Cited by 252Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaHuman-Animal Interaction Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scientific assessment of animal welfare

Hemsworth, PH, Mellor, DJ, Cronin, GM, Tilbrook, AJ·2015·New Zealand Veterinary Journal

Abstract

Animal welfare is a state within the animal and a scientific perspective provides methodologies for evidence-based assessment of an animal's welfare. A simplistic definition of animal welfare might be how the animal feels now. Affective experiences including emotions, are subjective states so cannot be measured directly in animals, but there are informative indirect physiological and behavioural indices that can be cautiously used to interpret such experiences. This review enunciates several key science-based frameworks for understanding animal welfare. The biological functioning and affective state frameworks were initially seen as competing, but a recent more unified approach is that biological functioning is taken to include affective experiences and affective experiences are recognised as products of biological functioning, and knowledge of the dynamic interactions between the two is considered to be fundamental to managing and improving animal welfare. The value of these two frameworks in understanding the welfare of group-housed sows is reviewed. The majority of studies of the welfare of group-housed sows have employed the biological functioning framework to infer compromised sow welfare, on the basis that suboptimal biological functioning accompanies negative affective states such as sow hunger, pain, fear, helplessness, frustration and anger. Group housing facilitates social living, but group housing of gestating sows raises different welfare considerations to stall h…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00480169.2014.966167

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. *Barnett JL. Modifying the design of group pens with individual feeding places affects the welfare of pigs. In: Bottcher RW, Hoff SJ (eds). Livestock Environment V, Volume II. Pp 613–18. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, Michigan, USA, 1997
  2. *Barnett JL. Studying stress to assess animal welfare. In: Paterson JE (eds). Manipulating Pig Production IX. Pp 107–20. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, Australia, 2003
  3. *Brambell FWR, Barbour DS, Barnett MB, Ewer TK, Hobson A, Pitchforth H, Smith WR, Thorpe WH, Winship FJW. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Husbandry Systems. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, United Kingdom, 1965
  4. Dantzer, R. Les émotions. P 21. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1988
  5. *Marchant-Forde JN, Marchant-Forde RM. Minimizing inter-pig aggression during mixing. Pig News and Information 26, 63N–71N, 2005
  6. *Nicholson RI, McGlone JJ, Reid LN. Quantification of stress in sows: comparison of individual housing versus social penning. Journal of Animal Science 71 (Suppl. 1), 112, 1993
  7. *Stevens B, Barnett JL, Tilbrook AJ, Hemsworth PH. Effects of deprivation of a preferred resource (feed or social contact) on the biological functioning of pigs. In: van Barneveld RJ (eds). Manipulating Pig Production XII. P 28. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, Victoria, Australia, 2009
  8. *Taylor IA, Barnett JL, Cronin GM. Optimum group size for pigs. In: Bottcher RW, Hoff SJ (eds). Livestock Environment V, Volume II. Pp 965–71. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, Michigan, USA, 1997
  9. *Turner AI, Keating C, Tilbrook AJ. Sex differences and the role of sex steroids in sympatho-adrenal medullary system the hypothalamo-pituitary adrenal axis responses to stress. In: Kahn SM (eds). Sex Steroids. Pp 115–36. In Tech Publishing, Rijeka, Croatia, 2012

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 252

Metadata

Authors
Hemsworth, P., Mellor, D., Cronin, G., & Tilbrook, A.
Affiliations
  • Animal Welfare Science Centre, University of Melbourne
  • Massey University (NZ)
  • Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney
Venue
New Zealand Veterinary Journal
Published
2014-12-11
Volume
63
Issue
1
Pages
24-30
ISSN
  • 0048-0169 (ISSN-L)
  • 1176-0710
OpenAlex
W2050156844
Cited by
252
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • New Zealand Veterinary Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
Keywords
animal welfare assessment, gestating sows, feeding competition, welfare indicators
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animal Welfare, Behavior, Animal, Housing, Animal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review