Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2006
DOI: 10.1016/s1573-5214(06)80019-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A computer model for welfare assessment of poultry production systems for laying hens

Abstract: A computer model for welfare assessment in laying hens was constructed. This model, named FOWEL (fowl welfare), uses a description of the production system as input and produces a welfare score as output. To assess the welfare status a formalized procedure based on scientific knowledge is applied.In FOWEL the production system is described using 25 attributes (space per hen, beak trimming, free range, etc.), each with two or more levels, together defining the characteristics of a production system.A weighting … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
32
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Capdeville and Veissier (2001) further subdivided the Five Freedoms into sixteen discrete needs of dairy cows. Bracke et al (2002), de Mol et al (2006, and Ursinus et al (2009) also applied this concept of animal needs to obtain a welfare index for gestating sows (SOWEL), laying hens (FOWEL), and dairy cattle (COWEL). Other definitions vary from the utilitarian one provided by Peter Singer to Tom Regan's deontological interpretation (Regan and Singer 1989), from animal-based (e.g., Whay et al 2003) to environmentally-based approaches (e.g., animal needs index, Bartussek 1999), focus on affective states (e.g., Duncan 1996), natural living (e.g., Fraser 2008, to basic health and functioning (e.g., Broom 1986).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Capdeville and Veissier (2001) further subdivided the Five Freedoms into sixteen discrete needs of dairy cows. Bracke et al (2002), de Mol et al (2006, and Ursinus et al (2009) also applied this concept of animal needs to obtain a welfare index for gestating sows (SOWEL), laying hens (FOWEL), and dairy cattle (COWEL). Other definitions vary from the utilitarian one provided by Peter Singer to Tom Regan's deontological interpretation (Regan and Singer 1989), from animal-based (e.g., Whay et al 2003) to environmentally-based approaches (e.g., animal needs index, Bartussek 1999), focus on affective states (e.g., Duncan 1996), natural living (e.g., Fraser 2008, to basic health and functioning (e.g., Broom 1986).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At a worldwide scale, there is an increasing interest in objective, mathematical evaluation of poultry welfare with regard to the unbiased comparison of physiological comfort of birds under different production systems (Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, 1997;Dawkins, 2003;De Mol et al, 2006;Linares and Martin, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The key attributes and attribute-levels were chosen by selecting the key factors affecting hog and layer welfare identified in previous animal science research [3,11]. The attributes included issues like space, optional surgeries, flooring materials, etc.…”
Section: Methods and Datamentioning
confidence: 99%