See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237021640

Applying HACCP-based quality risk management on dairy farms

Book · July 2008

DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-633-5

CITATIONS READS

19 645

4 authors:

Jos Noordhuizen João Cannas da Silva

Charles Sturt University Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias
407 PUBLICATIONS 5,178 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 91 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Siert Jan Boersema Ana Vieira

11 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS
University of Lisbon
25 PUBLICATIONS 139 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New tool to help Vertinary Consultants to make advice into Dairy Farms View project

Project PhD fellowship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jos Noordhuizen on 08 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Herd Health Management & Quality Risk Control on Large Dairy Farms
J.P.T.M. Noordhuizen 1,2,3,* , J.S.C. Boersema1,4, J. Cannas da Silva1,5
1
VACQA-International Portugal-France-Holland ; 2 Ecole Vétérinaire de Lyon, Marcy
l’Etoile, France ; 3 Veterinary Faculty, University Gent, Merelbeke, Belgium; 4 Veterinary
Faculty, Utrecht University, The Netherlands; 5 Laboratório Medicina Veterinária Lda.
Santarém, Portugal
*
jos.noordhuizen@orange.fr
* Address: 378 Rue de l´Eglise, 27450 St.Georges-du-Vievre, France

Abstract
Herd health and production management have been and are being implemented during many
years. They differ in contents, focus, intensity and quality. Issues of marketing,
communication and professionalism are often lacking. This paper presents an overview of the
developments in herd health programmes, their current status and characteristics of
professionalism. Furthermore, the latest developments regarding quality risk management
programmes, as applicable on dairy farms, are highlighted. The 12 steps to develop and
introduce such a programme on dairy farms are presented. Finally, it is discussed how the two
approaches can be integrated into one, on-farm, veterinary advisory programme to serve both
the operational management needs, and the more tactical objectives of quality assurance.

Key words: veterinary, herd health management, quality risk control, dairy

Introduction

Veterinary herd health management programs (HHM) have been introduced in the dairy
farming sector, from the 60’s onwards, in different variations. The first programmes had a
mono-disciplinary focus, e.g. on udder health (Bramley and Dodd, 1984) and on herd fertility
(De Kruif et al., 2007), and were mainly aiming at solving herd problems. The great
disadvantage of such mono-disciplinary approach is that relevant other farming areas are
neglected and, hence, progress in solving herd problems is limited; herd problems are
predominantly multifactorial in nature. The obvious example is the interaction between herd
fertility, nutritional efficiency and feeding management, and claw health. In herd fertility
schemes, the component of data processing, and analysis to solve problems has too often been
neglected by veterinarians. Hence, only veterinary handlings (rectal palpations; treatments)
were retained without evaluating herd performance regarding target values, leading to a high
degree of de-motivation among farmers and a high drop out rate.
Later on, the focus became more wide, addressing different farming areas at the same time
and aiming at the veterinary support of farm management decision-making (Brand et al.,
2001). Their goal was to improve farm income and/or reduce operational production costs. In
these programmes, a more structured methodology was implemented in order to keep
oversight over the different areas to be addressed during the regular planned farm visits. Good
record keeping was a prerequisite to the execution of these HHM programs (Noordhuizen,
2004).

HHM programmes are very well applicable to large dairy farms. First, because there are many
similarities between running such enterprises and executing a professional HHM programme,
because these farms are (if managed well) often true enterprises, well-organized, with a
structural human resource management, goal oriented, and economics driven (Noordhuizen et
al., 2008b). Secondly, because the reduction of costs due to diseases and disorders is
primordial on those large farms. And thirdly, when dairy farms are expanding in size, its
management and organisation become more complex and could use assistance, to keep
oversight in this growing complexity. Characteristics of entrepreneurial dairy farmers and
their farms have been described (Bergevoet, 2005; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). On large dairy
farms where several of these standard features are lacking or neglected, the economic
revenues will be reduced. Professionally executed HHM programmes can contribute to reduce
such losses.

In the European Union (EU), the “consumer protection” has become a leading policy, not in
the least after outbreaks of infectious diseases like BSE and FMD, and contaminated feed (Pb;
dioxins) largely addressed in the media. The general food law (EC 178-2002) and the new
hygiene directives (EC 852/853/854-2004) speak about the 4 domains of public health & food
safety, and animal health & welfare, as issues of quality of the production methods as applied
by the dairy farmer. Quality –hence- does not only refer to the product (milk), but involves
the production process as a whole. While the implementation of HACCP (hazard analysis
critical control points) has been made compulsory by the EU for food and feed producing
companies, the EU has just suggested in the annex of the hygiene directive that farms
implement a HACCP-like quality risk control programme to be able to prove to third parties
(consumers; retailers; authorities) their herd status in the named 4 domains and the measures
taken to improve that status. This forms part of the farmer’s responsibility and liability, as the
first link in the food chain regarding the production of food of animal origin.

This chapter first presents the core features of professionally executed HHM programmes.
Then, the 12 steps for developing a HACCP-like quality risk control (QRC) programme on a
dairy farm are addressed. Finally, it is discussed how HHM and QRC can be integrated into
one programme to be applied on dairy farms for operational and tactical purposes.

Professionally executed HHM programmes

The professionally executed HHM (or herd health & production management) programmes
can be characterised by features as named in Table 1 (Noordhuizen, 2004).

Mutual trust and confidence between farmer and veterinarian

Broad competences in veterinary and zootechnical disciplines present in the veterinarian
Proper communication skills and knowledge about behavioural economics applied *)
Minimal but necessary records are kept by both farmer and veterinarian
Planned farm visits (e.g. once every 1 or 2 weeks depending on herd size and problems)
HHM product/service delivered based on farmer’s priorities and farming goals; the latter are translated into
technical HHM goals
The HHM product/service contents are exactly defined a priori and agreed upon
The fee structure is transparent for the farmer and agreed upon
There is a good structure regarding the HHM activities (e.g. protocols)
Such activities comprise [a] routine monitoring, [b] problem analysis, [c] prevention
Cost-benefit assessment of disease losses and proposed interventions are made
Written reports on farm visits, problem analysis results, and preventive measures (e.g. biosecurity plans)
Introduction of technical work instructions for particular areas (e.g. colostrum management; using formalin foot
bathing; milking hygiene)
Professional network of other specialists around the farm is available
Installation of on-site training programmes for farm workers
A contract between farmer and veterinarian is on the basis of compulsory efforts engagement, not goal-oriented
Table 1. Overview of characteristics of professionally executed HHM programmes
*) including also areas like nutrition, farm economics, housing & climate, marketing,
 management, business administration, quality assurance

The foundation of the farm visits is in good record keeping and in broad monitoring (animals;
their environment and management; the farm data) activities. The latter provides the farmer
and the veterinarian with signals of actual performance of cows in the areas of animal health,
productivity, feed efficiency, reproduction, calf rearing and product quality. Monitoring can
also be used for detecting trends in performance and to evaluate the effect of previously given
advice or interventions. Given the nature of the different monitoring elements (Table 2) they
are not all addressed at the same time at a farm visit; planning and time-management dictate
what will need to be done when, at which frequency and at what intensity: average herd level
figures, group averages, or the individual level. For example, body condition scores (BCS)
change over weeks; hence, scoring BCS once every 2 or 3 months will be sufficient, starting
from e.g. the 5th month of gestation. On the other hand, scoring rumen fill, faeces consistency
and the undigested fraction in the faeces can be scored on a weekly basis because they will
change in 3 to 5 days, for example after changing rations.
While scoring cows is predominantly focussed on performance read out parameters, scoring
the environment and management is particularly focussing on risk factors contributing to
more or less poor performance (disorders like acidosis or ketosis). Monitoring elements are
regarded in their interactive relationships, which makes the interpretation of monitoring
results crucial for designing a proper plan of action for the shorter and the mid-long term.

Animals Environment & Management Farm data

BCS Housing conditions Milk recording
Rumen fill Climatic conditions Milk quality
Faeces consistency Milking machine function Roughage analysis data
Undigested fraction Milking hygiene Pasture exploitation data
Teat end callosity Milking procedure AI and sire information
Locomotion scoring Ration formulation Laboratory results
Clinical disease cases Feeding management Drinking water quality
Reproductive data Overall farm hygiene Soil analysis information
Udder/thigh hygiene De-worming strategy Feed harvesting data
Indicator cows Colostrum management etcetera
Table 2. An example of elements which can be routinely monitored during HHM farm visits

The effects of this plan of action are evaluated during next farm visits; if needed, adjustments
to the plan are made. At all times, the plan of actions is discussed with the farm manager, and
the measures to be taken are written in a report (preferably 1, but not exceeding 3 pages A4
length), provided with a time-table and explained to the farm manager and farm workers.
Problem analysis too follows a preset protocol in 10 main steps, as is presented in Table 3.
The aim is to bring structure into a –most often- multifactorial complex problem causality. In
many cases, different parallel tracks have to be followed because in herd problem situations
different disorders at different stages of development may be present at the same time.
Structure furthermore assists in clarifying to the farm manager where in the analysis
procedure he stands, and what is done when and why. At the end of the analysis procedure a
written analysis report is written and discussed with the farm manager and farm workers, and
both interventions and advice finalised. This report is handled during next farm visits to
evaluate progress, observed through the monitoring process.
Preventive actions should not be limited to vaccination and strategic de-worming
programmes, but must rather comprise the identification and management of risk factors
contributing to the occurrence of the different disorders. Management refers to the elimination
of risks, or the reduction of their effects, e.g. by implementing biosecurity plans, hygiene
instructions for visitors, quarantine for purchased cattle.

1. Complaint of the farm manager regarding a performance area (or problem detected
through monitoring).
2. Definition of the herd problem (which cows, since when, what exactly, under which
conditions, why) and setting an hypothesis of causality (interviewing the farmer)
3. Setting a first probability diagnosis for clinical and subclinical cases (when indicated,
conduct laboratory testing).
4. Inspection of cows; their environment & management (risk factors!); farm data
(monitoring activity). Stronger and weaker points on the farm are investigated.
5. Hence, collection of potentially different signs indicating different areas related to the
problem, or indicating different problems in parallel.
6. Synthesis of all monitoring results, and setting one or more (parallel) herd diagnoses.
7. Design a plan of action, with advice/intervention for the shorter (priorities) and the mid-
long term.
8. Discuss the plan of action with the farm manager, and finalise it in a written report.
9. Explain to farm workers what should be done when and why, and by whom.
10.Execution of the plan of action; evaluation at next farm visits; adjustment of the plan if
needed.

Table 3. The 10 main steps of the problem analysis protocol in HHM programmes

HHM executed according to the forenamed procedures is a dynamic programme, with a well-
defined basis (i.e. monitoring) but with extensions added (e.g. problem analysis; prevention)
which are quite flexible in nature and dependant on prevailing or expected herd level
disorders. Planning of the HHM contents should therefore be done for 3 to 5 months ahead.
Consequently, the farm manager, veterinarian and farm workers will regularly discuss the
evolution of the HHM programme and the potential need to adjustment over time, in order to
make and keep the programme as best farm-specific as possible. This approach puts high
demands on the knowledge and skills of veterinarians (see Table 1). He needs to invest time
for discussion and negotiation before HHM implementation (marketing; client acquisition),
during the implementation of HHM (discussing monitoring results and problem analysis
results, alternatives measures of intervention and advice, follow-up). Most analysis work is
done at the veterinary practice office; the same is valid for consulting other specialists from
the around-the-farm network of professionals.
Computer software may facilitate the execution of HHM programmes; both the monitoring
and the problem analysis can then be conducted in a much more in-depth manner. However,
computers are not a panacea; conventional records in handwriting can –if kept adequately-
also do the job, although to a lesser in-depth extent.

HACCP-based Quality Risk Control (QRC)

The HACCP concept (see Pierson, 1995, and Hulebak and Schlusser, 2002, for a review)
comprises 7 principles for monitoring and controlling a production process. The HACCP-like
concept has been evaluated as best applicable to dairy farms, as compared to good
manufacturing codes of practice and ISO-9000-series, two other concepts for quality control
(Cullor, 1995; Noordhuizen and Welpelo, 1996). For on-farm application, these principles
have been integrated into the “12 steps for developing a HACCP-like QRC programme” (see
Table 4). Core elements in this QRC are: the formation of a QRC-team (farm manager +
veterinarian + other specialist on indication); the a priori definition by the team of the farm
mission, and the major hazards to the farm and their associated risk factors; the definition of
critical control points (CCP) and points of particular attention (POPA) and their standards &
tolerance limits, or reference values; the monitoring of these CCP’s and POPA’s; the
prescription of corrective measures to apply once process control is lost in a certain process
step or series of steps; the introduction of good dairy farming codes of practice (guidelines)
and associated technical work instructions for certain farming areas; record keeping
procedures, documents and internal/external audits. On dairy farms we speak of HACCP-like
QRC. The main reasons are that –contrary to industrial processes with purely physical
entities— we deal with live animals and their biological variation. Moreover, our diagnostic
tests usually show false-positive and false-negative test results. Hence, exact standards &
tolerance limits will hardly be found on dairy farms. Therefore, we can hardly find true CCP’s
but will find many more POPA’s on dairy farms. POPA’s are critical points in the process
which do not meet the formal criteria set for defining a true CCP (see Table 5); for example,
measures taken at a POPA will not lead to full restoration of process control, one of these
formal criteria. The clinical mastitis percentage among lactating cows per year can be
considered a POPA in udder health; we can set a reference value (e.g. < 20% or < 15% for
one farm) but there is no true standard & tolerance value.

Number of Contents of a step

step
Step 1 Create a QRC team
Step 2 Describe the farm mission, its final product and method of distribution
Step 3 Identify the use of the raw product being produced and the purchaser of products
Step 4 Design flow diagrams of the production process
Step 5 Verify the developed flow diagrams on-site with farm workers
Step 6 Identify major hazards and their associated risk factors; weigh the risk factors for their
relevance; put them in order of that relevance [1]
Step 7 Identify the CCP’s and the POPA’s from the previous steps [2]
Step 8 Establish standards + tolerance values for CCP’s; reference values for POPA’s [3]
Step 9 Establish an on-farm monitoring system for inspecting CCP’s and POPA’s; use results
for adjusting the process or management; use results for herd performance assessment
and evaluating previously taken measures too [4]
Step 10 Determine corrective measures to take when monitoring indicates a loss of process
control (standards or tolerance passed; or reference values not achieved) [5]
Step 11 Establish effective record keeping procedures that document that the QRC is
implemented, operational and effective [6]
Step 12 Define procedures to verify that the QRC is working correctly (e.g. internal reviews);
external verification of the HACCP-like QRC by formal audits [7]
Table 4. Short overview of the 12 steps for developing a HACCP-like QRC (after Cullor,
1995). Between square brackets [ ] the number of the HACCP principle addressed.

Criteria for defining a critical point as a CCP

1. the point or step is associated with the hazard of concern
2. the point or step is measurable or observable
3. a standard is defined, together with tolerance limits
4. corrective measures are defined, available on records and stand-by
5. these measures, taken when monitoring of the CCP indicates a loss of process control,
will restore the full control of the process (-step) again
Table 5. The formal criteria to define whether a critical point is a true CCP or not (in the latter
 case it still could be a POPA)

Noordhuizen et al. (2008a) present the development of HACCP-like QRC on dairy farms step-
by-step and provide many field examples.
HACCP-like QRC is centered around 4 key features:
[1] highly structured (e.g. in preset protocols; guidelines; work instructions),
[2] strictly formalised (e.g. documents which are used for internal validation and external
verification to show to third parties the herd status with respect to public health & food safety,
and to animal health & welfare),
[3] well-planned and organised (using an agenda with dates and times set beforehand),
[4] with a high degree of communication, needed in every advisory setting (see Kleen in
Noordhuizen et al., 2008). A QRC handbook on dairy farms will all have the same chapter
and paragraph headings; the contents, however, will vary largely between dairy farms due to
differences in husbandry system and local conditions or farming objectives for each
individual farm.
In Table 6 an example is presented of a part of the handbook of a HACCP-like QRC
programme. It is shown how CCP´s and POPA´s are implemented, and how they are
monitored on this particular dairy farm. From this Table 6 it is obvious that -in particular-
structuring and formalising, what is basically already known or executed as daily routine,
strongly contributes to the design of a HACCP-based QRC programme.

Process CCP Standard Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Reference Corrective Records

step - or Tolerance How Frequency Who to measures
element POPA or Target Instruction
T1 POPA Use only Check At each Farmer GMAP Use proper Drug
properly label use HTAP drugs; Record
registered properly consult
drug veterinarian
T2 POPA No Check the At each Farmer GMAP Respect Drug
residues proper delivery HTAP withdrawal Record
drug period
T3 POPA Proper Check the At each Farmer GMAP Adjust Drug
dosage syringe use HTAP dosage Record
T4 CCP Cow ID; Visual At each Farmer GMAP Mark the Drug
no inspection drug use HTAP right cow Record
tolerance
GMAP= good medicine application code of practice (as a guideline)
HTAP= veterinary herd treatment advisory plan (as a work instruction)

Table 6. 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´ on a dairy farm.
(Source: Noordhuizen et al., 2008)

The identification of hazards and risks on a dairy farm is a core element in QRC. As a matter
of fact it is also the core business of Biosecurity Plans (BAMN, 2000). A biosecurity plan can
be considered as an elaborated work instruction for farm management, farm workers and farm
visitors regarding the prevention and reduction of infectious diseases through protocol-based
risk management. The elements of hazard and risk identification, schematic mapping of the
farm premises, the exposure and transmission assessment on-site contribute to the definition
of the biosecurity plan and are the backbones of such plans. Although these plans deal with
infectious diseases only, they can be easily integrated into HACCP-based QRC programmes.

Discussion

There are several similarities between QRC and HHM, but also differences can be noted.
QRC is a formal approach with preset protocols, CCP’s and POPA’s, monitoring, pre-
described corrective measures, documents and audits. These are needed for validation of the
programme, and for external verification and certification purposes. That is different from
HHM; the latter are much more free-style activities, and focussing on operational decision-
making, while QRC has a more tactical and preventive focus. Documents in QRC are
prescribed, while in HHM they appear to be rather additional. The EU has adopted the
HACCP-like QRC as a means to control public health & food safety, as well as animal health
& welfare hazards during the on-farm production process. The preset protocols are -in
particular- suitable for large dairy farms, where several farm workers are handling tasks in
different farming areas; putting responsibilities on these farm workers through these protocols
will enhance task performance and improve farm results, and will assure a maximum of food
safety, public health, animal health and animal welfare.
The best would be to integrate HHM into QRC, in order to serve the farmers best. When
liability regarding the forenamed hazards is put on the farmers, he is warranted to make a
move towards the HACCP-like QRC. Hence, before this QRC will be made compulsory
around 2012, it would be best to get experienced already with this kind of programme earlier
and on a voluntary basis.
Field tests of a QRC programme in Holland (around 100 cows), Austria (around 35 cows) and
Portugal (> 600 cows) have proven the applicability of the programme and the fact that
farmers are pleased to be focussed on their problems in a clear and formal way. It is –on the
other hand- strongly advised that veterinarians take a coaching role in QRC instead of being a
technical consultant only. When needed, he should deliver short, on-site training courses to
farm workers in particular, deficient areas. The introduction and training to use work
instructions is another part of QRC, specifically applicable to large dairy farms.
Farmers in general are reluctant to top-down imposed inspection or control, despite what has
been stated elsewhere (Maunsell and Bolton, 2004). The HACCP-like QRC, building on and
integrated with a HHM programme, will be a much better key to success for the dairy farmer
and the veterinarian. The introduction of new veterinary products and services like QRC can
be done in one major step, or gradually as a development process (see Fig.1).

Implementation of a HACCP-like QRC

Implementation of a HHM programme

Farm inspection service (monitoring)

Curative practice

Fig. 1 Development stages towards the implementation of a QRS programme

Probably veterinarians have to invest in new knowledge and skills in order to serve large dairy
farms well and have added value for the farmers. Among these knowledge and skills areas can
be named: farm economics, farm management, quality assurance, behavioural economics,
 marketing, business administration and communication (Cannas et al., 2006). Only when they
are willing to do so and take the challenge by the hand, a new market segment lays ahead, and
new service products can be marketed. It is the future for the dairy cattle veterinarians,
especially on large dairy farms.

References

BAMN, 2000. An introduction to infectious disease control and biosecurity on dairy farms.
Bulletin of the Bovine Alliance on Management and Nutrition, published by AFIA, Arlington,
Vi, USA
Bergevoet, R.H.M. 2005. Entrepreneurship of Dutch dairy farmers. PhD thesis at the
University of Wageningen, Dept. of Farm Management, The Netherlands
Bramley, M.J. and Dodd, F.H. 1984.Reviews of the progress of dairy science, mastitis
control (progress and prospects). Journal of Dairy Science 51, 481-512
Brand, A., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M. and Schukken, Y.H. 2001. Herd health and production
management in dairy practice. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The
Netherlands
Cannas da Silva, J., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Vagneur, M., Bexiga, R., Gelfert, C.C. and
Baumgartner, W. 2006. The future of veterinarians in bovine health management. In:
Proceedings of the 24th World Buiatrics Congress (Navetat & Schelcher, eds), Nice, October
2006. Also in: The Veterinary Quarterly 28 (1) 28-33
Cullor, J.S. 1995. Implementing the HACCP program on your client’s dairies. Veterinary
Medicine/Food Animal Practice, March 290-295
De Kruif, A., Mansfeld, R. and Hoedemaker, M. 2007. Tierarztliche Herdenbetreuung beim
Milchrind. 2nd Edition, Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany (in German)
Hulebak, K.L. and Schlusser, W. 2002. HACCP history and conceptual overview. Risk
Analysis 22 (3) 547/552
Maunsell, B. and 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 Center, Dublin, Ireland
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M. and 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. 2004. Dairy herd health and production management practice in
Europe: state of the art. In: Proceedings of the 23d World Buiatrics Congress, Quebec,
Canada, 11-16 July 2004
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Cannas da Silva, J., Boersema, J.S.C. and Vieira, A. 2008a. Applying
HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on dairy farms. Wageningen Academic Publishers,
Wageningen, The Netherlands
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. and Lievaart, J.J. 2008b. Veterinary advice to entrepreneur-
like dairy farmers. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 133 (1) 4-8 . Also appeared on CD-
ROM issued by Pfizer Animal Health, The Netherlands
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 1995, Chicago, Ill., USA

View publication stats