Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:16:04.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The need for a quantitative assessment of animal welfare trade-offs in climate change mitigation scenarios

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2015

P. Llonch*
Affiliation:
Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
M. J. Haskell
Affiliation:
Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
I. Blanco-Penedo
Affiliation:
IRTA, Veïnat de Síes, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
S. P. Turner
Affiliation:
Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
Get access

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Full Paper
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, AP, Rutherford, KMD, Langford, FM and Haskell, MJ 2011. The effect of lameness prevalence on technical efficiency at the dairy farm level: an adjusted data envelopment analysis approach. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 54495457.Google Scholar
Baxter, EM, Jarvis, S, Sherwood, L, Farish, M, Roehe, R, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011. Genetic and environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal behaviour of the farrowing sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 130, 2841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, MJ, Wall, E, Simm, G and Russell, G 2011. Effects of genetic line and feeding system on methane emissions from dairy systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 699707.Google Scholar
Broom, DM, Galindo, FA and Murgueitio, E 2013. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280, 20132025.Google Scholar
De Boer, IJM, Cederberg, C, Eady, S, Gollnow, S, Kristensen, T, Macleod, M, Meul, M, Nemecek, T, Phong, LT, Thoma, G, van der Werf, HMG, Williams, AG and Zonderland-Thomassen, MA 2011. Greenhouse gas mitigation in animal production: towards an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3, 423431.Google Scholar
Hocking, PM 2014. Unexpected consequences of genetic selection in broilers and turkeys: problems and solutions. British Poultry Science 55, 112.Google Scholar
Ingvartsen, KL, Dewhurst, RJ and Friggens, NC 2003. On the relationship between lactational performance and health: is it yield or metabolic imbalance that cause production diseases in dairy cattle? A position paper. Livestock Production Science 83, 277308.Google Scholar
Moorhouse, D, Gittins, J, Phillips, K and Van de Weerd, HA 2009. A review of the evidence of the relationship between animal welfare and environmental impacts. ADAS report produced for Animal Welfare Core Function, Defra, London, UK.Google Scholar
Place, SE and Mitloehner, FM 2014. The nexus of environmental quality and livestock welfare. Annual Review of Animal Bioscience 2, 555569.Google Scholar
Rauw, WM, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN and Grommers, FJ 1998. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56, 1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, EC and Herd, RM 2004. Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 2. Synthesis of results following divergent selection. Animal Production Science 44, 431440.Google Scholar