Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:56:54.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency of measures for sow husbandry: Integrating farm income, animal welfare and public attitudes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

TJ Bergstra ,
H Hogeveen ,
EN Stassen  and
AGJM Oude Lansink
TJ Bergstra*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, Chair Group Business Economics, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
H Hogeveen
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, Chair Group Business Economics, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
EN Stassen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Chair Group Animals in Society, Wageningen University, De Elst 1, 6708 WD Wageningen, The Netherlands
AGJM Oude Lansink
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, Chair Group Business Economics, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In response to the public's concerns about animal welfare in swine husbandry, the pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) sector introduced improved measures to focus on single rather than multiple dimensions of animal welfare concerns without accounting for their impact on public attitudes. These measures failed to improve attitudes to pig husbandry. The present study uses a more comprehensive approach by evaluating animal welfare measures in terms of their effect on animal welfare, farm income and public attitudes. Four measures were defined for each of the following societal aspects of sow husbandry: piglet mortality; tail biting and the indoor housing of gestating sows. A simulation model was developed to estimate the effects of the measures and Data Envelopment Analysis used to compare measures in terms of their effects on animal welfare, farm income and public attitudes. Only piglet mortality measures were found to have a positive effect on farm income but they showed a relatively low effect on animal welfare and public attitudes. The most efficient measure was that which included straw provision, daylight and increased group sizes for gestating sows. The level of improvement of a measure on animal welfare did not necessarily equate to the same level of improvement in public attitudes or decrease in farm income.

Keywords

animal welfareattitudesefficiencyfarm incomemeasurespig husbandry
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 433 - 447
Copyright
© 2020 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Aarts, H and Te Velde, H 2001 Eten, maar niet willen weten. In: Poll, N, Sterrenberg, L, Bozkurt, E and Miedema, I (eds) Hoe oordelen we over de veehouderij? Rathenau Instituut: Den Haag, The Netherlands.[Title translation: How do we judge livestock production?]Google Scholar
Aarts, MNC, te Velde, HM and van Woerkum, CMJ 2001 Hoe oordelen we over de veehouderij? Rathenau Institute: Den Haag, The Netherlands. [Title translation: What do we think of livestock farming?]Google Scholar
Agrovision bv 2012 Kengetallenspiegel. http://www.agrovision.nlGoogle Scholar
Andersen, IL, Berg, S and Bøe, KE 2005 Crushing of piglets by the mother sow (Sus scrofa) - purely accidental or a poor moth-er? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93: 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.11.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jongman, EC and Hutson, GD 2001 A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR00057Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, O’Connell, NE and Moss, BW 2000 Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 65: 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00179-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beekman, V, Bracke, M, van Gaasbeek, T and van der Kroon, S 2002 Begint een beter dierenwelzijn bij onszelf? Een verken-ning van de mogelijkheden voor verbetering van dierenwelzijn door marktwerking. Report 7.02.02. Agricultural Economics Research Institute: Den Haag, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Does better animal welfare start with ourselves? An exploration of the possibilities for improving animal welfare through market forces]Google Scholar
Bennett, R, Kehlbacher, A and Balcombe, K 2012 A method for the economic valuation of animal welfare benefits using a single welfare score. Animal Welfare 21: 125–130. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905674006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, RM 1997 Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy 22: 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(97)00019-5Google Scholar
Bergstra, TJ, Gremmen, B and Stassen, EN 2015 Moral val-ues and attitudes toward Dutch sow husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9539-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergstra, TJ, Hogeveen, H, Kuiper, WE, Oude Lansink, AGJM and Stassen, EN 2017b Attitudes of Dutch citizens toward sow husbandry with regard to animals, humans, and the environment. Anthrozoös 30: 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2017.1310985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergstra, TJ, Hogeveen, H and Stassen, EN 2017a Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to deter-mine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment. Agriculture and Human Values 34: 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9721-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 2008 International cooperation in animal welfare: the Welfare Quality® project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50: S10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB, van Huik, MM, Prutzer, M, Kling Eveillard, F and Dockes, A 2007 Farmers’ relationship with different animals: The importance of getting close to the animals. Case studies of French, Swedish and Dutch cattle, pig and poultry farmers. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15: 108–125Google Scholar
Boerderij 2018 Vrijloopkraamhok volop in ontwikkeling. https://www.boerderij.nl/Varkenshouderij/Achtergrond/2018/5/V rijloopkraamhok-volop-in-ontwikkeling-279156E/. [Title translation: Free farrowing system in full development]Google Scholar
Boivin, X, Lensink, J, Tallet, C and Veissier, I 2003 Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 479–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Bock, BB, Oosting, SJ, Wiskerke, JSC and van de Zijpp, AJ 2011a Social acceptance of dairy farming: the ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24: 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9256-4Google Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Boekhorst, LJS, Oosting, SJ and Sørensen, JT 2011b Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen per-ceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science 140(1-3): 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Oosting, SJ and Bock, BB 2006 Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livestock Science 104: 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornett, HLI, Guy, JH and Cain, PJ 2002 Impact of animal wel-fare on costs and viability of pig production in the UK. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16: 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022994131594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, de Greef, KH and Hopster, H 2005 Qualitative stakeholder analysis for the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-004-3085-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Zonderland, JJ and Bleumer, EJB 2007 Expert judgement on enrichment materials for pigs validates preliminary RICHPIG model. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 104: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Zonderland, JJ, Lensekens, P, Schouten, WGP, Vermeer, H, Spoolder, HAM, Hendriks, HJM and Hopster, H 1998 Formalised review of environmental enrich-ment for pigs in relation to political decision making. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 98: 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.08.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruijnis, MRN, Hogeveen, H and Stassen, EN 2013 Measures to improve dairy cow foot health: consequences for farmer income and dairy cow welfare. Animal 7: 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112001383CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cain, PJ and Guy, JH 2006 Counting the cost of improved welfare for breeding sows in the UK. Journal of Farm Management 12: 427–442Google Scholar
Carlsson, F, Frykblom, P and Lagerkvist, C 2004 Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare - transportation of farm animals to slaughter versus the use of mobile abattoirs. European Review of Agricultural Economics 34(3): 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbm025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chrispeels, MJ and Mandoli, DF 2003 Agricultural ethics. Plant Physiology 132: 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.103.021881CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, NE, Brom, FWA and Stassen, EN 2009 Fundamental moral attitudes to animals and their role in judgment: An empiri-cal model to describe fundamental moral attitudes to animals and their role in judgment on the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22: 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9157-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromwell, GL 2002 Why and how antibiotics are used in swine production. Animal Biotechnology 13: 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1081/ABIO-120005767CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Greef, K and Casabianca, F 2009 The Dutch pork chain: a com-modity system resisting threats from the market and society. Agriculture 38: 167–174. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009788632395Google Scholar
de Greef, K, Stafleu, F and de Lauwere, C 2006 A simple value-distinction approach aids transparency in farm animal wel-fare debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-4527-1Google Scholar
de Greef, KH, Vermeer, HM, Houwers, HWJ and Bos, AP 2011 Proof of principle of the comfort class concept in pigs: Experimenting in the midst of a stakeholder process on pig wel-fare. Livestock Science 139: 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2011.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Ouden, M, Nijsing, JT, Dijkhuizen, AA and Huirne, RBM 1997 Economic optimization of pork production-marketing chains: I. Model input on animal welfare and costs. Livestock Production Science 48: 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(96)01411-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, GW and Swierstra, EE 1987 Causes of piglet death from birth to weaning. Journal of Animal Science 67: 543–547. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas87-053Google Scholar
Edwards, SA 2005 Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production. Livestock Production Science 94: 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurobarometer 2016 Attitudes of Europeans towards animal wel-fare. Special Eurobarometer 442, November–December 2015. European Union: Brussels, Belgium. https://ec.europa.eu/comm-frontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/searc h/animal/surveyKy/2096Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1999 Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00090-8Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: The interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, B, Johnsen, AMS and Skuterud, E 2010 Consumer attitudes towards castration of piglets and alternatives to surgical castration. Research in Veterinary Science 90: 352–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.06.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galama, PJ, de Vries, C and van Dooren, HJC 2009 Grensverleggend huisvesten van melkvee. Report 271. Wageningen UR Livestock Research: Zoetermeer, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Groundbreaking housing of dairy cattle]Google Scholar
Glass, GA, Hutchinson, WG and Beattie, VE 2005 Measuring the value to the public of pig welfare improvements: a contingent valuation approach. Animal Welfare 14: 61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gocsik, É, Oude Lansink, AGJM and Saatkamp, HW 2013 Mid-term financial impact of animal welfare improvements in Dutch broiler production. Poultry Science 92: 3314–3329. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03221CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, G and Henson, S 2001 Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice. EU FAIR CT98-3678. Centre for Food Economics Research (CeFER): UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Coleman, GJ 1993 The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Animal Welfare 2: 33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herskin, MS, Jensen, KH and Thodberg, K 1998 Influence of environmental stimuli on maternal behaviour related to bonding, reactivity and crushing of piglets in domestic sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00144-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holyoake, PK, Dial, GD, Trigg, T and King, VL 1995 Reducing pig mortality through supervision during the perinatal period. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3543–3551. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73123543xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoofs, AIJ 2012 Pro Dromi Easy Nesting Geeft Rust en Minder Doodliggers pp 18–19. Agri Media: Wageningen, The Netherlands.[Title translation: Pro Dromi Easy Nesting provides peace and fewer sleepers]Google Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Spring, P 2008 Attitudes of Swiss con-sumers towards meat from entire or immunocastrated boars: A representative survey. Research in Veterinary Science 85: 625–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2008.03.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudson, D 2010 Discussion: The economics of animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 42: 453–455. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800003631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huijps, K, Hogeveen, H, Lam, TJGM and Oude Lansink, AGJM 2010 Costs and efficacy of management measures to improve udder health on Dutch dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 115–124. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2412CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, EJ, Jones, TA, Guise, HJ, Penny, RHC and Hoste, S 2001 The relationship between tail biting in pigs, docking procedure and other management practices. The Veterinary Journal 161:72–79. https://doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.2000.0520CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huysman, CN, Roelofs, PFMM, Plagge, JG and Hoofs, AIJ 1994 Motherless rearing or extention of the suckling period of piglets using ‘EMMA.’ https://edepot.wur.nl/35501Google Scholar
Ingenbleek, PTM, Immink, VM, Spoolder, HAM, Bokma, MH and Keeling, LJ 2012 EU animal welfare policy: Developing a comprehensive policy framework. Food Policy 37: 690–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanis, E, Groen, ABF and de Greef, KH 2003 Societal con-cerns about pork and pork production and their relationships to the production system. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16: 137–162. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022985913847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehlbacher, A, Bennett, R and Balcombe, K 2012 Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy 37: 627–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, S and Barnett, L 2008 Justifying attitudes toward animal use: A qualitative study of people's views and beliefs. Anthrozoös 21: 31–42. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279308X274047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, S, Vrij, A, Cherryman, J and Nunkoosing, K 2004 Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös 17: 43–62. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279304786991945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korthals, M 2001 Taking consumers seriously: two concepts of consumer sovereignty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14(2): 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011356930245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KWIN-Veehouderij 2013/2014 Handboek Kwantitatieve Informatie Veehouderij. Wageningen UR Livestock Research: Lelystad, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Handbook of Quantitative Information on Livestock]Google Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ and Hess, S 2011 A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38: 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, J 2006 Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103:221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loncke, R, Dewulf, J, Vanderhaeghe, C, de Kruif, A and Maes, D 2009 Non-infectious causes of piglet mortality before weaning Part 2: Factors related to the sow and the environment. Vlaams Diergeneeskdig Tijdschrift 78: 71–81Google Scholar
LTO Nederland 2005-2006 Ruimte om te ondernemen, maat-schappelijk verslag varkenshouderij. LTO Nederland: Den Haag, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Space to do business, sustainabili-ty report pig husbandry]Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM and Coming, S 2001 The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Animal Science 72: 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135772980005551XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martić, MM, Novaković, MS and Baggia, A 2009 Data envel-opment analysis - Basic models and their utilization. Organizacija 42: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10051-009-0001-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, JJ 2001 Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems. Livestock Production Science 72: 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00268-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ and Stafford, KJ 2001 Integrating practical, regulato-ry and ethical strategies for enhancing farm animal welfare. Australian Veterinary Journal 79: 762–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2001.tb10895.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, MPM and van der Lans, IA 2005 Trade-offs between consumer concerns: An application pork supply chains. Food Economics - Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C2: 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/16507540510033442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moinard, C, Mendl, M, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2003 A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00276-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ngapo, TM, Dransfield, E, Martin, JF, Magnusson, M, Bredahl, L and Nute, GR 2003 Consumer perceptions: pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark. Meat Science 66: 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S 0309-1740(03)00076-7Google Scholar
Nocella, G, Hubbard, L and Scarpa, R 2010 Farm animal wel-fare, consumers willingness to pay, and trust: results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32: 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppp009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Damm, BI, Marchant-Forde, NJ and Jensen, KH 2003 Effects of feed-back from the nest on maternal respon-siveness and postural changes in primiparous sows during the first 24 h after farrowing onset. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83:109–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00116-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rokeach, M 1968-1969 The role of values in public opinion research. Public Opinion Quarterly 32: 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1086/267645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooke, JA and Bland, IM 2002 The acquisition of passive immu-nity in the new-born piglet. Livestock Production Science 78: 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00182-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutseart, P, Pieniak, Z, Regan, Á, McConnon, Á, Kuttschreuter, M, Lores, M, Lozano, N, Guzzon, A, Santare, D and Verbeke, W 2014 Social media as a useful tool in food risk and benefit communication? A strategic orientation approach. Food Policy 46: 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.food-pol.2014.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seddon, YM, Cain, PJ, Guy, JH and Edwards, SA 2013 Development of a spreadsheet based financial model for pig pro-ducers considering high welfare farrowing systems. Livestock Science 157: 317–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stichting Varkens in Nood 2010 In de media. http://www.varkensinnood.nl. [Title translation: In the media]Google Scholar
Stott, AW, Vosough Ahmadi, B, Dwyer, CM, Kupiec, B, Morgan-Davies, C, Milne, CE, Ringrose, S, Goddard, P, Phillips, K and Waterhouse, A 2012 Interactions between profit and welfare on extensive sheep farms. Animal Welfare 21:57–64. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svedalis, N and Harvey, N 2006 Determinants of willingness to pay in separate and joint evaluations of options: Context matters. Journal of Economic Psychology 27: 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swindle, MM 2008 Anesthesia and analgesia in swine. Sinclair Research Technical Bulletin: 1-7. https://sinclairresearch.com/white-papers/anesthesia-and-analgesia-in-swine/Google Scholar
Te Velde, H, Aarts, N and van Woerkum, C 2002 Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015012403331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM 2005 The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: A review. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 92: 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhonacker, F, van Poucke, E and Verbeke, W 2010 Quantitative verification of the correspon-dence between the welfare quality operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science 131: 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vair 2014 Vair varkenshuis. http://www.vair.nl/vair-varkenshuis/.[Title translation: Vair pig house]Google Scholar
Van den Besselaar, P and Heimeriks, G 2001 Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts and indicators. Paper for the 8th conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics pp 705–716.16-20 July 2001, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Van der Meulen, HAB, de Bont, CJAM, Agricola, HJ, van Horne, PLM, Hoste, R, van der Knijff, A, Leenstra, FR, van der Meer, RW and de Smet, A 2011 Schaalvergroting in de land - en tuinbouw. Rapport 2010-094. Agricultural Economics Research Institute: Wageningen, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Upscaling in agriculture and horticulture]Google Scholar
Van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Hoofs, AIJ, Vermeer, HM and Binnendijk, GP 2010 Groepshuisvesting voor drachtige zeugen: kenmerken van de verschillende systemen. Wageningen UR Livestock Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Group housing for pregnant sows: characteristics of the dif-ferent systems]Google Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2007 Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15(3): 84–100Google Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008 Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently. Livestock Science 116: 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Huik, MM and Bock, BB 2007 Attitudes of Dutch pig farm-ers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal 11: 879–890. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Niekerk, T and Reuvekamp, B 2011 Rondeel™, a new housing design for laying hens. Lohmann Information 46: 25–31Google Scholar
Verbeke, W 2009 Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, WAJ and Viaene, J 2000 Ethical challanges for live-stock production: meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009538613588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, M, Van Reenen, CG and Spoolder, HAM 2012 Vereenvoudiging Welfare Quality® protocol voor varkens. Report 622. Wageningen UR Livestock Research: Lelystad, The Netherlands.[Title translation: Simplification Welfare Quality® protocol for pigs]Google Scholar
Vosough Ahmadi, B, Stott, AW, Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011 Animal welfare and economic optimisation of farrowing systems. Animal Welfare 20: 57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakker dier 2010 Persberichten. http://www.wakkerdier.nl.[Title translation: Press release]Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Winkel, A and Bokma, S 2011 Adviezen voor daglicht in varkens-stallen pp 36–37. Agri Media: Wageningen, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Advice for daylight in pig stables]Google Scholar
Yang, TS, Howard, B and Macfarlane, WV 1981 Effects of food on drinking behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 7:259–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(81)90082-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ 2007 Afleidingsmateriaal voor varkens breed gewogen. Animal Science Group: Wageningen University, Lelystad, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Practical aspects of environ-mental enrichment]Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Cornelissen, L, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M and Spoolder, HAM 2008a Visual acuity of pigs at different light intensities. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 111(1-2): 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Wolthuis-Fillerup, MM, van Reenen, CG, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, LA, den, Hartog and Spoolder, HAM 2008b Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 110: 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bergstra et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 50.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bergstra et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 39.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bergstra et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 54.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bergstra et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 129.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bergstra et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 124.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bergstra et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 120.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bergstra et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 74.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bergstra et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 51.6 KB