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 

Records 1 - 12 / 12

  • help
  • print

    Print search results

  • export

    Export search results

  • alert
    We will mail you new results for this query: q=Thulke
Check title to add to marked list
Monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs.
Velarde, A. ; Berg, C. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Candiani, D. ; Ferrara, A.M. ; Fabris, C. ; Spoolder, H.A.M. - \ 2014
In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. - - p. 53 - 53.
Scientific Opinion concerning a Multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non-animal-based measures to assess the welfare of pigs
Authie, E. ; Berg, C. ; Bøtner, A. ; Browman, H. ; Capua, I. ; Koeijer, A.A. de; Depner, K. ; Domingo, M. ; Edwards, S. ; Fourichon, C. ; Koenen, F. ; More, S. ; Raj, M.A.B. ; Sihvonen, L. ; Spoolder, H.A.M. ; Stegeman, J.A. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Vågsholm, I. ; Velarde, A. ; Willeberg, P. ; Zientara, S. - \ 2014
EFSA Journal 12 (2014)5. - 101 p.
Pigs have a need for manipulable materials to satisfy a range of behavioural needs, which can be different in different classes of pig. When these needs are not met, a range of adverse welfare consequences result, one of these being an increased risk for tail-biting in weaners and rearing pigs. The ability to control the risk of tail- biting is essential when aiming to avoid tail-docking. Based on available scientific information this Opinion identifies the multiple interactions between risk factors, welfare consequences and animal and non-animal-based measures on the two subjects requested (i) the absence of functional manipulable materials, for pigs at different stages in life and (ii) tail-biting, for weaners and rearing pigs only. An attempt is made to quantify the relationships between the identified interactions by carrying out a statistical analysis of information from available databases, those being an international dataset collected using the Welfare Quality® protocol, which was not designed to evaluate risk factors for tail-biting and therefore, it had limitations in fitness for this analysis, and a large Finnish dataset with undocked pigs. Based on the current state of knowledge, the AHAW Panel proposes two simple tool-boxes for on farm use to assess (i) the functionality of the supplied manipulable material and (ii) the presence and strength of risk factors for tail biting. Both proposed tool-boxes include a combination of the most important resource-based and animal-based measures. Further development and validation of decision–support tools for customised farm assessment is strongly recommended and a proposal for harmonised data collection across the range of European farming circumstances is presented. A series of further recommendations are made by the AHAW Panel.
Scientific Opinion on the use of low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry
Authie, E. ; Berg, C. ; Bøtner, A. ; Browman, H. ; Capua, I. ; Koeijer, A.A. de; Depner, K. ; Domingo, M. ; Edwards, S. ; Fourichon, C. ; Koenen, F. ; More, S. ; Raj, M.A.B. ; Sihvonen, L. ; Spoolder, H.A.M. ; Stegeman, J.A. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Vågsholm, I. ; Velarde, A. ; Willeberg, P. ; Zientara, S. - \ 2014
EFSA Journal 12 (2014)1. - 27 p.
The EFSA's Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the use of a low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry. Four documents were provided by the European Commission (EC) as the basis for an assessment of the extent to which the LAPS is able to provide a level of animal welfare at least equivalent to that ensured by the current allowed methods for stunning poultry. The LAPS is described as rendering poultry unconscious by gradually reducing oxygen tension in the atmosphere leading to progressive hypoxia in the birds. In order to be allowed in the EU, new stunning methods must ensure 1) absence of pain, distress and suffering until the onset of unconsciousness, and 2) that the animal remains unconscious until death. The submitted studies were peer-reviewed by the AHAW Panel as outlined in its “Guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning intervention regarding animal protection at the time of killing”. It is unclear from the submitted documents whether the rate of decompression used in LAPS induces unconsciousness and death without causing avoidable pain and suffering in poultry. The assessed studies did not pass the eligibility assessment and, therefore, no further assessment was undertaken.
Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for sheep and goats
Authie, E. ; Berg, C. ; Bøtner, A. ; Browman, H. ; Capua, I. ; Koeijer, A.A. de; Depner, K. ; Domingo, M. ; Edwards, S. ; Fourichon, C. ; Koenen, F. ; More, S. ; Raj, M.A.B. ; Sihvonen, L. ; Spoolder, H.A.M. ; Stegeman, J.A. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Vågsholm, I. ; Velarde, A. ; Willeberg, P. ; Zientara, S. - \ 2013
EFSA Journal 11 (2013)12. - 65 p.
This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for sheep and goats stunned with the head-only electrical method or slaughtered without stunning. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. In the case of slaughter with head-only electrical stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox to assess consciousness at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after electrical stunning and during shackling and hoisting, (b) during neck cutting and (c) during bleeding. For slaughter without stunning, another toolbox is proposed for (a) assessing unconsciousness before releasing the animals from restraint, and (b) confirming death before carcass dressing begins. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders‘ and hearing experts‘ meetings—were conducted to gather information about the sensitivity, specificity and feasibility of the indicators. On the basis of such information, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators to be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring animal welfare. The personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning or before releasing from the restraint. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals to be checked at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and threshold failure rate (number of potential failures—proportion of animals that are conscious after stunning). Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a =normal‘ or a =reinforced‘ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse.
Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry
Authie, E. ; Berg, C. ; Bøtner, A. ; Browman, H. ; Capua, I. ; Koeijer, A.A. de; Depner, K. ; Domingo, M. ; Edwards, S. ; Fourichon, C. ; Koenen, F. ; More, S. ; Raj, M.A.B. ; Sihvonen, L. ; Spoolder, H.A.M. ; Stegeman, J.A. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Vågsholm, I. ; Velarde, A. ; Willeberg, P. ; Zientara, S. - \ 2013
EFSA Journal 11 (2013)12. - 65 p.
This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators, and their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death, for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry stunned using electrical waterbaths and gas mixtures or slaughtered without stunning. For waterbath stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators for assessing consciousness in poultry at two key stages of monitoring: (a) between the exit from the waterbath stunner and neck cutting and (b) during bleeding. For gas stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators for assessing consciousness in poultry at two key stages of monitoring: (a) during shackling and (b) during bleeding. For slaughter without stunning, a toolbox is proposed for confirming death prior to entering scald tanks. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders‘ and hearing experts‘ meetings—were conducted to gather information about the specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators. On the basis of such information, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators to be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring poultry welfare. The personnel will have to check all the birds and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning with electrical waterbaths or gas mixtures and that they are dead before entering scald tanks. For the animal welfare officer, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of birds that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of birds slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and threshold failure rate (number of potential failures—birds that are conscious after stunning). Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a =normal‘ or a =reinforced‘ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse.
Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs
Authie, E. ; Berg, C. ; Bøtner, A. ; Browman, H. ; Capua, I. ; Koeijer, A.A. de; Depner, K. ; Domingo, M. ; Edwards, S. ; Fourichon, C. ; Koenen, F. ; More, S. ; Raj, M.A.B. ; Sihvonen, L. ; Spoolder, H.A.M. ; Stegeman, J.A. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Vågsholm, I. ; Velarde, A. ; Willeberg, P. ; Zientara, S. - \ 2013
EFSA Journal 11 (2013)12. - 62 p.
This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs stunned with the head-only electrical method or carbon dioxide at high concentration. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. The opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators and the outcomes to be used to assess consciousness in pigs at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after stunning and during shackling and hoisting, (b) during sticking and (c) during bleeding. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders‘ and hearing experts‘ meetings—were conducted to gather information about specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators that are to be included in the toolboxes for monitoring welfare. On the basis of information gathered during these activities, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators that could be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring animal welfare at slaughter. The personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and tolerance level (number of potential failures—animals that are conscious after stunning; animals that are not unconscious or not dead after slaughter without stunning). The model can also be applied to estimate threshold failure rate at a chosen throughput rate and sample size. Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a =normal‘ or a =reinforced‘ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse.
Guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions regarding animal protection at the time of killing
Authie, E. ; Berg, C. ; Bøtner, A. ; Browman, H. ; Capua, I. ; Koeijer, A.A. de; Depner, K. ; Domingo, M. ; Edwards, S. ; Fourichon, C. ; Koenen, F. ; More, S. ; Raj, M.A.B. ; Sihvonen, L. ; Spoolder, H.A.M. ; Stegeman, J.A. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Vågsholm, I. ; Velarde, A. ; Willeberg, P. ; Zientara, S. - \ 2013
EFSA Journal 11 (2013)12. - 41 p.
This guidance defines the assessment process and the criteria that will be applied by the Animal Health and Welfare Panel to studies on known new or modified legal stunning interventions to determine their suitability for further assessment. The criteria that need to be fulfilled are eligibility criteria, reporting quality criteria and methodological quality criteria. The eligibility criteria are based upon the legislation and previously published scientific data. They focus on the intervention and the outcomes of interest, i.e. immediate onset of unconsciousness and insensibility or absence of avoidable pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and sensibility, and duration of the unconsciousness and insensibility (until death). If a study fulfils the eligibility criteria, it will be assessed regarding a set of reporting quality criteria that are based on the REFLECT and the STROBE statements. As a final step in this first assessment phase, the methodological quality of the submitted study will be assessed. If the criteria regarding eligibility, reporting quality and methodological quality are fulfilled, a full assessment of the animal welfare implications of the proposed alternative stunning intervention, including both pre-stunning and stunning phases, and an evaluation of the quality, strength and external validity of the evidence presented would be carried out at the next level of the assessment. In the case that the criteria regarding eligibility and reporting quality and methodological quality are not fulfilled, the assessment report of the panel will highlight the shortcomings and indicate where improvements are required before the study can be assessed further. In addition to the assessment criteria, the guidance also specifies general aspects applicable to studies on stunning interventions that should be considered when studying the effectiveness of stunning interventions.
Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for bovines
Authie, E. ; Berg, C. ; Bøtner, A. ; Browman, H. ; Capua, I. ; Koeijer, A.A. de; Depner, K. ; Domingo, M. ; Edwards, S. ; Fourichon, C. ; Koenen, F. ; More, S. ; Raj, M.A.B. ; Sihvonen, L. ; Spoolder, H.A.M. ; Stegeman, J.A. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Vågsholm, I. ; Velarde, A. ; Willeberg, P. ; Zientara, S. - \ 2013
EFSA Journal 11 (2013)12. - 65 p.
This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for bovines stunned with penetrative captive bolt or slaughtered without stunning. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. In the case of slaughter with captive bolt stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators and the outcomes to be used to assess consciousness in bovine animals at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after stunning and during shackling and hoisting; (b) during neck cutting or sticking; and (c) during bleeding. For slaughter of bovines without stunning, a set of indicators and outcomes are proposed in another toolbox to be used for (a) assessing unconsciousness, before releasing bovines from restraint; and (b) confirming death before carcass dressing begins. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders’ and hearing experts’ meetings—were conducted to gather information about the specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators that can be included in the toolboxes. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person responsible for ensuring animal welfare. Personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning or before release from the restraint. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouse) and tolerance level (number of potential failures). Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a ‘normal’ or a ‘reinforced’ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse.
Ecological models for regulatory risk assessments of pesticides: Developing a strategy for the future.
Thorbek, P. ; Forbes, V. ; Heimbach, F. ; Hommen, U. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Brink, P.J. van den - \ 2010
SETAC America : SETAC and CRC Press - ISBN 9781439805114 - 127
pesticiden - milieufactoren - milieutoets - risicoschatting - simulatiemodellen - ecologie - landbouw en milieu - ecologische risicoschatting - pesticides - environmental factors - environmental assessment - risk assessment - simulation models - ecology - agriculture and environment - ecological risk assessment
Ecological Models for Regulatory Risk Assessments of Pesticides: Developing a Strategy for the Future provides a coherent, science-based view on ecological modeling for regulatory risk assessments. It discusses the benefits of modeling in the context of registrations, identifies the obstacles that prevent ecological modeling being used routinely in regulatory submissions, and explores the actions needed to overcome these obstacles. The book focuses on the following issues: Uncertainties in the process of model development, such as design, analysis, documentation, and communication, The availability of data and background information needed for optimal modeling, The limited knowledge of modeling, The lack of confidence in the outcome of ecological models and their reliability in pesticide risk assessment, It also suggests future solutions to these challenges, including: A guidance document on the modeling process, Case studies that show how ecological models can provide reliable ecologically relevant risk assessments, Training the people who generate or evaluate results obtained by ecological models, Focusing on ecological models, such as unstructured population models, stage-structured matrix models, and individual- or agent-based models, this volume helps regulatory authorities, manufacturers, and scientists assess the risk of plant protection products in nontarget organisms.
Ecological models in support of regulatory risk assessment of pesticides: developing a strategy for the future
Forbes, V.E. ; Hommen, U. ; Thorbek, P. ; Heimbach, F. ; Brink, P.J. van den; Wogram, J. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Grimm, V. - \ 2009
In: 2nd SETAC Europe Special Science Symposium on Current developments on Environmental Risk Assessment for Plant Protection Products, Brussels, Belgium, 17-18 September 2009. - Brussels : SETAC Europe - p. 57 - 60.
Ecological Models in Support of Regulatory Risk Assessments of Pesticides: Developing a Strategy for the Future
Forbes, V.E. ; Hommen, U. ; Thorbek, P. ; Heimbach, F. ; Brink, P.J. van den; Wogram, J. ; Thulke, H.H. ; Grimm, V. - \ 2009
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5 (2009)1. - ISSN 1551-3793 - p. 167 - 172.
This brief communication reports on the main findings of the LEMTOX workshop, held from 9 to 12 September 2007, at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) in Leipzig, Germany. The workshop brought together a diverse group of stakeholders from academia, regulatory authorities, contract research organizations, and industry, representing Europe, the United States, and Asia, to discuss the role of ecological modeling in risk assessments of pesticides, particularly under the European regulatory framework. The following questions were addressed: What are the potential benefits of using ecological models in pesticide registration and risk assessment? What obstacles prevent ecological modeling from being used routinely in regulatory submissions? What actions are needed to overcome the identified obstacles? What recommendations should be made to ensure good modeling practice in this context? The workshop focused exclusively on population models, and discussion was focused on those categories of population models that link effects on individuals (e.g., survival, growth, reproduction, behavior) to effects on population dynamics. The workshop participants concluded that the overall benefits of ecological modeling are that it could bring more ecology into ecological risk assessment, and it could provide an excellent tool for exploring the importance of, and interactions among, ecological complexities. However, there are a number of challenges that need to be overcome before such models will receive wide acceptance for pesticide risk assessment, despite having been used extensively in other contexts (e.g., conservation biology). The need for guidance on Good Modeling Practice (on model development, analysis, interpretation, evaluation, documentation, and communication), as well as the need for case studies that can be used to explore the added value of ecological models for risk assessment, were identified as top priorities. Assessing recovery potential of exposed nontarget species and clarifying the ecological relevance of standard laboratory test results are two areas for which ecological modeling may be able to provide considerable benefits
Studying Encephalomyocarditis virus among pigs : enough pieces to complete the puzzle?
Maurice, H. ; Nielen, M. ; Koenen, F. ; Thulke, H.H. - \ 2002
In: Gateway to the future : PhD retreat Gateway to the future, Nunspeet, 12-13 december 2002. - [S.l.] : [s.n.], 2002 - p. 16 - 16.
Check title to add to marked list

Show 20 50 100 records per page

 
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.