The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Experimental Section
2.1. Animal Welfare Legislation, Standards, and Initiatives in Europe
2.2. Literature Review and Expert Opinion Regarding Key Components of Animal Welfare
2.3. Stakeholders’ Attitudes to Animal Welfare Policy Instruments and Indicators
2.4. Animal Welfare Scientists’ Assessment of Legislation, Standards, and Initiatives
- -
- The requirements of the baseline EU legislation on animal welfare.
- -
- The housing and rearing systems commonly used in the EU.
- -
- The scientific knowledge about the capability of the upgraded standards and initiatives to improve animal welfare.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Animal Welfare Legislation, Standards, and Initiatives in Europe
On farm, cattle | Tethering restricted, more space and light requirements, slatted floors forbidden or limited, specific bedding requirements, stable groups to avoid aggressive behaviors, outdoor access, more specific feeding requirements (e.g., roughage), longer weaning periods, provision of calving pens, adequate anaesthesia for castration, non-allowance of certain surgical practices |
On farm, pigs | Availability of litter, slatted floors forbidden or restricted, possibilities for investigation and manipulating activities, provision of roughage, no hormonal treatments, adequate anaesthesia for castration, limitation of certain surgical practices, more space allowance |
On farm, poultry | More light requirements, more perches and nests, access to dust baths, better management of litter materials, outdoor run and pasture, lower indoor and outdoor stocking densities, better access to fresh water, restrictions in breeding (mainly broilers), higher frequency of regular visits |
Transport | Interdiction of sedatives/tranquilizers (not allowed in organic husbandry), provision of bedding material for the youngest in transport vehicles, more drinking, resting and feeding possibilities before transport, adequate pathway/ramps design, the separation of unfamiliar groups, reduced length of journey |
Slaughter | More lairage requirements (start of lairage, space, lighting, floors etc.), the avoidance of group mixing, electric stimulation prohibited, time between stunning and bleeding, specific education of the staff |
3.2. Literature Review and Animal Welfare Scientists’ Opinion of Key Components of Animal Welfare
Welfare Quality Principles | Welfare Quality Criteria | Distinguishing aspects in initiatives studied as part of the EconWelfare project | Beef cattle | Veal calves | Dairy cows | Sows and piglets | Fattening pigs | Laying Hens | Broiler chickens |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Good feeding | Absence of prolonged hunger | Allowance of roughage | × | × | × | ||||
Facilities to avoid competition for feed | × | × | |||||||
Minimum age at weaning | × | ||||||||
Absence of prolonged thirst | Facilities to avoid competition for water | × | × | ||||||
Good housing | Comfort around resting | Bedding Material | × | × | |||||
Thermal comfort | Microclimate control | × | × | × | × | × | × | ||
Air quality (toxic gases, dust) | × | ||||||||
Ease of movement | Avoidance of tethering/individual housing | × | × | ||||||
Space allowance | × | × | × | × | × | × | |||
Good health | Absence of injuries | Avoidance/limitation of slatted floors | × | × | |||||
Absence of disease | Restricted use of antibiotics | × | |||||||
Avoidance hyper muscled/fast growing breeds | × | ||||||||
Absence of pain induced by management procedures | Avoidance of electric prods/trainers | × | |||||||
Avoidance of mutilations | × | × | |||||||
Appropriate behavior | Expression of social behavior | Stable groups to avoid aggressive behavior | × | × | |||||
Expression of other behavior | Environmental enrichment | × | × | ||||||
Good human-animal relationship | Regular visits | × | × |
Welfare Quality Principles | Welfare Quality Criteria | Distinguishing aspects | Beef cattle | Veal calves | Dairy cows | Sows and piglets | Fattening pigs | Laying Hens | Broiler chickens |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Good feeding | Absence of prolonged thirst | Drinking before loading | × | × | × | ||||
Good housing | Ease of movement | Race and passageways design (including ramps) | × | × | × | × | × | ||
Good health | Absence of pain induced by management procedures | Avoidance of electric prods at loading/unloading | × | × | × | ||||
Stunning efficiency at slaughter | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | ||
Appropriate behavior | Expression of social behavior | Avoidance of mixing during transport/slaughter | × | × |
3.3. Stakeholders’ Attitudes to Animal Welfare Policies
Beef Cattle | Dairy Cows | Sows and piglets | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Consumers | NGOs | Consumers | NGOs | Consumers | NGOs | |
Housing | 1.3 ± 0.7 | 2.0 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 0.3 | 4.3 ± 0.9 | 0 | 1.9 ± 0.5 |
Feeding | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.3 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | – | – |
Natural behavior | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.4 | 0 | 2.1 ± 0.7 |
Hygiene/health | 0.6 ± 0.6 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.4 | 2.0 ± 0.7 | 0 | 0.3 ± 0.2 |
Transport | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.7 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.3 | – | – |
Slaughter | 0.6 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 0 | – | – |
Indicators | Public authorities | Civil society | Farming community | Chain actors | Researchers/ advisers | P-value (F-test) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Animal-based | 4.3 abc | 4.6 ab | 4.1 c | 4.3 b | 4.6 a | 0.016 |
Farm-level | 4.3 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 0.100 |
Supply-chain | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 0.599 |
Consumer-based | 3.3 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 0.061 |
Institutional | 3.2 ab | 3.5 a | 2.8 b | 3.5 a | 3.1 ab | 0.048 |
Indicators of | Public authorities | Civil society | Farming community | Chain actors | Researchers/ advisers | P-value (F-test) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Animal behavior | 4.4 ab | 4.5 ab | 4.1 bc | 4.1 c | 4.5 a | 0.020 |
Animal health | 4.2 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 0.196 |
How the animal responds to how it is fed | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 0.627 |
How the animal responds to how it is housed | 4.2 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 0.219 |
Indicators related to | Public authorities | Civil society | Farming community | Chain actors | Researchers/advisers | P-value(F-test) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Space & ventilation | 4.1 b | 4.5 a | 3.9 c | 4.4 ab | 4.1 bc | 0.017 |
Housing design & bedding material | 4.3 ab | 4.5 a | 3.5 c | 4.2 b | 4.0 b | 0.001 |
Access to natural feeding/grazing & outdoor | 4.0 ab | 4.5 a | 3.2 c | 4.0 b | 3.9 b | 0.001 |
Use of hormones/growth promoters | 3.1 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 3.2 | 0.062 |
Breeding strategies | 3.6 ab | 4.1 a | 3.1 c | 3.9 ab | 3.4 bc | 0.009 |
Health care programmes | 3.9 c | 4.5 a | 4.0 bc | 4.3 ab | 4.0 bc | 0.018 |
Management strategies for minimizing pain | 4.0 b | 4.7 a | 3.2 c | 4.0 b | 4.0 b | 0.000 |
3.4. Animal Welfare Scientists’ Assessment of Legislation, Standards, and Initiatives
Veal
Calves (6) | Beef
Cattle (11) | Dairy
Cows (15) | Sows and piglets
(15) | Fattening
Pigs (13) | Laying
Hens (14) | Broilers
(12) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
On farm aspects | |||||||
Allowance of roughage/fibre | 100 | 100 | 73.3 | – | – | – | – |
Prevention of cold/heat stress and air quality | – | 18.2 | – | 26.7 | 46.2 | 21.4 | 8.3 |
Space allowance | 100 | 90.9 | 66.7 | – | 84.6 | 64.3 | 75 |
Mutilations | – | 81.8 | – | – | – | 50 | – |
Restricted use of antibiotics | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Group housing/avoidance of tethering | 50 | – | 66.7 | 60 | – | – | – |
Stable groups to avoid aggressive behavior | – | – | – | 13.3 | – | – | – |
Facilities to avoid competition for feed | – | – | 26.7 | – | 46.2 | – | – |
Facilities to avoid competition for water | – | – | 20 | – | 30.8 | – | – |
Bedding material/Enrichment | – | – | 73.3 | 73.3 | – | – | 41.7 |
Minimum age at weaning | – | – | – | 53.3 | – | – | – |
Avoidance or limitation of slatted floors | – | – | – | 33.3 | 92.3 | – | – |
Availability of dust bath | – | – | – | – | – | 42.9 | – |
Regular visits/inspections by stockperson | – | – | – | – | – | 14.3 | 25 |
Avoidance of fast-growing/hyper muscled breeds | – | – | – | – | – | – | 66.7 |
During transport and slaughter aspects | |||||||
Drinking before loading on vehicles for transport | 16.7 | 18.2 | 13.3 | – | – | – | – |
Avoidance of electric prods | 33.3 | 90.9 | 73.3 | – | – | – | – |
Race and passageways design | 0 | 36.4 | 20 | 13.3 | 76.9 | – | – |
Stunning efficiency | 0 | 45.5 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 53.8 | 35.7 | 25 |
Separation of unfamiliar groups at transport/slaughter | – | – | – | 33.3 | 61.5 | – | – |
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Conflict of Interest
References and Notes
- Seng, P.M.; Laporte, R. Animal welfare: The role and perspectives of the meat and livestock sector. Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE 2005, 24, 613–623. [Google Scholar]
- Whay, H.R. The journey to animal welfare improvement. Anim. Welfare 2007, 16, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
- Aparicio, M.A.; Vargas, J.D. Considerations on ethics and animal welfare in extensive pig production: Breeding and fattening Iberian pigs. Livest. Sci. 2006, 103, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cauldfield, M.P.; Cambridge, H. The questionable value of some science-based ‘welfare’ assessments in intensive animal farming: Sow stalls as an illustrative example. Aust. Vet. J. 2008, 86, 446–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Animal Welfare—EU Action Plan, Evaluation and the Second Strategy on Animal Welfare. 2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/actionplan_en.htm (accessed on 15 February 2013).
- Verbeke, W. Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Anim. Welfare 2009, 18, 325–333. [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence, A.B.; Stott, A.W. Profiting from animal welfare: An animal-based perspective. The Oxford Farming Conference. 2009. Available online: www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/lawrence%2009.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2013).
- Schmid, O.; Kilchsperger, R. Overview of Animal Welfare Standards and Initiatives in Selected EU and Third Countries; EconWelfare Project Deliverable 1.2; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL): Frick, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Schmid, O.; Kilchsperger, R. Farm Animal welfare legislation and standards in Europe and world-wide—A comparison with the EU regulatory framework. In Proceedings of the Third Scientific Conference of ISOFAR “Organic is Life—Knowledge for Tomorrow”, Namyangju, Korea, 28 September–1 October 2011; pp. 104–107.
- Kilchsperger, R.; Schmid, O.; Hecht, J. Animal Welfare Initiatives in Europe; Technical Report on Grouping Method for Animal Welfare Standards and Initiatives; EconWelfare Project Final Report D 1.1; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL): Frick, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- De Roest, K.; Ferrari, P.; Montanari, C.; Bokma, M.; Heutinck, L.; van Reenen, K.; Kilchsperger, R.; Hecht, J.; Schmid, O.; Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Gebska, M.; Majewski, E.; Lundmark, F.; Keeling, L.J.; Berg, L.; Scott, K.; Guy, J.H.; Edwards, S.A.; Aparicio, M.A.; Vargas, J.D.; Cava, R.; Robledo, J.; Gonzalez, F.; Prieto, L.; Illieski, V. Report on Consumers’ Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Standards Based on the Main Findings of EU and National Research Projects; EconWelfare Project Deliverable 2.1; Wageningen UR: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ferrari, P.; De Roest, K. Report on (Dis)Advantages of Current Animal Welfare Standards for Animals, Based on the Main Findings of EU and National Research Projects; EconWelfare Project Deliverable 2.3; Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali SpA (CRPA): Reggio Emilia, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Welfare Quality®. 2009. Available online: http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone (accessed on 15 February 2013).
- Hubbard, C.; Garrod, G. Development of Policy Instruments and Indicators towards the Action Plan on Animal Welfare; The Delhi Report of EconWelfare Project; Newcastle University: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kjaernes, U.; Roe, E.; Bock, B. Societal concerns on farm animal welfare. In Assuring Animal Welfare: From Societal Concerns to Implementation: Proceedings of the Second Welfare Quality® Stakeholder Conference, Berlin, Germany, 3–4 May 2007; Veissier, I., Forkman, B., Jones, B., Eds.; Welfare Quality® Project Office: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 13–18. [Google Scholar]
- Morisse, J.P.; Huonnic, D.; Cotte, J.P.; Martrenchar, A. The effect of four fibrous feed supplementations on different welfare traits in veal calves. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 2000, 84, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattiello, S.; Canali, E.; Ferrante, V.; Caniatti, M.; Gottardo, F.; Cozzi, G.; Andrighetto, I.; Verga, M. The provision of solid feeds to veal calves: II. Behavior, physiology and abomasal damage. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 367–375. [Google Scholar]
- Cozzi, G.; Brsic, M.; Gottardo, F. Main critical factors affecting the welfare of beef cattle and veal calves raised under intensive rearing systems in Italy: A review. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 67–80. [Google Scholar]
- Sudweeks, E.M.; Ely, L.O.; Mertens, D.R.; Sisk, L.R. Assessing minimum amounts and form of roughages in ruminant diets: roughage value index system. J. Anim. Sci. 1981, 53, 1406–1411. [Google Scholar]
- Einarsson, S.; Madej, A.; Tsuma, V. The influence of stress on early pregnancy in the pig. Anim. Rep. Sci. 1996, 42, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verstegen, M.W.A.; Brascamp, E.W.; Van der Hel, W. Growing and fattening of pigs in relation to temperature of housing and feeding level. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1978, 58, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huynh, T.T.T.; Aarnink, A.J.A.; Gerrits, W.J.J.; Heetkamp, M.J.H.; Canh, T.T.; Spoolder, H.A.M.; Kemp, B.; Verstegen, M.W.A. Thermal behaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature and humidity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 91, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, C.G. Practical aspects of environmental temperature for laying hens. World Poult. Sci. J. 1966, 22, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quinteiro-Filho, W.M.; Ribeiro, A.; Ferraz-de-Paula, V.; Pinheiro, M.L.; Sakai, M.; Sá, L.R.M.; Ferreira, A.J.P.; Palermo-Neto, J. Heat stress impairs performance parameters, induces intestinal injury, and decreases macrophage acivity in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 1905–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brscic, M.; Heutinck, L.F.M.; Wolthuis-Fillerup, M.; Stockhofe, N.; Engel, B.; Visser, E.K.; Gottardo, F.; Bokkers, E.A.M.; Lensink, B.J.; Cozzi, G.; Van Reenen, C.G. Prevalence of gastrointestinal disorders recorded at post-mortem inspection in white veal calves and associated risk factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 853–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fregonesi, J.A.; Leaver, J.D. Influence of space allowance and milk yield level on behaviour, performance and health of dairy cows housed in strawyard and cubicle systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2002, 78, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fregonesi, J.A.; Tucker, C.B.; Weary, D.M. Overstocking reduces lying time in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 3349–3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonyou, H.W.; Brumm, M.C.; Bush, E.; Deen, J.; Edwards, S.A.; Fangman, T.; McGlone, J.J.; Meunier-Salaün, M.; Morrison, R.B.; Spoolder, H.; Sundberg, P.L.; Johnson, A.K. Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 84, 229–235. [Google Scholar]
- Averós, X.; Brossard, L.; Dourmad, J.Y.; de Greef, K.H.; Edge, H.L.; Edwards, S.A.; Meunier-Salaün, M.C. Quantitative assessment of the effects of space allowance, group size and floor characteristics on the lying behaviour of growing-finishing pigs. Animal 2010, 4, 777–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bessei, W. Welfare of broilers: A review. World Poult. Sci. J. 2006, 62, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lay, D.C., Jr.; Fulton, R.M.; Hester, P.Y.; Karcher, D.M.; Kjaer, J.B.; Mench, J.A.; Mullens, B.A.; Newberry, R.C.; Nicol, C.J.; O’Sullivan, N.P.; Porter, R.E. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 278–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, J.L.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Cronin, G.M.; Jongman, E.C.; Hutson, G.D. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2001, 52, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spoolder, H.A.M.; Geudeke, M.J.; Van der Peet-Schwering, C.M.C.; Soede, N.M. Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: A review of success and risk factors. Livest. Sci. 2009, 125, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abeni, F.; Bertoni, G. Main causes of poor welfare in intensively reared dairy cows. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 45–66. [Google Scholar]
- Kilbride, A.; Gillman, C.; Ossent, P.; Green, L. Impact of flooring on the health and welfare of pigs. In Practice 2009, 31, 390–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Averós, X.; Brossard, L.; Dourmad, J.Y.; de Greef, K.H.; Edge, H.L.; Edwards, S.A.; Meunier-Salaün, M.C. A meta-analysis of the combined effect of housing and environmental enrichment characteristics on the behaviour and performance of pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 127, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorden, P.J.; Plummer, P. Control, management, and prevention of bovine respiratory disease in dairy calves and cows. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2010, 26, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brihoum, M.; Amory, H.; Desmecht, D.; Cassart, D.; Deleuze, S.; Rollin, F. Descriptive study of 32 cases of doxycycline-overdosed calves. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2010, 24, 1203–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stafford, K.J.; Mellor, D.J. The welfare significance of the castration of cattle: A review. N. Z. Vet. J. 2005, 53, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mounier, L.; Marie, M.; Lensink, B.J. Facteurs déterminants du bien-être des ruminants en élevage. INRA Prod. Anim. 2007, 20, 65–72. [Google Scholar]
- Aerni, V.; Brinkhoff, M.W.G.; Wechsler, B.; Oester, H.; Fröhlich, E. Productivity and mortality of laying hens in aviaries: A systematic review. World Poult. Sci. J. 2005, 61, 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boe, K.E.; Faerevik, G. Grouping and social preferences in calves, heifers and cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 80, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babu, L.K.; Pandey, H.N.; Sahoo, A. Effect of individual versus group rearing on ethological and physiological responses of crossbred calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 87, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiccato, G.; Trocino, A.; Queaque, P.I.; Sartori, A.; Carazzolo, A. Rearing calves with respect to animal welfare: Effects of group housing and solid feed supplementation on growth performance and meat quality. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2002, 75, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veissier, I.; Andanson, S.; Dubroeucq, H.; Pomiès, D. The motivation of cows to walk as thwarted by tethering. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 2723–2729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munksgaard, L.; Simonsen, H.B. Behavioral and pituitary adrenal-axis responses of dairy cows to social isolation and deprivation of lying down. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 74, 769–778. [Google Scholar]
- Higashiyama, Y.; Nashiki, M.; Narita, H.; Kawasaki, M. A brief report on effects of transfer from outdoor grazing to indoor tethering and back on urinary cortisol and behaviour in dairy cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 102, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Weary, D.M. Review: Feeding behaviour of dairy cattle: measures and applications. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 90, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brumm, M.C.; Gonyou, H.W. Effects of facility design on behaviour and feed and water intake. In Swine Nutrition, 2nd ed.; Lewis, A.J., Southern, L.L., Eds.; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001; pp. 499–518. [Google Scholar]
- Averós, X.; Brossard, L.; Dourmad, J.Y.; de Greef, K.H.; Edwards, S.A.; Meunier-Salaün, M.C. Meta-analysis on the effects of the physical environment, animal traits, feeder and feed characteristics on the feeding behaviour and performance of growing-finishing pigs. Animal 2012, 6, 1275–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsson, I.A.S.; Keeling, L.J. The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: Laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Anim. Welfare 2002, 11, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
- Moinard, C.; Morisse, J.P.; Faure, J.M. Effect of cage area, cage height and perches on feather condition, bone breakage and mortality of laying hens. Brit. Poult. Sci. 1998, 39, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hameister, T.; Puppe, B.; Tuchscherer, M.; Kanitz, E. Effects of weaning age on behavioural and physiological responses of domestic piglets—A review. Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. 2010, 123, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
- Waiblinger, S.; Boivin, X.; Pedersen, V.; Tosi, M.-V.; Janczak, A.M.; Visser, E.K.; Jones, R.B. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 101, 185–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, B.L.; Dybkjaer, L.; Herskin, M.S. Road transport of farm animals: Effect of journey duration on animal welfare. Animal 2011, 5, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warriss, P.D. The handling of cattle pre-slaughter and its effects on carcass and meat quality. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990, 28, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knowles, T.G. A review of the road transport of cattle. Vet. Rec. 1999, 144, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warriss, P.D.; Bevis, E.A.; Edwards, J.E.; Brown, S.N.; Knowles, T.G. Effect of the angle of slope on the ease with which pigs negotiate loading ramps. Vet. Rec. 1991, 128, 419–421. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, S.N.; Knowles, T.G.; Wilkins, L.J.; Chadd, S.A.; Warriss, P.D. The response of pigs to being loaded or unloaded onto commercial animal transporters using three systems. Vet. J. 2005, 170, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritter, M.J.; Ellis, M.; Bowman, R.; Brinkmann, J.; Curtis, S.E.; DeDecker, J.M.; Mendoza, O.; Murphy, C.M.; Orellana, D.G.; Peterson, B.A.; Rojo, A.; Schlipf, J.M.; Wolter, B.F. Effect of season and distance moved during loading on transport losses of market-weight pigs in two commercially available types of trailer. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 3137–3145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grandin, T. How to improve livestock handling and reduce stress. In Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach; Grandin, T., Ed.; CAB International: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, 2010; pp. 64–87. [Google Scholar]
- Warner, R.D.; Ferguson, D.M.; Cottrell, J.J.; Knee, B.W. Acute stress induced by the preslaughter use of electric prodders causes tougher beef meat. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2007, 47, 782–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grandin, T. Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guise, H.J.; Penny, R.H. Factors influencing the welfare and carcass and meat quality of pigs. 2. Mixing unfamiliar pigs. Anim. Prod. 1989, 49, 517–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gosálvez, L.F.; Averós, X.; Valdelvira, J.J.; Herranz, A. Influence of season, distance and mixed loads on the physical and carcass integrity of pigs transported to slaughter. Meat Sci. 2006, 73, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Averós, X.; Knowles, T.G.; Brown, S.N.; Warriss, P.D.; Gosálvez, L.F. Factors affecting the mortality of pigs being transported to slaughter. Vet. Rec. 2008, 163, 386–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Averós, X.; Knowles, T.G.; Brown, S.N.; Warriss, P.D.; Gosálvez, L.F. Factors affecting the mortality of weaned piglets during commercial transport between farms. Vet. Rec. 2010, 167, 815–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raj, M.; Tserveni-Gousi, A. Stunning methods for poultry. World Poult. Sci. J. 2000, 56, 291–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregory, N.G. Animal welfare at markets and during transport and slaughter. Meat Sci. 2008, 80, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubbard, C.; Garrod, G.; Keeling, L. Short List of Potential Policy Instruments to Promote High(er) Animal Welfare; EconWelfare Project Deliverable 3.2; Newcastle University: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hubbard, C.; Garrod, G.; Keeling, L. List of Appropriate Indicators for Different Instruments; EconWelfare Project Deliverable 3.3; Newcastle University: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Boogaard, B.K.; Bock, B.B.; Oosting, S.J.; Wiskerke, J.S.C.; van der Zijpp, A.J. Social acceptance of dairy farming: The ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic. 2011, 24, 259–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hewson, C. What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequence. Can. Vet. J. 2003, 44, 496–499. [Google Scholar]
- Carenzi, C.; Verga, M. Animal welfare: Review of the scientific concept and definition. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 21–30. [Google Scholar]
- Abrams, K.M.; Meyers, C.A.; Irani, T.A. Naturally confused: Consumers’ perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products. Agr. Hum. Val. 2010, 27, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bock, B.B.; van Huik, M.M. Animal welfare: The attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. Brit. Food J. 2007, 109, 931–944. [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]
- Miele, M.; Evans, A. European consumers’ views about farm animal welfare. In Science and Society Improving Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the First Welfare Quality® Stakeholder Conference, Brussels, Belgium, 17–18 November 2005; Butterworth, A., Ed.; Welfare Quality® Project Office: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 9–25. [Google Scholar]
- Napolitano, F.; De Rosa, G.; Caporale, G.; Carlucci, A.; Grasso, F.; Monteleone, E. Bridging consumer perception and on-farm assessement of animal welfare. Anim. Welfare 2007, 16, 249–253. [Google Scholar]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 2008, 116, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Buijs, S.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livest. Sci. 2009, 123, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krystallis, A.; de Barcellos, M.D.; Kügler, J.O.; Verbeke, W.; Grunert, K.G. Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livest. Sci. 2009, 126, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthews, L.R. Methodologies by which to study and evaluate welfare issues facing livestock systems of production. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. 2008, 48, 1014–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blokhuis, H.J.; Keeling, L.J.; Gavinelli, A.; Serratosa, J. Animal welfare’s impact on the food chain. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 2008, 19, S79–S87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, S.; Sonesson, U.; Gunnarsson, O.; Oborn, I.; Kumm, K.I.; Nybrant, T. Sustainable development of food production: A case study on scenarios for pig production. AMBIO 2005, 34, 402–407. [Google Scholar]
- Harvey, D.; Hubbard, C. The Supply Chain’s Role in Improving Animal Welfare. Animals 2013, 3, 767–785. [Google Scholar]
© 2013 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 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
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. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3030786
Averós X, Aparicio MA, Ferrari P, Guy JH, Hubbard C, Schmid O, Ilieski V, Spoolder HAM. 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(3):786-807. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3030786
Chicago/Turabian StyleAverós, Xavier, Miguel A. Aparicio, Paolo Ferrari, Jonathan H. Guy, Carmen Hubbard, Otto Schmid, Vlatko Ilieski, and Hans A. M. Spoolder. 2013. "The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare" Animals 3, no. 3: 786-807. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3030786