interactions when applicable. Before the target product ‘raw
milk’ is delivered to the industry, different production steps are passed. These steps can
be illustrated in the general flow diagram representing an overall description of process
steps as was illustrated in Chapter 5. Secondary, detail processes like feeding different
groups of animals, land exploitation, animal feeding treatments, can be worked out in
detailed diagrams or charts. Several elaborated examples of flow diagrams for dairy
farms can be found in Lievaart et al. (2005), as well as in Annex 5A.

To apply HACCP principles on dairy farms open to the public, flow diagrams for
services aimed at visitors have to be developed, in addition to the forenamed general
flow diagrams for the raw milk production process. An example of a specific flow
diagram of the animal cuddling process is presented in Figure 11.1. Complexity can
arise when the processes of dairy farming and animal cuddling are interfering.

Depending on the farming areas, where the service of ‘animal cuddling’ is provided,
a (detailed) specification of the flow diagram has to be made in order to visualise
interactions and contact points of humans with animals. Animal cuddling can, for
example, be offered at cow feeding, at calving, at cuddling dry cows, feeding calves,
regrouping of calves.

The described general flow diagrams have to be adapted to the specific situation of an
individual farm before the HACCP team can inspect the process to verify that each
step in the diagram is an accurate representation of the actual situation. The flow
diagrams will further support the discussion within the HACCP team about hazards
and risks, and create awareness among team members and other people on the farm
(see previous chapters).

11.4.5. Hazard analysis (step 6 – principle 1 in the 12 developmental steps of HACCP)

The hazards on a dairy farm open to the public can be divided into those influencing
the quality and quantity standard of the targeted product of animal origin and those
influencing the safety of activities offered to the public (zoönoses and injuries).
Besides an influence on the quality and quantity of raw milk for example, animal
health and production system related hazards as animal welfare, can influence the
acceptance of products by consumers and services by the general public. Depending
on the product or service, different hazards and risks are relevant to be considered.

174 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

Animals
1 born on 4
site 10 2
Animals

1 Purchased 10 2
animals Quarantine 3

Donated 10 2
1 animals

Animal
cuddling 5
6

First aid
Humans

Incoming YES Hygiene

visitors 9 barrier 7 10

Leaving
8 visitors

1. Records on newly entered animals on the farm. 7. Check on the functioning of hygiene barrier
For example; species age, origin, health state. (functioning of hand and boot washing facilities,
2. Records on animals removed from the farm, availability of clean clothes)
i.e. reason for and date of removal, species, age, 8. Protocols for cleaning and checking the functioning
destination. 9. Decision whether visitors are allowed to enter the
3. Screening of animal health and character traits room for animal cuddling. Situation-dependianimal
4. Records on test results regarding animal health cuddling. Situation-depending: admittance can be
refused to very young children, mental and physical
5. Screening of animal and human behaviour disabled people.
6. Records on the number and description of 10. Decision whether visitors need first aid on-site.
incidents

Figure 11.1. Overview of process steps involved in the part-process of ‘animal cuddling’.

Commonly three categories of hazards are distinguished: microbiological, chemical

and physical hazards and risks. Sometimes specific managerial hazards and risks are
defined on dairy farms (OIE, 2006; Boersema et al., 2007).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 175

Chapter 11

Focusing on the service ‘animal cuddling’, microbial hazards, like zoonotic bacteria,
viruses and parasites, can be present on animal skin and in an environment
contaminated with animal waste (e.g. manure). The exact outcome of the (microbial)
hazard analysis will be different on each farm, dependant on the animals selected for
cuddling, the health state of these animals and the regional / national differences in
prevalence of zoonotic pathogens (Hugh-Jones et al., 1995; Schlundt et al., 2004).

For the Dutch and further European situation, pathogenic Enterobacteriaceae, like
Salmonella spp., Campylobacter jejuni, E. coli O157 and Yersinia enterocolitica, are
zoonotic bacteria that can be prevalent without signs. Furthermore, dermatophytosis,
zoonotic scabies, contagious ecthyma, giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis are zoonoses
to be taken into account, especially for immune-compromised and elder or youngest
people. We should not neglect the fact that in some countries brucellosis or tuberculosis
have not been eradicated and still may pose a risk to humans.

On several farms open the public, people can also get into contact with chemical
hazards, like cleaning products, pesticides, herbicides, and veterinary medicines,
when these products are e.g. left straying around on that farm. Furthermore, chemicals
can be found on the hair-coat of animals when they are treated with e.g. pour-on
applications of veterinary antiparasitic medicines.

The category of physical hazards is strongly related to animal and human behaviour.
People can get injured, for example, due to biting, kicking or scratching of animals,
but also as a consequence of poor maintenance of houses, fences or equipment.

11.4.6. Risk Assessment (step 6 of the 12 developmental steps of HACCP)

During risk assessment, the HACCP team will discuss the hazards and conclude
which risk conditions are prevailing on the farm. In the process, the team has to
make a decision about the relevance and priority of each hazard to be addressed. Risk
weighing can be conducted on the basis of locally existing veterinary epidemiological
evidence (Thrusfield, 2005; Noordhuizen et al., 2001) or through the approach of
adaptive conjoint analysis (Van Schaik et al., 1998) by which expert opinions on
a given subject (e.g. the relevance of certain risk factors for disease) are collected,
validated and ranked. The third option to give risks a certain weight is by qualitatively
assessing the probability of occurrence of that risk and the impact it may have once
it is occurring. Examples can be found in Lievaart et al. (2005). The HACCP team
members conduct this weighing to the best of their knowledge and experience.

Focusing on the hazards of ‘animal cuddling’ listed in Table 11.2, different risk factors
can be defined. Important risk factors in relation to the hazard ‘animals carrying
zoonotic pathogens’ are visitors having direct contact with animals and presence in

176 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

Table 11.2. Hazards related to public health and food safety on dairy farms open to the public.

Service or product Microbiological Chemical hazards Physical hazards

provided on the farm hazards

Animal cuddling Animals carrying or Pour-on applications of Trauma as result of

(possibly different shedding zoonotic veterinary medicines being hit or kicked,
species involved) pathogens scratched or bitten
Sport, games in Zoonotic pathogens in Pesticides, herbicides, Dangerous machinery
the farm yard or on the environment. cleaning & disinfection (parts), protrusions,
premises Toxic herbs or plants. products unequal grounds,
Contaminated water. electric fencing, open
water.
Poor health condition
of participants.
Food production (raw Food-borne zoonotic Residues of chemicals Foreign objects
milk, dairy products) & pathogens and veterinary
Food consumption medicines

an environment contaminated with animal waste (e.g. manure; Lejeune and Davis,
2004). Furthermore, many visitors who come to farms open to the public, like young
children and pregnant women, generally have a more fragile state of health which put
them together with people having skin lesions, more at risk than others (Table 11.3).

Besides infections with zoonotic pathogens, injuries due to hitting by the head of an
animals, biting, scratching or kicking by animals are important hazards. Unpredictable
behaviour of animals is a risk factor related to these hazards, as can be the behaviour
of target groups of visitors (Table 11.4.). Moreover, limited knowledge about natural
and abnormal animal behaviour and little experience in animal handling will put
people more at risk than well trained animal keepers for example.

Table 11.3. An example of some risk factors associated with a certain hazard.

Risk factors associated with the hazard ‘Animals carrying zoonotic pathogens’

Direct contact of humans with animals

A stay in an environment which is contaminated with animal waste (manure; scabs)
Lesions of the human skin
Fragile state of health of visitors (young, old, pregnant, immuno-deficient people)

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 177

Chapter 11

Table 11.4. An example of risk factors associated with a given hazard.

Risk factors associated with the hazard ‘trauma as a results of being hit, kicked, bitten or scratched
by an animal’

Direct contact of humans with animals

Contact with animals through a fence
Unpredictable behaviour of animals (e.g. mother behaviour; male behaviour)
Unpredictable/undesirable behaviour of visitors due to e.g. ignorance, health or mental state
Limited knowledge of visitors about animal behaviour

11.4.7. Critical Control Points, CCP, and Points of Particular Attention, POPA (step 7
– principle 2 – of the 12 developmental steps of HACCP
A critical control point (CCP) was defined as a step, series of steps, or a procedure in the
production process, which can be inspected or measured, which is associated with the
hazard of concern, at which process control can be applied; where control is essential
to prevent or eliminate a safety hazard/risk; and where related corrective measures
must guarantee the full restoration of control once it was lost (see Chapter 4). When
an envisaged control point does not meet the criteria named for CCP’s, but still is
considered highly relevant, that control point is named a Point of Particular Attention,
POPA.

11.4.8. CCP’s and POPA’s in relation to the hazard: ‘animals carrying zoonotic
pathogens’
An adequate measure to prevent people from getting ill due to an infection with
zoonotic pathogens or getting injured by animals is to prohibit people to have direct
contact with animals and to prohibit access to cowsheds or pastures (CCP). The
implementation of this control point will not be desirable, when direct contact with
animals is defined as the main goal of the service ‘animal cuddling’. Nevertheless, an
implementation of such a control point for selected groups of people, like very young
children or immune-deficient people, can be advisable in situations where infections
are known to be prevalent. Furthermore, this control point has to be implemented
when animals are defined as carriers of zoonotic pathogens. Adequate fences and
supervision can provide control of this CCP. When people are allowed to have direct
contact with animals, additional control points (POPA) are necessary.

Animals exposed to visitors are a priori tested negative of selected zoonotic pathogens,
ideally. Critical control points can only be defined for zoonotic pathogens that can
be tested easily and reliably, for example by visual inspection on clinical signs or
with on-site and laboratory tests. Unfortunately, for many zoonotic pathogens quick,

178 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

reliable and affordable test methods are not available (often the test sensitivity and
specificity are too low; Fletcher et al., 1984). Besides this problem, reintroduction of
zoonotic pathogens can not be excluded on many farms where animals and visitors are
entering and leaving. Nevertheless optimising the health state of the herd is important
in these open systems to reduce public health risks. A strict policy (good farming
practice codes) on the purchase and introduction of new animals in the herd will be
of value. Furthermore, exposure of visitors to animal waste must be reduced (as much
as achievable) to diminish risks for people getting infected with zoonotic pathogens.
This point of particular attention can be targeted on different levels of hygiene. For
example by removing animal droppings from the animal cuddling area at least every
two hours or by removing dirt and faeces from hair coats before animals are exposed
to visitors.

11.4.9. CCP’s and POPA’s in relation to the hazard: ‘trauma as a result of being hit,
kicked, bitten or scratched by an animal’
Depending on the specific farm situation, target service and target group, certain
animal species and individual animals can be defined as being dangerous in nature.
Commonly male individuals like bulls, stallions and rams are not suitable to be used
for animal cuddling and, hence, must be excluded. But also other animals can be
defined as dangerous. For example, animals in estrus can behave less desirably due to
more assertive or unpredictable behaviour. Furthermore horned goats or sheep can
easily cause injuries when exposed to children. But also a free ranging calf of two or
four months can be defined as dangerous due to relatively large body size and assertive
(curious) behaviour when this animal is exposed to little children. Prohibition of
exposure of visitors to dangerous animals can be defined as CCP. Animals reliable
in nature can behave dangerously in different situations, for example when they feel
intimidated. To prevent situations that provoke dangerous behaviour of animals,
supervision, and a suitable environment (i.e. housing) is necessary (POPA). Besides
this, employees and voluntary workers must have or gain sufficient knowledge of
natural animal behaviour to prevent dangerous situations. Instruction posters could
be placed on the premises to inform visitors what is expected from them to prevent
dangerous situations. This point of particular attention could be changed into a critical
control point when an exam has to be taken by the visitors to test their knowledge. In
such adjusted control programmes, targets could be set for sufficient knowledge.

11.4.10. Targets associated to CCP’s and POPA’s (step 8 – principle 3 – of the 12

developmental steps of HACCP)
For each CCP standards/tolerances and for each POPA the targets must be defined
to make control possible. Targets have to be defined dependent on the circumstances
and goals of the individual dairy farm. For most CCP’s and POPA’s named in Tables
11.5 and 11.6, named targets can be set on a zero-tolerance, for example not allowing

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 179

Chapter 11

Table 11.5. CCP and POPA associated with the microbiological hazard of ‘animals carrying
zoonotic pathogens’.

No contact between visitors and animals is allowed CCP

Animals are free from selected zoonotic pathogens CCP or POPA1
Exposure of visitors to animal waste materials is as low as possible POPA
Isolation of sick animals CCP2

1Depending on diagnostic test characteristics (sensitivity & specificity) and the disease

specifications (e.g. intermittent shedder or not).

2Depending on the micro-organism involved.

Table 11.6. CCP and POPA associated with the physical hazard ‘trauma as a result from being
hit, kicked, bitten or scratched by an animal’.

No contact between humans and animals is allowed CCP

No direct contact of humans with ‘dangerous’ animals is allowed CCP
Avoiding situations which provoke dangerous behaviour of animals POPA
Sufficient information for visitors about natural and abnormal animal behaviour POPA

visitors in specific areas on the farm premises. For the POPA ‘Exposure of visitors to
animal waste is as low as achievable’ targets can be set in relation to bacterial plate agar
counts as is used in the food industry. For example not allowing more than a certain
number of colony forming units per cm2 for aerobic grow and a zero-tolerance for
enterobacteriaceae on the plate agar taken from a dining-table. It also implies that a
sanitation plan must be put into place.

11.4.11. Establishment of a monitoring system for CCP’s and POPA’s (step 9 – principle
4 – of the 12 steps of HACCP)
For all CCP or POPA together a specific monitoring system has to be developed.
To optimise and maintain the health state of a herd for example, it will be necessary
to perform regular checks on e.g. the presence of zoonotic pathogens. Depending
on the pathogen, this can be done by visual inspection on clinical signs or through
laboratory examination after sampling faeces, urine or blood to detect pathogen
carriers or shedders.

Most hygiene measures to make the exposure of visitors to animal waste as low
as achievable (POPA) and the prevention of dangerous situations (POPA) can be
monitored by visual inspection. For example, visitors should be supervised on

180 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

wearing suitable clothing and footwear, washing hands and behaving as prescribed.
Cleanliness of the environment can practically be checked by visual inspection.
Ideally cleaning procedures are regularly checked with agar bacterial count or contact
plates. For the CCP and POPA examples described in Tables 11.5 and 11.6, monitoring
lists can be developed. On these lists will appear: the CCP /POPA of concern; their
standard/tolerance or target values; the site in the production process where it must
be monitored; the frequency of the monitoring; the method of monitoring (e.g. visual;
testing after sampling); the responsible person to do it; the action to be followed once
monitoring has shown loss of control. An example of a monitoring list for supervision
of human behaviour is presented in Table 11.7.

Table 11.7. An example of a monitoring list for supervision of human behaviour on dairy farms
which are open to the public and which provide a service of animal cuddling.

Monitoring sheet

Supervision of the behaviour of visitors for ‘cuddling animals’

Date: March 15th, 2007 Supervisor responsible: Mariska
Previous checks on hygiene (presence and functionality):
Environment= OK Clothing = 1 overall worn out
Footwear = OK Washing facility = clean and functioning
Time: 13.00 – 15.00 hrs
Visitors group: mentally disabled children, 6 to 8 years old from institute X
Number of persons involved: 2 adults; 15 children
Animals:
Goats: Mike and Robin Shetland pony: 1 Sheep: Brownie
Rabbits: 5 Calves: 3020–3022–3025–3026

Report: quiet afternoon; 1 child scratched by another child; another child fell while playing with
calves – no first aid necessary; One rabbit injured (probably broken leg after cuddling) and killed
afterwards
Notice: when abnormalities do occur, please call <name> at <telephone number>

11.4.12. Establishment of intervention methods & corrective action plans (step 10

– principle 5 – of the 12 developmental steps of HACCP)
Monitoring data can be used to notice that a process step has deviated from the critical
limit or target. Corrective action must be taken to ensure that the CCP or POPA has
been brought under control again, or at least the impact has been reduced.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 181

Chapter 11

11.4.13. Corrective actions in relation to the microbiological hazard: ‘animals carrying

zoonotic pathogens’
When monitoring data of the daily visual health inspection or regular sampling
reveals signs of zoonotic diseases, exposure of visitors to animals suspected of carrying
zoonotic diseases must be prohibited immediately. When visual inspection reveals an
insufficient level of hygiene, entrance must be denied temporarily. Adaptations in
cleaning method / frequency or a more hygienic design of cowsheds and stables can
help in up-scaling the level of hygiene.

When visitors do not behave according to the farm prescription rules, correcting
actions must be taken by drawing attention to these rules, warnings or ultimately
refusal of entrance. Examples of prescription rules are not allowing visitors to eat or
drink in the cuddling area and an obligation to wear suitable clothes during and wash
hands after contact with animals. Dependant on the animal species present, extra
behaviour prescription rules for visitors can be added.

11.4.14. Corrective actions in relation to the physical hazard: ‘trauma as a result of

being hit, kicked, bitten or scratched by an animal’
As mentioned in the previous example, corrective actions must follow when people
behave irresponsible, for example when possibly dangerous behaviour of animals
is not taken into account. People getting injured by animals have to be provided
with first aid or professional medical care immediately. Farm employees have to be
instructed and trained regularly in first aid to be prepared to this job. Animals causing
troubles or exhibiting undesired behaviour on repeated occasions have to be excluded
from cuddling or even replaced by other animals or – if applicable – by other animal
species.

11.4.15. Establishment of verification procedures and record keeping (step 10 and 12

– principles 6 and 7 – of the 12 developmental steps of HACCP)
Verification procedures: To determine whether the HACCP-like programme is
working correctly, verification procedures must be designed. Verification procedures
are preferably not carried out by the person who is responsible for performing the
monitoring and corrective actions. This task can be performed by a local veterinarian
skilled in this area or by qualified external parties.

A verification procedure must include a review of the HACCP-like programme and

its records, deviations and product dispositions and a confirmation that CCP’s and
POPA’s are kept under control. When possible, validation activities should include
actions to confirm the efficacy of all elements of the HACCP-like programme. In
addition to these internal validity screenings, it can be expected that in the near future

182 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

external verification through auditing needs to be implemented. The latter could

eventually lead to certification of these kinds of dairy farms.

Documentation and recording: Results of the hazard identification and risk analyses,
and determination of CCP’s, POPA’s and their critical limits or targets have to be
documented when a HACCP-like programme is applied. Furthermore, written
procedures and recording of the CCP and POPA monitoring activities (frequency;
methods; results; responsible person) as well as the associated corrective measures
for improvement (CCP or POPA; date; area; type of measures taken; effects) are
indispensable to assist the farmer to validate that the HACCP-like programme is
working according to the targets. The stored documents can, moreover, be used to
perform short and long-term evaluations.

Another domain of documentation in such Quality Risk Management programmes

refers to guidelines under the heading of Good Dairy Farming codes of practice (FAO,
2004; see also at Chapter 3), as well as their specific working instructions on the farm.
An example of such a working instruction is given in Table 11.8. Obviously such
working instructions may refer to other, already existing guidelines and protocols, as
is the case in Table 11.8.

Table 11.8. Example of a technical ‘working instruction for the cuddling area with calves’.
Actions to be taken prior to the visitors’ entry to the facilities.

Move calves for cuddling from their pasture plot to their housing facilities, and feed them
concentrates according to the ‘Feed Instruction Protocol’
Remove the litter, straw, waste, and the feed left-overs before each feeding and prior to visitors’
entry
Clean the sitting area for people, the equipment and the floors according to the ‘Cleaning &
Disinfection Protocol’ and do it prior to visitors’ entry
Dry the benches with clean towels after washing, prior to visitors’ entry
Check the working of hand- & boot-washing facilities and the presence of soap and tissues prior to
visitors’ entry
Remove the used overalls and dirty towels; put them in the washing basket; replace them by
other, clean ones prior to visitors’ entry

11.4.16. Concluding remarks

In addition to hazards related to the production of milk, dairy farms open to the
public have to deal with particular hazards related to the activities undertaken by lay
people entering the farm. Controlling safety risks for visitors entering the farm can

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 183

Chapter 11

be performed by the application of a HACCP-like risk management programme. The

HACCP concept regards the identification of hazards and the analysis and handling
of risks. It can, therefore, be highly suitable for that purpose (Noordhuizen and
Welpelo, 1996).

In this section is demonstrated that it is feasible to develop and implement a HACCP-

like programme for dairy farms open to the public, in order to control microbiological,
chemical and physical hazards regarding public health. Besides prevention of calamities,
the HACCP-like programme can be used in case of complaints to prove to third parties
that safety risks of farm products and on-farm services are kept under control as
much as possible. Furthermore, it can be used as a marketing tool (including eventual,
formal certification) as well. For further detailing on the programme development we
refer to the previous chapters in this book.

11.5. The HACCP-like approach to City farm ‘The Bank’ (Example 2)2

This city farm (children’s farm) is situated since nine years in the centre of a small town
of 50,000 inhabitants, adjacent to a residential area. The yearly number of visitors is
about 100,000 people. Visitors appear to stay for a two-hour visit in average. This farm
comprises 1.5 hectares of grassland. The geographical lay-out of the buildings, pasture
plots, manure storage and feed storage facilities is presented in Figure 11.2. A short-
list of routine practices on the farm is presented in Table 11.9.

From this point onwards, we will follow the 12 steps for developing a HACCP-based
Quality Risk Management programme (see Chapter 4). Previous chapters can be
helpful in explaining and clarifying the issues addressed.

11.5.2. The Farm Quality Management Team (step 1 of the12 developmental steps of
HACCP)
Before the start of developing a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme
(QRM) a Farm Quality Management Team, the Team, was formed. This Team comprised
the farm manager and the veterinary QRM expert. When deemed necessary the Team
was extended by another specialist, like a myco-toxicologist or veterinary public health
specialist. Once the Team was formed, an in-depth discussion and training took place
in order to bring the Team members at the same level of understanding concepts and
principles of hazard and risk identification, risk management and HACCP concept
and principles.

2 Extracted from and adapted after the internal report ‘HACCP-like approaches on multifunctional
farms’ by J. Raposo, J.P.T.M. Noordhuizen and L. Lipman, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht
University, The Netherlands, May 2006.

184 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

Pasture plots for

Manure goats and sheep Pasture plots for Playing ground
young calves

Goats’
barn

Calves’
barn Picnic area House
Chicken

Feed storage Rabbits

Machinery Workers Road

Figure 11.2. General outlines of the city farm ‘The Bank’, with animal houses, pasture plots,
picnic and playground areas, storage for feed, machinery and manure, house of the manager
and canteen for workers, public road and canal alongside.

Training assumes an important function because it provides the technical skills

required for the development, introduction and implementation of the QRM; at the
same time it assists in changing the attitude of the people involved, when needed.

11.5.3. Products (or services) and their destination (step 2 and 3 of the 12
developmental steps of HACCP)
The following ‘products’ are delivered by the farm:
• Information and training about animals present and the way they live on the
farm.
• The service of ‘cuddling’ (direct contacts) involving cats, dogs, rabbits, sheep, goat;
this service represents about 75% of all activities on these farms; about 20% of the
visitors are younger than 5 years of age.
• Products produced on-site (e.g. eggs on this city farm; or cheese, not applicable
here).
• Excretion products (e.g. manure; urine).

These are part of the social, environmental and agricultural projects within the
framework of sustainable development in agriculture (EFCF, 2005).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 185

Chapter 11

Table 11.9. Short-listing of routine practices executed on this city farm.

Domain Specification

Water Human drinking water is supplied to all animal houses; well water is
used in pasture plots. All drinking water is quality checked twice yearly
(chemical; microbiological quality monitoring). Water distribution systems
are separated.
Waste disposal Manure is collected in a large container on the premises (see Figure 11.2)
and is transported by a private company every 8 weeks to be used as soil
fertiliser. All other garbage is handled as household garbage, collected
every 2 days.
Personnel The farm manager has been trained in agricultural management. There are
6 permanent workers, 8 handicapped workers and some volunteers. All
people working on the farm receive basic training at the start and regularly
after that.
Equipment All installations on the farm are subjected to annual maintenance checks
(monitoring) and repairs by the farm workers.
Animals There are 2 cows, 4 horses, 12 sheep, 8 goats, 1 pig, chickens, 2 cats, 2 dogs,
rodents (guinea-pigs; rabbits) on the farm.
Parasite & Pathogen The faeces of all animals are routinely collected and screened for
control gastro-intestinal parasites and pathogenic bacteria (e.g. Salmonella spp;
Campylobacter spp.; E. coli O157) four times a year in a regional diagnostic
laboratory; records must be kept on the farm (monitoring).
Deworming & Animals are preventively dewormed every 8 months by the farm manager,
Vaccination except for the guinea-pigs dewormed every 12 weeks. Vaccination is
carried out by a veterinarian in horses, sheep and goats, pigs, dogs.
Pest control Rodenticides are distributed all over the farm premises after closing hours
(when animals are inside houses) and re-collected before opening hours
Cleaning & A strict cleaning & disinfection scheme, as well as a hygiene protocol for
Disinfection bathrooms, houses, plots and storage facilities are applied. Doors, fences
and equipment in contact with visitors are cleaned and disinfected once
a week. Between different areas, hygiene barriers are needed to avoid
contamination
Supplier control The concentrates are delivered by commercial animal feed suppliers; the
feed is produced under Good Manufacturing Practice codes. Roughages
are harvested in a Nature Preservation Park nearby and transported by own
farm workers.

186 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

11.5.4. Flow diagrams of the farm (step 4 and 5 of the 12 developmental steps of
HACCP)
The flow diagram of the ‘production process’ on this farm is rather complex to
construct, because several different species are involved, each with their species-
related specifications, for example for feed or housing. The general model of the farm
is depicted in the flow diagram in Figure 11.3, adapted after Lievaart et al. (2005).

For the example of ‘cuddling’ as a main service of this farm, we developed another
(secondary) flow diagram, only focussing on the species involved: sheep, goat, cats,
dogs, rabbits. This secondary flow diagram is presented in Figure 11.4. Both flow
diagrams were validated during an inspection tour on the farm and after discussion
with the farm manager and farm workers.

11.5.6. Hazards and associated risks (step 6 of the 12 developmental steps of HACCP)
The hazards which could be involved in these kinds of farms refer to microbiological,
chemical, physical and managerial properties which can cause an adverse health effect
through illnesses or injuries. The microbiological hazards of greatest importance on
these farms are the zoonotic pathogens, being viruses, bacteria, endo/ectoparasites,
protozoa, or indirectly through their respective toxins.

Entrance & exit for visitors

Public road and sold/purchased animals

Surface water Quarantine for newly Refused animals

Chicken arrived animals
Working house
Okay
people
Machineries Picknick area
Chemicals Housed rabbits
Medicines

Feed Housed calves Pastured calves Playground

(roughages and
concentrates) Contact through fences is possible
Drinking water

Housed goat/sheep Pastured goat/sheep

Contact through fences is possible
Manure
storage
Cats and dogs freely
Sold or dead moving on the farm
animals pathways

Figure 11.3. General flow diagram of city farm ‘The Bank’.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 187

Chapter 11

Entrance and exit to city

farm

Feed
Animal
Rabbits’ house care
Drinking water Medicines
Climate
Housing
Manure

Take rabbit out of cage

Play with rabbit in Take rabbit along to

the rabbits’house the picknick area

Put rabbit back into its

cage

Other activity: playground, other animals, or exit

Figure 11.4. Secondary flow diagram of city farm ‘The Bank’, associated with the service of
animal cuddling: rabbits. The respective contact points between humans and animals can be
distinguished.

Because this farm comprises several different animal species, the spectrum of micro-
organisms potentially involved in such diseases is far much larger than on mono-
species farms like dairy cattle farms. Moreover, even when visitors have no direct
contact with some animal species (e.g. cattle), it is still possible that micro-organisms
may affect the visitors (e.g. VTEC through faeces) in an indirect way. The responsibility
of the farm and farm manager, hence, is high.

Table 11.10 presents a short overview of zoonotic micro-organisms of several species

on this farm. More information about such pathogens can be found in Savey (1994),
Hugh-Jones et al. (1995) and Schlundt et al.(2004).

188 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

Table 11.10. Short overview of some relevant zoonotic micro-organisms potentially occurring
in some animal species prevalent on this farm.

Cattle, sheep, Chickens, birds Rabbits Other rodents Cats, dogs

goats

Campylobacter Campylobacter Campylobacter Campylobacter spp. Campylobacter spp.

spp. spp. spp.
Corynebacterium Staphylococcus Staphylococcus Staphylococcus
pseudo- aureus aureus aureus
tuberculosis
E. coli O157. E. coli
VTEC-STEC
Cryptosporidium Swans? (water!)
parvum
Ecthyma Avian Influenza Leptospira canicola & Leptospira canicola &
(parapox virus) H5N1 icterohaemorrhagica icterohaemorrhagica
Listeria Pasteurella Pasteurella Pasteurella
monocytogenes multocida multocida multocida
Chlamydia Chlamydia Capnocytophaga
psitacci psitacci canimorsus
Mycobacterium
paratuberculosis
Coxiella burnettii Bartonella spp.
Salmonella spp. Salmonella spp. Salmonella spp. Salmonella spp. Salmonella spp.
Trichophyton Trichophyton Trichophyton Toxoplasma gondii
verrucosum verrucosum verrucosum
Mycobacterium Mycobacterium Mycobacterium Toxocara canis/cati
avium avium avium
Yersinia Yersinia
enterocolitica enterocolitica

Among the chemical hazards which may potentially occur on this farm and following
exposure of visitors (through ingestion and absorption, or skin contact) can be
distinguished:
• detergents and other products for cleaning and disinfection; residues of such
products may be present on equipment or animals; storage facilities may be open
to visitors;
• pesticides (insecticides; herbicides; fungicides; wood preservatives; rodenticides)
which are not properly stored;

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 189

Chapter 11

• anti-parasitic products applied through pour-on; product or residue may remain

on the hair-coat or skin of animals;
• other veterinary drugs like antimicrobial drugs and hormones for the treatment
of animals, and which are not properly stored;
• mycotoxins in animal feed (grass and corn, silages, concentrates, or other
feedstuffs).

Physical hazards refer to a wide variety of items which can function as a hazard on
this farm, particularly for visitors not familiar with farming and handling animals or
their facilities. The main hazards are in the areas of direct contact between visitors and
animals or their surroundings: i.e. fences, equipment, contact points, animal houses
with sharp items. These hazards may occur:
• when visitors are handling animals inappropriately;
• when visitors are handling animals which appear to be (too) aggressive for the
group of people dealing with them (elder people, young children) or which appear
to be too big for them to handle;
• when there are sharp (iron, wooden, plastic) parts and other things straying around
on the farm or in the houses and potentially causing injuries;
• when items stray around on the farm which may be ingested by people (young
children!) and may cause choking through blocking of the respiratory track.

Finally, we may distinguish managerial hazards on the farm, directly or indirectly

causing or contributing to disease or hampered welfare, or public health disorders.
The main hazards in this category are:
• housing: maintenance; lay-out;
• feed storage and feeding management (moulds in silage);
• poor animal identification (presenting the wrong animal to visitors);
• non-isolation of sick animals, hence exposing visitors to sick animals;
• other, miscellaneous hazards, related to e.g. poor maintenance of equipment (e.g.
metal protrusions; oil leaking).

From the hazards, potentially occurring on this farm, the Team had chosen to deal
with four particular main hazards. These are:
• microbiological: E. coli O157 H7;
• chemical: rodenticide ingestion by children (difenacum is the active substance);
• physical: animals are poorly handled;
• managerial: wrong identification of sick animals.

Further hazard identification was conducted using literature search for risk factors
(Prescott et al., 2002; Davis et al., 2005; Heuvelink et al., 2002; Schouten et al.,
2005) and specific features regarding transmission; shedding and survival, as well

190 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

as exposure characteristics for humans. See also Chapter 3 regarding the section on
Biosecurity Plans.

An average visit to a city farm like this takes two hours, and the main occupation of
young children visiting is ‘cuddling’, meaning that there is direct contact of humans
with the animals and their potential micro-organisms (see Table 11.10).

Regarding the microbiological hazards, at the level of the large region where this city
farm is located, prevalence figures of between 10 and 20% (average = 14%) of dairy
and veal farms being positive on E. coli O157H7 culturing (De Rijcke and Oswald,
1994; Bouwknegt et al., 2004) have been found, animal prevalence figures within farms
ranging from 4 to 60%. Due to the routine screening 4 times per year with always
negative test results, the true risk of E. coli O157H7 infection transmission to humans
seems rather limited. The true risk was determined as being Probability (0-25%=
score 1) times Impact (high, 3) = score 3; serious enough to pay attention to controlling
this hazard. Probability and Impact scoring figures are derived from Table 11.11.

Nevertheless, applying the precautionary principle, this farm should apply the highest
hygiene standards feasible to prevent visitors from attracting this hazard.

The hazard associated with the rodenticide regards the fact that it is a cumarin-
derived product, preventing the production of blood coagulants through inhibiting
pro-thrombin and blocking reductase in the blood coagulation process. The acute
oral toxicity in experimental animals is high, it can lead to death within one day. The
hazard on this farm may occur when children consume rodent-bites.

On this farm the product is distributed in dishes after closing hour and re-collected
the next day before opening hours. The risk remains that cats and dogs take the bites
to other places, or that dishes are forgotten to be picked up. The true risk of this

Table 11.11. Scoring probability and impact of certain risks to determine true risks on city farm.

Score Probability Impact Interpretation of impact (examples)

1 (very low) 0-25% Very low No or little effect or minor discomfort

2 (low) 25-50% Low Fever, diarrhoea, minor sequela, minor trauma, little
clinical distress
3 (high) 50-75% High Major sequela, septicaemia, major trauma, [long term]
clinical distress
4 (very high) 75-100% Very high Permanent lesions, high morbidity or mortality, more
dramatic clinical signs

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 191

Chapter 11

hazard occurring is assessed as Probability (2) times Impact (4) = 8, serious enough
to address this particular hazard.

Regarding the physical hazard of ‘improperly handling animals’, it can be determined

that the animals on this farm do not show or have shown any aggressive behaviour
in the past years. But it must be kept in mind that aggressive animal behaviour can
be triggered by inappropriate human behaviour. This hazard is about hitting, kicking,
biting, pushing, scratching, jumping by the animals or crushing of hands or feet, or
being stuck between an animal and the wall or fence, causing injuries, particularly to
young children. This risk is always present; the true risk weighted as Probability (3)
times Impact (3) = 9, a serious, true risk to be addressed.

The last hazard, being a managerial hazard of ‘wrong or too late identification of
sick animals’ is an important one because especially sick animals may shed micro-
organisms in their faeces or other excretions. These animals should at all times be
kept away from visitors, but also farm workers should apply special hygiene rules to
avoid becoming affected too (occupational disease). The guinea pigs and the one pig
are always in isolation from other species, but several species are kept in plots one after
the other. The true risk regarding the other animals is assessed as Probability (2) times
Impact (3) = 6. This hazard will hence be addressed in more detail.

11.5.7. Critical control points and points of particular attention (step 7 and 8 of the 12
developmental steps of HACCP)
Once the hazards and risk have been established, we have to look for those sites in the
flow diagrams in Figures 15.2 and 15.3 (i.e. those sites in the production process on
the farm) where these risks do occur. Next, we have to define control points (CCP or
POPA) for which we can define targets. When defining CCP and POPA, we use the
decision-tree scheme with questions addressed in Chapter 7. These actions have been
combined in Table 11.12.

The targets for each CCP or POPA can be presented as follows:

• For (a): accept only animals with health certificates, and from reliable sources,
tested free from E. coli infection.
• For (b): only mix animals from quarantine with others when they test negative on
E. coli and other selected zoonotic pathogens.
• For (c): do not allow eating and drinking, nor hand-contacts on contact points.
• For (d): always wash hands after contacts according to instructions present.
• For (e): do not leave products in the open after opening hours.
• For (f): no physical injuries.
• For (g): all sick animals properly identified and isolated.

192 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

Table 11.12. The main hazards on this farm and the responses to questions for determining a
CCP or a POPA.

Process step2 Hazard of concern1 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 5 Outcome

Animals newly entering E. coli on animals Y Y N Y Y POPA

farm (a)
Quarantine (b) E. coli on animals Y Y Y POPA
Points of direct contacts (c) E. coli on visitors Y Y N Y N POPA
When leaving contact E. coli on visitors Y Y Y POPA
points (d)
Distribution & collection of Chemical contamination of Y Y N Y Y CCP
rodenticides (e) visitors
Physical contact points (f) Poor animal handling Y Y N Y Y POPA
(injuries)
Animal houses & pasture Wrong identification of sick POPA
plots (g) animals (possible infection
of people)

1E. coli is E. coli O

157H7.
2GDF points to the fact that these issues can be put into guidelines and/or work instructions;

the (a) to (g) refer to the targets given in the text. Other, managerial issues can be put into GDF
guidelines too.

As can be noticed from Table 11.12, there is only one CCP for these hazards on this
farm. This is because it is the only point where full control can really be exerted,
when e.g. an appropriate working instruction for all farm workers dealing with these
chemicals is applied and strictly followed. The other control points do not necessarily
meet all CCP criteria and, hence, are POPA. GDF guidelines or working instructions
apply there too.

11.5.8. Monitoring CCP and POPA (step 9 of the 12 developmental steps of HACCP)
The monitoring of these CCP and POPA should be defined by the Team. It is one of the
most important elements in the QRM programme, because a proper monitoring can
point to deficiencies or drawbacks. The chosen monitoring method should allow the
assessment of the loss of control at a CCP, or POPA, at an early stage, so that corrective
decisions and actions can be taken. An intrinsic element of such monitoring is the
recording of monitoring results. For the previously named hazards, the monitoring
procedure, including also the persons responsible for its proper execution can be
defined as given in Table 11.13.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 193

Chapter 11

Table 11.13. Part of a CCP & POPA list of a QRM programme, with monitoring methods,
monitoring frequency and person responsible for the respective monitoring.

Process step CCP or Monitoring procedure Monitoring Person

POPA frequency responsible

New animals POPA Health certificate E. coli Before each new Farm manager
entering farm tested free (possibly other entrance
agents)
Quarantine POPA Faeces sample cultured for For each new animal Farm manager
E. coli at 1 week after entry
(also samples for brucellosis,
tuberculosis)
Contact points for POPA Worker assigned task to Each time visitor Designated
transmission watch visitor behaviour enters contact point worker
When leaving POPA Worker watches visitor Each time a visitor Designated
contact points behaviour; instruct visitor to leaves contact point worker
wash hands
Distribution & CCP Worker checks that all Each day before Designated
Collection of numbered dished are opening hours worker
rodenticides collected
Physical contact POPA Worker watches physical Each time visitors Designated
points (injuries) behaviour of visitors enter contact points worker
Animal houses & POPA Worker watches animals At each feeding (> Designated
Pasture plots carefully twice daily) worker

The farm workers designated as being responsible for a certain monitoring procedure
should be identified specifically. Therefore, an organisational scheme can be handled
and discussed each day. Obviously, it is a matter of organisation to assign specific tasks
to specific people. A side-effect advantage is that these farm workers will eventually feel
responsible for the tasks they have been given, which improves their involvement and
performance. Monitoring results need to be recorded on a Monitoring Results Sheet.

11.5.9. Corrective measures (step 10 of the 12 developmental steps of HACCP)

Corrective measures have to be established, preferably beforehand, for each CCP and
POPA. These measures are triggered by the results of the monitoring. A downward
trend to loss of control or a full loss of control as indicated by monitoring the CCP and
POPA must be sufficient to rapidly take the necessary corrective actions before more
problems (the hazard) occur. The corrective measures must be described as part of the
HACCP-based handbook, and be immediately accessible to farm workers.

194 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

When we follow the same hazard sequence as mentioned in Tables 11.12 and 11.13,
the following corrective measures can be defined:
• For (a): if new animals tested positively before entry to the farm à refuse access;
If new animals do not have a recent Health certificate indicating their freedom of
E. coli, leptospirosis, tuberculosis or brucellosis à refuse access; the farm manager
takes the decision.
• For (b): if animal is testing positive for E. coli during quarantine à deny animal
entry to the farm; provide a fully separated house for positive testing animals; do
not allow any contact with visitors; the farm manager takes the decision.
• For (c): any visitors starting eating, drinking or smoking must be stopped
immediately; they must refrain from eating, drinking and smoking at all times; at
their refusal to do so, they have to be expelled from the premises; the designated
farm worker is responsible.
• For (d): any visitor not passing by the washing facility after animal contact must be
guided to that place; refusal to comply to this rule must be followed by expulsion
from the premises; the designated farm worker is responsible.
• For (e): any chemical product left after opening hours must be withdrawn; chemical
products must be stored in a closed, cool, dark place; the designated farm worker
is responsible.
• For (f): any wrong behaviour of visitors towards animals must be corrected
immediately; repeated poor behaviour must result in expulsion of that person
from the premises; the designated farm worker is responsible.
• For (g): Animals showing any signs of disease or disorder must be housed, away
from visitors. According to the veterinary Farm Advisory Plan either the animal(s)
are taken into observation by the farm manager, or the veterinarian is called for
consultation; the farm manager takes the decision.

As component of the QRM programme, GDF guidelines and work instructions can be
developed for specific on-farm functions (see also Chapter 3). Examples of such work
instructions are: Washing Procedure at contact points; Visitors Instructions when
entering the farm; Visitor Instructions for Handling Animals; work instruction for
Handling Chemical Products (including the storage, application and disposal of such
products as well as antibiotics or anti-parasitics). For defining these work instructions
in detail, one can use the work instructions as provided in Chapter 3 as an example.

11.5.10. Internal validation and external verification (step 11 of the 12 developmental

steps of HACCP)
The HACCP-based QRM programme must be maintained and internally verified in a
dynamic way in order to retain its effectiveness and efficacy. Adjustments by the Team
need to be carried out regularly and when deemed necessary.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 195

Chapter 11

As part of the internal verification one can conduct a strengths-and-weaknesses

assessment every 3 or 6 months. Furthermore, one can evaluate the different records,
like incidents reports (based on monitoring results sheets) and their associated
Improvement Logs (based on the corrective measures taken). Non-announced visits
by the external member of the Team (for example the veterinarian) for evaluating the
daily routines deduced from the QRM programme as being complied with can help
in this verification procedure.

Verification must imply methods, procedures, diagnostic tests, and other evaluations in
addition to monitoring, corrective measures and control, to determine the compliance
with the HACCP-like QRM. On this farm, the faeces and blood sampling for testing
on presence of E. coli O157H7 (as part of a monitoring scheme), and the monthly farm
visits by the veterinarian also form part of the internal verification procedure.

External verification once a year is (not yet) in place, although in some countries regular
inspections of these farms, for example with regard to hygiene practices, by officers
from the Ministry of Agriculture are the starting point for external accreditation and
certification. This implies all issues forenamed under internal verification.

11.5.11. Documentation (step 12 of the 12 developmental steps of HACCP)

In the QRM on this city farm the following documents have been installed:
• animal health certificates, specifically for e.g. E. coli O157H7, leptospirosis and
salmonellosis obtained through accredited laboratories;
• laboratory results from the regularly taken faeces and blood samples;
• dated hazards and risks inventory sheets (the Team);
• the monitoring list for CCP and POPA, responsibilities, corrective measures;
• the daily monitoring report from the designated farm worker(s) for particular
items;
• the daily checklists for properly handling rodenticides;
• daily animal health checklists;
• the HACCP-based QRM handbook for reference use by farm workers;
• GDF guidelines and work instructions for both farm workers and visitors;
• Events Logs and Improvement Logs;
• farm visit reports from the veterinarian;
• training documents for farm workers;
• verification records.

The records should be kept in archives for 5 years. Hence, they may assist in detecting
trends and events over time. In Figure 11.5 an example is given of a work instruction,
on ‘Visitor’s Hygiene at Contact Points’.

196 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Application of the HACCP principles to multifunctional farms open to the general public

Visitor’s Hygiene & Behaviour at Contact Points and in Contact Areas

1. Always wash hands thoroughly with soap for at least 20 sec after leaving a contact point.
Disinfectants must be available at all times. Adults should closely supervise the
hand-washing of the children.

2. Do not eat or drink at contact points or in areas where animals are located. Hand-to-mouth
handlings like smoking, carrying toys and pacifiers that might be put in the mouth should not
be taken into the contact areas.
3. Children less than 5 years old, pregnant women, and persons with a decreased immune-
function (e.g. elderly people), should be particularly careful in following the forenamed rules.
4. At contact points, always remain calm and with a defensive attitude towards the animals.
Remember that animals can get easily frightened when you make sudden (hand-) movements
close to them.

Figure 11.5. An example of a work instruction for visitors (hygiene and behaviour).

The work instruction presented in Figure 11.5 must be clearly visible and readable at
each contact point and in each contact area. A contact point or area must be identified
as such by a special sign (see Figure 11.6).

Playing with the animals is great fun… but can also be dangerous !

Figure 11.6. Example of a sign warning for unexpected (dangerous) animal behaviour.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 197

Chapter 12. A
 pplications of the HACCP principles to milking
goat farms in France3

12.1. Introduction

Lactating goats represent an important segment of the animal production sector in

France. With regard to its production, it is ranking first in Europe with an annual
production of about 563 million litres (Institut d’Elevage, 2006a). There are two
distinguished routes for milk processing: either the milk is collected by an industry,
or milk (24%) is processed on-site for cheese (Institut d’Elevage, 2005b). In the west
of France, the goat farms are rather intensified and reaching high production levels
(788 kg/goat/lactation; Institut d’Elevage, 2006b). In order to achieve high production
levels, farmers aim for high yield in the first lactation, rather than for longevity. That is
a major reason why the replacement rate reaches levels up to 40% per year. Parallel to
this phenomenon, rearing additional young animals contributes to an investment in
the up-scaling of the farm size and to improving genetic make-up for milk production.
Thirdly, rearing young animals is needed for replacing culled or dead animals.

The main disease categories in milking goats in this western region, deduced from
expenditures for treatment, are listed in Table 12.1. The average expenditure for
health control amount about 7 € per present goat (composed of 0.99 €, 0.46 €, 5.56 €
respectively for kids from birth to weaning, goat kids after weaning, adult goats) and
0.84 €/100kg milk (Malher and Vasseur, 1999).

The three most relevant disease categories in goats after weaning are, hence, respiratory,
parasitic and digestive disorders. Deduced hazards in the latter cases would be an
insufficient growth rate during rearing and mortality of the kids. Most of these disease
categories, if not all, regard multifactorial disease entities, where risk factors from
different farming areas contribute to the incidence and prevalence of named disease
categories.

In order to improve the technical performance and, hence, the economic results of
these intensive milking goat operations, it is of strategic relevance to pay attention to
the management of goat kid rearing and to the most important diseases that occur
during the rearing period and also may affect future productive life.

3 This
chapter has been derived from a paper by Malher and Noordhuizen, published in Revue de
Médicine Vétérinaire (2007) htpp://revmedvet.envt.fr (reproduced by courtesy of the Journal).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 199

Chapter 12

Table 12.1. Distribution of cost elements related to disease treatment in milking goats (goat
kids before and after weaning, and adults) in western France (Malher and Vasseur, 1999).

Disease expenditure category Percentage of expenditures for health control

Kids until weaning Goat kids after Adult goats

weaning

Digestive and metabolic disorders 32% 11% 27%

Parasitism control 22% 22% 7%
Respiratory disorders 14% 37% 4%
Others 14% 15% 4%
Several miscellaneous indications 7% 6% 5%
General hygiene measures 6% 4% 10%
Nervous disorders 5% 5% -
Reproductive disorders x x 17%
Udder health x x 14%
Regulatory prophylaxis x x 12%

The ‘x’means: ‘not applicable’.

There are two ways of approach:

1. developing and implementing a veterinary Herd Health & Production Management
– HHPM – programme focussing on operational management (Brand et al., 1996);
and
2. developing and implementing a risk management programme based on the
HACCP (hazard analysis critical control points) concept and principles(Codex
Alimentarius Committee, 1991; Cullor, 1995, 1997; Noordhuizen and Welpelo,
1996).

Given the General Food Law (EC regulation 178-2002) and the new Hygiene directives
(EC 852/853/854-2004) with consumer protection as core element (see Chapter 1), it
may be worthwhile to consider the development and implementation of HACCP-like
programmes on milking goat farms. Moreover, the EU hygiene directive 853-2004
suggests that primary producers install a HACCP-like Quality Risk Management
programme for the elimination or reduction to an acceptable level of public and
animal health or welfare hazards and their associated risks. Small ruminants are an
important production sector in many countries throughout the world, including the
U.K. and the Mediterranean area, Africa, Middle East, Asia, and Australia.

200 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Applications of the HACCP principles to milking goat farms in France

Quality in milking goat farms can be described as ‘the whole set of veterinary and
zootechnical features of a farm which determine its ability to satisfy the needs of the
farmer and – indirectly and ultimately – the clients’(after Heuchel et al., 1999). This
definition comprises not only the farm performance in a technical sense, but also its
ability to safeguard clients from hazards and risks in the area of public health & food
safety, animal health & welfare.

Therefore, the main objective in this chapter is to describe the development of a

HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programme for operational management on
milking goat farms, and show its feasibility, namely in the area of goat kid rearing
using an example Farm ZZ. It is discussed furthermore, how veterinary practitioners
can play a paramount role as a coach-consultant for such programmes and support
the farmer in his Quality Risk Management activities.

12.2. The HACCP concept and principles

The HACCP concept has 7 principles. These principles form part of the 12
developmental steps regarding a HACCP-like programme (Cullor, 1995; Lievaart et
al., 2005) which have been introduced in Chapter 4. These 12 steps are the guideline
for developing a Quality Risk Management programme for goat kid rearing on an
example milking goat farm ZZ in western France in the following paragraphs. HACCP
can be described as a programme ‘which has a prevention focus and which is rigid and
flexible at the same time, dynamic in its application, and which contributes largely to
the safety and quality of products produced in the context of a quality driven market’
(Heuchel et al., 1999).

12.3. Characteristics of the example milking goat farm ZZ

Farm ZZ comprises 230 adult – predominantly Saanen – milking goats which are
group-housed in straw yards as a loose housing system all year around. Milking is
conducted in a 2 x 8 milking-unit herringbone parlour twice daily. Feeding comprises
roughage such as grass (hay), alfalfa (hay, dehydrated) and concentrates. There is a
separate parturition area for 25 goats at a time. After birth, the kids receive colostrum
for 2 consecutive days; thereafter, they are fed milk replacer ad libitum through an
automatic milk feeding system untill weaning age. During the suckling period, the
first 60 goat kids are kept for replacement, whereas other goat-kids and males are sold
at 7-10 days age to a fattening unit in an other farm.

After weaning, a goat-kid receives a daily ration of hay and 500 g of pelleted
concentrates, allowing a normal growth rate. Thereafter, they are fed with hay and
concentrates according to the nutritionist’s prescriptions (Mohrand-Fehr et al.1996).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 201

Chapter 12

General features, events and targets of the goat kid rearing process are schematically
presented in Figure 12.1 (adapted after Ricard, 2001).

The farmer’s objective is to provide a sufficient number of young, healthy replacement

goats given the yearly culling rate of 30%. These replacements should have their first
parturition at about 12-14 months in order to timely replace the culled ones. This
means that kids must be ready for AI on time (preferably at 7 and ultimately at 9 month
age), at an appropriate body weight (50-54% of adult weight), and a body condition
score of 2.75-3.0 (Mohrand-Fehr et al., 1996). The previous goals can only be reached if
growth rate is in order, if no health disorders occur hampering this growth rate, and if
reproductive processes are dealt with properly (e.g. synchronisation at 7 month age by
intra-vaginal sponges followed by PMSG injection to induce ovulation [e.g. Cronogest
by Intervet®], and by AI or successful mating by approved bucks). The farmer irregularly
conducts pregnancy testing after AI to detect non- or pseudo-pregnancy.

Growth rate target in the first month of age is 250-300 g/day, and up to weaning 160-
220 g/day. Problems around weaning occur more often when the kid’s body weight
is lower, the milk replacer level is higher, non-liquid feed is not used, and when they
have been affected by diseases (Petrau-Gay, 1986). Growth rate target from month 4
to AI period is 50-110 g/day; from month 7 to parturition 40-50 g/day.

Birth Weaning Parturition

Colostral Milk Growth up to AI or Gestation

phase replacer puberty mating period Age

0 2d 2 mo 7 mo 9 mo 12-14 mo

Body weight 50% of adult weight, hence 30-40 kg

Body weight12-15 kg at age of 6-10 wks
Body weight at birth 3-5 kg
Morbidity level target < 20%
Mortality target < 10 %
Stillbirths <10%
<5% Mortality
< 2.5 % targets
< 1%

Figure 12.1. General schematic overview of the goat kid rearing period with major events and
targets (adapted after Ricard, 2001).

202 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Applications of the HACCP principles to milking goat farms in France

General risk periods are around birth (birth history; weight at birth), after weaning,
around the age for AI and around first parturition. Disorders (hazards) occur
in periods as indicated in Table 12.2. It is noticeable that this farmer has not the
objective to market goat-kids. Therefore, we will not take into account the hazards of
early contamination for different, specified diseases such as CAEV, paratuberculosis,
MAEDI-VISNA, mycoplasmosis, or blue tongue which might impair the quality of
these goat-kids to be marketed.

Table 12.2. General overview of hazard areas, disease categories, some disease diagnoses and
details of the rearing risk periods of goat kids.

Hazard type Category of disorders/ Diagnosis of disorders/diseases Rearing period

diseases details (age period)
of highest risk

Microbiological Respiratory disease Enzootic pneumonia After weaning

(Pasteurella & Mycoplasma spp.)
Digestive disorders E. coli diarrhoea First week of age
Cryptosporidium diarrhoea Second and third
weeks of age
Ecthyma Up to 2 month age
Coccidiosis From 1 to 5 month
of age
Physical Presence of horns Causing lesions in other goats After mating
Dehorning failure Poor dehorning procedure Second week of life
Managerial Deficient growth rate Milk replacer diet management Before weaning
Poor quality roughage Before and after
weaning
Digestive disorders Weaning shock Days/weeks after
Low level of food intake weaning
Acidosis – Fattening due to Post-weaning
excess of concentrates period
Reproductive performance AI at too young age 6-7 month age
AI at too old age 7-9 month age
Poor dehorning practice Horns or horn remainders are Second week of life
present

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 203

Chapter 12

12.4. Developing the HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme

In order to develop a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme, we follow

the 12 developmental steps as listed in Chapter 4, Table 4.3 (adapted after Cullor,
1995) as the guideline.

12.4.1. Assemble a HACCP team, define the farm products and objectives (Step 1, Step
2 & Step 3)
The on-farm HACCP-Team would comprise the farmer, his veterinarian and possibly
one or more specialists in a particular area where specific hazards do occur. The latter
may refer to e.g. zoonoses, or chemical hazards, or an independent nutritionist when
growth rate is a problem on the farm. This Team decides about the path to follow,
the hazards to be addressed, the flow diagrams to be developed, and other actions
to be taken.

The Team also discusses about the products of the farm: is it milk for the milk processing
industry or milk for cheese-making at either that industry or on-farm? Are goat kids
being reared for the market or for selling to other goat farms? Is there a specific service
provided by the farm such as on-farm holiday accommodations, possibly contributing
to public health hazards? The identification of these products and services contributes
to the definition of the hazards and associated risks of concern in a later stage (see
Step 6), as well as the standards and targets, and the monitoring.

It is highly recommendable to design a geographical site-map of the farm with e.g. all
buildings for animals (age groups), milk harvesting, cheese-making, cheese selling-
point, feed storage, machineries, waterways if any, roads, natural fences. Such a
map will facilitate discussions within the Team when developing the HACCP-like
programme and with third parties visiting the farm (e.g. animal feed truck drivers,
dealers of chemicals, accountants, welfare inspectors). If consumers enter the farm
for buying cheese, possibly additional hazards have to be identified and precautions
taken regarding hygiene and/or infection transfer.

12.4.2. Designing flow diagrams of the production process (Step 4 and Step 5)
Under Step 4 there are flow diagrams being developed regarding the production
process on the goat farm. A general flow diagram comprising all steps of the production
process on that farm can be designed on the basis of the site-map of the farm (see
previous steps). The outlines are, however, different as is shown in Figure 12.2.

Once the most relevant hazards have been identified (Step 6), it is very well possible
that a more detailed flow diagram of a particular farm area is needed. This detailed
flow diagram will assist in understanding better where hazards and risks do occur and

204 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 

Sold for meat production

Dry goats’ house Kidding area Neonate kids Male kids

Female kids (milk)

Milking goats
Purchased in colostral
females period
Kids on solid feed **
Dead
Purchased animals
males Milking goats’ Goat kids
house inseminated **
Male
goat
Late parity 1
Milk pregnant **
harvesting Milk in bulk tank

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

Milk replacer Roughages Concentrates Water Veterinary Chemicals
services &
products
Input of products and services

Figure 12.2. General Flow Diagram of Milking Goat Farm ZZ (the grey areas re-appear in Figure 12.3 focussing on goat kid rearing). * = some

205
Applications of the HACCP principles to milking goat farms in France

farms make raw milk cheese on their farm; ** = on several farms goat kids are being sold for rearing or replacement elsewhere.
Chapter 12

where corrective or preventive measures can be taken. It helps the Team members but
also other people either working on the farm or visiting the farm. Figure 12.3. shows
a detailed flow diagram for the area of goat-kid rearing on Farm ZZ, the area where
the hazards of concern are.

Flow diagrams have to be verified by Team members on-site and together with the
farm workers for completeness and accuracy.

12.4.3. Identification of hazards, prevailing preventive measures and risk analysis

(Step 6)
Next, the Team on Farm ZZ has (1) to define in more diagnostic detail what diseases
(hazards) we are talking about, and (2) which diseases are the most relevant to this
particular farm, on the basis of either their prevalence, or the wish of the farmer to
prevent these diseases from entering the farm.

Deduced from the previous objectives of the farmer in this farm, hazards are mainly
those which may result in:
• a too small number of goat-kids at mating;
• goat kids having an heterogeneous growth;
• goat kids having a too low body weight at 7 months of age;
• goat kids being too fat (over-conditioned) at mating;
• goat kids failing to get pregnant at mating;
• goat kids bearing and transmitting certain infections (e.g. E. coli, coccidiosis,
infectious pneumonia), impairing herd health and productivity.

Hazards can be distinguished into four main classes: microbiological, chemical,

physical and managerial in nature. The most important microbiological hazards in kids
are – next to compulsory epidemic diseases for which official control programmes may
exist (e.g. foot-and-mouth-disease; brucellosis; tuberculosis) – endemic diseases like
respiratory disease (Ricard, 2001; Malher and Vesseur, 1999). The highly contagious
epidemic diseases are not dealt with in this chapter.

Important chemical hazards are not identified in the present case of Farm ZZ, but
one may consider residues from or contamination by machinery oil, detergents and
disinfectants. Relevant physical hazards could be represented by the horns of the
animals, potentially causing trauma in other goats.

Managerial hazards are, for example, those related to digestive disorders like acidosis
and a too small or a too high growth rate of the kids, and those related to reproductive
performance (Malher et al., 1999). It should be born in mind that during the early
rearing period a relatively low growth rate may well be caused by forenamed diseases

206 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Applications of the HACCP principles to milking goat farms in France

Pregnant goats ready to kid at the

beginning of milking campaign

Kidding in the kidding pen

Identification & registration of

kids

Colostrum Colostrum ingestion

Separation from mother; adaptation to

collective pen and artificial suckling

Sorting/selection
Milk Dosage
replacer (kept or) Sold for
Kept as replacement goat-kids rearing for milk-fed
Artificial suckling kid production
Dehorning

Adaptation to solid feeding

Roughage and drinking water
Weighting

Concentrates Weaning
Dosage
Sold,
culled or
Water Ruminant diet: roughage, concentrates dead goat
Weighing & scoring of body condition kids

Purchased Natural mating Oestrus induction / synchronisation

bucks with bucks + artificial insemination

Natural mating for return in heat

Ruminant diet
Checking for pregnancy
Weighing & scoring of body condition

Pregnant goat-kids ready to kid in the second

half of the kidding period

Figure 12.3. Detailed flow diagram regarding the specific part of goat kid rearing on the milking
goat Farm ZZ.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 207

Chapter 12

and not by nutritional failures alone. Improper dehorning practices may be considered
a managerial hazard too.

An overview of most highly important diseases or disorders in goat-kids has been

presented by Chartier et al. (2006) and Chambre d’Agriculture des Deux-Sèvres (2004)
and is summarised in Table 12.2. For Farm ZZ, the most relevant diseases resorting
under the forenamed hazards have been identified by the Team (Table 12.3).

According to the 12 steps in HACCP, the preventive measures which are currently
prevailing on Farm ZZ have to be identified as well. These preventive measures have
been short-listed in Table 12.4.

With this information in hand, the next phase in Step 6 is to start an analysis of putative
risk factors which are associated with the respective hazards on Farm ZZ named in
Table 12.4. The risk factors originate from literature reviewed by Ricard (2001) and
from regionally collected data (Institut d´Elevage, 2005a) and, hence, are population-
based. They have to be screened on Farm ZZ for applicability and only those which
are prevailing on this particular farm are retained. The selected risk factors on Farm
ZZ associated with the named hazards are also presented in Table 12.4.

Now that relevant risk factors for selected hazards have been identified (Table 12.4),
the next phase is to weigh these risk factors in order to find the most relevant, true
risks on Farm ZZ. Risk weighing can be conducted in roughly three ways:
1. Qualitatively, by members of the Farm Quality Management Team; especially
when the two other methods are not available and is based on their knowledge,
experience and expertise.
2. Semi-quantitatively, by applying adaptive conjoint analysis procedures and search
expert opinions regarding a certain farming area of concern such as veterinary
specialists in respiratory diseases in goats (Van Schaik et al., 1998).

Table 12.3. The major hazards (disorders) on Farm ZZ as identified by the Farm Quality
Management Team.

Hazard type Disorders of high priority on Farm ZZ

Microbiological E. coli diarrhoea in the first week of age

Enzootic pneumonia
Chemical None identified by the Team
Physical Stress at dehorning
Managerial Poor growth rate

208 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 
Table 12.4. Short-list of hazards, disorders on Farm ZZ, preventive measures, risk factors and risk weighting results as related to major
hazards named in Table 12.3. (Note that the threshold value for ‘weighted true risk’ is set at >45, see text).

Hazard type Disorders of high Preventive measures currently Associated risk factors Result of risk weighing
priority on Farm ZZ prevailing on Farm ZZ (PxIxD) on Farm FX

Microbiological E. coli diarrhoea in Anti-coccidial products Colostrum management is poor 3 x 5 x 3 = 45 true risk
the first week of age applied routinely Hygiene of kidding barn (density, condition 3 x 4 x 4 = 48 true risk
Vaccination against of bedding, contact with adults at birth,
Clostridium enterotoxemia quality of umbilical disinfection) is deficient
yearly Automatic milk feeder adjustment is 3 x 4 x 3 = 36
Separation of replacement conducted infrequently
goat kids from kids to be sold Nursery hygiene (density, condition of 3 x 4 x 4 = 48 true risk
Separation of goat-kids from bedding) is poor
adults until kidding
Enzootic pneumonia Animal density in yard/house too high 2 x 2 x 4 = 16
Housing hygiene (barn climate/ventilation, 4 x 3 x 3 = 36
humidity percentage, quality/conditions of
bedding) needs improvement

Physical Stress at dehorning Dehorning conducted by Poor dehorning method 1 x 3 x 3= 9

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

cauterisation Wrong age at dehorning 3 x 3 x 5= 45 true risk
Poor health status at dehorning 3 x 4 x 4= 48 true risk
Managerial Poor growth rate Equipment for weighing Low weight at birth 2 x 3 x 5 = 30
animals and feed are present Quality of diet / feed intake until weaning 3 x 3 x 4 = 36
and being used is poor
Too early anti-coccidial treatment 2x2x4=8
Too young and/or low weight at weaning 3 x 3 x 4 = 32
Quantity/quality of hay (low level of refusal) 3 x 4 x 4 = 48 true risk
after weaning is poor

209
Applications of the HACCP principles to milking goat farms in France
Chapter 12

3. Quantitatively, by conducting observational-analytic epidemiological field surveys

(Noordhuizen et al., 2001; Thrusfield, 2005).

When the methodologies under (2) and (3) are not available, which is very often the
case in animal production, the only option for the Team is to give balanced weights
to risk factors following the principle as described by Poncelet (1995):

Probability of occurrence × Impact of occurrence × Detection possibility (P×I×D)

Prevalence figures can be used to assess probabilities, while disease effect data (e.g.
economic losses, loss of growth rate, mortality data, impaired welfare) can be used
to assess the impact of a certain disease risk, either on a morbidity/mortality scale,
or an economic impact. Note that ‘detectability’ can alter a weighted risk; commonly
one could apply the value ‘1’ for ‘hardly detectable’ and ‘2’ for ‘normally detectable’.
Especially in cases where disease detection is not possible in live animals, the scoring
value for D may be high e.g. ‘3’ or ‘5’, as long as the other two parameters show
relevant values. On a scoring scale from 1 (negligible) via 3 (intermediate) to 5 (high
level) the different aspects of certain disease risks can be weighted. A decision level
for the outcome of this formula has to be established (e.g. 40), above which a risk is
considered to be a true, non-acceptable risk. Weighted risk levels between 25 and 40
can be considered ‘fit for future surveillance’.

Step 6 is concluded with the identification and weighting of most relevant risk factors
for the selected hazards on Farm ZZ. The outcome is listed as well in Table 12.4; there
have been 6 true risks defined through the process of weighing on Farm ZZ.

12.4.4. Critical control points & points of particular attention (Step 7)

In this step we have to define the critical control points and points of particular
attention, CCP (Critical Control Points) and POPA (Points of Particular Attention)
respectively. A CCP is a point, area, or series of points in a production process where
control is critical to eliminate hazards and risks (Lievaart et al., 2005).

A CCP meets certain formal HACCP criteria, while a POPA fails to meet one or more
of these criteria. These criteria are: the point must be associated with the hazard of
concern; it must be measurable or observable; standard value and tolerance limits
must be set; corrective actions must be available; and once process control is lost at
this point, the corrective measures must be able to fully restore process control. Most
often, a POPA fails to meet the third and fifth criterion, but is still considered crucial
for risk reduction in the production process. Most frequently, these POPA’s form part
of managerial practices.

210 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Applications of the HACCP principles to milking goat farms in France

For the ‘true risks’ the CCP respectively POPA have been defined (Table 12.5) as
related to the hazards determined. As can be noticed from Table 12.5, the critical
points on Farm ZZ are POPA and not CCP. The main reasons have been given before.
Other reason is that most of the disease-related issues in animals show a biological
variation. This phenomenon can, for example, be seen in the frequency distribution of
serological titres. Somewhere on this distribution we have agreed on a cut-off point,
above which we call animals test-positive, and below which we call animals negative.
In biological test systems we have to deal with false-positives and false-negatives. This
also hampers the definition of strict standards and tolerance limits for e.g. serological
titres; we rather speak about targets. CCP should have standards with tolerance limits,
while a POPA most commonly will have a target value set at a particular farm. An
example is the target value for peri-natal mortality rate, or the percentage of goat-kids
with diarrhoea in the first week of life.

12.4.5. Establish critical limits, standards or targets for CCP and POPA (Step 8)
In this step of development the Team has to define the standards and tolerance limits
(CCP) or the target values (POPA) for this particular Farm ZZ. Therefore, we handle
the major hazards as defined in Step 6 and their associated risks, and presented in
Table 12.5. These hazards were:
• E. coli diarrhoea;
• enzootic pneumonia (caused by Pasteurella threalosi, Manheimia haemolytica and
or Mycoplasma spp.);
• poor growth rate in the suckling period and around weaning;
• poor growth rate in the post-weaning period.

The associated risk factors on Farm ZZ were also identified (Table 12.4; 12.5). We
have found that there are 6 POPA and no CCP (see Table12.5) distinguished on Farm
ZZ. Targets can now be described. Table 12.5 comprises the respective target values
(POPA) for the various hazards and associated risks. Note that the target values are
close to those handled in regular veterinary Herd Health & Production Management
programmes, HHPM (Brand et al., 1996).

12.4.6. Designing the on-farm monitoring scheme and the corrective measures (Step 9
and Step 10)
The monitoring of all defined CCP and POPA should be part of a practical monitoring
scheme on the farm. This monitoring scheme must include the following items: CCP
or POPA of concern, the way that monitoring at that point takes place (observation,
measuring, testing methodologies), the frequency of monitoring (daily, weekly,
monthly), the person responsible for this monitoring, the recording of monitoring
findings. Commonly there will be a link between the issues addressed in Table 12.5
(including corrective measures) and the monitoring items.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 211

 Table 12.5. Overview of identified priority disorders on Farm ZZ, control points, weighted risk factors, CCP or POPA identification, Standard &
tolerance values or Target values, and corrective measures.

212
Disorders of Control point True risks defined CCP or Standard & tolerance, or target values Corrective measures and reference
Chapter 12

high priority POPA

on Farm ZZ

E. coli Hygiene Poor hygiene POPA New clean litter in a newly disinfected Preparation of kidding barn: cleaning,
diarrhoea around in kidding barn barn with >1.5 m2/ pregnant goat disinfection and new bedding between
in the first kidding (density, condition kidding batches, goat density, presence of
week of age of bedding, contact 100% records of identification at birth an infirmary for aborted goats
with adults, quality and disinfected umbilical cord Kidding surveillance and recording:
of umbilical identification, birth weight, umbilical cord
disinfection) disinfection
Separation of goat kid at 12 hours after
birth
Colostrum Colostrum POPA 100% suckling actively or colostrum Kidding surveillance: checking for repletion
quality & deprivation and/or supplemented (recording of the kids of belly and suckling every 4 hours
intake poor colostrum which are supplemented) If not satisfying: colostrum collection
quality >95% of kids with adequate blood IgG and storage after checking for colostrum
quality (colostrometer), distribution of 100
ml colostrum /kg to be distributed in 3 to
4 meals each 3-4 hours within the 12 first
hours
Follow working instruction on ‘Colostrum
Management’
Hygiene of Poor nursery hygiene POPA >0.3 m2/kid until 1 month then >0.5 m2 New pens, cleaning, disinfection, new
nursery (density, condition of Temperature: 18-25 °C bedding, warming by IR lights
bedding, automatic No draught, Dry litter
feeder use) Frequent cleaning & disinfection 1x/day Cleaning of suckling cups once daily
1 teat of Automatic milk feeder for 15 Adjustment of concentration and
kids temperature in milk feeder
1 checking of feeder/week:

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

concentration, temperature of milk 45
°C, temperature of the teat: 40 °C
 

Table 12.5. Continued.

Disorders of Control point True risks defined CCP or Standard & tolerance, or target values Corrective measures and reference
high priority POPA
on Farm ZZ

Stress at Dehorning Wrong age at POPA 90% between 8 and 12 days of age Adjustment of dehorning age
dehorning dehorning
Poor health status at POPA 10% of weakest and sick animals Clinical examination of kids (Body
dehorning dehorned in the third week temperature, absence of diarrhoea) before
dehorning
Delay of dehorning when suspected of
disease
Follow working instruction ‘Good
dehorning practice’

Poor growth Post-weaning Poor quantity/quality POPA Body weight of 12–14 kg at weaning (2 Check goat-kid weight (and age) at
rate growth of hay after weaning months), >30 kg at 6 months weaning
Hay of best quality: >1200 kcal of net Assess hay quality regularly (at least each
energy/kg dry matter (>0.7 UFL/kg) new batch)
Feed intake of 480 g/d of hay +350 g/d Record concentrates (type, quality,

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

concentrates at weaning to 670 g/d of quantity) before weaning
hay and 520 g/d of concentrates at 6 Record hay intake (quality, quantity) before
months weaning
1 meter of manger / goat Assess hay intake after weaning (initial
weight and % of refusals per day)
Record concentrates distributed (type,
quality, quantity) after weaning
Check goat-kid weight every 6 weeks
Follow working instruction ‘Feeding
Scheme Kids’

213
Applications of the HACCP principles to milking goat farms in France
Chapter 12

Checking on colostrum quality by a colostrometer should – most certainly in case

of problems – be conducted by the farmer at 90% of the goat-kids births. The same
applies to checking on serum IgG levels in neonate goat-kids: at least 90% should be
checked by the veterinarian in case of problems. In routine monitoring situations
without problems, 20% of kids born should be checked each defined birth period
(with a minimum of 5 kids).

Body weight estimations must be made by the farmer according to the schedule
presented in Figure 12.1. The findings from the monitoring activities must be recorded
in a so-called Monitoring Log. Results of monitoring are used for adjusting managerial
activities or other production process related issues.

As already presented in Table 12.5, there are various corrective measures to be

described for each CCP and POPA. Once that monitoring indicates a loss of control
at a certain point, these corrective measures must be put into place.

Table 12.5 also comprises references to several working instructions: on Cleaning &
Disinfection, on Colostrum Management, and Feeding Scheme for Kids. These are
operational management instruments to assist the farmer in conducting the respective
activities in the best possible way. Usually they comprise just one page A4 to keep
readability and simplicity. Examples can be found at www.vacqa-international.com.
The working instructions form part of Good Farming codes of Practice, GFP, as
proposed by OIE and FAO (FAO, 2003; OIE, 2006). GFP are guidelines and working
instructions meant to improve attitude and mentality of farm workers with regard
to ‘best practice’ approaches on the farm. An example of a working instruction is
presented in Table 12.6.

12.4.7. Record keeping and system verification procedures (Step 11 and 12)
Like in every programme, records must be kept in programmes of Quality Risk
Management according to the HACCP concept (OIE, 2006). Some of these records have
already been addressed in the Figures and Tables presented in this chapter. Additional
to these are: a Medicine Log to record – according to regulations – the treatments
given; a Herd Treatment Advisory Plan (with indications, medicinal drugs, dosage and
route of administration for adequate on-farm treatments by the farmer), laboratory
results sheets (test results, autopsies). These records are all needed to validate that the
HACCP-based programme is functioning appropriately. Such validation is conducted
each 6 months, at least once yearly.

External verification should be done by external institutions through auditing

procedures executed by multidisciplinary trained person. Only when farm certification,
as part of a whole Food Chain Quality Assurance system, is warranted by e.g. retailers

214 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Applications of the HACCP principles to milking goat farms in France

Table 12.6. Working instruction for Climate Control in Neonatal Goat-kid barns, and frequency
of checking, X refers to general lay-out and barn design principles.

Farm code: Date of last revision: Author:

Responsible person(s) for execution:

Area of concern Activity details When

Prevent newly born kids Dry the newborn kids Each birth
from cooling down Prevent drought and damp Daily
Provide fresh air all day-night Daily
Install separate climate control units/barn X
If needed, provide a lamp
Climate control parameters Relative Humidity <85% Daily
Wind speed <0.3 m/sec Daily
Temperature: from 25 °C at birth to 18 °C at 5 days Daily
old (IR lamp may be provided). From 16 °C to 10 °C
after 5 days
General management issues Prevent rain from falling inside X
Provide clean dry bedding Daily
Provide good drainage in bedding X
Provide light >100 lux X
Check feed intake Daily
Check signs of health disorders Daily

or milk processing industry, such a farm-status certification, and hence, external

verification, is necessary.

12.5. Discussion and conclusions

This chapter has been conceived to show that the application of the HACCP concept
and principles is feasible – next to dairy cattle and children’s farm – at milking goat
farm level too. The most important issue is that what is known already should be
better structured, organised and formalised under the heading and application of
a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management programme. While in Herd Health &
Production Management (HHPM) programmes the approach is (too) often rather
qualitative in nature and conducted in a more free-style format, the forenamed three
characteristics of the HACCP-like approach puts emphasis on the fact that under
a HACCP approach most issues have to be described beforehand. The corrective
measures, for example, will commonly be weighted and discussed once a problem has

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 215

Chapter 12

arisen during a HHPM programme, while in Quality Risk Management programmes

they must have been described already. Cost-benefit assessment of such measures
must have already taken place beforehand; HACCP development requires time
investment and, hence, can be costly.

Farmers have indicated during field surveys that the benefit of HACCP-like programmes
is indeed the fact that they are well-structured and well-organised. Moreover, they
indicate that by using the risk factor tables, as well as the working instructions and
guidelines, they have become much more aware of the issues at stake. A good example
in this context is the working instruction on ‘Good Dehorning Practice’ (Institut
d´Elevage, 2005a). They feel better prepared to deal with problems once they are
pending (Boersema et al., 2007). In this way, the HACCP-based approach is much
more preventive in nature because it is focussed on risk management rather than on
disease control.

As expected, there were only POPA’s; the main reason is that animal production
concerns living animals rather than physical entities such as in branches of the food
processing industry. Living animals show biological variation, hence, full restoration
of process control once it was lost can not be guaranteed through risk management
measures on farms. These measures, however, do contribute to risk reduction. Both
preventive and corrective measures do contribute to either risk elimination or risk
reduction.

One other advantage of applying the HACCP-like programme in the way we have
presented here is that operational management can be very well coupled to the
more tactical Quality Risk Management. This facilitates greatly the adoption of the
programme by the farmers.

The Quality Risk Management programme presented in this chapter, closely relates
to the initiative that has been taken by ANICAP (2006) to create a best practice
type of approach to goat farms. The latter shows many similarities with the Good
Farming codes of Practice, addressed by the OIE (2006) and FAO (2003). Quality risk
management points to the three domains where the EU is striving for improvement
in primary animal production: public health & food safety, animal health and animal
welfare (EU directives 852/853/854-2004 and EC regulation 178-2002). The EU has
done the suggestion to implement HACCP-like programmes on primary production
farms for safeguarding these domains. The ultimate goal is the protection of the
consumers.

When veterinarians desire to play a substantial role in this area, they have to
acquire additional knowledge and skills. The latter are mainly associated with the

216 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Applications of the HACCP principles to milking goat farms in France

understanding and application of the HACCP concept and principles, communicative

skills, marketing and business administration, farm management, entrepreneurship,
and farm economics (Cannas da Silva et al., 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2006). Then,
they would be able to function as coach-consultant for Quality Risk Management on
the EU indicated domains on these milking goat farms: public health, food safety,
animal health, and animal welfare.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 217

Chapter 13. Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy
farmers regarding Quality Risk Management4

13.1. Introduction

In this chapter miscellaneous issues are presented which can be considered as

complementary to the implementation of Quality Risk Management programmes.
The first paragraph addresses the characteristics of entrepreneur/like dairy farmers,
as opposed to some general features of bovine practitioners that hamper the proper
introduction of Quality Risk Management programmes.

13.2. Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers

Various recent scenario studies showed that the dairy farmers who will last in this
sector will comprise family run dairy herds with 4 to 8 tons of milk per year on the
one hand, and herds with over 8 tons of milk per year on the other hand. The latter
herds will, undoubtedly, be the larger herds with more than 150 cows. On these farms
we will find entrepreneur-like farmers who show a different attitude, mentality and
farming style. Farming goals, strategies, characteristics, and management style differ
from the smaller family run dairy operations.

The current veterinary curriculum will, if at all, primarily focus on the smaller family-
run dairy farms with regard to veterinary herd advisory programmes, while little or
no attention is paid to the forenamed entrepreneur-like larger dairy farms and the
larger family-run dairy farms. The future trend in the dairy sector is towards larger
dairy herds. Hence, the question can be raised whether the veterinary curriculum as
well as the veterinary practitioners are well prepared to provide these larger farms
with the proper veterinary services. The authors consider this issue a ‘blanc spot’
in the students’ curricula and in continuing professional education. In some areas,
entrepreneur-like dairy farmers have left their veterinary practice because the latter
does not meet with the demands of these farmers.

The objective of this paragraph is to address the different features of entrepreneur-like

dairy farmers as well as the stronger and weaker points of current practitioners, in
order to come up with a plan of action for veterinarians for preparing them to the
task of providing advisory services tailor-made for and requested by entrepreneur-like
dairy farmers. In the following sections first the major features of entrepreneur-like
farmers are given (1), followed by the strengths-and-weaknesses assessment results
4 Adapted after the text by Van Egmond et al. (2006) and Noordhuizen et al. (2006) originally issued
by Pfizer Animal Health BV, The Netherlands, on CD ROM.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 219

Chapter 13

regarding veterinary practitioners (2). Subsequently, the points of improvement and

investment by practitioners are addressed in order to provide hands-on for the herd
health practitioner of the future (3).

13.3. Major features of entrepreneur-like dairy farms and –farmers

13.3.1. Entrepreneurship5
‘An entrepreneur is someone who has got ideas and is full of action, who has the qualities to
inspire other people and who does not accept the ordinary borders of structured situations.
He is a katalisator of changes, instrumental to detect new opportunities, which makes the
entrepreneur function an unique one’ (Schumpeter, 1949, in Bergevoet, 2005).

The 8 major features of an entrepreneur are:

• risk taking;
• capital providing (from own means or external sources);
• innovative;
• finds opportunities to make profits;
• is responsible for the process to create new values;
• enhances changes;
• decision-making based on multiple judgements;
• a planner.

For those who advise an entrepreneur it is absolutely necessary to get acquainted

with the goals, attitude, social values and observable behaviour of these farmers
before moving to action. In Figure 13.1, the characteristics are combined in one ideal
entrepreneur:

Psychological factors are, for example, innovative behaviour and risk attitude. Risk
attitude should in this context be considered as based on positively evaluating behaviour;
therefore, entrepreneurs are often considered as risk-takers. An other aspect regards
the ‘locus of control’. This means that the results of a decision process are determined
by the person himself or externally, as influenced by knowledge and experience.
Entrepreneurs usually are convinced that the results of decisions are determined by
themselves on the basis of efficiency and self-efficacy under consideration of their
own risk-perception. They often observe the right opportunities and select them. They
understand the art and science to take decisions which lead to the achievement of
their goals. They understand complex information. They are able to create situations
of cooperation and trust, for example through their connections and contact with
peers. They show conviction and social-communicative skills.

5 Adapted after Bergevoet, 2005.

220 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

Personal factors and Psychological aspects

Professional skills Manager qualities Entrepreneur-like abilities

Success of the enterprise

Figure 13.1. The characteristics of the ideal entrepreneur.

The entrepreneur-success manifests itself in the achievement of multiple goals. These

farmers are highly interested in pleasure in their work (showed by public image;
working with animals; food safety as primary feature of their enterprise; in the fact
that challenges are opportunities instead of threats) and that they do not necessarily
cling to economic goals, but rather to intrinsic aspects of a dairy farm. See also the
paragraph about behavioural economics.

The following clusters of characteristics have been determined for entrepreneur-like

dairy farms:
1. professional skills;
2. commercial and market-oriented focus;
3. high degree of organisation;
4. skilled in communication, discussion and negotiation;
5. farm economic orientation;
6. aware of own abilities and skills; aware of what others should provide;
7. behavioural economics.

Each of these clusters can be further elaborated in detail. A short sketch of such
elaboration will be dealt with below.

13.3.2. Brinkmanship and further

(a professional farmer has the proper knowledge and skills in the farm-technical areas,
has the proper sense for animals and farm, and aims at optimal technical results; he
uses performance figures to frequently evaluate performance)

These farmers have a broad view on their farm business and know very well what
is going on in their farm. They show a strong drive in their farming activities, are

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 221

Chapter 13

looking for stability without too much changes occurring. They aim at this stability
by optimising the number of personnel versus costs (reflected for example by the
weighing between purchasing a tractor or an automatic milking system) and by trying
to eliminate farm-blindness. They know about developments in the sector as well as
within the EU policy. These farmers try to gain new and more knowledge and look for
trustful, sustainable knowledge-intensive advisors within their professional network
on a national scale and – if indicated when for example the veterinary practice does
not meet with their demands – abroad.

The technical and knowledge level of these farmers is high and further increases,
leading to a critical attitude and strategic visions. They are planners on the shorter as
well as the longer term, and try to make a prediction of the changes ahead. This enables
them to adapt (elements of) their farm management in time. Such changes may refer to
milk price, milk quota, subsidies, price of land, or incentives for disease control. These
features distinguish the entrepreneur-like farmers from their manager-colleagues.
These farmers hire people on the basis of their technical skills, or hire technical skills
from outside. ‘Passion’ is an often heard feature among entrepreneurs.

Technical professionalism and strategic management are sometimes hard to combine

in one person. Then it could be indicated to distribute these two tasks among different
people, depending on competences present. A clear strategic vision (on paper) leads
to peace on the farm and often to better results.

13.3.3. Commerce and market

Entrepreneurs show a strong market-orientation; they produce market-conform as
put forward by e.g. quality demands. Such quality demands may originate from e.g.
consumers/retailers, dairy industry and or the national or EU authorities. It should be
stated at this place that the European Dairy Farmers, EDF, show activities in the area
of developing HACCP-like programmes for application on their farms.

Entrepreneurs show a strong orientation towards society and towards opportunities.

They are not defensive, but rather prospective in nature; they enter discussions with
many stakeholders and actors from society, involving aspects such as agricultural
politics, the environment, animal protection and nature conservation.

From areas like marketing sciences and business administration these farmers take
the principles and modus operandi for further application within their farm and farm
management (Cross and Smith, 1996; Griffin, 1995). A wide scope on developments
of the sector, and their vision on (expected) developments creates awareness about
opportunities and limitations that their production environment provides them with.

222 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

13.3.4. Organisation
One of the success factors on entrepreneur-farms [as well as on the larger family-run
farms] refers to the level of organisation. This is partly caused by the fact that these
farmers commonly hire external labour to execute all daily activities according to the
farmer’s strategy. Preferably, this external labour has got the proper knowledge and
skills, as long as the costs involved are not too high. The latter means that often also
unskilled labour is hired.

Many of the entrepreneur-like farmers have a ‘farm business plan’ in their head and
not, for example, on paper. On truly large farms of, for example, more than 1000 cows
and with several farm workers, it is indicated that a clear, general farm business plan
is available on paper. This plan comprises the different business units, the goals per
business unit, the routine activities per business unit to be conducted, as well as the
points of evaluating performance in each business unit and the corrective actions in
case of deviating performance. One of the advantages of such an approach is that the
farmer can assign different responsibilities to different farm workers in a kind of task
distribution over business units. An example of the latter is given in Annex 13B on
young stock rearing.

Entrepreneurs are individualists who will see the advantages of team-work as long as
the final results are achieved. A farm business plan is one of the necessities of such
dairy farms; such a plan is regularly evaluated and adjusted when needed.

13.3.5. Communication
Entrepreneurs are highly interested in communication. They easily speak with other
entrepreneurs and have social skills to easily move around in society. Sometimes, one
may think they are arrogant or hard-headed, but that might well be the reflection of
their position and their knowledge. They need through communication the stimuli
from others in order to reflect on their vision and to innovate. They are commonly
quite willing to put their data and (economic) information into the open for discussion,
if there exists a mutual trust and respect.

They are quite critical persons who will not immediately accept or adopt the answers
to their questions to e.g. advisors. An advisor needs to explain his way of analysing,
inference and conclusions to them so they can assess whether they come to the same
conclusions. If not, there needs to be ample room for discussion. Entrepreneurs need
to weigh the arguments for conclusions and advice themselves. While communicating
about an advice there should be ‘chemistry of interaction’ between farmer and advisor.
When asked about it, it appears that entrepreneurs need specific products and services
from advisors and specialists they select. The latter must, however, be able to provide
‘added value’ to them and will be tested on that issue.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 223

Chapter 13

The entrepreneur-like farmers pay attention to Public Relations; they are often willing
to tell others about their farm and their strategies, their farming goals and the ways
by which they try to achieve these goals. They may receive civilians, professionals,
environmentalists, and school children on their farm for instruction purposes. See at
Chapter 14 where communication is addressed in detail.

13.3.6. Farm economics

General issues: Economic decision-making is a daily process for entrepreneur-like

farmers. They are very well aware of production costs and likes to save on (direct or
variable) costs. They distinguish clearly between costs and investments. Cash-flow is
a priority, like investments within the possibilities of the farm business; increase of
scale in order to control the costs per unit of scale is another relevant issue to him
(Griffin, 1995; McNealy, 1994).

Regarding costs and income, performance parameters are being used. Examples of
such parameters can be found in an example from EDF (see Annex 13A). Feeding
system (daily intakes of grass, corn and concentrates are compared to milk income
from roughages and concentrates), productivity parameters (labour, capital, land),
costs and income, management parameters and production figures, income per
entrepreneur, family income, break-even points per 100 kg Fat Corrected Milk are
just some of the EDF parameters. Efficiency as well as rentability are relevant issues
to these farmers.

The costs related to hired labour all in are preferably kept around de 17 euro per hour.
Advice from third parties is preferably obtained for free. They are willing to pay for such
advice, if beforehand it is made sufficiently clear to them what the economic benefits
will be for them or the enterprise. When the information transfer is completed, he will
most probably stop the purchase of such service and change over to new information
sources. Decision-making based on advice will most probably take place on economic
grounds and opportunities provided (see also the section on economics).

Increase of scale: The following terms are handled in the sector regarding increase of
scale:
• Increase of scale can be defined as increase of the average herd size over time.
• Increase of herd size is an increase of size of the individual farm.
• Scale effects: the differences between costs and income per unit of herd size, caused
by the size of the farm (economies of size).

Causes of increase of scale: Increase of scale is a phenomenon that occurs in (nearly)

all sectors. There are four main reasons for increase of scale:

224 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

• A more efficient use of fixed production factors. For example, a better use of
production resources, a more economically efficient use of (labour saving)
investments, a better balance between labour and production resource, a non-
linear relationship between costs of a production resource and the capacity of that
resource.
• Technological developments. New technological developments are not always
applicable to all herd sizes. Hence, larger farms benefit more from new technologies
than small farms.
• Differences in price. Larger farms have a better position for negotiating prices at
the purchase side, and at the same time also at the selling side for price per volume
and reductions.
• Effects of (EU and national) political decisions and policy could vary largely
between countries.

For many reasons (such as farming goals, infra-structure, differences in costs

advantages, agricultural policy etc) the agricultural sector shows less increase of scale
than some other sectors.

Effects of scale: The analysis of effects of scale is usually conducted using graphs of
average total costs (GTK), on both the short (GTKk) as the long term (GTKl), set
against the average value of the output (see Figure 13.2). Economically seen, a farm
has an optimal production size, when the average total costs per unit product (GTK)
are minimal. On the short term, the optimal production size of a farm is determined
by the short term costs graph. The available capacity of an enterprise is hence fixed,
so only variable inputs can be helpful in defining optimal production levels. That is
the point where the marginal costs are equal to the marginal income. The GTKk lines
represent the situation at different levels of fixed costs. According to the short term
vision, a farm has the optimal herd size when it is positioned at the lowest point of the
GTKk graph (Figure 13.2). Hence, at situation one (GTKk1) the Q×K is the optimal
herd size.
On the long term, the production capacity is indeed variable. When we draw a line
through all short term graphs at increasing herd sizes, then we can draw a long term
costs graph, given a certain level of prices and state of the art of technology. The
optimal herd size then can be found at that particular point, where at the lowest per
unit product production takes place on the long term. In Figure 13.2 this point is in
situation two, at an output of Q×L units.

The classical theory states that the GTK-graphs have a U-form shape like in
Figure 13.2. This means that from O to Q×L scale advantages occur at an increasing
herd size. However, further increasing herd sizes beyond the optimum lead to scale
disadvantages, for example caused by increasing transport costs, greater complexity,

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 225

Chapter 13

Costs per unit output

GTKk1 GTKk3

GTKk2 GTKL

O
Q×K Q×L Output

Figure 13.1. Optimal herd size on the short and long term (The output is given per time unit; K=
short term, L= long term).

or increasing costs for communication and coordination. In the modern theory the
vision prevails that at larger production volumes the scale advantages will compensate
or will be larger than the scale disadvantages. Therefore, the GTK graphs will be more
like a L-shape than a U-shape. The optimum scale can then not be defined because
profits still increase at increasing herd sizes.

Farm economic results at different herd sizes in Dutch dairy farming: In the Dutch dairy
sector, many farm economic data have been gathered. Some organisations present a
yearly review of farm economic parameters and such parameters are being compared
over the years. These data can be accessed through internet. There are, however, hardly
any data on large farms available. The results presented in this paragraph are based on
a simulation model especially developed for larger dairy farms (De Jong, 2006).

The model simulates four types of dairy farms, variable in herd size. The first farm
is a large family run farm; the other three are other, larger farms. A reference farm
is presented as well. The main difference between reference farm and other farms is
in the fact that young stock rearing takes place elsewhere and that production is not
associated with land on these larger farms. There are 6 main modules in the model
(income; feed; cattle health & breeding; manure; sustainable production resources;
labour). For each module, the costs and income are calculated based on inputs. For
that purpose, standards and guidelines for prices and technical issues have been taken
into account in each module. Details are given in Table 13.1.

Farm economic results of simulated dairy farms: Table 13.2 presents a summarising
total review of farm economic results of the different farms. As can be noticed, the

226 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

Table 13.1. Farm situation for reference farm, family farm and 3 simulation farms.

Simulation Dairy Farms

Reference Family Large 1 Large 2 Large 3

Milking cows (n) 112 112 500 1,000 2,000

Young stock (n) 66 0 0 0 0
Surface of land (ha) 66.5 1.5 4.5 8 14
Milk quota (kg) 909,540 889,328 4,264,544 8,673,300 17,710,000
Milk production (kg/cow) 8,150 8,150 9,095 9,315 9,625
Milk Fat % 4.37 4.40 4.22 4.19 4.14
Milk Protein % 3.48 3.50 3.46 3.61 3.37

Table 13.2. Results (in euros) per 100 kg milk, as derived from the simulation model.

Family farm Large 1 Large 2 Large 3

Number of cows 112 500 1,000 2,000

Results per 100 kg milk (including milk quota costs)

Net farm results 25.39- 17.69- 14.15- 12.63-
Income/costs ratio 57 65 71 73
Net cost price of milk 58.14 50.34 47.86 44.90
Labour income 17.93- 11.87- 9.23- 8.54-
Labour costs 7.47 5.82 4.92 4.09
Quota income 2.65- 4.13 7.52 8.77
Quota costs 22.75 21.82 21.66 21.40
Return on investment 20.51- 13.58- 10.17- 8.77-
Costs of interests 4.88 4.11 3.98 3.86
Results per 100 kg of milk (excluding milk quota costs)
Net farm result 2.65- 4.13 7.52 8.77
Income/costs ratio 93 114 128 136
Net cost price of milk 35.39 28.52 26.20 23.50
Labour income 4.82 9.95 12.44 12.87
Return on investment 2.23 8.24 11.50 12.64

net farm income becomes better (= less negative) when herd size increases. Based on
this Table 13.2 one can conclude that large scale dairy farming in The Netherlands
yields advantages.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 227

Chapter 13

The costs per 100 kg milk on the three Large farms are substantially lower than on the
family farm. Although the fixed costs and variable costs both decrease at increasing
herd size, it are predominantly the fixed costs which represent the proportionally
largest share in this scale advantage. In the total income per 100 kg milk there are no
detectable scale effects.

Due to a lack of data about costs for veterinary services and animal health care, these
have been set at a normative standard of 80 eurocents per 100 kg milk (= 8000 euro
per 1 million kg milk). Hence, there are no scale advantages for animal health. In the
real world, however, such advantages can be expected. Certainly when veterinary
farm advisory programmes are in place such advantages can be expected, for example,
because performance analysis can be performed through parameters independent of
herd size.

Regarding veterinary advice mainly the variable costs are relevant. These are given
in Table 13.3. Overall, scale effects are detectable within these variable costs too.
Important areas within the variable costs for achieving advantages refer to feed costs
and other costs. The decrease of feed costs at increasing herd size is caused by the
higher milk production per cow. The fact that Large farm 2 shows higher feed costs is
caused by the milk fat and milk protein figures on this farm.

Large farm 2 realises high milk protein figures as compared to the other large farms;
this strongly increases the protein demands in the ration. Because feed protein is
expensive, this Large farm 2 shows higher feed costs.

Table 13.3. Variable costs per 100 kg milk for the different simulation farms (in Euro).

Family farm Large 1 Large 2 Large 3

Number of cows 112 500 1,000 2,000

Variable costs per 100 kg milk

Feed costs
Roughage 6.50 6.08 6.03 5.88
Concentrates 5.23 4.98 5.01 4.91
Other feed costs 0.05- 0.07 0.26 0.07
Total feed costs 11.69 11.14 11.30 10.86
Animal health and breeding 1.70 1.53 1.51 1.49
Manure deliveries 1.94 1.95 1.96 1.96
Other costs 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00
Total variable costs 21.33 19.62 18.77 17.31

228 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

13.3.7. Awareness and attitude

The entrepreneur-like dairy farmer is open for criticism and advises. Preferably such
advises from reliable, trustful specialists are for free. This farmer visits congresses
and seminars, uses internet, and has many informal contacts in his network and the
latter are specifically useful to obtain the advice he is looking for. We should not
underestimate the impact on these farmers of internet and globalisation of the dairy
industry. A farm strategy is determined on the basis of, for example, contacts abroad
and nationally, extension people, nutritionists, banking people, fiscalists, constructors,
technological developments, field trials. Often these entrepreneur-like farmers
have positions in the board of agricultural organisations, know many people from
mechanisation companies, a feed mill, or are members of an association of people
with equal vision or with comparable positions in society. Often they keep themselves
a mirror: is this truly the right direction for my business? Is this truly the best solution
for my farm problem or farm? Is this decision advantageous to my farm?

On the basis of selected, tailor-made solutions provided by specialists they pass

the decision-making process which is largely based on economics. They determine
themselves whether feasibility is guaranteed in such advice. If not, then your input as
a farm advisor will be less impacting. They also determine whether an advice fits in
the long term strategy of the farm. If they decide that the economic benefits from the
advice are great, they tend to assign a lower priority to issues like practical feasibility
and the long term strategy. If, for an acute problem, an instant solution cannot be
found or given, then they will actively look for someone who could give the solution,
from where-ever; they are prepared to pay for that. If such a person cannot be found
or does not exist, then he will try something on his own.

Advises from the veterinarian (variable costs) are handled differently than advice
related to e.g. purchasing a tractor. This difference is caused by perception of the
farmer whether fixed costs or variable costs are involved. Too often the veterinarian
is considered a costs factor, while purchasing a tractor is considered an investment.
Costs of animal health care (comprising claw trimmer, animal identification people,
veterinarian) are set at 1 to 1½ eurocent per kg milk. It is a pity that curative veterinary
costs (= variable costs) are not separated from veterinary advisory costs (= investment;
fixed costs) in farm accountants reports.

It is up to the farm advisor to demonstrate to the farmer that what is offered to the
farmer is of interest to him and his enterprise. The expected benefit must be large so
that the farmer includes this advisor in his team and pays for his activities. As stated
before, there must be a positive ‘chemistry of interaction’ between farmer and advisor
(van Dellen, 2004).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 229

Chapter 13

13.3.8. Behavioural economics

Low (outside) temperatures feel truly cold when you are used to warm (room)
temperatures. But the same cold temperatures feel much less cold when you are used
to them!

How much are you willing to pay to retain your voting right? And, how much money
would you like to receive to refrain from voting? Usually, the amount for the first will
be much lower than the amount for the second situation!

Why is a certain dairy farmer willing to pay his veterinarian for the treatment and
advice to recover from a series of clinical mastitis cases, but is the same farmer quite
reluctant to pay for a preventive udder health control programme that the veterinarian
offers him afterwards?

This phenomenon refers to choice behaviour; with decision-making under uncertainty,

and with preferences. During the decision-making process both rational and non-
rational arguments come into the picture. The choice behaviour of people is namely
influenced by:
• perceptions;
• impressions;
• emotions;
• attitude;
• motives;
• preferences.

People are more sensitive to how their current situation differs from a certain point
of reference than to absolute features of that situation (see for example the mastitis
problem versus the udder health control programme). People prefer a status quo
rather than changes which possibly may lead to a loss of goods or money, even when
those losses might be compensated for on the longer term (see again the mastitis
problem versus the udder health control programme; the latter would decrease
mastitis occurrence but would also increase milk yield).

This all refers to the Behavioural Decision Theory by Tversky and Kahnemann (1971,
1974) and Rabin (1998). We have to deal with the elements presented above when
we want to ‘sell’ one or more components of our veterinary advisory programme
to farmers. Knowledge about these forenamed 6 features and utilising them in
our discussions with the farmer will help us in better marketing of our advisory
programme.

230 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

13.4. The cattle veterinarian: a strengths and weaknesses assessment

In this chapter we give a telegram-style summary of the strong and the weak points
regarding cattle veterinarians like could be collected in the field. The following strong
points for cattle veterinarians were considered:
• his relationship with farmers is based on trust;
• such a relationship is hard to break down;
• he has knowledge about health and disease;
• he has actual knowledge about reproductive affairs;
• he prevents a large proportion of disease losses;
• one can always reach him; he is always available;
• the veterinary training is highly esteemed;
• it is a protected, professional association, no loose persons.

The following weak points for cattle veterinarians were listed:

• his attitude is much too dominant in general, professionally in particular;
• he talks too much and listens too little (poor communication);
• he does not work according to structured protocols; his advice is not structured;
he does not provide clear working instructions;
• he has limited knowledge about cattle nutrition and related issues;
• he has limited knowledge about managerial affairs;
• he has limited knowledge about dairy farm economics;
• he has little to no knowledge about entrepreneurship and organisational matters
on the dairy farm;
• he has the public image of being too expensive (i.e. related to medicines);
• he tells his clients insufficiently about his fields of expertise or knowledge (no
marketing knowledge);
• he does not indicate what he could contribute to the dairy farm;
• he is little pro-active and hence too much in waiting (next to the telephone);
• he does not offer on-site training to farm workers;
• there are too many personnel changes in the veterinary practice which may hamper
the establishment of trustworthy relationships;
• he is (maybe) not willing to invest in discussions with the farmer; he shows little
empathy.

With the forenamed information from other paragraphs and the current information
in this section we are now able to consider what needs to be changed or improved in
cattle veterinarians in order to become a full discussion partner (and from thereon
an advisory partner) to the entrepreneur-like dairy farmer. Subsequently, we will try
to indicate how this can be achieved.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 231

Chapter 13

13.5. Points of improvement for the cattle veterinarian

The trend in the dairy sector is towards scale increase (see also above). The question
is whether the veterinary service should be adapted to this development. How can a
cattle veterinarian market his technical knowledge and skills at herd level to the larger
dairy farms, to the entrepreneur-like farmers? It is important to retain the strong
points and improve the weak points (section 13.4).

The design of a general veterinary practice business plan for the short term (1 year) and
the longer term (3 to 5 years) is a first must. It provides all practice workers with clarity
about direction and strategy of the veterinary practice. An advantage of a written
business plan is that emotions are shifted to backstage and therefore the plan becomes
more rational. Moreover, a written business plan is easier to discuss with third parties,
like advisors. What are exact targets; what is the methodology to achieve these targets;
when should it all take place; who is responsible for what actions; which tactics would
be best; is every veterinarian in the practice committed to the plan? These are all
questions to discuss and to consider among the veterinarians and other workers in the
practice; agreement should be reached. Several organisations can assist the veterinary
practices by providing tools and support for designing practice business plans.

Maximising the rate of success of this business plan can be stimulated by activating
and acting along the following 7 steps:
1. Optimise the internal communication in the practice. This step is paramount
before other steps to avoid problems down the line. External coaching can be
sought to tackle this problem.
2. Conduct a market analysis among clients asking for their wishes and needs
(SWOT, segmentation of clients, empathy, analysis of existing needs and needs to
be created). Formulation of specific (tailor-made) products or services for specific
client groups (Eelkman-Rooda, 2006).
3. Design of a Plan of Action for the shorter and the longer term (what to do, how
to do it, who is responsible for execution, what should when be delivered, how to
evaluate?). Such a Plan should be designed in a SMART way (= specific-measurable-
acceptable-realistic-time-related). Be aware of the fact that for new products and
services there must be a demand developed, which takes several farm visits and
discussion rounds! It could be a good investment to – after initial talks – perform
a SWA assessment of the farm performance together with the farmer for free!
Discuss the outcome of this SWA together with the farmer: is there agreement;
where are priorities and why; does the farmer like to take action?
4. Internal and mutual practice training regarding the methodology to raise the
proper questions (= not yes/no answer questions), to listen actively, to summarise
discussions, to control the progress of discussion. Veterinarians commonly deliver

232 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

solutions for a problem which the farmer does not see (yet) or has not adopted.
This issue is highly crucial in veterinary practices!
5. Suppressing the (expression of available) technical knowledge of the veterinarian
towards others.
6. Investment in developing social communicative skills and marketing qualities,
for example through trainings and courses, often outside the veterinary sector
(Eelkman-Rhooda, 2006).
7. Optimise external communication through analysis of demands of client groups;
development and PR of new demands. Invest in adequate oral and written
communication. Increase the number of contact moments with the farmers
and put regularity in it (study groups, seminars, farm visits, telephone calls, e-
mails, etc.). Raising guided questions to make the farmer detect for himself that
something might be or become a problem for him is most probably a greater art
than providing solutions!

In order to realise this, there are several pre-conditions to consider:

• Operational matters, like dehorning of young calves or claw trimming, must be
separated from the advisory visits; make new appointments to deal with those
curative or clinical handlings.
• Be clear to the farmer about the activities you are dealing with: when are you busy
with advisory work and when with curative work.
• Switch your mobile phone off as soon as you start making your farm visit. It is quite
denigrating for a farmer to find out that obviously the person at the other end of
the telephone line is more important than he is!

It appears that a new structure must be developed for the declaration of costs and
fees for veterinary advisory activities. This would open the opportunity to distinguish
between curative costs (e.g. sick cows) and advisory costs. Moreover, it can then
be made clear how advisory costs are built up per product or service, or groups of
products and services, with or without price reduction, with or without declaration
of hours spent on a certain problem analysis or consultation of other specialists at the
practice office.

To shift the perception of veterinary costs from variable costs into investment costs
(fixed costs) we may think about subscriptions for veterinary products and services.
This product may comprise several components, depending on the needs, wishes
and perceptions of the dairy farmer (see also the section above on behavioural
economics).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 233

Chapter 13

13.6. Options to define and to market advisory products

13.6.1. General issues

The veterinarian who wants to function as a farm advisor or coach should be able to
understand entrepreneurship, be a full discussion partner, be able to conduct proper
analyses, be an authority at the same time, be skilled to make people do something,
and be commercially educated. He should adopt the principles of marketing (Walker,
1990).

Marketing by the veterinarian comprises the following elements:

• improvement of social communicative skills through methodology of raising the
right questions in the proper way, discussion techniques;
• acquire insight in obtaining qualities in non-veterinary areas;
• address marketing in a more technical way (marketing plan);
• application of the forenamed in daily practice and field;
• increase creativity of the veterinarian;
• conduct a regular analysis of needs and wishes of client (groups);
• develop new demands in clients.

The results of these action points should be that at the same time the position of
the veterinarian and the pleasure in his work improves. More opportunities become
visible and are being dealt with.

Know where you stand in the sector as a veterinarian and veterinary practice! The
dairy chain is a complex one, more complex than other chains; there are many links.
From the producer of the raw product up to the consumer there are many players in
the field. For an optimal service to the entrepreneur-like dairy farmer, it is of utmost
importance that the veterinarian has knowledge of and working contacts with these
players to market his products and services. The power of such cooperation in the
sector will provide a better result for every player.

13.6.2. Choices of veterinary practices regarding their products and services

Veterinary practices usually have various products and services. Each practice should
ask itself regularly whether the current products and services still meet the demands
of their clients, and whether these still fit in the business plan of the practice. Next to
profits and margins, there are also other considerations, like emotions, investments,
strategy, long term expectations etc which play a role in decision-making about
continuing a service or product or stop it.

Figure 13.3 schematically represents the position of the services of an example

veterinary practice or veterinarian. For each veterinary practice the considerations in

234 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

Margin

Sleepers Winners
Low turn-over High turn-over
High margin High margin

Turn over

Loosers Shortcomings
Low turn-over High turn-over
Low margin Low margin

Figure 13.3. Positioning quadrant for veterinary products and services.

each quadrant will be different and unique! What could be a ‘winner product’ could
be a ‘looser’ in another practice which should be stopped. For example, a companion
animal urgency clinic. The reason of existence for this clinic is the number of acute
patients with urgency. In comparison, there are several other companion animal
clinics in this city which have considered the treatment of acute urgency cases as
loosing on the job and have deleted this service from their clinic.

Other examples of considerations about sleepers, winners, loosers and shortcomings

could be:
• Sleepers: the treatment of subclinical mastitis in full lactation.
• Winners: veterinary advice on reproductive performance.
• Loosers: treatment of urgent acute cases like milk fever.
• Shortcomings: general veterinary medicines.

Suggestion: Take Figure 13.3 and list for yourself or your practice in which quadrant the
different products and services could be positioned.

In addition to the forenamed ‘classical’ examples there are other, more modern
products and services in a bovine veterinary practice, for example:

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 235

Chapter 13

• Design and delivery of a farm-specific Hygiene-protocol.

• Design and delivery of farm-specific protocols in the area of infectious diseases
(Biosecurity Plans, BAMN 2001), udder health, claw health, replacement rearing.
These commonly comply with rules set for Good Agricultural codes of Practice as
laid down by the FAO (2003).
• Design, implementation and support of Quality Risk Management programmes
on a dairy farm (SWOT assessments; HACCP-like programmes, Noordhuizen and
Welpelo, 1996; Lievaart et al., 2005; www.vacqa-international.com).
• Design and execution of certain on-site training programmes for farm-workers.

For practice management it is important to realise that products and services have
a certain level of elasticity. An example of an elastic product is a flight: the more the
price decrease, the more demand there will be. An example of an inelastic product is
open heart surgery: irrespective of the price, the supply and demand will be same. The
products and services that you want to offer as a veterinarian can be distinguished in
the same manner; price policy could be adapted to this picture.

Using segmentation of products and services which the veterinary practice is marketing
you can design a practice business plan, in which the accompanying strategy and
tactics are comprised. In this way we can plan and execute the activities and profits,
and are we directing our own business.

We have to realise that several forces are active in and around our practice. Among
these forces are forces from society (e.g. public aversion against bio-industry; public
demands for better animal welfare), technological factors (automatic milking systems)
and regulatory issues (e.g. laws; EU directives and regulations; quality assurance
demands). The veterinarian cannot influence such factors, but he is confronted with
them and should develop an opinion about them. In time anticipation on such issues
and changes is a good strategy in general.

An analysis of environmental conditions such as named above is crucial to a veterinary

practice: know where you stand and stand for. But also: know what you can perform
and what not; show that also to your clients. Keep a close eye on developments in
the market in the broadest sense, and weigh whether or not you have to follow such
developments, and what consequences of such a choice would be for the veterinary
practice in the shorter and longer term. Such an analysis is useful too for defining
management activities in the practice appropriately. The latter will be addressed in
the following paragraphs.

236 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

13.6.3. The veterinary practice as an enterprise

The veterinary practice is a commercial business due to the fact that the veterinarians
function as independent people in a certain branch or sector, for own account and
own risk = entrepreneur)

Next to veterinary technical aspects, the current veterinary practice can be characterised
by many managerial issues. Practice management here means the conducting and
governing of the practice. Preconditions for such management are that:
• there must be strategic insight into the practice (possibly hired from outside);
• there is a good network of contacts with the outside world;
• coaching of all co-workers can be done;
• feed back can be given to co-workers in the proper way;
• there is knowledge and experience regarding conflict handling;
• communication takes place at a high quality level.

Furthermore, for a proper execution of management tasks the veterinary practice

must formulate answers to the following questions:
• What tasks and activities must be assigned to the management?
• What would be the benefits of these to the practice?
• Which knowledge, skills and attitude are needed for the execution of these tasks
and activities?
• What is the time-consumption of these and is this considered worthwhile?
• Who wants and will perform what tasks in this context?
• How can you create the right teamwork? (TEAM= Together Each Achieves More)

Management of a veterinary practice regards 4 main areas, which are interrelated

(see Figure 13.4). One element of personnel management regards, for example, the
question how the continuing education plan for veterinarians must be organised for
the coming 3 to 5 years, taking into account the gaps in the current organisation
regarding:

production personnel

finances commercial

Figure 13.4. The four interrelated areas of a veterinary practice.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 237

Chapter 13

• personnel selection and hiring;

• personal development plans;
• planning of careers;
• needs for continuing education → who needs to go to what course when and why;
and how are these needs and courses to be made complementary!
It is useless when all veterinarians in the practice would follow the same courses
(unless these are compulsory). It is much more cost-effective to make a whole
practice planning meeting the needs and demands of the practice, and – if possible
– preferably but not necessarily meeting the interests of the individuals. This implies
that a certain differentiation must be planned: one will focus more on udder health
and milk harvesting, while the other will focus more on infectious diseases, and again
an other on communication and marketing. Such a differentiation will be beneficial
to the clients but also to the practice and the individual veterinarians.

13.6.4. Marketing in more detail

Marketing should focus on both internal practice and external affairs. Internal
marketing addresses efficient team-work; in the previous paragraph this has been
discussed. External marketing should only be started once the internal marketing
process was passed successfully. If not, then the results of external marketing will in
general be poor and very de-motivating for those who took the initiative. In external
marketing the following components are considered:
• Identify the different client target groups.
• Define the composition of the package of instruments by which clients are
approached (products/services; distribution means; communication; process).
• Determination of the marketing goals (turn-over; profits; market-share).
• Definition of the services to be delivered (nature; customers; tailor-made packages;
modus operandi).
• Conduct of a SWA analysis of clients’ farms.

Target groups can be characterised on the basis of socio-economic factors (age, income
level, education level, profession, status, professional objectives), geographic features
(region, climate, land), psychological aspects (spontaneity, creativity, feel of honour,
social status) and of features related to purchasing behaviour (brands, sensitive to
prices and service, motivations for demanding products and services). These issues
can be put into profiles.

Marketing of services is determined by the nature of such services (e.g. veterinary

advisory programmes for supporting herd health management on dairy farms or for
supporting Quality Risk Management on dairy farms), the fact that this should be
based on a continuity in the relationship with the clients, and that these services must
be tailor-made to client needs or needs to be developed. In other words, such services

238 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

must have added value for the client. Participation of the client in such services is
not always decided on rational grounds (see the section on behavioural economics).
A dairy farmer will in general be more and earlier motivated to participate in such
a service when he is encountering problems; and then he is willing to pay for such
services; often we have seen that these farmers are less willing to pay for services to
prevent such problems. On the other hand, we observe more and more that dairy
farmers are willing to pay for screening services, that is, when there are no overt
problems on the farm and farmers want to have a continuous programme of second
opinion and monitoring of animals and farm conditions to execute this second
opinion (Noordhuizen, 2006).

Through full empathy of the veterinarian in the true problem of the farmer, the
veterinarian is able to change his public image from the (variable) cost component
to the investment component (problem solver; advisor/coach), once the spontaneous
contact moments have been passed. Through intensification of contact moments with
the entrepreneur-like farmers and showing empathy, the relationship and interactions
with these farmers will improve; price of the veterinarian’s service or products then
comes no longer on the first place!!

It is very sensible to design a marketing plan using the forenamed points of attention.
Below the goals of such a marketing plan are presented, and we will address several
components from the so-called marketing mix. There are many websites, books and
courses available on the issue of marketing; therefore, we will not elaborate in full
detail on these issues.

The goals of a marketing plan are to define:

• The overall strategy (what to be done?) for the next year and 5 years.
• The tactics (how should it be done?) should accompany this strategy.
• Task distributions (who should do what?).
• Evaluation and adjustment each quarter of the year.
• Evaluation of the goals (have goals been achieved?).

The marketing mix (= the 4 P) refers to the tactics:

• Position
–– where in the market do we stand as a veterinary practice;
–– where are we heading for in the coming 1 to 5 years;
–– how do we want that the clients consider us.
• Promotion
–– sum of the planned activities in the coming year.
• Personnel
–– who is performing which task and when.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 239

Chapter 13

• Price
–– the benefits for performances conducted (product/service) adapted to the
internal and external conditions.

The design of the marketing plan for the shorter (1 year) and the longer (5 years) term
provides all co-workers in the practice with clarity about direction and strategy which
will be followed. It also comprises who will do what and when and how.

13.6.5. Communicative skills

This is not the easy talking, but rather comprises elements related to internal and
external communication like:
• acquiring skills in techniques to raise the proper questions (not questions leading
to yes/no answers);
• discussion and meeting techniques;
• skills to handle conflicts;
• the ability to listen carefully to others;
• coaching of co-workers;
• appropriate non-verbal communication and attitude.

We are encountering these elements when we talk business with the dairy farmer
in order to detect what he is expecting from the practice and what our added value
could be for him (analysis of demands). When we could detect that, we would be
able to define a product/service which suits him because it meets his demands,
goals and expectations. In that case we are able to charge him for all costs regarding
our activities. The message must, however, first be communicated internally on the
practice (internal communication) before we communicate it with him (external
communication). Communication is further elaborated in Chapter 14.

Each human being is sensitive to one or more particular needs. The American
psychologist Maslow has clustered the needs of human beings to 8 primary needs of
people:
• Looking for security Not looking for risks
• Togetherness Following trends
• Ease and comfort Handy and clever
• Progress Technological improvements
• Innovation Trend-setting
• Delight Joy of labour
• Exclusiveness Seeking prestige
• Gaining advantage Profits/money

240 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

When you like to proceed with the communication message as effectively as possible,
then it can be advised to investigate for which primary needs your communication-
partner or customer is sensitive. Most clients in a veterinary practice are treated
similarly, independent of their individual needs. If you want to achieve a maximum
number of satisfied clients in your practice, then you should investigate the individual
needs of each individual client.

13.6.6. Communication with the client

What happens in the subconscious mind of your client during the communication
process? By using the AIDA formula you are able to measure where the client is
positioned in the communication process. The AIDA formula:

A = attention ⇒ develop the client’s attention for the product/service.

I = interest ⇒ develop interest so the client wants to know more about it.
D = desire ⇒ there is a strong desire to choose the product/service.
A = action ⇒ the client indeed takes the product or service.

Depending on the nature of a product or service, we can distinguish simple and

complex communication. In more complex communication it often happens that the
application of the AIDA formula needs several contact moments. Then it becomes
paramount to realise where in AIDA you have left the communication the last visit;
only then the proceeding in the process is guaranteed. An example of a complex
communication regards the marketing of veterinary advisory programmes. It usually
does not yield results in one discussion; more preparatory visits are needed. And
when you want to expand such programmes in the field, you will need a thoroughly
prepared plan and a good monitoring of the proceeding in the communication
process in order to achieve the goals set. The too early offering of a solution (e.g. the
advisory programme) during the communication process leads to a poor result and
poor feeling at both sides.

Leading a meeting; meeting techniques; presentations before groups; handling conflicts;

analysis of needs among farmers; advisory & coaching; approaching market demands...

All these topics are addressed in many [short duration] courses which are given by
professional organisations yearly. Therefore, they will not be further elaborated in this
context.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 241

Chapter 13

13.7. Conclusions and recommendations

In the previous paragraphs we have first given an overview of characteristics, demands,

wishes and expectations of entrepreneur-like dairy farmers. Then we have looked to
the current strong and weak points of cattle veterinarians (section 13.4). Finally, we
have addressed the question how both sides could be matched properly, and where the
veterinarian – if applicable – should fill the gaps in his knowledge, skills and abilities
needed for such matching.

In the following Figure 13.5 we have – as a summary – created two schematic listings of
characteristics of both the entrepreneur-like farmer and the veterinarian respectively.
In between there are some examples of course and training elements which could help
bridging the gap between the entrepreneur-like farmers and the veterinarians.

Each individual cattle veterinarian should consider for himself, what his current
position is in the dairy sector and which position he likes to take, what he must invest,
with what priority and in which manner, in order to be sufficiently able to create this
named bridging. It cannot be done here for all veterinarians at the same time; the
differences between veterinarians in that respect are much too large. Therefore, we
are forced to present a more general approach. In Box 13.1 is a Plan of Action with
5 elementary steps to convert the classical curative or herd health practitioner to a
veterinary advisor/coach.

The advising/coaching veterinarian must realise that he enters a demand-market and

no longer deals with a supply-market, as far as entrepreneur-like dairy farmers and
farmers from large (family-run) dairy farms are concerned. A proper price-quality
ratio of the services and products provided by the veterinarian on request by the
farmer is a contributory factor to the overall success.

242 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

Features of entrepreneur-like farmer Features of veterinary advisor/coach

* is innovative * understands entrepreneurship

* finds new options to make profit * has empathy for farmer
* is critical and risk-taking * is technically well-skilled
* provides capital * strong in communication
* induces changes * invests in many contact moments
* makes decisions on technical for discussion and negotiation
considerations * handles marketing principles
* stimulates processes to create new * has a practice business plan
values * knows behavioural economic
* highly socio-communicative principles of decision-making
* is a planner * is analytically very skilled
* has many connections (network) * is strong in choice of products and
* is able to achieve multiple goals services
* has many ideas * has a commercial attitude
* is fond of action * shows great creativity
* is inspiring * separates advisory work from
* accept hardly boundaries of veterinary technical handlings
structures * attends continuing education
* is a team-player courses (e.g. nutrition; economics;
* is critical towards advice management)
* has a non-dominant attitude
* defines tailor-made products and
services
Course on * is able to shift advisory work as a
conflict handling variable cost component to a fixed
cost component (investment)
Course on
communication

Course on
marketing and
management

Example of some courses for and investments by the veterinarian in order to

facilitate the matching between the entrepreneur-like dairy farmer and the
advising cattle veterinarian

Figure 13.5. Schematic representation of characteristics of both entrepreneur-like dairy farmers

and veterinarians, as well as means to bridge the gap between them.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 243

Chapter 13

Box 13.1. Plan of Action (5 steps) to convert yourself from a curative or solely herd
health veterinarian to a veterinary advisor/coach:

Step 1
You first conduct a self-evaluation using the SWA lists from section 13.2.3. What are your
strong and what are your weak points?
Next, you make an inventory about the extent to which you are adequately familiar with the
features of an entrepreneur-like dairy farmer.
Using these outcomes you can determine in which areas you need to follow continuing
professional education courses (see also the Table at the end of the document). It seems
quite obvious that the first, general courses will be in the areas of communication; conflict
handling; marketing, organisation & management.
Step 2
Start with following the courses as determined under [1]. Subsequently, try to practice the
issues learned from these courses as much as possible on a – previously selected – dairy
farm of which the farmer has earlier stated that he is willing to cooperate in your new
strategy and to serve as your sparring-partner.
Step 3
Select a dairy farm where you could start with questioning the farmer about his enterprise-
strategy, goals, methods to achieve his goals, and furthermore, about his farming goals,
strong and weak points on the farm, and his needs and wishes regarding farm advice. Train
yourself in properly applying the AIDA technique on this selected farm (sparring partner).
Step 4
Again conduct a self-evaluation using the features named under ‘Features of a veterinary
advisor/coach’ in Figure 12.5 at the end of this chapter.
As long as there are too much elements lacking from your ‘profile’, you will be forced to
invest further in the development of your skills and knowledge. A too rapid and too early
start with implementation of advisory activities will only yield negative results.
Step 5
When the previously named steps have been passed with good result (that is, when
deficiencies have been tackled sufficiently), only then you can make a start with the
implementation of your advisory/coaching work in practice. This means that you have
to search for farmers who are suitable for marketing your advisory products. After this
selection you can start with the advisory/coaching track which is addressed in the
document. When you have succeeded to bind a few farmers to you as a client of your
advisory practice in a sustainable way, only then the track is successful. If not, then you have
to make one or a few steps backward in the plan of action named above, and restart from
there.

244 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

Annex 13A. An example of parameters on farm economics as handled by EDF

Reasons for differences in Costs and Returns – EDF Analysis 2003

(Values in euros without VAT)

Dairy Farm X EDF average

(158 farms)

Farm data
No. cows 139 133
Milk output (FCM/year) 1,151 1,013
Returns from dairy 93% 92%
Growth of own quota 68% 67%
Percentage of quota rented 0 5
Feeding system
Forage area (ha) 93 99
Grassland (% of forage area) 50 60
Land rented (% of forage area) 62 43
Grazing or 100% indoor G -
Grass intake (kg/day) 40.6 34.1
Corn silage intake (kg/day) 25.0 19.5
Concentrate intake (kg/day) 5.6 6.0
Concentrate intake (tons/cow/year) 1.55 2.30
Milk out of non-concentrate feed (kg FCM/year) 5,162 3,231
Prices
Milk price (per kg FCM) 33.1 31.7
Cull cow price (per kg) 0.5 0.7
Male calf price (per animal) 84 119
Land rents (per ha) 440 311
Quota purchase price (per kg) 17.0 13.9
Quota rent price (per kg) - 0.08
Concentrate price (per ton) 160 190
Productivity
Labour productivity (KG FCM/h) 218 162
Land productivity (tons FCM/ha) 12.4 19.9
Capital productivity (kg FCM/1000 euro) 1,760 1,976
Capital input (per cow) 4,701 4,617
Milk yield 8,271 7,832
Fat content % 4.5 4.1
Milk protein content % 3.5 3.3

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 245

Chapter 13

Dairy Farm X EDF average

(158 farms)

Herd management
First calving age (months) 24.0 26.3
Interval between calvings (days) 390 396
Average age of cows (years) 4.0 -
Culling rate dairy cows 31% 31%
Heifer production 105% 125%
Milking system (2 times; 3 times; robot) 2 times -

Reproduced by courtesy of EDF.

246 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy farmers regarding Quality Risk Management

Pasturing Dairy cows

Annex 13B. Example of an elaboration of
Feed harvesting
an organisational plan for calf
rearing
Feedstuffs in 3 steps in order to develop operational working
protocols
Grassland management Calves ***
****
General farm organisation with 3 major, mutually interactive, business units.
Pasturing Dairy cows
Feed harvesting
FeedstuffsPasturing Dairy cows
GrasslandFeed harvesting
management Calves ***
Feedstuffs
****
Grassland management Calves ***
****
***
Millk Weaning &
Birth Colostrum replacer postweaning
management period
Young stock rearing can be further developed from
periodhere; for example,
period for the first few
months of life: **

***
Millk Weaning &
Birth *** Colostrum replacer postweaning
management period Millk Weaning &
Birth Colostrum period replacer period postweaning
management **
period period period
**
Subsequently, the colostrum period can be further defined:

**

Collection of Storage of Preparation Colostrum

colostrum colostrum of feeding to calf
colostrum

**

Collection
** of Storage of Preparation Colostrum
Define the operational management
colostrum colostrum activities
of for each component
feeding toof
calfthe series
Collection of Storage of colostrumPreparation Colostrum
above: colostrum colostrum of feeding to calf
1. define the goals for colostrums collection (quality;colostrum
quantity; hygiene);
2. determine which activities must take place (what; how; with what; who);
3. set the critical management points for [2];
4. define how evaluation of [2] and [3] take place (technical parameters);
5. define what to do if adjustments are needed (other methodology).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 247

Chapter 14. C
 ommunication in the veterinary advisory practice:
practical application of behavioural economics and
communication skills6

14.1. Introduction

In veterinary advisory practice, everyone knows what he/she is talking about – at

least that is what we like to think. Both the veterinarian and farmer are dealing with
a problem, they are discussing options, come to a solution and finally into action.
Throughout the process we are result-driven, stick to the facts and focus on the
problem – so we like to think.

While talking about the veterinary advice like this, one soon realises that dealing with
a veterinary management problem is not as rational, technical and result-driven as it
may sound.

When it comes to consultation in herd health programmes and in Quality Risk

Management, the process is inevitably influenced by the experiences of all persons
involved, their perception, their preferences and, not the least, their attitudes towards
each other. Therefore, one should realise that the actual problem of a consultation,
e.g. mastitis, a fertility or quality-related problem, is just one aspect the veterinarian
has to deal with. He/she should be aware that talking about this issue, implies talking
about other issues as well. Apart from the content, it is therefore paramount for the
veterinarian to familiarise himself with some basic skills of the mechanism of the
consultation process – with communication.

‘You cannot not communicate’ is probably one of the most famous statements on
communication, made by the Austrian psychologist Paul Watzlawick. Every situation
in which people act together inevitably involves communication; it may be consciously
or, to an even larger extent, subconsciously.

As the farming industry gets more complex, and as farmers increasingly have to
seek advice from experts, the veterinarian has to prepare himself to compete in this
changing market. Communication is to be seen as a tool in this competition, and how
to use this tool successfully is easy to understand. Everyone is always communicating.
Communication is about using techniques and tricks, realising and making conscious
what one is doing unconsciously all the time.

6 This chapter is derived from the manuscript prepared by dr. Joachim Kleen, Glasgow Scotland,
UK.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 249

Chapter 14

But communication is more than this. Acquiring communication skills will enable
the veterinarian to work more efficiently and – hopefully – with more pleasure even
in difficult situations. Once we understand what makes communication difficult
or unproductive (e.g. the farmer does not adopt a proposed udder health & milk
quality control programme), we may find ways and develop techniques to change this.
Therefore, this chapter will not only deal with theoretical aspects of communication,
but will stress the practical issues involved.

It is important to consider communication skills as a basic, necessary competence

(Adams and Kurtz, 2006) rather than some psychological, theory-based witchcraft.

14.2. The meaning of communication

14.2.1. What does communication mean?

Communication is a widely used expression, derived from the Latin word communicare
which means not only ‘to communicate’, but also ‘to share’: Information is shared
between persons, and this information applies not only to the actual facts we talk
about and the things we want to say, but also to our attitude towards the persons we
talk to, the issues which are discussed and the circumstances of the specific situation.
In addition to the spoken words, we share information about the way we feel and
mutual body language. In turn we receive, if unconsciously, information from our
communication partner. Hence, the expression ‘a frisbee style of communication’ is
currently often used.

Everyone has experiences, sometimes rather unpleasant ones, with misunderstandings.

A question, casually asked without specific intention, may, for example, provoke an
unexpected reaction. Or, the answer given to a question may be considered inadequate
by the person asking. He or she may, in turn, react confused or even angry. We speak of
misunderstandings, say we did not mean it and eventually wonder what has happened.
We may even speak of an ‘error in communication’, trying to understand and explain
what happened. If we regard misunderstandings as an error in communication, we
ought to use our understanding of the communication process in order to interpret
and consequently alter the underlying processes.

14.2.2. Verbal and nonverbal communication

Interpersonal communication is generally divided into verbal and nonverbal
communication (Table 14.1). While the verbal communication is referred to as the
actual spoken message, nonverbal communication is transmitted through many
‘channels’, and is sent and received partly consciously, to a larger extent, however,
unconsciously. The mentioned channels of nonverbal communication consist of the

250 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Communication in the veterinary advisory practice

Table 14.1. Overview of relevant elements in communication.

Verbal communication
The actual technical contents of a written or spoken message
Non-verbal communication
Gestures and outer appearance
Facial expression and gaze
Body contact
Posture: expressing superiority, equal or inferiority
Paralinguistic signals: tone of voice, speed of speech, vocabulary

mechanisms often referred to as ‘body language’, these being gestures, facial expression,
posture and body contact.

Other elements of the body language include gaze, outer appearance and paralinguistic
signals. The term paralinguistic describes, broadly speaking, the manner in which words
are said and relates to voice, speed of talking or vocabulary used. The effectiveness
and importance of nonverbal signals could be demonstrated in an experiment. Here,
different messages verbally indicating superiority, equality or inferiority of the sender
were presented to test-persons using superior, equal or inferior nonverbal signals.
In result, the perception by the audience was largely dominated by the nonverbal
information. The audience would perceive any message as indicating superiority of
the sender if his nonverbal signals, e.g. eye contact and posture, suggested this (Argyle
et al., 1970). This does not only show the dominance of nonverbal communication
when it comes to perception of communication partners, but also the possibility of
deliberately influencing our nonverbal communication channels.

Communication means therefore sharing information via a number of channels and

in turn reacting to it. This process is inevitable and happens on different levels of our
consciousness. The larger part of this process is of nonverbal nature and may to a
certain extent be influenced and thus affect our communicational behaviour.

14.2.3. Communication in a medical environment

Some may ask whether it is indeed necessary to get involved with communication skills
in the context of dealing with veterinary herd health and Quality Risk Management.
As this chapter will show, the knowledge and use of these skills can help improve
performance and quality of work. In the field of companion animal medicine, the
advantage of learning and using communication skills has been widely recognised
(Kurtz, 2006). It will help in providing better care, improve clinical outcomes and

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 251

Chapter 14

strengthen the clinician-client interaction. The mechanisms of improving service by

consciously using communication skills, listed by Kurtz (2006), are:
• Ensuring interaction, not just transmission – The client gets involved in the
process.
• Reducing unnecessary uncertainty – Good communication skills help in asking
the right questions and giving the most useful answers.
• Requires planning and thinking in terms of outcomes.
• Demonstrates dynamism – useful as health is also a dynamic state.
• Follows a helical rather than a linear model – Clinician and client do interact.

Looking at these mechanisms, it is easily realised that learning and using communication
skills is also useful for the advisor in herd health and quality management: it applies
as well.

The Calgary Cambridge Guide for medical consultation provides a framework for
the planning and conducting of a medical consultation which may be valuable for
veterinary consultation too (Figure 14.1). While the structure of this consultation
process is evolving, also the relationship between clinician and client is built.
Therefore, while gathering information, the basis of clinician-client interaction is
improved continuously and helps in further conducting the consultation. Using this
framework in the course of a consultation in the herd health planning and Quality
Risk Management requires only little adaptation. It shows very clearly that gathering
information, planning and eventually taking action on a problem is not only dependant
on the structure of the whole process, but, to similar extent, also of the relationship
between vet and client. A function of this relationship is the communication between
the partners in the process.

Initiating the session

Gathering information
Providing Building the
structure Physical examination relationship

Explanation and planning

Closing the session

Figure 14.1. Framework for medical consultations and Calgary-Cambridge Guides (Kurtz,
2006).

252 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Communication in the veterinary advisory practice

14.3. Communication skills: an economic factor

The work of a veterinarian always includes working with people; they may be
colleagues, technicians or clients. It is obvious that interpersonal communication
plays an important role in the small animal sector, where the success of a practice may
to a large extent be dependant on the communication skills of the veterinarian (Mills,
1998). Veterinarians with good communication skills tend to be more successful and
less prone to stress (Brandt and Bateman, 2006).

The ability to communicate with a large animal client is, however, nevertheless of
utmost importance for the success of a farm animal practitioner as well. Small animal
practice involves decisions and communications relating to the emotions of the client;
in farm animal practice, on the other hand, economic decisions have to be discussed
and to be made, relating to resources and future of the farming enterprise.

In large animal practice the situation has dramatically changed over the last decades.
Especially dairy farming has become more complex and is to a greater extent being
dominated by economic considerations in a more and more competitive environment
(Brand et al., 1996). It has become increasingly difficult for farmers to be competent
and aware of recent trends and developments in their industry. Therefore, dairy
farmers are more likely to seek advice in areas like building, management, milking
hygiene and –technology, feeding, health care, fertility and farm-economics.

As we will see, veterinary consultation is not only about passing on information,

but also involves the decision making process of the farmer. This is not only driven
by actual facts. Moreover, the relationship between veterinarian and his client, then
dealing with each other, is not a consequence but rather the basis of a successful
collaboration. Only a veterinarian competent in interpersonal communication will be
able to advise successfully. Therefore, communication skills, having been recognised as
a basic clinical skill (Adams and Kurtz, 2006), are an instrument for economic success,
especially in a large animal practice. Acquiring and using communication skills have
therefore been described as an element of Good Veterinary Practice (RCVS, 2007).

14.4. Getting involved in the consultation process

14.4.1. Reluctance to get involved

Giving advice in areas of cattle farming is sometimes regarded as being unrewarding
and rather complex. It is important to understand that giving advice in the mentioned
areas is indeed a complex and time-consuming process.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 253

Chapter 14

Given the complexity of herd health or quality control problems, every consultation
requires a thorough history-taking process and analysis of the specific problem (see
also Chapter 2). Continuing education and purchase of special computer programmes
may be necessary in order to deliver best practice results. Decisions made will have a
considerable impact on the processes on farm and, in addition, regularly involve costs
for investments and other changes in management (see also Chapter 13). This process
therefore gets the veterinarian involved into the on-farm management. Consequently,
the veterinarian might feel he is taking over (at least partly) the responsibility for
the economic success of the farm. Some veterinarians, however, might feel this
engagement is not rewarded by the farmer and, moreover, may find it difficult to bill
for this service. They are therefore reluctant to get engaged.

It can be stated that a certain hesitation to provide services in the area of veterinary
consultation results from the reluctance to take over responsibility, the lack of
recognition by the farmer and the difficulty to produce an income from this process.

14.4.2. The internal communication and decision making process

When it comes to advice in dairy farming, dairy herd health and quality management,
the veterinarian is likely to be the first expert to be asked for advice. Here, the
veterinarian should consciously make a decision whether he is going to get engaged
or not and, consequently, leave the consultation to other competitors.

In order to be able to make this decision, the veterinarian should take his time to analyse
the situation, that is, to ask and answer questions. A SWOT-assessment (assessment
of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) of the practice gives information
about the products and services that can be best offered to the client (Cannas da Silva
et al., 2006; see also Chapter 2). Secondly, analysis of the client’s demands should lead
to the conclusion what the veterinarian is able to offer him in order to meet his goals.
Eventually it should be clear what added value to the farmer a consultation process in
herd health management or quality control would have to offer.

At this stage, it becomes important to realise what impact the prospect process
would have to the practice as a whole. Herd health management or quality control
consultation is likely to be a time-consuming process, especially in the beginning.
Therefore the internal communication within the veterinary practice has to deal with
the offers to the client, the charging for these services and the time the consultation is
likely to take. Only once these internal processes are completed (see also Chapter 13),
the external communication with the client is to follow (Figure 14.2).

254 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Communication in the veterinary advisory practice

Farmer or owner Veterinary practice Practice

strategy &
business
Farmer’s demand or Veterinarian plan.
problem Consent.

Farmer seeks advice or support from Other

veterinarian in a HHPM or QRM issue experts

Demands of Veterinarian assesses the

the farmer farm situation through a
discussion & a SWA

Farmer determines the

added value of the advisory
proposals.
The veterinarian accepts
playing the full advisory
role and providing added
value.

Mutual trust

Starting the advisory process

Decision- External Services

making communication products
process offered

HHPM programme QRM programme

Rational and also Non-

rational issues involved!

Figure 14.2. Schematic overview of subsequent steps in establishing an advisory plan, including
aspects of internal and external communication.

14.4.3. The external communication

Once a decision is made to get an advisory process started, it has to be communicated
to the farmer that a different stage of veterinary consultation is about to be entered.
Here, communication becomes important in order to reach an agreement for both

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 255

Chapter 14

parties. Only a mutual understanding about the implications of this agreement

(including the costs) will provide the foundation of every cooperation: Trust.

As the client is now being offered services and products, he also enters the process of
decision making. In the following, we are going to take a closer look at the elements
of this process and how the consulting veterinarian might influence this. Secondly, the
mechanisms of communicating this to the client are to be reviewed.

14.4.4. The decision making process

For the veterinarian having decided to get involved in a consultation process,
communication gets more important. The problem has to be identified, an action plan
to be developed and, finally, action to be taken. Herd health planning or Quality Risk
Management are likely to be thought of as being founded on rational and objective
considerations. However, the decisions to be made by the client, as well as the actions
to be proposed by the veterinarian are not solely based on rational judgements. Under
similar circumstances, dealing with similar problems may in fact produce different
outcomes and actions, for every decision is influenced by cognitive biases. Once it
comes to decisions and, consequently, investments, non-rational issues will play a
substantial role in the decision making process. These 6 issues are:

Perceptions Impressions Emotions Attitude Motives Preferences

These do all influence the decision making process, and we are generally not consciously
aware of the mechanisms. The consulting veterinarian should nevertheless be aware of
these processes and adjust his communication towards it. These principles are known
as ‘behavioural economics’ and form an area of research in current science, combining
psychology and economics (Camerer, 1999).

We may try to picture the process of decision making by using the so-called ‘AIDA-
formula’. AIDA as an acronym stands for:
• Attention – Is there something wrong? – Getting the farmer’s attention.
• Interest – Can something be done about it? – Technical knowledge and skills
veterinarian.
• Desire – I want to do it. – Expressed by the farmer.
• Action – We start doing it. – Farmer and veterinarian.

Using this formula, let us take a closer look at the behaviour of consultant and client
during the decision-making process that precedes any action eventually to be taken.

256 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Communication in the veterinary advisory practice

Attention: Before it comes to active herd health or Quality Risk Management planning,
the client has to be made aware of problems or, respectively, realise the extent of
problems he may be aware of. He has to see the need to change his system actively.
Whether taking action is felt as being necessary depends largely on the perception of
what is being ‘normal’ or not. The own experience, often made in decades of successful
farming, serves here as the most important reference to this client. Therefore, the view
on the current situation may be biased by a long-term problem, e.g. Staphylococcus
aureus mastitis which made SCC in the bulk milk creeping up rather slowly over a
long period of time. This ‘anchoring’ implies a certain tendency to stick to a certain
procedure or system which has been working for a long time.

An instrument for overcoming this may be the introduction of ‘benchmark-groups’ as

in the herd companion system of the British NMR (www.nmr.co.uk). Here, farmers
can compare their own performance in certain parameters like milk production,
milk quality or fertility with that of other farms. This comparison with other, similar
farming enterprises turns the subjective view on one’s own business into an objective
assessment of the status quo. The attention is focused on an actual, not yet recognised
problem and will help to interest the farmer in solutions offered. Another instrument
which may be useful regards the ‘farmers’ study groups’. Here, the veterinarian may
provide an opportunity to provide education and information, whereas farmers can
assess their status quo by exchanging experiences.

Interest: There are basically two options to draw a farmer’s attention: either on the
basis of a perceived farm problem, or on the basis of already existing veterinary work
on the farm (e.g. a HHPM programme, to be extended to a QRM programme).

I have gained the client’s attention to the problem. How do I interest him in my service?
The above mentioned assessment of strengths and weaknesses (SWA) is a key in the
planning of herd health management or Quality Risk Management, and may be used
to interest the farmer in the services offered. As described in the ‘attention’ paragraph,
overcoming the anchoring of a biased subjective view is the first step, done by analysis
of the positive and negative aspects (see Chapter 2).

Overcoming the intrinsic reluctance to change a habit is the step to follow.

Opportunities and threats must be presented by the veterinarian. When a specific
problem is already recognised, possible negative consequences should be discussed
e.g. losses due to reduced fertility due to a BVD infection. Once again, overcoming
the anchoring by explaining the example of peers using a vaccination programme will
create the interest and motivate the farmer ‘to do the right thing’.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 257

Chapter 14

Desire: As herd health management or Quality Risk Management consultation aims for
long-term planning and involvement, its benefit is felt differently than the investments
which are to be made in the short-term. It has been stated that people tend to feel
differently about ‘losses’ than about ‘gains’ (Bertrand et al., 2007). Generally speaking,
losses are perceived more severely than gains, leading to the tendency to take greater
risks and invest more to prevent or minimise a loss than would be invested to realise
gains. In the situation of herd health or Quality Risk Management, losses are often
hidden and to a certain point felt being less threatening by the farmer. Although
modern, risk-taking farmers nowadays tend to calculate on a ‘money per litre’ basis,
problems in management are often just realised when it comes to penalties e.g. from
the dairy industry or higher costs in treatment or replacement. Investments, on the
other hand, are felt instantly and it depends largely on the education of the farmer and
presentation (marketing) by the consultant, whether these investments are regarded
as an instant loss or rather as a commitment made for the prevention of future losses
(Bergevoet, 2005).

Communication should therefore aim to pointing out the current situation and current
losses rather than illustrating hypothetical future gains. The latter will not motivate in
the same way as the former. Tools for calculating the actual cost of disease are available
and can be used to demonstrate herd health management problems (Sibley, 2006).
Breaking the investment down to the mentioned ‘money per litre’ basis and comparing
them to actual losses will help in creating the necessary desire to get involved in a herd
health or Quality Risk Management process. Finally, the veterinarian has to present
his services and himself in an assuring, confidence-building manner. A farmer will
not participate in a HHPM or a QRM programme when he has doubts about the
veterinarian as a person and his skills. Therefore, next to veterinary technical skills,
also the appropriate use of non-verbal signals and the analysis of the relationship (see
below) should lead to a motivating, encouraging communication.

Action: Taking action as the last step in the consultation chain can involve many
different activities. This may be the purchase and use of a specific product, e.g. a
vaccination. It can also imply changes in management, like feeding or milking
routine. Starting to participate in a regular herd health or Quality Risk Management
programme together with the veterinarian, or beginning to use computer based
management programmes does also imply taking action.

Although it may seem the easiest part of the process, this step needs careful planning
and effective communication once interest and desire were achieved. Opening a
‘channel’ for action can facilitate the desired and necessary measures to be taken
(Bertrand et al., 2007).

258 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Communication in the veterinary advisory practice

What does this mean? We may interpret the client’s behaviour as a dualism. The
preference of the status quo and the reluctance to change a well-known system on the
one hand and the desire to try something new and unused on the other. A simple and
uncomplicated plan and a clear schedule from the consulting veterinarian will open a
channel for the action and aid the farmer in attempting to adopt a new management.
Inversely, the client may not succeed in adopting the changes, if he is left alone in
the early phase. Any problem arising here may block the channel for innovation and
further action is not taken.

As we will see, different personalities and situations require different approaches

depending on the relationship between veterinarian and farmer. A general rule is,
however, that compliance to a certain option is usually better if it has been developed
in a ‘participative’ discussion rather than being ‘imposed’ onto the client. Especially
risk-taking, entrepreneur-like farmers will rather comply with an approach based on
bilateral activity.

14.5. Different aspects of a message

Many theories dealing with and explaining communication are using a Sender –
Receiver model (the ‘Frisbee type’), the most basic way to illustrate the mechanism.
This model basically describes communication as a message being sent by a sender to
a second person who receives it, and, in turn, reacts to the sender, himself sending a
message now. Here it is important to remember that communication is a process of
mutual interaction and never one-way only.

In the early 1980s the German psychologist Friedemann Schulz von Thun (1981)
published a model on interpersonal communication called ‘The communication
square’ which has since been widely adapted (Figure 14.3). Here, coming from the

CONTENT
SELF-REVELATION

THE
APPEAL

MESSAGE

RELATIONSHIP

Figure 14.3. The Communication Square’ according to Schulz von Thun (1981).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 259

Chapter 14

basic sender-receiver model, the message itself is more closely studied. The model
describes 4 sites every message has, being content, appeal, self-revelation and relation
between actors.

An example illustrates this: a veterinarian is trying to approach the problem of high

SCC in a dairy herd. Analysing the hygiene on the farm, he may tell the farmer:

‘I suppose your cubicles are difficult to clean?’

Apart from the fact-side of the message which is:

‘Your cubicles are difficult to clean’,

The farmer may interpret this sentence in different ways. The veterinarian reveals a
part of his impression and opinion on the farm management. Having assessed the
problems on the farm, he has defined the cubicles being a major problem. The farmer,
who may or may not be aware of this problem, understands this self-revelation and
interprets the remark as:

‘I don’t like your cubicles. They look dirty to me’

The farmer has called the veterinarian because he wants advice on his herd management.
Being in this position, he is obviously expecting the veterinarian to offer him ways
out of his cell count problem and is waiting for guidance. He may therefore interpret
the remark as an appeal:

‘Change your cubicles or keep them cleaner’

Depending on the farmer’s experience and his awareness of the actual hygiene
situation on his farm, and depending on the way veterinarian and farmer are usually
dealing with each other, the interpretation of the sentence may be quite different from
the ones above:

‘I am in the position to judge on your management’

It becomes clear that each of the interpretations is clearly related to the situation
and that they are relating to each other as well. The reaction of the farmer may vary,
depending on the level he subconsciously prefers to understand. His answers on
different levels could be:

Answer to ‘Content’: ‘Yes, I’m struggling here’

260 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Communication in the veterinary advisory practice

Answer to ‘Self-Revelation’: ‘So you think they are dirty?’

Answer to ‘Appeal’: ‘It would cost me a lot of labour and money to change
it’
Answer to ‘Relationship’: ‘Would you please help me with my problem, not
arguing on my cowshed?’

It is obvious that the farmer’s reaction will be determined by how he sees the
veterinarian, how he sees himself and their mutual relationship – the fact that the
cubicles are indeed are suboptimal is of no higher relevance.

In a true partnership dominated by mutual trust, the answer to the sentence ‘I suppose
your cubicles are difficult to clean’ would probably be the first one, given on the ‘level of
fact’. It would lead to a discussion about how to improve a problem recognised by both
parties, as probably would the answers on the side of self-revelation and appeal.

However, what about the relationship-issue? In our example, the message received
and understood by the farmer – ‘I am in the position to judge your management’ – has
provoked an almost aggressive response. The farmer does not want to ‘argue’ with the
veterinarian, and does not feel his problem is taken seriously, at least not to the extent
he expects. Instead of going for the problem and thinking about a possible solution, the
veterinarian in this scenario now would have to think about the misunderstanding and
make it clear to the farmer that he in fact is determined to help him with his problem.
We will shortly see what factors contribute to this error in communication.

It can be stated that the veterinarian did not pay enough attention to his relationship
with his client, so that a rather overbearing message is sent. We could think of another
possibility to interpret the sentence ‘I suppose your cubicles are difficult to keep clean’:
A message corresponding with the expectations of the client could be:

‘I care for your problem’

This is probably what every farmer would expect his veterinarian to do: to care for
his problem. No matter what the response to this message would be, the process of
consulting on the problem can start.

14.6. The relationship between veterinarian and farmer

Having looked at the possible outcomes of a conversation, the question arises what
factors determine the course of a conversation during the consulting process. As shown,
the relationship between the persons involved may be the source of misunderstandings
and largely conditions the result of the process. Difficulties arise from a situation that

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 261

Chapter 14

is incongruent between the communicating persons, thereby hindering the success

of the advice process. Six main factors influencing interaction between partners have
been identified and listed by Argyle (1994):
• amount of speech;
• emotional tone;
• dominance;
• role relations & definition of the situation;
• intimacy;
• tasks & topics.

Amount of speech: A veterinarian ‘talking too much’ has been identified as an obstacle
in the veterinary consultation by Cannas da Silva et al. (2006); here ‘and listens too
little’ could be added. In fact, any communication between equal partners is usually
divided equally between the persons involved. It is common experience that situations
in which only one party talks all the time are perceived as being uncomfortable and
strange. A farmer may ask the veterinarian for advice: the veterinarian should in turn,
however, encourage the farmer to report more on his actual problem and not exhaust
the issue in a way that is discouraging for the farmer. A question asked may in fact
be only the first point of an underlying complex of issues. If only the veterinarian as
expert in a certain field is talking, the actual point of concern might be missed and
the farmer may seek advice elsewhere. Nevertheless, a veterinarian may talk more
than the farmer, he probably will in most situations when it comes to his advice and
knowledge. This will be satisfactory to everyone involved as long as everyone agrees
to the dominance shown by this. In (too) many instances, moreover, a veterinarian
gives free advice to the farmer.

Dominance: As mentioned before, the amount of speech is a strong indicator of the

dominance in a situation. A consultation may be dominated by the veterinarian,
especially when he makes proposals and develops strategies for the farmer in his specific
situation. However, a farmer may ask the consulting veterinarian for his opinion on
certain ideas of his, thereby himself being the dominating part of the conversation.
Generally speaking, questions are an instrument of leading a discussion, which may
be used by either party engaged in the process. Therefore, either the veterinarian may
lead the discussion by gathering information from the farmer by asking questions,
or, vice versa, the farmer may be the dominating part as he is asking the veterinarian
specific questions about his issues and plans. It is important to remember that there
is no good or bad about being the dominating or dominated party in a conversation,
as long as the aim is clear and agreed upon. The veterinarian should only be aware of
the situation and accept the dominating part asking questions if he or she senses this
being suitable. He or she should, on the other hand, not hesitate to take over the other
part if the farmer is taking the dominating position.

262 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Communication in the veterinary advisory practice

Intimacy: It is considered being important to show certain empathy towards the

client in small animal medicine. In a situation which the client may experience as
uncomfortable and threatening, it may help that the veterinarian is showing sympathy
towards him/her or – even more important – the pet. Although the circumstances are
different when it comes to farm animal practice, it will help to deal with a problem if
the veterinarian is considering ways of showing his own interest towards the client’s
problem by showing intimacy. This is done by an adequate use of eye contact, emotional
tone of voice and facial expression. In the example above, the remark on the cleanliness
of the cubicles would less likely cause a misunderstanding, as the relationship issue
is appropriately supported by instruments of creating empathy, thereby showing the
necessary interest for the a client’s problem. Being aware of intimacy in a discussion
is therefore rather supportive to send the message that the veterinarian is in fact
interested in and determined to act as a support in the process. Inversely, neglecting
this will eventually lead to the farmer thinking the veterinarian is cold and not willing
to take his part in solving an actual problem.

Emotional tone: Given a situation in which a farmer is facing heavy losses due to
animal health issues, and is deeply concerned about this, the veterinarian involved
should ideally respond to this concern on the same level of emotion. So, instead of
showing cold professionalism, it might be indicated to paraphrase the feeling of the
client by saying ‘This must concern you’ or ‘I understand this must be a rather difficult
experience for you’ (see below: Active listening). The congruency of emotion will under
these circumstances build up the necessary trust and help building a fundament for
further collaboration.

Role-relations and definition of the situation: Classical veterinary work – as it commonly

used to be – does not require a definition of the role being played by the veterinarian:
a cow was sick, and the veterinarian had to fix it. Still, largely depending on the
geographical area, this is – like selling medicines – a substantial part of veterinary work
and income. However, getting engaged in the more complex field of herd health and
production management or Quality Risk Management, which implies consultation
work, means a different approach to the role played by both veterinarian and client.
How this role and situation definition is changing and requiring different has recently
been described by Meens (2006). Here, the mentioned ‘classical’ veterinary fieldwork
requires little input of the farmer, but strong and immediate action and advice from
the veterinarian. The farmer is depending on the veterinarian, and the latter is in the
position to give his advice. The input is one-way only. This can be called the stage
of dependency and is dominated by the ‘You’: You are the vet, you have to fix this
problem for me.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 263

Chapter 14

When it comes to larger units and more complex problems, the farmer’s attitude will
change. In emerging, rapidly growing farms, the farmer may try to find solutions
himself. He is seeing himself as a specialist with the highest competence to find
specific solutions. The role of the veterinarian is that of another specialist from an
adjacent field who is competent of rendering certain services. This may for example
be the sale of medicines to the farmer. In this scenario, the farmer is acting in an
autonomous way and will use the drugs in the way he believes to be the most effective
one. This stage of autonomy is being pictured by the ‘Me’ of the farmer. An advice by
the veterinarian is desired and may be considered (especially when given for free), but
the farmer relies on himself in the first place.

A different stage is reached when the roles are defined by the ‘Us’ of interdependence.
This probably reflects best most of the current situation in farming industry, where
complex problems like multifactorial and production diseases require a bundle of
interrelated solutions and, hence, associated disciplines. More than ever, the farmer is
actually depending on the advises of a veterinarian and other specialists (nutritionist,
economist, dairy extension specialist); the veterinarian like any other consulting
specialist has to rely on the – written – information passed on to him by the farmer in
order to be able to make the most appropriate decision what to say and to do. Success
of this consulting process will be one which is achieved together.

Having shortly described these different stages of farmer-vet interaction, from the
‘you’ via the ‘me’ towards the ‘us’ of quality control or herd health and production
management, we have to remember the principle of congruency: a farmer seeing
himself in a stage of autonomy will not accept a veterinarian directing him. Vice
versa, a client being in a stage of dependency is relying on the veterinarian to solve a
problem for him. This client cannot cope with a veterinarian who is only giving advice
and otherwise relies on the farmer’s will and competence to use the tools provided
by the veterinarian. In other words, a farmer in this picture won’t be satisfied with
a bottle of medicines. The veterinarian would have to inject and care for the patient
as well. Lastly, the entrepreneur-like dairy farmer experiencing a certain problem
or a complex of issues is not going to accept a veterinarian who is just dispatching
medicines and otherwise avoids getting involved. He will eventually decide to obtain
the input he wants and needs from specialists elsewhere, often leaving the veterinary
practice aside.

Task, topic, and definition of the situation: This part of congruency in communication
relates largely to the previous section. The veterinarian should therefore ask himself
consciously, what the client in a specific situation wants and expects. This can be:

264 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Communication in the veterinary advisory practice

• Solving an actual problem; here the farmer relies on the veterinarian’s knowledge
and skills. The veterinarian is expected to manage the situation, not involving the
farmer in the first place, or not involving the farmer in full (The ‘You’-Phase).
• Providing some advice or, maybe more important, medicines to deal with a
problem. The veterinarian is expected to help the farmer and not primarily to act
on his own (The ‘Me’-Phase).
• Start a consultation involving both; here, the client will probably expect the
veterinarian to get involved and being asked questions to start with. His knowledge
and experience are valuable and necessary. The client’s actual problem may have
been identified as being a symptom of an underlying problem (The ‘Us’-Phase).

It is important to note that these phases are not to be seen in isolation. A farmer may
very well develop from the stage of dependency into a stage of autonomy, especially
if he is developing his enterprise and acquires more knowledge and skills. The farmer
preferring to act in interdependence with his veterinarian will, on the other hand,
very likely choose to act autonomously if facing a situation he is capable of managing
largely by himself.

14.7. Practical aspects

14.7.1. Applied communication skills

As mentioned earlier, the aim of the communication regarding a certain herd health
problem is to identify a problem and develop a solution. The problem itself may not
be evident per se and has to be identified in the first place. The initial complaint
may, for example, be ‘another mastitis’ the veterinarian has been called to treat. The
appeal to the veterinarian implied by the call may, however, be to take action on
the herd health level or quality control level because the mastitis is perceived as a
herd- and management problem by the farmer. The message on the relationship
issue may, moreover, be to take action together. As the situation and the task is clear,
taking a history and gathering information is the next step of the evolving consulting
process (see also Chapter 2). Besides the necessary study of production data and on-
farm management, careful communication with the client regarding the problem is
the probably most important thing to do; a farmer wishing to act interdependently
with his veterinarian expects to provide information. Whether the client wishes to
take a dominating part or rather likes to see the conversation being dominated by
the veterinarian is of lesser importance; the consulting veterinarian should in any
case consider some basic rules of successfully gathering information, showing his
willingness to collaborate and propose action. In comparison: in human medicine
clients’ recall and understanding may improve by 30% when they are asked to repeat
relevant information. Moreover, compliance improved when clients were asked to

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 265

Chapter 14

give their own opinion about causes and explanations, or when the doctor asked the
client whether he/she could agree with the proposed procedures (Kurtz, 2006).

14.7.2. Asking questions

As mentioned earlier, questions can generally be seen as an instrument of dominating
a discussion. The character of the discussion itself as being rather one-way or being an
exchange of information leading to a plan is, however, largely dependant on the kind
of questions being asked. Commonly two types of questions are differentiated: closed
questions and open questions.

Closed questions are of a directing, dominating nature and are by definition answered
with either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Closed questions are advantageous in critical situations
that require immediate action for they provide necessary information quickly and
effectively. An example in the given example would be: Do your cows predominately
have mastitis after calving? The answer would be ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It would due to the
directing nature fit in a situation of dependency (‘You-phase’).

Open questions are more dialogue-orientated and encourage the person being asked
to share information. They are typical in an interdependent situation (‘Us-phase’)
where the flow of information is in both directions. Open questions are an instrument
of consultation and provide the necessary information to both parties involved. The
asking part is receiving information, while, on the other hand, the person answering is
consciously sorting and weighing the information by reflecting his response. Therefore
the technique of open questioning is a mutual benefit within the consultation. An
example of an open question would be: When do you predominantly have mastitis in
your herd? The client here would recall the mastitis history of the herd, recognising
the main incidence and thereby actively contributing to the consultation.

Depending on the dominance during the consultation process the direction of

questions may of course be vice versa and the farmer may take a leading role by
questions. The described stage of autonomy (‘Me’-phase) clients might tend to use
closed questions in order to acquire certain information they regard as being useful
to them. Open questions are as well likely to get a specialist’s opinion on a problem.

There is generally no good or bad about types of questions or the direction of

enquiries. Every relationship will have a most effective way of asking, in a herd health
management consulting process, however, the technique of open questions in a
interdependent, cooperative environment will be the most effective and appropriate
one. It is, however, highly indicated to ask questions in a SMART way (see below).

266 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Communication in the veterinary advisory practice

14.7.3. Active listening

In the section about the relationship, several aspects that contribute to the congruency
of a communication process have been reviewed. Empathy and mutual understanding
are necessary to reach an agreement regarding the situation. As it has been shown that
messages can be quite complex in terms of their content, a useful tool of confirming
having interpreted the message correctly is the so-called ‘active listening’. By listening
actively, persons involved in communication reassure each other of their mutual
attention and understanding. Misunderstandings are prevented and corrected in an
early stage, while the perception of the situation and the task of the consultation are
defined.

Components of Active Listening are certain elements of body language and rhetoric
instruments. While listening to the history of a current emerging problem, eye
contact should be kept in an non-provocative manner (that means: no fixation), by
this showing that the attention is kept to the reporting client. Nodding, indicating
agreement, will also encourage communication.

The forenamed techniques of verbalising and paraphrasing serve in confirming

the message understood by the recipient. Verbalising a message means to state the
content of the underlying message received. A farmer may, for example, report on
his problems in calf rearing, where he is currently experiencing major losses due to
scour. By verbalising, the consulting veterinarian recognises the difficulties of his
client by saying:

‘This must be quite frustrating for you: you invest a lot and you keep loosing calves.’

Using the four side model, this message would mean:

• Content: This must be frustrating for you – you have heavy losses.
• Self revelation: I understand your situation – I would be frustrated as well.
• Appeal: Something has to be done - let’s start!
• Relationship: I care for your problem – I will help you.

Paraphrasing means to repeat a statement in one’s own words, confirming the

understanding and indicating agreement to the sender. In our example, one statement
of the farmer may be:

‘This month alone, I’ve lost 6 calves despite feeding them colostrum early enough.’

It could be paraphrased by saying:

‘So you have done the right thing and lost half of your calves nevertheless?!’

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 267

Chapter 14

Again, this would assure the farmer that he is in fact experiencing a serious problem,
that his efforts are right, and, above all, that the vet is caring for his problem. Next
to paraphrasing, it is worthwhile to summarise from time to time what has been
previously discussed.

These techniques are easy to use and will have an instant effect on the situation. It will
be felt as being congruent and appropriate by all participants and be a good start for
a consulting process.

14.8. SMART

Herd health and Quality Risk Management programmes have to be understood as

dynamic and constantly evolving processes, always subject to changes and pressures
(Sibley, 2006). It is therefore useful to give discussions in the planning process shape
and direction. The SMART-scheme has proved to be useful in complex situations
like these. The acronym stands for the way questions should be asked and plans be
made:
• Specific: The communication should apply to the specific conditions and
problems that is dealt with.
• Measurable: Introducing realistic and objective figures helps to focus on the actual
problem and prevents disagreements (e.g. through benchmark or
farmers’ study groups, see above).
• Achievable: Instead of aiming for unrealistic targets, like completely eradicating a
mastitis-problem in a herd, both the consultant and farmer should try
to achieve a certain goal that is actually reachable and makes success
measurable. In that way, disappointment is avoided and motivation
kept high for the HHPM or QRM programmes.
• Relevant: The planning should focus on actual, costly and immediate problems
rather than spending too much effort on less relevant targets.
• Time-based: In order to make success visible, thereby motivating both veterinarian
and farmer, deadlines and fixed evaluations should be used. This will
make achievements both visible and objective.

The SMART-scheme can aid in concentrating on the actual problems. It helps

preventing waste of time and energy, and in avoiding disappointments. When we
summarise the forenamed issues, we can design the schedule as listed in Figure 14.4,
adapted from the forenamed framework (Kurtz, 2006, see above).

268 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Communication in the veterinary advisory practice

Initiating the consultancy

Preparation; establish a report;
identify the reasons for this
consultancy

Gather the information

Provide Get veterinary-zootechnical Build the
insight relationship
structure Get the farmer’s perspectives
and overt Get the background information using
organisation as a context appropriate
and attend non-verbal
to the flow Conduct the physical behaviour
examinations (e.g. and
SWOTs) on animals, developing
surroundings and data reports as
well as
involving
Explanation and planning the client
Provide correct amount and type
of information
Support the accurate recall and
understanding
Achieve a shared understanding
Planning = shared decision-
making
Provide options: re-discuss
opinions, plans or procedures
Close the session
Ensure a proper closure Point
Conduct forward planning

Figure 14.4. Schedule summarising the different components of communication in medical

consultations, adapted from Kurtz (2006).

14.9. Conclusions

As the farming industry gets more and more complex, the veterinarian has to
adapt himself to these changes. We as professionals in an increasingly competing
environment will need to broaden our competencies in order to stand in the farm-
advisory competition. Acquiring communication skills and learning how to use
them is one aspect of this process. In a number of veterinary colleges, the teaching of
communication skills has become a part of the curriculum (Adams and Kurtz, 2006).
Particularly in curricula with Herd Health & Production Management or Quality
Risk Management programmes, the teaching of communication skills should have a
substantial position.

We have to realise that decisions are not based on rational and economic considerations
alone. Understanding the principles of the process of decision making is the basis to
influence it and to successfully offer products and services to our clients.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 269

Chapter 14

The use of SWOT-analyses, SW assessments (see Chapter 2) and benchmarking or

farmers’ study groups helps in overcoming the intrinsic reluctance to change a system
which has been working for a long time. Bergevoet (2005) concludes that it is quite
possible to improve the entrepreneurial competencies of dairy farmers by developing
and discussing the farmers’ strategic plans in study groups (benchmarking). All
participants in such group activities appeared to benefit from such activities,
irrespective of the farmer’s or farm characteristics, or the level of competencies at the
start of these activities.

The veterinary consultant should realise that communication consists of verbal

and non-verbal communication and that the non-verbal part represents the major
proportion in the outcome.

Most of the communication process is taking place subconsciously and deals with a
lot more than just the contents of a conversation. We should take our time to analyse
the status of the consultation and the role we are expected to play by our client. Acting
according to this helps in avoiding misunderstandings and prevents unnecessary
friction that is disturbing the consultation process.

Acknowledging some basic principles of decision-making and communication is

therefore more than a kind of psychological magic. It helps veterinarians improving
their stand in competition and helps in creating a more relaxed and more satisfying
working atmosphere within the changing cattle industry in general, and with clients
in herd health or Quality Risk Management in particular.

270 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

Chapter 15. Final remarks

15.1. HACCP is not a panacea for solving all (food safety or disease) hazards

When properly applied, HACCP comprises a set of principles and steps which provide
a systematic methodology both for identifying significant hazards and their associated
risk conditions, and for applying measures to prevent, eliminate or reduce such
hazards and risks to an acceptable level (after Pierson, 1995).

The most important characteristics in HACCP are that structure is provided, that on-
farm organisation and planning are needed, and that the various steps and procedures
are much more formalised than in, for example, veterinary Herd Health & Production
Management programmes.

Several attempts have been made to familiarise veterinarians and farmers with the
ideas and principles of HACCP applications (Cullor, 1995, 1997; Griffin et al., 1998) in
both dairy and beef herds. Griffin et al. (1998) explained why and how a HACCP-like
approach could ensure that food-borne pathogens would be reduced to an acceptable
level in beef herds; they addressed this in the Quality Assurance Critical Management
Points (QACMP) system for beef farms (feedlot; cow-calf operations; feeder cattle). In
this system, hazards in the area of farm productivity, safety and quality were the main
focus; their approach is –however- rather qualitative in nature. They asked the reader
whether meeting with the requirements that were put forward to farmers could truly
be asked from them. The answer was simple: these requirements represent simple
economics related to retaining market access or improving their market access, based
on the client’s trust in what they buy.

We go further than others: we have adapted the HACCP concept and principles to
their practical application at farm level (dairy farms; milking goat farms; children
farms) and – at the same time – integrate such application with the daily (operational)
farm management. The great difference with other attempts is right in this strong
management orientation: with the focus on the prevention or reduction of operational
managerial and quality failure costs, while at the same time we aim at preventing or
controlling hazards and risks in the areas of public health, food safety, animal health
and animal welfare on the farms.

It has been stated by Ryan (1997) that: ‘Applying HACCP may seem unwieldy, but it is
nothing more than what a truly good farmer would do anyway’.

We did not address the issues of environmental quality in this book. Yet, dairy
production is considered – among other animal production sectors – as a source of

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 271

Chapter 15

solid, liquid and gaseous emissions which can be environmentally harmful (Hartung,
2007). This author provides an overview of the predominant effluents from livestock
farming, comprising N and P, heavy metals such as Zn and Cu, drug residues (e.g.
from antibiotics and anti-parasitics), sludge and waste water, and bio-aerosols.
Contemporary dairy farming requires a proper handling of such effluents, which
are sometimes produced in large volumes, e.g. manure (Oliver et al., 2005; Burton,
2007). The reason is that air, soil, crop, and or water pollution may occur due to a
relative insufficient capacity of the local or regional environment. A review of the
environmental effects of producing food animals have been provided by Burton et
al. (2000). Environmental quality is closely related to public health and food safety;
examples are Cryptosporidium parvum, Salmonella spp., E. coli STEC, Leptospira spp.
(Oliver et al., 2005).

Policies which aim at encouraging efficient production may threaten public health,
food safety and animal health and welfare, but also environmental quality. On the
other hand, policies for reducing pollution may damage (dairy) farming (Burton,
2007). In addition to developing and applying new technologies (see e.g. Burton
2007), also precision dairy farming may contribute to reduce environmental quality
failures due to dairy production (Cox, 2005; Wathes, 2007). The HACCP-concept and
principles may be applied to the forenamed issues of environmental quality too. Böhm
(2007), for example, has presented such an approach to the microbiologically hygienic
and safe recycling of waste water, organic waste materials and residues in animal
production systems. However, it was outside the scope of this book to elaborate on
these environmental quality issues extensively.

15.2. An overall assessment of quality control applied on dairy farms

Strong and weak points of dairy farm management with regard to applied overall
quality control on dairy farms have been surveyed, for example, in The Netherlands by
farmers and veterinarians (IKC, 1994). The different elements were scored on a scale
from 1 (very poor) to 10 (very good), and the results are presented in Table 15.1.

Obviously in the Dutch situation of 1994 (other countries may show different
outcomes) dairy farms do well in the area of handling cows, feedstuffs and rations,
cleaning & disinfection procedures, bulk tank cooling, maintenance and surveillance,
as well as pasturing, pasture exploitation, and milking machine maintenance. On the
other hand, there are sufficiently other issues (scoring 5 or less) that need attention:
feed additives or offal’s, drinking water quality, cow treatment procedures, hygiene,
management & prevention, barn climatic conditions, milking parlour procedures.

272 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Final remarks

Table 15.1. Overview of scores on a scale from 0 to 10 regarding applied quality assurance
practices on dairy farms in The Netherlands (IKC, 1994). Score 0 = very poor; score 10 =
excellent.

Man-Cow interactions 6 to 7
Means Roughage 8
Concentrates 9
Additives or offal 3
Water 5
Cleaning & disinfection 7
Cow treatment 2
Methods Legislation 4
Hygiene 4
Management & prevention 5
Milking procedures 6
Feeding procedures 6
Equipment Bulk tank 9
Cubicles & ventilation 4
Pasturing 8
Milking machine maintenance 8
Milking parlour procedures 4

These are all managerial aspects. They are caused by a lack of observational skills,
lack of knowledge and or awareness about e.g. risks, lack of implementing certain
measures, inconsistencies in managerial procedures, lack of self-criticism, changes in
attitude or perception, unawareness about losses involved (IKC, 1994).

Veterinary Herd Health & Production Management programmes, including

biosecurity assurance plans, may strongly assist in pointing attention to such aspects,
and by providing structure and coaching to their approach.

The same is valid for Quality Risk Management programmes which deal with good
dairy farming guidelines and work instructions. Quality failure costs are either systems
costs or true (management) failure costs, or a combination of both. Quality failure
costs represent missed income, due to disease costs, decreased milk yield, poor milk
quality, costs of barn renovation, spoiled labour (and often unknown losses which
may be hard to identify). Such costs have been estimated at € 150 to 250 per average
cow present in the herd; an improvement of € 100 per average cow present must be
achievable (Dijkhuizen and Morris, 1996).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 273

Chapter 15

15.3. Interests of dairy farmers in HACCP-based Quality Risk Management

The benefits of programmes as introduced in this book may sometimes be insufficiently

clear to dairy farmers. In those cases substantial time-investment and proper education
is needed to change such scepticism (Gardner, 1997). For a HACCP-like programme
to be successful, farm management must be committed to the HACCP-like approach.
Such commitment includes awareness of benefits and costs of the programme, and
applying on-site training and coaching of farmer or manager, and employees. Among
the benefits are – next to enhanced assurance of food safety and quality – a better use
of resources, reduction of (quality) failure costs, and a timely response to (pending)
problems and legislation in the area of public health, animal health, and animal
welfare (Anonymous, 1998).

In general it is assumed that farmers are willing to pay a certain price to reduce the
exposure to risks. If farmers can manage the risk factors on their farm at acceptable
costs, they can consider themselves as being better off as a result (Arrow, 1996;
Harrington, 1999). The way to manage such risk factors depends on factors like
the extent to which a farmer shows risk aversion, the costs and benefits involved
in risk management, the relative importance of the risks, the correlation of risks
with other risk conditions, other sources of indemnities, the farmer’s perception of
the nature of the risks, the farmer’s income and wealth or social status (Hardaker,
1997; Harrington, 1999). Some of the latter issues have been addressed in Chapter
13 in the section about behavioural economics, because it appears that decisions are
being taken partly on rational arguments, but largely on non-rational arguments too.
Literature provides some techniques and hints about how to overcome the clients’
reluctance or hesitance to accept or adopt the advises and interventions proposed by
the veterinarian (Aguilar, 2005).

Appropriate communication between farmer and advisor-veterinarian is pivotal to

and crucial for the adoption of the programme of Quality Risk Management by the
farmer (Chapter 14).

15.4. The farm environment and the authorities (EU)

Consumer protection alongside the whole food chain is the central issue in new
European food hygiene & safety legislation, which has been implemented since the
1st of January 2007 at the national level. The whole food chain includes primary
producers (like dairy farmers). However, they do not have to produce according to
HACCP-standards and do not have to be certified (yet).

274 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Final remarks

In this new legislation (we mentioned before, EU directives 852, 853 and 854-2004) it
is stressed that the producers are fully responsible and liable for food safety, hygiene,
animal welfare and animal health on their farm. On the other hand, the EU gives
much freedom regarding the controls and audits, which in most cases have to be
executed by food producing companies themselves. Other important issues within
the new legislation are: all controls have to be according to the HACCP-(like)-
concept and production always has to meet minimum standards regarding hygiene
and food safety. A special demand for the primary producers (e.g. farmers) is that
‘all information about used veterinary products and pesticides has to be recorded
in specific documents, which can be glanced over by the competent authority’. Any
specialist, like veterinarians, can be consulted, in order to get specific information
about these documents and recordings. We emphasise ‘any’ because besides the
veterinarian, according to European legislation it could be another specialist too.

New European food hygiene legislation recognises three kinds of veterinarians: the
official veterinarian (an official employed by the government), the practitioners
(restricted official tasks) and the curative veterinarian in practice/ the field consulted by
producers. In an Annex of EU directive 853-2004 is described in detail what knowledge
and skills the official veterinarian has to have. Some examples are: knowledge about
national & European legislation regarding food safety, animal health and welfare, public
health and pharmaceutical products; agriculture policy, food processing and food
technology; basics, concepts and methods regarding production, quality management
and HACCP; control and watch over production systems/processes; audits and checks
regarding food safety control; information and communication technology and the
relation with veterinary public health (Borgmeijer, 2007). Although not explicitly
described in that directive – since practitioners are thought to be the right person
to conduct specific official controls and audits in the food chain on the behalf of the
government – it is inevitable and obvious that practitioners have to meet many of the
forenamed knowledge and skill standards.

As mentioned before, there lies a huge responsibility in the private sector (producers in
the food chain, including primary producers, e.g. farmers) with respect to self control
by means of Quality (Risk) Management systems. Producers will be forced to give
guarantees regarding food safety, public health, animal health and welfare. Specialists
will be consulted in order to support producers in this process, for veterinary related
issues it is rational that veterinarians are seen as specialist. Besides this role, the official
veterinarian and the practitioner will also play an important role in quality control
in the food chain, since the government will board out controlling work to private,
so-called control bodies. Note that the national government will always remain the
final responsible body regarding issues like food safety, public health, animal health
and welfare. In order to guarantee a certain ‘basic quality’, the control bodies have to

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 275

Chapter 15

meet minimal accreditation standards; e.g. are certified. Finally, the veterinarian in
the field helping out farmers in case of emergencies, will never disappear; however
veterinarians have to focus more than ever on the preventive and farmer supporting
part of the job.

Some final remarks with respect to the role of the veterinarian in the future: Primary
producers not only are in need of a curative veterinarian, but also are in need of a
veterinary specialist who is able to interpret and communicate about food chain data.
Note that veterinarians should develop themselves into such specialists in order to
remain an essential partner for the farmer and to maintain their important position
in the food chain. Therefore, much has to be invested in (post graduate) education
and training of the official veterinarian and the practitioner in order to be ready for
that job in the near future (Cannas da Silva et al., 2006)!

15.5. Contracts, internal and external relations of the farm

European Union directives (e.g. 854-2004) made HACCP-like QRM programmes

compulsory for food producing businesses in the food chain. In response to HACCP-
like programmes which inevitably will become obligatory in primary food animal
production within a few years from now, farmers will in return demand high quality
standards for all the services and products the supplying enterprises provide on their
farm. Just like (dairy) farmers, veterinarians also are part of this same food chain and
are a supplier of the (dairy) farmer. In the last years, new developments in Quality
Assurance in the dairy chain in e.g. The Netherlands are being speed up by the milk
processing industries. Farmers are obliged to have contracts with feed suppliers and
veterinarians. Quality is guaranteed through contracts between the different parties,
in which both the buyer and the supplier agrees upon several conditions. These
conditions include features of the delivered service or product, calamity plans (early
warning systems; recall database) and even demands on the QRM programme of
the production process of the supplying producer. These kinds of contracts already
exist for the feed producing industries (these should be GMP+ and HACCP certified)
and already contracts for veterinary herd health programmes are suggested (FDF,
2006) or legally required like in Belgium. Therefore, veterinarians should not only
anticipate on the increasing demand of farmers for support in applying HACCP-like
QRM programmes on farms, but also work on and improve certification of their own
practice. In The Netherlands, for example, veterinarians are able to obtain a KRD-
ISO 9001 certification, proving their practice meets quality guidelines for veterinary
practices. In order to develop contracts between veterinarians and (dairy) farmers,
these quality guidelines should be matched more closely to the quality demands of
farmers and initially the dairy industries.

276 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Final remarks

Economic benefits and an increase of the intrinsic value of the farm are important
issues to convince farmers that changing their on-farm management into a HACCP-
compatible approach is needed. Knowledge of psychological aspects, like behavioural
economics, and good communication (see preceding chapters) are essential.
Furthermore, for a successful HACCP programme to be properly implemented,
management must be committed to fully adopt a HACCP-like approach. A
commitment by management will indicate an awareness of the benefits and costs of
HACCP and include education, training and coaching of employees (see Chapter 8).
Benefits, in addition to enhanced assurance of food safety, are better use of resources,
hence reduction of costs, and a timely response to problems (Anonymous, 1998). In
general, it is assumed that farmers are willing to pay a price to reduce exposure to risk.
If farmers can manage the risks on their farm at acceptable costs, they should consider
themselves to be better off as a result (Arrow, 1996; Harrington, 1999). However,
benefits of HACCP-like programmes – as stated above- often are unclear to livestock
producers, and substantial education is necessary to change this scepticism (Gardner,
1997). According to Bergevoet (2005), for example Dutch farmers are mainly interested
in labour joy, expressed in intrinsic values, like: public image; working with animals;
food safety as a primary characteristic of their business; and the philosophy that
‘challenges are chances and no threats’. They are not completely driven by economic
targets; the pre-mentioned intrinsic values of the farm are at least as important.

Risk attitude of farmers (who are entrepreneurs these days) is in general based on
positive evaluating behaviour and therefore farmers are often seen as ‘risk-takers’.
Farmers believe that the outcome of decisions is mostly determined by themselves,
based on a feeling for their efficacy, keeping their own risk perception in mind
(Bergevoet, 2005).

15.6. Potential drawbacks when implementing HACCP-like programmes

When implementing programmes of Quality Risk Management on dairy or other

farms, which are based on the HACCP concept and principles, one may encounter
the following drawbacks (adapted after Tompkin, 1990).
a. HACCP requires training and education, especially when farm workers, technicians,
claw trimmers are involved, as well as veterinarians and nutritionists. Failure of
understanding the concept and principles of HACCP by the veterinarian will
undoubtedly lead to failures in the implementation; at the same time the farmer
should get the relevant clues and understanding of the HACCP concept. For that
reason we need to install a procedure of coaching parallel to the implementation
track.
b. HACCP must be well adopted, accepted and applied by every stake-holder on
the farm (that is, every member of the Team, as well as the farm workers and

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 277

Chapter 15

service providers), otherwise the programme will not be sufficiently effective. One
should bear in mind that the will to change is also a non-rational issue; commonly,
humans (farmers) are not eager to change, they prefer to stick to a certain status
quo (see also Chapter 13, behavioural economics).
c. Experts may differ in their opinion with regard to the definition of what exactly is a
CCP and what is a POPA, and with regard to the best methods to monitor certain
steps or a given CCP/POPA. When this phenomenon does occur, it is up to the
Farm Quality Management Team to make the final decision about what is best and
what is not. Otherwise any confusion will lead to loss of confidence in the HACCP
programme in the early stages.
d. Poor levels of communication between farmer and advising veterinarian, and
between farm advisors mutually, leading to misunderstanding, loss of confidence,
and finally to non-adoption of the Quality Risk Management programme. This
issue of communication has been elaborated in Chapter 14.
e. Acceptance of HACCP principles by the (dairy) production sector might give
the consumers a false assurance idea, like there would be left just a zero-risk.
Consumer information addressing hazards and risks regarding food safety and
food preparation need to be continued.

It has been stated elsewhere (Chapter 3), that an essential prerequisite to HACCP is
the adoption and implementation of Good Dairy Farming (GDF) codes of practice
(after Pierson, 1995). The adoption of these GDF will create the appropriate mentality,
attitude and, hence, the necessary foundation for HACCP-like applications. See in
Chapter 3 the different types of GDF guidelines and working instructions as an
illustration for this statement. These guidelines and working instructions are indeed
management instruments to focus attention, create a better awareness and eventually
a better performance of the farm.

Moreover, an appropriate and continuous training and coaching of all people

involved in developing and implementing the HACCP-like Quality Risk Management
programme will be paramount for reducing forenamed drawbacks, for keeping up the
motivation and keep the programme running effectively.

15.7. Quantification of Quality Risk Management parameters

In several instances in this book, risk factors were weighted on the basis of knowledge
and experience regarding the qualitative assessment of risk on the individual dairy
farm by the Farm Quality Management Team.

Another option to prioritise risks is through the availability of quantitative results (e.g.
odds ratios and relative risks) from observational-analytic epidemiological studies

278 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Final remarks

regarding specific diseases and disorders (Noordhuizen et al., 2001; Thrusfield, 2005).
However, these results are based on population studies; they do not necessarily apply
all to the individual farm. Therefore, it is always necessary to ‘translate’ such results
from the population level to the level of the individual farm. The latter may cause loss
of reliability of outcome but is still preferable above qualitative assessment.

The third option to assess the priority of certain risk factors is through applying
the methodology of adaptive conjoint analysis, ACA (Horst et al., 1996; Van Schaik
et al., 1998; Bouma et al., 2004). This has been shortly addressed in Chapter 6 and
Annex 7A.

Process capability indexes have been proposed for evaluating quality performance in
certain production processes over time (Evans and Lindsay, 1996). Although these
may be valuable in physical processes, they are much harder to develop and implement
in biological processes like on dairy farms due to the biological variation that occurs.
Currently there are hardly any process capability indexes developed for dairy farming.
Examples are presented by Niza-Ribeiro et al. (2004) regarding somatic cell counts in
bulk tank milk deliveries in relation to udder infections.

Formal risk assessment has been proposed by the EU (Candiani et al., 2007) and the
FAO as the best choice methodology to investigate the risk background of certain
disorders. Usually, animal diseases are comprised, in analogy to human health
disorders. However, a major drawback is in the fact that there is a great lack of sufficient,
sound, and quantitative risk assessment information in the animal production
sector about disease incidence and prevalence, risk factors and their impact. When
applying qualitative risk information, there is often a contradiction among experts
(M.B.M. Bracke, personal communication). Further information on quantitative risk
assessment issues can be obtained from Vose (2000).

Recently, semantic modelling was introduced (Bracke et al., 2001, 2004), in particular
for the area of animal welfare. This method has shortly been addressed in Chapter 8,
paragraph 8.3. We further refer to the forenamed literature sources.

15.8. Responsibilities of the dairy farmer or manager

The dairy farmer (or his manager) must have a clear view on the scope, the prospects
and limitations of the HACCP-like QRM programme. That is the only way he can
‘educate’ his farm workers in the proper attitude and strategy on the farm. He must
be well aware of the goals of the HACCP-like QRM programme, as well as the use of
the HACCP-like QRM-handbook. Some dairy farmers will indeed make a ‘Quality

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 279

Chapter 15

Policy Statement’ for their farm, and list that at the beginning of their HACCP-like
QRM-handbook

The farmer or manager has to know the ultimate use of the (raw) products delivered
by the dairy farm, in order to be better aware of the requirements and their rationale
set by the industry or consumers (retailers).

As chairperson of the Farm Quality Management Team the farmer has to moderate the
meetings of the Team and propose his targets. It would be best if he also provides the
Team members (and farm workers) with an Organisation & Management Diagram,
pointing out the different ‘business units’ on the farm, the respective tasks and
responsibilities for each farm worker in a given unit, the performance parameters
he wants to set, and the technical criteria for evaluating the performance within
each unit. Examples of such organisation & management diagrams have been given
elsewhere (Noordhuizen and Muller, 2003; van Egmond et al., 2006; Noordhuizen
et al., 2006). Such diagrams are very helpful in illustrating the different hierarchical
pathways, the task responsibilities of respective farm workers, and the development
of a HACCP-like QRM programme, where for example production process diagrams
need to be defined (see at Chapter 5 and Annex 5A).

The dairy farmer, manager (or owner) is also responsible for acquiring a proper
training of farm workers (if any), as well as their appropriate conduct with regard to
Quality Risk Management aspects, risk management issues, hygiene rules, guidelines
and working instructions, and record keeping. These are crucial elements in the
adequate implementation of the programme and should, therefore, not be neglected
(OIE, 2006).

15.9. Quality risk management and economics

15.9.1. General issues

Integrating economics into quality risk assessment is very challenging, but also
worthwhile. It gives more insight into both the economic and epidemiological aspects
of the critical points in risk assessment and into the cost-effectiveness of advice and
intervention measures. Inclusion of economic parameters in risk assessment has the
following advantages (Hogeveen and Velthuis, 2007, personal communication).

First, it serves a more optimal decision-making process. A risk assessment model

with integrated economics will provide, besides epidemiological information, also
economic information concerning the complicated pathway of quality hazards.
This combination gives more certainty than an intuitive feeling about the economic
consequences of applying an advice or an intervention measure, and their cost-

280 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Final remarks

effectiveness. In Figure 15.1 the cost-effectiveness ratio is illustrated. For example,

an intervention measure might reduce a certain risk to a low level at low cost (low
cost / highly effective). The cost-effectiveness level of this measure is good and it
would be a good measure to consider for implementation. If a measure reduces the
human risk just a little at high cost (high cost / low effective) it will not be worthwhile
to implement. There will be many measures with a medium cost-effectiveness, that
is with low effectiveness and low costs, or with high effectiveness at high costs. The
risk manager or decision-maker should decide whether such measures are to be
considered for implementation. For this decision-making, the setting of a maximal
budget and a minimal acceptance level of effectiveness might help in selecting only
those measures or strategies that are fitting the requirements of farm management
(Figure 15.1). The Quality Risk Management Team always will strive for optimum
effectiveness at lowest costs.

For decision-makers, like farmers and food chain quality managers, it is important to
know what the price is of an extra level of quality guarantee and the benefits. Through
implementing economic assessment methods more insight can be gained into the
costs and benefits of different levels of quality assurance. For example, it is easily

Minimal accepable
effectiveness

High costs High costs

Low effective High effective

Maximal
acceptable budget
Costs

Low costs
Low costs
High effective
Low effective

Effectiveness

Figure 15.1. Schematic representation of different cost-effectiveness levels of an intervention

measure to reduce the risk of quality problems (H. Hogeveen and A.G.J. Velthuis, 2007, personal
communication).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 281

Chapter 15

said for a decision-maker to aim for a null percent risk (which is by the way often
impossible to achieve) when not considering the costs. The direct or indirect costs
of an intervention strategy to achieve this null percent risk level might be extremely
high. It is very likely that the last percent decrease in quality risk is very expensive.
Thus, economic aspects are important to include in the discussion about an optimal
level of quality guarantee.

The second advantage of including economics into risk assessment models is more
at the dairy food chain level. The distribution of costs spent and benefits gained when
applying intervention strategies will become visible. Costs include the direct costs or
losses related to the measure or the strategy applied, for example to build or facilitate
a hygiene lock at the farm. Quality costs could also be made by the dairy processor,
for instance to test milk for antibiotic residues. Benefits include the economic savings
for society when the quality of the end product increases. Benefits might also include
the extra benefit of selling more products or getting a higher price due to a better
public image or to an improved human perception. Benefits might also include a
higher price for half products at the individual company level and savings due to less
disease or treatments at the animal level or higher production efficiency. Information
about the distribution of costs and benefits along the supply chain is very useful in the
discussion about the distribution of costs and benefits over all participants in a supply
chain, as has been demonstrated for the pork supply chain (Den Ouden, 1996).

Summarising, economic arguments are very important in the (food chain and on-
farm) decision-making process. Therefore, economic methodologies should be
included in quality risk assessment approaches. In the next section two examples of
economic estimations are presented to illustrate the forenamed statement.

15.9.2. Two examples

[1] Effectiveness of measures to reduce Escherichia coli VTEC on Dutch dairy farms
A transmission model developed to investigate the dynamics of Escherichia coli VTEC
bacteria in a typical Dutch dairy herd was used to assess the effectiveness of vaccination,
improvement of the ration, administration of probiotics (colicin) and improved hygiene
(e.g. with water troughs and bedding material), in reducing the prevalence of infected
animals. The assumed baseline prevalence (not necessarily being representative for the
population prevalence) of the lactating group and the within-herd prevalence were
estimated by the model to be 5% and 14% respectively (Vosough Ahmadi et al., 2007).
The forenamed interventions can reduce the prevalence of E. coli VTEC by 84% to 99%.
However, for dairy farmers, E. coli VTEC is no problem, since animals do not become
diseased by this pathogen and do not show signs. The advantage of the forenamed
on-farm quality measures is a reduction of potential food safety problems due to this
pathogen (low Probability + high Impact). Therefore, results of the transmission model

282 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Final remarks

were used to estimate the reduction of prevalence of E. coli VTEC on slaughtered

animals, using the output of the farm model (prevalence of E. coli VTEC) as input for
a slaughterhouse transmission model (Vosough Ahmadi, 2007). The slaughterhouse
transmission model gave as output the prevalence of infected quarters of carcasses.
Moreover, the costs for the various on-farm interventions were estimated and the cost-
effectiveness of on-farm quality measures to reduce contamination of beef with E coli
VTEC was calculated. A choice was made to use a cost-effectiveness and not a cost-
benefit approach, because it is very difficult (if possible at all) to associate a cost level to
human disease due to certain food safety problems, particularly when the prevalence
can not be measured reliably such as in the case of the VTEC. The quality control
measures (vaccination, colicin administration, hygiene improvement and improved
ration) can be applied in various parts of the dairy farm (un-weaned calves, older
calves, lactating cows and dry cows). In Table 15.3, the most cost-effective application is
presented. It can be seen that, in terms of prevalence reduction, an improved ration for
young stock is the best performing measure. However, the costs (in € per slaughtered
quarter animal) is also the highest. The resulting cost-effectiveness ratio is even the
lowest for this on-farm quality measure. Although the vaccination of un-weaned calves
does not yield a very strong reduction of prevalence, this measure was the most cost-
effective of the measures.

Table 15.3. Estimation of cost effectiveness of quality control measures on a dairy farm to
reduce the prevalence of E. coli VTEC on beef (after Vosough Ahmadi, 2007).

Estimated Estimated costs Cost-

prevalence (€ per slaughtered effectiveness
reduction quarter animal ratio
(%) carcass)

Vaccination of un-weaned calves 1.81 1.67 1.08

Colicin application to un-weaned calves 1.51 1.41 1.07
Hygiene improvement in young stock 3.52 35.98 0.1
Improved ration for young stock 4.1 74.42 0.05

[2] Distribution of costs and benefits of quality control throughout the food chain
In many dairy producing countries, quality assurance systems are in place. In order
to be able to deliver milk to a dairy processor, dairy farmers are required to take a
certain number of measures which guarantee the quality of milk and/or the public
image of milk production. Costs of these systems are taken by the dairy farmer. From
some of the measures (e.g. health improvement through biosecurity), the dairy farmer

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 283

Chapter 15

might have some direct benefit. However, most of the benefit at farm level is indirectly
through the public image of dairy products and the associated demand as related
to milk price, and a prevention of recalls. Until recently, these questions were dealt
with using qualitative risk analysis and it seems reasonable to prevent large costs of
recalls by applying relatively cheap on-farm Quality Risk Management programmes
with or without quantitative risk analysis. However, although for the dairy processor
the benefits of prevention of recalls might be very large, one processor has many
(sometimes several thousands) suppliers. When 8,000 suppliers (e.g. dairy farmers)
have a yearly cost of € 1,000 to maintain a quality programme, the total yearly costs
for the dairy sector of this programme are € 8 million!

In order to make a more quantitative analysis (Vose, 2000) of this distribution problem
possible, a conceptual framework has been developed (Hanenberg, 2006). This
framework (Figure 15.2) makes it possible to estimate the costs of certain measures
at various levels (animal, dairy farm, dairy processor and sector) give a certain set of
starting issues. Moreover, the benefits of these measures, in terms of prevented loss of
public image and prevented losses due to recalls can also be estimated and compared
with the costs made on the dairy farm. In a preliminary calculation, the costs for

Sector level
Dairy processor level
Farm level
Animal level

Measure 1 Costs Benefits

Measure
Prevented losses due to recalls

Measure 1
Prevented loss of image

Measure 2
Non-salable milk
Auditing costs
Investments

Measure 3
Materials
Labour

Measure 4
Measure 5
Measure 6
Measure …

Figure 15.2. Schematic representation of a conceptual framework to estimate costs and benefits
of quality control measures applied on the dairy farm, taking into account all levels of the dairy
sector (after Hanenberg, 2006).

284 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Final remarks

quality measures as they were applied on Dutch dairy farms in 2005 were calculated
and related to benefits due to prevention of public image losses and recalls for one of
the two large Dutch cooperative milk processors. The costs for the quality programme
for the farmers could fairly well be estimated to be € 24,169 per year for an average
farm. Most of these costs were due to preventive measures for animal health and
welfare. These costs, which were made by the dairy farmer, were not compensated
for by benefits in terms of improved public image and prevention of recalls. The only
area of quality control, where costs were compensated for by benefits further up in
the chain, was the area of feed and water.

Although the estimation of the value of public image and recalls was very rough in
the study of Hanenberg (2006) due to its presumptions, it emphasises the fact that it is
important to relate the benefits of quality control to the costs of them. It becomes clear
from Table 15.2, that a large part (more than 60%) of the costs for quality control has to
be earned by improving the dairy farming process itself. For the area of animal health
and water quality, that is obvious. Measures to improve the health of animals, can be
compensated by improved health and thus lower production losses (as is described in
another chapter of this book). The measures as associated with the domains named
in Table 15.2 have not been elaborated in detail here. The total costs of quality control
measures as named in Table 15.2 should therefore be regarded as a sort of maximum
investment in quality control; within countries, regions and farms, as well as between
countries the cost levels of quality control will differ substantially. Hence, optimising
such costs is more relevant than maximising. Hanenberg (2006) did not calculate
the on-farm benefits of quality control on dairy farms. Results of this study should
therefore not be regarded as basis for decision making, but merely as illustration of the
concept of distribution of costs and benefits of on-farm Quality Risk Management.

Table 15.2. Estimation of costs (€ per dairy farmer per year) of on-farm quality control in relation
to the benefits of quality control for prevention of public image loss and recalls for one large
Dutch cooperative dairy processor; an illustration of the distribution of costs and benefits (after
Hanenberg, 2006).

Net result Benefits Costs

Quality control (total) -14,675 9,494 24,169

Treatments and drugs -4,501 760 5,261
Animal health and welfare -8,436 3,765 12,202
Feed and water 856 1,022 165
Milking equipment and storage -1,742 2,862 4,603
Hygiene -852 1,085 1,938

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 285

Chapter 15

15.10. Concluding remarks

The main purpose of this book on HACCP-like applications is to provide veterinarians

and other extension people, as well as entrepreneur-like dairy farmers on large-scale
operations with practical instruments for developing, implementing and validating
HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programmes.

The adoption must be in the practical bottom-up approach, and the merger of
operational and tactical affairs. This is contrary to the top-down approach that has
been proposed earlier (Maunsell and Bolton, 2004) and where food safety management
on farms is presented as a top-down approach. The latter will hardly or not work
on (dairy) farms or is severely hampered because there is no common ground for
adoption among farmers.

We started with a chapter on strengths-and-weaknesses assessments on the farm

premises, because we feel that it is paramount to have an in-depth insight into the dairy
farm operation before starting a Herd Health & Production Management programme
or a HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programme. Strengths-and-weaknesses
assessments should – preferably – not be executed as purely stand-alone methods,
because they need to be integrated into the whole farm business (HHPM or QRM).
During the evolvement of such programmes it can be highly beneficial to conduct
regularly a strengths-and-weaknesses assessment as a means for evaluating progress
or detecting drawbacks; it motivates the farmer to carry on.

Furthermore, the development and application of good dairy farming guidelines and
associated practical working instructions for dairy farms (FAO, 2004; Cannas da Silva
et al., 2006) provide a good basis before and during the implementation of Quality Risk
Management programmes. Not in the least because the adoption of these guidelines
and working instructions by the farmer and farm workers is a sound foundation for
installing Quality Risk Management programmes. They induce the proper mentality
and attitude (Chapter 3). These guidelines and working instructions can also be part of
operational Herd Health & Production Management programmes, the best examples
being the implementation of biosecurity assurance plans for preventing infectious
diseases from entering on the farm, and the Herd Treatment Advisory Plan.

The developmental process for a veterinary practice, evolving from a curative practice
to a practice where curative work is coupled to advisory activities is illustrated in
Figure 15.3. Each veterinary practice has to define for itself, which goals should be
reached, how, by whom and at what pace.

286 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Final remarks

Without further activities….

Curative practice

Strengths-and-weaknesses As an extension to curative work

assessments and a preparation for HHPM or
HACCP-like QRM

Herd Health & Production Management

programme with broad monitoring of animals,
their environment and the farm data, as routine

Extensions to the HHPM programme, like

biosecurity and working instructions

HACCP-like Quality Risk Management

programme

Figure 15.3. Schematic overview of different developmental steps from curative practice to
advisory practice, or their combinations.

At the same time the forenamed issues show that operational Herd Health & Production
Management programmes should and can easily be merged with the more tactical
HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programmes (Noordhuizen and Welpelo, 1996;
Lievaart et al., 2005). These Herd Health & Production Management programmes also
deal with monitoring of animals and their environment (i.e. risk factors), with animal
health and welfare and with public health issues when they are adequately executed,
but rather in a qualitative manner. Their main focus is operational farm management
to increase income and reduce production costs (Brand et al., 1996). HACCP-based
programmes are, however, far more structured and quite formalised, have a more
tactical orientation, and are based on proper farm organisation.

During field trials the farmers indicated that when Herd Health & Production
Management programmes were executed through farm visits every month, it would
be sufficient to address specific HACCP issues once every two months in these
conditions. The merger between the two can then be visualised as is presented in
Figure 15.4.

When one considers such a merger, it should be kept in mind that the consequence
will be that the execution of the Herd Health & Production Management programme
has to become much more formal, better organised and structured, exactly in the

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 287

Chapter 15

* * * * * * *

Figure 15.4. Visualisation of the merger between Herd Health & Production Management and
the HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programmes. The * represents a calendar month;
the triangle the specific HACCP-based programme parts; the grey-shaded area represents the
operational Herd Health & Production Management programme according to Brand et al.
(1996).

way like the HACCP-like programme is designed. Overall, the integration of both
approaches makes the veterinary service to the (dairy) farm more professional, more
efficient and more beneficial for both the dairy farmer and the veterinarian.

The formalisation, organisation, planning and structuring issues are elementary

components of the HACCP concept, and are required by third parties to ultimately get
a reliable insight into the functioning of the HACCP-like Quality Risk Management
programme on the dairy farm. It should be clear to the farmer, his co-workers and
the veterinarian that it is far better to apply all components of the HACCP-like
programme to some extent (preferably the largest extent) instead of just applying
some components! The latter will undoubtedly result in a zero-efficacy, because too
many paramount domains remain untouched.

Hence, to determine whether the HACCP-like programme is working correctly,

verification and validation procedures must be designed. Verification procedures
are preferably not carried out by the person who is responsible for performing the
monitoring and corrective actions. This task can be performed by a local veterinarian
skilled in this area or by qualified external parties, such as an inspector from the dairy
processing industry.

A verification procedure must include a review of the HACCP-like programme and

its records, deviations and product dispositions and a confirmation that CCP’s and
POPA’s are kept under adequate control. When possible, validation activities should
include actions to confirm the efficacy of all elements of the HACCP-like programme.
In addition to these internal validity screenings, it can be expected that in the near
future external verification through auditing by qualified and accredited persons

288 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Final remarks

needs to be implemented. The latter could eventually lead to certification of these

kinds of dairy farms.

By addressing the applications of HACCP-like Quality Risk Management on both

commercial dairy farms, dairy farms open to the lay public, children or city farms, as
well as milking goats farms, we have shown that the concept and principles of HACCP
always remain the same. Indeed, the HACCP concept and principles can be applied
to domains such as public health, food safety, animal health and animal welfare for
different species of production animals. Hence, it must be feasible to apply the HACCP
concept and principles to other farming sectors (e.g. swine, poultry, rabbits) too, as
well as to other domains in farming such as waste management and environmental
quality (Böhm, 2007; Hartung, 2007).

The Chapters 13 and 14 have been included in this book in order to provide the
context in which veterinary advisory work should take place. Proper knowledge of
entrepreneur-like farmers, adequate insight in one’s own stronger and weaker points,
and appropriate qualities regarding a professional communication, are domains that
need attention when one desires to enter the field of veterinary farm advisory work.

In the past, many advice and intervention measures to improve quality of dairy products
or the production process have been implemented or advised without properly
considering the (direct or indirect) cost-aspects of these measures. Information
about costs and benefits at different levels of quality control (e.g. at farm level, or
further in the dairy food chain) is important to take good decisions. As the E. coli
VTEC example illustrates, the most health-effective measure is not always the most
optimal in economic terms. In order to accomplish this, an economic methodology
should be added to or integrated with Quality Risk Management approaches. This
would also allow the identification of costs and the distribution of benefits of the
intervention measures along the supply chain. This distribution is important to know,
while considering changes in on-farm Quality Risk Management

The application of HACCP principles on (dairy) farms can provide veterinarians

with (additional) income if they assist, coach and advise farmers in developing and
implementing the HACCP-like and associated programmes. Veterinarians can,
however, only perform these activities in an adequate manner if they are a priori
willing to invest in knowledge and skills in domains like hygiene, zoonoses, farm
economics, Quality Risk Management and proper communication skills (Cannas da
Silva et al., 2006). If they do so, a new market segment lays ahead for veterinarians.
Overall, the integration of approaches mentioned in Figure 15.1 makes the veterinary
service to the (dairy) farm more professional, more efficient and more beneficial for
both the dairy farmer and the veterinarian.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 289

Chapter 15

Finally, in this way veterinarians are better prepared too for the role of a more ‘official
veterinarian’ like the EU has proposed in the chapter 4 of annex 1 to the Hygiene
directive EC 853-2004. Veterinarians, hence, have a new role to play in the farming
sector, namely in the area of Quality Risk Management.

‘Take challenge by the hand, before it takes you by the throat!’

(Churchill, 1942)

290 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

Literature references

Adams, C.L., Kurtz, S.M. 2006. Building on existing models from Human Medical Education
to Develop a Communication Curriculum in Veterinary Medicine. Journal of Veterinary
Medical Education 33 (1): 28-37.
Aguilar, M. 2005. Vaincre les objections des clients. Les Editions du Point Vétérinaire, Maisons-
Alfort, France (in French).
Angus, L.J., Bowen, H., Gill, L.A.S., Knowles, T.G., Butterworth, A. 2005. The use of conjoint
analysis to determine the importance of factors that affect on-farm welfare of the dairy cow.
Animal Welfare 14 (3): 203-213.
ANICAP. 2006. Code mutuel en élevage caprin: une démarche de progrès pour promouvoir le
savoir-faire des éleveurs. Dossier technique pour les éleveurs de chèvres laitières. ANICAP-
Institut d’Elevage, Paris, France (in French).
Animal Health Service. 1981. Annual Report, GD, Zwolle, The Netherlands (in Dutch).
Anonymous. 1998. Hazard analysis critical control points principles and application guidelines.
Journal of Food Protection 61 (6): 762-775.
Argyle, M. 1994. Face, gaze and other non-verbal communication. In: The psychology of
interpersonal behaviour, 5th ed., London, pp. 23-55.
Argyle, M., Salter, V., Nicholson, H., Williams, M., Burgess, P. 1970. The communication of
inferior and superior attitudes by verbal and non-verbal signals. British Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology 9, 221-231.
Arrow, K.J. 1996. The theory of risk-bearing: small and great risks. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty 12: 103-111.
BAMN. 2000. An introduction to infectious disease control & biosecurity on dairy farms.
Bulletin of the Bovine Alliance on Management and Nutrition, published by AFIA,
Arlington VI USA.
Bender, J. 1994. Reducing the risk of salmonella spread and practical control measures in dairy
herds. The Bovine Practitioner 28: 62-65.
Berckmans, D. 2004. Automatic on-line monitoring of animals by precision livestock farming.
Laboratory of Agricultural Buildings Research, Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium.
Bergevoet, R.H.M. 2005. Entrepreneurship of Dutch dairy farmers. PhD thesis, Wageningen
University, Dept. of Farm Management, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Bertrand, M., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E. 2007. Behavioral economics and marketing in aid of
decision-making among the poor. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 25(1): 8-23.
Boersema, J.S.C., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Vieira, A., Lievaart, J.J., Baumgartner, W. 2007.
Imbedding HACCP principles in dairy herd health and production management
programmes: case report on calf rearing. The Irish Vet Journal (in press).
Böhm, R. 2007. Strategies for hygienic safe recycling of organic wastes and residuals to
agriculture. In: Proceedings of the XIII Internat. Soc. of Animal Hygiene Congress, Tartu
Estonia, pp. 899-908.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 291

Literature references

Borgmeijer, J. 2007. Nieuwe Europese Wetgeving Levensmiddelenhygiene. Dier-en-Arts

nummer 3 (in Dutch).
Bouwknegt, M., Dam-Deisz, W.D.C., Wannet, W.J.B., van Pelt, W., Visser, G., van der Giessen,
A.W. 2004. Surveilance of zoonotic bacteria in farm animals in The Netherlands. Report
330050001/2004. State Institute of Public Health & the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven,
The Netherlands.
Bouma, B.J., van der Meulen; J.H.P., van den Brink, R.B.A., Smidts, A., Cheriex, E.C., Hamer,
H.P., Arnold, A.E.R., Zwinderman, A.H., Lie, K.I., Tijssen, J.G.P. 2004. Validity of conjoint
analysis to study clinical decision making in elderly patients with aortic stenosis. Journal
of Clinical Epidemiology 57: 815-823.
Bracke, M.B.M., Spruijt, B., Metz, J.H.M., Schouten, W.G.P. 2001. Decision support system for
overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows: model structure and weighting procedure.
Journal Animal Science 8: 1819-1834.
Bracke, M.B.M., Hulsegge, B., Keeling, L., Blokhuis, H.J. 2004. Decision support system
with semantic model to assess the risk of tail-biting in pigs: Validation. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 87: 45-54.
Bramley, A.J., Dodd, F.H. 1984. Reviews of the progress of dairy science: mastitis control
(progress and prospects). Journal of Dairy Research 51: 481-512.
Brand A., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Schukken, Y.H. 1996. Herd health and production
management in dairy practice. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Brandt, J.C., Batemann, S.W. 2006. Senior Veterinary Students’ Perceptions of Using Role Play
to Learn Communication Skills. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 33(1): 76-80.
Bray, D.R., Shearer, J.K. 1994. Milking machine and mastitis control handbook. Cooperative
Extension Service, IFAS circular 1136, University of Gainesville, Fl;, USA.
Bricher, J.L. 2004. Lights, Camera, HACCP! Food Safety Magazine, August/September issue:
38-50.
Brison, R.J., Pickett, W., Berg, R.L., Linneman, J., Zentner, J., Marlenga, B. 2006. Fatal agricultural
injuries in preschool children: risks, injury patterns and strategies for prevention. Canadian
Medical Association Journal 174 (12): 1723-1726.
Burton, C.H., Phillips, V.R., Wathes, C.M. 2000. A broiler industry perspective on environmental
quality: strategies to reduce the impact. XXI World Poultry Congress, Montreal, Canada,
August 20-24.
Burton, C.H. 2007. New challenges for environmental protection in terms of intensive animal
production. In: Proceedings of the XIII Internat. Soc. of Animal Hygiene Congress, Tartu
Estonia, pp. 375-383
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission). 1991. On food hygiene: draft HACCP principles. At
www.codexalimentarius.net/web/publications.jsp
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission). 1999. Principles and guidelines for the conduct of
microbiological risk assessment. CAC/GL-30. Available at htpp://www.codexalimentarius.
net/download/standards/357/CXG_030e.pdf

292 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Literature references

Camerer, C. 1999. Behavioral economics: Reunifying psychology and economics. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 96: 10575-10577.
Candiani, D., Ribo, O., Afonso, A., Aiassa, E., Correia, S., De Massis, F., Pujols, J., Serratosa, J.
2007. Risk Assessment challenges in the field of animal welfare. In: Proceedings of the XIII
Internat. Soc. of Animal Hygiene Congress, Tartu Estonia, pp. 587-591.
Cannas da Silva, J., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Vagneur, M., Bexiga, R., Gelfert, C.C., Baumgartner,
W. 2006. The future of veterinarians in bovine health management. In: Proceedings of the
World Buiatrics Congress. Navetat and Schelcher (eds.), Nice, France, October 2006. Also
published in The Veterinary Quarterly 28 (1): 28-33.
Chambre d’Agriculture des Deux Sèvres. 2004. Guide sanitaire de l’élevage caprin, 36 pp. (in
French).
Chartier, C., Paraud, C., Mercier, P. 2006. Les dominantes pathologies chez la chevrette d’élevage.
In: Proceedings des Journées Nationales GTV, Dijon, France, 897-902 (in French).
Chauvin, A. 1994. Fasciolasis: a form of high-risk zoonosis. Le Point Vétérinaire, special issue
on Ruminants & Public Health (M. Savey, ed.) 26: 39-41 (in French).
Cogbill, T.H., Busch, H.M., Stiers, G.R. 1985. Farm accidents in children. Pediatrics 76 (4):
562-565.
Cox, S. 2005. Precision Livestock Farming ’05. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen,
The Netherlands.
Cross, R, Smith, J. 1996. Customer bonding: Pathway to lasting customer loyalty. NTC Business
Books.
Cullor J.S. 1995. Implementing the HACCP program on your clients’ dairies. Veterinary
Medicine/ Food Animal Practice, March: 290-295.
Cullor, J.S. 1997. HACCP: is it coming to the dairy? Journal of Dairy Science 80: 3449-3452.
Davis, S., Calvet, E., Leirs, H. 2005. Fluctuating rodent populations and risk to humans from
rodent-borne zoonoses. Vector-borne and Zoonotic diseases 5: 305-314.
De Jong, J. 2006. Large-scale dairy farming in an economic perspective. MSc thesis (in Dutch),
Wageningen University, Dept. of Farm Management, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
De Kruif, A., Mansfeld, R., Hoedemaker, M. 2007. Tierärztliche Herdenbetreuung beim
Milchrind. 2nd Edition. Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany (in German).
Den Ouden, M. 1996. Economic modelling of pork production-marketing chains. PhD
thesis at the Wageningen University, Chair of Business Economics, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
De Rijcke, J., Oswald, E. 1994. Is cattle a significant source of E. coli O157:H7? Le Point
Vétérinaire, special issue on Ruminants & Public Health (M. Savey, ed.) 26: 91-99.
Desachy, F. 2005. Les zoonoses, transmission des maladies des animaux à l’homme. Les
Editions du Point Vétérinaire, Maisons-Alfort, France (in French).
Desler, G. 2003. Human Resource Management. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ USA
Dijkhuizen, A.A. 1990. The profitability of herd health control in cattle. Landbouwkundig
Tijdschrift 102: 12-16 (in Dutch).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 293

Literature references

Dijkhuizen, A.A., Renkema, J.A., Stelwagen, J. 1991. Modelling to support animal health
control. Agricultural Economics 5: 263-277.
Dijkhuizen, A.A., Morris, R.S. 1996. Animal health economics: principles and applications.
University of Sydney, Australia, postgraduate formation in veterinary science.
Eelkman-Rooda, D.C. 2006. Communication: management problems within the veterinary
practice is about communication. Dier-en-Arts 6/7 (in Dutch).
EFCF (European Federation of City Farms). 2005. Proceedings of the 15th EFCF Conference,
Turin, Italy, 14-18 September 2005.
EFSA (European Food Safety Agency). 2005. Principles of risk assessment of food producing
animals: current and future approaches. Parma, Italy. Available at htpp://www.efsa.europa.
eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/colloquium_series/no4_animal_diseases/1179.Par.0017.File.
dat/ses_summary_report_coll4_en1.pdf
Elkington, J. 2002. Work and farm related injury. NSW Public Health Bulletin 13 (5): 93.
Esslemont, R.J., Bailie, J.H., Cooper, M.J. 1985. Fertility management in dairy cattle. Collins
Publ. London, UK.
Evans, J.R., Lindsay, W.M. 1996. The management and control of quality. West Publ. Company,
St. Paul, MN, USA.
FAO. 1997. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) system and guidelines for its
application. In: htpp://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y1579e/y1579e03.htm.
FAO. 2003. Good Agricultural Practice. Annex to the COAG-2003-6, FAO, Rome, Italy. at:
htpp://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/006/Y8704f.HTM
FAO and International Dairy Federation IDF. 2004. Guide to good dairy farming practice,
FAO Rome, Italy.
FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council). 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. The Veterinary
Record 131: 357.
FDA. 1999. HACCP: a state of the art approach to food safety. August 1999, US FDA. At;
htpp://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/bghaccp.html
FDF (Friesland Dairy Foods). 2005. Handbook Quarant, a farmers guide. Friesland Foods,
Meppel, The Netherlands (in Dutch).
Fels-Klerx, H.J., Van der Horst, H.S., Dijkuizen, A.A. 2000. Risk fators for bovine repiratory
disease in dairy youngstock in The Netherlands: the perception of experts. Livestock
Production Science 66: 35-46.
Fletcher, R.H., Fletcher, S.W., Wagner, E.H. 1984. Clinical Epidemiology: the essentials.
Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore/London.
Frankena, K., van Keulen, K.A.S., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N., Gundelach,
J., de Jong, D.J., Saedt, I. 1992. A cross-sectional study into prevalence and risk indicators of
digital haemorrhages in female dairy calves. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 14: 1-12.
Franklin, R.C., Crosby, J. 2002. Farm-related injury in NSW: information on prevention. NSW
Public Health Bulletin 13 (5): 99-102.

294 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Literature references

Franklin, R.C., Mitchell, R.J., Driscoll, T., Frager, L. 2000. Farm-related fatalities in Australia
1989-1992. Moree, NSW: Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, National
Occupational Health and Safety Commission and the Rural Industries Research
Development Corporation.
Gardner, I.A. 1997. Testing to fulfill HACCP (hazard analysis critical control points)
requirements: principles and examples. Journal of Dairy Science 80 (12): 3453-3457.
Goodger, W.J., Collins, M.T., Nordlund, K.V., Eisele, C., Pelletier, J., Thomas, C.B., Sockett, D.C.
1996. Epidemiologic study of on-farm management practices associated with prevalence of
M. paratuberculosis infection in dairy cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association 208 (11): 1877-1881.
Griffin, D., Milton, T., Roeber, D., Grotelueschen, D. 1998. Putting NC-BQA to work
through the quality assurance, critical management points (QACMP) system. The Bovine
Proceedings of the 31st Annual Convention, Am. Assoc. of Bovine Practitioners.
Griffin, J. 1995. Customer loyalty: how to earn it, how to keep it. Lexington Books.
Hadley, G.L., Harsh, S.B., Wolf, C.A. 2002. Managerial and financial implications of major dairy
farm expansions in Michigan and Wisconsin. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 2053-2064.
Halasa, T., Huijps, K., Hogeveen, H. 2007. Bovine mastitis: a review. The Veterinary Quarterly
29: 18-31.
Hancock, D, Dargatz, D. 1995. Implementation of HACCP on the farm. In: Proceedings of a
Symposium on HACCP, 75th Meeting of Research Workers in Animal Diseases, November
12, 1995, Chicago, Ill., USA.
Hanenberg, J. 2006. Economic aspects of quality control on dairy farms. MSc thesis at the
Wageningen University, Chair of Business Economics, Wageningen, The Netherlands (in
Dutch).
Hardaker, J.B., Huirne, R.B.M., Anderson, J.R. 1997. Coping with risk in agriculture. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK.
Harrington, S.E., Niehaus, G.R. 1999. Risk Management and Insurance. The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Boston, USA.
Hartung, J. 2007. Assessment of environmental effects of airborne emissions and waste effluents
from livestock production. In: Proceedings of the XIII Internat. Soc. of Animal Hygiene
Congress, Tartu Estonia, pp. 695-701.
Hassan, L. 2001. Farm management and milking practices associated with the presence of Listeria
monocytogenes in New York dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 51: 63-73.
Heinrichs, A.J. 1993. Raising dairy replacements to meet the needs of the 21st century. Journal
of Dairy Science 76 (10): 3179-3187.
Hendricks, K.J., Adekoya, N. 1998. Non-fatal animal related injuries to youth occurring on
farms in the USA. Injury Prevention 2001 (7): 307-311.
Hensel, A, Neubauer, H. 2002. Human pathogens associated with on-farm practices:
implications for control and surveillance strategies. In: Food Safety Assurance and Public
Health, Vol.1. Food safety assurance in the pre-harvest phase (Smulders & Collins, eds.),
Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 295

Literature references

Heuchel, V., Parguel, P., David, V., Lenormand, M., Le Mens, P. 1999. Maîtrise de la qualité
hygiénique en production laitière: l’application d HACCP en élevage. In: Proceedings du
Renc. Rech. Ruminants, 291-297 (in French).
Heuvelink, A.E., van den Biggelaar, F.L., Zwartkruis-Nahuis, J.T.M., Herbes, R.G., Huyben,
R., Nagelkerke, N., Melchers, W.J.G., Monnens, L.A.H., de Boer, E. 1998. Occurrence of
verocytotoxin producing Eschirichia coli O157 on Dutch dairy farms. Journal of Clinical
Microbiology 36 (12): 3480-3487.
Heuvelink, A.E., van Heerwaarden, C., Zwartkruis-Nahuis J.T.M., Van Oosterom, R., Edink, K,
Van Duynhoven, Y.T.H.P., De Boer, E. 2002. Eschericia coli O157 infection associated with
a petting zoo. Epidemiology & Infection 129 (2): 295-302.
Hogeveen, H, Osteras, O. 2005. Mastitis management in an economic framework. In: Mastitis
in Dairy Production. Proceedings of the 4th IDF International Conference (H. Hogeveen,
ed.), Maastricht, The Netherlands, 11-16 June 2005, Wageningen Academic Publishers,
Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 41-52.
Horst, H.S., Huirne, R.B.M., Dijkhuizen, A.A. 1996. Eliciting the relative importance of risk
factors concerning contagious animal diseases using conjoint analysis. Prev. Veterinary
Medicine 27: 183-195.
Hudson, C.B. 1991. Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Food Australia 43: 10-12.
Hugh-Jones, M.E., Hubbert, W.T., Hagstad, H.V. 1995. Zoonoses: recognition, control and
prevention. Iowa State University Press, Ames USA.
Huijps, K., La, T.J.G.M., Hogeveen, H. 2007. Costs of mastitis: facts and perception (in
press).
Huirne, R.B.M, Saatkamp, H.W., Bergevoet, R.H.M. 2002. Economic analsysis of common
health problems in dairy cattle. In: Proceedings of the XIIth World Buiatrics Congress
(Kaske, Scholz & Holtershinken, eds.), 18-23 August 2002, Hannover, Germany, pp. 420-
431.
Hulebak, K.L., Schlusser, W. 2002. HACCP history and conceptual overview. Risk Analysis
22 (3): 547-552.
ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods). 1988.
Microorganisms in Foods, vol. 4: Application of the hazard analysis critical control point
(HACCP) system to ensure microbiological safety and quality.
IKC. 1994. Quality control in dairy farming. IKC Lelystad & Landbouwschap, The Hague, The
Netherlands (in Dutch).
Institut d’Elevage. 2005a. Maladies et pratiques d’’elevage en caprins: résultats d’enquêtes en
région Poitou-Charente, Vendée, Maine et Loire, 6 pp. (in French).
Institut d’Elevage. 2005b. Le Bon Cornage: bien écorner les jeunes caprins. Institut de l´Elevage
– Equipe Caprine Midi Pyrénées, Fiche technique. At: www.Inst-asso.fr (in French)
Institut d’Elevage. 2006a. Résultats de contrôle laitier en France 2005. Compte rendu nr.
010677002 (in French).
Institut d’Elevage. 2006b. L’année économique caprine 2005, le dossier Economie de l’Elevage,
March 2006, nr. 355 (in French).

296 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Literature references

Jayarao, B.M., Henning, D.R. 2001. Prevalence of food-borne pathogens in bulk tank milk.
Journal of Dairy Science 84: 2157-2162.
King, L.J. 2004. Zoonoses et agents pathogens émergants importants pour la santé publique.
Les Editions du Point Vétérinaire, Maisons-Alfort, France & Revue Sci. & techn. OIE, Paris,
France 23 (2) (in French).
Kingwill, R.G., Neave, F.K., Dodd, F.H., Griffin, T.K., Westgarth, D.R., Wilson, C.D. 1970. The
effect of a mastitis control system on levels of clinical and subclinical mastitis in two years.
The Veterinary Record 84: 94-100.
Kivaria, F.M., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Kapaga, A.M. 2004. Risk indicators associated with
subclinical mastitis in smallholder dairy cows in Tanzania. Tropical Animal Health &
Production 36 (6): 581-592.
Kurtz, S. 2006. Teaching and learning communication in veterinary medicine. Journal of
Veterinary Medical Education 33 (1): 11-19.
Lehenbauer, T.W., Oltjen, J.W. 1998. Dairy cow culling strategies: making economical culling
decisions. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 264-271.
LEI-CBS. 2006. Landbouweconomisch Instituut Wageningen – Centraal Bureau voor de
Statistiek ‘Landbouwcijfers 2006’, Table 41c, p 96; Table 22-I, p 36 (in Dutch).
Lejeune, J.T., Davis, M.A. 2004. Outbreaks of zoonotic enteric disease associated with animal
exhibits. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 224 (9): 1440/1445.
Lievaart, J.J., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., van Beek, E., van der Beek, C., van Risp, A., Schenkel,
J., van Veersen, J. 2005. The hazard analysis critical control points concept as applied to
some chemical, physical and microbiological contaminants of milk on dairy farms. The
Veterinary Quarterly 27 (1): 21-29.
Malher, X., Vasseur, C. 1999. Les dépenses de maîtrise de la santé dans les troupeaux caprins
laitiers de Vendée et de Maine-et-Loire. Bulletin des GTV 3: 209-214.
Malher, X., Beaudeau, F., Poupin, B., Falaise, G., Losdat, J. 1999. Réforme et renouvellement
dans les grands troupeaux laitiers caprins de l’Ouest de la France. INRA Productions
Animales 12: 123-133.
Maunsell, B., Bolton, D.J. 2004. Guidelines for food safety management on farms. Report of
an International EU-RAIN workshop, Athens, Greece, May 2004. Published by TEAGASC
- The National Food Centre, Dublin, Ireland.
Mayes, T. 1992. Simple users guide to the hazard analysis critical control point concept for the
control of food microbiological safety. Food Control 3: 14-19.
McFadden, D. 1999. Rationality for economists? Journal of Risks & Uncertainty 19 (1-3):
73-105.
McInerney, J. 1996. Old economics for new problems – livestock disease. Journal of Agricultural
Economics 46: 295-314.
McNealy, R. 1994. Making customer satisfaction happen. Chapman & Hall Publishers.
Meens, E. 2006. La relation de conseil en élevage laitier. Journée Bovine Nantaise, Nantes,
France, 2006, pp. 84-91 (in French).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 297

Literature references

Meijers, S., Baerg, J. 2001. Farm accidents in children: eleven years of experience. Journal of
Pediatric Surgery 36 (5): 726-729.
Mills, J.N. 1998. Question: How can we better prepare professional (veterinary) students to
successfully make the transition into life in the working world (veterinary practice)? In:
Black, B. and Stanley, N. (eds.), Teaching and Learning in Changing Times. Proceedings
of the 7th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, Perth,
pp. 225-227.
Mohrand-Fehr, P., Broqua, C., Bas, P., Lefrileux, Y. 1996. Recommendations et stratégies
alimentaires des chevrettes destinés au renouvellement du troupeau laitier. In: proceedings
du Renc Rech. Ruminants 3: 211-218.
Mourits, M.C., Dijkhuizen, A.A., Huirne, R.B.M., Galligan, D.T. 1997. Technical and economic
models to support heifer management decisions: basic concepts. Journal of Dairy Science
80 (7): 1406-1415.
Mulligan, F.J., O’Grady, L., Rice, D.A., Doherty, M.L. 2007. A herd health approach to dairy
cow nutrition and production diseases of the transition cow. Animal Reproduction Science
96: 331-353.
Neijenhuijs, F., Barkema, H.W., Hogeveen, H., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M. 2001. Relationship
between teat end callosity and occurring of clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 84:
2664-2672.
Neijenhuijs, F., Klungel, G.H., Hogeveen, H., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M. 2005. Machine milking
risk factors for teat end callosity in dairy cows on herd level. In: Mastitis in Dairy
Production, Proceedings of the 4th IDF International Mastitis Conference (H. Hogeveen,
ed.), Maastricht, The Netherlands, 11-16 June 2005, Wageningen Academic Publishers,
Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 376-382.
NEN-EN-ISO. 2005. Voedselveiligheid managementsystemen – eisen aan een organisatie in de
voedselketen, CEN 2005, Delft, The Netherlands. (ISO 22000:2005 IDT). Translated from
a report of the European Committee of Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
Niza-Ribeiro, J. 2003. The safe use of antibiotics in dairy farms. In: Good Dairy Farming
practices, Proceedings of GTEMCAL XX-th Reunion, Porto, Portugal, 24-25 October
2003, pp. 27-36.
Niza-Ribeiro, J., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Menezes, J.C. 2004. Capability index: a statistical process
tool in aid to udder health control in dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 2459-2467.
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Welpelo, H.J. 1996. Sustainable improvement of animal health care by
systematic Quality Risk Management according to the HACCP concept. The Veterinary
Quarterly 18: 121-126.
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Frankena, K., Thrusfield, M., Graat, E.A.M. 2001. Applications of
quantitative methods in veterinary epidemiology. Wageningen Academic Publishers,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Muller, K.E. 2003. Large scale dairies and health management. 54th
Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Rome, Italy, Aug. 31-Sept.3, 2003. Book of Abstracts.
Wageningen Academic Publ., Wageningen, The Netherlands, p. 301.

298 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Literature references

Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M. 2004a. Microbiological contaminants (zoonoses). Bulletin of the

International Dairy Federation 386: 10-16 (as presented at the World Dairy Summit,
Bruges, Belgium, September 7-12, 2003, Proceedings, pp 523-532).
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M. 2004b. Dairy herd health and production management practice in
Europe: state of the art. Proceedings of the 23d World Buiatrics Congress, Quebec, Canada,
11-16 July 2004.
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Metz, J.H.M. 2005. Quality control on dairy farms with emphasis on
public health, food safety, animal health and welfare. Livestock Production Science 94
(1-2): 51-59.
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Hogeveen, H. 2005. The systems approach to udder health control. In:
Mastitis in Dairy Production, Proceedings of the 4th IDF International Mastitis Conference
(H. Hogeveen, ed.), 551-558, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 11-16 June 2005, Wageningen
Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Lievaart, J.J. 2005. Cow comfort and welfare. In: Proceedings of the 1st
Swiss Buiatrics Association Meeting (A. Steiner, ed.), Bern, Switzerland, October 2005,
pp. 1-12.
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M. 2006. Veterinary advisory programmes for dairy farms: evolution and
future. In: Proceedings of GTEMCAL, 19th October 2007, Barcelona, Spain.
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., van Egmond, M.J., van Dellen, D.K.H., Jorritsma, R., Hogeveen, H., van
Werven, T., Vos, P.L.A.M., Lievaart, J.J. 2006. Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-like dairy
farmers. CD ROM issued by Pfizer Animal Health, Capelle a/d IJssel, The Netherlands;
also appearing on www.vacqa-international.com.
Notermans, S, Beumer, H. 2002. Microbiological concerns associated with animal feed
production. In: Food safety assurance in the pre-harvest phase, Vol. 1 in the series on
Food Safety Assurance & Veterinary Public Health (Smulders & Collins, eds.), Wageningen
Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 49-63.
Nydam, D.V., Lindergard, G., Santucci, F., Schaaf, S.L., Wade, S.E., Mohammed, H.O. 2005. Risk
of infection with Cryptosporidium parvum and Crytosporidium hominis in dairy cattle in the
New York City watershed. American Journal of Veterinary Research 66 (3): 413-417.
OIE (Office Internationale des Epizooties). 2004. Handbook on Import Risk Analysis for
animals and animal products, Vol. 1 & 2. OIE, Paris, France.
OIE (Office Internationale des Epizooties). 2006. Guide to good farming practices for animal
production food safety. Revue Scientifique et Technique OIE 25 (2): 823-836.
Oliver, S.P., Murinda, S.E., Nguyen, L.T., Nam, H.M., Almeida, R.A., Headrick, S.J. 2005. On-
farm sources of foodborne pathogens: isolation from the dairy environment. In: Mastitis
in Dairy Production, Proceedings of the 4th IDF International Mastitis Conference
(H.Hogeveen, ed.), Maastricht, The Netherlands, 11-16 June 2005, Wageningen Academic
Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 665-670.
Petrau-Gay, C. 1986. L’alimentation de la chevrette d’élevage. Thèse docteur vétérinaire, Ecole
Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, France, 74 pp. (in French).

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 299

Literature references

Pickett, W., Brison, R.J., Berg, R.L., Zentner, J., Linneman, J., Marlenga, B. 2005. Pediatric farm
injuries involving non-working children injured by a farm work hazard: five priorities for
primary prevention. Injury Prevention 11: 6-11.
Pierson, M. 1995. An overview of HACCP and its application to animal production food safety.
In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points, Conference
of Research Workers in Animal Diseases, November 12, 1995, Chicago, Ill. USA.
Poncelet, J.L. 1995. Ovin lait: démarche qualité (système HACCP). Bulletin des GTV 2: 59-63
(in French).
Prater, Ph. 2003. Zoonotic diseases: the human-animal connection. The Bovine Practitioner/
AABP proceedings 36: 125-130.
Prescott, M.L., Harley, J.P., Klein, D.A. 2002. Microbiology, 5th edition, The McGraw-Hill
Companies, New York, USA.
Quinn, B.P. 2001. HACCP assessment of Virginia meat and poultry processing plants. In:
htpp://scholar.lib.vet.edu/theses/available/etd-12072001-111227/unrestricted/brentpart1.
pdf.
Rabin, M. 1998. Psychology and Economics. Journal of Economics Literature 36 (1): 11-46.
Radostits, O.M., Blood, D.C. 1985. Herd Health (a textbook of health and production
management of agricultural animals). WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
Radostits, O.M., Gay, C.C., Blood, D.C., Hinchcliff, K.W. 2000. Veterinary Medicine: a textbook
of the diseases of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses. W.B. Saunders Company Ltd.
RCVS (Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons). undated. Maintaining practice standards;
London, www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodellD=92570&int2ndParentNodeI
D=89737&int1stParentNodeID=89642, last accessed on 27/04/2007.
Ricard, F. 2001. L’élevage des chevrettes de renouvellement en troupeaux caprins laitiers:
analyse des dangers et maîtrise des points critiques (mis à jour bibliographique). Thèse
docteur vétérinaire, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Nantes, France, 115 pp. (in French).
Ryan, D. 1997. Three HACCP-based programmes for quality management in cattle in Australia.
Dairy Extension, NSW, Australia. Through the Dairy Discussion List Dairy-L@UMDD.
UMD.EDU.
Sanaa, M. 1994. Listeriosis and the contamination of milk and milk products. Le Point
Vétérinaire, special issue on Ruminants & Public Health (M. Savey, ed.) 26: 69-78.
Savey, M. 1994. Ruminants and Public Health, special issue of Le Point Vétérinaire 26: 1-172.
Sawtooth Software Inc. 2000. Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. Evanston 311. ACA User Manual
Version 5. Sawtooth Software, Inc. Sequim WA, United States.
Schermerhorn, J.R. 2005. Management. 8th edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York USA.
Schiefer, G. 1997. Total Quality Management and Quality Assurance in Agriculture and
Food. In: Qualty Management and Process Improvement for Competitive Advantage in
Agriculture and Food. Vol. 1, Proc. 49th seminar of the Eur. Assoc. of Agric. Econom.,
Bonn (G), (Schiefer & Helbig, eds.), Friedrich-Wilhelms University, Bonn Germany.
Schlundt, J., Toyofuku, H., Jansen, J., Herbst, S.A. 2004. Emerging food-borne zoonoses. Revue
Scientifique et Technique OIE 23: 513-53.

300 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Literature references

Schon, H., Artmann, R., Worstorff, H. 1992. The automation of milking as a key issue in
future oriented dairy farming. In: Prospects for automatic milking, Proceedings of the
International Symposium, (Ipema, Lippus, Metz & Rossing, eds.), EAAP publication 65,
23-25 November 1992, Wageningen, The Netherlands, Wageningen Academic Publishers,
Wageningen The Netherlands, pp. 7-22.
Schouten, J.M., Graat, E.A., Frankena, K, van de Giessen, A.W., van der Zwaluw, W.K., de Jong,
M.C. 2005. A longitudinal study of Escherichia coli O157 in cattle of a Dutch dairy farm and
in the farm environment. Veterinary microbiology 107 (3-4): 193-204.
Schulz von Thun, F. 1981. Störungen und Klärungen. In: Miteinander Reden – Band 1 Rowohlt
Verlag, Reinbek (in German).
Shrestha, R.D., Woolderink, M., Hogeveen, H. 2007. Economic effects of ketosis on Dutch
dairy farms: a stochastic Monte-Carlo simulation (in press).
Sibley, R. 2006. Developing health plans for the dairy herd. In Practice 28: 114-121.
Sol, J., Renkema, J.A., Stelwagen, J., Dijkhuizen, A.A., Brand, A. 1984. A three year herd health
and management programme on 30 Dutch dairy herds. The Veterinary Quarterly 6: 141-
169.
SPSS, 2001. SPSS Inc. Chicago, United States of America: http://www.spss.com/contact_us/
Steeneveld, W., Swinkels, J.M., Hogeveen, H. 2007. Stochastic modelling to evaluate the
economic efficiency of treatment of chronic subclinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Research
(in press)
Stup, R. 2001. Standard Operating Procedures, a writing guide. In: htpp://dairyalliance.psu.
edu/pdf/ud011.pdf.
Swinkels, J.M., Zadoks, R.N., Hogeveen, H. 2005. Use of partial budgeting to determine the
economic benefits of antibiotic treatment during lactation of chronic mastitis caused
by Staphylococcus aureus. In: Mastitis in Dairy Production, Proceedings of the 4th IDF
International Mastitis Conference, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 11-16 June 2005,
Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 217-224.
Tesh, V.L., O’Brien, A.D. 1991. The pathogenic mechanisms of Shiga toxin and the Shiga-like
toxins. Molecular Microbiology 5 (8): 1817-1822.
Thrusfield, M. 2005. Veterinary Epidemiology, 3d edition, Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford, UK &
Les Editions du Point Vétérinaire, Maisons-Alfort, France, 590 pp.
Thrusfield, M., Ortega, C., de Blas, I., Noordhuizen, J.P., Frankena, K. 2001. WIN-EPISCOPE:
improved epidemiological software for veterinary medicine. The Veterinary Record 148:
567-572.
Thorel, MF. 1994. Mycobacterioses. Le Point Vétérinaire, special issue on Ruminants & Public
Health (M. Savey, ed.) 26: 33-39.
Tompkin, R.B. 1990. The use of HACCP in the production of meat and poultry products.
Journal of Food Protection 53: 795-803.
Tozer, P.R., Heinrichs, A.J. 2001. What affects the costs of raising replacement dairy heifers: a
multiple component analysis. Journal of Dairy Science84 (8): 1836-1844.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 301

Literature references

Tversky, A, Kahnemann, D. 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science
185: 1124-1131.
Tversky, A, Kahnemann, D. 1971. Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin
76: 105-110.
Valeeva, N.I., Lansink, A.G., Huirne, R.B.M. 2005. Improving food safety within the dairy
chain: an application of conjoint analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 88 (4): 1601-1612.
Valeeva, N.I., Lam, T.J.G.M, Hogeveen, H. 2007. Motivation of dairy farmers to improve
mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science (in press).
Van Dellen, L. 2004. Good Animal Health is paramount for farm profitability. In: proceedings
Symposium GGR/KNMvD, Animal Health Service & Intervet, (in Dutch) September 14
and 15th, 2004.
Van der Meulen, B, van der Velde, M. 2004. Food Safety Law in the European Union, an
introduction. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Van Egmond, M.J., Jorritsma, R., Vos, P.L.A.M., van Werven, T., Lievaart, J.J., van Dellen,
D.K.H., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Hogeveen, H. 2006. The veterinarian of tomorrow
(Dutch version). CD ROM issued by Pfizer Animal Health BV, Capelle aan de IJssel, The
Netherlands.
Van Schaik, G., Dijkhuizen, A.A., Huirne, R.B.M., Benedictus, G. 1998. Adaptive conjoint
analysis to determine perceived risk factors of farmers, veterinarians and AI technicians
for introduction of BHV1 to dairy farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 37: 101-112.
Vos, A. 1999. Critical control points for controlling risks of introduction and transmission
of M. paratuberculosis on dairy cattle enterprises. MSc Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Vose, D. 2000. Risk Analysis: a quantitative guide. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK.
Vosough Ahmadi, B., Frankena, K., Turner, J., Velthuis, A.G.J., Hogeveen, H., Huirne, R.B.M.
2007. Effectiveness of simulated interventions in reducing the estimated prevalence of E.
coli O157H7 in lactating cows in dairy herds. Veterinary Research (in press).
Vosough Ahmadi, B. 2007. Cost-effectiveness of E. coli O157H7 control in the beef chain.
PhD thesis at Wageningen University, Chair of Business Economics, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Walker, D. 1990. Customer first: a strategy for quality service. Gower Publ.
Waltner-Toews, D., Martin, S.W., Meek, A.H., McMillan, I. 1986. Dairy calf management,
morbidity and mortality in Ontario Holstein herds. III. Association of management with
morbidity. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 4: 137-156.
Wathes, C.M., Kristensen, H.H., Aerts, J.M., Berckmans, D. 2005. Is precision livestock farming
an engineer’s dream or nightmare, an animal’s friend or foe, and a farmer’s panacea or
pitfall? In: Precision Livestock Farming ’05 (S. Cox, ed.), Proceedings of the ECPLF 2005,
Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 33-46.
Wathes, C.M. 2007. Precision livestock farming for animal health, welfare and production.
In: Proceedings of the XIII Internat. Soc. of Animal Hygiene Congress, Tartu Estonia, pp.
397-404.

302 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Literature references

Webster, A.F.M., 2001. Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market. The
Veterinary Journal 161: 229-237.
Zaaijer, D., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M. 2003. A novel scoring system for monitoring the relationship
between nutritional efficiency and fertility in dairy cows. The Irish Veterinary Journal 56:
145-151.
Zadoks, R.N., Allore, H.G., Hagenaars, T.J., Barkema, H.W., Schukken, Y.H. 2002. A mathematical
model of Staphylococcus aureus control in dairy herds. Epidemiology & Infection 129: 397-
416.

Examples of software options for HACCP

• doHACCP by Norback, Ley & Associates LLC, 3022 Woodland Trail, Middleton,
Wisconsin USA. www.norbackley.com
• QSA Software Ltd., PO Box 306, St.Albans, Herts AL1 3 DW, UK: HACCP software
packages via www.qsa.co.uk

Website indications for possibly interesting links

• Check websites of: APHIS (USA), USDA (USA), FDA (USA), OIE, FAO, EFSA
• www.sri.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/autumn99/biosensors.htm
• Eurosurveillance: www.b3e.jussieu.fr:80/ceses/eurosurv
• Food hygiene: sable.cvm.uiuc.edu/
• Food safety: www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/food/zoonoses.htm
• Food safety: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000412.htm
• Food safety: www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sfp
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/mediabib/efsa/
science/colloquium_series/no4_animal_diseases/1179.Par.0017.File.dat/ses_
summary_report_coll4_en1.pdf
• Codex Alimentarius Commission: www.codexalimentarius.net/download/
standards/357/CXG_030e.pdf
• europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/goods/liability/046.pdf
• europa.eu.int/comm./publications/booklets
• WIN-EPISCOPE (public domain software on veterinary epidemiological
applications): see for the various websites the paper by Thrusfield et al. (2001)

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 303

Acknowledgements

The editors of this book gratefully acknowledge the contribution of several authors or
co-authors to (parts of) various chapters or paragraphs in this book on HACCP-like
Quality Risk Management on (dairy) farms.
These colleagues are – in alphabetical order of their name – the following:

Mrs. Dr. Mariska Barten, The Netherlands (chapter 11)

Mr. Dirk van Dellen, Pfizer Animal Health, The Netherlands (chapter 13)
Dr. Ryan van Egmond, Pfizer Animal Health, The Netherlands (chapter 13)
Dr. Henk Hogeveen, Wageningen University & Utrecht University, The Netherlands
(chapters 8, 13, 15)
Dr. Ruurd Jorritsma, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht, The Netherlands
(chapter 13)
Dr. Joachim Kleen, Veterinary Faculty, Glasgow Scotland, UK (chapter 14)
Dr. Jan Lievaart, School of Veterinary and Animal Science, Charles Sturt University,
Wagga Wagga, Australia (chapter 13)
Dr. Len Lipman, IRAS, Utrecht University, The Netherlands (chapter 11)
Dr. Xavier Malher, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Nantes, France (chapter 12)
Dr. Joao Raposo, Portugal (chapter 11)
Mrs.Dr. Annet Velthuis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands (chapters 8, 15)
Dr. Peter Vos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht, The Netherlands (chapter 13)
Mrs. Dr. Tine van Werven, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht, The Netherlands
(chapter 13)

Many thanks for your contribution to this book and for your understanding about
editors changing texts, text positions, Tables or Figures all the time…
Your support contributes to a broader dissemination of the philosophy of us editors
regarding the application of HACCP-like principles in the farming business as a
paramount element in the food chain quality assurance programmes.

The editors,

Jos Noordhuizen,
Joao Cannas da Silva,
Siert-Jan Boersema,
Ana Vieira.

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 305

Keyword index

A cleaning & disinfection 57

ACA See: adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) closed questions 266
active listening 267 coaching 217, 237, 239, 277
adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) 67, 74, Codex Alimentarius 16
97, 152, 176, 208, 279 communication 221, 231, 240, 249,
added value 239 274, 278
advisor 239 –– process 270
agreements 143 –– skills 250, 265
AIDA formula 241, 256 –– verbal 250
amount of speech 262 consumer information 278
animal contracts 128
–– cuddling 169, 173 corrective actions 69, 104, 117, 182, 194
–– health 95, 100, 169, 173, 217, 275 –– lists 118
–– welfare 95, 100, 169, 173, 217 cost-benefit 116, 216
application of NSAID 39 costs
attitude 229 –– fixed 229
attributes 74 –– of ketosis 136
auditing –– of mastitis 134, 136
–– checklists 164 –– opportunity 133
–– logs 164 –– variable 229
awareness 229 cow comfort 127, 149
–– five freedoms 149
B critical control points (CCP) 68, 79, 101,
BAP See: biosecurity assurance plan 109, 114, 117, 178, 192, 210, 278
behavioural economics 221, 230, 256, 274 –– criteria 109
bio-sensors 112
biological needs 150 D
biosecurity 103 decision making 130, 269, 285
–– assurance plan (BAP) 19, 49, 52, 83, diagnosis 132
142, 153, 191, 236 diagnostic tests 63
–– measures 99 disease management 134
business administration 222 documents 157, 183, 196
dominance 262
C
cattle welfare 127, 149 E
CCP See: critical control points economics 130
children’s farm 93, 169 emotional tone 263
choice behaviour 230 entrepreneur-like farmers 219
city farm 170, 184 entrepreneur-success 221

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 307

Index

entrepreneurship 220 Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) 15,

33, 114
F Good Medicine Application 34, 36, 147
facial expression 251 Good Veterinary Practice 253
farm guidelines 34, 99, 214
–– accounting 131
–– advisor 234 H
–– business plan 223 HACCP 200, 271, 275
–– economics 245 –– applications 271
–– FX 29, 53, 85, 120 –– concept 15, 17, 28, 63, 65, 156,
–– income 227 275, 289
–– management planning calendar 129 –– principles 14
–– quality management team 64, 82, 154 HACCP-like programme 63, 64, 71, 79,
–– visit 140, 144 116, 184, 279
–– ZZ 201, 206 –– 12 steps 69
farmers’ handbook 18, 83, 103, 157, 160, 194, 279
–– attitude 14 hazard 66, 74, 79, 83, 85, 95, 103, 123,
–– study groups 270 174, 187, 199, 203, 204
flow diagram 70, 79, 174, 187, 204 –– and risk list 98, 119
–– general 80 –– chemical 66, 175, 189, 206
–– specific 83 –– environmental 160
food safety 95, 217, 275 –– identification 190
frisbee 250, 259 –– managerial 66, 175, 190, 192, 206
–– microbiological 16, 66, 175, 187, 206
G –– physical 66, 175, 190, 206
GAP See: Good Agricultural Practice Herd Health & Production Management
GDF See: Good Dairy Farming (HHPM) 13, 15, 18,
General Food Law 14, 33, 170, 200 28, 31, 103, 109, 110, 116, 127, 138, 145,
General Preventive Measures 106, 157 163, 200, 211, 215, 258, 273, 287
geographical map 79 –– protocol 143
gestures 251 Herd Treatment Advisory Plan (HTAP) 30,
GFP See: Good Farming Practice 46, 49, 59, 60, 61, 147, 214
GMP See: Good Manufacturing Practice HHPM See: Herd Health & Production
goat kid rearing 199, 202 Management
Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) 33 HTAP See: Herd Treatment Advisory Plan
Good Dairy Farming (GDF) 18, 33, 52, 53, human resource management 127
56, 117, 120, 127, 153, 183, 195, 278 hygiene
Good Dehorning Practice 216 –– directive 14, 33, 170, 200, 290
Good Farming Practice (GFP) 214 –– instructions for visitors 34
good housing hygiene of neonatal calves 34 –– rules 56

308 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Index

I odds ratios 96
impact 192 open questions 266
injection fluids 40 operational
injuries 174, 177, 179 –– actions long term 29
International Standardisation Organisation –– actions short term 28
15 –– management 247
intimacy 263 organisational plan 247
inventory logs 158
ISO 22000 16, 17 P
paralinguistic signals 251
L Plan of Action 30, 140, 232, 242
level of elasticity 236 points of particular attention (POPA) 68,
location maps 79 79, 101, 104, 109, 114, 117, 178, 179,
loosers 235 192, 210, 278
POPA See: points of particular attention
M posture 251
management-diseases 13 practice
market –– business plan 232
–– analysis 232 –– management 237
–– orientation 222 precautionary principle 191
marketing 238 precision-dairy-farming 112
medicinal products preventive actions 103, 139, 142, 208
–– fluid 41 probability 192
–– in pellets or powder 41 –– diagnosis 39
medicine log 214 problem analysis 139
mentally disabled people 169 process capability indexes 73, 279
milking goat farms 199 production
milk quota 137 –– capacity 225
monitoring 21, 68, 79, 104, 109, 113, 116, –– diseases 13, 131, 137
123, 138, 139, 180, 181, 193, 211 –– disorders 131
–– lists 181 –– losses 131
–– results sheet 194 –– methods 14
multifunctional farms 90, 169 –– process 14, 70, 187, 289
–– process decomposition diagrams 79
N product quality 15, 133
nonverbal communication 250 –– testing 13
products 234, 254, 269
O profiles 238
observational-analytic epidemiological public health 95, 169, 217
surveys 210
occupational disease 192

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 309

Index

Q sleepers 235
QRM See: Quality Risk Management SMART 268
(QRM) SOP See: standard operating procedures
qualitative methods 98 specificity 179
quality 13, 283 standard operating procedures (SOP) 80,
–– assurance 15, 214, 283 155
–– control measures 285 –– rules 80, 85
–– drinking water 272 standards 68, 110, 179, 211
–– environmental 272 strategic planning 127
–– failure 13, 273 strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
Quality Policy Statement 279 threats assessment (SWOT) 254, 270
Quality Risk Management (QRM) 15, 18, strengths and weaknesses assessment
28, 31, 63, 110, 120, 127, 139, 144, 154, (SWA) 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 63,
157, 160, 163, 167, 184, 185, 193, 201, 65, 67, 95, 112, 141, 196, 231, 238, 270
215, 219, 258, 268, 273, 276, 278, 286 support programmes 127
quantitative SWA See: strengths and weaknesses
–– epidemiological methods 97 assessment
–– parameters 73 SWOT See: strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats assessment
R
record keeping 120, 214, 280 T
residue 15, 147 target 68, 110, 179, 211
risk 66, 79, 95, 103, 174, 204 team 51, 64, 82, 95, 104, 128, 155, 163, 167,
–– assessment 67, 152, 176 173, 184, 190, 195, 204, 277, 281
–– attitude 277 teat end callosity (TEC) 112, 140
–– factors 95, 100, 178, 199, 208 TEC See: teat end callosity
–– identification 17 tolerance 68, 179, 211
–– management 17 total quality management (TQM) 17
role-relations 263 TQM See: total quality management
routing 83 training 127, 153, 236, 276, 277
trust 256
S
scale U
–– effects 225 udder health control 30, 127
–– increase 224
segmentation 236 V
Semantic Modelling 152 validation 163
sender-receiver model 260 verification 163, 182
sensitivity 179 –– external 196, 214
services 234, 254, 269 veterinary
shortcomings 235 –– advisory practice 249

310 Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms

 Index

–– medicinal products 38
–– public health 100, 275

W
winners 235
working instructions 34, 46, 52, 54, 69,
117, 195, 214
www.vacqa-international.com 22, 95, 112,
149, 236

Y
yearly farm management action planning
chart 128

Z
zoonoses 172

Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms 311