Overcome tradition or up to date management practice? Challenges and opportunities for alpine farming.
Scheduled
TBA
TBA
Chair
Khol, Lorenz
Co-chair(s)
Nigsch, Annette
Thematic Focus
Agriculture, Resources, Sustainable Development
Keywords
Livestock, Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Transhumance, Alpine Pasture, Alpine Farming, Animal Health, Human Health, One Health
Abstract/Description
The traditional livestock keeping of cattle, sheep and goats on alpine pasture has a significant influence on the agricultural system, as well as on regional production systems and the ecosystem. Furthermore, it plays a major role in the cultural live in the alpine region. Alpine pastures also contribute to an open landscape and thereby to tourism. These regional production systems may become more important but also pressured in the face of actual political and climatical developments. Therefore, the different challenges and opportunities for alpine livestock farming in the face of climate change, ecology, economy, sociology and animal health, including the one health aspect, should be addressed and discussed in this session.
Registered Abstracts
ID: 3.96
Leptospira spp. Antibody Prevalence and Management-related Risk Factors in Cattle from Lower Austria and Vorarlberg
Karoline Waldner Fasching, Eva; Kuchling, Sabrina
Abstract/Description
Leptospirosis is a widespread zoonotic disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira spp., that can cause reproductive disorders in cattle, thereby leading to considerable economic losses. The aim of this study was to systematically assess the prevalence of Leptospira spp. antibodies in cattle from Lower Austria and Vorarlberg and to identify potential risk factors for pathogen exposure. A total of 2339 serum samples collected in 2020 and 2021 were tested against eight serovars using the microscopic agglutination test (MAT). The estimated mean true prevalence averaged 4.8% (95% CI [0.3–11.1]) in Lower Austria and 63.6% (95% CI [52.3–76.1]) in Vorarlberg. In Vorarlberg, the highest prevalences were found for the serovars Hardjo, Saxkoebing and Tarassovi. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) modelling identified alpine grazing, farm size and age category as significant risk factors for seropositivity, whereas location of cattle at sampling, farm type, numerical age, season and year of sampling showed no relevant effect. The results highlight a marked regional heterogeneity in Leptospira spp. exposure and underline the need for ongoing monitoring. Due to the zoonotic nature of the disease a One Health approach is necessary to control it at the human-animal interface.
ID: 3.138
Bovine Mastitis in the Alps: The impact of Staphylococcus aureus on Alpine Dairying
Tom Grunert Khol, Lorenz
Abstract/Description
While bacterial pathogens often co-evolve with specific hosts, the history of animal domestication has facilitated numerous successful host-switching events between humans and livestock. The multi-host pathogen Staphylococcus aureus can cause severe human and animal infections, including mastitis in cows, which impair animal welfare, dairy production and food safety. We present ongoing research regarding the prevalence and diversity of this pathogen in community-based Alpine dairy pastures in the Tyrolean Alps. Approaching the topic from a One Health perspective, we will focus on the interface between animal health and food safety, paying particular attention to its potential role as a zoonotic agent and carrier of antibiotic resistance. Additionally, we will highlight the unique challenges and opportunities arising from alpine dairying.
ID: 3.171
Fasciola hepatica in Tyrolean dairy farming: prevalence trends, infection dynamics, and implications for sustainable alpine parasite management
Fasciola hepatica, the common liver fluke, is a trematode parasite of ruminants with zoonotic potential that impairs animal health and productivity worldwide. Its life cycle requires the amphibious intermediate host snail Galba truncatula, which thrives in wet habitats; therefore, climatic changes promoting moisture are expected to increase transmission. Alpine regions already show some of the highest prevalence levels in Europe. This study combined large-scale sero-epidemiological analyses with detailed field investigations to reassess liver fluke occurrence, infection dynamics, and production impacts in Tyrolean dairy farming characterized by alpine summer pasturing, high rainfall, small-holder structures, and dual-purpose breeds.
Bulk tank milk (BTM) samples from 3,645 farms were analysed by ELISA in 2023, and associations with milk yield and quality were evaluated using multivariate regression. To investigate transmission dynamics, longitudinal sampling across one grazing season on 14 farms and across two seasons on four focus farms included faecal, milk, and blood samples analysed by quantitative sedimentation, copro-antigen ELISA, and antibody ELISA.
Overall, 86.1% of farms were F. hepatica-positive, representing a 13.1% increase since 2005. F. hepatica infection was significantly associated with reduced milk yield, fat, and protein (p < 0.001). Infection dynamics revealed persistently high prevalence in dairy cows (40–100%), whereas first-season grazers remained largely negative until late summer and second-season grazers showed variable infection patterns. There were also indications that the treatment resulted in a suboptimal reduction of the infection.
These findings indicate insufficient current control under changing climatic conditions. Targeted treatment, pasture management, intermediate host habitat control, and improved slurry hygiene are essential for sustainable parasite control in alpine dairy systems, while hydro-epidemiological climate models may support future risk prediction.
Submitted Abstracts
If you are not yet logged-in, please log in to your My#Conf environment
Click “Submissions” and select the session you want to review (you need to be chair or co-chair to see the session and the submissions to the session) by clicking on the “external link” symbol:
On the selected session page, scroll down to get to the section “Submitted abstracts”.
-> this list shows all abstracts submitted to your session.
-> each line shows one abstract
To get to the review section, please click on the “eye” symbol: of the abstract.
-> the abstract expands and new sections (First author, Co-author(s) and description) appear.
-> additional, the abstract review area appears below the abstract content.
The review area gives you now a new panel to adjust: FOR CO-CHAIRS
-> dropdown menu to set a review recommendation (you can overwrite this recommendation as often as you want)
-> optional: comments to share with your chair-colleagues and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can change your review (incl. comments) for an abstract as often as you want until the chair makes the final decision. Changes are overwritten and not archived.
FOR CHAIRS
-> checkbox to set your final review (when activated, you confirm your final choice and will close the review process of this abstract)
-> optional: comments to share with your co-chair(s) and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can leave comments without making your final review as often as you want. Changes are overwritten and not archived. When activating the checkbox, you make your final review and close the review process for this abstract. In case of an erroneous review, you can of course contact us via contact form (please provide the abstract number). You can do the review no matter if your co-chair(s) have already submitted a review recommendation or not.
Details of the used icons/symbols
Once the review of the abstract is completed by the chair, this icon appears.
If at least one review/comment has been provided by the co-chair, this icon appears.
If at least one comment has been provided by the (co-)chair(s), this icon appears.
IMPORTANT: The review result (of the chair) is a general recommendation to the organizing committee, which finally decides on the review. In most cases, we will follow your decisions and in case changes are needed due to organizational issues (e.g. not enough contributions for an individual session), we would contact you. The authors of the abstracts will not be informed immediately after you completed the review but after the end of the review phase.
Abstracts are only visible to (co-)chairs at the moment. Please log in with your account to see this list.
If you are not yet logged-in, please log in to your My#Conf environment
Click “Submissions” and select the session you want to review (you need to be chair or co-chair to see the session and the submissions to the session) by clicking on the “external link” symbol:
On the selected session page, scroll down to get to the section “Submitted abstracts”.
-> this list shows all abstracts submitted to your session.
-> each line shows one abstract
To get to the review section, please click on the “eye” symbol: of the abstract.
-> the abstract expands and new sections (First author, Co-author(s) and description) appear.
-> additional, the abstract review area appears below the abstract content.
The review area gives you now a new panel to adjust: FOR CO-CHAIRS
-> dropdown menu to set a review recommendation (you can overwrite this recommendation as often as you want)
-> optional: comments to share with your chair-colleagues and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can change your review (incl. comments) for an abstract as often as you want until the chair makes the final decision. Changes are overwritten and not archived.
FOR CHAIRS
-> checkbox to set your final review (when activated, you confirm your final choice and will close the review process of this abstract)
-> optional: comments to share with your co-chair(s) and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can leave comments without making your final review as often as you want. Changes are overwritten and not archived. When activating the checkbox, you make your final review and close the review process for this abstract. In case of an erroneous review, you can of course contact us via contact form (please provide the abstract number). You can do the review no matter if your co-chair(s) have already submitted a review recommendation or not.
Details of the used icons/symbols
Once the review of the abstract is completed by the chair, this icon appears.
If at least one review/comment has been provided by the co-chair, this icon appears.
If at least one comment has been provided by the (co-)chair(s), this icon appears.
IMPORTANT: The review result (of the chair) is a general recommendation to the organizing committee, which finally decides on the review. In most cases, we will follow your decisions and in case changes are needed due to organizational issues (e.g. not enough contributions for an individual session), we would contact you. The authors of the abstracts will not be informed immediately after you completed the review but after the end of the review phase.
We are processing your request…Just a few seconds — thanks for your patience…Almost done — preparing everything for you…Huuuh… this seems to be a difficult thing 🤔I’m not sure if I can manage this right now…
Please refresh the page — I think something went wrong.
If this happens again, please get in touch with us.
