Articles | Volume 58, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-58-237-2015
© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-58-237-2015
© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Review
| 
07 Jul 2015
Review |
| 07 Jul 2015
Review of the assessment of animal welfare with special emphasis on the "Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for growing pigs"
I. Czycholl
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany
K. Büttner
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany
E. grosse Beilage
Field Station for Epidemiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Buescheler Str. 9, 49456 Bakum, Germany
J. Krieter
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany
Related authors
No articles found.
K. Reckmann, R. Blank, I. Traulsen, and J. Krieter
Arch. Anim. Breed., 59, 27–36, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-27-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-27-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
A comparative life cycle assessment of pork with different feed scenarios substituting soybean products has been performed. Alternative scenarios used legumes, a protein crop mix, and amino acids. Results expressed per kilogram of feed depended greatly on the method used and the impact category considered. The inclusion of land use change increased global warming potential by up to 43 %. Results per kilogram of pork showed the amino acid scenario to have the least overall environmental impacts.
Related subject area
Subject: Animal husbandry | Animal: Cattle
Immune mechanisms, resistance genes, and their roles in the prevention of mastitis in dairy cows
Mitigation of sterigmatocystin exposure in cattle by difructose anhydride III feed supplementation and detection of urinary sterigmatocystin and serum amyloid A concentrations
Herd clustering strategies and corresponding genetic evaluations based on social–ecological characteristics for a local endangered cattle breed
The effect of rearing conditions during the milk-fed period on milk yield, growth, and maze behaviour of dairy cows during their first lactation
Effects of slaughter age and muscle type on meat quality characteristics of Eastern Anatolian Red bulls
Relationships between milk protein polymorphisms and production traits in cattle: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Three-step in vitro maturation culture of bovine oocytes imitating temporal changes of estradiol-17β and progesterone concentrations in preovulatory follicular fluid
A new somatic cell count index to more accurately predict milk yield losses
Prevalence of metabolic disorders and effect on subsequent daily milk quantity and quality in Holstein cows
The effect of cattle breed, season and type of diet on the fatty acid profile of raw milk
Chemical, physical and technological properties of milk as affected by the mycotoxin load of dairy herds
Effects of parity and season on pregnancy rates after the transfer of embryos to repeat-breeder Japanese Black beef cattle
Breeding criteria and willingness to pay for improved Azawak zebu sires in Niger
Monika Zemanova, Lucie Langova, Ivana Novotná, Petra Dvorakova, Irena Vrtkova, and Zdenek Havlicek
Arch. Anim. Breed., 65, 371–384, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-65-371-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-65-371-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This publication aims to describe the physiology of the mammary gland and its immune mechanisms and to approximate their connection with potential mastitis resistance genes. It describes various options for mastitis elimination and focuses on genetic selection and a closer specification of resistance genes to mastitis.
Naoya Sasazaki, Seiich Uno, Emiko Kokushi, Katsuki Toda, Hiroshi Hasunuma, Daisaku Matsumoto, Ayaka Miyashita, Osamu Yamato, Hiroaki Okawa, Masayuki Ohtani, Johanna Fink-Gremmels, Masayasu Taniguchi, and Mitsuhiro Takagi
Arch. Anim. Breed., 64, 257–264, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-64-257-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-64-257-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated the effects of supplementing cattle feed with difructose anhydride III (DFA III) by measuring urinary sterigmatocystin (STC) concentrations. DFA III was supplemented for 2 weeks to 10 animals, and non-treated animals served as controls. Our findings demonstrate the effect of DFA III on reducing the urinary concentration of STC in Japanese Black cattle.
Jonas Herold, Kerstin Brügemann, and Sven König
Arch. Anim. Breed., 64, 187–198, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-64-187-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-64-187-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
For local breeds kept in small herds, consideration of classical herd effects implies imprecise genetic evaluations. In consequence, the present study aimed to evaluate different herd clustering strategies, considering social–ecological and herd characteristics. The similarities of herds within created herd clusters and improved reliabilities of estimated breeding values suggest the application of herd clusters in statistical models for genetic evaluations in local breeds.
Jan Broucek, Michal Uhrincat, Peter Kisac, and Anton Hanus
Arch. Anim. Breed., 64, 69–82, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-64-69-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-64-69-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The objective was to find whether cow growth, milk performance, and behaviour are affected by rearing conditions until weaning after a milk-fed period of 84 d. Holstein heifers were assigned to one of three treatments: SM, pen with mother to 21st day, then group pen; SN, with own mother, then in pen with nursing cow; H, in hutch from 2nd to 56th day. The SN group tended to have the highest production of milk for 305 d and crossed the maze the fastest.
Sinan Kopuzlu, Nurinisa Esenbuga, Alper Onenc, Muhlis Macit, Mete Yanar, Sadrettin Yuksel, Abdulkadir Ozluturk, and Necdet Unlu
Arch. Anim. Breed., 61, 497–504, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-61-497-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-61-497-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The effects of slaughter age and muscle type on meat quality properties of Eastern Anatolian Red (EAR) bulls (n = 46) were investigated in the present study. Forty-six EAR bulls were slaughtered at 15, 17, 19, 25, and 27 months. Meat samples were taken from longissimus dorsi (LD) and gluteus medius (GM) muscles obtained from the carcasses 24 h post-mortem.
Memis Ozdemir, Sinan Kopuzlu, Mehmet Topal, and Omer Cevdet Bilgin
Arch. Anim. Breed., 61, 197–206, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-61-197-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-61-197-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The meta-analysis demonstrated that the relationships of major milk protein genes with other factors should be examined using the codominant genetic model in general. According to results of the meta-analysis, relationships among some CSN3 genotypes and fat yield, fat content, and protein content, and relationships among some BLG genotypes and daily milk yield, fat content, protein yield, and protein content were found statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Minami Matsuo, Kazuma Sumitomo, Chihiro Ogino, Yosuke Gunji, Ryo Nishimura, and Mitsugu Hishinuma
Arch. Anim. Breed., 60, 385–390, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-60-385-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-60-385-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Bovine cumulus–oocyte complexes were cultured in a three-step system imitating estradiol-17β (E2) and progesterone (P4) concentrations in preovulatory follicular fluid for in vitro maturation (IVM). The blastocyst formation rate after E2- and P4-imitated IVM was significantly higher than that after the other IVM (control, E2-imitated, P4-imitated), suggesting that the three-step IVM system with the preovulatory levels of E2 and P4 improves the developmental potential of embryos in vitro.
Janez Jeretina, Dejan Škorjanc, and Drago Babnik
Arch. Anim. Breed., 60, 373–383, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-60-373-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-60-373-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Intramammary infections in dairy cows lead to considerable economic losses for farmers. A new somatic cell count index (SCCI) was proposed for the accurate prediction of milk yield losses caused by elevated somatic cell count (SCC). Depending on the time of SCC elevation, parity, milk production level, and level of average SCC, the estimated milk yield loss from the phenotypic potential of milk yield was at least 0.8–0.9 kg day−1 for primiparous cows and 1.3–4.3 kg day−1 for multiparous cows.
Vesna Gantner, Tina Bobić, and Klemen Potočnik
Arch. Anim. Breed., 59, 381–386, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-381-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-381-2016, 2016
Oto Hanuš, Ludmila Křížová, Eva Samková, Jiří Špička, Josef Kučera, Marcela Klimešová, Petr Roubal, and Radoslava Jedelská
Arch. Anim. Breed., 59, 373–380, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-373-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-373-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This study aimed to determine the effect of cow breed, season and type of diet on the fatty acid profile of raw milk. The study was conducted on bulk milk samples collected in winter and summer from 4 herds of Czech Fleckvieh and 4 herds of Holstein cows. One half of the herds was grazed while the other half was not. Effect of breed was found in odd-chain, branch-chain and hypercholesterolemic FA while season and type of diet mainly influenced the proportion of saturated and polyunsaturated FA.
Ludmila Křížová, Oto Hanuš, Marcela Klimešová, Jan Nedělník, Josef Kučera, Petr Roubal, Jaroslav Kopecký, and Radoslava Jedelská
Arch. Anim. Breed., 59, 293–300, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-293-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-293-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The aim of the study was to determine the impacts of different levels of mycotoxin load of dairy herds on the milk indicators. During three subsequent years, samples of feedstuffs and individual milk were collected from four herds of Czech Fleckvieh and from four herds of Holstein cows. The most frequently occurring mycotoxins were fumonisins, deoxynivalenol, and zearalenone. Changes were noted in some milk indicators such as fat, acetone, pH, electric conductivity, alcohol stability, or curd quality.
T. Ono, T. Isobe, Y. Morita, L. T. K. Do, F. Tanihara, M. Taniguchi, M. Takagi, and T. Otoi
Arch. Anim. Breed., 59, 45–49, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-45-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-45-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Our studies evaluated the effects of parity and season on pregnancy rates of repeat-breeder (RB) Japanese black beef cattle after embryo transfer. Our findings indicate that the parity of the recipients does not have an apparent effect on the pregnancy rates following the transfer of fresh and frozen embryos. However, season may affect reproductive performance in RB multiparous cows.
S. Siddo, N. Moula, I. Hamadou, M. Issa, H. Marichatou, P. Leroy, and N. Antoine-Moussiaux
Arch. Anim. Breed., 58, 251–259, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-58-251-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-58-251-2015, 2015
Cited articles
Bartussek, H.: Vorschlag für eine Steiermärkische Intensivtierhaltungsverordnung, Der Österreichische Freiberufstierarzt, 97, 4–15, 1985.
Bartussek, H.: Entwurf Tiergerechtheitsindex für Mastschweine: TGI35 L. Bundesanstalt für Alpenländische Landwirtschaft, Gumpenstein, Irdning, Austria, 1995a.
Bartussek, H.: Tiergerechtheitsindex fuer Legehennen: TGI 35 L. Bundesanstalt für Alpenländische Landwirtschaft, Gumpenstein, Irdning, Austria, 1995b.
Bartussek, H.: A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals' well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation, Livest. Prod. Sci., 61, 179–192, 1999.
Bekoff, M.: Why "good welfare" isn't "good enough": minding animals and increasing our compassionate footprint, Annual Review of Biomedical Sciences, 10, T1–T14, 2008.
Bennett, R. M., Anderson, J., and Blaney, R. J. P.: Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy, J. Agr. Environ. Ethic., 15, 187–202, 2002.
Blokhuis, H. J.: International cooperation in animal welfare: the Welfare Quality® project, Acta Vet. Scand., 50, S10, 2008.
Blokhuis, H. J., Jones, R. B., Geers, R., Miele, M., and Veissier, I.: Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain, Anim. Welfare, 12, 445–455, 2003.
Blokhuis, H. J., Veissier, I., Miele, M., and Jones, B.: The Welfare Quality project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being, Acta Agr. Scand. A-An., 60, 129–140, 2010.
Blokhuis, H., Jones, B., Veissier, I., and Miele, M.: Introduction, in: Improving farm animal welfare, edited by: Blokhuis, H., Miele, M., Veissier, I., and Jones, B., Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 11–17, 2013a.
Blokhuis, H., Veissier, I., Jones, B., and Miele, M. Improving farm animal welfare - Science and society working together: the Welfare Quality approach, in: Improving farm animal welfare, edited by: Blokhuis, H., Miele, M., Veissier, I., and Jones, B., Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 71–85, 2013b.
Blokhuis, H., Veissier, I., Jones, B., and Miele, M.: The Welfare Quality® vision, In: Improving farm animal welfare, edited by: Blokhuis, H., Miele, M., Veissier, I., and Jones, B., Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 71–89, 2013c.
Bock, B. B. and Van Huik, M. M.: Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers, Brit. Food J., 109, 931–944, 2007.
Bock, B. B. and van Leeuwen, F. A. C.: Review of socio-political and market developments of animal welfare schemes, in: Farm Animal Welfare Concerns. Consumers, retailers and producers (Welfare Quality Reports 1), edited by: Miele, M. and Roex, J., Cardiff University Press, Cardiff, UK, 115–150, 2005.
Boissy, A., Fisher, A. D., Bouix, J., Hinch, G. N., Le Neindre, P.: Genetics of fear in ruminant livestock, Livest. Prod. Sci., 93, 23–32, 2005.
Botreau, R., Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bracke, M. B. M., and Keeling, L. J.: Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare, Anim. Welfare, 16, 225–228, 2007.
Botreau, R., Veissier, I., and Perny, P.: Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality, Anim. Welfare, 18, 363–370, 2009.
Botreau, R., Winckler, C., Velarde, A., Butterworth, A., Dalmau, A., Keeling, L. J., and Veissier, I.: Integration of data collected on farms or at slaughter to generate an overall assessment of animal welfare, in: Improving farm animal welfare-Science and society working together: the Welfare Quality approach, edited by: Blokhuis, H., Miele, M., Veissier, I., and Jones, B., Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, Gelderland, the Netherlands, 147–173, 2013.
Botreau, R. L., Capdeville, J., Perny, P., and Veissier, I.: Multicriteria evaluation of animal welfare at farm level: an application of MCDA methodologies, Foundation of Computing and Decision Sciences, 33, 287–316, 2008.
Bracke, M. B. M.: Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare, Anim. Welfare, 16, 229–231, 2007.
Bracke, M. B. M., Metz, J. H. M., and Spruijt, B. M.: Development of a decision support system to assess farm animal welfare, Acta Agr. Scand. A-An., 51, 17–20, 2001.
Bracke, M. B. M., Spruijt, B. M., Metz, J. H. M., and Schouten, W. G. P.: Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: Model structure and weighting procedure, J. Anim. Sci., 80, 1819–1834, 2002.
Brambell, F. W. R.: Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire Into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems: Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by Command of Her Majesty, December, 1965, HM Stationery Office, 1965.
Broom, D. M.: The scientific assessment of animal welfare, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 20, 5–19, 1988.
Buller, H. and Roe, E.: Certifying welfare: integrating welfare assessments into assurance procedures: a European perspective: 25 key points. in: Certifying Quality: Negotiating and integrating animal welfare into food assurance (Welfare Quality Reports 15), edited by: Buller, H. and Roe, E., Cardiff University Press, Cardiff, UK, 25–38, 2008.
Butterworth, A.: Animal welfare indicators and their use in society, in: Food Safety Assurance and Veterinary Public Health, edited by: Smulders, J. F. M. and Algers, B., Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 371–389, 2009.
Butterworth, A.: Relevance and implementation of Welfare Quality assessment, in: Improving farm animal welfare, edited by: Blokhuis, H., Miele, M., Veissier, I., and Jones, B., Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 201–213, 2013.
Chapinal, N., De Passille, A. M., Rushen, J., and Wagner, S.: Automated methods for detecting lameness and measuring analgesia in dairy cattle, J. Dairy Sci., 93, 2007–2013, 2010.
Courboulay, V., Meunier-Salaun, M. C., Edwards, S. A., Guy, J. H., and Scott, K.: Repeatability of Abnormal Behaviour, in: Assessment of animal welfare measures for sows, piglets and fattening pigs (Welfare Quality Reports 10), edited by: Forkman, B. and Keeling, L. J., SLU Service/Reproenheten, Uppsala, Sweden, 131–141, 2009.
Curry, H. B. and Schoenberg, I. J.: On Pólya frequency functions IV: the fundamental spline functions and their limits, J. Anal. Math., 17, 71–107, 1966.
de Mol, R. M., Schouten, W. G. P., Evers, E., Drost, H., Houwers, H. W. J., and Smits, A. C.: A computer model for welfare assessment of poultry production systems for laying hens, NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54, 157–168, 2006.
de Passille, A. M. and Rushen, J.: Can we measure human animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment?: Some unresolved issues, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 92, 193–209, 2005.
de Vries, M., Bokkers, E. A. M., van Schaik, G., Botreau, R., Engel, B., Dijkstra, T., and de Boer, I. J. M.: Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality multi-criteria evaluation model for classification of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level, J. Dairy Sci., 96, 6264–6273, 2012.
Engel, B., Bruin, G., Andre, G., and Buist, W.: Assessment of observer performance in a subjective scoring system: visual classification of the gait of cows, J. Agr. Sci., 140, 317–333, 2003.
Evans, A. and Miele, M. (Eds.): Consumers' Views about Farm Animal Welfare Part I: National Reports based on Focus Group Research (Welfare Quality Reports 4) Cardiff, UK, 2007.
Evans, A. and Miele, M.: Between food and flesh: how animals are made to matter (and not matter) within food consumption practices, Environ. Plann. D, 30, 298–314, 2012.
FAWC: First Press Notice, 5/12. MAFF, London, UK, 1979.
Forkman, B. and Keeling, L. J. (Eds.): Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs (Welfare Quality Reports 10) SLU Service/Reproenheten, Uppsala, Sweden, 2009.
Forkman, B. and Keeling, L. J. (Eds.): Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves (Welfare Quality Reports 11) SLU Service/Reproenheten, Uppsala, Sweden, 2009a.
Forkman, B. and Keeling, L. J. (Eds.): Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Layers and Broilers (Welfare Quality Reports 9) SLU Service/Reproenheten, Uppsala, Sweden, 2009b.
Fraser, D.: Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the "inextricable connection", Anim. Welfare, 4, 103–117, 1995.
Fraser, D.: Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, USA, 1998.
Fraser, D.: Understanding animal welfare, Acta Vet. Scand., 50, S1, 2008.
Fraser, D.: Assessing Animal Welfare: Different Philosophies, Different Scientific Approaches, Zoo Biol., 28, 507–518, 2009.
Grabisch, M. and Roubens, M.: Application of the Choquet integral in multicriteria decision making, in: Fuzzy Measures and Integrals – Theory and Applications, edited by: Grabisch, M., Murofushi, T. and Sugeno, M., Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 348–375, 2000.
Grandin, T.: Progress and challenges in animal handling and slaughter in the U.S., Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 100, 129–139, 2006.
Grandin, T.: Improving animal welfare: a practical approach, CABI, Wallingford, England, UK, 2010.
Hahn, G. L.: Dynamic responses of cattle to thermal heat loads, J. Anim. Science, 77, 10–20, 1999.
Haiger, A., Storhaus, R., and Bartussek, H.: Naturgemässe Viehwirtschaft, Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany, 1988.
Hewson, C. J.: Can we assess welfare?, Canadian Vet. J., 44, 749–753, 2003.
Hobbs, A. L., Hobbs, J. E., Isaac, G. E., and Kerr, W. A.: Ethics, domestic food policy and trade law: assessing the EU animal welfare proposal to the WTO, Food Policy, 27, 437–454, 2002.
Hughes, B. O.: Behaviour as an index of welfare, 5th European Poultry Conference, Malta, 5–11 September 1976, Volume II, 1005–1018, 1976.
Johnsen, P. F., Johannesson, T., and Sandoe, P.: Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods, Acta Agr. Scand. A-An., 51, 26–33, 2001.
Jones, T. A., Donnelly, C. A., and Dawkins, M. S.: Environmental and management factors affecting the welfare of chickens on commercial farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark stocked at five densities, Poultry Sci., 84, 1155–1165, 2005.
Keeling, L. J.: Healthy and happy: animal welfare as an integral part of sustainable agriculture, AMBIO, 34, 316–319, 2005.
Keeling, L. J., Rushen, J., and Duncan, I.: Understanding Animal Welfare, in: Anim. Welfare, edited by: Appleby, M. C., Mench, J. A., Olsson, I. A. S., and Hughes, B. O., CABI, Wallingford, England, UK, 183–199, 2011.
Kjaernes, U. and Lavik, R.: Opinions on animal welfare and food consumption in seven European countries, in: Consumption, Distribution and Production of farm animal welfare (Welfare Quality Reports 7), edited by: Kjaernes, U., Bock, B. B., Roes, E., Roe, E., and Roex, J., MPG Biddles Ltd, King's Lynn, UK, 3–126, 2008.
Knierim, U. and Winckler, C.: On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach, Anim. Welfare, 18, 451–458, 2009.
Lassen, J., Sandoe, P., and Forkman, B.: Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare, Livest. Sci., 103, 221–230, 2006.
Leeb, C., Whay, B., and Main, D.: Incorporation of conventional animal welfare assessment techniques into organic certification and farming, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, 1–18, 2004.
Leeb, C., Whay, B., Main, D., and Webster, J.: BWAP – Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme, Tiergerechtheit bewerten, Kuratorium fuer Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V., Darmstadt, Germany, 65–72, 2014.
Leruste, H., Lensink, J., and van Reenen, C. G.: Measurement of Human-Animal Relations in Veal Calves Housed in Large Groups, in: Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves (Welfare Quality Reports 11), edited by: Forkman, B., and Keeling, L. J., SLU Service/Reproenheten, Uppsala, Sweden, 131–136, 2009.
Lyons, C., Bruce, J., Fowler, V., and English, P.: A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems, Livest. Prod. Sci., 43, 265–274, 1995.
Magerman, D. M.: Statistical decision-tree models for parsing, Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, 276–283, 1995.
Main, D. C., Whay, H. R., Green, L. E., and Webster, A. J.: Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food Scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle, Vet. Rec., 153, 227–231, 2003.
Manteca, X. and Jones, B.: Welfare improvement strategies, in: Improving farm animal welfare, edited by: Blokhuis, H., Miele, M., Veissier, I., and Jones, B., Springer, Berlin, Germany, 175–200, 2013.
Menke, C., Waiblinger, S., Fölsch, D. W., and Wiepkema, P. R.: Social behaviour and injuries of horned cows in loose housing systems, Anim. Welfare, 8, 243–258, 1999.
Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., and Botreau, R.: Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society, Anim. Welfare, 20, 103–117, 2011.
Moberg, G. P.: Biological response to stress: implications for animal welfare. The biology of animal stress: basic principles and implications for animal welfare, 1–21, 2000.
Mortimore, S. and Wallace, C.: HACCP: A practical approach. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2013.
Napolitano, F., De Rosa, G., Ferrante, V., Grasso, F., and Braghieri, A.: Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method, Small Ruminant Res., 83, 49–57, 2009.
Pelzer, A. and Kaufmann, O.: Das Tier im Blick – Milchkühe, DLG e.V., Frankfurt/Main, Germany, 2012.
Plesch, G., Broerkens, N., Laister, S., Winckler, C., and Knierim, U.: Reliability and feasibility of selected measures concerning resting behaviour for the on-farm welfare assessment in dairy cows, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 126, 19–26, 2010.
Roe, E. and Buller, H.: Marketing farm animal welfare, Welfare Quality factsheet, Wageningen, Gelderland, the Netherlands, 2008.
Roex, J. and Miele, M.: Farm Animal Welfare Concerns: Consumers, Retailers and Producers (Welfare Quality Reports 1), Cardiff University Press, Cardiff, UK, 2005.
Rousing, T., Bonde, M., and Sorensen, J. T.: Aggregating welfare indicators into an operational welfare assessment system: a bottom-up approach, Acta Agr. Scand. A-An., 51, 53–57, 2001.
Sato, S.: Social licking pattern and its relationships to social dominance and live weight gain in weaned calves, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 12, 25–32, 1984.
Sato, S., Sako, S., and Maeda, A.: Social licking patterns in cattle (Bos taurus): influence of environmental and social factors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 32, 3–12, 1991.
Schulze Westerath, H., Brarkens, N., Laister, S., MacKintosh, N., Winckler, C., and Knierim, U.: Reliability of measures of socio-positive and play behaviour in dairy and beef cattle, in: Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves (Welfare Quality Reports 11), edited by: Forkman, B. and Keeling, L. J., SLU Service/Reproenheten, Uppsala, Sweden, 175–188, 2009.
Schumacher, U., Link, M., Volling, O., Brinkmann, J., March, S., Winckler, C., Tiergesundheitsmanagement Rinder, in: Bioland-Handbuch Tiergesundheitsmanagement, edited by: Schumacher, U., Bioland-Verlag, Mainz, Germany, 1–14, 2007.
Scott, E. M., Nolan, A. M., and Fitzpatrick, J. L.: Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: a framework for measurement, Acta Agr. Scand. A-An., 51, 5–10, 2001.
Smulders, F. J. M. and Algers, B.: Welfare of production animals: assessment and management of risks. ECVPH Food safety assurance Vol 5, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 2009.
Stien, L. H., Bracke, M., Folkedal, O., Nilsson, J., Oppedal, F., Torgersen, T., Kittilsen, S., Midtlyng, P. J., Vindas, M. A., and Averli, A.: Salmon Welfare Index Model (SWIM 1.0): a semantic model for overall welfare assessment of caged Atlantic salmon: review of the selected welfare indicators and model presentation, Reviews in Aquaculture, 5, 33–57, 2013.
Temple, D., Dalmau, A., Ruiz de la Torre, J., Manteca, X., and Velarde, A.: Application of the Welfare Quality protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain, J. Vet. Behav., 6, 138–149, 2011a.
Temple, D., Manteca, X., Velarde, A., and Dalmau, A.: Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 131, 29–39, 2011b.
Temple, D., Courboulay, V., Manteca, X., Velarde, A., and Dalmau, A.: The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: assessment of feeding and housing, Animal, 6, 656–667, 2012a.
Temple, D., Courboulay, V., Velarde, A., Dalmau, A., and Manteca, X.: The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems in France and Spain: assessment of health, Anim. Welfare, 21, 257–271, 2012b.
Temple, D., Manteca, X., Dalmau, A., and Velarde, A.: Assessment of test-retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms, Livest. Sci., 151, 35–45, 2013.
Tuchscherer, M., Puppe, B., Tuchscherer, A., and Kanitz, E.: Effects of social status after mixing on immune, metabolic, and endocrine responses in pigs, Physiol. Behav., 64, 353–360, 1998.
Tucker, C. B., Rogers, A. R., Verkerk, G. A., Kendall, P. E., Webster, J. R., and Matthews, L. R.: Effects of shelter and body condition on the behaviour and physiology of dairy cattle in winter, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 105, 1–13, 2007.
Turner, S. P. and Dwyer, C. M.: Welfare assessment in extensive animal production systems: challenges and opportunities, Anim. Welfare, 16, 189–192, 2007.
Ursinus, W. W., Schepers, F., de Mol, R. M., Bracke, M. B. M., Metz, J. H. M., and Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G.: COWEL: A decision support system to assess welfare of husbandry systems for dairy cattle, Anim. Welfare, 18, 545–552, 2009.
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., and Tuyttens, F. A. M.: Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?, Livest. Sci., 116, 126–136, 2008.
Veissier, I., Jensen, K. K., Botrea, R., and Sandoe, P.: Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme, Anim. Welfare, 20, 89–101, 2011.
Veissier, I., Winckler, C., Velarde, A., Butterworth, A., Dalmau, A., and Keeling, L. J.: Development of welfare measures and protocols for the collection of data on farms or at slaughter, in: Improving farm animal welfarem edited by: Blokhuis, H., Miele, M., Veissier, I., and Jones, B., Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 1, 115–141, 2013.
Velarde A. and Geers, R. (Eds.): On farm monitoring of pig welfare. COST ACTION 846, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 2007.
Velarde, A., Dalmau, A., and Manteca, X.: Animal Welfare training for professional: moving from inputs to outcomes, Proceedings of the International Conference on animal welfare education: everyone is responsible, Brussels, Belgium, 1–2 October 2010, European Union-Committee of the Regions, 38–44, 2010.
von Borell, E.: An evaluation of indexing welfare in farm animals, Aus dem Institut für Tierzucht Mariensee, Mariensee, Germany, 41–46, 2001.
von Borell, E., Bockisch, F. J., Boescher, W., Hoy, S., Krieter, J., Müller, C., Parvizi, N., Richter, T., Rudovsky, A., and Sundrum, A.: Critical control points for on-farm assessment of pig housing, Livest. Prod. Sci., 72, 177–184, 2001.
Webster, J.: The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: theory into practice, Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE, 24, 723–734, 2005.
Welfare Quality®: Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands, 2009.
Whay, H. R., Main, D. C. J., Green, L. E., and Webster, A. J. F.: Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion, Anim. Welfare, 12, 205–217, 2003.
Whay, H. R., Leeb, C., Main, D. C. J., Green, L. E., and Webster, A. J. F.: Preliminary assessment of finishing pig welfare using animal-based measurements, Anim. Welfare, 16, 209–211, 2007.
Winckler, C. and Knierim, U.: Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol – Milchkühe und Mastrinder, Tiergerechtheit bewerten, Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V., Darmstadt, Germany, 7–17, 2014.
Wirtz, M. and Caspar, F.: Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität, Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, p. 246, 2002.
World Health Organization: WHO definition of Health. Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19–22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948, 1946.
