The changing face and associated drivers of research on welfare of the gestating sow

References

• [API] Animal Protection Index 2020a. Federative Republic of Brazil. [accessed 2021 April 1]. https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/country/brazil.
   Google Scholar
• [API] Animal Protection Index 2020b. Commonwealth of Australia. [accessed 2021 April 1]. https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/country/australia.
   Google Scholar
• Bacci ML, Nannoni E, Govoni N, Scorrano F, Zannoni A, Forni M, Martelli G, Sardi L. 2014. Hair cortisol determination in sows in two consecutive reproductive cycles. Reprod Biol. 14(3):218–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH, Cronin GM, Newman EA, McCallum TH, Chilton D. 1992. Effect of pen size, partial stalls, and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioral and physiological responses of group-housed pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 34(3):207–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench CJ, Rioja-Lang FC, Hayne SM, Gonyou HW. 2013. Group gestation sow housing with individual feeding-II: how space allowance, group size and composition, and flooring affect sow welfare. Livest Sci. 152(2-3):218–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonamigo A, Bonamigo CBSS, Molento CFM. 2012. Broiler meat characteristics relevant to the consumer: focus on animal welfare. Braz J Anim Sci. 41:1044–1050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broom DM, Mendl MT, Zanella AJ. 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Anim Sci. 61(2):369–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso CS, Von Keyserlingk MAG, Hötzel MJ. 2017. Brazilian citizens: expectations regarding dairy cattle welfare and awareness of contentious practices. Animals. 7(12):89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casal N, Manteca X, Peña LR, Bassols A, Fàbrega E. 2017a. Analysis of cortisol in hair samples as an indicator of stress in pigs. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. 19:1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casal N, Manteca X, Escribano D, Cerón JJ, Fàbrega E. 2017b. Effect of environmental enrichment and herbal compound supplementation on physiological stress indicators (chromogranin A, cortisol and tumour necrosis factor-α) in growing pigs. Animal. 11(7):1228–1236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centner TJ. 2010. Limitations on the confinement of food animals in the United States. J Agric Environ Ethics. 23(5):469–486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. 2007. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on Animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets. Efsa J. 572:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• [EFSA] 2020. European Food Safety Authority. [accessed 2021 Sept 15]. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/animal-welfare#farm-to-fork-review.
   Google Scholar
• Einarsson S, Brandt Y, Lundeheim N, Madej A. 2008. Stress and its influence on reproduction in pigs: a review. Acta Vet Scand. 50:48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• End the Cage Age 2018. [accessed 2021 September 15]. https://www.endthecageage.eu/.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2016. Special Eurobarometer 442 Report: Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2020. Farm to Fork Strategy: For a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. [accessed 2021 April 1]. https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• [EC] European Commission. 2021. Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) "End the Cage Age". C(2021) 4747 final.
   Google Scholar
• [FAO] 2019. Agriculture Organization. Numbers of pigs. [accessed 2021 August 24]. https://www.nationmaster.com/nmx/timeseries/israel-number-of-pigs-fao.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser D. 2003. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Anim Welf. 12:433–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Futureye Pty Ltd. Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. 2018. Commodity or sentient being? Australia’s shifting mindset on farm animal welfare. [accessed 2021 April 1]. https://futureye.com/resources/.
   Google Scholar
• Hemsworth PH, Mellor DJ, Cronin GM, Tilbrook AJ. 2015. Scientific assessment of animal welfare. N Z Vet J. 63(1):24–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heimbürge S, Kanitz E, Otten W. 2019. The use of hair cortisol for the assessment of stress in animals. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 270:10–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hötzel MJ, Roslindo A, Cardoso CS, von Keyserlingk MAG. 2017. Citizens' views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing information increase acceptability? J Dairy Sci. 100(5):4150–4160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horback KM, Pierdon MK, Parsons TD. 2016. Behavioral preference for different enrichment objects in a commercial sow herd. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 184:7–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [HSUS] The Humane Society of the United States. 2013. An HSUS Report: welfare issues with gestation crates for pregnant sows. [accessed 2021 April 1]. https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/hsus-report-gestation-crates-for-pregnant-sows.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lagoda ME, Boyle LA, Marchewka J, Calderón Díaz JA. 2021a. Mixing aggression intensity is associated with age at first service and floor type during gestation, with implications for sow reproductive performance. Animal. 15(3):100158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagoda ME, O'Driscoll K, Marchewka J, Foister S, Turner SP, Boyle LA. 2021b. Associations between skin lesion counts, hair cortisol concentrations and reproductive performance in group housed sows. Livest Sci. 246:104463.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane J. 2006. Can non‐invasive glucocorticoid measures be used as reliable indicators of stress in animals? Anim Welf. 15:331–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMullen CK, Sargeant JM, Kelton DF, Winder CB. 2020. Modifiable management practices to improve udder health in dairy cattle at dry-off: a protocol for a scoping review. [accessed 2021 April 1]. https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/17788,http://www.syreaf.org.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6(7):e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moustsen VA, Lahrmann HP, D'Eath RB. 2011. Relationship between size and age of modern hyper-prolific crossbred sows. Livest Sci. 141(2-3):272–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [OECD] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2019. Pork Production. [accessed 2021 April 1]. https://www.nationmaster.com/nmx/ranking/pork-production.
   Google Scholar
• Robert S, Matte JJ, Farmer C, Girard CL, Martineau GP. 1993. High-fibre diets for sows: effects on stereotypies and adjunctive drinking. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 37(4):297–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salak-Johnson JL. 2017. Social status and housing factors affect reproductive performance of pregnant sows in groups. Mol Reprod Dev. 84(9):905–909.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider JD, Tokach MD, Dritz SS, Nelssen JL, DeRouchey JM, Goodband RD. 2007. Effects of feeding schedule on body condition, aggressiveness, and reproductive failure in group-housed sows. J Anim Sci. 85(12):3462–3469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sejian V, Lakritz J, Ezeji T, Lal R. 2011. Assessment methods and indicators of animal welfare. Asian J Anim Veter Adv. 6(4):301–315.
   Google Scholar
• Seyle H. 1935. A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature. 138:32–33.
   Google Scholar
• Sheriff MJ, Dantzer B, Delehanty B, Palme R, Boonstra R. 2011. Measuring stress in wildlife: techniques for quantifying glucocorticoids. Oecologia. 166(4):869–887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair M, Zhang Y, Descovich K, Phillips CJC. 2020. Farm animal welfare science in China-a bibliometric review of Chinese literature. Animals (Basel). 10(3):540.
   Google Scholar
• Souza MCGL, Casotti LM, Lemme CF. 2013. Conscious consumption as a driver for corporate sustainability: can good business arise from respecting the animals? Rev Adm. 6:229–246.
   Google Scholar
• Spoolder HAM, Geudeke MJ, Van Der Peet-Schwering CMC, Soede NM. 2009. Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: a review of success and risk factors. Livest. Sci. 125(1):1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, et al. 2018. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 169(7):467–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner AI, Hemsworth PH, Tilbrook AJ. 2005. Susceptibility of reproduction in female pigs to impairment by stress or elevation of cortisol. Domest Anim Endocrinol. 29(2):398–410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner SP, Farnworth MJ, White IMS, Brotherstone S, Mendl M, Knap P, Penny P, Lawrence AB. 2006. The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 96(3-4):245–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [USDA] United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service 2020. Livestock and poultry: world markets and trade. [accessed 2021 April 1]. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/livestock-and-poultry-world-markets-and-trade.
   Google Scholar
• Verdon M, Hansen CF, Rault JL, Jongman E, Hansen LU, Plush K, Hemsworth PH. 2015. Effects of group housing on sow welfare: a review. J Anim Sci. 93(5):1999–2017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Keyserlingk MAG, Hötzel MJ. 2015. The ticking clock: addressing farm animal welfare in emerging countries. J Agric Environ Ethics. 28(1):179–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welfare Quality®. 2009. Welfare Quality ® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality ® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Yunes MC, Von Keyserlingk MAG, Hötzel MJ. 2017. Brazilian citizens’ opinions and attitudes about farm animal production systems. Animals. 7(12):75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar