Staff Publications

Staff Publications

  • external user (warningwarning)
  • Log in as
  • language uk
  • About

    'Staff publications' is the digital repository of Wageningen University & Research

    'Staff publications' contains references to publications authored by Wageningen University staff from 1976 onward.

    Publications authored by the staff of the Research Institutes are available from 1995 onwards.

    Full text documents are added when available. The database is updated daily and currently holds about 240,000 items, of which 72,000 in open access.

    We have a manual that explains all the features 

Record number 404046
Title Overall welfare assessment of laying hens: Comparing science-based, environmental-based and animal-based assessments
Author(s) Shimmura, T.; Bracke, M.B.M.; Mol, R.M. de; Hirahara, S.; Tanaka, T.
Source Animal Science journal 82 (2011)1. - ISSN 1344-3941 - p. 150 - 160.
DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00834.x
Department(s) LR - Backoffice
Livestock Research
Publication type Refereed Article in a scientific journal
Publication year 2011
Keyword(s) decision-support system - burmese red junglefowl - large furnished cages - housing systems - domestic hens - feather pecking - battery cages - dustbathing behavior - rearing environment - physical condition
Abstract To increase the validity of evaluations and facilitate expansion and maintenance of assessment systems, we constructed a database of studies on the welfare of laying hens around the world. On the basis of this database, we devised a science-based welfare assessment model. Our model includes measurements, levels and weightings based on the scientific studies in the database, and can clarify the advantages and disadvantages of housing systems for laying hens from the viewpoint of the five freedoms. We also evaluated the usefulness of our model by comparing it with environment-based Animal Needs Index (ANI), another science-based model called FOWEL, and animal-based measurements. Our model showed that freedom from injury, pain and disease, and freedom from discomfort were more secure in the cage system, while non-cage systems scored better for natural behavior and freedom from fear and distress. A significant strong-positive correlation was found between the animal-based assessment and the total scores of ANI (rs = 0.94, P <0.05), FOWEL (rs = 0.99, P <0.05) or our model (rs = 0.99, P <0.05), which indicate that these different approaches to welfare assessment may be used almost interchangeably to ‘measure’ a common property (‘overall laying hen welfare’). However, assessments using our model and FOWEL were more sensitive than ANI and can be applied to cage systems, which suggest that our model and FOWEL may have added value.
Comments
There are no comments yet. You can post the first one!
Post a comment
 
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.