Mutilating Procedures, Management Practices, and Housing Conditions That May Affect the Welfare of Farm Animals: Implications for Welfare Research
Abstract
:Simple summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Concepts of Animal Welfare
- hunger, thirst or incorrect food;
- thermal and physical discomfort;
- injuries or diseases;
- fear and chronic stress; and thus,
- the freedom to display normal behavioural patterns that allow the animal to adapt to the demands of the prevailing environmental circumstances and enable it to reach a state that it perceives as positive.” ([19], p. 17).
3. Procedures, Management Practices, and Housing Conditions That Affect Farm Animal Welfare
3.1. Adapting the Animal to Its Environment
3.2. Mutilating Procedures
3.3. Individual Housing of Social Animals and Confinement
3.4. Lighting Regimens—Artificial Lighting
3.5. Feed and Water Restriction
3.6. Overcrowding/Social Instability
3.7. Repeated Mixing
3.8. Individual Housing (of Social Animals)
3.9. Early Maternal Separation
3.10. Weaning
3.11. Barren Environment
4. Improving Animal Welfare
5. Breeding and Selection Programs
6. Enabling the Animal to Cope with Its Environment
7. Adapting the Environment to the Animal
7.1. Housing Conditions
7.2. Management Practices
8. Where to Go from Here?
- Is this “normal” behavior indeed unaltered by domestication?
- What are the effects of (heavy) selection on performance characteristics (e.g., high yield)?
- Does the wild ancestor, or a population that expresses the full pre-domestication genome, exist, and is it available for research?
9. The Commercialization of Animal Welfare
10. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gregory, N.G. Animal welfare and the meat market. In Animal Welfare and Meat Production; Gregory, N.G., Grandin, T., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2007; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Stafford, K.J.; Mellor, D.J. Painful husbandry procedures in livestock and poultry. In Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach; Grandin, T., Ed.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2010; pp. 88–114. [Google Scholar]
- Ventura, B.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Schuppli, C.A.; Weary, D.M. Views on contentious practices in dairy farming: The case of early cow-calf separation. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 6105–6116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lidfors, L.; Berg, C.; Algers, B. Integration of natural behavior in housing systems. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 2005, 34, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, I.J.H. Science-based assessment of animal welfare: Farm animals. Rev. Sci. Tech. Int. Off. Epizoot. 2005, 24, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, M.; Díez-León, M.; Mason, G. Animal welfare science: Recent publication trends and future research priorities. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 2014, 27, 80–100. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, J.D. The role of the veterinarian in animal welfare—A global perspective. In Proceedings of the Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE Initiative, Paris, France, 23–25 February 2004; pp. 27–35.
- Dawkins, M.S. The science of animal suffering. Ethology 2008, 114, 937–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawkins, M.S. Evolution and animal welfare. Q. Rev. Biol. 1998, 73, 305–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fisher, M.W. Defining animal welfare—Does consistency matter? N. Z. Vet. J. 2009, 57, 71–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fraser, D.; Duncan, I.J.C. “Pleasure”, “pains” and animal welfare: Toward a natural history of affect. Anim. Welf. 1998, 7, 383–396. [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, H.M.; Olesen, I.; Navrud, S.; Kolstad, K.; Amer, P. How to consider the value of farm animals in breeding goals. A review of current status and future challenges. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2011, 24, 309–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Pieniak, Z.; Nijs, G.; Tuyttens, F. The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2012, 25, 79–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, J. Zoomorphism and anthropomorphism: Fruitful fallacies? Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
- Mellor, D.J. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “five freedoms” towards “a life worth living”. Animals 2016, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Webster, J. Critical control points in the delivery of improved animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordenfelt, L. Health and welfare in animals and humans. Acta Biotheor. 2011, 59, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ohl, F.; Putman, R.J. Animal welfare at the group level: More than the sum of individual welfare? Acta Biotheor. 2014, 62, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ohl, F.; van der Staay, F.J. Animal welfare: At the interface between science and society. Vet. J. 2012, 192, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taylor, K.D.; Mills, D.S. Is quality of life a useful concept for companion animals? Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 55–66. [Google Scholar]
- Barnett, J.L.; Hemsworth, P.H. The validity of physiological and behavioural measures of animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990, 25, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, D.; Weary, D.M.; Pajor, E.A.; Milligan, B.N. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Anim. Welf. 1997, 6, 187–205. [Google Scholar]
- Korte, S.M.; Olivier, B.; Koolhaas, J.M. A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 92, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boissy, A.; Manteuffel, G.; Jensen, M.B.; Moe, R.O.; Spruijt, B.; Forkman, B.; Dimitrov, I.; Langbein, J.; Bakken, M.; Veissier, I.; et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 92, 375–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M.; Vázquez-Flores, S.; Saltijeral-Oaxaca, J.; Sossidou, E.N. A cow comfort monitoring scheme to increase the milk yield of a dairy farm. In Livestock Housing; Aland, A., Banhazi, T., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 55–74. [Google Scholar]
- Yeates, J.W.; Main, D.C.J. Assessment of positive welfare: A review. Vet. J. 2008, 175, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blokhuis, H.J.; Veissier, I.; Miele, M.; Jones, B. The welfare quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. Anim. Sci. 2010, 60, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanella, A. Knowledge is power. Impact 2016, 2016, 15–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, J. Animal welfare: Freedoms, dominions and “a life worth living”. Animals 2016, 6, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council). Report on Priorities for Animal Welfare Research and Development; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: London, UK, 1993; p. 26.
- Brambell, F.W.R.; Barbour, D.S.; Lady, B.; Ewer, T.K.; Hobson, A.; Pitchforth, H.; Smith, W.R.; Thorpe, W.H.; Winship, F.J.W. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems; Her Majesty’s Stationary Office: London, UK, 1965; p. 85. [Google Scholar]
- Zupan, M.; Janczak, A.M.; Framstad, T.; Zanella, A.J. The effect of biting tails and having tails bitten in pigs. Physiol. Behav. 2012, 106, 638–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jendral, M.J.; Robinson, F.E. Beak trimming in chickens: Historical, economical, physiological and welfare implications, and alternatives for preventing feather pecking and cannibalistic activity. Avian Poult. Biol. Rev. 2004, 15, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicol, C.J.; Bestman, M.; Gilani, A.-M.; de Haas, E.N.; de Jong, I.C.; Lambton, S.; Wagenaar, J.P.; Weeks, C.A.; Rodenburg, T.B. The prevention and control of feather pecking: Application to commercial systems. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2013, 69, 775–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prunier, A.; Bonneau, M.; von Borell, E.H.; Cinotti, S.; Gunn, M.; Fredriksen, B.; Giersing, M.; Morton, D.B.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Velarde, A. A review of the welfare consequences of surgical castration in piglets and the evaluation of non-surgical methods. Anim. Welf. 2006, 15, 277–289. [Google Scholar]
- Aggrey, S.E. Modification of animals versus modification of the production environment to meet welfare needs. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 852–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Craig, J.V.; Lee, H.-Y. Beak trimming and genetic stock effects on behavior and mortality from cannibalism in white leghorn-type pullets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990, 25, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bates, R.O.; Hoge, M.D.; Edwards, D.B.; Straw, B.E. The influence of canine teeth clipping on nursing and nursery pig performance. J. Swine Health Prod. 2002, 11, 75–79. [Google Scholar]
- Gallois, M.; Le Cozler, Y.; Prunier, A. Influence of tooth resection in piglets on welfare and performance. Prev. Vet. Med. 2005, 69, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Beirendonck, S.; Driessen, B.; Verbeke, G.; Permentier, L.; van de Perre, V.; Geers, R. Improving survival, growth rate, and animal welfare in piglets by avoiding teeth shortening and tail docking. J. Vet. Behav. 2012, 7, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, J.L.; Cronin, G.M.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Winfield, C.G. The welfare of confined sows: Physiological, behavioural and production responses to contrasting housing systems and handler attitudes. Ann. Rech. Vét. 1984, 15, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Van der Staay, F.J.; Schuurman, T.; Hulst, M.; Smits, M.; Prickaerts, J.; Kenis, G.; Korte, S.M. Effects of recurrent chronic stress: A comparison between tethered and loose sows. Physiol. Behav. 2010, 100, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chidgey, K.L.; Morel, P.C.H.; Stafford, K.J.; Barugh, I.W. Observations of sows and piglets housed in farrowing pens with temporary crating or farrowing crates on a commercial farm. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 176, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baxter, E.M.; Lawrence, A.B.; Edwards, S.A. Alternative farrowing systems: Design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. Animal 2011, 5, 580–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hales, J.; Moustsen, V.A.; Nielsen, M.B.F.; Hansen, C.F. Temporary confinement of loose-housed hyperprolific sows reduces piglet mortality. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 4079–4088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baldwin, B.A.; Start, I.B. Illumination preferences of pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1985, 14, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, N.; Prescott, N.; Perry, G.; Potter, M.; Le Sueur, C.; Wathes, C. Preference of growing pigs for illuminance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 96, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martelli, G.; Nannoni, E.; Grandi, M.; Bonaldo, A.; Zaghini, G.; Vitali, M.; Biagi, G.; Sardi, L. Growth parameters, behavior, and meat and ham quality of heavy pigs subjected to photoperiods of different duration. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 758–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olanrewaju, H.A.; Thaxton, J.P.; Dozier, W.A., III; Purswell, J.; Roush, W.B.; Branton, S.L. A review of lighting programs for broiler production. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2006, 5, 301–308. [Google Scholar]
- Das, H.; Lacin, E. The effect of different photoperiods and stocking densities on fattening performance, carcass and some stress parameters in broilers. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 2014, 69, 211–220. [Google Scholar]
- Manser, C.E. Effects of lighting on the welfare of domestic poultry: A review. Anim. Welf. 1996, 5, 341–360. [Google Scholar]
- Sanotra, G.S.; Lund, J.D.; Vestergaard, K.S. In Influence of light-dark schedules and stocking density on behaviour, risk of leg problems and occurrence of chronic fear in broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 2002, 43, 344–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deep, A.; Schwean-Lardner, K.; Crowe, T.G.; Fancher, B.I.; Classen, H.L. Effect of light intensity on broiler behaviour and diurnal rhythms. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 136, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeer, H.M.; Kuijken, N.; Spoolder, H.A.M. Motivation for additional water use of growing-finishing pigs. Livest. Sci. 2009, 124, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nannoni, E.; Martelli, G.; Cecchini, M.; Vignola, G.; Giammarco, M.; Zaghini, G.; Sardi, L. Water requirements of liquid-fed heavy pigs: Effect of water restriction on growth traits, animal welfare and meat and ham quality. Livest. Sci. 2013, 151, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixon, L.M.; Brocklehurst, S.; Sandilands, V.; Bateson, M.; Tolkamp, B.J.; D’Eath, R.B. Measuring motivation for appetitive behaviour: Food-restricted broiler breeder chickens cross a water barrier to forage in an area of wood shavings without food. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buckley, L.A.; McMillan, L.M.; Sandilands, V.; Tolkamp, B.J.; Hocking, P.M.; D’Eath, R.B. Too hungry to learn? Hungry broiler breeders fail to learn a Y-maze food quantity discrimination task. Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 469–481. [Google Scholar]
- De Jong, I.C.; Fillerup, M.; Blokhuis, H.J. Effect of scattered feeding and feeding twice a day during rearing on indicators of hunger and frustration in broiler breeders. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 92, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mench, J.A. The development of aggressive behavior in male broiler chicks: A comparison with laying-type males and the effects of feed restriction. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988, 21, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jong, I.C.; Gunnink, H.; van Harn, J. Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare, technical performance, and carcass yield in broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2014, 23, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rault, J.-L.; Cree, S.; Hemsworth, P. The effects of water deprivation on the behavior of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Algers, B.; Blokhuis, H.J.; Broom, D.M.; Costa, P.; Domingo, M.; Greiner, M.; Guemene, D.; Hartung, J.; Koenen, F.; Muller-Graf, C.; et al. Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry—Scientific opinion of the panel on animal health and welfare. EFSA J. 2007, 564, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Jørgensen, B. Influence of floor type and stocking density on leg weakness, osteochondrosis and claw disorders in slaughter pigs. Anim. Sci. 2003, 77, 439–449. [Google Scholar]
- D’Eath, R.B.; Keeling, L.J. Social discrimination and aggression by laying hens in large groups: From peck orders to social tolerance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 84, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estevez, I.; Andersen, I.-L.; Nævdal, E. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 103, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Najafi, P.; Zulkifli, I.; Jajuli, N.A.; Farjam, A.S.; Ramiah, S.K.; Amir, A.A.; O’Reily, E.; Eckersall, D. Environmental temperature and stocking density effects on acute phase proteins, heat shock protein 70, circulating corticosterone and performance in broiler chickens. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2015, 59, 1577–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hall, A.L. The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Anim. Welf. 2001, 10, 23–40. [Google Scholar]
- Dawkins, M.S.; Donnelly, C.A.; Jones, T.A. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 2004, 427, 242–244. [Google Scholar]
- Škrbić, Z.; Pavlovski, Z.; Lukić, M.; Perić, L.; Milošević, N. The effect of stocking density on certain broiler welfare parameters. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 2009, 25, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Council of the European Communities. European Communities Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens; Council of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Miranda-de la Lama, G.C.; Mattiello, S. The importance of social behaviour for goat welfare in livestock farming. Small Rumin. Res. 2010, 90, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradshaw, R.H. Discrimination of group members by laying hens Gallus domesticus. Behav. Processes 1991, 24, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coulon, M.; Deputte, B.; Heyman, Y.; Bedoin, C. Individual recognition in domestic cattle (Bos taurus): Evidence from 2D images of heads from different breeds. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e4441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keil, N.M.; Imfeld-Mueller, S.; Aschwanden, J.; Wechsler, B. Are head cues necessary for goats (Capra hircus) in recognising group members? Anim. Cogn. 2012, 15, 913–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kendrick, K.M.; da Costa, A.P.; Leigh, A.E.; Hinton, M.R.; Peirce, J.W. Sheep don’t forget a face. Nature 2001, 414, 165–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kristensen, H.H.; Jones, R.B.; Schofield, C.P.; White, R.P.; Wathes, C.M. The use of olfactory and other cues for social recognition by juvenile pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001, 72, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patt, A.; Gygax, L.; Wechsler, B.; Hillmann, E.; Palme, R.; Keil, N.M. Factors influencing the welfare of goats in small established groups during the separation and reintegration of individuals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 144, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patt, A.; Gygax, L.; Wechsler, B.; Hillmann, E.; Palme, R.; Keil, N.M. The introduction of individual goats into small established groups has serious negative effects on the introduced goat but not on resident goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 138, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhim, S.-J.; Son, S.-H.; Hwang, H.-S.; Lee, J.-K.; Hong, J.-K. Effects of mixing on the aggressive behavior of commercially housed pigs. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 28, 1038–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Backus, G.B.C.; van den Broek, E.; van der Fels, B.; Heres, L.; Immink, V.M.; Knol, E.F.; Kornelis, M.; Mathur, P.K.; van der Peet-Schwering, C.; van Riel, J.W.; et al. Evaluation of producing and marketing entire male pigs. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2016, 76, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredriksen, B.; Lium, B.M.; Marka, C.H.; Mosveen, B.; Nafstad, O. Entire male pigs in farrow-to-finish pens—Effects on animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 110, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rydhmer, L.; Hansson, M.; Lundström, K.; Brunius, C.; Andersson, K. Welfare of entire male pigs is improved by socialising piglets and keeping intact groups until slaughter. Animal 2013, 7, 1532–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fels, M.; Hartung, J.; Hoy, S. Social hierarchy formation in piglets mixed in different group compositions after weaning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 152, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, H.-W.; Fahey, A. Effects of group size and repeated social disruption on the serotonergic and dopaminergic system in two genetic lines of White Leghorn hens. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 2018–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van de Ven, L.J.F.; van Wagenberg, A.V.; Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G.; van den Brand, H. Effects of a combined hatching and brooding system on hatchability, chick weight, and mortality in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 2273–2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kemp, B.; Soede, N.M.; Langendijk, P. Effects of boar contact and housing conditions on estrus expression in sows. Theriogenology 2005, 63, 643–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marcé, C.; Guatteo, R.; Bareille, N.; Fourichon, C. Dairy calf housing systems across Europe and risk for calf infectious diseases. Animal 2010, 4, 1588–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Flower, F.C.; Weary, D.M. Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf: 2. Separation at 1 day and 2 weeks after birth. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001, 70, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weary, D.M.; Chua, B. Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf: 1. Separation at 6 h, 1 day and 4 days after birth. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 69, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dixhoorn, I.; Evers, A.; Janssen, A.; Smolders, G.; Spoelstra, S.; Wagenaar, J.P.; Verwer, C. Familiekudde State of Art; Wageningen UR Livestock Research (Report 268): Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Oostindjer, M.; Kemp, B.; van den Brand, H.; Bolhuis, J.E. Facilitating “learning from mom how to eat like a pig” to improve welfare of piglets around weaning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 160, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Eath, R.B. Socialising piglets before weaning improves social hierarchy formation when pigs are mixed post-weaning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 93, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, T.; Pluske, J.; Miller, D.; Collins, T.; Barnes, A.L.; Wemelsfelder, F. Socialising piglets in lactation positively affects theirpost-weaning behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 158, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enríquez, D.H.; Ungerfeld, R.; Quintans, G.; Guidoni, A.L.; Hötzel, M.J. The effects of alternative weaning methods on behaviour in beef calves. Livest. Sci. 2010, 128, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haley, D.B.; Bailey, D.W.; Stookey, J.M. The effects of weaning beef calves in two stages on their behavior and growth rate. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 83, 2205–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Norouzian, M.A. Effect of weaning method on lamb behaviour and weight gain. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 133, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enríquez, D.; Hötzel, M.J.; Ungerfeld, R. Minimising the stress of weaning of beef calves: A review. Acta Vet. Scand. 2011, 53, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- D’Eath, R.B.; Turner, S.P. The natural behaviour of the pig—chapter 2. In The Welfare of Pigs; Marchant-Forde, J.N., Ed.; Animal Welfare; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 13–45. [Google Scholar]
- Stolba, A.; Wood-Gush, D.G.M. The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Anim. Prod. 1989, 48, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, K.; Taylor, L.; Gill, B.P.; Edwards, S.A. Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems 1. Hanging toy versus rootable substrate. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 99, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Studnitz, M.; Jensen, M.B.; Pedersen, L.J. Why do pigs root and in what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 107, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Studnitz, M.; Jensen, K.H. Expression of rooting motivation in gilts following different lengths of deprivation. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 76, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, J.E.L.; Burfoot, A.; Docking, C.M.; Whittaker, X.; Spoolder, H.A.M.; Edwards, S.A. The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 76, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damm, B.I.; Lisborg, L.; Vestergaard, K.S.; Vanicek, J. Nest-building, behavioural disturbances and heart rate in farrowing sows kept in crates and Schmid pens. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 80, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thodberg, K.; Jensen, K.H.; Herskin, M.S. Nest building and farrowing in sows: Relation to the reaction pattern during stress, farrowing environment and experience. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 77, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hötzel, M.J.; Machado Filho, L.C.P.; Dalla Costa, O.A. Behaviour of pre-parturient sows housed in intensive outdoor or indoor systems. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 2005, 40, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arey, D.S.; Sancha, E.S. Behaviour and productivity of sows and piglets in a family system and in farrowing crates. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1996, 50, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackshaw, J.K.; Hagelsø, A.M. Getting-up and lying-down behaviours of loose-housed sows and social contacts between sows and piglets during day 1 and day 8 after parturition. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990, 25, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matur, E.; Eraslan, E.; Akyazi, I.; Ekiz, E.E.; Eseceli, H.; Keten, M.; Metiner, K.; Bala, D.A. The effect of furnished cages on the immune response of laying hens under social stress. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 2853–2862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kanis, E.; van de Belt, H.; Groen, A.F.; Schakel, J.; de Greef, K.H. Breeding for improved welfare in pigs: A conceptual framework and its use in practice. Anim. Sci. 2004, 78, 315–329. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, S.P. Breeding against harmful social behaviours in pigs and chickens: State of the art and the way forward. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 134, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Eath, R.B.; Conington, J.; Lawrence, A.B.; Olsson, I.A.S.; Sandøe, P. Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: Practical, economic and ethical considerations. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19, 17–27. [Google Scholar]
- Olsson, I.A.; Gamborg, C.; Sandøe, P. Taking ethics into account in farm animal breeding: What can breeding companies achieve? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayvel, A.C.D.; Cross, N. Animal welfare: A complex domestic and international public-policy issue—Who are the key players? J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2010, 37, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fraser, D. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet. Scand. 2008, 50, A1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miele, M.; Veissier, I.; Evans, A.; Botreau, R. Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 103–117. [Google Scholar]
- Buller, H.; Roe, E. Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare: The economisation of layer chickens. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 33, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olesen, I.; Groen, A.F.; Gjerde, B. Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 570–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Faure, J.M.; Mills, A.D. Chapter 8: Improving the adaptability of animals by selection. In Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals; Grandin, T., Deesing, M.J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 291–316. [Google Scholar]
- Canario, L.; Mignon-Grasteau, S.; Dupont-Nivet, M.; Phocas, F. Genetics of behavioural adaptation of livestock to farming conditions. Animal 2013, 7, 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ellen, E.D.; Rodenburg, T.B.; Albers, G.A.A.; Bolhuis, J.E.; Camerlink, I.; Duijvesteijn, N.; Knol, E.F.; Muir, W.M.; Peeters, K.; Reimert, I.; et al. The prospects of selection for social genetic effects to improve welfare and productivity in livestock. Front. Genet. 2014, 5, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kjaer, J.B.; Sørensen, P.; Su, G. Divergent selection on feather pecking behaviour in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001, 71, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grams, V.; Wellmann, R.; Preuß, S.; Grashorn, M.A.; Kjaer, J.B.; Bessei, W.; Bennewitz, J. Genetic parameters and signatures of selection in two divergent laying hen lines selected for feather pecking behaviour. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2015, 47, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nordquist, R.E.; Heerkens, J.L.T.; Rodenburg, T.B.; Boks, S.; Ellen, E.D.; van der Staay, F.J. Laying hens selected for low mortality: Behaviour in tests of fearfulness, anxiety and cognition. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 131, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodenburg, T.B.; Bijma, P.; Ellen, E.D.; Bergsma, R.; de Vries, S.; Bolhuis, J.E.; Kemp, B.; van Arendonk, J.A.M. Breeding amiable animals? Improving farm animal welfare by including social effects in breeding programmes. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19, 77–82. [Google Scholar]
- King, T.; Marston, L.C.; Bennett, P.C. Breeding dogs for beauty and behaviour: Why scientists need to do more to develop valid and reliable behaviour assessments for dogs kept as companions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 137, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, A.B.; Conington, J. Sheep welfare: A future perspective. In The Welfare of Sheep; Dwyer, C.M., Ed.; Springer Science + Business Media B.V.: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 343–360. [Google Scholar]
- Star, L.; Ellen, E.D.; Uitdehaaag, K.; Brom, F.W.A. A plea to implement robustness into a breeding goal: Poultry as an example. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2008, 21, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, P.B. Why using genetics to address welfare may not be a good idea. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 814–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baxter, E.M.; Jarvis, S.; Sherwood, L.; Farisha, M.; Roehea, R.; Lawrence, A.B.; Edwards, S.A. Genetic and environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal behaviour of the farrowing sow. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 130, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, S.P.; D’Eath, R.B.; Roehe, R.; Lawrence, A.B. Selection against aggressiveness in pigs at re-grouping: Practical application and implications for long-term behavioural patterns. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19, 124–132. [Google Scholar]
- Kanis, E.; de Greef, K.H.; Hiemstra, A.; van Arendonk, J.A.M. Breeding for societally important traits in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 83, 948–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gunnarsson, S.; Yngvesson, J.; Keeling, L.J.; Forkman, B. Rearing without early access to perches impairs the spatial skills of laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 67, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wechsler, B.; Lea, S.E.G. Adaptation by learning: Its significance for farm animal husbandry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 108, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, R.J.; Cipreste, C.F. Applying animal learning theory: Training captive animals to comply with veterinary and husbandry procedures. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, 225–232. [Google Scholar]
- Figueroa, J.; Solà-Oriol, D.; Manteca, X.; Pérez, J.F. Social learning of feeding behaviour in pigs: Effects of neophobia and familiarity with the demonstrator conspecific. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 148, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faure, J.M. To adapt the environment to the bird or the bird to the environment? In The Laying Hen and Its Environment; Moss, R., Ed.; Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Ferguson, D.M. Key features of “environmental fit” that promote good animal welfare in different husbandry systems. Rev. Sci. Tech. Int. Off. Epizoot. 2014, 33, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Silva, J. Adverse impact of industrial animal agriculture on the health and welfare of farmed animals. Integr. Zool. 2006, 1, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morgan, K.N.; Tromborg, C.T. Sources of stress in captivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 102, 262–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilgour, R. The application of animal behavior and the humane care of farm animals. J. Anim. Sci. 1978, 46, 1478–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Council of the Europen Union. Council of the Europen Union Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 Amending Directive 91/630/EEC Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs; Council of the Europen Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- McGlone, J.J.; von Borell, E.H.; Deen, J.; Johnson, A.K.; Levis, D.G.M.; Meunier-Salaün, M.; Morrow, J.; Reeves, D.; Salak-Johnson, J.L.; Sundberg, P.L. Compilation of the scientific literature comparing housing systems for gestating sows and gilts using measures of physiology, behavior, performance, and health. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2004, 20, 105–117. [Google Scholar]
- Anil, L.; Bhend, K.M.G.; Baidoo, S.K.; Morrison, R.; Deen, J. Comparison of injuries in sows housed in gestation stalls versus group pens with electronic sow feeders. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2003, 223, 1334–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Greef, K.H.; Vermeer, H.M.; Houwers, H.W.J.; Bos, A.P. Proof of principle of the comfort class concept in pigs: Experimenting in the midst of a stakeholder process on pig welfare. Livest. Sci. 2011, 139, 172–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blokhuis, H.J.; Fiks van Niekerk, T.; Bessel, W.; Elson, A.; Guémené, D.; Kjaers, J.B.; Maria Levrino, G.A.; Nicol, C.J.; Tauson, R.; Weeks, C.A.; et al. The LayWel project: Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2007, 63, 101–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Vanhonacker, F.; Van Poucke, E.; Verbeke, W. Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livest. Sci. 2010, 131, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemsworth, P.H. Ethical stockmanship. Aust. Vet. J. 2007, 85, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rushen, J.; de Passillé, A.M. The importance of good stockmanship and its benefits for the animals. In Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach; Grandin, T., Ed.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2010; pp. 50–63. [Google Scholar]
- Livesey, C.T.; Marsh, C.; Metcalf, J.A.; Laven, R.A. Hock injuries in cattle kept in straw yards or cubicles with rubber mats or mattresses. Vet. Rec. 2002, 150, 677–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mowbray, L.; Vittie, T.; Weary, D.M. Hock lesions and free stall design: Effects of stall surface. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Dairy Housing Conference (ASAE), Fort Worth, TX, USA, 29–31 January 2003; pp. 288–295.
- Potterton, S.L.; Green, M.J.; Harris, J.; Millar, K.M.; Whay, H.R.; Huxley, J.N. Risk factors associated with hair loss, ulceration, and swelling at the hock in freestall-housed UK dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 2952–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Gastelen, S.; Westerlaan, B.; Houwers, D.J.; van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M. A study on cow comfort and risk for lameness and mastitis in relation to different types of bedding materials. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 4878–4888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grandin, T. (Ed.) Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2010.
- Whay, H.R.; Barker, Z.E.; Leach, K.A.; Main, D.C.J. Promoting farmer engagement and activity in the control of dairy cattle lameness. Vet. J. 2012, 193, 617–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spoelstra, S.F.; Koerkamp, P.W.G.; Bos, A.P.; Elzen, B.; Feenstra, F.R. Innovation for sustainable egg production: Realigning production with societal demands in The Netherlands. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2013, 69, 279–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klerkx, L.; van Bommel, S.; Bos, B.; Holster, H.; Zwartkruis, J.V.; Aarts, N. Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations. Agric. Syst. 2012, 113, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botreau, R.; Bracke, M.B.M.; Perny, P.; Butterworth, A.; Capdeville, J.; van Reenen, C.G.; Veissier, I. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: Analysis of constraints. Animal 2007, 1, 1188–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chielo, L.I.; Pike, T.; Cooper, J. Ranging behaviour of commercial free-range laying hens. Animals 2016, 6, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Eklund, B.; Jensen, P. Domestication effects on behavioural synchronization and individual distances in chickens (Gallus gallus). Behav. Processes 2011, 86, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reimert, I.; Bolhuis, J.E.; Kemp, B.; Rodenburg, T.B. Indicators of positive and negative emotions and emotional contagion in pigs. Physiol. Behav. 2013, 109, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veasey, J.S.; Waran, N.K.; Young, R.J. On comparing the behavior of zoo housed animals with wild conspecifics as a welfare indicator. Anim. Welf. 1996, 5, 13–24. [Google Scholar]
- Price, E.O. Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Q. Rev. Biol. 1984, 59, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appleby, M.C.; Sandøe, P. Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: Implications for animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2002, 11, 283–294. [Google Scholar]
- Haynes, R.P. Competing conceptions of animal welfare and their ethical implications for the treatment of non-human animals. Acta Biotheor. 2011, 59, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bock, B.; Buller, H. Healthy, happy and humane: Evidence in farm animal welfare policy. Sociol. Rural. 2013, 53, 390–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Averós, X.; Aparicio, M.A.; Ferrari, P.; Guy, J.H.; Hubbard, C.; Schmid, O.; Ilieski, V.; Spoolder, H.A.M. The effect of steps to promote higher levels of farm animal welfare across the EU. Societal versus animal scientists’ perceptions of animal welfare. Animals 2013, 3, 786–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Christensen, T.; Lawrence, A.; Lund, M.; Stott, A.; Sandøe, P. How can economists help to improve animal welfare? Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Committee). Economics and Farm Animal Welfare; FAWC Advice to Government, Animal Welfare and Food and Farming Industry; Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2011.
- Maciel, C.T.; Bock, B. Modern politics in animal welfare: The changing character of governance of animal welfare and the role of private standards. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 2013, 20, 219–235. [Google Scholar]
- Cornish, A.; Raubenheimer, D.; McGreevy, P. What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countries. Animals 2016, 6, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ohl, F.; Endenburg, N.; Vaarkamp, H.; Pijpers, A.; Rothuizen, J.; Hellebrekers, L.J.; van Sluijs, F.J.; Stegeman, J.A.; van Putten, J.; van Knapen, F.; et al. Animal Welfare—The Veterinary Position. Available online: http://preview.tinyurl.com/zks467k (accessed on 21 February 2017).
- Costs 2016, Dutch Animal Welfare Association (Dierenbescherming) Costs of Welfare Quality Label. Available online: https://beterleven.dierenbescherming.nl/fileupload/Kostendoorberekening_2016_versie_1.2.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2016).
- Dutch Animal Welfare Association (Dierenbescherming) Report 2013, Annual Report 2013. Available online: http://www.cbf.nl//Uploaded_files/Jaarverslagen/jaarverslag-2013-dierenbescherming.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2016).
- Dutch Animal Welfare Association (Dierenbescherming) Report 2014, Annual Financial Statements 2014—One and a Half Century Standing in the Gap for Animals. Available online: http://www.cbf.nl//Uploaded_files/Jaarverslagen/jaarverlag-2014-dierenbescherming.03e12a.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2016).
- Fraser, D. The globalisation of farm animal welfare. Rev. Sci. Tech. Int. Off. Epizoot. 2014, 33, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AWARE FVE & EAEVE Adopted Report on European Veterinary Education in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law—Executive Summary. Available online: http://www.fve.org/uploads/publications/docs/executive_summary_aw_day_one_competences_adopted.pdf (accessed on 16 November 2014).
- Christiansen, S.B.; Forkman, B. Assessment of animal welfare in a veterinary context—A call for ethologists. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 106, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magalhães-Sant’Ana, M.; More, S.J.; Morton, D.B.; Osborne, M.; Hanlon, A. What do European veterinary codes of conduct actually say and mean? A case study approach. Vet. Rec. 2015, 176, 654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Interventions | Cattle | Sheep | Goats | Pigs | Chickens | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. Mutilating interventions causing physical discomfort | Castration | ✚ | ✚ | ✚✚ | ||
Docking (tail amputation) | ✚✚✚ | |||||
Disbudding | ✚✚✚ | ✚ | ||||
Dehorning | ✚ | |||||
Ear notching | ✚ | |||||
Ear tagging—wing band—toe slit | ✚✚✚ | ✚✚✚ | ✚✚✚ | ✚✚✚ | ✚ | |
Teeth clipping | ✚ | |||||
Nose ringing | ✚ | |||||
Beak trimming | ✚✚✚ a | |||||
Despurring—toe clipping | ✚ | |||||
Dubbing | ✚ | |||||
Caesarean section | ✚ b | |||||
B. Housing and management practices causing predominantly physical discomfort | Confinement c | ✚✚✚ | ✚✚✚ | ✚ | ||
Lighting regimens—artificial lighting | ✚✚ | ✚✚✚ d | ||||
Feed and water restriction | ✚ e | ✚✚✚ f | ||||
C. Housing and management practices causing predominantly psychological and emotional discomfort | Overcrowding/social instability | ✚✚ | ✚✚ | ✚✚ | ✚✚✚ | |
(Repeated) mixing | ✚✚✚ | ✚ | ✚✚✚ | ✚✚✚ | ✚✚ | |
Individual housing (of social animals) | ✚ | ✚ g | ✚ | |||
Early maternal separation | ✚✚ | ✚✚✚ | ✚✚✚ | ✚✚✚ | ||
Barren environment | ✚ h | ✚✚✚ | ✚✚ |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nordquist, R.E.; Van der Staay, F.J.; Van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M.; Velkers, F.C.; Fijn, L.; Arndt, S.S. Mutilating Procedures, Management Practices, and Housing Conditions That May Affect the Welfare of Farm Animals: Implications for Welfare Research. Animals 2017, 7, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7020012
Nordquist RE, Van der Staay FJ, Van Eerdenburg FJCM, Velkers FC, Fijn L, Arndt SS. Mutilating Procedures, Management Practices, and Housing Conditions That May Affect the Welfare of Farm Animals: Implications for Welfare Research. Animals. 2017; 7(2):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7020012
Chicago/Turabian StyleNordquist, Rebecca E., Franz Josef Van der Staay, Frank J. C. M. Van Eerdenburg, Francisca C. Velkers, Lisa Fijn, and Saskia S. Arndt. 2017. "Mutilating Procedures, Management Practices, and Housing Conditions That May Affect the Welfare of Farm Animals: Implications for Welfare Research" Animals 7, no. 2: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7020012
APA StyleNordquist, R. E., Van der Staay, F. J., Van Eerdenburg, F. J. C. M., Velkers, F. C., Fijn, L., & Arndt, S. S. (2017). Mutilating Procedures, Management Practices, and Housing Conditions That May Affect the Welfare of Farm Animals: Implications for Welfare Research. Animals, 7(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7020012