See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263778344

Lessons learned from past experience with intensive livestock management

systems

Chapter in Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) · April 2014

DOI: 10.20506/rst.33.1.2256 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

17 682

3 authors:

Greg M Cronin Jean-Loup Rault

159 PUBLICATIONS 3,832 CITATIONS

University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna
99 PUBLICATIONS 1,232 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Phil Glatz

63 PUBLICATIONS 481 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Positive human-pig interactions View project

Reducing feather pecking and cannibalism in free range laying hens View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jean-Loup Rault on 01 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 2014, 33 (1), 139-151

Lessons learned from past experience

with intensive livestock management systems
G.M. Cronin (1)*, J.–L. Rault (2) & P.C. Glatz (3)

(1) Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camden Campus, Private Bag 4003, Narellan,
New South Wales 2567, Australia
(2) Animal Welfare Science Centre, School of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010,
Australia
(3) South Australian Research and Development Institute, Roseworthy Campus, University of Adelaide,
South Australia 5371, Australia
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Summary
The main impetus for ‘modern’ intensive animal production occurred after the
Second World War, when Western governments developed policies to increase
the availability of cheap, safe food for their populations. Livestock benefit under
intensive husbandry by protection from environmental extremes and predators,
and better nutritional and health management. Nevertheless, there are costs to
the animal, such as impaired social behaviour, limited choice of living environment
or pen mates, poor environmental stimulation and behavioural restrictions. The
rapid progress in genetic selection of production traits has also, in some cases,
adversely affected welfare by creating anatomical and metabolic problems.
Above all, the intensively housed animal is heavily reliant on the stockperson and,
therefore, inadequate care and husbandry practices by the stockperson may be
the largest welfare risk.
In a future in which the food supply may be limited as the world’s population grows
and land availability shrinks, intensive animal production is likely to expand. At
the same time, ethical considerations surrounding intensive farming practices
may also become more prominent. Novel technologies provide the opportunity to
enhance both the productivity and welfare of intensively kept animals. Developing
countries are also establishing more intensive commercial systems to meet their
growing need for animal protein. Intensive livestock production in such countries
has the potential for major expansion, particularly if such developments address
the key constraints of poor welfare, inadequate nutrition, poor reproduction, poor
housing, and high mortality often seen with traditional systems, and if farmer
access to emerging market opportunities is improved. However, as shown by
previous experience, inadequate regulation and staff who lack the appropriate
training to care for the welfare of intensively housed livestock can be major
challenges to overcome.

Keywords
Animal management – Animal production efficiency – Animal welfare – Domestic
livestock – Intensive farming – Intensive production.

Introduction humans (Homo sapiens) (3). The continued use of animals by

humans, including as a food source, is prominent in human
history and seems relevant to the transition of humans
The hunting and consumption of animals for food by the from nomadic hunter-gatherers to herders and agrarians.
predecessor of modern humans, Homo habilis, and the The invention of agriculture and the so-called ‘agricultural
possible use of fire to cook food occurred possibly two-and- revolution’, combining the cultivation of plants and the
a-half million years ago (1, 2). The increased availability of domestication of livestock, enabled humans to maintain a
protein in H. habilis’s diet, as a result of meat consumption reliable and permanent food supply in close proximity to
and probably cooking, is credited with enabling an their place of living, thus improving food security (4, 5).
expansion in brain size, leading to the evolution of modern According to the anthropologist Colin Turnbull, through
152 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1)

the domestication of animals, the herders of Africa began to human–animal relationship for good animal welfare as
‘control the world’ (6). well as efficient and profitable animal production (11).
As the world population grows, an increase in intensive
Domestication is defined as ‘the process by which a livestock production is considered to be inevitable because
population of animals becomes adapted to man and to it has become an essential method for producing food.
the captive environment by some combination of genetic Additionally, those livestock industries that can produce
changes occurring over generations and environmentally food efficiently and with the least carbon footprint, such as
induced developmental events recurring during each the broiler and pork industries, may necessarily be preferred
generation’ (7). For domestication to be successful humans (12, 13). This paper aims to describe the lessons learned
must see a need to use the animal and each species needs a from past experience of intensive livestock production.
degree of developmental plasticity. A number of behavioural The objective is to suggest where future caution should
pre-adaptation characteristics that predispose particular be applied. In a world in which the food supply may be
animal species to domestication have been identified limited, intensive animal production is likely to continue
(8). These are related to social structure, intra- and inter- or even expand (14). What will this mean for the welfare of
species aggressive behaviour, parenting behaviour, response livestock in developed and developing countries?
to humans, temperament, locomotor ability and habitat
choice, and feeding behaviour (7). The livestock species
domesticated for food production are mainly ungulates
(mammals) and galliforms (birds). Intensification
Ideally, domesticated livestock and the human herder
of livestock production
or farmer exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. The
Intensive animal production is not a new phenomenon.
general benefits to livestock include the provision of a
For example, sericulture, or the intensive farming of
managed food supply with adequate nutritional value, an
silkworm moths (Bombyx mori), began in China five to
improved level of care, including protection from predators,
and better health management (7). However, livestock seven thousand years ago (15). Furthermore, over centuries
also incur costs associated with domestication, including dairy cattle have been intensively housed (tethered) in
the imposition of painful husbandry procedures, such as barns within/beneath farmhouses during the winter, calves
castration and dehorning, which are performed to improve have been intensively housed and fed surplus milk for veal
their manageability. Other potential costs include constraints production (16) and pigs fattened (17). However, the main
on reproduction; e.g. castrated individuals can neither impetus for ‘modern’ intensive animal production occurred
perform sexual behaviour nor reproduce. Further, spatial after the Second World War, when Western governments
and social behaviour may be restricted as domestic livestock developed policies to increase the availability of cheap,
usually have a limited ability to choose group mates, select safe food (and especially protein) for their populations.
their own environment or disperse. At the species or breed At the same time as these events, farmers had to increase
level there are also risks from artificial (genetic) selection productivity to meet rising costs (18), and this could be
and inbreeding for traits that may reduce biological fitness achieved through intensive housing of livestock. The initial
(9). For the human there are also costs and benefits with livestock industries that were ‘industrialised’ were poultry
livestock domestication, such as the potential for zoonosis (eggs, broilers, turkeys, ducks, geese) (19), pigs (17, 20,
and the requirement for a sedentary life (2). 21), dairy (milk and veal) (16, 22), beef and lamb (feedlot
finishing) (23, 24), and, more recently, sheep intensively
Intensive husbandry has occurred for all commonly farmed housed in sheds (‘shedded sheep’) for fine-micron wool
domesticated livestock species, which traditionally have been production (25, 26).
farmed extensively (10). Livestock potentially benefit under
intensive husbandry from protection from environmental Intensive farming practices beneficially reduced
extremes and predators, and more frequent and closer environmental extremes and enabled control over
inspection by the stockperson. Greater attention from the photoperiod (hours of light compared to hours of dark per
farmer offers the potential for better nutritional and health day) and temperature, thereby reducing the seasonality
management. Nevertheless, there are costs to the animal, of production. This, and genetic selection, have made
such as impaired social behaviour, limited choice of living year-round breeding possible. Consequently, continuous
environment or pen mates, poor environmental stimulation production outputs result in regular cash flow and,
and restrictions in performing certain behaviours. Implicit in association with reduced labour costs, this perhaps
in intensive husbandry, however, is the animal’s heavy encouraged increased capital investment. Such investment
dependence on regular human inputs to secure optimum has been directed at an expansion of enterprises and/or
welfare and biological performance. Research over four specialisation of farming from multiple to single species,
decades has clearly identified the importance of the or from multi-stage to single-stage production (e.g. pigs:
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1) 153

farrowing farm versus growing farm; chickens: separation other welfare concerns have been added to this list,
of layers and broilers). Thus, the key drivers underlying the including the imposition of painful husbandry procedures
establishment of intensive farms are largely economic, i.e. without the use of anaesthesia or analgesia, the restriction
to decrease production costs, generate a regular cash flow of natural behaviour and the simplification/reduction in
and thereby offer a reasonable return on capital investment. complexity of the animals’ environment leading to under-
Economies of scale and opportunities for vertical integration stimulation and abnormal behaviours, such as stereotypies
are also enhanced to further reduce production costs. In (28, 29). During the last 40 years, scientists from various
addition, relatively rapid gains in production efficiency can disciplines have worked to develop and validate measures
be achieved from monitoring production data collected that enable animal welfare to be assessed objectively; for
under ‘controlled’ conditions. example, in response to intensive housing or the husbandry
In summary, better animal nutrition, feed conversion procedures imposed on livestock (30, 31).
efficiency, health management, environmental control,
control over reproduction, genetic selection of better- Therefore, although intensive farming practices have
performing animals, and consistency of product quality revolutionised the availability and affordability of animal
and delivery to the marketplace are attractive features of proteins, societal concerns soon arose about the ethical and
intensive livestock production. welfare implications of intensive housing systems.
Since the 1960s, however, animal welfare concerns have
been expressed over intensive livestock production or
‘factory farming’ – a term used by animal activists (27). In
1965, the Brambell Report was submitted to the United
The main intensive livestock
Kingdom government following an inquiry into the welfare
of animals kept in intensive livestock husbandry systems.
industries and
The Brambell Committee visited Great Britain, Denmark,
the Netherlands and Northern Ireland, inspecting
selected examples of
enterprises that intensively farmed pigs, cattle, sheep,
turkeys, ducks and rabbits. Interestingly, the Committee
animal welfare challenges
decided to exclude dairy cattle from their inquiry, although
issues involving veal calves and intensive beef production A list of the main animal products sourced from intensive
were reported. The Brambell Report commented adversely livestock farming and a selection of generic animal welfare
on tethering livestock, overstocking and close confinement, challenges are shown in Table I. Note that several of these
the use of slatted flooring, and poor lighting and ventilation challenges overlap and interact. Table II adds detail in the
for animals (10). Consideration of invasive husbandry form of examples of specific welfare issues experienced
procedures was limited in Brambell’s main report to ‘de- by the main species that are farmed intensively. General
beaking’ (beak trimming) of chickens and docking pigs’ information is therefore provided in these tables. However,
tails, although appendices to the report addressed pain and as not all animal welfare challenges can be easily rectified
distress in animals, without referring to common husbandry by the removal of the constraints that lead to them, two
procedures such as castration. In the decades since then, examples from Table II are discussed here.

Table I
General welfare issues for animals farmed intensively to provide a range of food and fibre products (9, 29, 32, 33)

General welfare issues Pork Cage eggs Poultry meat Milk Feedlot meat Fibre

Very high production level X X X X

High mortality X
Infectious disease X X X
Painful procedures X X X
Heat load X X
Restricted space (stalls/crates) X X X
Large group size X X X
High stocking density X X X X X
Lack of exercise X X X X
Lameness X X X X X
Behavioural limitations X X X X X
Barren environment X X X X X
Abnormal behaviour X X X X
154 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1)

Table II
Examples of some of the main animal welfare concerns for intensively farmed livestock (9, 29, 32, 33)

Animal Welfare concerns Some of the specific challenges

Pigs (sows) Housing sows in gestation stalls Limited social contact, environmental enrichment and foraging; lack of exercise; concentrated diet; stereo-
typies; lameness
Housing sows in farrowing crates Pre-partum behaviours inhibited; lack of exercise; selection for large litters; inability of sows to avoid piglets
later in lactation
Dairy cows High milk production Metabolic diseases; poor body condition; heat load (high temperatures and humidity)
Hard floor surfaces Lameness and pain
Beef cattle Concentrated diet Acidosis and metabolic diseases; social behaviour problems and bullying
Exposure to weather extremes Lack of shade; heat load; dust; high rainfall events bogging cattle in mud
Sheep Feedlot lambs Failure to eat; lack of shade; intestinal parasites
Sheep in sheds Lack of social contact; lack of specific dietary nutrients and foraging materials; abnormal behaviours
Laying hens Cage housing Low space allowance; beak trimming and pain; behavioural restrictions
Bone fragility and osteoporosis High egg production and lack of exercise; bone fractures at removal of spent hens
Broilers Rapid growth and anatomical issues Large body size; leg problems, lameness and pain; culling of non-viable chicks
Quality of bedding Contact injuries from wet litter and pain
Turkeys Pen housing High stocking density; rapid growth and large body size; aggression
Ducks Pen housing Access to free water; behavioural restrictions; feather pulling; cannibalism

Example 1: confinement versus non-confinement leading to fewer weaned piglets per litter and higher costs
farrowing accommodation for sows from the extra floor space in comparison to crates (40).
Also, sows accidentally crush and kill a higher proportion
The majority of piglet deaths occur during the first three of their piglets in pens than in crates, which is a clear piglet
days after birth. In the 1950s, sows were farrowed ‘loose’ welfare issue (40). In addition, selection during the past 50
indoors in straw-bedded pens or outdoors in huts. Litter years has produced sows with larger, longer and heavier
size averaged about ten piglets and piglet mortality exceeded bodies (42), and a higher average litter size approaching
25% of piglets born, a level similar to that in wild pigs (34). 14 piglets. Moreover, it seems likely that many of the
Farrowing crates were developed around that time to help genes for ‘good’ maternal behaviour in non-confinement
improve farm productivity by reducing piglet ‘wastage’ in housing systems have been lost through culling reactive
three main ways (29, 35, 36). First, the design of the crate sows in the earlier decades of intensive housing (43). The
restricted sow movement with the aim of reducing piglet ‘best’ maternal behaviour in farrowing crates may correlate
mortality due to crushing by the sow. Secondly, a better with the least activity or reaction by sows (44). If so, the
thermal environment during the neonatal period reduced adoption of farrowing pens will likely be hindered unless
piglet mortality caused by chilling and related starvation. geneticists make a concerted effort to identify and select
Thirdly, improved hygiene through the use of perforated maternal behaviour genes appropriate for ‘loose’ farrowing
floors and better construction materials helped to reduce environments (45).
piglet morbidity and mortality due to infections. Farrowing
crates have therefore been credited with halving piglet Example 2: cages versus
mortality (36, 37). Another issue was farm worker safety.
This was also addressed by the crate, which restrained
free-range housing for laying hens
farrowed sows and stopped them from attacking the The housing of laying hens in conventional (‘battery’) cages
stockperson (in defence of their litter). is a current international animal welfare topic for the egg
industry. Considerable public opposition continues to be
In the 1980s, however, farrowing crates were criticised expressed to caged egg production. Indeed, some retailers
for preventing pre-partum sows from performing species- have targeted this negative attitude to build their market
specific nesting behaviour, with likely adverse effects on share of table-egg sales through selling only ‘non-cage eggs’,
their welfare. This prompted the development of non- i.e. eggs produced using ‘alternative’ systems as opposed to
confinement pen systems for farrowing indoors (38, 39). conventional cages. In 2006 the European Union published
However, a persistent problem with such farrowing pens is the LayWel review of hen welfare (46), which uses the Five
that piglet mortality is usually higher than with crates (40, Freedoms concept (47) as a baseline for animal welfare
41). Pig producers will be reluctant to adopt farrowing pens assessment. The scientific review considered four main
for economic reasons, due to the higher piglet losses (41), categories of welfare risk:
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1) 155

– injury, disease and pain (including mortality) determine whether metabolic problems such as acidosis
cause sickness behaviours and chronic negative emotional
– hunger, thirst and productivity
states, and thus poor welfare. Above all, inadequate care
– behaviour by the stockperson may be the largest welfare risk for
intensively managed livestock (11, 49, 50).
– fear, stress and discomfort.

Different housing systems were compared, including

conventional (intensive ‘battery’) cages, furnished cages Summary of past learning
(containing a nest box, dust bath and perch), and large,
indoor group systems, such as barns, aviaries and free range on animal welfare
(i.e. with outdoor access). The authors of the LayWel report
concluded that, apart from the conventional cage system, By 2050, the world population is predicted to exceed
all other systems had the potential to provide satisfactory nine billion (51), with 80% of people living in developing
welfare for laying hens. However, of the 39 risk categories countries. In addition, proportionally more people in the
considered, cage housing was found to provide superior developing world are expected to have higher incomes,
welfare for laying hens in 18 categories (46% of the criteria). increasing the demand for developed-world diets, including
Although hen welfare was reported to be substandard in access to animal proteins (meat, milk, eggs). The greatest
cages, mainly on the basis of behavioural criteria (six of the increase in meat production in developing countries from
seven risk categories), no evidence was advanced to justify 1961 to 2001 was from intensively farmed poultry and pigs
assigning greater weight to behaviour than to, for example, (52). Continued growth into the future is predicted for the
hen mortality. production of poultry meat, eggs, pork and milk (14). As
populations increase, the amount of available arable land
is expected to decline. Taken together, these predictions
Clearly, there is strong political and public pressure in most
suggest a continuing move towards higher-density animal
developed countries to end the use of conventional cage
production systems, with an emphasis on smaller carbon
systems for laying hens. Provided that consumers will pay
footprints to ensure that people can be fed sustainably. An
for eggs produced from alternative systems and that those
issue for the 20% of the total world population who live
systems remain profitable, alternative egg production can
in the developed world is whether it is ethical to continue
proceed sustainably. However, hen welfare in alternative
intensive livestock production. If so, what standards of
systems can be poor, based on a range of indicators such
animal welfare will be required?
as flock mortality (higher, compared to cage systems), flock
uniformity (greater liveweight ranges than in cages), hens
producing fewer eggs, and greater occurrence of abnormal Based on what has been learned over the past 50 years
behaviours such as feather pecking and cannibalism. about the welfare of livestock in intensive production
Amongst other factors, not trimming the birds’ beaks has systems, progressive improvements may be expected by
been shown to be responsible for higher hen mortality in giving attention to the following:
alternative systems (48). Continued research is needed – increasing the monitoring of individual animals
to produce genetic lines of hens that do not require beak
trimming and are thus better suited to alternative housing – improving the transparency of livestock farming
systems, as it is unlikely that pressure to remove cage-egg operations to promote public involvement
systems will decline in developed countries. – increasing space allowances
– minimising pain from invasive husbandry procedures
In summary, the generic welfare issues associated with
intensive livestock production usually relate to limitations – providing environmental enrichment
of space for each animal, high stocking density in group- – stimulating positive emotional states
housing systems and behavioural restrictions (Tables I and
II). While high stocking density increases the risk of disease – re-evaluating genetic selection for high production with
transmission, the barrenness of the environment is often the possible inclusion of welfare traits.
reflected in behavioural problems. Where rapid progress
has occurred in the genetic selection of production traits, Several of these factors will now be considered in more
especially with laying hens (high egg numbers per hen), detail.
broiler chickens and turkeys (high growth and large body
size), dairy cattle (higher volume of milk production) and To improve the welfare of animals managed under any
pigs (rapid growth rate and large litter size), the welfare of production system ‘adequate’ levels of on-farm surveillance
these livestock may be adversely affected by anatomical need to be agreed. ‘Adequate’ could imply both the
and metabolic problems (Table II). Future research may frequency and duration of the checks performed, as well as
156 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1)

the level of attention given to individual animals. Greater of livestock facilities. These will remain significant issues in
transparency in farming operations is also required. In the a world where competition for land and the cost of energy,
developed world, changing views on the ethics of using feed, water and other relevant resources will increase.
animals for food, especially under intensive conditions, Society, however, may need to re-evaluate the location of
may lead to the imposition of special conditions to gain intensive industries. At present, some intensive pig and
the ‘right to farm animals intensively’, which would require poultry farms are considered to be noxious and are typically
farming competency to be demonstrated by independent sited well away from human populations. A bold step might
assessors. Furthermore, on-farm transparency, in a very be to site intensively husbanded livestock in outdated,
real sense, may become a prerequisite when selling animal multi-storey apartment blocks on the peripheries of cities
products; for example, through the compulsory use of or in specially designed buildings, as suggested in the
Internet Protocol (IP) video cameras. Independent auditors theoretical architectural project for farming pigs in cities,
or even the public may thus gain visual access to the i.e. ‘City-Pig’ (63). From an animal welfare perspective,
interior of farming operations and judge the standards for the latter might also provide opportunities for improved
themselves. This may also increase compliance with animal transparency of farm activities.
welfare codes. In addition, it might drive change beyond
minimum code requirements to, for example, reduce
One of the larger challenges ahead for improving animal
stocking density and implement environmental enrichment
welfare in intensive production systems may relate to
to improve opportunities for animals to perform their
providing environments that are conducive to positive
‘natural’ behaviour. This would enable farm operators to
emotional states (64). Clearly, further research is required
display their animal facilities in the best light.
to improve our understanding of how to promote such
positive states via practical and economic methods on
The pressure to decrease labour inputs in intensive systems intensive farms. If success could not be achieved through
to reduce costs would increase the risk to animal welfare. conventional means of manipulating stocking density, or
For example, higher animal-to-human ratios would through behavioural stimulation, might there be a form of
increase the likelihood that stockpeople would perform pharmacological manipulation that would be acceptable for
inspections inadequately as they would have less time and animals? Would this be ethical?
would perhaps be less motivated to deal with immediate
issues. Since intensively housed animals are fully reliant
on the stockperson to meet their needs, management is
of the utmost importance to their welfare. Furthermore,
complacency may occur if stockpeople responsible for
The developing world
very large numbers of animals become habituated to Many developing countries have established more intensive
animal welfare problems and therefore fail to recognise, commercial systems to meet the growing need for meat and
for example, lameness and stereotypies. Not only should a eggs (65). There has been a 500% increase in per capita
minimum ratio of animals per stockperson be set, but better consumption of eggs and a 300% increase in that of meat
training allied to higher pay for stockpeople should also be over the last 50 years, linked mainly to the rapid increase in
implemented. poultry production in developing countries worldwide. It is
predicted that the greatest increase in livestock production
Managing the frequency of inspections could be facilitated in developing countries in the future will be in poultry
through using automatic or remote monitoring technology, meat, eggs, pork and milk production (14).
including autonomous robots and video cameras (53, 54,
55, 56). Continuous monitoring is possible through the use In many developing countries, however, the welfare of
of smart sensing devices, such as electronic feeding systems intensively housed livestock is not subject to regulation
(57), cough-sound analysis to identify respiratory infection or codes of practice and staff often lack the appropriate
(58), radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags (59) and training. Animal health problems cause significant economic
other wireless devices (60, 61). However, oversight by a losses in the form of high mortality, the high cost of animal
skilled human operator remains essential. health care, poor animal performance and lost market
opportunities. One of the key factors responsible for poor
As the 21st Century progresses, advances in genomics will health (especially with poultry) is inadequate nutrition (66).
need to provide new genotypes of livestock that are better The current capacity of animal health services to identify,
suited to intensive conditions. The future may also include monitor and manage major animal health and welfare
transgenic animals that are resistant to disease or show problems is very limited in many such countries (67, 68).
improved production under intensive housing conditions, In addition, especially with poultry, this may be exacerbated
allied to enhanced welfare (62). In addition, the location of by hot climates (giving rise to thermal stress), high stocking
farms has impacts on transport costs for feed and animal densities and a lack of clean cool water, with further welfare
relocation, and capital costs involved in the construction challenges occurring during handling, transport and
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1) 157

slaughter (69). The economic contribution of the intensive livestock enterprises are often constrained by poor animal
livestock sector in developing countries has the potential welfare. Generally, livestock health services are limited or
for major growth, particularly if the key constraints of poor absent, housing and nutrition are inadequate, reproduction
welfare, inadequate nutrition, poor reproduction, poor is poor and the mortality of young stock high. A priority is
housing, and high mortality are addressed and if farmers’ to promote commercialisation of the smallholder agriculture
access to emerging market opportunities is improved. sector and to enhance the participation of smallholder
farmers in formal markets by improving their livestock’s
Livestock make a significant contribution to the livelihoods health and welfare, nutrition, housing, management and
of smallholder farmers in developing countries, mainly production. It is essential for developing countries to
through subsistence and small-scale commercial production develop the capacity to detect and manage risks to animal
of pigs and poultry (Figs 1a to 1d). Small ruminants, cattle welfare. However, many of them have limited animal health
and inland aquaculture are also playing an increasing and welfare resources and there are many infrastructure
role. The food security and economic benefits from these impediments to be overcome. Thus, initiatives from the

a) Commercial layer facility for 5,000 birds in Tonga b) A smallholder broiler farm in Papua New Guinea
Diets for layer hens were developed using Tongan feed resources to Diets were formulated using Papua New Guinean ingredients (sweet
reduce production costs and minimise the use of expensive imported diets potato and cassava) to replace imported grain to reduce the cost of
broiler production, improve food security and enhance smallholder farmer
livelihoods

c) Semi-commercial pig farm in Papua New Guinea d) A smallholder pig facility in Simbu province, Papua
The owner has an extended family. Members of the family are assigned New Guinea
to look after particular pens. The aim of the project is to improve the Mrs Moro Paula Dagima (pointing) looks after the pigs. She cooks sweet
use of Papua New Guinean sweet potato and cassava silage in pig potato tubers, vines and leaves for them every day, hence the smoke in
diets to improve food security, pig management and smallholder village the background. This ACIAR project is promoting an improved diet for the
livelihoods pigs to increase pig growth and improve food security, pig management
and smallholder village livelihoods
Fig. 1
Projects funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) to improve the use of local feed resources to
enhance food security and improve livestock management
(Photographs: Dr Phil Glatz)
158 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1)

World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), especially including such improvements as keeping animals at lower
the development and implementation of Regional Animal stocking densities and with a greater space allowance, and
Welfare Strategies and support for Animal Welfare Focal providing increased environmental enrichment to stimulate
Points, as outlined in Section 1 of this issue, are welcome animals. Genomics may help to address current welfare and
developments. production limitations by enabling the genetic selection of
livestock more suited to intensive husbandry. Further, as
science improves our understanding of positive emotional
Conclusions states in animals, farmers may be required to implement
management practices that improve opportunities for
animals to experience such states. In addition, farmers may
It seems inevitable that growth in the intensive production of be required to demonstrate their competency to operate,
pigs, poultry, dairy and beef cattle, and sheep will continue. allied to a level of transparency that enables independent
Intensive farming practices were developed mainly for auditors or even the public to view the daily lives of the
economic reasons and are effective methods for producing livestock; for example, via video cameras. At one extreme,
animal protein (meat, eggs, milk) to feed the increasing public attitudes may even determine that livestock can no
world population. In addition to increased demand for longer be husbanded intensively. If so, one unintended
food, clean water, energy and other essentials, the growing reaction may be that the intensive livestock industries could
world population will inevitably result in the expansion of be relocated to developing countries, where other local
cities and towns. This will reduce the availability of arable pressures may dictate their continued use, but, it is hoped,
land for cropping to produce human food and livestock with animal welfare standards improved by measures such
fodder and grain. Hence, intensive production will need to as those just noted.
continue to improve the efficiency of land use.
In the developing world, key drivers will continue to be
While intensive livestock production provides both benefits food security and the need for animal protein. Intensive
and costs to animals in terms of welfare, concerns about livestock production is thus likely to become more
their welfare will continue because of the intensive nature common. However, the efficiency of animal production
of farming. Although these sentiments are mainly expressed and the associated economic benefits may continue to be
in the developed world, it would be incorrect to suggest constrained by poor animal welfare. This is problematic,
that farm animal welfare is not a priority in developing because, without economic development, it is unlikely that
countries. However, other priorities are more pressing such countries will be able to afford to invest significantly
in many developing countries, such as achieving better in, for example, the better animal health schemes, cost-
human health and nutrition. Thus, in developed countries effective nutrient sources and heat-resistant genotypes
– as compared to many developing nations – the priority that are fundamental to improving animal welfare. The
currently accorded to animal welfare often differs. Although experience gained in the intensive management of livestock
this situation may persist for some years, the OIE Global by developed countries since the Second World War,
Animal Welfare Initiative, supported by all 178 Member including the recognition of animal welfare problems that
Countries and Territories, is already bearing fruit and may accompany changed husbandry practices, is now available
be expected to further increase the profile of animal welfare to help the developing world to avoid the same pitfalls.
as the 21st Century unfolds. However, unless a strong economic base can be established,
it is unlikely that food supply limitations in the developing
In the developed world, the justification for intensive world will be solved. Thus, livestock will, of necessity,
livestock production will remain an issue of public debate. continue to be farmed intensively and their welfare in those
People will require improved levels of surveillance for farming systems may continue to be at risk.
monitoring livestock and better qualified stockpeople
to manage them. While the application of smart-sensing
technology will facilitate productivity and welfare gains,
pressure will continue to at least modify confinement housing,
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1) 159

Les leçons tirées de l’expérience passée

dans les systèmes de gestion intensifs
G.M. Cronin, J.–L. Rault & P.C. Glatz

Résumé
L’essor des systèmes « modernes » de production animale intensive date
des années qui ont suivi la deuxième guerre mondiale, avec la décision des
gouvernements occidentaux de mettre en œuvre des politiques d’appui à l’offre
de denrées alimentaires sûres et bon marché pour leurs populations. Les animaux
élevés dans des systèmes de production intensive bénéficient d’une protection
contre les conditions environnementales extrêmes et les prédateurs, et d’une
meilleure gestion de leur alimentation et de leur état sanitaire. Néanmoins, ce
type d’élevage a également un coût pour l’animal, car il induit un empêchement
du comportement social, un choix du cadre de vie et des congénères limité, une
rareté des stimulations environnementales et des restrictions aux manifestations
comportementales normales. De même, les avancées rapides de la sélection
génétique de traits de production entraînent parfois, dans certains cas, des
problèmes anatomiques et métaboliques qui peuvent avoir des conséquences
négatives sur le bien-être. Par-dessus tout, l’animal élevé dans des conditions
intensives dépend fortement de la personne en charge de l’élevage ; par
conséquent, l’insuffisance de soins ou les mauvaises pratiques zootechniques
constituent certainement le risque le plus important pour le bien-être animal dans
ce cadre.
Compte tenu du fait que les ressources alimentaires vont probablement
s’amenuiser à l’avenir, à mesure que la population mondiale s’accroît et que la
disponibilité des terres à vocation agricole se réduit, on peut s’attendre à une forte
expansion des systèmes de production animale intensive. En même temps, les
considérations éthiques liées aux pratiques d’élevage intensif vont certainement
jouer un rôle de plus en plus déterminant. Les nouvelles technologies offrent des
possibilités d’améliorer aussi bien la productivité que le bien-être des animaux
élevés dans des conditions intensives. Les pays en développement commencent
également à s’orienter vers des systèmes de production intensive afin d’être
en mesure de satisfaire la demande croissante en protéines animales de leurs
populations. Les systèmes intensifs ont un fort potentiel d’expansion dans ces
pays, surtout si cette évolution parvient à résoudre les problèmes majeurs souvent
associés aux systèmes traditionnels, à savoir des conditions médiocres de bien-
être animal, une alimentation inappropriée, des taux de reproduction faibles, de
mauvaises conditions de logement et des taux de mortalité élevés, et si l’accès
des éleveurs aux marchés émergents se trouve facilité. Néanmoins, l’expérience
passée montre qu’une réglementation inappropriée et l’absence de formation
des personnels d’élevage aux problématiques du bien-être des animaux élevés
dans des conditions intensives peuvent poser des problèmes considérables qu’il
conviendra de résoudre.

Mots-clés
Animal d’élevage – Bien-être animal – Efficacité de la production animale – Élevage
intensif – Gestion des élevages – Production intensive.
160 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1)

Enseñanzas extraídas de la experiencia con sistemas de gestión

ganadera intensiva
G.M. Cronin, J.–L. Rault & P.C. Glatz

Resumen
El principal impulso a la «moderna» producción animal intensiva se dio después
de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, cuando los gobiernos occidentales instituyeron
políticas destinadas a incrementar las existencias de alimentos baratos e inocuos
para nutrir a la población. Las técnicas de producción intensiva benefician al
ganado porque le aportan protección frente a las inclemencias ambientales y
los predadores, así como una mejor gestión nutricional y sanitaria. Pero el
animal también paga un precio por ello, en forma por ejemplo de trastornos de
la conducta social, escaso margen para elegir su medio vital y sus congéneres
de establo, pocos estímulos ambientales y comportamiento encorsetado. En
algunos casos, la velocidad a la que ha avanzado la selección genética de rasgos
de producción también ha influido negativamente en el bienestar, generando
problemas anatómicos y metabólicos. Pero ante todo y sobre todo, el animal
sujeto a producción intensiva es extremadamente dependiente de su cuidador,
en cuya persona puede residir el mayor riesgo para el bienestar cuando no cuida
bien de los animales ni aplica métodos zootécnicos adecuados.
De cara al futuro, ante la presión que pueden imponer al suministro de
alimentos el crecimiento de la población mundial y la menor superficie de tierras
disponibles, es probable que la producción animal intensiva vaya en aumento. Al
mismo tiempo, las consideraciones éticas que rodean los métodos de ganadería
intensiva pueden cobrar también mayor relevancia. Las tecnologías de nuevo
cuño ofrecen la oportunidad de mejorar a la vez la productividad y el bienestar
de los animales sujetos a producción intensiva. Los países en desarrollo también
están instituyendo sistemas comerciales más intensivos para satisfacer su
creciente necesidad de proteínas animales. En estos países, la producción
ganadera intensiva tiene margen para experimentar un gran desarrollo, sobre
todo si a la vez se afrontan los problemas básicos de la falta de bienestar, la
inadecuada nutrición, los problemas reproductivos, la estabulación deficiente
y la elevada mortalidad que a menudo se observan en los sistemas ganaderos
tradicionales, y si con ello mejora también el acceso de los ganaderos a las
nuevas oportunidades de mercado. Sin embargo, como nos ha enseñado la
experiencia, la falta de reglamentación adecuada y de personal debidamente
formado para velar por el bienestar del ganado de producción intensiva puede
constituir un obstáculo de gran envergadura.

Palabras clave
Bienestar animal – Eficiencia de la producción animal – Ganadería intensiva – Ganado
doméstico – Producción intensiva – Zootecnia.
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1) 161

References
1. Foley R. (1995). – Humans before humanity. An evolutionary 15. Cherry R.H. (1987). – History of sericulture. Bull. entomol. Soc.
perspective. Blackwell, Oxford. Am., 33, 83–85.

2. Wade N. (2006). – Before the dawn. Recovering the lost 16. De Wilt J.G. (1985). – Behaviour and welfare of veal calves in
history of our ancestors. Penguin, New York. relation to husbandry systems. PhD thesis submitted to the
Agricultural University of Wageningen.
3. Lewin R. & Foley R. (2004). – Principles of human evolution,
2nd Ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford. 17. Baxter S.H. (1984). – Intensive pig production: environmental
4. Bronowski J. (1973). – The ascent of man. British Broadcasting management and design. Granada Publishing, London.
Corporation, London.
18. Harrison R. (1981). – The welfare requirements of husbandry
5. Zihlman A.L. (1981). – Women as the shapers of the human systems. In Alternatives to intensive husbandry systems.
adaptation. In Woman the gatherer (F. Dahlberg, ed.). Yale Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar,
University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 75–120. Hertfordshire.

6. Turnbull C.M. (1976). – Man in Africa. Anchor Press/ 19. Eitan Y. & Soller M. (2013). – Poultry breeding. In Sustainable
Doubleday, Garden City, New York. food production (P. Christou, R. Savin, B.A. Costa-Pierce,
I. Misztal & C.B.A. Whitelaw, eds). Springer, New York,
7. Price E.O. (2002). – Animal domestication and behaviour. 1369–1389.
CABI, Wallingford, Oxfordshire.
20. Veterinary Investigation Service (1959). – A survey of the
8. Hale E.B. (1969). – Domestication and the evolution
incidence and causes of mortality in pigs. I. Sow survey.
of behaviour. In The behaviour of domestic animals
Vet Rec., 71 (37), 777–786.
(E.S.E. Hafez, ed.), 2nd Ed. Bailliere, Tindall & Cassell,
London, 22–42. 21. Cronin G.M. (1996). – Intensive production systems. In Pig
production; world animal science, C10 (M.R. Taverner &
9. Rauw W.M., Kanis E., Noordhuizen-Stassen E.N. &
A.C. Dunkin, eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 251–263.
Grommers F.J. (1998). – Undesirable effects of selection for
high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livest. 22. Angus R.C. & Barr W.L. (1955). – An appraisal of research
Prod. Sci., 56, 15–33. literature dealing with loose and conventional dairy cattle
10. Brambell F.W.R. (Chair) (1965). – Report of the Technical housing: a review. J. Dairy Sci., 38, 391–406.
Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under
23. Ensminger M.E. (1976). – Beef cattle science, 5th Ed. Interstate
Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. Command Paper
Printers & Publishers, Danville, Illinois.
2836. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.

11. Hemsworth P.H. & Coleman G.J. (1998). – Human–livestock 24. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI)
interactions. The stockperson and the productivity and [Australia] (2013). – Feedlotting lambs. DEPI, Melbourne,
welfare of intensively farmed animals. CABI, Wallingford, Victoria. Available at: www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/beef-
Oxfordshire. and-sheep/sheep/feeding-and-nutrition/feedlotting-lambs
(accessed on 29 October 2013).
12. Zervas G. & Tsiplakou E. (2012). – An assessment of GHG
emissions from small ruminants in comparison with GHG 25. RSPCA Australia (2008). – What are the animal welfare
emissions from large ruminants and monogastric livestock. issues with individual shedding of sheep? Article ID: 114.
Atmosph. Environ., 49, 13–23. RSPCA Australia. Available at: http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-
are-the-animal-welfare-issues-with-individual-shedding-of-
13. MacLeod M., Gerber P., Mottet A., Tempio G., Falcucci A., sheep_114.html (accessed on 4 February 2014).
Opio C., Vellinga T., Henderson B. & Steinfeld H. (2013).
– Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply 26. WoolProducers Australia (2008). – Code of practice for the
chains: a global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture welfare of sheep housed for wool production, May 2008.
Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available at: Available at: www.woolproducers.com.au/uploads/Final%20
www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3460e/i3460e.pdf (accessed on COP%20Housed%20Sheep%20Version%206.pdf (accessed
30 October 2013). on 4 February 2014).

14. Delgado C., Rosegrant M., Steinfeld H., Ehui S. & 27. Harrison R. (1964). – Animal machines. Vincent Stuart,
Courbois C. (1999). – Livestock to 2020: the next food London.
revolution. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment
Discussion Paper 28. International Food Policy Research 28. Wiepkema P.R., Broom D.M., Duncan I.J.H. & van Putten G.
Institute, Washington, DC. Available at: www.ifpri.org/sites/ (1983). – Abnormal behaviours in farm animals. A report of
default/files/publications/vb61.pdf (accessed on 29 October the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) Expert
2013). Group. CEC, Brussels.
162 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1)

29. Broom D.M. & Fraser A.F. (2007). – Domestic animal 44. Hutson G.D., Wilkinson J.L. & Luxford B.G. (1991). – The
behaviour and welfare, 4th Ed. Cambridge University Press, response of lactating sows to tactile, visual and auditory
Cambridge. stimuli associated with a model piglet. Appl. anim. Behav. Sci.,
32, 129–137.
30. Barnett J.L. & Hemsworth P.H. (2003). – Science and its
application in assessing the welfare of laying hens in the egg
45. Baxter E.M., Jarvis S., Sherwood L., Farish M., Roehe R.,
industry. Aust. vet. J., 81, 615–624.
Lawrence A.B. & Edwards S.A. (2011). – Genetic and
environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal
31. Duncan I. (2005). – Science-based assessment of animal behaviour of the farrowing sow. Appl. anim. Behav. Sci.,
welfare: farm animals. In Animal welfare: global issues, trends 130, 28–41.
and challenges (A.C.D. Bayvel, S.A. Rahman & A. Gavinelli,
eds). Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz, 24 (2), 483–492.
46. LayWel (2006). – Welfare implications of changes in
32. Barnett J.L., Hemsworth P.H., Cronin G.M., Jongman E.C. & production systems for laying hens. In Report of the FP6
Hutson G.D. (2001). – A review of the welfare issues for sows European Research Programme. Available at: www.laywel.eu/
and piglets in relation to housing. Aust. J. agric. Res., 52, 1–28. (accessed on 29 October 2013).

33. Animal Welfare Centre (2002). – A workshop to identify animal 47. Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) (2003). – Second
welfare issues within animal industries, 2002, 26 October Report on priorities for research and development in farm
2001, Werribee, Victoria. Available at: www.animalwelfare. animal welfare. Department for Environment, Food and Rural
net.au/sites/default/files/AWC%20Animal%20Welfare% Affairs (DEFRA) Publications, London.
20Issues.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2013).

34. Kirkwood J.K., Gaskin C.D. & Markham J. (1987). – Perinatal 48. Blokhuis H.J., van Niekerk T.F., Bessei W., Elson A.,
mortality and season of birth in captive wild ungulates. Guemene D., Kjaer J.B., Levrino G.A.M., Nicol C.J.,
Vet. Rec., 120, 386–390. Tauson R., Weeks C.A. & van der Weerd H.A. (2007). – The
LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production
systems for laying hens. World Poult. Sci. J., 63, 101–114.
35. Baxter S.H. (1981). – Welfare and the housing of the sow
and suckling pigs. In The welfare of pigs (W. Sybesma, ed.).
Martinus Nijhoff, the Hague, 276–322. 49. English P.R., Burgess G., Segundo R. & Dunne J. (1992). –
Stockmanship. In Improving the care of the pig and other
36. Baxter S.H. (1989). – Neonatal mortality: the influence of the livestock. Farming Press, Ipswich, United Kingdom.
structural environment. Manipulating Pig Prod., 2, 102–109.
50. Coleman G.J. & Hemsworth P.H. (2014). – Training to
37. English P.R. & Morrison V. (1984). – Causes and prevention of improve stockhandler beliefs and behaviour towards livestock
piglet mortality. Pig News Info., 5 (4), 369–376. enhances welfare and productivity. In Animal welfare: focusing
on the future (D.J. Mellor & A.C.D. Bayvel, eds). Rev. sci. tech.
38. Cronin G.M., Lefébure B. & McClintock S. (2000). – A Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1), 131–137.
comparison of piglet production and survival in the Werribee
Farrowing Pen and conventional farrowing crates at a
commercial farm. Aust. J. experim. Agric., 40 (1), 17–23. 51. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) (2009). – How to feed the world in 2050. FAO,
39. Baxter E.M., Lawrence A.B. & Edwards S.A. (2011). – Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/
Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf
systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. (accessed on 31 October 2013).
Animal, 5, 580–600.
52. Fraser D. (2005). – Animal welfare and the intensification
40. Morrison R.S., Cronin G.M. & Hemsworth P.H. (2011). – Sow of animal production: an alternative interpretation. FAO
housing in Australia: current Australian welfare research and Readings in Ethics 2. Food and Agriculture Organization of
future directions. Manipulating Pig Prod., 13, 219–238. the United Nations (FAO), Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/
docrep/009/a0158e/a0158e00.htm (accessed on 18 October
41. Baxter E.M., Lawrence A.B. & Edwards S.A. (2012). – 2013).
Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic
aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs.
53. Cronin G.M., Borg S.S. & Dunn M.T. (2008). – Using video
Animal, 6, 96–117.
image analysis to count hens in cages and reduce egg breakage
on collection belts. Aust. J. experim. Agric., 48, 768–772.
42. McGlone J.J., Vines B., Rudine A.C. & DuBois P. (2004). – The
physical size of gestating sows. J. Anim. Sci., 82, 2421–2427.
54. Liberati P. & Zappavigna P. (2009). – Improving the
43. Cronin G.M. (1989). – Neonatal mortality: the influence of automated monitoring of dairy cows by integrating various
maternal behaviour. Manipulating Pig Prod., 2, 110–115. data acquisition systems. Comput. Electron. Agric., 68, 62–67.
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1) 163

55. Underwood J.P., Calleija M., Nieto J., Sukkarieh S., 64. Boissy A., Manteuffel G., Jensen M.B., Moe R.O.,
Clark C.E.F., Garcia S.C., Kerrisk K.L. & Cronin G.M. (2013). Spruijt B., Keeling L.J., Winckler C., Forkman B., Dimitrov I.,
– A robot amongst the herd: remote detection and tracking Langbein J., Bakken M., Veissier I. & Aubert A. (2007). –
of cows. In Proc. 4th Australian and New Zealand Spatially Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their
Enabled Livestock Management Symposium, Camden, welfare. Physiol. Behav., 92, 375–397.
New South Wales (L. Ingram, G.M. Cronin & L.M. Sutton,
eds), 26–27 September, University of Sydney, Camden, 65. Johns T., Powell B., Maundu P. & Eyzaguirre P.B. (2013). –
Australia, 45. Agricultural biodiversity as a link between traditional food
systems and contemporary development, social integrity and
56. Kashiha M., Pluk A., Bahr C., Vranken E. & Berckmans D. ecological health. J. Sci. Food Agric., 93, 3433–3442.
(2013). – Development of an early warning system for a broiler
house using computer vision. Biosys. Engin., 116, 36–45. 66. Glatz P.C. & Pym R. (2013). – Poultry housing and
management in developing countries. In Poultry development
57. Schofield C.P., Marchant J.A., White R.P., Brandl N. & review. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Wilson M. (1999). – Monitoring pig growth using a prototype Nations, Rome, 24–43. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/013/
imaging system. J. agric. Engin. Res., 72, 205–210. al734e/al734e00.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2013).

58. Ferrari S., Silva M., Guarino M., Aerts J.M. & 67. Masiga W.N. & Munyua S.J.M. (2005). – Global perspectives
Berckmans D. (2008). – Cough sound analysis to identify on animal welfare: Africa. In Animal welfare: global issues,
respiratory infection in pigs. Comput. Electron. Agric., trends and challenges (A.C.D. Bayvel, S.A. Rahman &
64, 318–325. A. Gavinelli, eds). Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 24 (2), 579–586.

59. Jansen M.B. & Eradus W. (1999). – Future developments on 68. Rahman S.A., Walker L. & Ricketts W. (2005). – Global
devices for animal radiofrequency identification. Comp. Elect. perspectives on animal welfare: Asia, the Far East, and Oceania.
Agric., 24, 109–117. In Animal welfare: global issues, trends and challenges
(A.C.D. Bayvel, S.A. Rahman & A. Gavinelli, eds). Rev. sci. tech.
60. Huhtala A., Suhonen K., Mäkelä P., Hakojärvi M. & Off. int. Epiz., 24 (2), 597–610.
Ahokas J. (2007). – Evaluation of instrumentation for cow
positioning and tracking indoors. Biosys. Eng., 96, 399–405. 69. Nicol C.J. & Davies A. (2013). – Poultry welfare in
developing countries. In Poultry development review. Food
61. Berckmans D. (2014). – Precision livestock farming and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
technologies for welfare management in intensive livestock 110–120. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/013/al720e/
systems. In Animal welfare: focusing on the future (D.J. Mellor al720e00.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2013).
& A.C.D. Bayvel, eds). Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (1),
189–196.

62. Maga E.A. & Murray J.D. (2010). – Welfare applications of

genetically engineered animals for use in agriculture. J. Anim.
Sci., 88, 1588–1591.

63. Chan C. (2008). – On statics and statistics. The City-Pig

project 2000–2001. Wageningen University/MVRDV Group,
Rotterdam. Available at: www.mono-kultur.com/issues/
18 & www.wageningenur.nl/en/Research-Results/Projects-
and-programmes/Urban-agriculture/Projects-3.htm (accessed
on 29 October 2013).
View publication stats