**12. Conclusion**

An oversized gap between nutrient requirement and nutrient supply in the transition period is a major cause for nutritional disorders and associated comorbidities in dairy cows. Due to the large inter and intra-individual variation in relation to feed intake, output of glucose via milk and metabolic adaptation capacities, the risk for the development of production diseases is a matter of the individual animal in the farm-specific context at a given time. Consequently, the risk cannot be predicted and solved by an inductive approach. The individual animal is the reference system for the appropriateness of nutrient and energy supply as well as the need for protection against biotic and abiotic stressors. Different animals need different supplies and a different kind and degree of protection. Correspondingly, the approach to deal with dairy cows that belong to a feeding group as a homogeneous unit and addressee of management measures is misleading.

Feeding regimes in farm practices are generally based on the concept of energy balance as represented in the 'barrel model'. However, it has become obvious that the allocation of energy resources for the various needs is not regulated independently, as assumed by the model, but is highly interconnected. But above all, the model neglects the role of glucose and the increased competition for it between the immune cells and the epithelial cells in the mammary gland. The model does not create a sufficient predictive power. Therefore, it is not justified to adhere to the model any longer.

The real challenge of nutrient management is to organize an efficient allocation of the available nutrient and labor resources closely related to the individual needs of the animals. Certainly, farm practice does not allow to feed dairy cows individually. However, there are various options - on the one farm more than on others - that should be taken into account when striving for a low level of Pds. Amongst other things, the implementation of feeding phases should be highly adapted to the corresponding requirements. The appropriateness of allocation of the animals to the existing feeding groups needs a continuous controlling. In the case of combined feeding, allocation of concentrate should be controlled and the successive adaptation process improved. Last but not least, animals which show clinical or subclinical signs of diseases and thus an overstressed capacity to adapt to the specific living

**73**

**Author details**

Albert Sundrum

Witzenhausen, Germany

*Nutrition and Health-Management in Dairy Production DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89447*

ered to increase the availability of glucose in the body pool.

conditions should be separated into a risk group given special attention and care. Nutrient and energy supply of endangered animals should be improved as well as their protection against biotic and abiotic stressors. Where appropriate, a temporary reduction in the outflow of glucose via the mammary gland should be consid-

The overall production goal of farm management should be reoriented in striving for a prevalence of productions diseases that lies below the average of comparable dairy farms while simultaneously keeping the performance level on a level that does not compromise health and welfare of the farm animals. This goal cannot be achieved by general recommendations in relation to breeding and/or feeding. The history of Pds in dairy farming has proven that the predominant approach of animal science, based primarily on 'disposal knowledge' has failed to improve the longlasting problems in relation to metabolic disorders and associated comorbidities. To solve problems which derive on different scales from very complex interactions between various factors and being to a high degree context-dependent requires also orientation and 'action knowledge'. Currently, many dairy farmers place their hopes in the development of further tools in precision dairy farming. This may certainly extend the options for acquiring more data but simply acquiring more data is not synonymous with gaining better 'action knowledge'. Before data can become farm-inherent knowledge for practical implementations, data need to be interpreted and transferred into valid information. Expectations, not least promoted by animal scientists, that the elaborate process can be automatized have failed so far. Not that there will be no further developments in the future and possible improvements but farm animals have already suffered too long. Farm management should not continue waiting for what might have little chance of effectiveness due to the underlying complexity of the processes. Whatever the future holds, there is first and foremost the necessity to solve problems in the here and now and to provide evidence of success in reducing production diseases, i.e., the implementation of

measures in the farm-specific context together with external validation.

Department of Animal Nutrition and Animal Health, University of Kassel,

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

\*Address all correspondence to: sundrum@uni-kassel.de

provided the original work is properly cited.

#### *Nutrition and Health-Management in Dairy Production DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89447*

*Livestock Health and Farming*

**12. Conclusion**

model any longer.

which it has been proven. When implemented in a specific farm context, it functions only as a working hypothesis for 'action knowledge'. The impacts that might occur in the use of generally recommended means and tools require external validation to assess whether they are able to contribute to the envisaged end and to deliver what they promise. This includes proving their suitability in contributing to alleviating the conflict between productivity and animal health on individual farms. Without external validation, general tools to reduce production diseases seem to be

The extent of the outlined complexities explains why it is so difficult to improve the unsatisfactory situation regarding animal health and welfare in dairy farming. Too many partly diverging interests of different stakeholder groups, including the interests of animal scientists, are involved. However, if general enlightenment belongs to the crucial tasks of scientists, as they themselves maintain, this stakeholder group is under a particular obligation to consider animal health and welfare as belonging to the common good and are therefore obligated to contribute to improvements therein. However, as long as animal scientists claim to be able to offer simple solutions based on a reductionist approach without providing convincing evidence, they could be considered as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

An oversized gap between nutrient requirement and nutrient supply in the transition period is a major cause for nutritional disorders and associated comorbidities in dairy cows. Due to the large inter and intra-individual variation in relation to feed intake, output of glucose via milk and metabolic adaptation capacities, the risk for the development of production diseases is a matter of the individual animal in the farm-specific context at a given time. Consequently, the risk cannot be predicted and solved by an inductive approach. The individual animal is the reference system for the appropriateness of nutrient and energy supply as well as the need for protection against biotic and abiotic stressors. Different animals need different supplies and a different kind and degree of protection. Correspondingly, the approach to deal with dairy cows that belong to a feeding group as a homogeneous unit and

Feeding regimes in farm practices are generally based on the concept of energy balance as represented in the 'barrel model'. However, it has become obvious that the allocation of energy resources for the various needs is not regulated independently, as assumed by the model, but is highly interconnected. But above all, the model neglects the role of glucose and the increased competition for it between the immune cells and the epithelial cells in the mammary gland. The model does not create a sufficient predictive power. Therefore, it is not justified to adhere to the

The real challenge of nutrient management is to organize an efficient allocation of the available nutrient and labor resources closely related to the individual needs of the animals. Certainly, farm practice does not allow to feed dairy cows individually. However, there are various options - on the one farm more than on others - that should be taken into account when striving for a low level of Pds. Amongst other things, the implementation of feeding phases should be highly adapted to the corresponding requirements. The appropriateness of allocation of the animals to the existing feeding groups needs a continuous controlling. In the case of combined feeding, allocation of concentrate should be controlled and the successive adaptation process improved. Last but not least, animals which show clinical or subclinical signs of diseases and thus an overstressed capacity to adapt to the specific living

an end in themselves rather than a means to an end.

addressee of management measures is misleading.

**72**

conditions should be separated into a risk group given special attention and care. Nutrient and energy supply of endangered animals should be improved as well as their protection against biotic and abiotic stressors. Where appropriate, a temporary reduction in the outflow of glucose via the mammary gland should be considered to increase the availability of glucose in the body pool.

The overall production goal of farm management should be reoriented in striving for a prevalence of productions diseases that lies below the average of comparable dairy farms while simultaneously keeping the performance level on a level that does not compromise health and welfare of the farm animals. This goal cannot be achieved by general recommendations in relation to breeding and/or feeding. The history of Pds in dairy farming has proven that the predominant approach of animal science, based primarily on 'disposal knowledge' has failed to improve the longlasting problems in relation to metabolic disorders and associated comorbidities. To solve problems which derive on different scales from very complex interactions between various factors and being to a high degree context-dependent requires also orientation and 'action knowledge'. Currently, many dairy farmers place their hopes in the development of further tools in precision dairy farming. This may certainly extend the options for acquiring more data but simply acquiring more data is not synonymous with gaining better 'action knowledge'. Before data can become farm-inherent knowledge for practical implementations, data need to be interpreted and transferred into valid information. Expectations, not least promoted by animal scientists, that the elaborate process can be automatized have failed so far. Not that there will be no further developments in the future and possible improvements but farm animals have already suffered too long. Farm management should not continue waiting for what might have little chance of effectiveness due to the underlying complexity of the processes. Whatever the future holds, there is first and foremost the necessity to solve problems in the here and now and to provide evidence of success in reducing production diseases, i.e., the implementation of measures in the farm-specific context together with external validation.
