Animal Welfare Groups Research Articles

‘We dislike to see suffering’: the fight for humane slaughter in the United States in the 1950s

ABSTRACTThe history of consumption in the United States has long been marked by its political nature though historians have struggled to explain the politics of consumption and food retailing during the 1950s, when the notion of abundance became synonymous with the United States. This article explores that history by examining the passage of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958. Though not a major bill, it enshrined animals’ right to die without pain and marked a triumph of animal welfare groups’ political activism. By exploring the fight between proponents and opponents of humane slaughter, the nature of consumer politics in the 1950s comes into focus. Consumers fought to force the meat commodity chain to reflect their values as Americans who saw themselves as the most modern and moral nation in the world. Opponents tried to block a mandatory humane slaughter law. Ultimately, proponents succeeded because they framed humane slaughter as an issue of consumer morality. Consumers used the political system to remake a portion of the food economy in order to make food production and retail systems reflect their values.

Animal welfare, social license, and wildlife use industries

ABSTRACTMany wildlife use industries are facing criticism from animal welfare groups. In some recent cases, opposition to contentious practices (e.g., kangaroo [Macropus spp.] harvesting) has achieved widespread community support and industries have lost market access or regulatory approval. The concept of social license to operate has become an important focus for many natural resource management fields, but there is ostensibly less awareness of its role in animal industries. To regard this contemporary threat to traditional wildlife management as more than inexplicable requires some delving into social sciences. We use the example of the declining harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) harvest in Canada to illustrate how poorly addressed animal welfare concerns can erode social license and decimate even ecologically sustainable wildlife use enterprises. We argue that other consumptive wildlife use industries, such as North American fur harvesting and kangaroo harvesting in Australia are at risk of loss of social license if animal welfare concerns are not addressed proactively and effectively. When faced with opposition from animal advocacy groups, many wildlife use industries have traditionally been reactive and have been reluctant to engage with stakeholders who possess seemingly irreconcilable differences. Instead, industries have often resorted to secrecy or deception, or have steadfastly defended their current approaches while attacking their critics. We suggest that a more effective approach would be for industries to proactively engage with stakeholders, establish a shared vision for how their industry should operate, and support this vision by transparently monitoring animal welfare outcomes. Proactive management of community expectations surrounding animal welfare is essential for the maintenance of social license for wildlife use enterprises. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

Sunscreen delays prompt push for high-throughput tests

Sunscreen manufacturers are urging the U.S. FDA to relax testing requirements for new active ingredients, claiming the tests are too costly, animal intensive, and slow. Companies want instead to use high-throughput, nonanimal methods. Animal welfare groups and some members of Congress support the idea. In a Jan. 17 letter to the director of the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods, Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-N.C.) asked what the center is doing “to facilitate the regulatory acceptance of alternatives to animal testing for sunscreen ingredients.” The Sunscreen Innovation Act, enacted in 2014, set deadlines for FDA to review new sunscreen active ingredients, but it did not eliminate the need for FDA to determine that each substance is “generally recognized as safe and effective.” Eight ingredients—amiloxate, bemotrizinol, bisoctrizole, drometrizole trisiloxane, ecamsule, enzacamene, iscotrizinol, and octyl triazone—were under review when the la...

An adaptive management case study for managing macropods on Maria Island National Park, Tasmania, Australia: adding devils to the detail

Adaptive management is driven by structured decision making and evidence from monitoring in a ‘learning’ framework that guides management actions. In a conservation context, this iterative approach includes evaluation of the impacts on natural processes. On Maria Island National Park, Tasmania, Australia, introduced Forester kangaroo, Bennetts wallaby and Tasmanian pademelon have been intensively managed by an annual cull since 1994. Management actions were triggered by high parasite loads, intense grazing pressure and high juvenile mortality during drought periods. Criticism of the annual cull from animal welfare groups initiated the development of an adaptive management approach for decision making that replaces the historic ‘trial and error’ process. Following a comprehensive review of the existing macropod management program in 2011, an integrated monitoring strategy was established to provide evidence for informed decision making. Assessments of animal health and estimates of population trends are the key indicators for management actions to occur. Maintaining viable macropod populations and protecting natural values form the basis of management objectives. Management actions in each year, for each species, represent ‘treatments’ as spatial replication is not possible at such a small scale. An adaptive management approach for macropod management on Maria Island has resulted in only one species being culled in 2014 and 2015 for the first time in almost 20 years. However the recent introduction of a major predator, the Tasmanian devil, has increased uncertainty for long-term macropod management on Maria Island with no cull occurring in 2016 and 2017.

Perceptions of Social Responsibility of Prominent Animal Welfare Groups

ABSTRACTNonhuman animal welfare is an increasingly important component of consumer expectations of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The extent to which prominent animal welfare or protection organizations may influence people’s perceptions of food industry CSR may be related to an organization’s perceived social responsibility. Data from an online survey of 300 U.S. residents were used to explore relationships between demographics/lifestyle choices and perceptions of prominent animal welfare organizations (using best–worst scaling methodology). Overall, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was perceived to be the most socially responsible organization analyzed, followed by the Humane Society of the United States and the American Humane Association (AHA). Results suggest that the perceived social responsibility of animal protection organizations in this study was not strongly linked to personally (financially) supporting them, with 2 exceptions: the perceptions of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and AHA. Improved understanding of the perception of animal welfare or protection organizations can inform decision making by organizations interested in furthering animal welfare causes.

Public attitudes predict community behaviours relevant to the pork industry

Concerns about livestock animal welfare are well documented worldwide. Public attitudes are often studied as indicators of risk for the livestock industries, but are less often studied in relation to behaviours that may affect the livestock industries. The present paper examines the relationships between public attitudes, opinion leadership and self-reported pork consumption and community behaviours that may have a negative impact on livestock industries by promulgating views that farming engages in unacceptable practices. To the extent that these attitudes and behaviours are based on a lack of knowledge or a lack of understanding about the actual relationship between current practices and animal welfare and farm productivity, care needs to be exercised to determine what industry practice change should occur or what should be done to inform the public. The results showed that in regard to consumption, being male and holding positive attitudes towards eating meat and livestock welfare explained 11% of the variance in pork consumption. Notably, however, information seeking and trust in information, attitudes related to animal welfare and the livestock industries, and membership to an animal-welfare group, accounted for 44% of the variance in community behaviours that express dissatisfaction with the livestock industries. Opinion leaders, that is, people in the community who indicate that they are used by others as a source of information about livestock animal welfare, tended to eat less pork and engaged in many more community behaviours, such as calling talkback radio or writing to politicians. Together, these results suggest that more needs to be done to identify the population segment of opinion leaders and to engage them in dialogue about pork production.

A Dangerous Idea in Zoology: Ignoring the Role of Genetics in Biodiversity Restoration

ABSTRACT The term ‘biodiversity’ emerged in the mid-1980s and quickly became sufficiently popular that it could have been viewed as a ‘new field of science’. The broader community has also embraced the term and, ultimately, it has become a proxy for species conservation. As a consequence, conservation of biodiversity has effectively become the only approach to minimising continued species loss. However, despite the widespread use of the term, there is confusion over its definition, even among disciplines to which the term has become a focus. In Australia, much of the biodiversity conservation/restoration is community-driven (e.g., landcare, political pressure of animal welfare groups) with a focus on species and habitat biodiversity. Genetic diversity is seldom seriously considered. As a consequence, native species biodiversity management is often not maximising the potential outcomes. Arguably the greatest issue associated with incorporating genetics more centrally into biodiversity restoration is that i...

A comparison of cat-related risk perceptions and tolerance for outdoor cats in Florida and Hawaii.

Risk perceptions and attitudes toward animals often explain tolerance for wildlife and management preferences. However, little is understood about how these relationships vary across different geographic regions and stakeholder groups. To address this gap in knowledge, we compared differences in acceptance capacity, risk perceptions, perceived enjoyment from outdoor cats, and experiences with outdoor cats among 3 groups (general public, conservation community, and animal-welfare community) in Hawaii and Florida, two states with large conservation challenges. We combined independently collected data from Florida and Hawaii, to determine how perception of the risks presented by outdoor cats, group membership, and state of residence influenced people's tolerance for outdoor cats. Florida respondents were significantly more tolerant of outdoor cats and less concerned about cat-related risks than Hawaii respondents (p < 0.05). In both states, animal-welfare group members reported greater enjoyment seeing cats and perceived a smaller increase in the cat population and lower levels of risk than other groups (p < 0.05). All groups exhibited similar relationships between acceptance capacity and enjoyment and the perceived increase in the cat population. Our results suggest public tolerance for cats varied due to the influence of local or geographical concerns, but that strongly held beliefs, risk perceptions, and feelings about cats explained more of the variance in stakeholder tolerance.

Changing Attitudes and Animal Welfare in Small Island Developing States: Dogs on New Providence, The Bahamas

This article compares results from a study in 2014 with a similar study from 1998 (Fielding, 1999) to examine changes in the care of dogs in New Providence, The Bahamas. The results from a survey of 379 residents indicated a general lack of improvement in matters associated with the care of dogs during the past 16 years. For example, in 1998, it was estimated that 35% of caregivers had at least 1 dog sterilized, and in 2014, the corresponding figure was 37%. In 1998, 14% of households with dogs allowed their dogs to roam compared with 41.7% in 2014. These observations do not indicate inactivity on behalf of nonhuman animal welfare groups or archaic animal welfare legislation, as free spay/neuter campaigns have occurred and stricter laws have been passed since 1998. Rather, it is conjectured that these findings may reflect not only insufficiently sustained and coordinated initiatives in education, access to welfare interventions, and law enforcement, but also as-yet-unknown inadequacies in the approaches used in this cultural setting.

We are More Alike than You Think: How the Vegetarian Community Can Work Together with Environmentalists and Animal Activists to Achieve More

There is little doubt that society as a whole is ready and ripe to experience a consolidated and holistic approach in tackling animal welfare, environmentalism and health. It is hoped that the justifications presented in this paper are convincing enough to spur animal welfare groups, environmental organisations and bastions of the vegetarian and vegan community to actively network across movements and look towards evolving into a bigger entity.

Role of Veterinarian in Animal Welfare Issue: A Global Concept

Animal welfare is the well-being of animals. The standards of "good" animal welfare vary considerably between different contexts. These standards are under constant review and are debated, created and revised by animal welfare groups, legislators and academics worldwide (Hewson, 2003). It is strongly linked to animal health, which similarly depends on good animal husbandry. Animal welfare is a core mandate of the veterinary community generally and veterinarians individually. This concept is articulated by many veterinary organizations in their Code of Practice, Veterinary Oath or other statements of commitment. Such statements centre on the common theme “a veterinarian should be dedicated to the benefit of society, the conservation of animal resources and the relief of suffering of animals and to promote animal wellbeing”. As scientific knowledge in the field of animal welfare expands and the expectations of society change in regard to animal care, so the commonly accepted definitions of animal welfare have evolved. Knowledge of animal welfare, particularly those in production is becoming essential to veterinary professionals across the globe.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjvm.v13i1.23702Bangl. J. Vet. Med. (2015). 13 (1): 1-3

A Revolution in an Eggcup?

This article examines the role of celebrity chefs and other non-state actors in the heated and highly politicized environment of ethical and sustainable consumption. Focusing on the media campaigns of the two major supermarkets and their attempt to rebrand themselves through ethical associations with celebrity chefs and animal welfare groups, the article discusses the complex entanglement between food politics, discourses of branding, the media and supermarkets in Australia. We suggest that the mainstreaming of ethical concerns cannot be understood simply as a consumer movement or indeed purely as an extension of market logics; rather, it is articulated to and implicated in broader changes in relation to the political and social role and status of corporate players, non-state actors and questions of lifestyle politics in shaping the future of food systems, policy and regulation.

The Question Of Animal Slaughter In The British Straits Settlements During The Early Twentieth Century

Colonial law empowered British authorities to attempt to intervene in religious affairs. Rather than creating an atmosphere of open fruitful debate, colonial legal structures prevented useful discussions from occurring between colonial authorities and Muslim subjects that could lead to mutual understanding and useful consensus. In 1929, a Muslim butcher in the British Straits Settlement of Penang was fined in a British colonial court for causing unnecessary cruelty to a fowl, despite his claim that he had slaughtered the animal according to the proper Islamic method. The case forced the issue of religious slaughter into the public sphere, and sparked intense debates in the public press on the viability of Islamic method of animal slaughter. For Muslim subjects, animal slaughter was definitely a deeply religious issue. After all, the domain of the religious, generally envisioned as ‘private’ in British colonial imagination, enabled Muslim participation in the public sphere and civil society. Yet, religion sometimes fell out of the frame of discussion. Animal welfare groups robustly advocated stunning by electricity as a more effective, more humane method of slaughter. Other considerations such as general hygiene of slaughterhouses and economic considerations also played a large role in colonial intervention in animal slaughter since the early 20th century. British colonial policy put Muslim subjects on the high defensive that led to the stultification of transformations that were unlikely to stem from British colonial initiative. When discussions became acrimonious, colonial authorities would stifle dialogue by casting the issue as a religious one, thus removing it as a topic of sustained conversation.

Animal Welfare and the Wto: The Legality and Implications of Live Export Restrictions under International Trade Law

In Australia, controversial incidents regarding the treatment of live animals exported from Australia spark regular debate on whether the live export trade should be banned or more tightly regulated. Government responses to public outcry often take the form of restrictions on the trade of the animals concerned, but the legality of unilateral measures of this kind is yet to be directly considered by the World Trade Organization's Appellate Body. This article examines the legality of imposing restrictions on live export under the international trade law regime set up by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (‘GATT’),1 and in particular, whether such measures could be justified under Article XX. In exploring this question, special attention is given to the Australian government's new regulatory framework, as introduced by the Export Control (Animals) Amendment Order 2012 (No 1), which imposes an exporter supply chain assurance obligation on Australian suppliers. In addition, in light of the continued calls from animal welfare groups to ban the trade entirely, the legality of a complete moratorium on live exports will also be considered. Although the exceptions in Articles XX(b) and XX(g) of the GATT appear to be relevant to live exports, ultimately any regulation might be best supported under the ‘public morals’ exception in Article XX(a). However, care will need to be taken in the design of any restriction to avoid breaching the strict chapeau requirements of Article XX.

After the Berger Blanc: A Comparative Approach to the Utilitarian Regulation of Municipal Animal Control

In April 2011, Radio-Canada aired an investigative report exposing the cruel treatment of domestic animals by workers at one of Montreal’s largest animal shelters. A private business, the Berger Blanc held the majority of municipal contracts for animal control services throughout Montreal. Following the widely-watched exposé, the regulation of domestic animal welfare rose to the top of the agenda both at Montreal’s City Hall and Quebec’s National Assembly, as citizens demanded a response to the jarring images of cruelty and neglect. The province responded, adopting a regulation to strengthen the legal protection of dogs and cats under Quebec’s Animal Health Protection Act— a regulation which has been criticized as ineffective and inadequate by animal welfare groups throughout the province. Similarly, Montreal’s City Hall announced steps to launch a municipal animal control service. And yet, progress is slow and many Montreal boroughs continue to renew their contracts with the Berger Blanc. This paper will review the theoretical, political and legal context surrounding the issue of domestic animals, and employ an animal welfarist (utilitarian) approach to examine the three traditional municipal animal control service models, namely the private for-profit model, the private non-profit model and the public model. In doing so, the paper will suggest that despite the municipal government’s stated financial priorities, the only solution to Montreal’s domestic animal situation—one which properly takes the equal interests of domestic animals into account—lies in a publicly-funded, municipally-run animal services department, similar to the model currently employed by the City of Calgary.

Dog Food Consumption in the Caribbean: A Baseline Study

Dogs in the Caribbean have been traditionally viewed as low maintenance pets which are fed leftovers from the household. Changes in the lifestyle of Caribbean families have resulted in changes in their eating patterns. These changes can be expected to have consequences for the feeding of dogs, which may require households to switch to commercial dog food. This paper reports the finding of a survey of groups involved with pets and animal welfare in the Caribbean conducted on behalf of the Pet Food Institute, a non-profit industry association. The study examined perspectives on how dogs are fed in the Caribbean and activities conducted to educate pet owners and the public. Use of household scraps and commercial dog food was associated with household income, except in the case of some high income dependent territories. The findings indicate that while many animal welfare groups in the Caribbean provide educational programs, not all of these provide recommendations on feeding pets and so they neglect to provide information on an important aspect of animal welfare.

Advancing the welfare of Australia’s iconic working dogs

Australia’s working dogs are valued to the point of being iconic but paradoxically the working dog industry is unsupported by cohesive research and development. The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS) was developed by the Australian Government in consultation with state and territory governments, animal industry organisations, animal welfare groups and the general public. The AAWS have funded two projects to advance the welfare of dogs in the Australian Working Dog Industry. The inaugural Australian Working Dog Survey 1 was conducted in 2009. Benchmarking information was collected about the sourcing, breeding, assessment, training, housing and veterinary care of 4195 Australian working dogs from private industry, government, assistance and sporting dog sectors. These preliminary findings were extended in the follow up project, The Australian Working Dog Industry Action Plan - a strategic plan that will now be used to advance the canine welfare and productivity measures of the Australian Working Dog Industry. What differs between working dog sectors is the task that the dogs are trained to perform. In this sense, the working dog industry sectors have much in common. High standards of animal welfare underpin both industry productivity and sustainability. It is recognised that not all members of the working dog industry will be motivated to change their current practices solely to improve animal welfare standards. However, it would be cognisant for the industry to recognise that market expectations are moving toward higher standards of animal care and greater transparency of processes. Industry-wide adoption of an ethos of continuous quality improvement, voluntary welfare accreditation and certified training qualifications will result in a degree of difference occurring between service providers. Market forces will influence the adoption of best practice by this industry. The Australian Working Dog Industry should acknowledge the need to increase the understanding of factors affecting working dog welfare and it is recommended that a multi-disciplinary research program is pursued to deliver the best welfare and productivity outcomes from cradle to grave.

Community Partnering as a Tool for Improving Live Release Rate in Animal Shelters in the United States

Collaboration among all shelters and nonhuman animal welfare groups within a community along with the transparent, shared reporting of uniform data have been promoted as effective ways to increase the number of animals' lives saved. This article summarizes the shelter intakes, outcomes, and live release rate (LRR) from 6 geographically diverse communities participating in the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Partnership program for 5 years (2007–2011). This program is both a grant program and a coaching program that works to focus the community partners on a data-driven goal using standardized definitions and metrics. There was improvement in LRR in all communities over time regardless of intake numbers, human population, or mix of dogs/puppies and cats/kittens entering shelters. Averaged across all communities over the 5-year period, there was an overall improvement in LRR of 62%. Within individual communities, the degree of improvement ranged from 18% to 96%. This improvement in LRR was accomplished through a wide variety of programs in each community based on resources and interests during the time period.

Epidemiologic survey in Swiss group-housed breeding rabbits: Extent of lesions and potential risk factors

In Switzerland, group-housing for breeding rabbit does is not explicitly required by law, but label programmes, as well as the general public and animal welfare groups, are advocating it. Although group-housing is of great benefit to the gregariously living rabbits, the establishment of a social hierarchy within the group might lead to stress and lesions. In the present epidemiological study, lesions were scored twice on 30% of the breeding does on all 28 commercial Swiss farms with group-housed breeding does. Additionally, a detailed questionnaire was filled out with all producers to determine risk factors potentially associated with lesions. Data were analysed using hierarchical proportional odds models. About 33% of the does examined had lesions, including wounds that were almost healed and small scratches. Severe lesions were counted on 9% of the animals. Differences between seasons in lesions score were identified, with the extent of lesions being higher in summer than in spring. Fewer lesions occurred on farms on which mastitis was more common. More lesions were found on farms where the does were isolated between littering and artificial insemination than on farms without isolation. According to the producers, most of the aggression occurred directly after the isolation phase when the does were regrouped again. We conclude that lesions in group-housed breeding does might be reduced by appropriate reproductive management.

Scientific report updating the EFSA opinions on the welfare of broilers and broiler breeders

EFSA Supporting PublicationsVolume 9, Issue 6 295E External scientific reportOpen Access Scientific report updating the EFSA opinions on the welfare of broilers and broiler breeders Ingrid de Jong, Ingrid de Jong Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands Dept. of Animal Environment & Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234. SE-53223, Skara, Sweden Animal Welfare & Behaviour Group, School of Clinical eterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS40 5DU, UK IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Neiker-Tecnalia Arkaute Agrifood Campus, Animal Production, P.O. Box 46, E-01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorCharlotte Berg, Charlotte Berg Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands Dept. of Animal Environment & Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234. SE-53223, Skara, Sweden Animal Welfare & Behaviour Group, School of Clinical eterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS40 5DU, UK IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Neiker-Tecnalia Arkaute Agrifood Campus, Animal Production, P.O. Box 46, E-01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorAndy Butterworth, Andy Butterworth Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands Dept. of Animal Environment & Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234. SE-53223, Skara, Sweden Animal Welfare & Behaviour Group, School of Clinical eterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS40 5DU, UK IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Neiker-Tecnalia Arkaute Agrifood Campus, Animal Production, P.O. Box 46, E-01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorInma Estevéz, Inma Estevéz Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands Dept. of Animal Environment & Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234. SE-53223, Skara, Sweden Animal Welfare & Behaviour Group, School of Clinical eterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS40 5DU, UK IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Neiker-Tecnalia Arkaute Agrifood Campus, Animal Production, P.O. Box 46, E-01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, SpainSearch for more papers by this author Ingrid de Jong, Ingrid de Jong Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands Dept. of Animal Environment & Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234. SE-53223, Skara, Sweden Animal Welfare & Behaviour Group, School of Clinical eterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS40 5DU, UK IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Neiker-Tecnalia Arkaute Agrifood Campus, Animal Production, P.O. Box 46, E-01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorCharlotte Berg, Charlotte Berg Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands Dept. of Animal Environment & Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234. SE-53223, Skara, Sweden Animal Welfare & Behaviour Group, School of Clinical eterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS40 5DU, UK IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Neiker-Tecnalia Arkaute Agrifood Campus, Animal Production, P.O. Box 46, E-01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorAndy Butterworth, Andy Butterworth Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands Dept. of Animal Environment & Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234. SE-53223, Skara, Sweden Animal Welfare & Behaviour Group, School of Clinical eterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS40 5DU, UK IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Neiker-Tecnalia Arkaute Agrifood Campus, Animal Production, P.O. Box 46, E-01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorInma Estevéz, Inma Estevéz Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands Dept. of Animal Environment & Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234. SE-53223, Skara, Sweden Animal Welfare & Behaviour Group, School of Clinical eterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS40 5DU, UK IKERBASQUE Research Professor, Neiker-Tecnalia Arkaute Agrifood Campus, Animal Production, P.O. Box 46, E-01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, SpainSearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 June 2012 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2012.EN-295Citations: 27 This external report is not produced by EFSA. It is published to help keep the public informed of developments related to EFSA's scientific work. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. Published date: 14 June 2012 Question number: EFSA-Q-2011-00915 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume9, Issue6June 2012295E ReferencesRelatedInformation