Synthesis of semantic modelling and risk analysis methodology applied to animal welfare

Animal

Volumn 2, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1061-1072

  Bracke, M B M ^a   Edwards, S A ^b   Metz, J H M ^a   Noordhuizen, J P T M ^c,d   Algers, B ^e  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c LUNAM UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^d GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^e SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Cattle; Decision making; Modelling; Risk Assessment

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; BOS;

EID: 44949170809     PISSN: 17517311     EISSN: 1751732X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1751731108002139     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Aerts S, Lips D, Spencer S, Decuypere E and de Tavernier J 2006. A new framework for the assessment of animal welfare: integrating existing knowledge from a practical ethics perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 67-76.
2. Anonymous 2001. Scientists' assessment of the impact of housing and management on animal welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4, 3-52.
3. Beekman V, de Bakker E and de Graaff R 2007. Standing on the shoulders of a giant: the promise of multi-criteria mapping as a decision-support framework in food ethics. In Sustainable Food Production and Ethics. Preprints of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (ed. W Zollitisch, C Winkcler, S Waiblinger and A Haslberger), pp. 95-100. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
4. Beyer S 1998. Konstruktion und Überprüfung eines Bewertungskonzeptes für pferdehaltende Betriebe unter dem Aspekt der Tiergerechtheit. PhD, Wissenschaflicher Fachverlag, Giessen.
5. Blokhuis HJ, Jones RB, Geers R, Miele M and Veissier I 2003. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12, 445-455.
6. Botreau R, Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bracke MBM and Keeling LJ 2007. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 225-228.
7. Bracke MBM 2001. Modelling of animal welfare: the development of a decision support system to assess the welfare status of pregnant sows. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen.
8. Bracke MBM 2007a. Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 15, 67-70.
9. Bracke MBM 2007b. Multifactorial testing of enrichment criteria: pigs 'demanded' hygiene and destructibility more than sound. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107, 208-232.
10. Bracke MBM 2008. RICHPIG: a semantic model to assess enrichment materials for pigs. Animal Welfare (in press).
11. Bracke MBM and Hopster H 2006. Assessing the importance of natural behavior for animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 77-89.
12. Bracke MBM, Spruijt BM and Metz JHM 1999a. Overall welfare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible? Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47, 279-291.
13. Bracke MBM, Metz JHM and Spruijt BM 1999b. Overall welfare reviewed. Part 2: Assessment tables and schemes. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47, 293-305.
14. Bracke MBM, Spruijt BM and Metz JHM 1999c. Overall welfare reviewed. Part 3: Welfare assessment based on needs and supported by expert opinion. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47, 307-322.
15. Bracke MBM, Spruijt BM, Metz JHM and Schouten WGP 2002a. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows. A: Model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 8, 1819-1834.
16. Bracke MBM, Metz JHM, Spruijt BM and Schouten WGP 2002b. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows. B: Validation by expert opinion. Journal of Animal Science 8, 1835-1845.
17. Bracke MBM, Hulsegge B, Keeling L and Blokhuis HJ 2004a. Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 1. Modelling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 31-44.
18. Bracke MBM, Hulsegge B, Keeling L and Blokhuis HJ 2004b. Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 2. Validation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 45-54.
19. Bracke MBM, Zonderland JJ, Lenskens P, Schouten WGP, Vermeer H, Spoolder HAM, Hendriks HJM and Hopster H 2006. Formalised review of environmental enrichment for pigs in relation to political decision making. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 165-182.
20. Bracke MBM, Zonderland JJ and Bleumer EJB 2007a. Expert judgement on enrichment materials for pigs validates preliminary RICHPIG Model. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104, 1-13.
21. Bracke MBM, Zonderland JJ and Bleumer EJB 2007b. Expert consultation on weighting factors of criteria for assessing environmental enrichment materials for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104, 14-23.
22. Bracke M, de Bakker E, Beekman V, Jansson K and de Graaff R 2008. TRAK: Voedselkwaliteit op het spoor - Op weg naar een transparant beleidsafwegingskader. (TRAK: on the track of food quality - towards a transparance policy decision framework), LEI report 2008-002, LEI, The Hague.
23. Bracke MBM, Edwards S, Metz JHM, Engel B, Buist WG and Algers B (Submitted). Expert opinion as 'validation' of Risk Assessment applied to calf welfare. Animal.
24. Brambell Committee 1965. Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Command Report 2836. Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, UK.
25. CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission) 1999. Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Assessment. CAC/GL-30, 7pp. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/357/CXG_030e.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2006.
26. CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission) 2002. Principles and guidelines for the conduct of microbiological risk assessment. Document CAC/GL 30.
27. De Mol RM, Schouten WGP, Evers E, Drost WC, Houwers HWJ and Smits AC 2004. Integrale welzijnsbeoordeling leghennen. (Integrated welfare assessment laying hens). Report 239. Agrotechnology & Food Innovations of Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen.
28. De Mol RM, Schouten WGP, Evers E, Drost WC, Houwers HWJ and Smits AC 2006. A computer model for welfare assessment of husbandry systems for laying hens. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 54, 57-168.
29. EC (European Commission) 2000. First report on the harmonisation of risk assessment procedures. Part 1: The report of the Scientific Steering Committee's Working Group on Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures in the Scientific Committees advising the European Commission in the area of human and environmental health. European Commission, Brussles, Belgium.
30. EC (European Commission) 2003. Second report on harmonisation of risk assessment procedures by the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC). Appendix 3: Report on risk assessment of food borne bacterial pathogens: a quantitative methodology relevant for human exposure assessment. European Commission, Brussles, Belgium.
31. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2005. Principles of risk assessment of food producing animals: Current and future approaches. Parma 2005, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/colloquium_series/ no4_animal_diseases/1179.Par.0017.File.dat/ses_summary_report_coll4_en1.pdf. Accessed 2 December 2006.
32. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2006a. Scientific opinion on the risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems. An update of the Scientific Veterinary Committee Report on the Welfare of Calves. EFSA-Q-2005-014. The EFSA Journal 366: 1-36. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/ science/ahaw/ahaw_opinions/1516.html. Accessed 15 August 2006.
33. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2006b. Scientific report on the risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems. An update of the Scientific Veterinary Committee Report on the Welfare of Calves. EFSA-Q-2005-014 (144 pp), Annex to EFSA (2006a). http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/ahaw/ ahaw_opinions/1516.html. Accessed 15 August 2006.
34. Fagen R 1981. Animal play behaviour. Oxford University Press, New York.
35. FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. Veterinary Record 131, 357.
36. Ferrante V, Canali E, Mattiello S, Verga M, Sacerdote P and Panerai AE 1998. The effect of the size of individual crates on the behavioural and immune reactions of dairy calves. Journal of Animal Science 7, 29-36.
37. Fraser D 1995. Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the 'inextricable connection'. Animal Welfare 4, 103-117.
38. Fraser AF and Broom DM 1997. Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 3rd edition. Baillière Tindall, London, UK.
39. Fraser D and Duncan IJH 1998. 'Pleasures', 'pains' and animal welfare: toward a natural history of affect. Animal Welfare 7, 383-396.
40. Fraser D, Weary DM, Pajor EA and Milligan BN 1997. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6, 187-205.
41. Health Canada 2000. Health Canada decision-making framework for identifying, assessing, and managing health risks. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc- asc/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/pubs/risk-risques_e.pdf. Assessed 2 December 2006.
42. Keeling LJ 2005. Healthy and happy: animal welfare as an integral part of sustainable agriculture. Ambio 34, 316-319.
43. LNV (Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) 2002. Beleidsnota Dierenwelzijn (maart 2002). LNV, The Hague, The Netherlands.
44. Mendl M 1991. Some problems with the concept of a cut-off point for determining when an animal's welfare is at risk. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31, 139-146.
45. Morisse JP, Cotte JP and Huonnic D (In press) (as cited in SVC 1995). L'anémie chez le veau de boucherie. Evolution maîtrisée ou problème pathologique. Séminaire International sur le Veau de Boucherie.
46. Noordhuizen JPTM, Thrusfield MV, Frankena K and Graat EAM 2001. Applications of Quantitative Methods in Veterinary Epidemilogy. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
47. NRC (National Research Council) 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. US National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.
48. OIE (Office International des Epizooties) 2004a. Handbook on Import Risk Analysis for Animals and Animal Products. Volume 1. Introduction and qualitative risk analysis. OIE, Paris, France.
49. OIE (Office International des Epizooties) 2004b. Handbook on Import Risk Analysis for Animals and Animal Products. Volume 2. Quantitative risk assessment. OIE, Paris, France.
50. Piguet R, Bruckmaier M and Blum JW 1993. Treadmill exercise of calves with different iron supply, husbandry, and work load. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A 40, 456-465.
51. Rushen J 2003. Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 199-214.
52. Sandøe P and Simonsen HB 1992. Assessing animal welfare: where does science end and philosophy begin? Animal Welfare 1, 257-267.
53. Spinka M, Newberry RC and Bekoff M 2001. Mammalian play: training for the unexpected. Quarterly Review of Biology 76, 141-168.
54. Spoolder HAM, de Bree J, van der Mheen HW and Bracke MBM 2003a. Not animal related but housing parameters determine an expert's intuitive welfare assessment of pig welfare. In Proceedings of the 37th International Congress of the ISAE (ed. V Ferrante), p. 102. Fondazione Iniziative Zooprofilattiche e Zootecniche, Brescia, Italy.
55. Spoolder H, de Rosa G, Hörning B, Waiblinger S and Wemelsfelder F 2003b. Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Animal Welfare 12, 529-534.
56. Spruijt BM, van den Bos R and Pijlman FTA 2001. A concept of welfare based on reward evaluating mechanisms in the brain: anticipatory behaviour as an indicator for the state of reward systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72, 145-171.
57. SVC (Scientific Veterinary Committee) 1995. Report on the welfare of calves. EC, Brussels, Belgium.
58. SVC (Scientific Veterinary Committee) 1996. Report on the welfare of laying hens. EC, Brussels, Belgium.
59. SVC (Scientific Veterinary Committee) 1997. The welfare of intensively kept pigs. Report to the Directorate General XXIV of the European Commission. Adopted 30 September 1997. Doc. XXIV/ScVc/0005/97. EC, Brussels, Belgium.
60. Thrusfield MV 2005. Veterinary Epidemilogy, 3rd edition. Blackwell Science Publishing, Oxford, UK.
61. Van Reenen CG, Mars HM, Leushuis IE, van Oirschot JT and Blokhuis HJ 1999. The effect of housing system and dietary iron supply on stress physiological measures and resistance against an experimental infection with bovine herpesvirus 1 (BHV1) in veal calves. Report. ID-Lelystad, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
62. Von Borell E, Bockisch FJ, Buscher W, Hoy S, Krieter J, Muller C, Parvizi N, Richter T, Rudovsky A, Sundrum A and van den Weghe H 2001. Critical control points for on-farm assessment of pig housing. Livestock Production Science 72, 177-184.
63. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter TEA, Mendl MT and Lawrence AB 2001. Assessing the 'whole animal': a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62, 209-220.
64. Wiepkema PR 1987. Behavioural aspects of stress. In Biology of Stress in Farm Animals: An Integrative Approach(ed. PR Wiepkema and PWM van Adrichem), pp. 113-133. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
65. Willeberg P 1991. Animal welfare studies: Epidemiological considerations. In Proceedings of the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine (ed. MV Thrushfield), pp. 76-82. London.