Scientific assessment of animal welfare

References

• Andersen IL, Bøe KE, Kristiansen AL. The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 91–104, 1999 doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00058-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Barnett JL. Modifying the design of group pens with individual feeding places affects the welfare of pigs. In: Bottcher RW, Hoff SJ (eds). Livestock Environment V, Volume II. Pp 613–18. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, Michigan, USA, 1997
   Google Scholar
• *Barnett JL. Studying stress to assess animal welfare. In: Paterson JE (eds). Manipulating Pig Production IX. Pp 107–20. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, Australia, 2003
   Google Scholar
• Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH. Welfare monitoring schemes: using research to safeguard the welfare of animals on the farm. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12, 114–31, 2009 doi: 10.1080/10888700902719856
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH, Cronin GM, Newman EA, McCallum TH, Chilton D. Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural and physiological responses of group-housed pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 207–20, 1992 doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80116-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett JL, Cronin GM, McCallum TH, Newman EA. Effects of pen size/shape and design on aggression when grouping unfamiliar adult pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36, 111–22, 1993 doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(93)90003-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench CJ, Rioja-Lang FC, Hayne SM, Gonyou HW. Group gestation housing with individual feeding—I: How feeding regime, resource allocation, and genetic factors affect sow welfare. Livestock Science 152, 208–17, 2013a doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.12.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench CJ, Rioja-Lang FC, Hayne SM, Gonyou HW. Group gestation housing with individual feeding—II: How space allowance, group size and composition, and flooring affect sow welfare. Livestock Science 152, 218–27, 2013b doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.12.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergeron R, Bolduc J, Ramonet Y, Meunier-Salaun MC, Robert S. Feeding motivation and stereotypies in pregnant sows fed increasing levels of fibre and/or food. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70, 27–40, 2000 doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00142-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Oppermann M, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Winckler C, Forkman B, Dimitrov I, Langbein J, et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behaviour 92, 375–97, 2007 doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Brambell FWR, Barbour DS, Barnett MB, Ewer TK, Hobson A, Pitchforth H, Smith WR, Thorpe WH, Winship FJW. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Husbandry Systems. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, United Kingdom, 1965
   Google Scholar
• Broom DM. Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142, 524–6, 1986 doi: 10.1016/0007-1935(86)90109-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• *Broom DM. Coping, stress and welfare. In: Broom DM (eds). Coping with Challenge: Welfare in Animals including Humans. Pp 1–9. Daglem University Press, Berlin, Germany, 2000
   Google Scholar
• Burgdorf J, Panksepp J. The neurobiology of positive emotions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 30, 173–87, 2006 doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dantzer, R. Les émotions. P 21. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1988
   Google Scholar
• D'Eath RB, Roehe R, Turner SP, Ison SH, Farish M, Jack MC, Lawrence AB. Genetics of animal temperament: aggressive behaviour at mixing is genetically associated with the response to handling in pigs. Animal 3, 1544–54, 2009 doi: 10.1017/S1751731109990528
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denton DA, McKinley MJ, Farrell M, Egan GF. The role of primordial emotions in the evolutionary origin of consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition 18, 500–14, 2009 doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2008.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan IJH. Science-based assessment of animal welfare: Farm animals. Scientific and Technical Review, Office International des Epizooties 24, 483–92, 2005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Duncan IJH, Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby MC, Hughes BO (eds). Animal Welfare. Pp 19–31. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Fisher MW, Mellor DJ. Developing a systematic strategy incorporating ethical, animal welfare and practical principles to guide the genetic improvement of dairy cattle. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 65, 100–6, 2008 doi: 10.1080/00480169.2008.36817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser D. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12, 433–43, 2003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Fraser D. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom, 2008
   Google Scholar
• Fraser D, Duncan IJH. “Pleasures”, “pains” and animal welfare; towards a natural history of affect. Animal Welfare 7, 383–96, 1998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Fraser D, Nicol CJ. Preference and motivation research. In: Appleby MC, Mench JA, Olsson IAS, Hughes BO (eds). Animal Welfare. Pp 183–99. CAB International, Oxon, United Kingdom, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Fraser D, Duncan IJH, Edwards SA, Grandin T, Gregory NG, Guyonnet V, Hemsworth PH, Huertas SM, Huzzey JM, Mellor DJ, et al. General principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its application. The Veterinary Journal 198, 19–27, 2013 doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.06.028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Gonyou HW. The social behaviour of pigs. In: Keeling LJ, Gonyou HW (eds). Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. Pp 147–76. CAB International, Oxon, United Kingdom, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Green TC, Mellor DJ. Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’ and related concepts. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 59, 263–71, 2011 doi: 10.1080/00480169.2011.610283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ. Human-Livestock Interactions: the Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Farmed Animals. 2nd Edtn. CAB International, Oxon, United Kingdom, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Hansen C, Winfield CG. Effects of social environment on welfare status and sexual behaviour of female pigs. II. Effects of space allowance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 259–67, 1986 doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(86)90118-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Rickard M, Coleman GJ. Australia's research and development capacity in animal welfare. Farm Policy Journal 4 (4), 23–31, 2007
   Google Scholar
• Hemsworth PH, Rice M, Nash J, Giri K, Butler KL, Tilbrook AJ, Morrison RS. Effects of group size and floor space allowance on grouped sows: aggression, stress, skin injuries and reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 91, 1–12, 2013 doi: 10.2527/jas.2012-5807
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutson GD. A note on hunger in the pig: sows on restricted rations will sustain an energy deficit to gain additional food. Animal Production 52, 233–5, 1991 doi: 10.1017/S0003356100005882
   Google Scholar
• *Kaltas GA, Chrousos GP. The neuroendorinology of stress. In: Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG and Berntson GG (eds). Handbook of Psychophysiology. Pp 303–18. Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK, 2007
   Google Scholar
• Kirkden RD, Pajor EA. Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals’ feelings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100, 29–47, 2006 doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauber M, Nash JA, Gatt A, Hemsworth PH. Prevalence and incidence of abnormal behaviours in individually housed sheep. Animals 2, 27–37, 2012 doi: 10.3390/ani2010027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence AB, Terlouw EMC. A review of behavioural factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviours in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2815–25, 1993
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Levy N. What Makes Us Moral?. Crossing the Boundaries of Biology. Oneworld, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2004
   Google Scholar
• *Lindberg AC. Group life. In: Keeling LJ, Gonyou HW (eds). Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. Pp 37–58. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Løvendahl P, Damgaard LH, Nielsen BL, Thodberg K, Su G, Rydhmer L. Aggressive behaviour of sows at mixing and maternal behaviour are heritable and genetically correlated traits. Livestock Production Science 93, 73–85, 2005 doi: 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.008
   Google Scholar
• *Marchant-Forde JN, Marchant-Forde RM. Minimizing inter-pig aggression during mixing. Pig News and Information 26, 63N–71N, 2005
   Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare states. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 60, 1–8, 2012 doi: 10.1080/00480169.2011.619047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Mellor DJ. Production Animals: Ethical and welfare issues raised by production-focused management of newborn livestock. In: Wathes CM, Corr SA, May SA, McCulloch SP, Whiting MC (eds). Veterinary and Animal Ethics: Proceedings of the first International Conference on Veterinary and Animal Ethics. Pp 174–87. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Enhancing animal welfare by creating opportunities for positive affective engagement. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63, 3–8, 2015a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63, 9–16, 2015b
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63, 17–23, 2015c
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ, Bayvel ACD. New Zealand's inclusive science-based system for setting animal welfare standards. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 313–29, 2008 doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Mellor DJ, Patterson-Kane E, Stafford KJ. The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2009
   Google Scholar
• Mendl M, Zanella AJ, Broom DM. Physiological and reproductive correlates of behavioural strategies in female domestic pigs. Animal Behaviour 44, 1107–21, 1992 doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80323-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendl M, Burman OHP, Parker RMA, Paul ES. Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: Emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118, 161–81, 2009 doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meunier-Salaün MC, Edwards SA, Robert S. Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90, 53–69, 2001 doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00196-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Moberg GP. Biological response to stress: Implications for animal welfare. In Moberg GP, Mench GA (eds). The Biology of Animal Stress; Basic Principles and Applications for Animal Welfare. Pp 1–21. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom, 2000
   Google Scholar
• Nicol CJ, Caplen G, Edgar J, Browne WJ. Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Animal Behaviour 78, 413–24, 2009 doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.05.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol CJ, Caplen G, Statham P, Browne WJ. Decisions about foraging and risk trade-offs in chickens are associated with individual somatic response profiles. Animal Behaviour 82, 255–62, 2011 doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.04.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Nicholson RI, McGlone JJ, Reid LN. Quantification of stress in sows: comparison of individual housing versus social penning. Journal of Animal Science 71 (Suppl. 1), 112, 1993
   Google Scholar
• *Olsson IAS, Wurbell H, Mench JA. Behaviour. In: Appleby MC, Mench JA, Olsson IAS, Hughes BO (eds.) Animal Welfare. Pp 138–154. CABI International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Panksepp J. Affective consciousness: Core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Consciousness and Cognition 14, 30–80, 2005 doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2004.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remience V, Wavreille J, Canart B, Meunier-Salaün MC, Prunier A, Bartiaux-Thill N, Nicks B, Vandenheede M. Effects of space allowance on the welfare of dry sows kept in dynamic groups and fed with electronic sow feeder. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 284–96, 2008 doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.07.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salak-Johnson JL, Niekamp SR, Rodriguez-Zas SL, Ellis M, Curtis SE. Space allowance for dry, pregnant sows in pens: body condition, skin lesions and performance. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1758–69, 2007 doi: 10.2527/jas.2006-510
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spoolder HAM, Burbidge JA, Edwards SA, Simmins PH, Lawrence AL. Provision of straw as a foraging substrate reduces the development of excessive chain and bar manipulation in food restricted sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43, 249–62, 1995 doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)00566-B
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Stevens B, Barnett JL, Tilbrook AJ, Hemsworth PH. Effects of deprivation of a preferred resource (feed or social contact) on the biological functioning of pigs. In: van Barneveld RJ (eds). Manipulating Pig Production XII. P 28. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, Victoria, Australia, 2009
   Google Scholar
• Stewart CL, O'Connell NE, Boyle L. Influence of access to straw provided in racks on the welfare of sows in large dynamic groups. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 235–47, 2008 doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Tannenbaum J. The paradigm shift toward animal happiness: what it is, why it is happening, and what it portends for medical research. In: Paul EF and Paul J (eds). Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The use of Animals in Medical Research. Pp 93–130. Transaction Publishers, Somerset, New Jersey, USA, 2001
   Google Scholar
• *Taylor IA, Barnett JL, Cronin GM. Optimum group size for pigs. In: Bottcher RW, Hoff SJ (eds). Livestock Environment V, Volume II. Pp 965–71. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, Michigan, USA, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Terlouw EM, Lawrence AB, Illius AW. Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42, 981–91, 1991 doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80151-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Turner AI, Keating C, Tilbrook AJ. Sex differences and the role of sex steroids in sympatho-adrenal medullary system the hypothalamo-pituitary adrenal axis responses to stress. In: Kahn SM (eds). Sex Steroids. Pp 115–36. In Tech Publishing, Rijeka, Croatia, 2012
   Google Scholar
• *Verdon M, Morrison R, Rice M, Hemsworth PH. Group-housed sows who engage in aggression after mixing have reduced injuries and gain more weight. Proceedings of the 47th International Society of Applied Ethology. P 68. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, Florianopolis, Brazil, 2013
   Google Scholar
• *Verlarde A. Agonistic behaviour. In: Verlarde A, Geers R (eds). On Farm Monitoring of Pig Welfare. Pp 53–6. Wageningen Academic Press, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2007
   Google Scholar
• Wemelsfelder F, Mullan S. Applying ethological and health indictors to practical animal welfare assessment. Scientific and Technical Review, Office International des Epizooties 33, 111–20, 2014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weng RC, Edwards SA, English PR. Behaviour, social interactions and lesion score of group-housed sows in relation to floor space allowance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59, 307–16, 1998 doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00143-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittaker X, Edwards SA, Spoolder HAM. Lawrence AB, Corning S. Effects of straw bedding and high fibre diets on the behaviour of floor fed group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 25–39, 1999 doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00243-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar