Introduction

Organic Agriculture (OA) is a method of production and processing that is based on a number of European and French regulations, which change frequently (see Box 1). The main principles of the present regulations include respect for natural equilibrium, the exclusion of the use of synthetic chemical products and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the limitation of the use of inputs. With regard to livestock farming more specifically, the practices adopted must meet the behavioural needs of each species and consider two major principles, namely the link to the soil and respect for animal welfare. Two key concepts summarise the vision of animal health and welfare in OA. The concept of naturalness goes beyond ensuring the needs of the animal. Vaarst and Alrøe (2012) propose to consider the animal as a being that can live a richer life with opportunities to express more of their natural behaviour (e.g. to play and behave socially), to be able to have enriching experiences and to have access to food and to an environment that are considered natural for the species (Vaarst and Alrøe, 2012) The concept of naturalness thus includes: the rejection of chemicals, the promotion of agroecological principles and the respect for the integrity of the individual (Verhoog et al., 2003). Naturalness in a farming system is not synonymous with living in nature. In organic farming systems, humans have a moral obligation to ensure animal welfare (Vaarst and Alrøe, 2012), so the concept of naturalness and welfare are closely linked. The second key concept in OA is that of human intervention in animal care, i.e. intervening when necessary and through animal welfare friendly care practices (Vaarst and Alrøe, 2012). In order to reconcile animal welfare with the exclusion of the use of synthetic chemicals, the regulations recommend basing animal health management on disease prevention and paying particular attention to the housing conditions and husbandry practices of animals of suitable breeds and/or strains. Beyond prevention, the management of sick animals remains a priority to respect their welfare, but must meet certain requirements (see details in Box 1).

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in consumer demand for organic products and in the number of farmers converting to OA (Agence Bio, 2022a and 2022b), although there have been periods of discrepancy between demand and supply. As far as French consumers are concerned, the more natural character of OA-labelled products is an element put forward by a third of them (Agence Bio, 2022b). A reduction in the use of medicines, through better management of animal health, is also one of the motivations for OA expressed by some farmers (Duval et al., 2017).

Thus, the animal health management in organic livestock farming takes place within a framework of a singular conception of animal health by the farmers and of technical limitations linked to the organic specifications. Moreover, understanding the technical particularities of organic systems is not so easy. Indeed, scientific research specifically on the technical characteristics of organic farming (studies of the technical, economic and health performance of organic systems, or comparisons with conventional systems) is quite rare. Biotechnical studies are usually based on farming practices promoted in OA but carried out on conventional farms. They do not reflect the specific production conditions of OA and are therefore not necessarily relevant to assess their effectiveness under organic conditions. Thus, in this review, we favour biotechnical references produced in organic systems, even if they are rare. On the other hand, work in the human and social sciences has focused more specifically on organic farmers, in order to describe their characteristics and the way in which they think about and practise this type of agriculture. These studies aim to understand how organic farmers differ from conventional ones and, more broadly, how they spearhead an alternative vision of agricultural development (e.g. Cabaret and Nicourt, 2011; Bellon and Penvern, 2014). In this article, we first discuss the sociotechnical particularities of health management by farmers, and then, in a second step, the animal health status and the biotechnical particularities of animal health management in organic systems. It should be noted that there is more knowledge available in the literature on ruminant production than on monogastric production; this explains the fact that it is taken as a reference and used to illustrate the ideas that we develop in this article.

1. Socio-technical aspects of health management by organic farmers

This section first presents the conceptions that organic farmers have of animal health and how best to manage it, and then the way in which these farmers position themselves with respect to various external stakeholders (advisors, veterinarians, technical group leaders…). It is worth noting that these different sociological studies are unevenly applied to the different sectors: organic monogastric farms are under-represented in sociological studies. A large proportion of the bibliographical references apply to the ruminant productions.

1.2. Animal health support for organic farmers

These views of animal health result in a need for appropriate support to clarify the choices to be made in terms of the management of the farming system and the care given to the animals. Figure 1 summarises the advisory network of organic farmers regarding animal health.

Figure 1. The organic farmers' animal health advisory network.

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

In general, local rural veterinarians, described as 'firemen', are not considered by organic farmers as privileged advisors (Duval et al., 2017). Some veterinarians are trying to move beyond the role of emergency doctor to become a partner in animal health monitoring (Duval et al., 2016; Benoit, 2021). However, they have difficulties in establishing themselves as key partners in the definition of herd health management strategies for organic dairy farmers and are sometimes even considered incompetent by these farmers to have this role (Vaarst et al., 2006; Duval et al., 2017), even in countries where the role of the veterinarian on farms is formally defined in national organic regulation (Skjølstrup et al., 2021). This is partly due to the specific context of OA, which veterinarians seem to be unfamiliar with, both in terms of regulations and the specific expectations of organic farmers (holistic approach to health, alternative medicines). Furthermore, moving towards an advisory role requires the development of different forms of collaboration with farmers, based on new economic models for rural veterinarians (Benoit, 2021). Receiving advice independent of the drug sales is indeed a strong concern of organic farmers (Duval et al., 2017). Thus, some farmers' groups work with veterinarians who provide herd health advice without selling medicines, for example through agreements between farmers' groups and independent veterinarians (Ruault et al., 2016). Furthermore, although the majority of rural veterinarians have long ignored the demand of farmers for alternative medicines, initiatives have recently been developed, such as the creation of a continuing education programme by veterinary French schools on the subject of phytotherapy.

The mismatch between the advice of conventional local veterinarians and the needs of organic farmers has pushed the latter towards more decision-making autonomy, especially in the choice of their animal health advisors. According to Hellec and Manoli (2018) and Hellec et al. (2021), farmers who use alternative medicines rely on several types of advisors to help them in the daily management of their herd's health: the conventional local veterinarian for conventional interventions on the herd, but also alternative veterinarians, recognised for their expertise on alternative medicines and intervening mainly during days of continuing education. In addition to the different types of veterinarians, other people work with farmers on organic farming: animal husbandry technicians (dairy or reproduction advisors), or sales representative (feed, plant-based or mineral products) (Manoli et al., 2018) and facilitators of farmer's group in the field of animal health. In some areas, farmers' 'animal health' groups have been formed to address the lack of advice on alternative medicines. These groups are most often formed by livestock advisory organisations specialised in organic farming or grassland-based systems (such as CIVAM, GAB, Chambers of Agriculture…) but not specialised in animal health. It is at the request of their members that specific farmers' groups on animal health have been formed. The facilitators of these groups are then considered by the farmers as particularly important advisors. The advice provided is collective in nature, and combines training in small groups (ranging from 5 to 12 people) during which technical content is often provided by external speakers, and time for discussion between farmers, aimed at sharing practical know-how in the specific context of each one. This sharing of experiences between farmers, although it does not make it possible to validate the effects of a particular practice on animal health, given that health is multifactorial, has long been described as a very common way of disseminating innovations in agriculture (Darré et al., 2004). This sharing of experiences responds to a desire for autonomy in decision-making to manage the animal health of their herds, as well as a need for very practical solutions to manage animal health (Manoli et al., 2020). Such discussion between farmers also exist in other contexts: for example, the 'stable schools' in Denmark, training and sharing practical know-how sessions between farmers that also take place on the farm of one of the participants (Vaarst et al., 2007). Farmers' interest in these advisory methods during training sessions is not specific to organic farmers; it has been confirmed more widely for conventional farmers (Manoli et al., 2020), even though it has existed for a longer time in OA and grassland-based systems (e.g. livestock advisory organisations such as GAB and CIVAM).

To conclude on this illustration of conceptions and practices, it should be noted that these conclusions are difficult to extrapolate to the case of the monogastric productions: the pig and poultry farms are in fact characterised by a lower density of farms in a given territory and a more integrated food chain. It would also be interesting to study the particularities of the conceptions of farmers in these farming systems with regard to animal health and advisory network of farmers.

2. Biotechnical aspects of health management by organic farmers

In this section, we first present a comparative overview of the health situation on organic and conventional farms. These studies were most often conducted on dairy farms. We then examine the extent to which the main requirements of the specifications, taken individually or integrated within an organic farming system, can have an impact on animal health.

2.2 Contribution of the organic specification to animal health

Some practices, imposed or recommended by the OA specifications for reasons of health or biodiversity preservation, have been widely adopted by organic farmers and have had positive impacts on the preservation of animal health.

The requirements for animal housing are, in some productions, very different from those in conventional farming and have a real impact on animal health. For example, in organic pig production, the space per animal in indoor housing systems is double that of conventional one and access to the outdoors is now mandatory. Most studies conclude that the frequency of lung lesions observed at the slaughterhouse is divided by 3 for organic pigs compared to conventional ones, in relation to the improvement of air quality (for review, Delsart et al., 2020). The freedom of movement of sows at the end of gestation and in farrowing pens, even if it sometimes increases piglet mortality (Goumon et al., 2022), facilitates nesting and farrowing (Delsart et al., 2020), which makes it possible to dispense with the use of prohibited prostaglandins.

The OA specifications recommend disease prevention through the use of suitable genetic types (see box 1). The breed types used in organic farming are obviously more diverse than in conventional farming. This can be illustrated by data on cattle breeding (Le Mezec et al., 2016): herds with the exclusive Prim'Holstein breed represent 53% in conventional farms and only 22% in organic farms. The latter favour minor dairy breeds and also crossbreeding (10% of inseminations in dairy crossbreeding). However, these choices of racial diversity do not necessarily lead to better resistance to disease. Indeed, knowledge of genetic differences between breeds is not available in France, where genetic breeding values are calculated within each breed population. They have been approached in studies whose objective is to produce estimates of the heterosis effect. For example, in dairy production, Dezetter et al. (2015) showed that genetic resistance to mastitis was higher in the Montbeliarde breed than in the Normande breed, with the Prim'Holstein breed being intermediate. Moreover, the heterosis effect¹ for health traits is weak and not always favourable (Dezetter et al., 2019). One way to improve the choice of genetic types would be to have a more diversified genetic offer in purebred cows, which would allow farmers to choose animals that meet their expectations. Regardless of the type of production, breeders are demanding the integration of new criteria into selection schemes (robustness, natural immunity, valorisation of roughage, docility, maternal qualities, feed efficiency, animal temperament) that can contribute to animal health (Experton, 2015). However, the adaptation of genetic types to OA is still in its early stages regardless of the type of production.

The provision of roughage to pigs, imposed by the OA specifications, has particularly interesting effects on herd health. In growing pigs, it helps to reduce the frequency of gastric ulcers (Holinger et al., 2018). For pregnant sows, the satiating effect of this intake makes it possible to compensate for the frustration linked to their died restrictions and to reduce hierarchical pressures within the herd. The consumption of fibre in the farrowing pen is generally favourable to the health of sows (Meunier-Salaun et al., 2001). Furthermore, the improved intake capacity due to the high forage bulkiness increases feed intake, milk production and ultimately piglet survival. In ruminants, organic feeding systems are generally based on grazing. This is beneficial to the cattle health, by reducing the frequency of production diseases. However, in addition to this dominant favourable effect, grazing presents specific risks (plant toxicity, grass tetany, fly and tick infestation, etc.) that farmers must learn to manage (Bareille et al., 2019).

The duration of milk feeding in young animals imposed by the OA specifications is longer than in the conventional system. This seems to contribute to their better health. In pig production, weaning is a period at risk of diarrhoea in piglets (Leeb et al., 2015). Weaning at 40 days, the minimum suckling time required by the OA specification, may be particularly risky as this corresponds to the time of decline of passive immunity by maternal antibodies before the final establishment of the piglet's own immunity. However, few studies have shown the effect of such a late weaning. In the INRAE Porganic experimental set-up², it was decided to wean the piglets a little later, at 49 days, in order to ensure a better digestive maturity. Combined with a low-protein second-age feed, it prevented diarrhoea (Ferchaud et al., 2022). In dairy cattle production, the specifications require a minimum of 3 months of calf feeding, preferably with maternal milk. Here again, some farmers have opted for an even longer suckling period. Thus, over the last ten years, an innovative technique of rearing dairy calves with suckler cows has been spreading within the professional networks formed around intensive grazing. This technique allows for a much longer suckling period. It consists of giving a cow, taken from the dairy herd, two to three calves, which she feeds and raises for 4 to 8 months, largely on pasture. This technique is very favourable to the health and welfare of the calves (Constancis et al., 2021). It also aims to reduce the laboriousness of the farmer's work while improving the roughage autonomy of the farm (Coquil et al., 2017).

Alternative medicines are recommended to treat sick or injured animals (see Box 1). These practices play an important role in the animal health management of organic farms. A survey of 100 organic ruminant farmers showed that 68% used homeopathy and 65% used aromatherapy (Experton et al., 2021). In the study by Souillard et al. (2019), organic broiler farmers used a variety of non-allopathic treatments (Figure 2). It should be noted, however, that these treatments are mobilised in a preventive manner (79% of uses against only 21% for curative purpose), to avoid digestive problems, but also to promote ossification and growth.

Figure 2. Proportion of 85 organic broiler batches using so-called alternative treatments according to the French study by Souillard et al. (2019).

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

In addition to the questions that these alternative treatment practices raise in terms of quality, safety and marketing, the question of their efficacy is very important (Rostang et al., 2022 in this special issue), which requires the use of different adapted and robust methods to evaluate their bioactivities according to the needs of the farms. A proposal for methodologies to assess the effects of plant extracts on chicken immunity is presented in this special issue (Travel and Guilloteau, 2022; this issue). However, part of the favourable effect felt by farmers may come from the early detection of behavioural changes in the animals that go with the implementation of these alternative methods (Hellec et al., 2021).

Unfortunately, there are still some situations where the farming conditions and the requirements of the OA specifications complicate the management of animal health. This is the case with pig production, where the management of iron intake and castration at a young age are tricky steps. On the one hand, it has been shown that iron supplementation is necessary to maintain haemoglobinemia and health in piglets reared in buildings or outdoors, and that a single intramuscular injection of iron (limit of one allopathic treatment for a piglet) could be suboptimal to prevent anaemia in piglets (Delsart et al., 2020; Prunier et al., 2022). It is therefore necessary to find alternative oral solutions to iron injection, to ensure sufficient, natural and progressive iron intake in newborn piglets, while keeping the possibility of allopathic treatment for another disorder during the life of the fattening pig. On the other hand, castration, which is recommended because of the late age at slaughter, also implies the use of allopathic chemical treatments for pain management; alternative practices are therefore expected.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the study of the practices and concepts of organic livestock farmers shows that, overall, these farmers are making efforts to move towards more naturalness in the management and design of their livestock systems. These technical orientations have resulted in specific advisory systems in the field of animal health in organic farming. Furthermore, a comparison of the animal health status of organic and conventional farms shows that, overall, the health of organic herds is better, even if the comparison is always tricky because of the different intervention thresholds between conventional and organic farmers.

At the end of this review, the particularities of organic farmers in the field of innovation are noteworthy. The innovations developed and tested in situ by organic farmers have always been numerous, originating in the specifications and values promoted by organic stakeholders. This makes this type of agriculture a fertile ground for technical innovations (Bellon and Penvern, 2014), which paradoxically have received little attention from researchers. Thus, biotechnical research on these systems and/or on the practices of interest to organic farmers has always been limited, as it is often considered too marginal.

Research specific to OA is conducted in order to better analyse this minor production system and to account for the values held by organic farmers and stakeholders. They allow us to highlight different types of innovations, which, at a time of agroecological transition, show a possible path for this transition. For example, the diversification of the sources of advice mobilised by organic farmers to support them in more gentle and preventive medicine shows an older and stronger support in organic networks for discussion between peers. The practical and situated knowledge that is promoted in these discussion groups is important to develop for agroecology. These types of advice are developing and are currently gaining ground in conventional animal health advice networks (Manoli et al., 2020). In this respect, organic farming, in the field of animal health, can be seen as a niche of technological innovations that have emerged in a particular socio-technical scheme (Geels and Schot, 2007) and are spreading widely in the dominant scheme, where more and more systemic innovations are required (e.g. more integrated animal health management, Fortun-Lamothe et al., 2022 in this special issue) for the agroecological transition. In One Health approaches, these issues of moving towards more systemic animal health management are also strongly present (Zinsstag et al., 2011). Although the technical specificity of organic farming systems is therefore difficult to define, it is all the more important to develop research on OA: firstly, to support this farming model, for which the question of scaling-up is a topical issue (cf. INRAE's Metabio metaprogramme on scaling-up of OA), and secondly, because of the potential for disseminating innovations that this represents.

References

• Agence Bio, 2022a. Les chiffres 2021 du secteur Bio. Dossier de presse, Juin 2022. https://www.agencebio.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/DP-final_AGENCE-BIO-10-juin-2022.pdf.
• Agence Bio, 2022b. Baromètre de consommation et perception des produits biologiques en France. Etude n°2100912, Janvier 2022, 152 p. https://www.agencebio.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Barometre-de-consommation-et-de-perception-des-produits-bio-Edition-2022_VF.pdf.
• Bareille N., Haurat M., Delaby L., Michel L., Guatteo R., 2019. Quels sont les avantages et risques du pâturage vis-à-vis de la santé des bovins ? Fourrages, 238, 125-131.
• Bellon S., Penvern S., 2014. Organic farming, prototype for sustainable agriculture. Springer Édition, 489p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7927-3
• Bennedsgaard T.W., Thamsborg S.M., Vaarst M., Enevoldsen C., 2003. Eleven years of organic dairy production in Denmark: herd health and production related to time of conversion and compared to conventional production. Livest. Prod. Sci., 80, 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00312-3
• Benoit L., 2021. Vers une médecine vétérinaire préventive ? Une étude à l’échelle des cabinets vétérinaires. Mémoire de master 2 Agroécologie, Connaissances, Territoires et Sociétés. 83p.
• Cabaret J., Nicourt C., 2009. Les problèmes sanitaires en élevage biologique : réalités, conceptions et pratiques. In : Numéro spécial, Élevage bio. Guyomard H., Coudurier B., Herpin P. (Eds). INRA Prod. Anim., 22, 235-244. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2009.22.3.3350
• Cabaret J., Nicourt C., 2011. La maladie animale entre visions ontologique et fonctionnelle : jachère des croyances ou culture de l'interdisciplinarité en élevage biologique. Présenté au : Colloque SFER/RMT « Les transversabilités de l'Agriculture Biologique », Strasbourg, FRA (23-06-2011 – 24-06-2011) [en ligne]. Disponible sur http://prodinra.inra.fr/record/45534
• Coquil X., Brunet L., Hellec F., Pailler I., 2017. Conception d’une conduite de génisses laitières sous vaches nourrices : une intensification écologique des systèmes d’élevage herbager ? Fourrages, 231, 213-222.
• Constancis C., Ravinet N., Bernard M., Lehebel A., Brisseau N., Chartier C., 2021. Rearing system with nurse cows and risk factors for Cryptosporidium infection in organic dairy calves. Prev. Vet. Med., 190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105321
• Darré J.P., Mathieu A., Lasseur J., 2004. Le sens des pratiques. Conceptions d’agriculteurs et modèles scientifiques, éd. INRA.
• Delsart M., Pol F., Dufour B., Rose N., Fablet C., 2020. Pig farming in alternative systems: strengths and challenges in terms of animal welfare, biosecurity, animal health and pork safety. Agriculture, 10, 261. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10070261
• Dezetter C., Leclerc H., Mattalia S., Barbat A., Boichard D., Ducrocq V., 2015. Inbreeding and crossbreeding parameters for production and fertility traits in Holstein, Montbéliarde, and Normande cows. J. Dairy Sci., 98, 4904-4913. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8386
• Dezetter C., Boichard D., Bareille N., Grimard B., Le Mezec P., Ducrocq V., 2019. Le croisement entre races bovines laitières : intérêts et limites pour des ateliers en race pure Prim’Holstein ? INRA Prod. Anim., 32, 359-378. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2019.32.3.2575
• Duval J.E., Bareille N., Fourichon C., Madouasse A., Vaarst M., 2016. Perceptions of French private veterinary practitioners’ on their role in organic dairy farms and opportunities to improve their advisory services for organic dairy farmers. Prev. Vet. Med., 133, 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.09.008
• Duval J.E., Bareille N., Fourichon C., Madouasse A., Vaarst M., 2017. How can veterinarians be interesting partners for organic dairy farmers? French farmers’ point of views. Prev. Vet. Med., 146, 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.07.013
• Experton C., 2015. Répondre à des pratiques et attentes diversifiées en élevage biologique. AlterAgri, Janvier-Février, 15-18. https://abiodoc.docressources.fr/doc_num.php?explnum_id=2406
• Experton C., Mouchard T., Gasqui P., Vourc’h G., Cluzet C., Manoli C., Ruault C., Linclau O., Girerd C., Roussel P., Bouy M., 2021. OTOVEIL - Analyse des processus techniques et organisationnels qui mènent à des situations d’équilibre sanitaire dans les élevages bio. Innov. Agro., INRAE, 82, 283-300.
• Fall N., Emanuelson U., 2009. Milk yield, udder health and reproductive performance in Swedish organic and conventional dairy herds. J. Dairy Res., 76, 402-10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029909990045
• Fortun-Lamothe L., Collin A., Combes S., Ferchaud S., Germain K., Guilloteau L., Gunia M., LeFloc’h N., Manoli C., Montagne L., Savietto D., 2022. Principes, cadre d'analyse et leviers d'action à l’échelle de l’élevage pour une gestion intégrée de la santé chez les animaux monogastriques. In : Rationaliser l'usage des médicaments en élevage. Baéza É., Bareille N., Ducrot, C. (Éds). INRAE Prod. Anim., 35, 307-326. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2022.35.4.7225
• Geels F.W., Schot J., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
• Goumon S., Illmann G., Mousten VA., Baxter E., Edwars S.A., 2022. Review of temporary carting of farrowing and lactating sows. Front. Vet. Sci., 9:811810. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvets.2022.811810022
• Hardeng F., Edge V.L., 2001. Mastitis, ketosis and milk fever in 31 organic and 93 conventional Norwegian dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci., 84, 2673-2679. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74721-2
• Hellec F., Manoli C., 2018. Soigner autrement ses animaux : la construction par les éleveurs de nouvelles approches thérapeutiques. Écon. Rurale, 363, 7-22. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.5384
• Hellec F., Manoli C., Joybert M., 2021. Alternative medicines on the farm: a study of dairy farmers’ experiences in France. Front. Vet. Sci., 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.563957
• Holinger M., Früh B., Stoll P., Kreuzer M., Hillmann E., 2018. Grass silage for growing-finishing pigs in addition to straw bedding: Effects on behaviour and gastric health Livest. Sci., 218, 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.10.012
• INAO, 2021. Guide de lecture du RCE n° 834/2007 et du RCE n° 889/2008. Version de mai 2021 https://www.inao.gouv.fr/Les-signes-officiels-de-la-qualite-et-de-l-origine-SIQO/Agriculture-Biologique
• Joly J., 2018. Pratiques sanitaires d’élevages de Ruminants. Contribution à l’identification de déterminants sociotechniques de l’équilibre sanitaire en agriculture biologique. MFE Ingénieur École Supérieure d’Agriculture, Angers, France.
• Kijlstra A., Eijck I.A.J.M., 2006. Animal health in organic livestock production systems: a review. N.J.A.S., 54, 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(06)80005-9
• Krieger M., Sjöström K., Blanco-Penedo I., Madouasse A., Duval J. E., Bareille N., Fourichon C., Sundrum A., Emanuelson U., 2017. Prevalence of production disease related indicators in organic dairy herds in four European countries. Livest. Sci., 198, 104-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.02.015
• Krieger M., Jones P.J., Blanco-Penedo I., Duval J.E., Emanuelson U., Hoischen-Taubner S., Sjöström K., Sundrum A., 2020. Improving animal health on organic dairy farms: stakeholder views on policy options. Sustainability, 12, 3001. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12073001
• Le Bris T., Gasqui P., Experton C., Cluzet C., Vourc’h G., Manoli C., 2018. Vers une objectivation de l’équilibre sanitaire des troupeaux : ce que nous apportent les données collectées en élevages de ruminants en agriculture biologique. Rencontres Recherche Ruminants, Paris, France, décembre 2018. http://www.journees3r.fr/spip.php?article4658
• Leeb C., Hegelund L., Edwards S., Mejer H., Roepstorff A., Rousing T., Sundrum A., Bonde M., 2014, Animal health, welfare and production problems in organic weaner pigs. Org. Agr., 4, 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-013-0054-y
• Leeb C., Rudolph G., Bochicchio D., Edwards S., Früh B., Holinger M., Holmes D., Illmann G., Knop D., Prunier A., Rousing T., Winckler C., Dippel S., 2019. Effects of three husbandry systems on health, welfare and productivity of organic pigs. Animal, 13, 2025-2033. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119000041
• Le Mezec P., Guerrier J., Roinsard A., 2016. Les élevages de bovins bio en France : choix de conduite, génétique et résultats techniques. Conférence au sommet de l’élevage “L’élevage bovin biologique en France : des éclairages de la recherche et des références. https://www.abiodoc.com/sites/default/files/gen_ab_biothemas_2016.pdf
• Manoli C., Hellec F., 2017. Recréer des liens entre l’alimentation et la santé du troupeau : usages et diffusion de la méthode Obsalim® en élevage laitier bovin. Fourrages, 231, 203-212.
• Manoli C., Ruault C., Lebris T., Douine C., Hellec F., 2018. Animal health management on organic farm: influence of extension services and animal health professionals. The International Society for Economics and Social Sciences of Animal Health (ISESSAH), 14-15 May 2018, Montpellier, France. https://www.isessah.com/publications
• Manoli C., Martin G., Defois J., Morin A., Roussel P., 2020. Quelles attentes en formation exprimées par les éleveurs et les conseillers en productions porcines et bovin lait pour une gestion intégrée de la santé animale ? Rencontres Rech. Rum., Paris, France, 2-3 décembre 2020. http://www.journees3r.fr/spip.php?article4948
• Meunier-Salaun M.C., Edwards S.A., Robert S., 2001. Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted-fed sow. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 90, 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00196-1
• Michaud A., Cremilleux M., Beaure G., Védrine A., Rigolot C., 2019. Un diagnostic d’alimentation de ruminants « qui parle aux éleveurs ». Comparaison avec un protocole classique. Fourrages, 240, 321-328.
• Nicourt C., Benoit M., Laignel G., Cabaret J., 2009. Approches sanitaires comparées d’éleveurs ovins allaitants biologiques et conventionnels. Innov. Agro., INRAE, 4, 49-60.
• Prunier A., Leblanc-Maridor M., Pauwels M., Jaillardon L., Belloc C., Merlot E., 2022. Evaluation of the potential benefits of iron supplementation in organic pig farming. Open Research Europe 2:11 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14367.2)
• Rostang A., Belloc C., Leblanc Maridor M., Pouliquen H., 2022. La pharmacie vétérinaire – un enjeu majeur pour un élevage durable. In : Rationaliser l'usage des médicaments en élevage. Baéza É., Bareille N., Ducrot, C. (Éds). INRAE Prod. Anim., 35, 245-256. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2022.35.4.7181
• Ruault C., Bouy M., Experton C., Patout O., Koechlin H., Sergent O., 2016. Groupes d'éleveurs en santé animale et partage des savoirs entre éleveurs biologiques et conventionnels. Innov. Agro., 51, 89-103.
• Ruegg P., 2009. Management of mastitis in organic and conventional dairy farms. J. Anim. Sci., 87(Suppl. 1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1217
• Sato K., Bartlett P.C., Erskine R.J., Kaneene J.B., 2005. A comparison of production and management between Wisconsin organic and conventional dairy herds. Livest. Prod. Sci., 93, 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.09.007
• Skjølstrup N.K., Lastein D.B., Jensen C.S., Vaarst M., 2021. The antimicrobial landscape as outlined by Danish dairy farmers. J. Dairy Sci., 104, 11147-11164. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-20552
• Souillard R., Répérant J.M., Experton C., Huneau-Salaun A., Coton J., Balaine L., Le Bouquin S., 2019. Husbandry practices, health, and welfare status of organic broilers in France. Animals, 9, 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030097
• Sulpice P., Gay E., Dumas P-L., Fauriat A., Frenois D., 2017. Exposition aux antibiotiques dans les troupeaux bovins : variabilité de l’indicateur ALEA et recherche de facteurs explicatifs, Recueil des Journées Nationales SNGTV, mai 2017, 629-638.
• Sundrum A., 2001. Organic livestock farming, A critical review. Livest. Prod. Sci., 67, 207-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00188-3
• Travel A., Guilloteau L., 2022. Méthodologies pour choisir et caractériser les extraits de plantes et évaluer leurs activités biologiques sur les défenses naturelles et le bien-être des poulets. In : Rationaliser l'usage des médicaments en élevage. Baéza É., Bareille N., Ducrot, C. (Éds). INRAE Prod. Anim., 35, pages https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2022.35.4.7337
• Vaarst M., Alrøe H.F, 2012. Concepts of Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Livestock Systems. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 25, 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9314-6
• Vaarst M., Bennedsgaard T.W., Klaas I., Nissen T.B., Thamsborg S.M., Østergaard S., 2006. Development and daily management of an explicit strategy of nonuse of antimicrobial drugs in twelve Danish organic dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci., 89, 1842-1853. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72253-6
• Vaarst M., Nissen T.B., Ostergaard S., Klaas I.C., Bennedsgaard T.W., Christensen J., 2007. Danish stable schools for experiential common learning in groups of organic dairy farmers. J. Dairy Sci., 90, 2543-2554. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-607
• Valle P.S., Lien G., Flaten O., Koesling M., Ebbesvik M., 2007. Herd health and health management in organic versus conventional dairy herds in Norway. Livest. Sci., 112, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.02.005
• Verhoog H., Matze M., van Bueren E.L., Baars T., 2003. The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics., 16, 29-49. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021714632012.
• Zinsstag J., Schelling E., Waltner-Toews D., Tanner M., 2011. From “one medicine” to “one health” and systemic approaches to health and well-being. Prev. Vet. Med., 101, 148-156, (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.07.003.)