StatID;Statement;Reference_ID;Page_nr_statement ;Species;Production_directions;Keyword;Attribute;Level;WC_EN;WC_score;Welfare_needs;;;;;;;;;
1;Finishing pigs kept in pens with concrete floors are often affected by claw and limb lesions;R1;2130;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Pain;-3,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
1;Finishing pigs kept in pens with concrete floors are often affected by claw and limb lesions;R1;2130;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Pain;-3,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
1;Finishing pigs kept in pens with concrete floors are often affected by claw and limb lesions;R1;2130;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
1;Finishing pigs kept in pens with concrete floors are often affected by claw and limb lesions;R1;2130;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
4;Since exercise is known to enhance bone strength (Whitehead, 2004), increased bone breaking resistance is to be expected in hens with access to an outdoor run.;R4;135;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Health;;;;;;;;;
4;Since exercise is known to enhance bone strength (Whitehead, 2004), increased bone breaking resistance is to be expected in hens with access to an outdoor run.;R4;135;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Pain;-0,50;Exploration, Health;;;;;;;;;
5;"As expected the number of pigs queuing at the feeder increased with larger group sizes [group sizes: 10, 20, 30; single-space feeder].";R5;74;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;>23.5:1;Frustration and avoidance;-3,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
5;"As expected the number of pigs queuing at the feeder increased with larger group sizes [group sizes: 10, 20, 30; single-space feeder].";R5;74;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;>16.5:1-23.5:1;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
5;"As expected the number of pigs queuing at the feeder increased with larger group sizes [group sizes: 10, 20, 30; single-space feeder].";R5;74;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;7:10-11.5:1;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
6;The provision of straw of any length reduced the occurrence of behaviours such as nosing other pigs, aggression and tail-biting compared with when straw was absent.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
6;The provision of straw of any length reduced the occurrence of behaviours such as nosing other pigs, aggression and tail-biting compared with when straw was absent.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
6;The provision of straw of any length reduced the occurrence of behaviours such as nosing other pigs, aggression and tail-biting compared with when straw was absent.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
6;The provision of straw of any length reduced the occurrence of behaviours such as nosing other pigs, aggression and tail-biting compared with when straw was absent.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
6;The provision of straw of any length reduced the occurrence of behaviours such as nosing other pigs, aggression and tail-biting compared with when straw was absent.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;"separately considered as ""chopped straw"", ""full length straw"" and ""half chopped straw""";Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
9;Slatted systems generally give lower airborne endotoxin concentrations than litter based systems, due to bacterial contamination of straw and other litter materials (Seedorf and Hartung, 2002).;R17;18;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
9;Slatted systems generally give lower airborne endotoxin concentrations than litter based systems, due to bacterial contamination of straw and other litter materials (Seedorf and Hartung, 2002).;R17;18;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete with litter/substrate (straw or sawdust or full length straw);Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
12;In addition, provision of substrates has been shown to decrease anti-social behaviours, including belly nosing and aggressive interactions with pen mates (Beattie et al., 2000).;R9;592;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
12;In addition, provision of substrates has been shown to decrease anti-social behaviours, including belly nosing and aggressive interactions with pen mates (Beattie et al., 2000).;R9;592;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Aggression;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
12;In addition, provision of substrates has been shown to decrease anti-social behaviours, including belly nosing and aggressive interactions with pen mates (Beattie et al., 2000).;R9;592;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete with litter/substrate (straw or sawdust or full length straw);Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
14;Vermeer et al. (2007) showed that, compared with dry-fed pigs with a drinker in the feeder and provided with an additional drinker, wet-fed pigs do not make more effort to obtain water from an additional drinker when asked to work for it. The elasticity of the demand is equal to that of dry-fed pigs. Moreover, wet-fed pigs consume significantly less water from an additional water drinker compared with the amount that dry-fed pigs drink from an additional water drinker.;R17;30;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;type of feeder;wet and dry meal;Demand;1,00;Water intake, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
14;Vermeer et al. (2007) showed that, compared with dry-fed pigs with a drinker in the feeder and provided with an additional drinker, wet-fed pigs do not make more effort to obtain water from an additional drinker when asked to work for it. The elasticity of the demand is equal to that of dry-fed pigs. Moreover, wet-fed pigs consume significantly less water from an additional water drinker compared with the amount that dry-fed pigs drink from an additional water drinker.;R17;30;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;type of feeder;dry meal only;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
15;"The deep litter system has disadvantages in increased emissions of, among other things, ammonia, nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen and methane (Groenestein and Van Faassen, 1996). The amount of nitrogen excreted by the pigs will emit to the atmosphere up to 90-95 % depending upon type of bedding, temperature and other storage conditions (Jeppsson, 1998; Nicks et al., 2004).";R17;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);deep bedding/deep litter;Illness;-1,00;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
15;"The deep litter system has disadvantages in increased emissions of, among other things, ammonia, nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen and methane (Groenestein and Van Faassen, 1996). The amount of nitrogen excreted by the pigs will emit to the atmosphere up to 90-95 % depending upon type of bedding, temperature and other storage conditions (Jeppsson, 1998; Nicks et al., 2004).";R17;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
33;"In insulated buildings (and during summer periods in uninsulated ones) the UCT (upper critical temperature) of the deep bedding systems, especially when the bedding is “fermenting” and producing a large amount of heat, may be critical in creating thermoregulatory problems, resulting in heat stress and decreased performance; the heat production will also lead to an increased evaporation of water (van den Weghe et al., 1999; De Oliviera et al., 1999).";R17;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;deep bedding/deep litter;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
33;"In insulated buildings (and during summer periods in uninsulated ones) the UCT (upper critical temperature) of the deep bedding systems, especially when the bedding is “fermenting” and producing a large amount of heat, may be critical in creating thermoregulatory problems, resulting in heat stress and decreased performance; the heat production will also lead to an increased evaporation of water (van den Weghe et al., 1999; De Oliviera et al., 1999).";R17;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;deep bedding/deep litter;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
33;"In insulated buildings (and during summer periods in uninsulated ones) the UCT (upper critical temperature) of the deep bedding systems, especially when the bedding is “fermenting” and producing a large amount of heat, may be critical in creating thermoregulatory problems, resulting in heat stress and decreased performance; the heat production will also lead to an increased evaporation of water (van den Weghe et al., 1999; De Oliviera et al., 1999).";R17;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;concrete without litter;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
39;Several investigations have shown that liquid feed improves feed intake and growth performance in pigs. In general liquid feed, especially fermented liquid feed, stimulates the growth of piglets, while in slaughter pigs it improves the efficiency of feed utilisation as extensively reviewed by Jensen and Mikkelsen (2001).;R17;31;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Feed;type of feeder;dry meal only;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
39;Several investigations have shown that liquid feed improves feed intake and growth performance in pigs. In general liquid feed, especially fermented liquid feed, stimulates the growth of piglets, while in slaughter pigs it improves the efficiency of feed utilisation as extensively reviewed by Jensen and Mikkelsen (2001).;R17;31;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Feed;type of feeder;dry meal only;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
39;Several investigations have shown that liquid feed improves feed intake and growth performance in pigs. In general liquid feed, especially fermented liquid feed, stimulates the growth of piglets, while in slaughter pigs it improves the efficiency of feed utilisation as extensively reviewed by Jensen and Mikkelsen (2001).;R17;31;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Feed;type of feeder;wet meal only;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
39;Several investigations have shown that liquid feed improves feed intake and growth performance in pigs. In general liquid feed, especially fermented liquid feed, stimulates the growth of piglets, while in slaughter pigs it improves the efficiency of feed utilisation as extensively reviewed by Jensen and Mikkelsen (2001).;R17;31;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Feed;type of feeder;wet meal only;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
56;Liquid feeding can also have some behavioural effects: pigs on liquid diets spent more time sleeping and less time standing and investigating (nosing, chewing, rooting and biting any available substrate) as compared with dry-fed pigs (Scott et al., 2007).;R17;31;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;type of feeder;wet meal only;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
56;Liquid feeding can also have some behavioural effects: pigs on liquid diets spent more time sleeping and less time standing and investigating (nosing, chewing, rooting and biting any available substrate) as compared with dry-fed pigs (Scott et al., 2007).;R17;31;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;type of feeder;dry meal only;Natural behaviour;1,00;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;peat or mushroom or sawdust;Preferences;3,00;Rest, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;peat or mushroom or sawdust;Preferences;3,00;Rest, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;peat or mushroom or sawdust;Preferences;3,00;Rest, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;sand;Preferences;2,00;Rest, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;woodbark or straw;Preferences;1,00;Rest, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;woodbark or straw;Preferences;1,00;Rest, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;concrete;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Rest, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;saw dust OR sand OR wood shavings OR compost;Preferences;3,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;saw dust OR sand OR wood shavings OR compost;Preferences;3,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;saw dust OR sand OR wood shavings OR compost;Preferences;3,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;saw dust OR sand OR wood shavings OR compost;Preferences;2,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;saw dust OR sand OR wood shavings OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
59;Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.;R14;27;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
61;Fraser (1985) demonstrated that pigs only showed a preference for straw bedding over concrete at lower temperatures and concluded that straw was beneficial in the role of thermoregulation but not necessarily the preferred choice for substrate-directed behaviour.;R14;32;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;woodbark or straw;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
61;Fraser (1985) demonstrated that pigs only showed a preference for straw bedding over concrete at lower temperatures and concluded that straw was beneficial in the role of thermoregulation but not necessarily the preferred choice for substrate-directed behaviour.;R14;32;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;concrete;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
62;This supposition [specific preferences for substrat] is supported by work by Mawanjali et al (1983). They found that when pigs which had spent their early lives on straw were given a choice of four different floor types, in conjunction with two substrates, straw and sawdust, they worked to get access to sawdust irrespective of floor type.;R14;32;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete with litter/substrate (straw or sawdust or full length straw);Demand;1,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
62;This supposition [specific preferences for substrat] is supported by work by Mawanjali et al (1983). They found that when pigs which had spent their early lives on straw were given a choice of four different floor types, in conjunction with two substrates, straw and sawdust, they worked to get access to sawdust irrespective of floor type.;R14;32;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete with litter/substrate (straw or sawdust or full length straw);Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
65;It has been suggested that bedding may have a negative effect on welfare in that it can harbour pathogens and increase dust levels;R16;235;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);deep bedding/deep litter;Illness;-0,50;Health ;;;;;;;;;
65;It has been suggested that bedding may have a negative effect on welfare in that it can harbour pathogens and increase dust levels;R16;235;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);deep bedding/deep litter;Illness;-0,50;Respiration, Health;;;;;;;;;
65;It has been suggested that bedding may have a negative effect on welfare in that it can harbour pathogens and increase dust levels;R16;235;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
87;"Provision of straw, especially straw of poor quality, and the use of wood chips and saw dust, will increase the production of airborne particles such as dust, moulds and fungi associated with respiratory disturbances in pigs and humans (Boon and Wray, 1989; Jensen, 2003)";R17;36;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;deep bedding/deep litter;Illness;-1,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
87;"Provision of straw, especially straw of poor quality, and the use of wood chips and saw dust, will increase the production of airborne particles such as dust, moulds and fungi associated with respiratory disturbances in pigs and humans (Boon and Wray, 1989; Jensen, 2003)";R17;36;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;deep bedding/deep litter;Illness;-1,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
87;"Provision of straw, especially straw of poor quality, and the use of wood chips and saw dust, will increase the production of airborne particles such as dust, moulds and fungi associated with respiratory disturbances in pigs and humans (Boon and Wray, 1989; Jensen, 2003)";R17;36;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material lying;deep bedding/deep litter;Illness;-1,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
87;"Provision of straw, especially straw of poor quality, and the use of wood chips and saw dust, will increase the production of airborne particles such as dust, moulds and fungi associated with respiratory disturbances in pigs and humans (Boon and Wray, 1989; Jensen, 2003)";R17;36;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
94;The other result of this study was the finding that freshly cut birch wood and polythene pipe, among other enrichment devices [straw dispenser, wood shavings, metal chain], significantly affected the frequency of object manipulation.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
94;The other result of this study was the finding that freshly cut birch wood and polythene pipe, among other enrichment devices [straw dispenser, wood shavings, metal chain], significantly affected the frequency of object manipulation.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
95;The other result of this study was the finding that freshly cut birch wood and polythene pipe, among other enrichment devices [straw dispenser, wood shavings, metal chain], significantly affected the frequency of object manipulation.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;method of offering enrichment;dispenser or rack or floor offering (handful);Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
95;The other result of this study was the finding that freshly cut birch wood and polythene pipe, among other enrichment devices [straw dispenser, wood shavings, metal chain], significantly affected the frequency of object manipulation.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
105;More aggression occurred at the drinker in large groups with a poorer drinker allocation (11.0 v. 3.8% of drinking bouts terminated by aggression for 60 pigs with three drinkers and mean all other treatments respectively, P < 0·05). ;R20;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;General welfare;animal:drinker place-ratio;15:1 - 20:1;Aggression;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
107;Pigs use separate areas for different activities, i.e. for resting, feeding and dunging (Stolba and Wood Gush, 1989). This implies that if the available space is not sufficient to separate the different activities it may lead to poor welfare.;R17;27;Pigs;Pigs ;Barn construction;solid pen partitions;available;Preferences;0,01;Elimination, Rest;;;;;;;;;
107;Pigs use separate areas for different activities, i.e. for resting, feeding and dunging (Stolba and Wood Gush, 1989). This implies that if the available space is not sufficient to separate the different activities it may lead to poor welfare.;R17;27;Pigs;Pigs ;Barn construction;solid pen partitions;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Elimination, Rest;;;;;;;;;
108;The other result of this study was the finding that freshly cut birch wood and polythene pipe, among other enrichment devices [straw dispenser, wood shavings, metal chain], significantly affected the frequency of object manipulation.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;metal chain;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
108;The other result of this study was the finding that freshly cut birch wood and polythene pipe, among other enrichment devices [straw dispenser, wood shavings, metal chain], significantly affected the frequency of object manipulation.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
109;Continued high interest in straw investigation was found in the study of Scott et al. [68], when this substrate [substrate not mentioned] was used as a bedding.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;method of offering enrichment;deep straw bedding;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
109;Continued high interest in straw investigation was found in the study of Scott et al. [68], when this substrate [substrate not mentioned] was used as a bedding.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
110;Taking into consideration the effect of enrichment materials on tail biting cases, the statistical analysis showed significant differences only between the moderate tail lesion noticed in the group with access to the wooden logs, compared to the group with the chain.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
110;Taking into consideration the effect of enrichment materials on tail biting cases, the statistical analysis showed significant differences only between the moderate tail lesion noticed in the group with access to the wooden logs, compared to the group with the chain.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;metal chain;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
110;Taking into consideration the effect of enrichment materials on tail biting cases, the statistical analysis showed significant differences only between the moderate tail lesion noticed in the group with access to the wooden logs, compared to the group with the chain.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;metal chain;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
112;Consequently, the authors suggest that both enrichment and herbal compounds may lead to stress reduction in pigs.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;HPA;-0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
112;Consequently, the authors suggest that both enrichment and herbal compounds may lead to stress reduction in pigs.;R19;10;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
113;This type of housing [barren environment with slatted floors] does not favor the expression of species-specific behavior.;R19;4;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
113;This type of housing [barren environment with slatted floors] does not favor the expression of species-specific behavior.;R19;4;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Natural behaviour;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
114;The animals of the control group which had no access to a “toy” remained for the majority of time inactive.;R19;11;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;toy OR rope;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
114;The animals of the control group which had no access to a “toy” remained for the majority of time inactive.;R19;11;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
116;"Moreover, Scott et al. [68] pointed out the greater benefits of using straw as an environmental improvement to hanging toys; however, in the Telkänranta et al. [70] study, it was proven that fresh wood attracted pigs the most, even when, at the same time, they had access to straw.";R19;11;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
116;"Moreover, Scott et al. [68] pointed out the greater benefits of using straw as an environmental improvement to hanging toys; however, in the Telkänranta et al. [70] study, it was proven that fresh wood attracted pigs the most, even when, at the same time, they had access to straw.";R19;11;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
116;"Moreover, Scott et al. [68] pointed out the greater benefits of using straw as an environmental improvement to hanging toys; however, in the Telkänranta et al. [70] study, it was proven that fresh wood attracted pigs the most, even when, at the same time, they had access to straw.";R19;11;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
118;"A recent French epidemiological study (Fablet et al., 2003) investigating the risk factors of Salmonella shedding at the end of the fattening period pointed to a significant role for the physical form of feed (dry or wet, but without any specification as to how wet feed was administered). Wet feeding during the fattening period acts as a protecting factor against
Salmonella shedding at the end of the finishing phase (BPEX, 2004a, b).";R17;31;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;type of feeder;wet meal only;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
118;"A recent French epidemiological study (Fablet et al., 2003) investigating the risk factors of Salmonella shedding at the end of the fattening period pointed to a significant role for the physical form of feed (dry or wet, but without any specification as to how wet feed was administered). Wet feeding during the fattening period acts as a protecting factor against
Salmonella shedding at the end of the finishing phase (BPEX, 2004a, b).";R17;31;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;type of feeder;dry meal only;Illness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
120;"In addition, it is well known that in the absence of appropriate substrate to explore pigs redirect their exploratory behaviour to pen structures and the bodies of pen mates (e.g., Schouten, 1986; Fraser et al., 1991; Pedersen et al., 1995; Bolhuis et al., 2005; Peeters et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2006a,b; Morrisson et al., 2006).";R17;33;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
121;"Indeed, studies comparing either straw or mushroom compost with other enrichment materials like toys concluded that straw or compost were preferred over other enrichment materials (e.g., Pedersen et al., 2005; Van de Weerd et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2006c; Pedersen and Jensen, 2006)";R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
121;"Indeed, studies comparing either straw or mushroom compost with other enrichment materials like toys concluded that straw or compost were preferred over other enrichment materials (e.g., Pedersen et al., 2005; Van de Weerd et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2006c; Pedersen and Jensen, 2006)";R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
121;"Indeed, studies comparing either straw or mushroom compost with other enrichment materials like toys concluded that straw or compost were preferred over other enrichment materials (e.g., Pedersen et al., 2005; Van de Weerd et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2006c; Pedersen and Jensen, 2006)";R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;toy OR rope;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
134;In the study of Cornale et al. [39], the faecal corticosteroids level was found to be higher in the pigs kept in pens with a greater number of individuals, even when access to enrichment (cylindrical pieces of hard wood suspended on a chain) was provided.;R19;10;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;group size;not used;HPA;-1,00;Social contact, Movement;;;;;;;;;
134;In the study of Cornale et al. [39], the faecal corticosteroids level was found to be higher in the pigs kept in pens with a greater number of individuals, even when access to enrichment (cylindrical pieces of hard wood suspended on a chain) was provided.;R19;10;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;group size;not used;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Movement;;;;;;;;;
136;Chopped straw increased the prevalence of behaviours such as licking and decreased the prevalence of behaviours such as picking, suggesting that pigs were not able to manipulate the chopped straw in the same way as full-length or half chopped straw.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
136;Chopped straw increased the prevalence of behaviours such as licking and decreased the prevalence of behaviours such as picking, suggesting that pigs were not able to manipulate the chopped straw in the same way as full-length or half chopped straw.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
136;Chopped straw increased the prevalence of behaviours such as licking and decreased the prevalence of behaviours such as picking, suggesting that pigs were not able to manipulate the chopped straw in the same way as full-length or half chopped straw.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
136;Chopped straw increased the prevalence of behaviours such as licking and decreased the prevalence of behaviours such as picking, suggesting that pigs were not able to manipulate the chopped straw in the same way as full-length or half chopped straw.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
137;In addition, levels of tail-biting were higher in groups that were provided with chopped straw than in groups with full-length or half chopped straw.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
137;In addition, levels of tail-biting were higher in groups that were provided with chopped straw than in groups with full-length or half chopped straw.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
137;In addition, levels of tail-biting were higher in groups that were provided with chopped straw than in groups with full-length or half chopped straw.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
137;In addition, levels of tail-biting were higher in groups that were provided with chopped straw than in groups with full-length or half chopped straw.;R6;249;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
138;The proportional frequency of nosing, aggression and tail-biting were highest in the treatments without straw, followedby the chopped strawtreatment.;R6;255;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
138;The proportional frequency of nosing, aggression and tail-biting were highest in the treatments without straw, followedby the chopped strawtreatment.;R6;255;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
138;The proportional frequency of nosing, aggression and tail-biting were highest in the treatments without straw, followedby the chopped strawtreatment.;R6;255;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
138;The proportional frequency of nosing, aggression and tail-biting were highest in the treatments without straw, followedby the chopped strawtreatment.;R6;255;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
139;This form of tail biting may be prevented by providing some materials to develop a manipulatory interest.;R19;4;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
140;Listeria (Listeria monocytogenes in particular) is another zoonotic agent whose prevalence in feed intended for pigs can be influenced by the physical form of the feed itself. In a survey of 47 Breton farms, Beloeil et al. (2003) found that the percentage of feed samples positive for Listeria spp. was higher in liquid than in dry feeds.;R17;32;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;type of feeder;wet meal only;Illness;-1,00;Food intake, Health;;;;;;;;;
140;Listeria (Listeria monocytogenes in particular) is another zoonotic agent whose prevalence in feed intended for pigs can be influenced by the physical form of the feed itself. In a survey of 47 Breton farms, Beloeil et al. (2003) found that the percentage of feed samples positive for Listeria spp. was higher in liquid than in dry feeds.;R17;32;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;type of feeder;dry meal only;Preferences;0,01;Food intake, Health;;;;;;;;;
141;For example, the groups of pigs which were provided with straw (either half chopped, fully chopped or full-length) nosed other pigs for approximately 10% of their total measured behavioural activity, whereas pigs housed in barren pens (N) expressed the same behaviour for approximately 50% of their behavioural output.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
141;For example, the groups of pigs which were provided with straw (either half chopped, fully chopped or full-length) nosed other pigs for approximately 10% of their total measured behavioural activity, whereas pigs housed in barren pens (N) expressed the same behaviour for approximately 50% of their behavioural output.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
141;For example, the groups of pigs which were provided with straw (either half chopped, fully chopped or full-length) nosed other pigs for approximately 10% of their total measured behavioural activity, whereas pigs housed in barren pens (N) expressed the same behaviour for approximately 50% of their behavioural output.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
141;For example, the groups of pigs which were provided with straw (either half chopped, fully chopped or full-length) nosed other pigs for approximately 10% of their total measured behavioural activity, whereas pigs housed in barren pens (N) expressed the same behaviour for approximately 50% of their behavioural output.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
145;Nielsen et al. [64] found that grouphoused growing pigs fed from a four-space feeder ate more frequently, but stayed less time and ate smaller quantities than pigs fed from a single-space feeder.;R21;39;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;social feeding;multi-feeder;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
145;Nielsen et al. [64] found that grouphoused growing pigs fed from a four-space feeder ate more frequently, but stayed less time and ate smaller quantities than pigs fed from a single-space feeder.;R21;39;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;social feeding;single feeder;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
145;Nielsen et al. [64] found that grouphoused growing pigs fed from a four-space feeder ate more frequently, but stayed less time and ate smaller quantities than pigs fed from a single-space feeder.;R21;39;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;social feeding;multi-feeder;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
145;Nielsen et al. [64] found that grouphoused growing pigs fed from a four-space feeder ate more frequently, but stayed less time and ate smaller quantities than pigs fed from a single-space feeder.;R21;39;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;social feeding;single feeder;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
145;Nielsen et al. [64] found that grouphoused growing pigs fed from a four-space feeder ate more frequently, but stayed less time and ate smaller quantities than pigs fed from a single-space feeder.;R21;39;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;social feeding;multi-feeder;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
145;Nielsen et al. [64] found that grouphoused growing pigs fed from a four-space feeder ate more frequently, but stayed less time and ate smaller quantities than pigs fed from a single-space feeder.;R21;39;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;social feeding;single feeder;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
146;Availability of water in the feeder was reported to increase feed intake and daily gain and to decrease the eating time [29].;R21;39;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;type of feeder;wet and dry meal;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
146;Availability of water in the feeder was reported to increase feed intake and daily gain and to decrease the eating time [29].;R21;39;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;type of feeder;dry meal only;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
147;However, current CFIR systems provide only one feeding space per group of animals which may lead to increased competition for access to the feeder, both in comparison to the former individual feeding system used in selection programmes and to the housing situation on farms where more than one feeding space may be available per group of animals (Webb et al., 1990).;R5;74;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;social feeding;single feeder;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
147;However, current CFIR systems provide only one feeding space per group of animals which may lead to increased competition for access to the feeder, both in comparison to the former individual feeding system used in selection programmes and to the housing situation on farms where more than one feeding space may be available per group of animals (Webb et al., 1990).;R5;74;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;social feeding;multi-feeder;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
148;Then a marked redistribution of preference occurred (Table I), with the cubicle containing straw [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber] becoming the preferred site.;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete with litter/substrate (straw or sawdust or full length straw);Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
148;Then a marked redistribution of preference occurred (Table I), with the cubicle containing straw [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber] becoming the preferred site.;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete with litter/substrate (straw or sawdust or full length straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
148;Then a marked redistribution of preference occurred (Table I), with the cubicle containing straw [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber] becoming the preferred site.;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
148;Then a marked redistribution of preference occurred (Table I), with the cubicle containing straw [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber] becoming the preferred site.;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
148;Then a marked redistribution of preference occurred (Table I), with the cubicle containing straw [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber] becoming the preferred site.;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
148;Then a marked redistribution of preference occurred (Table I), with the cubicle containing straw [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber] becoming the preferred site.;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
149;"From a behavioural standpoint, pigs that are submitted to complete feed withdrawal even for a short time or are given access to feed only for limited periods of time will display a series of negative behavioural changes, consisting primarily in a reduction in lateral lying down time and an increase in oral activities, including those directed toward other pigs (Fernandez et al., 1994; Day et al., 1995; Lewis et al., 1999; Bornett et al., 2000).";R17;32;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;feeding regime;restricted;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
149;"From a behavioural standpoint, pigs that are submitted to complete feed withdrawal even for a short time or are given access to feed only for limited periods of time will display a series of negative behavioural changes, consisting primarily in a reduction in lateral lying down time and an increase in oral activities, including those directed toward other pigs (Fernandez et al., 1994; Day et al., 1995; Lewis et al., 1999; Bornett et al., 2000).";R17;32;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;feeding regime;ad libitum;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
150;The principal effect [barriers 24 or 34 cm high] was the shift from straw (5.6 and 0%) to sawdust (50.7 and 63.8%, respectively) [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber].;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
150;The principal effect [barriers 24 or 34 cm high] was the shift from straw (5.6 and 0%) to sawdust (50.7 and 63.8%, respectively) [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber].;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Demand;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
150;The principal effect [barriers 24 or 34 cm high] was the shift from straw (5.6 and 0%) to sawdust (50.7 and 63.8%, respectively) [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber].;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
150;The principal effect [barriers 24 or 34 cm high] was the shift from straw (5.6 and 0%) to sawdust (50.7 and 63.8%, respectively) [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber].;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
150;The principal effect [barriers 24 or 34 cm high] was the shift from straw (5.6 and 0%) to sawdust (50.7 and 63.8%, respectively) [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber].;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
150;The principal effect [barriers 24 or 34 cm high] was the shift from straw (5.6 and 0%) to sawdust (50.7 and 63.8%, respectively) [compared to sawdust, concrete, slats, perforated metal, rubber].;R25;267;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
151;"Animals were observed in these cubicles at a much reduced frequency (sawdust, 4%; straw, 28.8%; rubber, 1%). No animal lay down on concrete.";R25;167;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete with litter/substrate (straw or sawdust or full length straw);Demand;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
151;"Animals were observed in these cubicles at a much reduced frequency (sawdust, 4%; straw, 28.8%; rubber, 1%). No animal lay down on concrete.";R25;167;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete with litter/substrate (straw or sawdust or full length straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
151;"Animals were observed in these cubicles at a much reduced frequency (sawdust, 4%; straw, 28.8%; rubber, 1%). No animal lay down on concrete.";R25;167;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
151;"Animals were observed in these cubicles at a much reduced frequency (sawdust, 4%; straw, 28.8%; rubber, 1%). No animal lay down on concrete.";R25;167;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
151;"Animals were observed in these cubicles at a much reduced frequency (sawdust, 4%; straw, 28.8%; rubber, 1%). No animal lay down on concrete.";R25;167;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
151;"Animals were observed in these cubicles at a much reduced frequency (sawdust, 4%; straw, 28.8%; rubber, 1%). No animal lay down on concrete.";R25;167;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
153;"High levels of freerange use have been associated with a reduced incidence of keel bone fractures in laying hens (Richards et al. 2012;Jung et al. 2019).";R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
153;"High levels of freerange use have been associated with a reduced incidence of keel bone fractures in laying hens (Richards et al. 2012;Jung et al. 2019).";R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Pain;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
154;"In non-cage systems the presence of (soiled) litter in the hen house leads to increased dust and ammonia levels.
";R4;136;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
156;"several studies have shown that free-range and loose-housed indoor flocks have higher numbers of A. galli eggs than caged flocks (Dao et al. 2019; Fossum et al. 2009;Jansson et al. 2010)";R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
156;"several studies have shown that free-range and loose-housed indoor flocks have higher numbers of A. galli eggs than caged flocks (Dao et al. 2019; Fossum et al. 2009;Jansson et al. 2010)";R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
157;"This can result in a lower incidence of maladaptive behaviours like feather pecking and cannibalism, if the hens use the outdoor area, as reported in different studies (Bestman et al. 2017;Jung et al. 2019).";R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
157;"This can result in a lower incidence of maladaptive behaviours like feather pecking and cannibalism, if the hens use the outdoor area, as reported in different studies (Bestman et al. 2017;Jung et al. 2019).";R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
157;"This can result in a lower incidence of maladaptive behaviours like feather pecking and cannibalism, if the hens use the outdoor area, as reported in different studies (Bestman et al. 2017;Jung et al. 2019).";R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
158;In young pigs, an 18-hour fast leads to an increase in the lesions incurred by pigs of a lower social status at the time when feed is again made available. Enriching the environment with straw serves to limit the plasma cortisol increase caused in pigs of lower social status both as a result of fasting and the competitions that take place when feed is again made available (O’Connell et al., 2004).;R17;32;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;feeding regime;restricted;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
158;In young pigs, an 18-hour fast leads to an increase in the lesions incurred by pigs of a lower social status at the time when feed is again made available. Enriching the environment with straw serves to limit the plasma cortisol increase caused in pigs of lower social status both as a result of fasting and the competitions that take place when feed is again made available (O’Connell et al., 2004).;R17;32;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;feeding regime;ad libitum;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
159;This was in line with the finding that groups provided with straw [chopped, half chopped or full length straw] were much more active overall [compared to no straw] and, whilst they were active, they were able to exhibit more diverse behaviour as compared with groups without straw.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
159;This was in line with the finding that groups provided with straw [chopped, half chopped or full length straw] were much more active overall [compared to no straw] and, whilst they were active, they were able to exhibit more diverse behaviour as compared with groups without straw.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
159;This was in line with the finding that groups provided with straw [chopped, half chopped or full length straw] were much more active overall [compared to no straw] and, whilst they were active, they were able to exhibit more diverse behaviour as compared with groups without straw.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
159;This was in line with the finding that groups provided with straw [chopped, half chopped or full length straw] were much more active overall [compared to no straw] and, whilst they were active, they were able to exhibit more diverse behaviour as compared with groups without straw.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
161;Jørgensen (2003) compared fully-slatted-floor, bare solid floor and solid floor with straw bedding and reported that pigs on slatted floor showed more clinical leg weakness than pigs on bedded floors, while claw disorders were more prevalent on bare solid floors.;R17;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
161;Jørgensen (2003) compared fully-slatted-floor, bare solid floor and solid floor with straw bedding and reported that pigs on slatted floor showed more clinical leg weakness than pigs on bedded floors, while claw disorders were more prevalent on bare solid floors.;R17;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
161;Jørgensen (2003) compared fully-slatted-floor, bare solid floor and solid floor with straw bedding and reported that pigs on slatted floor showed more clinical leg weakness than pigs on bedded floors, while claw disorders were more prevalent on bare solid floors.;R17;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);deep bedding/deep litter;Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
161;Jørgensen (2003) compared fully-slatted-floor, bare solid floor and solid floor with straw bedding and reported that pigs on slatted floor showed more clinical leg weakness than pigs on bedded floors, while claw disorders were more prevalent on bare solid floors.;R17;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
161;Jørgensen (2003) compared fully-slatted-floor, bare solid floor and solid floor with straw bedding and reported that pigs on slatted floor showed more clinical leg weakness than pigs on bedded floors, while claw disorders were more prevalent on bare solid floors.;R17;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
161;Jørgensen (2003) compared fully-slatted-floor, bare solid floor and solid floor with straw bedding and reported that pigs on slatted floor showed more clinical leg weakness than pigs on bedded floors, while claw disorders were more prevalent on bare solid floors.;R17;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);deep bedding/deep litter;Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
162;High stocking density (0.65 m2 per pig) resulted in higher prevalence of some claw lesions than observed in pigs housed with a density of 1.2 m2 per pig.;R17;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Pain;-1,00;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
162;High stocking density (0.65 m2 per pig) resulted in higher prevalence of some claw lesions than observed in pigs housed with a density of 1.2 m2 per pig.;R17;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;> 1m²/pig - 2m²/pig;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
163;Further, Jørgensen (1995) found that slaughter pigs fed ad libitum showed more leg weakness than pigs on a restricted diet. Similar results were reported by Grøndalen (1974).;R17;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;feeding regime;restricted;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
168;Newberry et al. (2001) found the 60cm perches were used significantly more than perches at20cm or 40cm.;R23;36;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
168;Newberry et al. (2001) found the 60cm perches were used significantly more than perches at20cm or 40cm.;R23;36;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
165;Slatted flooring can contribute substantially to the cleanliness and health of an animal by allowing for the speedy removal of faecal and urinary products from the immediate environment of the animal, and thus assisting the provision of a dry lying area. ;R17;;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
165;Slatted flooring can contribute substantially to the cleanliness and health of an animal by allowing for the speedy removal of faecal and urinary products from the immediate environment of the animal, and thus assisting the provision of a dry lying area. ;R17;;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
165;Slatted flooring can contribute substantially to the cleanliness and health of an animal by allowing for the speedy removal of faecal and urinary products from the immediate environment of the animal, and thus assisting the provision of a dry lying area. ;R17;;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);not used;Illness;-3,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
169;Brendler et al. (2014) found that nearly all birds roosted on perches at heights of 90cm or above.;R23;36;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
176;During the discussions, it was considered that hens have difficulties coping with height increases beyond 90 cm,;R23;42;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Fitness;-0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
178;The relative preference of roosting hens for an object that can be grasped versus an elevated structure was examined by Schrader and Muller (2009) who offered hens different combinations of high (60 cm) or low (15 cm) perches, or high or low flat plastic grids, for night-time roosting. Hens showed a very strong preference for high roosting structures over low, and a weaker preference for perches over grids when these were presented at the same height;R23;21;Poultry;Fowel, Laying hens;Rest;perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
188;According to scientific evidence in experimental floor pens, for night-time roosting, hens show a significant preference for accessing perches higher than 60 cm compared with lower perches.;R23;53;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
201;In addition, the risk of vent pecking was increased in single-tier systems when perches were placed at more than 50 cm above the slats, compared with less than 50 cm or no perches (Lambton et al., 2015);R23;8;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
202;In non-cages systems, the minimum perch height to adequately meet the hens’ preference should be 60 cm from ground leve;R23;54;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
203;Although there is no evidence for a maximum height, hens should not have to jump more than 80 cm vertically, horizontally or diagonally to reach or leave a perch, and they should not jump an angle of more than 45 ° (measured from the horizontal plane).;R23;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
593;When laying hens had access to either low (45 cm) or higher (70 cm) perches, in the experimental pens with the higher perches, feather damage particularly at the vent was poorer in the pens with low compared to higher perches even if observed feather pecking interactions did not differ between treatments (Wechsler and Huber-Eicher, 1998).;R51;421;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
687;Studies on the ability of hens to jump between and up to perches suggest that vertical jumps over 50cm start to present difficulties (Scott et al., 1997).;R59;10;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
182;"If there is less than one eating place per cow during feeding with restricted amounts of feed, some cows may not get access to the feed at all (Konggaard and Krohn, 1975).
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;>1:1-<2:1;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
182;"If there is less than one eating place per cow during feeding with restricted amounts of feed, some cows may not get access to the feed at all (Konggaard and Krohn, 1975).
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;<=1:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
182;"If there is less than one eating place per cow during feeding with restricted amounts of feed, some cows may not get access to the feed at all (Konggaard and Krohn, 1975).
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;>1:1-<2:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
182;"If there is less than one eating place per cow during feeding with restricted amounts of feed, some cows may not get access to the feed at all (Konggaard and Krohn, 1975).
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;<=1:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
182;"If there is less than one eating place per cow during feeding with restricted amounts of feed, some cows may not get access to the feed at all (Konggaard and Krohn, 1975).
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;>1:1-<2:1;Fitness;-0,50;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
183;"When feed is provided ad libitum, stocking density with less than one eating-place per cow may not affect feed intake or even lead to a weak increase in feed intake (Henneberg et al., 1986; Olofsson, 1999).
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;>1:1-<2:1;Fitness;-0,50;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
183;"When feed is provided ad libitum, stocking density with less than one eating-place per cow may not affect feed intake or even lead to a weak increase in feed intake (Henneberg et al., 1986; Olofsson, 1999).
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;>1:1-<2:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
184;"When the stocking density increased from one to three or four cows per eating place the level of aggression increased (Henneberg et al., 1986; Olofsson 1999), and in agreement, DeVries et al. (2004) found that the level of displacement was more than doubled when there was 0.5 m per cow compared to 1.0 m per cow at the feed manger.
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;3:1<=4:1;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
184;"When the stocking density increased from one to three or four cows per eating place the level of aggression increased (Henneberg et al., 1986; Olofsson 1999), and in agreement, DeVries et al. (2004) found that the level of displacement was more than doubled when there was 0.5 m per cow compared to 1.0 m per cow at the feed manger.
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;3:1<=4:1;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
184;"When the stocking density increased from one to three or four cows per eating place the level of aggression increased (Henneberg et al., 1986; Olofsson 1999), and in agreement, DeVries et al. (2004) found that the level of displacement was more than doubled when there was 0.5 m per cow compared to 1.0 m per cow at the feed manger.
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;<=1:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
184;"When the stocking density increased from one to three or four cows per eating place the level of aggression increased (Henneberg et al., 1986; Olofsson 1999), and in agreement, DeVries et al. (2004) found that the level of displacement was more than doubled when there was 0.5 m per cow compared to 1.0 m per cow at the feed manger.
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Aggression;-2,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
184;"When the stocking density increased from one to three or four cows per eating place the level of aggression increased (Henneberg et al., 1986; Olofsson 1999), and in agreement, DeVries et al. (2004) found that the level of displacement was more than doubled when there was 0.5 m per cow compared to 1.0 m per cow at the feed manger.
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;>=1m/cow ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
184;"When the stocking density increased from one to three or four cows per eating place the level of aggression increased (Henneberg et al., 1986; Olofsson 1999), and in agreement, DeVries et al. (2004) found that the level of displacement was more than doubled when there was 0.5 m per cow compared to 1.0 m per cow at the feed manger.
";R24;76;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
186;"Metz and Mekking (1984) found a higher level of aggression and subordinate cows spend more time standing in cubicles when the width of the alley behind the cubicles was 2 m versus 11 m.
";R24;77;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;width walking alley behind cubicles ;1,2-2m;Aggression;-2,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
186;"Metz and Mekking (1984) found a higher level of aggression and subordinate cows spend more time standing in cubicles when the width of the alley behind the cubicles was 2 m versus 11 m.
";R24;77;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;width walking alley behind cubicles ;>=11m;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
187;"Furthermore, Henneberg et al. (1986) also found increased level of aggression when the width of the alley between the cubicles was reduced from 2.0 m to 1.2 m
";R24;77;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;width walking alley between cubicles ;1,6- 1,2m ;Aggression;-2,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
187;"Furthermore, Henneberg et al. (1986) also found increased level of aggression when the width of the alley between the cubicles was reduced from 2.0 m to 1.2 m
";R24;77;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;width walking alley between cubicles ;>=2m ;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
707;Furthermore, effect of perch installation in three different aspects including direction (upward vs. downward), angle (flat vs. steep), and distance (50 cm vs. 100 cm) on laying hens after 16 weeks of age was evaluated by Rufener et al. (2020). It was revealed that hens had difficulties in navigating distances of 100 cm and steeper angles in addition to a need for a higher force at the keel during downward movements however, the effects vary between genotypes. In addition, it was concluded that appropriate installation of perches in terms of direction, angle, and distance enhances the environment in the aviary system that reduces keel bone damage in laying hens.;R61;1401;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
707;Furthermore, effect of perch installation in three different aspects including direction (upward vs. downward), angle (flat vs. steep), and distance (50 cm vs. 100 cm) on laying hens after 16 weeks of age was evaluated by Rufener et al. (2020). It was revealed that hens had difficulties in navigating distances of 100 cm and steeper angles in addition to a need for a higher force at the keel during downward movements however, the effects vary between genotypes. In addition, it was concluded that appropriate installation of perches in terms of direction, angle, and distance enhances the environment in the aviary system that reduces keel bone damage in laying hens.;R61;1401;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
189;for example, hens prefer pen areas with partial cover and preferentially perform resting and preening behaviours in these areas (Newberry et al., 2001;R23;22;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Partial covers/visual separation;available;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
189;for example, hens prefer pen areas with partial cover and preferentially perform resting and preening behaviours in these areas (Newberry et al., 2001;R23;22;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Partial covers/visual separation;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest, Body care;;;;;;;;;
189;for example, hens prefer pen areas with partial cover and preferentially perform resting and preening behaviours in these areas (Newberry et al., 2001;R23;22;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Partial covers/visual separation;available;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
771;The usable space (above the floor and tiers) should be high enough for the bird to perform all natural behaviours including wing flapping and therefore should be more than 55 cm for layers or 77 cm for breeding birds.Therefore, it is considered that a vertical distance between perches and between the highest perches and the ceiling is the same as the one requested above the usable area.;R66;88;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
918;When perches were offered at different heights, laying hens preferentially roosted on the perches of a height above 90 cm. At lower heights there was no difference in the number of hens roosting on the perch and at the floor (Brendler et al., 2014).;R66;94;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
918;When perches were offered at different heights, laying hens preferentially roosted on the perches of a height above 90 cm. At lower heights there was no difference in the number of hens roosting on the perch and at the floor (Brendler et al., 2014).;R66;94;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
918;When perches were offered at different heights, laying hens preferentially roosted on the perches of a height above 90 cm. At lower heights there was no difference in the number of hens roosting on the perch and at the floor (Brendler et al., 2014).;R66;94;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
918;When perches were offered at different heights, laying hens preferentially roosted on the perches of a height above 90 cm. At lower heights there was no difference in the number of hens roosting on the perch and at the floor (Brendler et al., 2014).;R66;94;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
919;Based on three studies, EFSA AHAW Panel (2015) recommended that the perch height should be at least 60 cm above the ground in non-cage systems.;R66;95;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;< 60 cm OR >80 cm ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
168;Newberry et al. (2001) found the 60cm perches were used significantly more than perches at20cm or 40cm.;R23;36;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
204;Hens took longer to jump from PVC perches when clean than from wooden or metal perch types;R23;26;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;plastic;Fitness;-1,00;Safety, Rest;;;;;;;;;
204;Hens took longer to jump from PVC perches when clean than from wooden or metal perch types;R23;26;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;steel/metal;Preferences;0,01;Safety, Rest;;;;;;;;;
204;Hens took longer to jump from PVC perches when clean than from wooden or metal perch types;R23;26;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;0,01;Safety, Rest;;;;;;;;;
205;hens from pens with rubber-coated metal perches had more moderate and severe keel bone deformities and fewer birds from these pens had normal keel bone structure than hens from pens with plastic perches. It was proposed that the deformities associated with metal perches were caused by trauma, probably because the rubber used was too thin to compensate for the hardness of the metal.;R23;27;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;plastic;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
205;hens from pens with rubber-coated metal perches had more moderate and severe keel bone deformities and fewer birds from these pens had normal keel bone structure than hens from pens with plastic perches. It was proposed that the deformities associated with metal perches were caused by trauma, probably because the rubber used was too thin to compensate for the hardness of the metal.;R23;27;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;rubber ;Fitness;-2,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
206;Wooden perches were chosen significantly more than steel and plastic perches;R23;28;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;plastic;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
206;Wooden perches were chosen significantly more than steel and plastic perches;R23;28;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;steel/metal;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
206;Wooden perches were chosen significantly more than steel and plastic perches;R23;28;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
207;Appleby et al. (1992) who said that hens generally perched most on softwood and vinyl-padded perches, which gave more grip for their feet, and least on plastic perches with the smoothest surface.;R23;28;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;plastic;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest, Safety;;;;;;;;;
207;Appleby et al. (1992) who said that hens generally perched most on softwood and vinyl-padded perches, which gave more grip for their feet, and least on plastic perches with the smoothest surface.;R23;28;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;1,00;Rest, Safety;;;;;;;;;
207;Appleby et al. (1992) who said that hens generally perched most on softwood and vinyl-padded perches, which gave more grip for their feet, and least on plastic perches with the smoothest surface.;R23;28;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;1,00;Rest, Safety;;;;;;;;;
208;The risk of keel bone injuries and foot pad lesions can be decreased by perches of soft materials (softwood, rubber-covered perches);R23;53;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;steel/metal;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
208;The risk of keel bone injuries and foot pad lesions can be decreased by perches of soft materials (softwood, rubber-covered perches);R23;42;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;rubber ;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
208;The risk of keel bone injuries and foot pad lesions can be decreased by perches of soft materials (softwood, rubber-covered perches);R23;42;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
219;In a further experiment, either the mushroom perches or the oval perches were installed at the top tier of aviary systems. Bumble foot scores was better with the oval perches than with the plastic mushroom perches, but the latter were cleaner.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
219;In a further experiment, either the mushroom perches or the oval perches were installed at the top tier of aviary systems. Bumble foot scores was better with the oval perches than with the plastic mushroom perches, but the latter were cleaner.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
219;In a further experiment, either the mushroom perches or the oval perches were installed at the top tier of aviary systems. Bumble foot scores was better with the oval perches than with the plastic mushroom perches, but the latter were cleaner.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
219;In a further experiment, either the mushroom perches or the oval perches were installed at the top tier of aviary systems. Bumble foot scores was better with the oval perches than with the plastic mushroom perches, but the latter were cleaner.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
220;In sitting hens, the peak force under the foot pads was lower on oval than on round and square perches.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
220;In sitting hens, the peak force under the foot pads was lower on oval than on round and square perches.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
221;In sitting hens, the peak force under the foot pads was lower on oval than on round and square perches.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
221;In sitting hens, the peak force under the foot pads was lower on oval than on round and square perches.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
222;The contact area of foot pads was lowest on round perches, followed by oval and then square perches. [sitting];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
222;The contact area of foot pads was lowest on round perches, followed by oval and then square perches. [sitting];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
222;The contact area of foot pads was lowest on round perches, followed by oval and then square perches. [sitting];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
222;The contact area of foot pads was lowest on round perches, followed by oval and then square perches. [sitting];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
222;The contact area of foot pads was lowest on round perches, followed by oval and then square perches. [sitting];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
222;The contact area of foot pads was lowest on round perches, followed by oval and then square perches. [sitting];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
223;In standing hens, peak force under the foot pads was lowest on oval perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on round perches.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
223;In standing hens, peak force under the foot pads was lowest on oval perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on round perches.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
223;In standing hens, peak force under the foot pads was lowest on oval perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on round perches.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
223;In standing hens, peak force under the foot pads was lowest on oval perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on round perches.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
223;In standing hens, peak force under the foot pads was lowest on oval perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on round perches.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
223;In standing hens, peak force under the foot pads was lowest on oval perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on round perches.;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
224;The contact area under the foot pads of standing hens was lowest on round perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on oval perches [standing];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
224;The contact area under the foot pads of standing hens was lowest on round perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on oval perches [standing];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
224;The contact area under the foot pads of standing hens was lowest on round perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on oval perches [standing];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
224;The contact area under the foot pads of standing hens was lowest on round perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on oval perches [standing];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
224;The contact area under the foot pads of standing hens was lowest on round perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on oval perches [standing];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
224;The contact area under the foot pads of standing hens was lowest on round perches, highest on square perches and intermediate on oval perches [standing];R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
225;The outcome reflected the tendency towards a more horizontal but rounded top line (mushroom preferred over circle), and a maximised top surface but still with rounded edges supporting clinging (mushroom preferred over rectangle).;R23;51;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
225;The outcome reflected the tendency towards a more horizontal but rounded top line (mushroom preferred over circle), and a maximised top surface but still with rounded edges supporting clinging (mushroom preferred over rectangle).;R23;51;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Preferences;0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
225;The outcome reflected the tendency towards a more horizontal but rounded top line (mushroom preferred over circle), and a maximised top surface but still with rounded edges supporting clinging (mushroom preferred over rectangle).;R23;51;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
226;There is no consistent evidence from the literature on perch shape preference (e.g. round, oval, square, rectangular, mushroom) of laying hens. However, the experts’ opinion was that perches with rounded edges were preferable.;R23;53;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Preferences;0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
226;There is no consistent evidence from the literature on perch shape preference (e.g. round, oval, square, rectangular, mushroom) of laying hens. However, the experts’ opinion was that perches with rounded edges were preferable.;R23;53;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
226;There is no consistent evidence from the literature on perch shape preference (e.g. round, oval, square, rectangular, mushroom) of laying hens. However, the experts’ opinion was that perches with rounded edges were preferable.;R23;53;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Preferences;0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
226;There is no consistent evidence from the literature on perch shape preference (e.g. round, oval, square, rectangular, mushroom) of laying hens. However, the experts’ opinion was that perches with rounded edges were preferable.;R23;53;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
226;There is no consistent evidence from the literature on perch shape preference (e.g. round, oval, square, rectangular, mushroom) of laying hens. However, the experts’ opinion was that perches with rounded edges were preferable.;R23;53;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
228;Non-cage systems should provide perching opportunities that take account of variation in the hens’ ability to reach the perch. Therefore, stepped perches, ramps or other solutions should be provided to allow easy access to high perches, platforms and grids.;R23;54;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Ramps between levels;available;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
228;Non-cage systems should provide perching opportunities that take account of variation in the hens’ ability to reach the perch. Therefore, stepped perches, ramps or other solutions should be provided to allow easy access to high perches, platforms and grids.;R23;54;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Ramps between levels;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
230;"A number of studies have shown that lying time decreases, the level of aggression increases and the risk of low ranking cows lying on the walking alleys increases when the stocking is increased to more than one cow per cubicle (Friend et al., 1979; Krohn and Konggard, 1987; Winckler et al., 2003; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002; Fregonesi et al., 2007b).
";R24;78;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;>0.89:1-<=1.50:1;Aggression;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
230;"A number of studies have shown that lying time decreases, the level of aggression increases and the risk of low ranking cows lying on the walking alleys increases when the stocking is increased to more than one cow per cubicle (Friend et al., 1979; Krohn and Konggard, 1987; Winckler et al., 2003; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002; Fregonesi et al., 2007b).
";R24;78;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;>0.89:1-<=1.50:1;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
231;"In a given indoor situation additional space in an outside area reduces agonistic interactions: cow herds showed less agonistic interactions when having access to an outdoor yard during the night compared with a closed yard (Menke et al., 2000
";R24;79;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Aggression;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
231;"In a given indoor situation additional space in an outside area reduces agonistic interactions: cow herds showed less agonistic interactions when having access to an outdoor yard during the night compared with a closed yard (Menke et al., 2000
";R24;79;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;access to alternative outdoor areas;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
233;"Existence of an outside run, associated with more space allowance, as well as higher total space allowance (≥8.6m²/cow) was associated with lower prevalence of lameness (Mülleder and Waiblinger, 2004)
";R24;80;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;space per cow (movement);6,5-<9,5;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
233;"Existence of an outside run, associated with more space allowance, as well as higher total space allowance (≥8.6m²/cow) was associated with lower prevalence of lameness (Mülleder and Waiblinger, 2004)
";R24;80;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;space per cow (movement);6,5-<9,5;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
235;"Reduced space allowance reduces the availability of resources for low-ranking individuals, especially in case of small alleys in cubicle houses (Konggaard, 1983). Small alleys (< 1.6 m between cubicles) were associated with production losses in dairy cows (Ostergaard et al., 1986).
";R24;80;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;width walking alley between cubicles ;1,6- 1,2m ;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
235;"Reduced space allowance reduces the availability of resources for low-ranking individuals, especially in case of small alleys in cubicle houses (Konggaard, 1983). Small alleys (< 1.6 m between cubicles) were associated with production losses in dairy cows (Ostergaard et al., 1986).
";R24;80;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;width walking alley between cubicles ;>1,6 - <2 m;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
236;"Similarly, Leonard et al. (1996) found that the average resting time when cows were housed at a cow/cubicle ratio of 2 was 7.5 hours but that this varied between 2.7 hours/day and 11.9 hours / day for individual cows. The low resting times were associated with an increase in the incidence of sole haemorrhages and lameness
";R24;80;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;>1.50:1;Pain;-3,00;Rest;;;;;;;;;
236;"Similarly, Leonard et al. (1996) found that the average resting time when cows were housed at a cow/cubicle ratio of 2 was 7.5 hours but that this varied between 2.7 hours/day and 11.9 hours / day for individual cows. The low resting times were associated with an increase in the incidence of sole haemorrhages and lameness
";R24;80;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;>1.50:1;Pain;-3,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
236;"Similarly, Leonard et al. (1996) found that the average resting time when cows were housed at a cow/cubicle ratio of 2 was 7.5 hours but that this varied between 2.7 hours/day and 11.9 hours / day for individual cows. The low resting times were associated with an increase in the incidence of sole haemorrhages and lameness
";R24;80;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;not used;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
236;"Similarly, Leonard et al. (1996) found that the average resting time when cows were housed at a cow/cubicle ratio of 2 was 7.5 hours but that this varied between 2.7 hours/day and 11.9 hours / day for individual cows. The low resting times were associated with an increase in the incidence of sole haemorrhages and lameness
";R24;80;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;not used;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
237;"It seems likely that even moderate levels of overstocking can increase the risk of lameness. This is supported by results where a cubicle : cow ratio of less than 1,06 : 1 was associated with higher prevalence of lameness in multivariate analysis including 80 dairy herds (Mülleder and Waiblinger, 2004)
";R24;80;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;>0.89:1-<=1.50:1;Pain;-3,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
237;"It seems likely that even moderate levels of overstocking can increase the risk of lameness. This is supported by results where a cubicle : cow ratio of less than 1,06 : 1 was associated with higher prevalence of lameness in multivariate analysis including 80 dairy herds (Mülleder and Waiblinger, 2004)
";R24;80;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;>0.89:1-<=1.50:1;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
238;"Time spent lying was higher, cows lay down more synchronously, time spent standing in cubicles and in the walking areas was lower in a largely understocked situation (23 cubicles for 12 cows; Wierenga et al. 1985). ";R24;81;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;<=0.6:1;Natural behaviour;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
238;"Time spent lying was higher, cows lay down more synchronously, time spent standing in cubicles and in the walking areas was lower in a largely understocked situation (23 cubicles for 12 cows; Wierenga et al. 1985). ";R24;81;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;">0.60:1-<=0.77:1
";Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
241;There was a significant reduction in the proportional frequencies of tail-biting when fulllength or half chopped straw was provided in comparison with the no straw treatment.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
241;There was a significant reduction in the proportional frequencies of tail-biting when fulllength or half chopped straw was provided in comparison with the no straw treatment.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
241;There was a significant reduction in the proportional frequencies of tail-biting when fulllength or half chopped straw was provided in comparison with the no straw treatment.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
241;There was a significant reduction in the proportional frequencies of tail-biting when fulllength or half chopped straw was provided in comparison with the no straw treatment.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
242;However, this effect [reduction in tail biting] was not seen when chopped straw was provided and levels of tail-biting in the groups provided with chopped straw were actually higher than in the full-length or half chopped straw treatments.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
242;However, this effect [reduction in tail biting] was not seen when chopped straw was provided and levels of tail-biting in the groups provided with chopped straw were actually higher than in the full-length or half chopped straw treatments.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
242;However, this effect [reduction in tail biting] was not seen when chopped straw was provided and levels of tail-biting in the groups provided with chopped straw were actually higher than in the full-length or half chopped straw treatments.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
242;However, this effect [reduction in tail biting] was not seen when chopped straw was provided and levels of tail-biting in the groups provided with chopped straw were actually higher than in the full-length or half chopped straw treatments.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
243;These findings indicate that chopped straw does not have the same positive characteristics that prevent or reduce tail-biting as full (and half) length straw does.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
243;These findings indicate that chopped straw does not have the same positive characteristics that prevent or reduce tail-biting as full (and half) length straw does.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
243;These findings indicate that chopped straw does not have the same positive characteristics that prevent or reduce tail-biting as full (and half) length straw does.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
243;These findings indicate that chopped straw does not have the same positive characteristics that prevent or reduce tail-biting as full (and half) length straw does.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
244;As chopped straw does not readily accommodate such behaviours [nosing, rooting and chewing], the ensuing activity may be redirected towards pen-mates.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
244;As chopped straw does not readily accommodate such behaviours [nosing, rooting and chewing], the ensuing activity may be redirected towards pen-mates.;R6;258;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
246;Beattie et al. (2000) observed better values of food consumption, feed conversion, growth rate, and final weight for growing pigs kept in bins enriched with dispensers containing peat and straw under a very generous condition of pen area (3.5 m²/pig).;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;method of offering enrichment;dispenser or rack or floor offering (handful);Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
246;Beattie et al. (2000) observed better values of food consumption, feed conversion, growth rate, and final weight for growing pigs kept in bins enriched with dispensers containing peat and straw under a very generous condition of pen area (3.5 m²/pig).;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;method of offering enrichment;dispenser or rack or floor offering (handful);Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
246;Beattie et al. (2000) observed better values of food consumption, feed conversion, growth rate, and final weight for growing pigs kept in bins enriched with dispensers containing peat and straw under a very generous condition of pen area (3.5 m²/pig).;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
247;In addition, Casal-Plana et al. (2017) observed higher body weights for pigs kept in enriched environments (hemp ropes, sawdust, rubber balls) and/or supplemented with herbal compounds (Valeriana officinalis and Passiflora incarnata) between 22 and 24 weeks of age.;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;toy OR rope;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
247;In addition, Casal-Plana et al. (2017) observed higher body weights for pigs kept in enriched environments (hemp ropes, sawdust, rubber balls) and/or supplemented with herbal compounds (Valeriana officinalis and Passiflora incarnata) between 22 and 24 weeks of age.;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
247;In addition, Casal-Plana et al. (2017) observed higher body weights for pigs kept in enriched environments (hemp ropes, sawdust, rubber balls) and/or supplemented with herbal compounds (Valeriana officinalis and Passiflora incarnata) between 22 and 24 weeks of age.;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
247;In addition, Casal-Plana et al. (2017) observed higher body weights for pigs kept in enriched environments (hemp ropes, sawdust, rubber balls) and/or supplemented with herbal compounds (Valeriana officinalis and Passiflora incarnata) between 22 and 24 weeks of age.;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
247;In addition, Casal-Plana et al. (2017) observed higher body weights for pigs kept in enriched environments (hemp ropes, sawdust, rubber balls) and/or supplemented with herbal compounds (Valeriana officinalis and Passiflora incarnata) between 22 and 24 weeks of age.;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
247;In addition, Casal-Plana et al. (2017) observed higher body weights for pigs kept in enriched environments (hemp ropes, sawdust, rubber balls) and/or supplemented with herbal compounds (Valeriana officinalis and Passiflora incarnata) between 22 and 24 weeks of age.;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
248;Comparing two groups in low (total space 6,7m², lying area 4,5m²/ cow) and high (13,5 and 9 m²/cow) space allowance in straw yards, Fregonesi and Leaver (2002) did not find a significant difference in lying time, synchronicity of lying, feeding or agonistic interactions in four groups of 6 Holstein Friesian cows (approximately 660 kg live weight). However, cows were dirtier in the low space condition and milk lactose and somatic cell count pointed at a higher incidence of mastitis in high yielding cows.;R24;81;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;space per cow (movement)// animal lying place ratio open pack;"6,5-<9,5// <5m²- 4m² 
";Fitness;-1,00;Body care;;;;;;;;;
248;Comparing two groups in low (total space 6,7m², lying area 4,5m²/ cow) and high (13,5 and 9 m²/cow) space allowance in straw yards, Fregonesi and Leaver (2002) did not find a significant difference in lying time, synchronicity of lying, feeding or agonistic interactions in four groups of 6 Holstein Friesian cows (approximately 660 kg live weight). However, cows were dirtier in the low space condition and milk lactose and somatic cell count pointed at a higher incidence of mastitis in high yielding cows.;R24;81;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;space per cow (movement)// animal lying place ratio open pack;"6,5-<9,5// <5m²- 4m² 
";Illness;-1,00;health ;;;;;;;;;
248;Comparing two groups in low (total space 6,7m², lying area 4,5m²/ cow) and high (13,5 and 9 m²/cow) space allowance in straw yards, Fregonesi and Leaver (2002) did not find a significant difference in lying time, synchronicity of lying, feeding or agonistic interactions in four groups of 6 Holstein Friesian cows (approximately 660 kg live weight). However, cows were dirtier in the low space condition and milk lactose and somatic cell count pointed at a higher incidence of mastitis in high yielding cows.;R24;81;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;space per cow (movement)// animal lying place ratio open pack;"6,5-<9,5// <5m²- 4m² 
";Illness;-1,00;health ;;;;;;;;;
248;Comparing two groups in low (total space 6,7m², lying area 4,5m²/ cow) and high (13,5 and 9 m²/cow) space allowance in straw yards, Fregonesi and Leaver (2002) did not find a significant difference in lying time, synchronicity of lying, feeding or agonistic interactions in four groups of 6 Holstein Friesian cows (approximately 660 kg live weight). However, cows were dirtier in the low space condition and milk lactose and somatic cell count pointed at a higher incidence of mastitis in high yielding cows.;R24;81;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;space per cow (movement)// animal lying place ratio open pack;>=13,5m²// >=9m²;Preferences;0.01;bodycomfort;;;;;;;;;
248;Comparing two groups in low (total space 6,7m², lying area 4,5m²/ cow) and high (13,5 and 9 m²/cow) space allowance in straw yards, Fregonesi and Leaver (2002) did not find a significant difference in lying time, synchronicity of lying, feeding or agonistic interactions in four groups of 6 Holstein Friesian cows (approximately 660 kg live weight). However, cows were dirtier in the low space condition and milk lactose and somatic cell count pointed at a higher incidence of mastitis in high yielding cows.;R24;81;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;space per cow (movement)// animal lying place ratio open pack;>=13,5m²// >=9m²;Preferences;0.01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
248;Comparing two groups in low (total space 6,7m², lying area 4,5m²/ cow) and high (13,5 and 9 m²/cow) space allowance in straw yards, Fregonesi and Leaver (2002) did not find a significant difference in lying time, synchronicity of lying, feeding or agonistic interactions in four groups of 6 Holstein Friesian cows (approximately 660 kg live weight). However, cows were dirtier in the low space condition and milk lactose and somatic cell count pointed at a higher incidence of mastitis in high yielding cows.;R24;81;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;space per cow (movement)// animal lying place ratio open pack;>=13,5m²// >=9m²;Preferences;0.01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
249;Beattie et al. (1996) showed that a space allowance of 0.5 m2 per pig reduced exploratory activity as compared with 1.1 m2 per pig or more (all pens enriched with peat and straw), but that increasing space allowance above 1.1 m2 per pig did not have a positive effect on exploratory behaviour (Beattie et al., 1996).;R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;> 1m²/pig - 2m²/pig;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
249;Beattie et al. (1996) showed that a space allowance of 0.5 m2 per pig reduced exploratory activity as compared with 1.1 m2 per pig or more (all pens enriched with peat and straw), but that increasing space allowance above 1.1 m2 per pig did not have a positive effect on exploratory behaviour (Beattie et al., 1996).;R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;0,66m² - 0,5m²;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
250;McGlone and Newby (1994) found that injury and morbidity rates were greater for pigs held in groups of 40 animals than for pigs kept in groups of 10 or 20.;R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Illness;-1,00;Social contact, Health;;;;;;;;;
250;McGlone and Newby (1994) found that injury and morbidity rates were greater for pigs held in groups of 40 animals than for pigs kept in groups of 10 or 20.;R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Pain;-1,00;Social contact, Health;;;;;;;;;
250;McGlone and Newby (1994) found that injury and morbidity rates were greater for pigs held in groups of 40 animals than for pigs kept in groups of 10 or 20.;R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Health;;;;;;;;;
250;McGlone and Newby (1994) found that injury and morbidity rates were greater for pigs held in groups of 40 animals than for pigs kept in groups of 10 or 20.;R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Health;;;;;;;;;
250;McGlone and Newby (1994) found that injury and morbidity rates were greater for pigs held in groups of 40 animals than for pigs kept in groups of 10 or 20.;R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Illness;-1,00;Social contact, Health;;;;;;;;;
250;McGlone and Newby (1994) found that injury and morbidity rates were greater for pigs held in groups of 40 animals than for pigs kept in groups of 10 or 20.;R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Pain;-1,00;Social contact, Health;;;;;;;;;
250;McGlone and Newby (1994) found that injury and morbidity rates were greater for pigs held in groups of 40 animals than for pigs kept in groups of 10 or 20.;R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Health;;;;;;;;;
250;McGlone and Newby (1994) found that injury and morbidity rates were greater for pigs held in groups of 40 animals than for pigs kept in groups of 10 or 20.;R17;38;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Health;;;;;;;;;
252;"Several studies have shown that the development of high levels of tail-biting can be prevented by offering full-length straw bedding to pigs (Ruiterkamp, 1987; Lyons et al., 1995; De Jong et al., 1998; Van de Weerd et al., 2005b).";R6;250;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);deep bedding/deep litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
252;"Several studies have shown that the development of high levels of tail-biting can be prevented by offering full-length straw bedding to pigs (Ruiterkamp, 1987; Lyons et al., 1995; De Jong et al., 1998; Van de Weerd et al., 2005b).";R6;250;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
253;Wolter et al. (2001) compared groups of 25, 50 and 100 pigs. The effect of group size on production parameters was not consistent, but the proportion of pigs removed due to poor health or injury was higher in groups of 25 pigs compared to the other group sizes. ;R17;40;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Illness;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
253;Wolter et al. (2001) compared groups of 25, 50 and 100 pigs. The effect of group size on production parameters was not consistent, but the proportion of pigs removed due to poor health or injury was higher in groups of 25 pigs compared to the other group sizes. ;R17;40;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Pain;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
253;Wolter et al. (2001) compared groups of 25, 50 and 100 pigs. The effect of group size on production parameters was not consistent, but the proportion of pigs removed due to poor health or injury was higher in groups of 25 pigs compared to the other group sizes. ;R17;40;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
253;Wolter et al. (2001) compared groups of 25, 50 and 100 pigs. The effect of group size on production parameters was not consistent, but the proportion of pigs removed due to poor health or injury was higher in groups of 25 pigs compared to the other group sizes. ;R17;40;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
256;However the lower space is accompanied by increased adrenal response, suggesting stress in the absence of overt aggression (Barnett et al., 1992);R17;41;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;HPA;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
256;However the lower space is accompanied by increased adrenal response, suggesting stress in the absence of overt aggression (Barnett et al., 1992);R17;41;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;> 1m²/pig - 2m²/pig;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
258;When analyzing the behavioral repertoire throughout the days, the results demonstrate that the availability of EE [environmental enrichment] in the pens can be effective at mitigating the occurrence of fights in the first days of batch mixing.;R27;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
259;Our results corroborate those obtained by Schaefer et al. (1990) and Ishiwata et al. (2002), who reported the reduction of aggressive occurrences in pigs with access to objects of EE [environmental enrichment].;R27;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
261;Enrichment of the pigs’ environment is a way to reduce aggression and other pathological behavior;R19;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
262;An important factor that may lead to a higher frequency of this behavior [tail biting] is also the lack of a substrate or object to manipulate in the pigs’ surroundings;R19;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
263;[aggresion] Problems also arise unless there is: for open water troughs, 1m for 15 to 20 and for water bowls 1 / 7 animals and good functioning, i.e. water flow is 20l/min. Low water flow, by increasing drinking time per animal, enhances the risk of aggression.;R24;82;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;animal drinker place ratio (water bowl);>=07:01;Aggression;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
263;[aggresion] Problems also arise unless there is: for open water troughs, 1m for 15 to 20 and for water bowls 1 / 7 animals and good functioning, i.e. water flow is 20l/min. Low water flow, by increasing drinking time per animal, enhances the risk of aggression.;R24;82;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;animal drinker place ratio (water bowl);>1:1 - < 07:01;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
264;As concentrations are highest at slat level, animals in sheds with totally slatted floors are exposed to maximum concentrations whenever they are recumbent (Drummond et al., 1978). By comparison, with partially slatted floors, animals lying on a clean solid floor receive minimum exposure. However, if floors are dirty and covered with dung, exposure levels may be higher. Concentrations of ammonia vary in deep litter systems, and are highest when animals or humans disturb the litter.;R17;47;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Illness;-1,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
264;As concentrations are highest at slat level, animals in sheds with totally slatted floors are exposed to maximum concentrations whenever they are recumbent (Drummond et al., 1978). By comparison, with partially slatted floors, animals lying on a clean solid floor receive minimum exposure. However, if floors are dirty and covered with dung, exposure levels may be higher. Concentrations of ammonia vary in deep litter systems, and are highest when animals or humans disturb the litter.;R17;47;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
264;As concentrations are highest at slat level, animals in sheds with totally slatted floors are exposed to maximum concentrations whenever they are recumbent (Drummond et al., 1978). By comparison, with partially slatted floors, animals lying on a clean solid floor receive minimum exposure. However, if floors are dirty and covered with dung, exposure levels may be higher. Concentrations of ammonia vary in deep litter systems, and are highest when animals or humans disturb the litter.;R17;47;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);deep bedding/deep litter;Illness;-1,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
265;However, enrichment devices commonly used in conventional farming, made of metal and plastic, may be assigned only as materials of marginal interest.;R19;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;metal chain;Preferences;0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
265;However, enrichment devices commonly used in conventional farming, made of metal and plastic, may be assigned only as materials of marginal interest.;R19;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
265;However, enrichment devices commonly used in conventional farming, made of metal and plastic, may be assigned only as materials of marginal interest.;R19;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
267;It is worth adding that according to Munsterhjelm et al. [22], a barren environment compared with an enriched one is associated with signs of chronic stress.;R19;3;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;HPA;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
268;However, the percentage of drinking bouts terminated by aggression was significantly greater in the groups of 60 pigs provided with three  drinkers in the report by Turner et al. 1999 . ;R26;332;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Water;animal:drinker place-ratio;15:1 - 20:1;Aggression;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
268;However, the percentage of drinking bouts terminated by aggression was significantly greater in the groups of 60 pigs provided with three  drinkers in the report by Turner et al. 1999 . ;R26;332;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Water;animal:drinker place-ratio;10:1 - 15:1;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
269;Comparison between different bedding materials shows that cattle prefer straw to other materials (Jensen et al., 1988).;R24;89;Cattle;Cattle ;Rest;type of flooring lying area;concrete with litter;Preferences;1,00;Rest, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
269;Comparison between different bedding materials shows that cattle prefer straw to other materials (Jensen et al., 1988).;R24;89;Cattle;Cattle ;Rest;type of flooring lying area;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
270;"Ambient temperatures can affect cows preferences for alternative bedding materials. Manninen et al. (2002) found that cows showed a stronger preference for rubber mats (that provide some thermal insulation) over sand in winter compared to summer.
";R24;89;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;type of flooring lying area;rubber mats;Preferences;1,00;Rest, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
270;"Ambient temperatures can affect cows preferences for alternative bedding materials. Manninen et al. (2002) found that cows showed a stronger preference for rubber mats (that provide some thermal insulation) over sand in winter compared to summer.
";R24;89;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;type of flooring lying area;concrete with litter;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Rest, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
272;"Preference tests show that cattle in winter choose to rest in sheds with dry straw bedding while in summer they choose to rest outdoors (Krohn et al., 1992).
";R24;89;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;type of flooring lying area;not used;Preferences;2,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
272;"Preference tests show that cattle in winter choose to rest in sheds with dry straw bedding while in summer they choose to rest outdoors (Krohn et al., 1992).
";R24;89;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;type of flooring lying area;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
272;"Preference tests show that cattle in winter choose to rest in sheds with dry straw bedding while in summer they choose to rest outdoors (Krohn et al., 1992).
";R24;89;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;type of flooring lying area;not used;Preferences;2,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
273;It seems that the absence of materials for rooting, foraging, or manipulating causes the direction of the pig’s attention to be directed to other individuals in the pen [36,37].;R19;4;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
275;This type of housing [barren environment with slatted floors] does not favor the expression of species-specific behavior.;R19;4;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
277;It has been shown that a lack of possibilities for being able to explore the surroundings in intensive production may lead to increased incidents of aggression, cannibalism, tail biting, and stereotypies;R19;4;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Aggression;-0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
277;It has been shown that a lack of possibilities for being able to explore the surroundings in intensive production may lead to increased incidents of aggression, cannibalism, tail biting, and stereotypies;R19;4;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
279;However, the earlier results obtained by Scott et al. [68] and Zwicker [69] indicate that straw bedding much more effectively ensures a high interest in this type of enrichment, compared with hanging toy(s), even when the number of hanging objects is increased.;R19;5;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;method of offering enrichment;deep straw bedding;Preferences;2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
279;However, the earlier results obtained by Scott et al. [68] and Zwicker [69] indicate that straw bedding much more effectively ensures a high interest in this type of enrichment, compared with hanging toy(s), even when the number of hanging objects is increased.;R19;5;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;method of offering enrichment;hanging objects;Frustration and avoidance;-3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
280;Housing of cows with cooling systems such as water spray and fans in areas with hot climate has been shown to improve milk production and reproductive performance postpartum in comparison to housing without such facilities (e.g. Avendano-Reyes et al., 2006).;R24;91;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;no cooling options ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
280;Housing of cows with cooling systems such as water spray and fans in areas with hot climate has been shown to improve milk production and reproductive performance postpartum in comparison to housing without such facilities (e.g. Avendano-Reyes et al., 2006).;R24;91;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
280;Housing of cows with cooling systems such as water spray and fans in areas with hot climate has been shown to improve milk production and reproductive performance postpartum in comparison to housing without such facilities (e.g. Avendano-Reyes et al., 2006).;R24;91;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;no cooling options ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
280;Housing of cows with cooling systems such as water spray and fans in areas with hot climate has been shown to improve milk production and reproductive performance postpartum in comparison to housing without such facilities (e.g. Avendano-Reyes et al., 2006).;R24;91;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
282;"Dairy cattle prefer to use shade when exposed to solar radiation and the use of shade increases with increasing solar radiation (Tucker et al., 2008) which highlights the importance of the provision of shade for all cows at high ambient solar radiation.
";R24;91;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
282;"Dairy cattle prefer to use shade when exposed to solar radiation and the use of shade increases with increasing solar radiation (Tucker et al., 2008) which highlights the importance of the provision of shade for all cows at high ambient solar radiation.
";R24;91;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
283;Hanging elements do not provide as much interest for pigs as straw, because they are not rootable, and most of them are not edible, so they do not fulfil the requirements from the recommendation.;R19;6;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;method of offering enrichment;hanging objects;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
283;Hanging elements do not provide as much interest for pigs as straw, because they are not rootable, and most of them are not edible, so they do not fulfil the requirements from the recommendation.;R19;6;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
285;In young pigs, an 18-hour fast leads to an increase in the lesions incurred by pigs of a lower social status at the time when feed is again made available. Enriching the environment with straw serves to limit the plasma cortisol increase caused in pigs of lower social status both as a result of fasting and the competitions that take place when feed is again made available (O’Connell et al., 2004).;R17;32;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Health;;;;;;;;;
285;In young pigs, an 18-hour fast leads to an increase in the lesions incurred by pigs of a lower social status at the time when feed is again made available. Enriching the environment with straw serves to limit the plasma cortisol increase caused in pigs of lower social status both as a result of fasting and the competitions that take place when feed is again made available (O’Connell et al., 2004).;R17;32;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;HPA;-1,00;Exploration, Health;;;;;;;;;
286;In a recent study comparing different rooting materials with straw it was concluded that maize silage with straw, spruce chips and compost were valued higher than chopped straw, but this does not imply that straw is not a good rooting material but that other materials may be better (Jensen and Pedersen, 2006).;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Demand;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
286;In a recent study comparing different rooting materials with straw it was concluded that maize silage with straw, spruce chips and compost were valued higher than chopped straw, but this does not imply that straw is not a good rooting material but that other materials may be better (Jensen and Pedersen, 2006).;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
286;In a recent study comparing different rooting materials with straw it was concluded that maize silage with straw, spruce chips and compost were valued higher than chopped straw, but this does not imply that straw is not a good rooting material but that other materials may be better (Jensen and Pedersen, 2006).;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
286;In a recent study comparing different rooting materials with straw it was concluded that maize silage with straw, spruce chips and compost were valued higher than chopped straw, but this does not imply that straw is not a good rooting material but that other materials may be better (Jensen and Pedersen, 2006).;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Demand;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
286;In a recent study comparing different rooting materials with straw it was concluded that maize silage with straw, spruce chips and compost were valued higher than chopped straw, but this does not imply that straw is not a good rooting material but that other materials may be better (Jensen and Pedersen, 2006).;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
286;In a recent study comparing different rooting materials with straw it was concluded that maize silage with straw, spruce chips and compost were valued higher than chopped straw, but this does not imply that straw is not a good rooting material but that other materials may be better (Jensen and Pedersen, 2006).;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
286;In a recent study comparing different rooting materials with straw it was concluded that maize silage with straw, spruce chips and compost were valued higher than chopped straw, but this does not imply that straw is not a good rooting material but that other materials may be better (Jensen and Pedersen, 2006).;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Demand;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
286;In a recent study comparing different rooting materials with straw it was concluded that maize silage with straw, spruce chips and compost were valued higher than chopped straw, but this does not imply that straw is not a good rooting material but that other materials may be better (Jensen and Pedersen, 2006).;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
286;In a recent study comparing different rooting materials with straw it was concluded that maize silage with straw, spruce chips and compost were valued higher than chopped straw, but this does not imply that straw is not a good rooting material but that other materials may be better (Jensen and Pedersen, 2006).;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
287;Increasing the quantity of straw provided, from a small quantity to deep straw, reduced the occurrence of potentially damaging behaviours like belly-nosing, ear-chewing and tail-biting (Day et al., 2002). ;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
287;Increasing the quantity of straw provided, from a small quantity to deep straw, reduced the occurrence of potentially damaging behaviours like belly-nosing, ear-chewing and tail-biting (Day et al., 2002). ;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;method of offering enrichment;deep straw bedding;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
290;This was confirmed by Van de Weerd et al. (2006) who found that a full bed of straw was most successful in occupying the pigs and preventing tail-biting as compared with a straw dispenser.;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;method of offering enrichment;dispenser or rack or floor offering (handful);Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
290;This was confirmed by Van de Weerd et al. (2006) who found that a full bed of straw was most successful in occupying the pigs and preventing tail-biting as compared with a straw dispenser.;R17;38;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;method of offering enrichment;deep straw bedding;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
291;In a previous study, Day et al. (2002) also found that pigs from pens without straw showed increased aggression in comparison with pigs from pens with different amounts of straw.;R6;258;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
291;In a previous study, Day et al. (2002) also found that pigs from pens without straw showed increased aggression in comparison with pigs from pens with different amounts of straw.;R6;258;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
292;It may be possible that chopped straw acts as an exogenous cue (environmental stimulus) which increases the level of exploratory or foraging motivation and, consequently, an individual pig’s propensity to express nosing, rooting and chewing behaviours (Day et al., 1998).;R6;32;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Natural behaviour;0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
292;It may be possible that chopped straw acts as an exogenous cue (environmental stimulus) which increases the level of exploratory or foraging motivation and, consequently, an individual pig’s propensity to express nosing, rooting and chewing behaviours (Day et al., 1998).;R6;32;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
294;"Various so-called ‘toys’ made of plastic, rubber, chains and other non destructible materials are widely used in commercial practice. However, pigs show very limited interest in such toy like materials (Apple and Craig, 1992; Scott et al., 2007) and they are unable to reduce the occurrence of redirected behaviour (Scott et al., 2007).";R10;33;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;toy OR rope;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
294;"Various so-called ‘toys’ made of plastic, rubber, chains and other non destructible materials are widely used in commercial practice. However, pigs show very limited interest in such toy like materials (Apple and Craig, 1992; Scott et al., 2007) and they are unable to reduce the occurrence of redirected behaviour (Scott et al., 2007).";R10;33;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
294;"Various so-called ‘toys’ made of plastic, rubber, chains and other non destructible materials are widely used in commercial practice. However, pigs show very limited interest in such toy like materials (Apple and Craig, 1992; Scott et al., 2007) and they are unable to reduce the occurrence of redirected behaviour (Scott et al., 2007).";R10;33;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
296;"This is in accordance with the ranking of materials found in preference tests where pigs rank peat, compost, green branches and various wood chips above straw whereas toy like materials were ranked below straw (Pedersen et al., 2005, Jensen and Pedersen, 2007; see Studnitz et al., 2007 for review )";R10;33;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
296;"This is in accordance with the ranking of materials found in preference tests where pigs rank peat, compost, green branches and various wood chips above straw whereas toy like materials were ranked below straw (Pedersen et al., 2005, Jensen and Pedersen, 2007; see Studnitz et al., 2007 for review )";R10;33;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
296;"This is in accordance with the ranking of materials found in preference tests where pigs rank peat, compost, green branches and various wood chips above straw whereas toy like materials were ranked below straw (Pedersen et al., 2005, Jensen and Pedersen, 2007; see Studnitz et al., 2007 for review )";R10;33;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
296;"This is in accordance with the ranking of materials found in preference tests where pigs rank peat, compost, green branches and various wood chips above straw whereas toy like materials were ranked below straw (Pedersen et al., 2005, Jensen and Pedersen, 2007; see Studnitz et al., 2007 for review )";R10;33;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
296;"This is in accordance with the ranking of materials found in preference tests where pigs rank peat, compost, green branches and various wood chips above straw whereas toy like materials were ranked below straw (Pedersen et al., 2005, Jensen and Pedersen, 2007; see Studnitz et al., 2007 for review )";R10;33;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
296;"This is in accordance with the ranking of materials found in preference tests where pigs rank peat, compost, green branches and various wood chips above straw whereas toy like materials were ranked below straw (Pedersen et al., 2005, Jensen and Pedersen, 2007; see Studnitz et al., 2007 for review )";R10;33;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
296;"This is in accordance with the ranking of materials found in preference tests where pigs rank peat, compost, green branches and various wood chips above straw whereas toy like materials were ranked below straw (Pedersen et al., 2005, Jensen and Pedersen, 2007; see Studnitz et al., 2007 for review )";R10;33;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;toy OR rope;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
297;Pigs with straw have the opportunity to express more different behavioural elements compared with pigs with no straw and they actually did express more diverse behaviour.;R6;259;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
297;Pigs with straw have the opportunity to express more different behavioural elements compared with pigs with no straw and they actually did express more diverse behaviour.;R6;259;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
297;Pigs with straw have the opportunity to express more different behavioural elements compared with pigs with no straw and they actually did express more diverse behaviour.;R6;259;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
297;Pigs with straw have the opportunity to express more different behavioural elements compared with pigs with no straw and they actually did express more diverse behaviour.;R6;259;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
303;Considering the total period of the evaluation, the females presented worse values of FW [final weight], ADWG [average daily weight gain], and FCR [feed conversion rate] than the males, and the higher availability of space [1,28 vs. 0,85 m2] improved the results for FW [final weight], ADGW [average daily weight gain], and FCR [feed conversion rate].;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
303;Considering the total period of the evaluation, the females presented worse values of FW [final weight], ADWG [average daily weight gain], and FCR [feed conversion rate] than the males, and the higher availability of space [1,28 vs. 0,85 m2] improved the results for FW [final weight], ADGW [average daily weight gain], and FCR [feed conversion rate].;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;> 1m²/pig - 2m²/pig;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
304;When understocked (1,5 : 1 cubicle : cow) cows more often adopt more comfortable lying positions (Wierenga et al., 1985).;R24;98;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;>0.60:1-<=0.77:1;Preferences;0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
304;When understocked (1,5 : 1 cubicle : cow) cows more often adopt more comfortable lying positions (Wierenga et al., 1985).;R24;98;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;>0.60:1-<=0.77:1;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
311;In addition, there were linear increases in ADG (p<0.01) [average daily gain] and ADFI (p<0.01) [average daily feed intake] as space allowance increased from 0.69 to 0.96 m2 /pig in finishing periods and over the entire experimental period. [0,96m²/animal, 0,8m²/animal, 0,69m²/animal tested];R28;1798;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
312;White et al. (2008) found reductions of 17% in ADFI and 10.7% in ADWG by restricting the available space from 0.93 to 0.66 m²/pig.;R27;5;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
312;White et al. (2008) found reductions of 17% in ADFI and 10.7% in ADWG by restricting the available space from 0.93 to 0.66 m²/pig.;R27;5;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
314;On the fifth and eighth week of the stay, the pigs kept at a low stocking density (2 m²/pig) presented higher weight gain than those housed under high stocking density conditions (1 m²/pig) (8.23 kg vs 7.42 kg and 8.83 kg vs 7.69 kg, respectively).;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;> 1m²/pig - 2m²/pig;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
314;On the fifth and eighth week of the stay, the pigs kept at a low stocking density (2 m²/pig) presented higher weight gain than those housed under high stocking density conditions (1 m²/pig) (8.23 kg vs 7.42 kg and 8.83 kg vs 7.69 kg, respectively).;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
315;By means of operant condition techniques, it has been shown that pigs are highly motivated to work for access to foraging material like straw or wood shavings (Ladewig and Matthews, 1996). [bezieht sich auf litter welches für foraging and exploration genutzt werden kann im Abschnitt Abferkelbucht];R10;42;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Demand;3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
315;By means of operant condition techniques, it has been shown that pigs are highly motivated to work for access to foraging material like straw or wood shavings (Ladewig and Matthews, 1996). [bezieht sich auf litter welches für foraging and exploration genutzt werden kann im Abschnitt Abferkelbucht];R10;42;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Demand;3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
315;By means of operant condition techniques, it has been shown that pigs are highly motivated to work for access to foraging material like straw or wood shavings (Ladewig and Matthews, 1996). [bezieht sich auf litter welches für foraging and exploration genutzt werden kann im Abschnitt Abferkelbucht];R10;42;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
318;Pigs with straw have the opportunity to express more different behavioural elements compared with pigs with no straw and they actually did express more diverse behaviour.;R6;259;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
318;Pigs with straw have the opportunity to express more different behavioural elements compared with pigs with no straw and they actually did express more diverse behaviour.;R6;259;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
318;Pigs with straw have the opportunity to express more different behavioural elements compared with pigs with no straw and they actually did express more diverse behaviour.;R6;259;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
318;Pigs with straw have the opportunity to express more different behavioural elements compared with pigs with no straw and they actually did express more diverse behaviour.;R6;259;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
319;This is in line with findings by Haskell et al. (1996) who found that substrate-impoverished environments reduced the relative diversity of manipulative behaviours in pigs and to a smaller extent reduced the relative diversity of behaviour shown in the whole behavioural repertoire, compared with pigs in substrate-enriched environments.;R6;259;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
322;This is in line with findings by Haskell et al. (1996) who found that substrate-impoverished environments reduced the relative diversity of manipulative behaviours in pigs and to a smaller extent reduced the relative diversity of behaviour shown in the whole behavioural repertoire, compared with pigs in substrate-enriched environments.;R6;259;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
326;"Research suggests that the use of EE [environmental enrichment] objects in the pens reduces the occurrence of negative social interactions (Guy et al., 2002; Rodarte et al., 2004), favors psychological and physiological well-being, stimulates behaviors typical of the species, and makes the captive environment more complex (Campos et al., 2010), which can also contribute to productive performance.";R27;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
326;"Research suggests that the use of EE [environmental enrichment] objects in the pens reduces the occurrence of negative social interactions (Guy et al., 2002; Rodarte et al., 2004), favors psychological and physiological well-being, stimulates behaviors typical of the species, and makes the captive environment more complex (Campos et al., 2010), which can also contribute to productive performance.";R27;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
326;"Research suggests that the use of EE [environmental enrichment] objects in the pens reduces the occurrence of negative social interactions (Guy et al., 2002; Rodarte et al., 2004), favors psychological and physiological well-being, stimulates behaviors typical of the species, and makes the captive environment more complex (Campos et al., 2010), which can also contribute to productive performance.";R27;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
326;"Research suggests that the use of EE [environmental enrichment] objects in the pens reduces the occurrence of negative social interactions (Guy et al., 2002; Rodarte et al., 2004), favors psychological and physiological well-being, stimulates behaviors typical of the species, and makes the captive environment more complex (Campos et al., 2010), which can also contribute to productive performance.";R27;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
326;"Research suggests that the use of EE [environmental enrichment] objects in the pens reduces the occurrence of negative social interactions (Guy et al., 2002; Rodarte et al., 2004), favors psychological and physiological well-being, stimulates behaviors typical of the species, and makes the captive environment more complex (Campos et al., 2010), which can also contribute to productive performance.";R27;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
326;"Research suggests that the use of EE [environmental enrichment] objects in the pens reduces the occurrence of negative social interactions (Guy et al., 2002; Rodarte et al., 2004), favors psychological and physiological well-being, stimulates behaviors typical of the species, and makes the captive environment more complex (Campos et al., 2010), which can also contribute to productive performance.";R27;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
329;In the studied condition, the absence of significant effects of EE [environmental enrichment] to minimize the negative effects of the worst stocking density condition are in agreement with the findings of Vermeer et al. (2017), who did not find any effects of EE on the production variables of pigs, but found that the higher availability of space (1 m²/pig vs 0.8 m²/pig) resulted in a higher ADWG [average daily weight gain], and that males had a higher growth rate than females.;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
329;In the studied condition, the absence of significant effects of EE [environmental enrichment] to minimize the negative effects of the worst stocking density condition are in agreement with the findings of Vermeer et al. (2017), who did not find any effects of EE on the production variables of pigs, but found that the higher availability of space (1 m²/pig vs 0.8 m²/pig) resulted in a higher ADWG [average daily weight gain], and that males had a higher growth rate than females.;R27;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
331;"Research suggests that the use of EE [environmental enrichment] objects in the pens reduces the occurrence of negative social interactions (Guy et al., 2002; Rodarte et al., 2004), favors psychological and physiological well-being, stimulates behaviors typical of the species, and makes the captive environment more complex (Campos et al., 2010), which can also contribute to productive performance.";R27;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
331;"Research suggests that the use of EE [environmental enrichment] objects in the pens reduces the occurrence of negative social interactions (Guy et al., 2002; Rodarte et al., 2004), favors psychological and physiological well-being, stimulates behaviors typical of the species, and makes the captive environment more complex (Campos et al., 2010), which can also contribute to productive performance.";R27;2;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
334;"Deep litter is the best bedding material for cows provided that it is regularly refreshed in order to keep it dry, as organic bedding material can harbour some of the bacteria that cause mastitis (Zdanowicz et al., 2004).
";R24;104;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying (straw yard (deep bedded) OR organic open bedded);Illness;-0,50;Health ;;;;;;;;;
334;"Deep litter is the best bedding material for cows provided that it is regularly refreshed in order to keep it dry, as organic bedding material can harbour some of the bacteria that cause mastitis (Zdanowicz et al., 2004).
";R24;104;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;not used;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
335;Herlin (1997), Haley et al., (2001a) and Leonard et al. (1994) found that cows would spent more time lying down on comfort mats than on rubber mats and more time on rubber mats than on concrete;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying /comfortmats/geotextile mats;Preferences;0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
335;Herlin (1997), Haley et al., (2001a) and Leonard et al. (1994) found that cows would spent more time lying down on comfort mats than on rubber mats and more time on rubber mats than on concrete;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
335;Herlin (1997), Haley et al., (2001a) and Leonard et al. (1994) found that cows would spent more time lying down on comfort mats than on rubber mats and more time on rubber mats than on concrete;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Preferences;0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
335;Herlin (1997), Haley et al., (2001a) and Leonard et al. (1994) found that cows would spent more time lying down on comfort mats than on rubber mats and more time on rubber mats than on concrete;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
336;"Lying time increased when concrete stalls were freshly bedded with straw or sand (O‘Connell and Meary 1997; Jensen et al., 1988).
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
336;"Lying time increased when concrete stalls were freshly bedded with straw or sand (O‘Connell and Meary 1997; Jensen et al., 1988).
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
336;"Lying time increased when concrete stalls were freshly bedded with straw or sand (O‘Connell and Meary 1997; Jensen et al., 1988).
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
337;"Bedding appears to play a role in the prevalence of hock lesions (Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Rodenbrug et al 1994). They found that lesions were least common and less severe in stalls with sand or straw.
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
337;"Bedding appears to play a role in the prevalence of hock lesions (Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Rodenbrug et al 1994). They found that lesions were least common and less severe in stalls with sand or straw.
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
337;"Bedding appears to play a role in the prevalence of hock lesions (Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Rodenbrug et al 1994). They found that lesions were least common and less severe in stalls with sand or straw.
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
338;"Cows lying down on solid rubber mats had more lesions than cows lying down on geotextile mattresses.
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
338;"Cows lying down on solid rubber mats had more lesions than cows lying down on geotextile mattresses.
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
339;"Pajor et al (2000a,b) found that geotextile mattresses reduced swelling of the front knees by half compared to concrete stalls with a small amount of straw, because mattresses better absorb the impact as cows lie down.
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-3,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
339;"Pajor et al (2000a,b) found that geotextile mattresses reduced swelling of the front knees by half compared to concrete stalls with a small amount of straw, because mattresses better absorb the impact as cows lie down.
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);not used;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
339;"Pajor et al (2000a,b) found that geotextile mattresses reduced swelling of the front knees by half compared to concrete stalls with a small amount of straw, because mattresses better absorb the impact as cows lie down.
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
340;"Colam-Ainswoth et al (1989) found that the amount of straw on concrete influenced the prevalence of claw disorders. Heifers and cows kept in a straw yard had a much lower prevalence of haemorrhages of the sole and other claw disorders than heifers and cows kept in a free stall with comfort-cubicles (Webster, 2002; Somers et al, 2003).
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows, Heifers;Flooring;floor type movement ;concrete flooring (solid or slattered or with or without straw) ;Pain;-3,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
340;"Colam-Ainswoth et al (1989) found that the amount of straw on concrete influenced the prevalence of claw disorders. Heifers and cows kept in a straw yard had a much lower prevalence of haemorrhages of the sole and other claw disorders than heifers and cows kept in a free stall with comfort-cubicles (Webster, 2002; Somers et al, 2003).
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows, Heifers;Flooring;floor type movement ;concrete flooring (solid or slattered or with or without straw) ;Pain;-3,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
340;"Colam-Ainswoth et al (1989) found that the amount of straw on concrete influenced the prevalence of claw disorders. Heifers and cows kept in a straw yard had a much lower prevalence of haemorrhages of the sole and other claw disorders than heifers and cows kept in a free stall with comfort-cubicles (Webster, 2002; Somers et al, 2003).";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows, Heifers;Flooring;floor type movement ;soft surface (pasture like  OR woodchips OR straw yard) ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
340;"Colam-Ainswoth et al (1989) found that the amount of straw on concrete influenced the prevalence of claw disorders. Heifers and cows kept in a straw yard had a much lower prevalence of haemorrhages of the sole and other claw disorders than heifers and cows kept in a free stall with comfort-cubicles (Webster, 2002; Somers et al, 2003).";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows, Heifers;Flooring;floor type movement ;soft surface (pasture like  OR woodchips OR straw yard) ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-3,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-3,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-3,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-3,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
341;Cows on sand and some new organic materials (compost or material of separation from liquid dung) showed higher frequency of hock lesions compared with straw mattresses. The situation is much better compared with mats, mattresses or loose straw or sawdust (Zähner et al., 2007).;R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
342;"Soft lying mats are equivalent to straw-mattresses regarding cow behaviour in temperate conditions (Wechsler et al. 2000), but cows prefer straw bedding in (cold) winter (Manninen et al., 2002).
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation, Rest;;;;;;;;;
342;"Soft lying mats are equivalent to straw-mattresses regarding cow behaviour in temperate conditions (Wechsler et al. 2000), but cows prefer straw bedding in (cold) winter (Manninen et al., 2002).
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying mats/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation, Rest;;;;;;;;;
343;"Sand is often recommended in cubicles to avoid mastitis, but cows prefer straw and soft lying mats (Manninen et al., 2002).
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
343;"Sand is often recommended in cubicles to avoid mastitis, but cows prefer straw and soft lying mats (Manninen et al., 2002).
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
343;"Sand is often recommended in cubicles to avoid mastitis, but cows prefer straw and soft lying mats (Manninen et al., 2002).
";R24;105;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
344;Wechsler et al. (2000) found that cows on soft lying mats/mattresses still develop more hock lesions and of higher severity compared with straw mattresses (a compact mattress of straw and dry dung composting after a while).;R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Pain;-3,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
344;Wechsler et al. (2000) found that cows on soft lying mats/mattresses still develop more hock lesions and of higher severity compared with straw mattresses (a compact mattress of straw and dry dung composting after a while).;R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
345;"Hock lesions were comparable on soft mats and hard rubber mats, and only somewhat lower and less severe on loose straw. A straw mattress was the only floor type where cows had almost no hock lesions (Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Pain;-0,50;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
345;"Hock lesions were comparable on soft mats and hard rubber mats, and only somewhat lower and less severe on loose straw. A straw mattress was the only floor type where cows had almost no hock lesions (Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-0,50;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
345;"Hock lesions were comparable on soft mats and hard rubber mats, and only somewhat lower and less severe on loose straw. A straw mattress was the only floor type where cows had almost no hock lesions (Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
345;"Hock lesions were comparable on soft mats and hard rubber mats, and only somewhat lower and less severe on loose straw. A straw mattress was the only floor type where cows had almost no hock lesions (Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
345;"Hock lesions were comparable on soft mats and hard rubber mats, and only somewhat lower and less severe on loose straw. A straw mattress was the only floor type where cows had almost no hock lesions (Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
345;"Hock lesions were comparable on soft mats and hard rubber mats, and only somewhat lower and less severe on loose straw. A straw mattress was the only floor type where cows had almost no hock lesions (Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
345;"Hock lesions were comparable on soft mats and hard rubber mats, and only somewhat lower and less severe on loose straw. A straw mattress was the only floor type where cows had almost no hock lesions (Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
349;Adding ramps between tier levels to aid hens’ descent results in more controlled movements, fewer falls, and fewer collisions compared to aviaries without ramps, in hens observed to 43 weeks of age, although no differences in keel bone fractures were found on dissection at 66 weeks of age (Stratmann et al., 2015a).;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
349;Adding ramps between tier levels to aid hens’ descent results in more controlled movements, fewer falls, and fewer collisions compared to aviaries without ramps, in hens observed to 43 weeks of age, although no differences in keel bone fractures were found on dissection at 66 weeks of age (Stratmann et al., 2015a).;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
349;Adding ramps between tier levels to aid hens’ descent results in more controlled movements, fewer falls, and fewer collisions compared to aviaries without ramps, in hens observed to 43 weeks of age, although no differences in keel bone fractures were found on dissection at 66 weeks of age (Stratmann et al., 2015a).;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;not available;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
349;Adding ramps between tier levels to aid hens’ descent results in more controlled movements, fewer falls, and fewer collisions compared to aviaries without ramps, in hens observed to 43 weeks of age, although no differences in keel bone fractures were found on dissection at 66 weeks of age (Stratmann et al., 2015a).;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
349;Adding ramps between tier levels to aid hens’ descent results in more controlled movements, fewer falls, and fewer collisions compared to aviaries without ramps, in hens observed to 43 weeks of age, although no differences in keel bone fractures were found on dissection at 66 weeks of age (Stratmann et al., 2015a).;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
349;Adding ramps between tier levels to aid hens’ descent results in more controlled movements, fewer falls, and fewer collisions compared to aviaries without ramps, in hens observed to 43 weeks of age, although no differences in keel bone fractures were found on dissection at 66 weeks of age (Stratmann et al., 2015a).;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
350;Heerkens et al. (2016a) also added ramps between each level of an experimental offset multi-tier system (i.e. portalstyle) and found a significant reduction in keel bone fractures and foot pad disorders in hens housed with ramps from 17 to 52 weeks of age.;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;not available;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
350;Heerkens et al. (2016a) also added ramps between each level of an experimental offset multi-tier system (i.e. portalstyle) and found a significant reduction in keel bone fractures and foot pad disorders in hens housed with ramps from 17 to 52 weeks of age.;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
350;Heerkens et al. (2016a) also added ramps between each level of an experimental offset multi-tier system (i.e. portalstyle) and found a significant reduction in keel bone fractures and foot pad disorders in hens housed with ramps from 17 to 52 weeks of age.;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;not available;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
350;Heerkens et al. (2016a) also added ramps between each level of an experimental offset multi-tier system (i.e. portalstyle) and found a significant reduction in keel bone fractures and foot pad disorders in hens housed with ramps from 17 to 52 weeks of age.;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
351;Alternative perch designs may also help: Pickel et al. (2011) found that soft perch covers with air cells between the cover and the hard core reduced pressure (N/cm2 ) on hens’ keel bones and foot pads during tests with 36 hens.;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
351;Alternative perch designs may also help: Pickel et al. (2011) found that soft perch covers with air cells between the cover and the hard core reduced pressure (N/cm2 ) on hens’ keel bones and foot pads during tests with 36 hens.;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
352;Stratmann et al. (2015b) found that hens housed in multi-tier systems over a laying cycle and given either metal perches or perches covered in 3.4 cm of soft polyurethane had significantly fewer keel bone fractures with soft perches compared to those with hard perches;R48;386;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
353;Although range access undoubtedly provides greater freedom of behaviour in hens, who can interact with the natural environment (e.g. making and using dustbaths in the earth, foraging for insects and grass, sunbathing), it also comes with additional risks, such as predation and disease.;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
353;Although range access undoubtedly provides greater freedom of behaviour in hens, who can interact with the natural environment (e.g. making and using dustbaths in the earth, foraging for insects and grass, sunbathing), it also comes with additional risks, such as predation and disease.;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
353;Although range access undoubtedly provides greater freedom of behaviour in hens, who can interact with the natural environment (e.g. making and using dustbaths in the earth, foraging for insects and grass, sunbathing), it also comes with additional risks, such as predation and disease.;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
353;Although range access undoubtedly provides greater freedom of behaviour in hens, who can interact with the natural environment (e.g. making and using dustbaths in the earth, foraging for insects and grass, sunbathing), it also comes with additional risks, such as predation and disease.;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
353;Although range access undoubtedly provides greater freedom of behaviour in hens, who can interact with the natural environment (e.g. making and using dustbaths in the earth, foraging for insects and grass, sunbathing), it also comes with additional risks, such as predation and disease.;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
353;Although range access undoubtedly provides greater freedom of behaviour in hens, who can interact with the natural environment (e.g. making and using dustbaths in the earth, foraging for insects and grass, sunbathing), it also comes with additional risks, such as predation and disease.;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
354;Free-range hens have greater exposure to serious diseases including Newcastle disease, mycoplasma, and avian influenza (Lister and van Nijhuis, 2012).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Illness;-3,00;Exploration, Health;;;;;;;;;
354;Free-range hens have greater exposure to serious diseases including Newcastle disease, mycoplasma, and avian influenza (Lister and van Nijhuis, 2012).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Health;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);straw matresses;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);soft lying/comfort mats/geotextile mats;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
355;"The number of cows without any lesion can be summarised as: straw mattress: 89%; compost 59%, solid matters with separation from liquid manure: 59%; sand: 52%; small quantity of loose straw: 32%, comfort mats: 15%, rubber mats: 10% (Wechsler et al., 2000 and Buchwalder et al., 2000).
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material (cubicle);rubber mats;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
356;"The effect of bedding material on udder health is an important consideration for farmers. It is generally thought that organic bedding material (e.g. saw dust) has higher bacterial counts than inorganic material (e.g. sand), leading to a higher bacterial load of the teats ends. Zdanowicz et al (2004) found more E. coli on sawdust and wood shavings but more Streptococcus on sand.
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;type of bedding (cubicle);concrete with litter;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
356;"The effect of bedding material on udder health is an important consideration for farmers. It is generally thought that organic bedding material (e.g. saw dust) has higher bacterial counts than inorganic material (e.g. sand), leading to a higher bacterial load of the teats ends. Zdanowicz et al (2004) found more E. coli on sawdust and wood shavings but more Streptococcus on sand.
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;type of bedding (cubicle);concrete with litter;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
356;"The effect of bedding material on udder health is an important consideration for farmers. It is generally thought that organic bedding material (e.g. saw dust) has higher bacterial counts than inorganic material (e.g. sand), leading to a higher bacterial load of the teats ends. Zdanowicz et al (2004) found more E. coli on sawdust and wood shavings but more Streptococcus on sand.
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;type of bedding (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
356;"The effect of bedding material on udder health is an important consideration for farmers. It is generally thought that organic bedding material (e.g. saw dust) has higher bacterial counts than inorganic material (e.g. sand), leading to a higher bacterial load of the teats ends. Zdanowicz et al (2004) found more E. coli on sawdust and wood shavings but more Streptococcus on sand.
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;type of bedding (cubicle);concrete with litter;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
356;"The effect of bedding material on udder health is an important consideration for farmers. It is generally thought that organic bedding material (e.g. saw dust) has higher bacterial counts than inorganic material (e.g. sand), leading to a higher bacterial load of the teats ends. Zdanowicz et al (2004) found more E. coli on sawdust and wood shavings but more Streptococcus on sand.
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;type of bedding (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
356;"The effect of bedding material on udder health is an important consideration for farmers. It is generally thought that organic bedding material (e.g. saw dust) has higher bacterial counts than inorganic material (e.g. sand), leading to a higher bacterial load of the teats ends. Zdanowicz et al (2004) found more E. coli on sawdust and wood shavings but more Streptococcus on sand.
";R24;106;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;type of bedding (cubicle);concrete with litter;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
358;"Summer access to pasture has been found to reduce mortality of dairy cows in Denmark (Thomsen et al. 2006; Thomsen et al., 2007).
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Survival;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
358;"Summer access to pasture has been found to reduce mortality of dairy cows in Denmark (Thomsen et al. 2006; Thomsen et al., 2007).
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
359;"A number of epidemiological or experimental studies in different countries have found that lactating cows without access to pasture suffer from a higher incidence of a variety of health problems including mastitis (Bendixen et al., 1986b; Bendixen et al., 1988a; Waage et al., 1998; Barkema et al., 1999a; 1999b; Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002), tramped teats (Ekesbo, 1966; Geer and Grommers, 1975; Bendixen et al., 1986b), metritis (Bruun et al., 2002), Salmonella enterica infections (Veling et al., 2002), dystocia (Bendixen at al, 1986a), retained placenta (Bendixen et al., 1987a) and ketosis (Bendixen et al., 1987c).";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
360;Hock and knee injuries are also more common when cows have no or limited access to pasture (Haskell et al., 2006, Rutherford et al., 2008).;R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Pain;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
360;Hock and knee injuries are also more common when cows have no or limited access to pasture (Haskell et al., 2006, Rutherford et al., 2008).;R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
360;"Hock and knee injuries are also more common when cows have no or limited access to pasture (Haskell et al., 2006, Rutherford et al., 2008).
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Pain;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
360;Hock and knee injuries are also more common when cows have no or limited access to pasture (Haskell et al., 2006, Rutherford et al., 2008).;R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Pain;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
360;Hock and knee injuries are also more common when cows have no or limited access to pasture (Haskell et al., 2006, Rutherford et al., 2008).;R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
360;"Hock and knee injuries are also more common when cows have no or limited access to pasture (Haskell et al., 2006, Rutherford et al., 2008).
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Pain;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
361;"Washburn et al. (2002) reported that cows without access to pasture had 1.8 times as many clinical cases of mastitis and were 8 times more likely to be culled for mastitis in comparison to cows at pasture.
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-3,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
361;"Washburn et al. (2002) reported that cows without access to pasture had 1.8 times as many clinical cases of mastitis and were 8 times more likely to be culled for mastitis in comparison to cows at pasture.
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Pain;-3,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
361;"Washburn et al. (2002) reported that cows without access to pasture had 1.8 times as many clinical cases of mastitis and were 8 times more likely to be culled for mastitis in comparison to cows at pasture.
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
362;"Green et al (2008a) found the chance of having non-ambulatory cattle to be 4 times higher when the predominant flooring area was not pasture compared to when it was pasture.
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;not used;Pain;-1,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
362;"Green et al (2008a) found the chance of having non-ambulatory cattle to be 4 times higher when the predominant flooring area was not pasture compared to when it was pasture.
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
363;"Another important aspect of giving dairy cows access to pasture is that they get vitamin D through the radiation of the skin. Vitamin D is the principal regulator of calcium homeostasis, and is important in skeletal development and bone mineralization, as well as for cell proliferation and the immune system (Horts et al., 1994; Holick, 2003; Mikkelsen, 2006).
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
363;"Another important aspect of giving dairy cows access to pasture is that they get vitamin D through the radiation of the skin. Vitamin D is the principal regulator of calcium homeostasis, and is important in skeletal development and bone mineralization, as well as for cell proliferation and the immune system (Horts et al., 1994; Holick, 2003; Mikkelsen, 2006).
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
363;"Another important aspect of giving dairy cows access to pasture is that they get vitamin D through the radiation of the skin. Vitamin D is the principal regulator of calcium homeostasis, and is important in skeletal development and bone mineralization, as well as for cell proliferation and the immune system (Horts et al., 1994; Holick, 2003; Mikkelsen, 2006).
";R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
363;"Another important aspect of giving dairy cows access to pasture is that they get vitamin D through the radiation of the skin. Vitamin D is the principal regulator of calcium homeostasis, and is important in skeletal development and bone mineralization, as well as for cell proliferation and the immune system (Horts et al., 1994; Holick, 2003; Mikkelsen, 2006).
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
364;Access to summer pasture will, however, give the dairy cows enough solar UV radiation to carry out endogenous syntheis of vitamin D3 in the skin (Horst et al., 1994).;R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
364;Access to summer pasture will, however, give the dairy cows enough solar UV radiation to carry out endogenous syntheis of vitamin D3 in the skin (Horst et al., 1994).;R24;112;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
365;A large epidemiological survey of 4 516 dairy farms in the US, found that a lack of access to pasture in winter was a significant risk factor for a high incidence of digital dermatitis, and that providing access to a dry-lot was not sufficient to overcome this (Wells et al., 1999).;R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Pain;-3,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
365;A large epidemiological survey of 4 516 dairy farms in the US, found that a lack of access to pasture in winter was a significant risk factor for a high incidence of digital dermatitis, and that providing access to a dry-lot was not sufficient to overcome this (Wells et al., 1999).;R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
366;Nearly four times as many farms on which cows had no access to pasture had a high (>5%) incidence of dermatitis than farms on which cows were kept only on pasture (Wells et al., 1999).;R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Pain;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
367;Nearly four times as many farms on which cows had no access to pasture had a high (>5%) incidence of dermatitis than farms on which cows were kept only on pasture (Wells et al., 1999).;R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
368;"An epidemiological survey of 86 dairy farms in the Netherlands (Somers et al., 2003) reported that all types of hoof disorders were more prevalent in cows in zero-grazing systems than among cows with some access to pasture. Again, the difference was substantial: the prevalence of severe cases of sole haemorrhage was twice as high with zero-grazing compared to other housing systems. Even where cows had some seasonal access to pasture, hoof disorders (but not digital dermatitis) were more prevalent during the period of indoor housing compared to the end of the period of summer access to pasture.
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
368;"An epidemiological survey of 86 dairy farms in the Netherlands (Somers et al., 2003) reported that all types of hoof disorders were more prevalent in cows in zero-grazing systems than among cows with some access to pasture. Again, the difference was substantial: the prevalence of severe cases of sole haemorrhage was twice as high with zero-grazing compared to other housing systems. Even where cows had some seasonal access to pasture, hoof disorders (but not digital dermatitis) were more prevalent during the period of indoor housing compared to the end of the period of summer access to pasture.
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
368;"An epidemiological survey of 86 dairy farms in the Netherlands (Somers et al., 2003) reported that all types of hoof disorders were more prevalent in cows in zero-grazing systems than among cows with some access to pasture. Again, the difference was substantial: the prevalence of severe cases of sole haemorrhage was twice as high with zero-grazing compared to other housing systems. Even where cows had some seasonal access to pasture, hoof disorders (but not digital dermatitis) were more prevalent during the period of indoor housing compared to the end of the period of summer access to pasture.
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
368;"An epidemiological survey of 86 dairy farms in the Netherlands (Somers et al., 2003) reported that all types of hoof disorders were more prevalent in cows in zero-grazing systems than among cows with some access to pasture. Again, the difference was substantial: the prevalence of severe cases of sole haemorrhage was twice as high with zero-grazing compared to other housing systems. Even where cows had some seasonal access to pasture, hoof disorders (but not digital dermatitis) were more prevalent during the period of indoor housing compared to the end of the period of summer access to pasture.
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
368;"An epidemiological survey of 86 dairy farms in the Netherlands (Somers et al., 2003) reported that all types of hoof disorders were more prevalent in cows in zero-grazing systems than among cows with some access to pasture. Again, the difference was substantial: the prevalence of severe cases of sole haemorrhage was twice as high with zero-grazing compared to other housing systems. Even where cows had some seasonal access to pasture, hoof disorders (but not digital dermatitis) were more prevalent during the period of indoor housing compared to the end of the period of summer access to pasture.
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Pain;-3,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
368;"An epidemiological survey of 86 dairy farms in the Netherlands (Somers et al., 2003) reported that all types of hoof disorders were more prevalent in cows in zero-grazing systems than among cows with some access to pasture. Again, the difference was substantial: the prevalence of severe cases of sole haemorrhage was twice as high with zero-grazing compared to other housing systems. Even where cows had some seasonal access to pasture, hoof disorders (but not digital dermatitis) were more prevalent during the period of indoor housing compared to the end of the period of summer access to pasture.
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
369;"A survey of 37 farms in the UK found a higher prevalence of lameness in cows that could not graze compared to cows that have some ability to graze (prevalence of 39% versus 15%) as well as a higher frequency of swollen knees (Haskell et al., 2006).
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Pain;-3,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
369;"A survey of 37 farms in the UK found a higher prevalence of lameness in cows that could not graze compared to cows that have some ability to graze (prevalence of 39% versus 15%) as well as a higher frequency of swollen knees (Haskell et al., 2006).
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Pain;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
369;"A survey of 37 farms in the UK found a higher prevalence of lameness in cows that could not graze compared to cows that have some ability to graze (prevalence of 39% versus 15%) as well as a higher frequency of swollen knees (Haskell et al., 2006).
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
369;"A survey of 37 farms in the UK found a higher prevalence of lameness in cows that could not graze compared to cows that have some ability to graze (prevalence of 39% versus 15%) as well as a higher frequency of swollen knees (Haskell et al., 2006).
";R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
370;Recent work indicates that even a short period of access to pasture can reduce lameness. When a matched sample of cows were either kept in a free-stall barn or moved out onto pasture, cows on pasture showed a dramatic improvement in gait just over four weeks of exposure (Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007).;R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Pain;-3,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
370;Recent work indicates that even a short period of access to pasture can reduce lameness. When a matched sample of cows were either kept in a free-stall barn or moved out onto pasture, cows on pasture showed a dramatic improvement in gait just over four weeks of exposure (Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007).;R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
371;However, some studies report an increased occurrence of digital dermatitis (Holzauer et al. 2006) or of interdigital necrobacillosis (Alban et al. 1997) when cows do have access to pasture.;R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Pain;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
371;However, some studies report an increased occurrence of digital dermatitis (Holzauer et al. 2006) or of interdigital necrobacillosis (Alban et al. 1997) when cows do have access to pasture.;R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
371;However, some studies report an increased occurrence of digital dermatitis (Holzauer et al. 2006) or of interdigital necrobacillosis (Alban et al. 1997) when cows do have access to pasture.;R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Pain;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
371;However, some studies report an increased occurrence of digital dermatitis (Holzauer et al. 2006) or of interdigital necrobacillosis (Alban et al. 1997) when cows do have access to pasture.;R24;113;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
376;"A recent study from New Zealand investigated to what extent dairy cows seek shade from the sun when they had free access to shade cloths that blocked 25%, 50% or 99% of solar radiation (Tucker et al., 2007). The cows spent more time under shade cloths that gave the most protection from the sun, and time spent in shade was positively related to ambient solar radiation (Tucker et al., 2007).
";R24;115;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;not used ;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
376;"A recent study from New Zealand investigated to what extent dairy cows seek shade from the sun when they had free access to shade cloths that blocked 25%, 50% or 99% of solar radiation (Tucker et al., 2007). The cows spent more time under shade cloths that gave the most protection from the sun, and time spent in shade was positively related to ambient solar radiation (Tucker et al., 2007).
";R24;115;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;not used ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
376;"A recent study from New Zealand investigated to what extent dairy cows seek shade from the sun when they had free access to shade cloths that blocked 25%, 50% or 99% of solar radiation (Tucker et al., 2007). The cows spent more time under shade cloths that gave the most protection from the sun, and time spent in shade was positively related to ambient solar radiation (Tucker et al., 2007).
";R24;115;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;not used ;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
376;"A recent study from New Zealand investigated to what extent dairy cows seek shade from the sun when they had free access to shade cloths that blocked 25%, 50% or 99% of solar radiation (Tucker et al., 2007). The cows spent more time under shade cloths that gave the most protection from the sun, and time spent in shade was positively related to ambient solar radiation (Tucker et al., 2007).
";R24;115;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;not used ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
377;"Cows kept outdoors spent less time lying down, likely because of the wet lying surface, (Keys et al., 1976) and experienced higher cortisol levels. [during winter]
";R24;115;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;access to alternative outdoor areas;HPA;-1,00;Rest, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
377;"Cows kept outdoors spent less time lying down, likely because of the wet lying surface, (Keys et al., 1976) and experienced higher cortisol levels. [during winter]
";R24;115;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;access to alternative outdoor areas;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Rest, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
377;"Cows kept outdoors spent less time lying down, likely because of the wet lying surface, (Keys et al., 1976) and experienced higher cortisol levels. [during winter]
";R24;115;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
377;"Cows kept outdoors spent less time lying down, likely because of the wet lying surface, (Keys et al., 1976) and experienced higher cortisol levels. [during winter]
";R24;115;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
378;"In cubicle-houses (= free stalls), concrete flooring either solid or slatted, is common. Concrete flooring has primarily been introduced for labour reasons. The abrasive and unyielding nature of concrete has been associated with a high rate of claw horn growth (Murphy and Hannan, 1987) and can cause claws to be deformed (Hahn et al., 1986). This can lead to an overburden of the lateral hind claw and trauma of the corium (Tousaint Raven, 1985, van der Tol et al., 2003).
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-0,50;Movement;;;;;;;;;
378;"In cubicle-houses (= free stalls), concrete flooring either solid or slatted, is common. Concrete flooring has primarily been introduced for labour reasons. The abrasive and unyielding nature of concrete has been associated with a high rate of claw horn growth (Murphy and Hannan, 1987) and can cause claws to be deformed (Hahn et al., 1986). This can lead to an overburden of the lateral hind claw and trauma of the corium (Tousaint Raven, 1985, van der Tol et al., 2003).
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;not used ;Preferences;0,01;Movement;;;;;;;;;
379;"Straw yards are better than concrete flooring systems regarding claw health and locomotion (Somers et al, 2003; Somers et al 2005).
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-0,50;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
379;"Straw yards are better than concrete flooring systems regarding claw health and locomotion (Somers et al, 2003; Somers et al 2005).
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
380;"Jungbluth et al (2003) conducted a study on flooring in free stalls on the basis that soft rubber mats improve claw health and slip resistance. Less slipping was detected on rubber mats than on concrete floors.
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
380;"Jungbluth et al (2003) conducted a study on flooring in free stalls on the basis that soft rubber mats improve claw health and slip resistance. Less slipping was detected on rubber mats than on concrete floors.
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
394;However, while turkeys show reduced levels of injurious pecking under UV light [14], brown layers under commercial conditions have been found to have more skin injuries and plumage damage when housed with additional UV light [15].;R30;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
945;Hens spent less time feeding under all intensities of UVA light and showed more foraging, ground pecking, and preening at lower levels of UVA/B light.;R66;100;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration, Safety;;;;;;;;;
946;Indeed, Bestman et al. (2019) confirmed that a larger amount of daylight inside the house was related to a higher range use and a better plumage cover in free range hens. ;R66;101;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration, Safety;;;;;;;;;
393;Basal corticosterone levels are higher in chicks reared in a UV-deficient environment than in chicks supplied with UV [12] and layers provided with additional UV have lower stress and fear levels [13].;R30;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
947;Also for keel bone damage, the absence of daylight was identified as a risk factor in organic laying hen flocks (Jung et al., 2019).;R66;101;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration, Safety;;;;;;;;;
393;Basal corticosterone levels are higher in chicks reared in a UV-deficient environment than in chicks supplied with UV [12] and layers provided with additional UV have lower stress and fear levels [13].;R30;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
393;Basal corticosterone levels are higher in chicks reared in a UV-deficient environment than in chicks supplied with UV [12] and layers provided with additional UV have lower stress and fear levels [13].;R30;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
394;However, while turkeys show reduced levels of injurious pecking under UV light [14], brown layers under commercial conditions have been found to have more skin injuries and plumage damage when housed with additional UV light [15].;R30;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
394;However, while turkeys show reduced levels of injurious pecking under UV light [14], brown layers under commercial conditions have been found to have more skin injuries and plumage damage when housed with additional UV light [15].;R30;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
400;In general, the birds tended to spend more time in Daylight (p = 0.071) compared with Control light.;R30;10;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Preferences;0,50;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
402;"There was a significant difference between treatments for body score (GLM; F29 = 4.47, p = 0.044), with Daylight birds having a better feather score, i.e., lower damage, than Forest light birds (Tukey test p = 0.039) (Figure 5).";R30;10;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
403;In the preference test, there were indications that either Daylight or Forest light was preferred over Control light, but there was no evidence that the birds had any preference for Daylight over Forest light and vice versa. Both Daylight or Forest light contained UV, but differed in the proportion of blue and green, so it appears that the presence of UV created the difference in preference;R30;12;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Safety, Health;;;;;;;;;
403;In the preference test, there were indications that either Daylight or Forest light was preferred over Control light, but there was no evidence that the birds had any preference for Daylight over Forest light and vice versa. Both Daylight or Forest light contained UV, but differed in the proportion of blue and green, so it appears that the presence of UV created the difference in preference;R30;12;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Preferences;1,00;Safety, Health;;;;;;;;;
404;Other general positive effects related to provision of UVA, such as reduced fearfulness in broilers [32] and in layers [12,13,33] have been found;R30;12;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
409;Studying different types of EE [environmental enrichment], Van de Weerd et al. (2006) found higher weight gain results in environments enriched with a shaving bed [Holzspäne] but no advantages were found when they used point-source EE [environmental enrichment] similar to that adopted in our research.;R27;5;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
409;Studying different types of EE [environmental enrichment], Van de Weerd et al. (2006) found higher weight gain results in environments enriched with a shaving bed [Holzspäne] but no advantages were found when they used point-source EE [environmental enrichment] similar to that adopted in our research.;R27;5;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
410;Enrichment was identified as the main risk factor [5], but also fully and partially slatted floors, more than five animals per feeding space and less than 1 m2 per animal may increase the risk of tail biting.;R32;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);partly slatted floor;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
410;Enrichment was identified as the main risk factor [5], but also fully and partially slatted floors, more than five animals per feeding space and less than 1 m2 per animal may increase the risk of tail biting.;R32;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);slatted floor;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
410;Enrichment was identified as the main risk factor [5], but also fully and partially slatted floors, more than five animals per feeding space and less than 1 m2 per animal may increase the risk of tail biting.;R32;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
410;Enrichment was identified as the main risk factor [5], but also fully and partially slatted floors, more than five animals per feeding space and less than 1 m2 per animal may increase the risk of tail biting.;R32;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
410;Enrichment was identified as the main risk factor [5], but also fully and partially slatted floors, more than five animals per feeding space and less than 1 m2 per animal may increase the risk of tail biting.;R32;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;>5:1-<7:1;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
410;Enrichment was identified as the main risk factor [5], but also fully and partially slatted floors, more than five animals per feeding space and less than 1 m2 per animal may increase the risk of tail biting.;R32;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
410;Enrichment was identified as the main risk factor [5], but also fully and partially slatted floors, more than five animals per feeding space and less than 1 m2 per animal may increase the risk of tail biting.;R32;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;> 1m²/pig - 2m²/pig;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
411;"The influence of EE (environmental enrichment) on the performance of pigs is more noticeable when straw is used as EE material or when the overlapping bedding condition is adopted (Van de Weerd & Day, 2009; Averós et al., 2010).";R27;5;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;full length straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
411;"The influence of EE (environmental enrichment) on the performance of pigs is more noticeable when straw is used as EE material or when the overlapping bedding condition is adopted (Van de Weerd & Day, 2009; Averós et al., 2010).";R27;5;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
412;The review of D’Eath et al. [2] and the analysis of Gonyou et al. [17] both reported a reducing effect of a lower space allowance on daily gain, especially below 0.8 m2 per pig.;R32;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
412;The review of D’Eath et al. [2] and the analysis of Gonyou et al. [17] both reported a reducing effect of a lower space allowance on daily gain, especially below 0.8 m2 per pig.;R32;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;> 1m²/pig - 2m²/pig;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
413;Similarly, Cornale et al. (2015) observed a significant reduction in the occurrence of aggressive behaviors in enriched pens (1.30% vs 0.61%), a reduction in the incidence of caudophagia, and an increase in the occurrence of positive social interactions.;R27;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
413;Similarly, Cornale et al. (2015) observed a significant reduction in the occurrence of aggressive behaviors in enriched pens (1.30% vs 0.61%), a reduction in the incidence of caudophagia, and an increase in the occurrence of positive social interactions.;R27;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
413;Similarly, Cornale et al. (2015) observed a significant reduction in the occurrence of aggressive behaviors in enriched pens (1.30% vs 0.61%), a reduction in the incidence of caudophagia, and an increase in the occurrence of positive social interactions.;R27;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
413;Similarly, Cornale et al. (2015) observed a significant reduction in the occurrence of aggressive behaviors in enriched pens (1.30% vs 0.61%), a reduction in the incidence of caudophagia, and an increase in the occurrence of positive social interactions.;R27;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
414;Vermeer et al. [16] even found an improved daily gain with increased space allowances above 1.0 m2 per pig.;R32;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;>0,66m² - <=1m²;Fitness;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
414;Vermeer et al. [16] even found an improved daily gain with increased space allowances above 1.0 m2 per pig.;R32;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;space per animal;> 1m²/pig - 2m²/pig;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
417;An AFR of 13:1 has marked negative effects on the pigs’ performance and behaviour and is inadvisable to be used for this feeding system.;R34;46;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
417;An AFR of 13:1 has marked negative effects on the pigs’ performance and behaviour and is inadvisable to be used for this feeding system.;R34;46;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
419;"With dry feeding systems for fatteners, it has been observed that a restricted AFR may lead to competition for feed, and consequently to increased aggression at the feeding trough, reduced duration of feeding and lower weight gain with more variation in weight between individuals (Hansen et al., 1982; Botermans and Georgsson, 2001; Kircher, 2001; Turner et al., 2002).";R34;46;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;feeding regime;restricted;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
419;"With dry feeding systems for fatteners, it has been observed that a restricted AFR may lead to competition for feed, and consequently to increased aggression at the feeding trough, reduced duration of feeding and lower weight gain with more variation in weight between individuals (Hansen et al., 1982; Botermans and Georgsson, 2001; Kircher, 2001; Turner et al., 2002).";R34;46;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;feeding regime;restricted;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
419;"With dry feeding systems for fatteners, it has been observed that a restricted AFR may lead to competition for feed, and consequently to increased aggression at the feeding trough, reduced duration of feeding and lower weight gain with more variation in weight between individuals (Hansen et al., 1982; Botermans and Georgsson, 2001; Kircher, 2001; Turner et al., 2002).";R34;46;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;feeding regime;ad libitum;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
419;"With dry feeding systems for fatteners, it has been observed that a restricted AFR may lead to competition for feed, and consequently to increased aggression at the feeding trough, reduced duration of feeding and lower weight gain with more variation in weight between individuals (Hansen et al., 1982; Botermans and Georgsson, 2001; Kircher, 2001; Turner et al., 2002).";R34;46;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;feeding regime;ad libitum;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
420;The trough was quickly emptied after the end of a feeding period for the 13:1 AFR, and feed was never available at night. In the case of the 4:1 and 7:1 AFRs, feed often remained in the trough for a longer period after a feeding period, and could also be available at night.;R34;49;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
420;The trough was quickly emptied after the end of a feeding period for the 13:1 AFR, and feed was never available at night. In the case of the 4:1 and 7:1 AFRs, feed often remained in the trough for a longer period after a feeding period, and could also be available at night.;R34;49;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
420;The trough was quickly emptied after the end of a feeding period for the 13:1 AFR, and feed was never available at night. In the case of the 4:1 and 7:1 AFRs, feed often remained in the trough for a longer period after a feeding period, and could also be available at night.;R34;49;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;7:10-11.5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
423;"The focal animals had a longer duration of waiting in front of the trough as AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1] increased (F218 = 44.7, p < 0.001; Fig. 2), and the duration of waiting decreased with increasing weight class (F2223 = 15.0, p < 0.001).";R34;49;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
423;"The focal animals had a longer duration of waiting in front of the trough as AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1] increased (F218 = 44.7, p < 0.001; Fig. 2), and the duration of waiting decreased with increasing weight class (F2223 = 15.0, p < 0.001).";R34;49;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;7:10-11.5:1;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
423;"The focal animals had a longer duration of waiting in front of the trough as AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1] increased (F218 = 44.7, p < 0.001; Fig. 2), and the duration of waiting decreased with increasing weight class (F2223 = 15.0, p < 0.001).";R34;49;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
423;"The focal animals had a longer duration of waiting in front of the trough as AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1] increased (F218 = 44.7, p < 0.001; Fig. 2), and the duration of waiting decreased with increasing weight class (F2223 = 15.0, p < 0.001).";R34;49;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
423;"The focal animals had a longer duration of waiting in front of the trough as AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1] increased (F218 = 44.7, p < 0.001; Fig. 2), and the duration of waiting decreased with increasing weight class (F2223 = 15.0, p < 0.001).";R34;49;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;7:10-11.5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
423;"The focal animals had a longer duration of waiting in front of the trough as AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1] increased (F218 = 44.7, p < 0.001; Fig. 2), and the duration of waiting decreased with increasing weight class (F2223 = 15.0, p < 0.001).";R34;49;Pigs;Pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
425;"As the AFR increased [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], the focal pigs were more often pushed away from the trough without aggression (F218 = 25.3, p < 0.001; Fig. 4). Moreover, the pigs of the lightest weight class were pushed away more frequently at the AFR 13:1 (weight class–AFR interaction; F4223 = 3.5, p < 0.01).";R34;50;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
425;"As the AFR increased [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], the focal pigs were more often pushed away from the trough without aggression (F218 = 25.3, p < 0.001; Fig. 4). Moreover, the pigs of the lightest weight class were pushed away more frequently at the AFR 13:1 (weight class–AFR interaction; F4223 = 3.5, p < 0.01).";R34;50;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;7:10-11.5:1;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
425;"As the AFR increased [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], the focal pigs were more often pushed away from the trough without aggression (F218 = 25.3, p < 0.001; Fig. 4). Moreover, the pigs of the lightest weight class were pushed away more frequently at the AFR 13:1 (weight class–AFR interaction; F4223 = 3.5, p < 0.01).";R34;50;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
425;"As the AFR increased [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], the focal pigs were more often pushed away from the trough without aggression (F218 = 25.3, p < 0.001; Fig. 4). Moreover, the pigs of the lightest weight class were pushed away more frequently at the AFR 13:1 (weight class–AFR interaction; F4223 = 3.5, p < 0.01).";R34;50;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
425;"As the AFR increased [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], the focal pigs were more often pushed away from the trough without aggression (F218 = 25.3, p < 0.001; Fig. 4). Moreover, the pigs of the lightest weight class were pushed away more frequently at the AFR 13:1 (weight class–AFR interaction; F4223 = 3.5, p < 0.01).";R34;50;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;7:10-11.5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
425;"As the AFR increased [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], the focal pigs were more often pushed away from the trough without aggression (F218 = 25.3, p < 0.001; Fig. 4). Moreover, the pigs of the lightest weight class were pushed away more frequently at the AFR 13:1 (weight class–AFR interaction; F4223 = 3.5, p < 0.01).";R34;50;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
426;Taking into account the data for all the experimental pigs, the absolute average daily weight gains (S.E.) for the different AFRs were between 811  9 g/day (13:1) and 918  6 g/day (4:1) and this effect was significant (F218 = 5.0, p < 0.05).;R34;50;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
426;Taking into account the data for all the experimental pigs, the absolute average daily weight gains (S.E.) for the different AFRs were between 811  9 g/day (13:1) and 918  6 g/day (4:1) and this effect was significant (F218 = 5.0, p < 0.05).;R34;50;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
428;On concrete flooring cows have a higher risk for claw disorders than on other floorings such as pasture and straw yards (Somers et al., 2002;R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Illness;-0,50;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
428;On concrete flooring cows have a higher risk for claw disorders than on other floorings such as pasture and straw yards (Somers et al., 2002;R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
428;On concrete flooring cows have a higher risk for claw disorders than on other floorings such as pasture and straw yards (Somers et al., 2002;R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Illness;-0,50;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
428;On concrete flooring cows have a higher risk for claw disorders than on other floorings such as pasture and straw yards (Somers et al., 2002;R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
429;"Recently several studies have been presented on the positive effect of rubber flooring on claw health (Kremer et al., 2006).
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
429;"Recently several studies have been presented on the positive effect of rubber flooring on claw health (Kremer et al., 2006).
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;not used ;Illness;-0,50;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
430;"Several studies (Vokey et al., 2001 and Vanegas et al., 2006) pointed to the positive effect for cows of rubber alley mats in combination with sand beds compared to cows kept on concrete alleys with concrete stalls or bedded with mattresses. [claw health]
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;not used ;Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
430;"Several studies (Vokey et al., 2001 and Vanegas et al., 2006) pointed to the positive effect for cows of rubber alley mats in combination with sand beds compared to cows kept on concrete alleys with concrete stalls or bedded with mattresses. [claw health]
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;not used ;Illness;-1,00;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
430;"Several studies (Vokey et al., 2001 and Vanegas et al., 2006) pointed to the positive effect for cows of rubber alley mats in combination with sand beds compared to cows kept on concrete alleys with concrete stalls or bedded with mattresses. [claw health]
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;not used ;Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
430;"Several studies (Vokey et al., 2001 and Vanegas et al., 2006) pointed to the positive effect for cows of rubber alley mats in combination with sand beds compared to cows kept on concrete alleys with concrete stalls or bedded with mattresses. [claw health]
";R24;116;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;not used ;Illness;-1,00;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
431;"Group size was shown to relate positively to agonistic interactions, but negatively with sociopositive interactions in a survey in 35 herds ranging in size from 9 to 92 cows (Menke et al., 1999).
";R24;131;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;group size ;>90;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
431;"Group size was shown to relate positively to agonistic interactions, but negatively with sociopositive interactions in a survey in 35 herds ranging in size from 9 to 92 cows (Menke et al., 1999).
";R24;131;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;group size ;8-10;Natural behaviour;1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
432;"similarly, (Kondo et al., 1989) found more agonistic behaviour in larger dairy cow herds (28 herds ranging from 8 to 91 in size).
";R24;131;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;group size ;>90;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
432;"similarly, (Kondo et al., 1989) found more agonistic behaviour in larger dairy cow herds (28 herds ranging from 8 to 91 in size).
";R24;131;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;group size ;8-10;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
434;"There is also a problem with paratuberculosis and Salmonella dublin that may more easily spread between cows and calves in a group-calving pen (Nielsen et al., 2007).
";R24;133;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;calving pen;group pen;Illness;-0,50;Health ;;;;;;;;;
434;"There is also a problem with paratuberculosis and Salmonella dublin that may more easily spread between cows and calves in a group-calving pen (Nielsen et al., 2007).
";R24;133;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;calving pen;individual pen;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
435;"However, cows isolated from other cows at calving, may be stressed by being completely left alone (Nielsen et al, 2007).
";R24;133;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;calving pen;group pen;Preferences;0,01;Health, Safety;;;;;;;;;
435;"However, cows isolated from other cows at calving, may be stressed by being completely left alone (Nielsen et al, 2007).
";R24;133;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;calving pen;individual pen;HPA;-0,50;Health, Safety;;;;;;;;;
436;"For example, DeVries et al. (2004) showed that doubling feeding space from 0.5 m to 1.0 m per cow reduced by half the number of aggressive interactions while feeding. This reduction in aggressive behaviour allowed cows to increase feeding activity by 24% at peak feeding times, an effect that was strongest for subordinate animals.
";R35;305-306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
436;"For example, DeVries et al. (2004) showed that doubling feeding space from 0.5 m to 1.0 m per cow reduced by half the number of aggressive interactions while feeding. This reduction in aggressive behaviour allowed cows to increase feeding activity by 24% at peak feeding times, an effect that was strongest for subordinate animals.
";R35;305-306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
436;"For example, DeVries et al. (2004) showed that doubling feeding space from 0.5 m to 1.0 m per cow reduced by half the number of aggressive interactions while feeding. This reduction in aggressive behaviour allowed cows to increase feeding activity by 24% at peak feeding times, an effect that was strongest for subordinate animals.
";R35;305-306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;>=1m/cow ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
437;"Endres et al. (2005) compared the effects of a post-and-rail versus a headlock feed line barrier on the feeding and social behaviour of dairy cows and found that during periods of peak feeding activity (90 min after fresh feed delivery) subordinate cows had lower feeding times when using the post-and-rail barrier. This difference was likely due to positive effects of the headlock barriers in reducing competitive interactions; there were 21% fewer displacements at the feed bunk when cows accessed feed by the headlock barrier compared with the post-and-rail barrier.
";R35;306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;partrition feeding area;not used;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
437;"Endres et al. (2005) compared the effects of a post-and-rail versus a headlock feed line barrier on the feeding and social behaviour of dairy cows and found that during periods of peak feeding activity (90 min after fresh feed delivery) subordinate cows had lower feeding times when using the post-and-rail barrier. This difference was likely due to positive effects of the headlock barriers in reducing competitive interactions; there were 21% fewer displacements at the feed bunk when cows accessed feed by the headlock barrier compared with the post-and-rail barrier.
";R35;306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;partrition feeding area;not used;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
437;"Endres et al. (2005) compared the effects of a post-and-rail versus a headlock feed line barrier on the feeding and social behaviour of dairy cows and found that during periods of peak feeding activity (90 min after fresh feed delivery) subordinate cows had lower feeding times when using the post-and-rail barrier. This difference was likely due to positive effects of the headlock barriers in reducing competitive interactions; there were 21% fewer displacements at the feed bunk when cows accessed feed by the headlock barrier compared with the post-and-rail barrier.
";R35;306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;partrition feeding area;not used;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
438;"Providing partitions between feeding stations (‘‘feed stalls’’; Fig. 4) provides additional protection to cows while feeding (DeVries and von Keyserlingk 2006). Feed stalls reduce aggression and competitive displacements, effects that again are greatest for subordinate cows. This reduction in aggression allows cows to increase daily feeding time and reduce the time they spent standing in the feeding area waiting to access the feeder.
";R35;306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;partrition feeding area;not available ;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
438;"Providing partitions between feeding stations (‘‘feed stalls’’; Fig. 4) provides additional protection to cows while feeding (DeVries and von Keyserlingk 2006). Feed stalls reduce aggression and competitive displacements, effects that again are greatest for subordinate cows. This reduction in aggression allows cows to increase daily feeding time and reduce the time they spent standing in the feeding area waiting to access the feeder.
";R35;306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;partrition feeding area;not available ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
438;"Providing partitions between feeding stations (‘‘feed stalls’’; Fig. 4) provides additional protection to cows while feeding (DeVries and von Keyserlingk 2006). Feed stalls reduce aggression and competitive displacements, effects that again are greatest for subordinate cows. This reduction in aggression allows cows to increase daily feeding time and reduce the time they spent standing in the feeding area waiting to access the feeder.
";R35;306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;partrition feeding area;available ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
439;"Feed stalls may also help reduce the between-cow variation in the composition of the ration consumed by preventing subordinate cows from being forced to access the bunk only after dominant cows have sorted the feed (DeVries et al. 2005
";R35;306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;partrition feeding area;not available ;Fitness;-0,50;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
439;"Feed stalls may also help reduce the between-cow variation in the composition of the ration consumed by preventing subordinate cows from being forced to access the bunk only after dominant cows have sorted the feed (DeVries et al. 2005
";R35;306;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;partrition feeding area;available ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
441;"When animals had access to 1.0 m per cow, there was at least 60% more space between animals and 57% fewer aggressive interactions while feeding than with access to 0.5 m of feeding space. These changes in spacing and aggressive behavior in turn allowed cows to increase feeding activity throughout the day, especially during the 90 min after providing fresh feed (an increase of 24%). This increase in feeding activity was particularly evident for subordinate cows
";R36;1432;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
441;"When animals had access to 1.0 m per cow, there was at least 60% more space between animals and 57% fewer aggressive interactions while feeding than with access to 0.5 m of feeding space. These changes in spacing and aggressive behavior in turn allowed cows to increase feeding activity throughout the day, especially during the 90 min after providing fresh feed (an increase of 24%). This increase in feeding activity was particularly evident for subordinate cows
";R36;1432;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
441;"When animals had access to 1.0 m per cow, there was at least 60% more space between animals and 57% fewer aggressive interactions while feeding than with access to 0.5 m of feeding space. These changes in spacing and aggressive behavior in turn allowed cows to increase feeding activity throughout the day, especially during the 90 min after providing fresh feed (an increase of 24%). This increase in feeding activity was particularly evident for subordinate cows
";R36;1432;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;>=1m/cow ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
442;Olofsson (1999) found that the number of displacements within a group increased when cows went from having 1 to 4 cows per feeding station;R36;1436;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;3:1<=4:1;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
442;Olofsson (1999) found that the number of displacements within a group increased when cows went from having 1 to 4 cows per feeding station;R36;1436;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;<=1:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
443;"Studies have shown, however, that the synchronization of behaviors may be reduced when cattle are housed intensively indoors (O’Connell et al. 1989; Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991), perhaps because of competition for space or resources. For example, Friend and Polan (1974) reported that only 66% of cows could eat at one time when provided with 0.5 m of feed alley space, and recent work by our group has found that when given 0.6 m of feed alley space per cow, fewer than 70% of animals feed simultaneously (DeVries et al., 2003a
";R36;1432;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
443;"Studies have shown, however, that the synchronization of behaviors may be reduced when cattle are housed intensively indoors (O’Connell et al. 1989; Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991), perhaps because of competition for space or resources. For example, Friend and Polan (1974) reported that only 66% of cows could eat at one time when provided with 0.5 m of feed alley space, and recent work by our group has found that when given 0.6 m of feed alley space per cow, fewer than 70% of animals feed simultaneously (DeVries et al., 2003a
";R36;1432;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;not used;Natural behaviour;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
443;"Studies have shown, however, that the synchronization of behaviors may be reduced when cattle are housed intensively indoors (O’Connell et al. 1989; Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991), perhaps because of competition for space or resources. For example, Friend and Polan (1974) reported that only 66% of cows could eat at one time when provided with 0.5 m of feed alley space, and recent work by our group has found that when given 0.6 m of feed alley space per cow, fewer than 70% of animals feed simultaneously (DeVries et al., 2003a
";R36;1432;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
443;"Studies have shown, however, that the synchronization of behaviors may be reduced when cattle are housed intensively indoors (O’Connell et al. 1989; Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991), perhaps because of competition for space or resources. For example, Friend and Polan (1974) reported that only 66% of cows could eat at one time when provided with 0.5 m of feed alley space, and recent work by our group has found that when given 0.6 m of feed alley space per cow, fewer than 70% of animals feed simultaneously (DeVries et al., 2003a
";R36;1432;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;not used;Natural behaviour;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
445;With 0.2 m of feeding space, many cows may not be able to gain access to the feed at peak feeding times, forcing them to shift their feeding times to other parts of the day, including late at night (Forbes, 1995);R36;1437;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
445;With 0.2 m of feeding space, many cows may not be able to gain access to the feed at peak feeding times, forcing them to shift their feeding times to other parts of the day, including late at night (Forbes, 1995);R36;1437;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;not used;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
448;"Pasture use can depend on the season (Charlton et al. 2011b), weather conditions (Legrand et al., 2009), the location of food (Charlton et al., 2011b), distance
between indoor housing and pasture (Charlton et al., 2013) and time of day, with a stronger
preference to be at pasture during the night (Charlton et al., 2011b, 2013; Legrand et al., 2009;
Motupalli et al., 2014).
";R7;2;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;2,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
448;"Pasture use can depend on the season (Charlton et al. 2011b), weather conditions (Legrand et al., 2009), the location of food (Charlton et al., 2011b), distance
between indoor housing and pasture (Charlton et al., 2013) and time of day, with a stronger
preference to be at pasture during the night (Charlton et al., 2011b, 2013; Legrand et al., 2009;
Motupalli et al., 2014).
";R7;2;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
450;"Legrand et al.
(2009) found that during the summer cows spent approximately 30% of their total lying time indoors,
but preferred lying on pasture
";R7;6;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;type of flooring lying area;pasture;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
451;"Krohn et al. (1992) reported that during the summer months cows
spent the majority of their time on pasture (over 70% of their time), and preferred lying outdoors.
";R7;6;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;type of flooring lying area;pasture;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
452;"However, during the winter months the cows reduced pasture use to approximately 20% per day, and
preferred lying indoors, on straw bedding.
";R7;6;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;type of flooring lying area;pasture;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
453;"Langbein and Nichelmann (1993) reported that cattle on pasture exposed
to temperatures up to 28ºC spent 85% of each hour in shade.
";R7;8;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
453;"Langbein and Nichelmann (1993) reported that cattle on pasture exposed
to temperatures up to 28ºC spent 85% of each hour in shade.
";R7;8;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
454;"When temperatures are high, behavioural and physiological changes occur in an attempt to reduce
heat load and cattle are extremely motivated to access shade to reduce respiration rate and body
temperature (Schütz et al., 2008; Schütz et al., 2010)
";R7;8;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Demand;3,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
454;"When temperatures are high, behavioural and physiological changes occur in an attempt to reduce
heat load and cattle are extremely motivated to access shade to reduce respiration rate and body
temperature (Schütz et al., 2008; Schütz et al., 2010)
";R7;8;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
455;"Research has shown that the prevalence of lameness is significantly greater when cows are housed
indoors compared to pasture (Somers et al., 2005b; Olmos et al., 2009).
";R7;9;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Pain;-1,00;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
455;"Research has shown that the prevalence of lameness is significantly greater when cows are housed
indoors compared to pasture (Somers et al., 2005b; Olmos et al., 2009).
";R7;9;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
456;"A study by Haskell et al.
(2006) found that there was double the number of lame cows on zero grazed farms, compared to farms which allowed cows access to pasture to graze. Furthermore, the study revealed that of the
indoor housing systems, lameness was higher on farms with cubicle housing compared to those with
straw yards.

";R7;9-10;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Pain;-3,00;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
456;"A study by Haskell et al.
(2006) found that there was double the number of lame cows on zero grazed farms, compared to farms which allowed cows access to pasture to graze. Furthermore, the study revealed that of the
indoor housing systems, lameness was higher on farms with cubicle housing compared to those with
straw yards.

";R7;9-10;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
457;"Higher incidences of lameness in indoor cubicle systems may be a result of the flooring. Most indoor
cubicle housing systems have concrete flooring which is unnaturally hard compared to the softness of
pasture, increasing the likeliness of hoof damage.
";R7;10;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-0,50;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
457;"Higher incidences of lameness in indoor cubicle systems may be a result of the flooring. Most indoor
cubicle housing systems have concrete flooring which is unnaturally hard compared to the softness of
pasture, increasing the likeliness of hoof damage.
";R7;10;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
461;"Hoof health may be improved by a period at pasture (Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007)
";R7;10;Cattle;Dairy cows, Cattle;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
461;"Hoof health may be improved by a period at pasture (Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007)
";R7;10;Cattle;Dairy cows, Cattle;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-0,50;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
462;"Pasture provides a soft, comfortable surface which allows proportional pressure on the claw, allowing the feet
to recover and reducing further hoof damage (Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007).
";R7;10;Cattle;Dairy cows, Cattle;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-1,00;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
462;"Pasture provides a soft, comfortable surface which allows proportional pressure on the claw, allowing the feet
to recover and reducing further hoof damage (Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007).
";R7;10;Cattle;Dairy cows, Cattle;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
466;"Similarly, Washburn et al. (2002)
reported fewer cases of clinical mastitis for cows on pasture than those housed indoors with cubicles
";R7;11;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicle;Illness;-1,00;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
466;"Similarly, Washburn et al. (2002)
reported fewer cases of clinical mastitis for cows on pasture than those housed indoors with cubicles
";R7;11;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;pasture;Preferences;0,01;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
467;"Indoors, several studies have reported a greater incidence of mastitis in straw
yards compared to cubicle housing (Peeler et al., 2000; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001).
";R7;12;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Illness;-1,00;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
467;"Indoors, several studies have reported a greater incidence of mastitis in straw
yards compared to cubicle housing (Peeler et al., 2000; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001).
";R7;12;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicle;Preferences;0,01;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
468;A study by Ketelaar-de Lauwere et al. (2000) investigated the effect of distance between indoor housing and pasture and the results revealed that cows preferred lying on pasture, even when the distance between the indoor housing and pasture was 360 m. The cows also preferred grazing, rather than eating forage indoors;R7;14;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
468;A study by Ketelaar-de Lauwere et al. (2000) investigated the effect of distance between indoor housing and pasture and the results revealed that cows preferred lying on pasture, even when the distance between the indoor housing and pasture was 360 m. The cows also preferred grazing, rather than eating forage indoors;R7;14;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;pasture;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
468;A study by Ketelaar-de Lauwere et al. (2000) investigated the effect of distance between indoor housing and pasture and the results revealed that cows preferred lying on pasture, even when the distance between the indoor housing and pasture was 360 m. The cows also preferred grazing, rather than eating forage indoors;R7;14;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;pasture;Demand;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
470;"To test the motivation of cows to access pasture, Charlton et al. (2013) conducted a study to determine whether
providing pasture access 60, 140 or 260 m from the indoor housing would influence pasture use. The
study revealed that at night time the cows spent an average of 79.6% of their time on pasture, which
was not influenced by the distance, whereas during the day pasture use declined with increasing
distance. These findings suggest that night time pasture access is important for dairy cattle, and they
are motivated to walk 260 m to access the pasture.
";R7;15;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Demand;3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
470;"To test the motivation of cows to access pasture, Charlton et al. (2013) conducted a study to determine whether
providing pasture access 60, 140 or 260 m from the indoor housing would influence pasture use. The
study revealed that at night time the cows spent an average of 79.6% of their time on pasture, which
was not influenced by the distance, whereas during the day pasture use declined with increasing
distance. These findings suggest that night time pasture access is important for dairy cattle, and they
are motivated to walk 260 m to access the pasture.
";R7;15;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Demand;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
470;"To test the motivation of cows to access pasture, Charlton et al. (2013) conducted a study to determine whether
providing pasture access 60, 140 or 260 m from the indoor housing would influence pasture use. The
study revealed that at night time the cows spent an average of 79.6% of their time on pasture, which
was not influenced by the distance, whereas during the day pasture use declined with increasing
distance. These findings suggest that night time pasture access is important for dairy cattle, and they
are motivated to walk 260 m to access the pasture.
";R7;15;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
471;"In addition, Cestari et al. (2013) found that when dairy cattle were required to push through a
weighted gate to gain access to pasture, cows that were normally housed indoors were just as
 motivated to access pasture as they were to access fresh TMR following milking
";R7;15;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
471;"In addition, Cestari et al. (2013) found that when dairy cattle were required to push through a
weighted gate to gain access to pasture, cows that were normally housed indoors were just as
407 motivated to access pasture as they were to access fresh TMR following milking
";R7;15;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Demand;5,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
490;"Increasing the number of individuals per feeding place also lead to longer waiting periods near the trough as well as shorter feeding bouts [4:1; 7:1; 13:1]. These effects most likely account for the fact that pigs in groups with an increased AFR had significantly lower daily weight gains, indicating greater competition for feed as also seen by Hicks et al. (1998) and Turner et al. (2002).";R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
490;"Increasing the number of individuals per feeding place also lead to longer waiting periods near the trough as well as shorter feeding bouts [4:1; 7:1; 13:1]. These effects most likely account for the fact that pigs in groups with an increased AFR had significantly lower daily weight gains, indicating greater competition for feed as also seen by Hicks et al. (1998) and Turner et al. (2002).";R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;7:10-11.5:1;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
490;"Increasing the number of individuals per feeding place also lead to longer waiting periods near the trough as well as shorter feeding bouts [4:1; 7:1; 13:1]. These effects most likely account for the fact that pigs in groups with an increased AFR had significantly lower daily weight gains, indicating greater competition for feed as also seen by Hicks et al. (1998) and Turner et al. (2002).";R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
490;"Increasing the number of individuals per feeding place also lead to longer waiting periods near the trough as well as shorter feeding bouts [4:1; 7:1; 13:1]. These effects most likely account for the fact that pigs in groups with an increased AFR had significantly lower daily weight gains, indicating greater competition for feed as also seen by Hicks et al. (1998) and Turner et al. (2002).";R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
490;"Increasing the number of individuals per feeding place also lead to longer waiting periods near the trough as well as shorter feeding bouts [4:1; 7:1; 13:1]. These effects most likely account for the fact that pigs in groups with an increased AFR had significantly lower daily weight gains, indicating greater competition for feed as also seen by Hicks et al. (1998) and Turner et al. (2002).";R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;7:10-11.5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
490;"Increasing the number of individuals per feeding place also lead to longer waiting periods near the trough as well as shorter feeding bouts [4:1; 7:1; 13:1]. These effects most likely account for the fact that pigs in groups with an increased AFR had significantly lower daily weight gains, indicating greater competition for feed as also seen by Hicks et al. (1998) and Turner et al. (2002).";R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
500;The daily weight gain decreased with increased AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], but feed intake did not differ. This could imply that there was either a greater feed wastage at the more restricted AFR because of the competition at the trough or a poorer utilisation of feed due to competition induced stress.;R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
500;The daily weight gain decreased with increased AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], but feed intake did not differ. This could imply that there was either a greater feed wastage at the more restricted AFR because of the competition at the trough or a poorer utilisation of feed due to competition induced stress.;R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;7:10-11.5:1;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
500;The daily weight gain decreased with increased AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], but feed intake did not differ. This could imply that there was either a greater feed wastage at the more restricted AFR because of the competition at the trough or a poorer utilisation of feed due to competition induced stress.;R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;4:1-5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
500;The daily weight gain decreased with increased AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], but feed intake did not differ. This could imply that there was either a greater feed wastage at the more restricted AFR because of the competition at the trough or a poorer utilisation of feed due to competition induced stress.;R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
500;The daily weight gain decreased with increased AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], but feed intake did not differ. This could imply that there was either a greater feed wastage at the more restricted AFR because of the competition at the trough or a poorer utilisation of feed due to competition induced stress.;R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;7:10-11.5:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
500;The daily weight gain decreased with increased AFR [4:1, 7:1, 13:1], but feed intake did not differ. This could imply that there was either a greater feed wastage at the more restricted AFR because of the competition at the trough or a poorer utilisation of feed due to competition induced stress.;R34;52;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Feed;animal:feeder place-ratio;11.5:1-16.5:1;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
505;Bozakova et al. (2011) found that higher welfare of birds reared organically was linked to the greater number ofbirds spending their time dust bathing and preening, fewer episodes of aggressive behaviours, as well as lower plasma corticosterone levels, compared to birds reared indoor on litter.;R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
505;Bozakova et al. (2011) found that higher welfare of birds reared organically was linked to the greater number ofbirds spending their time dust bathing and preening, fewer episodes of aggressive behaviours, as well as lower plasma corticosterone levels, compared to birds reared indoor on litter.;R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
505;Bozakova et al. (2011) found that higher welfare of birds reared organically was linked to the greater number ofbirds spending their time dust bathing and preening, fewer episodes of aggressive behaviours, as well as lower plasma corticosterone levels, compared to birds reared indoor on litter.;R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
505;Bozakova et al. (2011) found that higher welfare of birds reared organically was linked to the greater number ofbirds spending their time dust bathing and preening, fewer episodes of aggressive behaviours, as well as lower plasma corticosterone levels, compared to birds reared indoor on litter.;R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
505;Bozakova et al. (2011) found that higher welfare of birds reared organically was linked to the greater number ofbirds spending their time dust bathing and preening, fewer episodes of aggressive behaviours, as well as lower plasma corticosterone levels, compared to birds reared indoor on litter.;R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
505;Bozakova et al. (2011) found that higher welfare of birds reared organically was linked to the greater number ofbirds spending their time dust bathing and preening, fewer episodes of aggressive behaviours, as well as lower plasma corticosterone levels, compared to birds reared indoor on litter.;R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
505;Bozakova et al. (2011) found that higher welfare of birds reared organically was linked to the greater number ofbirds spending their time dust bathing and preening, fewer episodes of aggressive behaviours, as well as lower plasma corticosterone levels, compared to birds reared indoor on litter.;R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;HPA;-1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
505;Bozakova et al. (2011) found that higher welfare of birds reared organically was linked to the greater number ofbirds spending their time dust bathing and preening, fewer episodes of aggressive behaviours, as well as lower plasma corticosterone levels, compared to birds reared indoor on litter.;R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
514;"Because a wide variety of foraging behaviours can be displayed, access to an outdoor run theoretically has the potential of decreasing the risk of feather pecking
";R4;134;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
514;"Because a wide variety of foraging behaviours can be displayed, access to an outdoor run theoretically has the potential of decreasing the risk of feather pecking
";R4;134;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
515;Jansson et al. (2010) found no significant difference in prevalence of A. galli between hens kept on litter indoors and free-range/organic hens. Furthermore, they found that absence of a hygiene barrier at the entrance of the unit was a risk factor for increasing transmission of GIN.;R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Hygiene barrier at entrance;not available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
515;Jansson et al. (2010) found no significant difference in prevalence of A. galli between hens kept on litter indoors and free-range/organic hens. Furthermore, they found that absence of a hygiene barrier at the entrance of the unit was a risk factor for increasing transmission of GIN.;R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Hygiene barrier at entrance;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
516;For instance, Nicol et al. (2003) reported that a high use of the outdoor range (over 20% of birds outside on a sunny day, as estimated within one scan) reduced the risk of feather pecking nine times (...);R4;135;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
516;For instance, Nicol et al. (2003) reported that a high use of the outdoor range (over 20% of birds outside on a sunny day, as estimated within one scan) reduced the risk of feather pecking nine times (...);R4;135;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
517;"In fact, mortality data from outdoor and indoor systems usually show higher rates for the outdoor systems (e.g. Morgenstern, 1997; Hane et a!., 2000; Gayer et a!., 2004). Häne et al. (2000) for instance found mortality rates of0.83% over a period of 28 days in systems with outdoor access compared with 0.59% over 28 days in systems without.
 ";R4;137;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Survival;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
517;"In fact, mortality data from outdoor and indoor systems usually show higher rates for the outdoor systems (e.g. Morgenstern, 1997; Hane et a!., 2000; Gayer et a!., 2004). Häne et al. (2000) for instance found mortality rates of0.83% over a period of 28 days in systems with outdoor access compared with 0.59% over 28 days in systems without.
 ";R4;137;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
518;Outdoor access and low-nutrient diet also resulted in better gait score according to Fanatico et al. (2008).;R38;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
518;Outdoor access and low-nutrient diet also resulted in better gait score according to Fanatico et al. (2008).;R38;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
519;The nest choice of laying hens in our experiment was very constant even if they had to work for access to their nest.;R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Preferences;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
519;The nest choice of laying hens in our experiment was very constant even if they had to work for access to their nest.;R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;open sited;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
519;The nest choice of laying hens in our experiment was very constant even if they had to work for access to their nest.;R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Demand;3,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
519;The nest choice of laying hens in our experiment was very constant even if they had to work for access to their nest.;R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;open sited;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
520;"In accordance with the assumption that most hens prefer to lay in enclosed nest sites (Appleby and Smith, 1991; Duncan et al., 1978) and work harder for it than for open nest sites (Cooper and Appleby, 1994), a majority of the hens chose the nest box for egg laying, a minority the litter tray.";R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Preferences;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
520;"In accordance with the assumption that most hens prefer to lay in enclosed nest sites (Appleby and Smith, 1991; Duncan et al., 1978) and work harder for it than for open nest sites (Cooper and Appleby, 1994), a majority of the hens chose the nest box for egg laying, a minority the litter tray.";R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;open sited;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
520;"In accordance with the assumption that most hens prefer to lay in enclosed nest sites (Appleby and Smith, 1991; Duncan et al., 1978) and work harder for it than for open nest sites (Cooper and Appleby, 1994), a majority of the hens chose the nest box for egg laying, a minority the litter tray.";R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Demand;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
520;"In accordance with the assumption that most hens prefer to lay in enclosed nest sites (Appleby and Smith, 1991; Duncan et al., 1978) and work harder for it than for open nest sites (Cooper and Appleby, 1994), a majority of the hens chose the nest box for egg laying, a minority the litter tray.";R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;open sited;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
520;"In accordance with the assumption that most hens prefer to lay in enclosed nest sites (Appleby and Smith, 1991; Duncan et al., 1978) and work harder for it than for open nest sites (Cooper and Appleby, 1994), a majority of the hens chose the nest box for egg laying, a minority the litter tray.";R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Preferences;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
520;"In accordance with the assumption that most hens prefer to lay in enclosed nest sites (Appleby and Smith, 1991; Duncan et al., 1978) and work harder for it than for open nest sites (Cooper and Appleby, 1994), a majority of the hens chose the nest box for egg laying, a minority the litter tray.";R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Preferences;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
520;"In accordance with the assumption that most hens prefer to lay in enclosed nest sites (Appleby and Smith, 1991; Duncan et al., 1978) and work harder for it than for open nest sites (Cooper and Appleby, 1994), a majority of the hens chose the nest box for egg laying, a minority the litter tray.";R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;open sited;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
521;The nest box became more attractive for the litter layers after using it as a nest site (Cooper and Appleby, 1996), as all litter layers which changed to it during the postexperimental period continued to lay there after the experiment.;R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Preferences;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
521;The nest box became more attractive for the litter layers after using it as a nest site (Cooper and Appleby, 1996), as all litter layers which changed to it during the postexperimental period continued to lay there after the experiment.;R40;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;open sited;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
522;"In particular, FP [feather pecking] is considered as a form of redirected pecking behavior stemming from frustration at the lack of foraging and feeding opportunities (Wennrich, 1974; Blokhuis, 1986; Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, 1997; Weeks and Nicol, 2006; Dixon et al., 2008).";R41;398;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
522;"In particular, FP [feather pecking] is considered as a form of redirected pecking behavior stemming from frustration at the lack of foraging and feeding opportunities (Wennrich, 1974; Blokhuis, 1986; Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, 1997; Weeks and Nicol, 2006; Dixon et al., 2008).";R41;398;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
522;"In particular, FP [feather pecking] is considered as a form of redirected pecking behavior stemming from frustration at the lack of foraging and feeding opportunities (Wennrich, 1974; Blokhuis, 1986; Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, 1997; Weeks and Nicol, 2006; Dixon et al., 2008).";R41;398;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
523;The provision of enrichment was significantly associated with lower FP [feather pecking]. The frequency of FP was approx. 2 times higher in flocks without enrichment (Table 4).;R41;407;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
523;The provision of enrichment was significantly associated with lower FP [feather pecking]. The frequency of FP was approx. 2 times higher in flocks without enrichment (Table 4).;R41;407;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
524;Furthermore, lack of enrichment was significantly associated with a lower FD [feather damage] score (Table 7), indicating a worse feather cover;R41;407;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
525;This provides strong evidence that it [enrichment material] is an effective measure to reduce FP and subsequently FD.;R41;407;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
525;This provides strong evidence that it [enrichment material] is an effective measure to reduce FP and subsequently FD.;R41;407;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
525;This provides strong evidence that it [enrichment material] is an effective measure to reduce FP and subsequently FD.;R41;407;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Fitness;-2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
526;"Types of enrichment that give birds opportunities to forage, and to a lesser extent dustbathe, are thought to be more effective in reducing FP (Blokhuis, 1986; Vestergaard and Lisborg, 1993; Rodenburg et al., 2013).";R41;407;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
526;"Types of enrichment that give birds opportunities to forage, and to a lesser extent dustbathe, are thought to be more effective in reducing FP (Blokhuis, 1986; Vestergaard and Lisborg, 1993; Rodenburg et al., 2013).";R41;407;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
526;"Types of enrichment that give birds opportunities to forage, and to a lesser extent dustbathe, are thought to be more effective in reducing FP (Blokhuis, 1986; Vestergaard and Lisborg, 1993; Rodenburg et al., 2013).";R41;407;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
526;"Types of enrichment that give birds opportunities to forage, and to a lesser extent dustbathe, are thought to be more effective in reducing FP (Blokhuis, 1986; Vestergaard and Lisborg, 1993; Rodenburg et al., 2013).";R41;407;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
527;"A number of studies have reported reduced feather pecking as a result of adding some type of enrichment to the pen or cage (eg Blokhuis 1989; Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998; Aerni et al 2000; McAdie et al 2005; Dixon & Duncan 2010).";R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
527;"A number of studies have reported reduced feather pecking as a result of adding some type of enrichment to the pen or cage (eg Blokhuis 1989; Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998; Aerni et al 2000; McAdie et al 2005; Dixon & Duncan 2010).";R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
528;For example, feather pecking was decreased by the provision of forages compared to wire-housed birds, such as straw (El-Lethey et al 2000), polystyrene blocks (Wechsler & Huber-Eicher 1998), and wood shavings (Blokhuis & Arkes 1984).;R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
528;For example, feather pecking was decreased by the provision of forages compared to wire-housed birds, such as straw (El-Lethey et al 2000), polystyrene blocks (Wechsler & Huber-Eicher 1998), and wood shavings (Blokhuis & Arkes 1984).;R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
528;For example, feather pecking was decreased by the provision of forages compared to wire-housed birds, such as straw (El-Lethey et al 2000), polystyrene blocks (Wechsler & Huber-Eicher 1998), and wood shavings (Blokhuis & Arkes 1984).;R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
528;For example, feather pecking was decreased by the provision of forages compared to wire-housed birds, such as straw (El-Lethey et al 2000), polystyrene blocks (Wechsler & Huber-Eicher 1998), and wood shavings (Blokhuis & Arkes 1984).;R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
528;For example, feather pecking was decreased by the provision of forages compared to wire-housed birds, such as straw (El-Lethey et al 2000), polystyrene blocks (Wechsler & Huber-Eicher 1998), and wood shavings (Blokhuis & Arkes 1984).;R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
528;For example, feather pecking was decreased by the provision of forages compared to wire-housed birds, such as straw (El-Lethey et al 2000), polystyrene blocks (Wechsler & Huber-Eicher 1998), and wood shavings (Blokhuis & Arkes 1984).;R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
528;For example, feather pecking was decreased by the provision of forages compared to wire-housed birds, such as straw (El-Lethey et al 2000), polystyrene blocks (Wechsler & Huber-Eicher 1998), and wood shavings (Blokhuis & Arkes 1984).;R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
528;For example, feather pecking was decreased by the provision of forages compared to wire-housed birds, such as straw (El-Lethey et al 2000), polystyrene blocks (Wechsler & Huber-Eicher 1998), and wood shavings (Blokhuis & Arkes 1984).;R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
528;For example, feather pecking was decreased by the provision of forages compared to wire-housed birds, such as straw (El-Lethey et al 2000), polystyrene blocks (Wechsler & Huber-Eicher 1998), and wood shavings (Blokhuis & Arkes 1984).;R42;429;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
529;Substrates given as dustbaths, like sand (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1997) and peat moss (Norgaard-Nielsen et al 1993), also decreased the amount of feather pecking performed;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
529;Substrates given as dustbaths, like sand (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1997) and peat moss (Norgaard-Nielsen et al 1993), also decreased the amount of feather pecking performed;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
529;Substrates given as dustbaths, like sand (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1997) and peat moss (Norgaard-Nielsen et al 1993), also decreased the amount of feather pecking performed;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
529;Substrates given as dustbaths, like sand (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1997) and peat moss (Norgaard-Nielsen et al 1993), also decreased the amount of feather pecking performed;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
529;Substrates given as dustbaths, like sand (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1997) and peat moss (Norgaard-Nielsen et al 1993), also decreased the amount of feather pecking performed;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
529;Substrates given as dustbaths, like sand (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1997) and peat moss (Norgaard-Nielsen et al 1993), also decreased the amount of feather pecking performed;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
530;In addition, other items have been given to determine their effect on feather pecking: string enrichment devices were successful at decreasing feather pecking (McAdie et al 2005);R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
530;In addition, other items have been given to determine their effect on feather pecking: string enrichment devices were successful at decreasing feather pecking (McAdie et al 2005);R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
530;In addition, other items have been given to determine their effect on feather pecking: string enrichment devices were successful at decreasing feather pecking (McAdie et al 2005);R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
532;For example, long-cut straw decreased feather pecking more than shredded straw or wood shavings, as did polystyrene blocks compared to polystyrene beads (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998).;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
532;For example, long-cut straw decreased feather pecking more than shredded straw or wood shavings, as did polystyrene blocks compared to polystyrene beads (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998).;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
532;For example, long-cut straw decreased feather pecking more than shredded straw or wood shavings, as did polystyrene blocks compared to polystyrene beads (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998).;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
532;For example, long-cut straw decreased feather pecking more than shredded straw or wood shavings, as did polystyrene blocks compared to polystyrene beads (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998).;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
532;For example, long-cut straw decreased feather pecking more than shredded straw or wood shavings, as did polystyrene blocks compared to polystyrene beads (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998).;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
532;For example, long-cut straw decreased feather pecking more than shredded straw or wood shavings, as did polystyrene blocks compared to polystyrene beads (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998).;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
532;For example, long-cut straw decreased feather pecking more than shredded straw or wood shavings, as did polystyrene blocks compared to polystyrene beads (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998).;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
532;For example, long-cut straw decreased feather pecking more than shredded straw or wood shavings, as did polystyrene blocks compared to polystyrene beads (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998).;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
532;For example, long-cut straw decreased feather pecking more than shredded straw or wood shavings, as did polystyrene blocks compared to polystyrene beads (Huber-Eicher & Wechsler 1998).;R42;430;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;0,01;Body care;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;0,01;Body care;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;0,01;Body care;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Pain;-1,00;Body care;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Pain;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
533;"Frequency of feather pecking was highest in the treatment with no added enrichment and lowest in the forage enrichment. The dustbathing and novel object enrichments had similar levels of feather pecking (t177 = –0.94; P = 0.78) and were statistically different from and numerically in between the no enrichment and foraging categories (Treatment: F3177 = 165; P < 0.0001). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the amount of feather pecking shown with different variants in each enrichment category";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
534;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
535;"Similarly, previous research has assessed the provision of enrichment, such as sand (Norgaard-Nielsen 1997), novel environments (Chow & Hogan 2005) and found a decrease in the amount of feather pecking compared to birds not given enrichment.
";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
535;"Similarly, previous research has assessed the provision of enrichment, such as sand (Norgaard-Nielsen 1997), novel environments (Chow & Hogan 2005) and found a decrease in the amount of feather pecking compared to birds not given enrichment.
";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
535;"Similarly, previous research has assessed the provision of enrichment, such as sand (Norgaard-Nielsen 1997), novel environments (Chow & Hogan 2005) and found a decrease in the amount of feather pecking compared to birds not given enrichment.
";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
535;"Similarly, previous research has assessed the provision of enrichment, such as sand (Norgaard-Nielsen 1997), novel environments (Chow & Hogan 2005) and found a decrease in the amount of feather pecking compared to birds not given enrichment.
";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
535;"Similarly, previous research has assessed the provision of enrichment, such as sand (Norgaard-Nielsen 1997), novel environments (Chow & Hogan 2005) and found a decrease in the amount of feather pecking compared to birds not given enrichment.
";R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
536;With larger flock sizes (>1,000), incidence of cannibalism and feather pecking can increase, which can be reduced by resorting to beak trimming and/or by reducing the flock size;R43;5;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
536;With larger flock sizes (>1,000), incidence of cannibalism and feather pecking can increase, which can be reduced by resorting to beak trimming and/or by reducing the flock size;R43;5;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;>500 birds;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
536;With larger flock sizes (>1,000), incidence of cannibalism and feather pecking can increase, which can be reduced by resorting to beak trimming and/or by reducing the flock size;R43;5;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;>500 birds;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
536;With larger flock sizes (>1,000), incidence of cannibalism and feather pecking can increase, which can be reduced by resorting to beak trimming and/or by reducing the flock size;R43;5;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
536;With larger flock sizes (>1,000), incidence of cannibalism and feather pecking can increase, which can be reduced by resorting to beak trimming and/or by reducing the flock size;R43;5;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Pain;-3,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
536;With larger flock sizes (>1,000), incidence of cannibalism and feather pecking can increase, which can be reduced by resorting to beak trimming and/or by reducing the flock size;R43;5;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;>500 birds;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
537;The opportunity to forage in litter is crucial for hen welfare as the opportunity to forage in litter can reduce the incidence of cannibalism and feather pecking (Greene and Cowan, 2014);R43;5;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
537;The opportunity to forage in litter is crucial for hen welfare as the opportunity to forage in litter can reduce the incidence of cannibalism and feather pecking (Greene and Cowan, 2014);R43;5;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
537;The opportunity to forage in litter is crucial for hen welfare as the opportunity to forage in litter can reduce the incidence of cannibalism and feather pecking (Greene and Cowan, 2014);R43;5;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
537;The opportunity to forage in litter is crucial for hen welfare as the opportunity to forage in litter can reduce the incidence of cannibalism and feather pecking (Greene and Cowan, 2014);R43;5;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
538;Statistical analysis of behaviour showed that aggression decreased with increasing feeder space;R44;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;6 - <14 cm/hen;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
538;Statistical analysis of behaviour showed that aggression decreased with increasing feeder space;R44;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;<6 cm/hen;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
539;it [jostling followed by feeding] decreased with increasing feeder space;R44;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;6 - <14 cm/hen;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
539;it [jostling followed by feeding] decreased with increasing feeder space;R44;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;<6 cm/hen;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
540;Although not statistically analysed, the frequency of feeding bouts interrupted by jostling hens also decreased with feeder space and increased with age (Table 2);R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;6 - <14 cm/hen;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
540;Although not statistically analysed, the frequency of feeding bouts interrupted by jostling hens also decreased with feeder space and increased with age (Table 2);R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;<6 cm/hen;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
541;Local bird density decreased with increasing feeder space;R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;6 - <14 cm/hen;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
541;Local bird density decreased with increasing feeder space;R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;<6 cm/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
542;estimating the extent of simultaneous feeding in the entire pen based on local bird density revealed that simultaneous feeding increased with feeder space;R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;6 - <14 cm/hen;Preferences;1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
542;estimating the extent of simultaneous feeding in the entire pen based on local bird density revealed that simultaneous feeding increased with feeder space;R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;<6 cm/hen;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
543;Moreover, straw provided in racks increases exploratory behaviour, especially when more enrichment of this type is provided.;R19;6;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;method of offering enrichment;dispenser or rack or floor offering (handful);Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
543;Moreover, straw provided in racks increases exploratory behaviour, especially when more enrichment of this type is provided.;R19;6;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
544;Laying hens in small groups (6–10 birds) form structured social hierarchies comparable to that of their wild ancestor, the red jungle fowl (Collias and Collias, 1996).;R66;45;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;5-20 birds;Natural behaviour;1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
544;Laying hens in small groups (6–10 birds) form structured social hierarchies comparable to that of their wild ancestor, the red jungle fowl (Collias and Collias, 1996).;R66;45;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;5-20 birds;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
545;However, it [feeding from the perch above the feeder] decreased with feeder space;R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;6 - <14 cm/hen;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
545;However, it [feeding from the perch above the feeder] decreased with feeder space;R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;<6 cm/hen;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
546;Feed conversion ratio decreased with feeder space;R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;6 - <14 cm/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
546;Feed conversion ratio decreased with feeder space;R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;<6 cm/hen;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
547;Aggression in our study was present at the largest feeder space suggesting that even the largest feeder space of 10 cm/hen was insufficient for hens to entirely avoid aggression while feeding;R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;6 - <14 cm/hen;Preferences;1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
547;Aggression in our study was present at the largest feeder space suggesting that even the largest feeder space of 10 cm/hen was insufficient for hens to entirely avoid aggression while feeding;R44;80;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;6 - <14 cm/hen;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
553;Gunnarsson et al. (1999b) have shown that hens are prepared to work to get access to litter for dustbathing.;R46;170;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Body care;;;;;;;;;
554;All six hens worked to get access to straw. The straw was used by the hens for pecking and scratching, but not for dustbathing. And  three out of six hens worked for access to feathers during the experimental sessions.;R47;327;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Demand;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
554;All six hens worked to get access to straw. The straw was used by the hens for pecking and scratching, but not for dustbathing. And  three out of six hens worked for access to feathers during the experimental sessions.;R47;327;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
554;All six hens worked to get access to straw. The straw was used by the hens for pecking and scratching, but not for dustbathing. And  three out of six hens worked for access to feathers during the experimental sessions.;R47;327;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Demand;3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
554;All six hens worked to get access to straw. The straw was used by the hens for pecking and scratching, but not for dustbathing. And  three out of six hens worked for access to feathers during the experimental sessions.;R47;327;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Preferences;2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
555;"For those hens that worked consistently for either straw or feathers, the slopes of the demand curves were inelastic at around y0.45, a value which is not dissimilar from that obtained with highly preferred foragingrdust bathing substrates such as peat or sand Žy0.36 and y0.47, respectively; Matthews et al., 1995 or with an essential resource . such as food y0.39; Matthews and Chandler, 1996.. Ž";R47;327;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Demand;3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
555;"For those hens that worked consistently for either straw or feathers, the slopes of the demand curves were inelastic at around y0.45, a value which is not dissimilar from that obtained with highly preferred foragingrdust bathing substrates such as peat or sand Žy0.36 and y0.47, respectively; Matthews et al., 1995 or with an essential resource . such as food y0.39; Matthews and Chandler, 1996.. Ž";R47;327;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
555;"For those hens that worked consistently for either straw or feathers, the slopes of the demand curves were inelastic at around y0.45, a value which is not dissimilar from that obtained with highly preferred foragingrdust bathing substrates such as peat or sand Žy0.36 and y0.47, respectively; Matthews et al., 1995 or with an essential resource . such as food y0.39; Matthews and Chandler, 1996.. Ž";R47;327;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
555;"For those hens that worked consistently for either straw or feathers, the slopes of the demand curves were inelastic at around y0.45, a value which is not dissimilar from that obtained with highly preferred foragingrdust bathing substrates such as peat or sand Žy0.36 and y0.47, respectively; Matthews et al., 1995 or with an essential resource . such as food y0.39; Matthews and Chandler, 1996.. Ž";R47;327;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Demand;5,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
555;"For those hens that worked consistently for either straw or feathers, the slopes of the demand curves were inelastic at around y0.45, a value which is not dissimilar from that obtained with highly preferred foragingrdust bathing substrates such as peat or sand Žy0.36 and y0.47, respectively; Matthews et al., 1995 or with an essential resource . such as food y0.39; Matthews and Chandler, 1996.. Ž";R47;327;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Preferences;3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
556;Blokhuis and van der Haar 1992 found that chicks reared on wood-shavings with additional straw had better plumage than chicks reared without straw, but they had impaired plumage quality compared to chicks reared with grain added to the litter.;R47;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Preferences;0,01;Body care, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
556;Blokhuis and van der Haar 1992 found that chicks reared on wood-shavings with additional straw had better plumage than chicks reared without straw, but they had impaired plumage quality compared to chicks reared with grain added to the litter.;R47;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Body care, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
556;Blokhuis and van der Haar 1992 found that chicks reared on wood-shavings with additional straw had better plumage than chicks reared without straw, but they had impaired plumage quality compared to chicks reared with grain added to the litter.;R47;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Fitness;-1,00;Body care, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
556;Blokhuis and van der Haar 1992 found that chicks reared on wood-shavings with additional straw had better plumage than chicks reared without straw, but they had impaired plumage quality compared to chicks reared with grain added to the litter.;R47;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Body care, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
557;Given that neither straw nor feathers stimulated dustbathing, the provision of other materials may be better for the birds’ physical health in the longer term, as dustbathing is important for maintenance of a good plumage quality van Liere, 1992..;R47;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Fitness;-0,50;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
557;Given that neither straw nor feathers stimulated dustbathing, the provision of other materials may be better for the birds’ physical health in the longer term, as dustbathing is important for maintenance of a good plumage quality van Liere, 1992..;R47;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Illness;-0,50;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
557;Given that neither straw nor feathers stimulated dustbathing, the provision of other materials may be better for the birds’ physical health in the longer term, as dustbathing is important for maintenance of a good plumage quality van Liere, 1992..;R47;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Fitness;-0,50;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
557;Given that neither straw nor feathers stimulated dustbathing, the provision of other materials may be better for the birds’ physical health in the longer term, as dustbathing is important for maintenance of a good plumage quality van Liere, 1992..;R47;328;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Illness;-0,50;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
558;At least 14-cm trough length per hen is required to ensure adequate feed intake, without any negative impact on flock behaviour (Sirovnik et al. 2018).;R49;903;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;6 - <14 cm/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
558;At least 14-cm trough length per hen is required to ensure adequate feed intake, without any negative impact on flock behaviour (Sirovnik et al. 2018).;R49;903;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Space at the feeder;>= 14 cm/hen;Preferences;1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
560;The restriction of feed intake or access can result in hen frustration and increase the likelihood of aggression and feather pecking, but also limit nutrient intake of top egg producing hens. Therefore, feeding ad libitum and formulating diets according to an estimated feed intake are recommended (Singh et al. 2017).;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeding regime;restricted;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
560;The restriction of feed intake or access can result in hen frustration and increase the likelihood of aggression and feather pecking, but also limit nutrient intake of top egg producing hens. Therefore, feeding ad libitum and formulating diets according to an estimated feed intake are recommended (Singh et al. 2017).;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeding regime;restricted;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
560;The restriction of feed intake or access can result in hen frustration and increase the likelihood of aggression and feather pecking, but also limit nutrient intake of top egg producing hens. Therefore, feeding ad libitum and formulating diets according to an estimated feed intake are recommended (Singh et al. 2017).;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeding regime;restricted;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
560;The restriction of feed intake or access can result in hen frustration and increase the likelihood of aggression and feather pecking, but also limit nutrient intake of top egg producing hens. Therefore, feeding ad libitum and formulating diets according to an estimated feed intake are recommended (Singh et al. 2017).;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeding regime;restricted;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
560;The restriction of feed intake or access can result in hen frustration and increase the likelihood of aggression and feather pecking, but also limit nutrient intake of top egg producing hens. Therefore, feeding ad libitum and formulating diets according to an estimated feed intake are recommended (Singh et al. 2017).;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeding regime;restricted;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
561;The restriction of feed intake or access can result in hen frustration and increase the likelihood of aggression and feather pecking, but also limit nutrient intake of top egg producing hens. Therefore, feeding ad libitum and formulating diets according to an estimated feed intake are recommended (Singh et al. 2017).;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeding regime;ad libitum;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
561;The restriction of feed intake or access can result in hen frustration and increase the likelihood of aggression and feather pecking, but also limit nutrient intake of top egg producing hens. Therefore, feeding ad libitum and formulating diets according to an estimated feed intake are recommended (Singh et al. 2017).;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeding regime;ad libitum;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
561;The restriction of feed intake or access can result in hen frustration and increase the likelihood of aggression and feather pecking, but also limit nutrient intake of top egg producing hens. Therefore, feeding ad libitum and formulating diets according to an estimated feed intake are recommended (Singh et al. 2017).;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeding regime;ad libitum;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
561;The restriction of feed intake or access can result in hen frustration and increase the likelihood of aggression and feather pecking, but also limit nutrient intake of top egg producing hens. Therefore, feeding ad libitum and formulating diets according to an estimated feed intake are recommended (Singh et al. 2017).;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeding regime;ad libitum;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
562;In comparison with aviary systems with high stocking density, the increased space allowance and free-range access in organic egg production are meant to improve the welfare of laying hens by providing them possibilities to express their species-specific behaviour.;R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
562;In comparison with aviary systems with high stocking density, the increased space allowance and free-range access in organic egg production are meant to improve the welfare of laying hens by providing them possibilities to express their species-specific behaviour.;R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Pain;-1,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Pain;-0,50;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Pain;-0,50;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-0,50;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-0,50;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-0,50;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-0,50;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-0,50;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-0,50;Health ;;;;;;;;;
570;"Zero-grazing systems, compared with other production systems, are also associated with higher incidence of lameness (Haskell et al., 2006) and increased risk for claw or foot problems, teat trampling, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis, retained placenta, and some bacterial infections (Algers et al., 2009)
";R50;1696;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
584;Hens with access to an outdoor range area have been shown to have a better feather condition than hens without in both commercial systems (Heerkens et al., 2015);R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
584;Hens with access to an outdoor range area have been shown to have a better feather condition than hens without in both commercial systems (Heerkens et al., 2015);R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;not available;Fitness;-1,00;;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;available;Preferences;0,01;;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;not available;Survival;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Safety, Health;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;available;Preferences;0,01;Safety, Health;;;;;;;;;
585;Verandas allow hens access to fresh air, litter for dustbathing and foraging, and natural light while providing some degree of protection from the elements, predators, and wild birds (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2014).;R48;387;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
587;At the same time, ramps may help laying hens affected by keel bone fractures to move between tiers as hens with fractures tend to reduce their movements between tiers (Rufener et al., 2019) and, thus may have limited access to certain resources.;R51;419;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
587;At the same time, ramps may help laying hens affected by keel bone fractures to move between tiers as hens with fractures tend to reduce their movements between tiers (Rufener et al., 2019) and, thus may have limited access to certain resources.;R51;419;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
588;Moreover, ramps can support movement between tiers in hens suffering from poor foot health or poor plumage condition, which impairs their balancing behaviour (LeBlanc et al., 2016;R51;419;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
588;Moreover, ramps can support movement between tiers in hens suffering from poor foot health or poor plumage condition, which impairs their balancing behaviour (LeBlanc et al., 2016;R51;419;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Ramps between levels;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
169;Brendler et al. (2014) found that nearly all birds roosted on perches at heights of 90cm or above.;R23;36;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
176;During the discussions, it was considered that hens have difficulties coping with height increases beyond 90 cm,;R23;42;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Preferences;0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
594;However, in the study by Pickel et al. (2010) laying hens showed fewer balance movements on rubber perches compared to perches of wood and steel;R51;421;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;rubber ;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
594;However, in the study by Pickel et al. (2010) laying hens showed fewer balance movements on rubber perches compared to perches of wood and steel;R51;421;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;steel/metal;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
594;However, in the study by Pickel et al. (2010) laying hens showed fewer balance movements on rubber perches compared to perches of wood and steel;R51;421;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
595;showed more safe landings on a round soft perch (experimental air cushion below a soft polyurethane surface) compared to a mushroom-shaped plastic and a round steel perch (Scholz et al., 2014).;R51;421;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
595;showed more safe landings on a round soft perch (experimental air cushion below a soft polyurethane surface) compared to a mushroom-shaped plastic and a round steel perch (Scholz et al., 2014).;R51;421;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
595;showed more safe landings on a round soft perch (experimental air cushion below a soft polyurethane surface) compared to a mushroom-shaped plastic and a round steel perch (Scholz et al., 2014).;R51;421;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;steel/metal;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;steel/metal;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;plastic;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;plastic;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;rubber ;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;rubber ;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;steel/metal;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;steel/metal;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;plastic;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;plastic;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;rubber ;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
596;"These findings on the effect of perch material on the behaviour of hens suggest that in particular the surface of a perch, which normally closely is linked to its material, is important, i.e. the slip resistance of the material (Struelens and Tuyttens, 2009). For example, wood or rubber are less slippery compared to steel or plastic and, thus, improve grip and footing stability of birds on the perches (Pickel et al., 2010; Appleby et al., 1992).";R51;422;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;rubber ;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
598;Perches which are covered by pliable materials at points of body contact should be provided.;R23;54;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;wood OR soft-coated;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
598;Perches which are covered by pliable materials at points of body contact should be provided.;R23;54;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch material;steel/metal;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
178;The relative preference of roosting hens for an object that can be grasped versus an elevated structure was examined by Schrader and Muller (2009) who offered hens different combinations of high (60 cm) or low (15 cm) perches, or high or low flat plastic grids, for night-time roosting. Hens showed a very strong preference for high roosting structures over low, and a weaker preference for perches over grids when these were presented at the same height;R23;21;Poultry;Fowel, Laying hens;Rest;perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Preferences;2,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
188;According to scientific evidence in experimental floor pens, for night-time roosting, hens show a significant preference for accessing perches higher than 60 cm compared with lower perches.;R23;53;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
602;Peak force under the keel bone was lower on square perches than on oval and round perches;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
602;Peak force under the keel bone was lower on square perches than on oval and round perches;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
602;Peak force under the keel bone was lower on square perches than on oval and round perches;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
602;Peak force under the keel bone was lower on square perches than on oval and round perches;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
603;Contact area was highest on square perches, followed by oval perches, and was the lowest on round perches;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
603;Contact area was highest on square perches, followed by oval perches, and was the lowest on round perches;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
603;Contact area was highest on square perches, followed by oval perches, and was the lowest on round perches;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;oval;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
603;Contact area was highest on square perches, followed by oval perches, and was the lowest on round perches;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
603;Contact area was highest on square perches, followed by oval perches, and was the lowest on round perches;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;round;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
603;Contact area was highest on square perches, followed by oval perches, and was the lowest on round perches;R23;30;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch shape;rectangle/square OR mushroom;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
604;"Proudfoot et al. (2014a) showed that, when given the opportunity, dairy cows housed in individual maternity pens preferentially used a secluded area to calve
";R50;1703;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);available ;Preferences;1,00;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
604;"Proudfoot et al. (2014a) showed that, when given the opportunity, dairy cows housed in individual maternity pens preferentially used a secluded area to calve
";R50;1703;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
605;"The need to isolate oneself from the group was also documented during times of illness. Proudfoot et al. (2014b) found that cows with high rectal temperature after calving and signs of an infectious disease (mastitis, metritis, pneumonia, or some combinations of these diseases) spent more time in the secluded area compared with healthy cows
";R50;1704;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);available ;Preferences;1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
605;"The need to isolate oneself from the group was also documented during times of illness. Proudfoot et al. (2014b) found that cows with high rectal temperature after calving and signs of an infectious disease (mastitis, metritis, pneumonia, or some combinations of these diseases) spent more time in the secluded area compared with healthy cows
";R50;1704;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
606;"Cows should have free access to these secluded areas, as the need for isolation at times of morbidity is not shared by all group members and not for all morbidity cases (e.g., lame cows, Jensen et al., 2015b
";R50;1704;Cattle;Dairy cows ;General welfare;sick pen;available ;Preferences;1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
606;"Cows should have free access to these secluded areas, as the need for isolation at times of morbidity is not shared by all group members and not for all morbidity cases (e.g., lame cows, Jensen et al., 2015b
";R50;1704;Cattle;Dairy cows ;General welfare;sick pen;not available ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
608;"A useful tactile enrichment device that can be placed on the farm and ease grooming behavior of cows is an automated brush. Automatic brushes allow cattle to groom themselves, particularly in body regions that they find hard to reach otherwise (DeVries et al., 2007) and were shown to be preferred over fixed brushes (Gutmann 2010).
";R50;1706;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;body comfort ;available ;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
608;"A useful tactile enrichment device that can be placed on the farm and ease grooming behavior of cows is an automated brush. Automatic brushes allow cattle to groom themselves, particularly in body regions that they find hard to reach otherwise (DeVries et al., 2007) and were shown to be preferred over fixed brushes (Gutmann 2010).
";R50;1706;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;body comfort ;no brushes;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
609;"In addition to providing the cows with an opportunity to engage in scratching/rubbing behavior, the brushes are also associated with better body cleanliness and in some situations, improved milk yield (second lactation; Schukken and Young, 2009).";R50;1706;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;body comfort ;no brushes;Fitness;-0,50;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
609;"In addition to providing the cows with an opportunity to engage in scratching/rubbing behavior, the brushes are also associated with better body cleanliness and in some situations, improved milk yield (second lactation; Schukken and Young, 2009).";R50;1706;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;body comfort ;no brushes;Fitness;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
609;"In addition to providing the cows with an opportunity to engage in scratching/rubbing behavior, the brushes are also associated with better body cleanliness and in some situations, improved milk yield (second lactation; Schukken and Young, 2009).";R50;1706;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;body comfort ;not used;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
609;"In addition to providing the cows with an opportunity to engage in scratching/rubbing behavior, the brushes are also associated with better body cleanliness and in some situations, improved milk yield (second lactation; Schukken and Young, 2009).";R50;1706;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;body comfort ;not used;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
610;"Once a brush is installed on the farm, calves, lactating dairy cows, dry cows, and breeding bulls (both young and mature) will use it daily (Georg and Totschek, 2001; DeVries et al., 2007; Georg et al., 2007; Hoyer, 2013; Mandel et al., 2013; Newby et al., 2013).
";R50;1706;Cattle;Cattle ;Enrichment;body comfort ;not used;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
610;"Once a brush is installed on the farm, calves, lactating dairy cows, dry cows, and breeding bulls (both young and mature) will use it daily (Georg and Totschek, 2001; DeVries et al., 2007; Georg et al., 2007; Hoyer, 2013; Mandel et al., 2013; Newby et al., 2013).
";R50;1706;Cattle;Cattle ;Enrichment;body comfort ;no brushes;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
618;"Providing cows with a larger feeding space (1.0 m/cow compared with 0.5 m) resulted in at least a 60% increase in space between animals and a 57% reduction in aggressive interactions while feeding (DeVries et al., 2004).
";R50;1708;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Aggression;-2,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
618;"Providing cows with a larger feeding space (1.0 m/cow compared with 0.5 m) resulted in at least a 60% increase in space between animals and a 57% reduction in aggressive interactions while feeding (DeVries et al., 2004).
";R50;1708;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;>=1m/cow ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
619;"When it is not possible to provide extra feeding space per cow, placing feed barriers (i.e., headlocks) can serve as an intermediate solution that decreases displacements at the feeding bunk by more than 20% (Endres et al., 2005).
";R50;1708;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;partrition feeding area;not available ;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
619;"When it is not possible to provide extra feeding space per cow, placing feed barriers (i.e., headlocks) can serve as an intermediate solution that decreases displacements at the feeding bunk by more than 20% (Endres et al., 2005).
";R50;1708;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;partrition feeding area;available ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
620;"Cattle with access to mechanical brushes are cleaner and spend about fivefold more time grooming compared with when brushes are not available [6], suggesting that these brushes are important to the cow.
";R52;1;Cattle;Cattle ;Enrichment;body comfort ;not used;Fitness;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
620;"Cattle with access to mechanical brushes are cleaner and spend about fivefold more time grooming compared with when brushes are not available [6], suggesting that these brushes are important to the cow.
";R52;1;Cattle;Cattle ;Enrichment;body comfort ;automatic/mechanical brushes;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
620;"Cattle with access to mechanical brushes are cleaner and spend about fivefold more time grooming compared with when brushes are not available [6], suggesting that these brushes are important to the cow.
";R52;1;Cattle;Cattle ;Enrichment;body comfort ;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
620;"Cattle with access to mechanical brushes are cleaner and spend about fivefold more time grooming compared with when brushes are not available [6], suggesting that these brushes are important to the cow.
";R52;1;Cattle;Cattle ;Enrichment;body comfort ;automatic/mechanical brushes;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
621;"Dairy cows were similarly motivated to access a mechanical brush and to access fresh feed; despite differences in methodology of data collection between the brush and feed treatment, this result suggests that the brush is a valued resource for cows.
";R52;2;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;body comfort ;automatic/mechanical brushes;Demand;5,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
621;"Dairy cows were similarly motivated to access a mechanical brush and to access fresh feed; despite differences in methodology of data collection between the brush and feed treatment, this result suggests that the brush is a valued resource for cows.
";R52;2;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;body comfort ;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
622;"Strengths of cubicle systems over straw yards in terms of cow welfare have been reported as improved cow cleanliness (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Molina et al., 2020) and a reduced risk of impaired udder health (Peeler et al., 2000; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Leso et al., 2019).

";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Fitness;-1,00;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
622;"Strengths of cubicle systems over straw yards in terms of cow welfare have been reported as improved cow cleanliness (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Molina et al., 2020) and a reduced risk of impaired udder health (Peeler et al., 2000; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Leso et al., 2019).

";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Preferences;0,01;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
622;"Strengths of cubicle systems over straw yards in terms of cow welfare have been reported as improved cow cleanliness (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Molina et al., 2020) and a reduced risk of impaired udder health (Peeler et al., 2000; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Leso et al., 2019).

";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Illness;-1,00;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
622;"Strengths of cubicle systems over straw yards in terms of cow welfare have been reported as improved cow cleanliness (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Molina et al., 2020) and a reduced risk of impaired udder health (Peeler et al., 2000; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Leso et al., 2019).

";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Preferences;0,01;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
623;"Dairy cows lie down for longer in deep-bedded cubicles than in cubicles with mattresses with minimal bedding (e.g. Tucker et al., 2003; Calamari et al., 2009).
";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
623;"Dairy cows lie down for longer in deep-bedded cubicles than in cubicles with mattresses with minimal bedding (e.g. Tucker et al., 2003; Calamari et al., 2009).
";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material cubicle;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
624;"The dryness of bedding is important for comfort around lying; cows demonstrated a clear preference for dry rather than wet bedding when provided with both options (Fregonesi et al., 2007) and showed longer lying durations the less moist beddings were (Reich et al., 2010).
";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material cubicle;not used;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
624;"The dryness of bedding is important for comfort around lying; cows demonstrated a clear preference for dry rather than wet bedding when provided with both options (Fregonesi et al., 2007) and showed longer lying durations the less moist beddings were (Reich et al., 2010).
";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material cubicle;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
625;"Furthermore, fewer hock injuries occur in cows housed in cubicles with a deep bedding of straw, sawdust or sand than in cubicles with mattresses with minimal bedding (e.g. Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Wechsler et al., 2000).";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
625;"Furthermore, fewer hock injuries occur in cows housed in cubicles with a deep bedding of straw, sawdust or sand than in cubicles with mattresses with minimal bedding (e.g. Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Wechsler et al., 2000).";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material cubicle;not used ;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
625;"Furthermore, fewer hock injuries occur in cows housed in cubicles with a deep bedding of straw, sawdust or sand than in cubicles with mattresses with minimal bedding (e.g. Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Wechsler et al., 2000).";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
625;"Furthermore, fewer hock injuries occur in cows housed in cubicles with a deep bedding of straw, sawdust or sand than in cubicles with mattresses with minimal bedding (e.g. Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Wechsler et al., 2000).";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material cubicle;not used;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
625;"Furthermore, fewer hock injuries occur in cows housed in cubicles with a deep bedding of straw, sawdust or sand than in cubicles with mattresses with minimal bedding (e.g. Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Wechsler et al., 2000).";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
625;"Furthermore, fewer hock injuries occur in cows housed in cubicles with a deep bedding of straw, sawdust or sand than in cubicles with mattresses with minimal bedding (e.g. Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Wechsler et al., 2000).";R53;18;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material cubicle;not used;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
626;"With regard to the space allowance, a lying area of at least 6 m2 per dairy cow has been recommended in order to ensure undisturbed lying for all animals (Bachinger et al., 2015; Pelzer, 2012; Eilers, 2018)";R53;22;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;animal lying place ratio open pack;<6m ²-- 5m²;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
626;"With regard to the space allowance, a lying area of at least 6 m2 per dairy cow has been recommended in order to ensure undisturbed lying for all animals (Bachinger et al., 2015; Pelzer, 2012; Eilers, 2018)";R53;22;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;animal lying place ratio open pack; 6m² - < 9m²;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
627;"Cows in straw yards have been found to be dirtier than those in cubicle systems (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001), which was associated with increased somatic cell counts (SCC) and a higher incidence of clinical mastitis (Barnouin et al., 2005; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002, Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Peeler et al., 2000).
";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Illness;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
627;"Cows in straw yards have been found to be dirtier than those in cubicle systems (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001), which was associated with increased somatic cell counts (SCC) and a higher incidence of clinical mastitis (Barnouin et al., 2005; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002, Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Peeler et al., 2000).
";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
627;"Cows in straw yards have been found to be dirtier than those in cubicle systems (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001), which was associated with increased somatic cell counts (SCC) and a higher incidence of clinical mastitis (Barnouin et al., 2005; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002, Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Peeler et al., 2000).
";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Illness;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
627;"Cows in straw yards have been found to be dirtier than those in cubicle systems (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001), which was associated with increased somatic cell counts (SCC) and a higher incidence of clinical mastitis (Barnouin et al., 2005; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002, Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Peeler et al., 2000).
";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
627;"Cows in straw yards have been found to be dirtier than those in cubicle systems (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001), which was associated with increased somatic cell counts (SCC) and a higher incidence of clinical mastitis (Barnouin et al., 2005; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002, Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Peeler et al., 2000).
";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Fitness;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
627;"Cows in straw yards have been found to be dirtier than those in cubicle systems (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001), which was associated with increased somatic cell counts (SCC) and a higher incidence of clinical mastitis (Barnouin et al., 2005; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002, Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001; Peeler et al., 2000).
";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
628;"More soiling and impaired udder health was identified in straw yards with lower space allowances in the lying area as compared to larger space allowance (4.5 m2 vs. 9m2 per cow; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002).";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;animal lying place ratio open pack;<5m²- 4m² ;Fitness;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
628;"More soiling and impaired udder health was identified in straw yards with lower space allowances in the lying area as compared to larger space allowance (4.5 m2 vs. 9m2 per cow; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002).";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;animal lying place ratio open pack;>=9m²;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
628;"More soiling and impaired udder health was identified in straw yards with lower space allowances in the lying area as compared to larger space allowance (4.5 m2 vs. 9m2 per cow; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002).";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;animal lying place ratio open pack;<5m²- 4m² ;Illness;-1,00;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
628;"More soiling and impaired udder health was identified in straw yards with lower space allowances in the lying area as compared to larger space allowance (4.5 m2 vs. 9m2 per cow; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002).";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;animal lying place ratio open pack;>=9m²;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Health;;;;;;;;;
629;At a minimum, a single standing hen requires approximately 563 cm2, but the amount of physical space needed increases to approximately 1,693 cm2 for wing flapping (Mench and Blatchford, 2014);R54;172;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>1325-<1550 cm2/hen;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Body care, Movement;;;;;;;;;
629;At a minimum, a single standing hen requires approximately 563 cm2, but the amount of physical space needed increases to approximately 1,693 cm2 for wing flapping (Mench and Blatchford, 2014);R54;172;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550 cm2/hen;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care, Movement;;;;;;;;;
630;Thus, modeling for group size, hens in flocks of 100 individuals or greater are predicted to need approximately 600 cm2 of space to perform both static postures and dynamic behaviors (Mench and Blatchford, 2014).;R54;172;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;<650 cm2/hen;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care, Movement;;;;;;;;;
630;Thus, modeling for group size, hens in flocks of 100 individuals or greater are predicted to need approximately 600 cm2 of space to perform both static postures and dynamic behaviors (Mench and Blatchford, 2014).;R54;172;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;650-775cm2/hen;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care, Movement;;;;;;;;;
632;the provision of litter and other changeable materials is particularly important for the reduction of SFP (Rodenburg et al., 2013).;R55;501;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
632;the provision of litter and other changeable materials is particularly important for the reduction of SFP (Rodenburg et al., 2013).;R55;501;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
633;Blokhuis and Van der Haar (1989) investigated the effects of littered floors (wood shavings) or wired floors during rearing and the subsequent laying period. According to this approach, the groups with litter floors showed less SFP and more ground pecking in the rearing period as well as in the later laying period. ;R55;501;Poultry;Laying hens, Rearing chicks;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
633;Blokhuis and Van der Haar (1989) investigated the effects of littered floors (wood shavings) or wired floors during rearing and the subsequent laying period. According to this approach, the groups with litter floors showed less SFP and more ground pecking in the rearing period as well as in the later laying period. ;R55;501;Poultry;Laying hens, Rearing chicks;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
633;Blokhuis and Van der Haar (1989) investigated the effects of littered floors (wood shavings) or wired floors during rearing and the subsequent laying period. According to this approach, the groups with litter floors showed less SFP and more ground pecking in the rearing period as well as in the later laying period. ;R55;501;Poultry;Laying hens, Rearing chicks;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
636;in a study by Green, Lewis, Kimpton, and Nicol (2000), the absence of fluffy litter substrate at the end of the laying period was a risk factor for the occurrence of SFP.;R55;502;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
636;in a study by Green, Lewis, Kimpton, and Nicol (2000), the absence of fluffy litter substrate at the end of the laying period was a risk factor for the occurrence of SFP.;R55;502;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
639;As expected, hens kept permanently on wired floors showed the most severe cases of SFP. However, the fact that laying hens kept on shavings performed more ground pecking and less SFP than hens kept on wired floors was independent of the hens’ previous experience;R55;502;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
639;As expected, hens kept permanently on wired floors showed the most severe cases of SFP. However, the fact that laying hens kept on shavings performed more ground pecking and less SFP than hens kept on wired floors was independent of the hens’ previous experience;R55;502;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
639;As expected, hens kept permanently on wired floors showed the most severe cases of SFP. However, the fact that laying hens kept on shavings performed more ground pecking and less SFP than hens kept on wired floors was independent of the hens’ previous experience;R55;502;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
642;Hens in cages with the supply of strings showed less plumage damage at the 35th week of life compared to the hens without this additional enrichment;R55;503;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
642;Hens in cages with the supply of strings showed less plumage damage at the 35th week of life compared to the hens without this additional enrichment;R55;503;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
644;Only those hens fed with pellets and without access to straw were found to have severe plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
644;Only those hens fed with pellets and without access to straw were found to have severe plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
646;By providing maize silage, pea‐barley silage or carrots as additional enrichment materials to brown‐egg layers housed in a barn housing system, Steenfeldt, Kjaer, and Engberg (2007), could reduce the SFP and plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
646;By providing maize silage, pea‐barley silage or carrots as additional enrichment materials to brown‐egg layers housed in a barn housing system, Steenfeldt, Kjaer, and Engberg (2007), could reduce the SFP and plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
646;By providing maize silage, pea‐barley silage or carrots as additional enrichment materials to brown‐egg layers housed in a barn housing system, Steenfeldt, Kjaer, and Engberg (2007), could reduce the SFP and plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
646;By providing maize silage, pea‐barley silage or carrots as additional enrichment materials to brown‐egg layers housed in a barn housing system, Steenfeldt, Kjaer, and Engberg (2007), could reduce the SFP and plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
646;By providing maize silage, pea‐barley silage or carrots as additional enrichment materials to brown‐egg layers housed in a barn housing system, Steenfeldt, Kjaer, and Engberg (2007), could reduce the SFP and plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
646;By providing maize silage, pea‐barley silage or carrots as additional enrichment materials to brown‐egg layers housed in a barn housing system, Steenfeldt, Kjaer, and Engberg (2007), could reduce the SFP and plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
646;By providing maize silage, pea‐barley silage or carrots as additional enrichment materials to brown‐egg layers housed in a barn housing system, Steenfeldt, Kjaer, and Engberg (2007), could reduce the SFP and plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
646;By providing maize silage, pea‐barley silage or carrots as additional enrichment materials to brown‐egg layers housed in a barn housing system, Steenfeldt, Kjaer, and Engberg (2007), could reduce the SFP and plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
646;By providing maize silage, pea‐barley silage or carrots as additional enrichment materials to brown‐egg layers housed in a barn housing system, Steenfeldt, Kjaer, and Engberg (2007), could reduce the SFP and plumage damage.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
647;Mortality was significantly reduced in the three test variants compared to the control without additional enrichment.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
647;Mortality was significantly reduced in the three test variants compared to the control without additional enrichment.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
647;Mortality was significantly reduced in the three test variants compared to the control without additional enrichment.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Survival;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
647;Mortality was significantly reduced in the three test variants compared to the control without additional enrichment.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
651;Remarkably, Lugmair (2009) and Lambton, Knowles, Yorke, and Nicol (2010) found an even higher risk of SFP in flocks with grain added to the litter in their field studies.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Pain;-3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
651;Remarkably, Lugmair (2009) and Lambton, Knowles, Yorke, and Nicol (2010) found an even higher risk of SFP in flocks with grain added to the litter in their field studies.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
651;Remarkably, Lugmair (2009) and Lambton, Knowles, Yorke, and Nicol (2010) found an even higher risk of SFP in flocks with grain added to the litter in their field studies.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
652;In another field study, Freytag, Kemper, and Spindler (2016) compared the influence of different enrichment variants (pressed alfalfa bales, pecking stones, grain addition to litter and pecking stones plus grain addition) to controls without additional enrichment during the rearing and laying period for 100,000 brown‐layers housed in aviary systems. Regarding mortality, no effects of the enrichment material were observed in the rearing period. In the laying period, the lowest animal losses were observed in the groups without enrichment material and with grain addition. In all groups with added enrichment material, problems increased with piling up and smothering.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
652;In another field study, Freytag, Kemper, and Spindler (2016) compared the influence of different enrichment variants (pressed alfalfa bales, pecking stones, grain addition to litter and pecking stones plus grain addition) to controls without additional enrichment during the rearing and laying period for 100,000 brown‐layers housed in aviary systems. Regarding mortality, no effects of the enrichment material were observed in the rearing period. In the laying period, the lowest animal losses were observed in the groups without enrichment material and with grain addition. In all groups with added enrichment material, problems increased with piling up and smothering.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;0,01;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
652;In another field study, Freytag, Kemper, and Spindler (2016) compared the influence of different enrichment variants (pressed alfalfa bales, pecking stones, grain addition to litter and pecking stones plus grain addition) to controls without additional enrichment during the rearing and laying period for 100,000 brown‐layers housed in aviary systems. Regarding mortality, no effects of the enrichment material were observed in the rearing period. In the laying period, the lowest animal losses were observed in the groups without enrichment material and with grain addition. In all groups with added enrichment material, problems increased with piling up and smothering.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Preferences;0,01;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
652;In another field study, Freytag, Kemper, and Spindler (2016) compared the influence of different enrichment variants (pressed alfalfa bales, pecking stones, grain addition to litter and pecking stones plus grain addition) to controls without additional enrichment during the rearing and laying period for 100,000 brown‐layers housed in aviary systems. Regarding mortality, no effects of the enrichment material were observed in the rearing period. In the laying period, the lowest animal losses were observed in the groups without enrichment material and with grain addition. In all groups with added enrichment material, problems increased with piling up and smothering.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Survival;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
652;In another field study, Freytag, Kemper, and Spindler (2016) compared the influence of different enrichment variants (pressed alfalfa bales, pecking stones, grain addition to litter and pecking stones plus grain addition) to controls without additional enrichment during the rearing and laying period for 100,000 brown‐layers housed in aviary systems. Regarding mortality, no effects of the enrichment material were observed in the rearing period. In the laying period, the lowest animal losses were observed in the groups without enrichment material and with grain addition. In all groups with added enrichment material, problems increased with piling up and smothering.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Survival;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
652;In another field study, Freytag, Kemper, and Spindler (2016) compared the influence of different enrichment variants (pressed alfalfa bales, pecking stones, grain addition to litter and pecking stones plus grain addition) to controls without additional enrichment during the rearing and laying period for 100,000 brown‐layers housed in aviary systems. Regarding mortality, no effects of the enrichment material were observed in the rearing period. In the laying period, the lowest animal losses were observed in the groups without enrichment material and with grain addition. In all groups with added enrichment material, problems increased with piling up and smothering.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
652;In another field study, Freytag, Kemper, and Spindler (2016) compared the influence of different enrichment variants (pressed alfalfa bales, pecking stones, grain addition to litter and pecking stones plus grain addition) to controls without additional enrichment during the rearing and laying period for 100,000 brown‐layers housed in aviary systems. Regarding mortality, no effects of the enrichment material were observed in the rearing period. In the laying period, the lowest animal losses were observed in the groups without enrichment material and with grain addition. In all groups with added enrichment material, problems increased with piling up and smothering.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
652;In another field study, Freytag, Kemper, and Spindler (2016) compared the influence of different enrichment variants (pressed alfalfa bales, pecking stones, grain addition to litter and pecking stones plus grain addition) to controls without additional enrichment during the rearing and laying period for 100,000 brown‐layers housed in aviary systems. Regarding mortality, no effects of the enrichment material were observed in the rearing period. In the laying period, the lowest animal losses were observed in the groups without enrichment material and with grain addition. In all groups with added enrichment material, problems increased with piling up and smothering.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Preferences;0,01;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
652;In another field study, Freytag, Kemper, and Spindler (2016) compared the influence of different enrichment variants (pressed alfalfa bales, pecking stones, grain addition to litter and pecking stones plus grain addition) to controls without additional enrichment during the rearing and laying period for 100,000 brown‐layers housed in aviary systems. Regarding mortality, no effects of the enrichment material were observed in the rearing period. In the laying period, the lowest animal losses were observed in the groups without enrichment material and with grain addition. In all groups with added enrichment material, problems increased with piling up and smothering.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
652;In another field study, Freytag, Kemper, and Spindler (2016) compared the influence of different enrichment variants (pressed alfalfa bales, pecking stones, grain addition to litter and pecking stones plus grain addition) to controls without additional enrichment during the rearing and laying period for 100,000 brown‐layers housed in aviary systems. Regarding mortality, no effects of the enrichment material were observed in the rearing period. In the laying period, the lowest animal losses were observed in the groups without enrichment material and with grain addition. In all groups with added enrichment material, problems increased with piling up and smothering.;R55;504;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
653;Alfalfa bales were used more intensively than the pecking stones by the hens in the scratching room.;R55;505;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
653;Alfalfa bales were used more intensively than the pecking stones by the hens in the scratching room.;R55;505;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
655;Bestman et al. (2002) found that when almost the whole surface of the hen run is not covered with a structure, for example, maize, it is crucial to have no more than 10 m walking distance between structures.;R62;406;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Distance between shelter/hiding structures;> 10 m;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Safety;;;;;;;;;
655;Bestman et al. (2002) found that when almost the whole surface of the hen run is not covered with a structure, for example, maize, it is crucial to have no more than 10 m walking distance between structures.;R62;406;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Distance between shelter/hiding structures;<= 10 m;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Safety;;;;;;;;;
657;Similarly, Bilcı´k and Keeling (2000) compared group sizes of 15, 30, 60 and 120 Hysex white birds in floor pens at a low stocking density of 5 birds/m2 and found most feather pecking in the groups of 120 birds.;R56;206;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
657;Similarly, Bilcı´k and Keeling (2000) compared group sizes of 15, 30, 60 and 120 Hysex white birds in floor pens at a low stocking density of 5 birds/m2 and found most feather pecking in the groups of 120 birds.;R56;206;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
657;Similarly, Bilcı´k and Keeling (2000) compared group sizes of 15, 30, 60 and 120 Hysex white birds in floor pens at a low stocking density of 5 birds/m2 and found most feather pecking in the groups of 120 birds.;R56;206;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;5-20 birds;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
657;Similarly, Bilcı´k and Keeling (2000) compared group sizes of 15, 30, 60 and 120 Hysex white birds in floor pens at a low stocking density of 5 birds/m2 and found most feather pecking in the groups of 120 birds.;R56;206;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;<5 birds OR 20-50 birds;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
657;Similarly, Bilcı´k and Keeling (2000) compared group sizes of 15, 30, 60 and 120 Hysex white birds in floor pens at a low stocking density of 5 birds/m2 and found most feather pecking in the groups of 120 birds.;R56;206;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;50-100 birds;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
658;For cannibalism in laying hens, Koene (1997) found more cannibalism on commercial farms with large flock sizes, with flock sizes varying from 80 to 1500 birds. In this study, cannibalism due to vent pecking and cannibalism related with feather pecking were combined.;R56;206;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;>500 birds;Pain;-3,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
658;For cannibalism in laying hens, Koene (1997) found more cannibalism on commercial farms with large flock sizes, with flock sizes varying from 80 to 1500 birds. In this study, cannibalism due to vent pecking and cannibalism related with feather pecking were combined.;R56;206;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;>500 birds;Abnormal behaviour;-2,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
658;For cannibalism in laying hens, Koene (1997) found more cannibalism on commercial farms with large flock sizes, with flock sizes varying from 80 to 1500 birds. In this study, cannibalism due to vent pecking and cannibalism related with feather pecking were combined.;R56;206;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;50-100 birds;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
659;In laying hens, Bilcık and Keeling (2000) found increased aggression with increased group size from 15 to 120 Hysex white birds;R56;207;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Aggression;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
659;In laying hens, Bilcık and Keeling (2000) found increased aggression with increased group size from 15 to 120 Hysex white birds;R56;207;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;5-20 birds;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
660;Nicol et al. (1999), on the other hand, found higher levels of aggressive pecking in small groups (72 birds) than in large groups (over 264 birds) of Isa brown birds.;R56;207;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
660;Nicol et al. (1999), on the other hand, found higher levels of aggressive pecking in small groups (72 birds) than in large groups (over 264 birds) of Isa brown birds.;R56;207;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;50-100 birds;Aggression;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
660;Nicol et al. (1999), on the other hand, found higher levels of aggressive pecking in small groups (72 birds) than in large groups (over 264 birds) of Isa brown birds.;R56;207;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;50-100 birds;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
661;Lindberg and Nicol (1996) studied aggression in groups of Warren birds and also found lower aggression in birds kept in groups of 44 than in birds kept in groups of four, when these birds were tested in a T-maze test.;R56;207;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;<5 birds OR 20-50 birds;Aggression;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
661;Lindberg and Nicol (1996) studied aggression in groups of Warren birds and also found lower aggression in birds kept in groups of 44 than in birds kept in groups of four, when these birds were tested in a T-maze test.;R56;207;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;<5 birds OR 20-50 birds;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
662;Keeling et al. (2003) found that Hysex white birds from groups of 30 had lower body weight and lower egg weight than birds from groups of 15 or 60 birds.;R56;208;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;5-20 birds;Preferences;0,01;Health, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
662;Keeling et al. (2003) found that Hysex white birds from groups of 30 had lower body weight and lower egg weight than birds from groups of 15 or 60 birds.;R56;208;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;50-100 birds;Preferences;0,01;Health, Health;;;;;;;;;
662;Keeling et al. (2003) found that Hysex white birds from groups of 30 had lower body weight and lower egg weight than birds from groups of 15 or 60 birds.;R56;208;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;5-20 birds;Preferences;0,01;Health, Health;;;;;;;;;
662;Keeling et al. (2003) found that Hysex white birds from groups of 30 had lower body weight and lower egg weight than birds from groups of 15 or 60 birds.;R56;208;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;<5 birds OR 20-50 birds;Fitness;-1,00;Health, Health;;;;;;;;;
662;Keeling et al. (2003) found that Hysex white birds from groups of 30 had lower body weight and lower egg weight than birds from groups of 15 or 60 birds.;R56;208;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;<5 birds OR 20-50 birds;Fitness;-1,00;Health, Health;;;;;;;;;
662;Keeling et al. (2003) found that Hysex white birds from groups of 30 had lower body weight and lower egg weight than birds from groups of 15 or 60 birds.;R56;208;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;50-100 birds;Preferences;0,01;Health, Health;;;;;;;;;
663;studied vocalisations in Lohmann brown laying hens with group sizes varying between 2 and 10 birds and stocking densities between one and 31.6 birds/m2. They found that increasing group size led to a decrease in vocalisations, including gakel-calls which are indicative of frustration (Zimmerman and Koene, 1998).;R56;208;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;5-20 birds;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
663;studied vocalisations in Lohmann brown laying hens with group sizes varying between 2 and 10 birds and stocking densities between one and 31.6 birds/m2. They found that increasing group size led to a decrease in vocalisations, including gakel-calls which are indicative of frustration (Zimmerman and Koene, 1998).;R56;208;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;<5 birds OR 20-50 birds;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
664;Bilcı´k et al. (1998) studied the effect of group size on TI [tonic immobility] in laying hens in groups of 15, 30, 60 and 120 Hysex white birds. They found that duration of TI was longer in groups of 120 than in groups of 15 birds, indicating higher levels of fearfulness in groups of 120 birds, probably due to increased competition in large groups.;R56;208;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
664;Bilcı´k et al. (1998) studied the effect of group size on TI [tonic immobility] in laying hens in groups of 15, 30, 60 and 120 Hysex white birds. They found that duration of TI was longer in groups of 120 than in groups of 15 birds, indicating higher levels of fearfulness in groups of 120 birds, probably due to increased competition in large groups.;R56;208;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;5-20 birds;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
665;By offering vertical panels and artificial cover in poultry houses, birds could be provided with extra possibilities for shelter, protection from predators and from aggressive conspecifics (Cornetto and Estevez, 2001).;R56;209;Poultry;Broilers, Laying hens;Barn construction;Partial covers/visual separation;available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
665;By offering vertical panels and artificial cover in poultry houses, birds could be provided with extra possibilities for shelter, protection from predators and from aggressive conspecifics (Cornetto and Estevez, 2001).;R56;209;Poultry;Broilers, Laying hens;Barn construction;Partial covers/visual separation;available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
665;By offering vertical panels and artificial cover in poultry houses, birds could be provided with extra possibilities for shelter, protection from predators and from aggressive conspecifics (Cornetto and Estevez, 2001).;R56;209;Poultry;Broilers, Laying hens;Barn construction;Partial covers/visual separation;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
668;The use of chain feed systems, feeders not being available on all levels, the diet being changed during lay, vitamins being added to the food, oyster shell being scattered on the floor, and the use of bell drinkers also increased the risk of feather pecking (Table 2);R63;236;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Type of feeder;chain feeder;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
668;The use of chain feed systems, feeders not being available on all levels, the diet being changed during lay, vitamins being added to the food, oyster shell being scattered on the floor, and the use of bell drinkers also increased the risk of feather pecking (Table 2);R63;236;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Type of feeder;chain feeder;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
668;The use of chain feed systems, feeders not being available on all levels, the diet being changed during lay, vitamins being added to the food, oyster shell being scattered on the floor, and the use of bell drinkers also increased the risk of feather pecking (Table 2);R63;236;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeder availablity;not at all levels in aviary;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
668;The use of chain feed systems, feeders not being available on all levels, the diet being changed during lay, vitamins being added to the food, oyster shell being scattered on the floor, and the use of bell drinkers also increased the risk of feather pecking (Table 2);R63;236;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeder availablity;at all levels in aviary;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
668;The use of chain feed systems, feeders not being available on all levels, the diet being changed during lay, vitamins being added to the food, oyster shell being scattered on the floor, and the use of bell drinkers also increased the risk of feather pecking (Table 2);R63;236;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Feeder availablity;not at all levels in aviary;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
671;Bestman and Wagenaar (2003) studied feather pecking on organic farms and found that a high percentage of hens using the outdoor run helped to reduce problems with feather pecking;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
671;Bestman and Wagenaar (2003) studied feather pecking on organic farms and found that a high percentage of hens using the outdoor run helped to reduce problems with feather pecking;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
671;Bestman and Wagenaar (2003) studied feather pecking on organic farms and found that a high percentage of hens using the outdoor run helped to reduce problems with feather pecking;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
672;Zimmerman et al. (in press) showed that adapting farm management according to such a risk factor analysis actually is effective. They compared standard management (bell drinkers, light in nestboxes) with modified management (nipple drinkers, no light in nestboxes) and found a marked reduction in feather pecking and aggression in the flocks with modified management.;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Pain;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
672;Zimmerman et al. (in press) showed that adapting farm management according to such a risk factor analysis actually is effective. They compared standard management (bell drinkers, light in nestboxes) with modified management (nipple drinkers, no light in nestboxes) and found a marked reduction in feather pecking and aggression in the flocks with modified management.;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
672;Zimmerman et al. (in press) showed that adapting farm management according to such a risk factor analysis actually is effective. They compared standard management (bell drinkers, light in nestboxes) with modified management (nipple drinkers, no light in nestboxes) and found a marked reduction in feather pecking and aggression in the flocks with modified management.;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Aggression;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
672;Zimmerman et al. (in press) showed that adapting farm management according to such a risk factor analysis actually is effective. They compared standard management (bell drinkers, light in nestboxes) with modified management (nipple drinkers, no light in nestboxes) and found a marked reduction in feather pecking and aggression in the flocks with modified management.;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;nipple drinker;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
672;Zimmerman et al. (in press) showed that adapting farm management according to such a risk factor analysis actually is effective. They compared standard management (bell drinkers, light in nestboxes) with modified management (nipple drinkers, no light in nestboxes) and found a marked reduction in feather pecking and aggression in the flocks with modified management.;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;nipple drinker;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
674;"Flocks with hanging bell drinkers were 5.5 times more at risk of VP [vent pecking] and 11.3 times of FP [ feather pecking[ than fllocks provided with water via other systems. Bell drinkers provide a focus of crowding and competition and therefore stress and are usually located near nest boxes (Lewis, personal communication) where activity, tension and severe FP are more frequent than in other parts of the hen house (Nicol et al., 1999). Nipple drinkers, in contrast, are mounted at various points of the hen house, including perches, the latter have been reported as a protective factor for VP (Frohlich, 1991; Gunnarsson et al., 1999).";R57;269;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Pain;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
674;"Flocks with hanging bell drinkers were 5.5 times more at risk of VP [vent pecking] and 11.3 times of FP [ feather pecking[ than fllocks provided with water via other systems. Bell drinkers provide a focus of crowding and competition and therefore stress and are usually located near nest boxes (Lewis, personal communication) where activity, tension and severe FP are more frequent than in other parts of the hen house (Nicol et al., 1999). Nipple drinkers, in contrast, are mounted at various points of the hen house, including perches, the latter have been reported as a protective factor for VP (Frohlich, 1991; Gunnarsson et al., 1999).";R57;269;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
674;"Flocks with hanging bell drinkers were 5.5 times more at risk of VP [vent pecking] and 11.3 times of FP [ feather pecking[ than fllocks provided with water via other systems. Bell drinkers provide a focus of crowding and competition and therefore stress and are usually located near nest boxes (Lewis, personal communication) where activity, tension and severe FP are more frequent than in other parts of the hen house (Nicol et al., 1999). Nipple drinkers, in contrast, are mounted at various points of the hen house, including perches, the latter have been reported as a protective factor for VP (Frohlich, 1991; Gunnarsson et al., 1999).";R57;269;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Pain;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
674;"Flocks with hanging bell drinkers were 5.5 times more at risk of VP [vent pecking] and 11.3 times of FP [ feather pecking[ than fllocks provided with water via other systems. Bell drinkers provide a focus of crowding and competition and therefore stress and are usually located near nest boxes (Lewis, personal communication) where activity, tension and severe FP are more frequent than in other parts of the hen house (Nicol et al., 1999). Nipple drinkers, in contrast, are mounted at various points of the hen house, including perches, the latter have been reported as a protective factor for VP (Frohlich, 1991; Gunnarsson et al., 1999).";R57;269;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
674;"Flocks with hanging bell drinkers were 5.5 times more at risk of VP [vent pecking] and 11.3 times of FP [ feather pecking[ than fllocks provided with water via other systems. Bell drinkers provide a focus of crowding and competition and therefore stress and are usually located near nest boxes (Lewis, personal communication) where activity, tension and severe FP are more frequent than in other parts of the hen house (Nicol et al., 1999). Nipple drinkers, in contrast, are mounted at various points of the hen house, including perches, the latter have been reported as a protective factor for VP (Frohlich, 1991; Gunnarsson et al., 1999).";R57;269;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;nipple drinker;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
674;"Flocks with hanging bell drinkers were 5.5 times more at risk of VP [vent pecking] and 11.3 times of FP [ feather pecking[ than fllocks provided with water via other systems. Bell drinkers provide a focus of crowding and competition and therefore stress and are usually located near nest boxes (Lewis, personal communication) where activity, tension and severe FP are more frequent than in other parts of the hen house (Nicol et al., 1999). Nipple drinkers, in contrast, are mounted at various points of the hen house, including perches, the latter have been reported as a protective factor for VP (Frohlich, 1991; Gunnarsson et al., 1999).";R57;269;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;nipple drinker;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
675;Green et al. (2000) identified risk factors for feather pecking and found that limited use of the outdoor run, a large number of diet changes, inspection of the flock by only one person, absence of loose litter at the end of lay, low temperatures in the house, increasing light intensity during inspection and the use of bell drinkers were all factors that increased the risk of feather pecking. They concluded that factors such as limited use of the outdoor run and absence of loose litter inhibited foraging and dustbathing behaviour, whereas other factors, such as diet changes and variation in light intensity, might increase competition or frustration and that both types of factors can lead to feather pecking.;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Pain;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
675;Green et al. (2000) identified risk factors for feather pecking and found that limited use of the outdoor run, a large number of diet changes, inspection of the flock by only one person, absence of loose litter at the end of lay, low temperatures in the house, increasing light intensity during inspection and the use of bell drinkers were all factors that increased the risk of feather pecking. They concluded that factors such as limited use of the outdoor run and absence of loose litter inhibited foraging and dustbathing behaviour, whereas other factors, such as diet changes and variation in light intensity, might increase competition or frustration and that both types of factors can lead to feather pecking.;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
675;Green et al. (2000) identified risk factors for feather pecking and found that limited use of the outdoor run, a large number of diet changes, inspection of the flock by only one person, absence of loose litter at the end of lay, low temperatures in the house, increasing light intensity during inspection and the use of bell drinkers were all factors that increased the risk of feather pecking. They concluded that factors such as limited use of the outdoor run and absence of loose litter inhibited foraging and dustbathing behaviour, whereas other factors, such as diet changes and variation in light intensity, might increase competition or frustration and that both types of factors can lead to feather pecking.;R56;210;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Type of drinker;nipple drinker;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
676;Over the course of the entire experiment (34 to 41 wk) hen-day egg production, egg mass, and feed intake were lower for (P < 0.01) 10 birds/m2 stock density than other stock densities.;R58;2766;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550-<3000 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
676;Over the course of the entire experiment (34 to 41 wk) hen-day egg production, egg mass, and feed intake were lower for (P < 0.01) 10 birds/m2 stock density than other stock densities.;R58;2766;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550-<3000 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
676;Over the course of the entire experiment (34 to 41 wk) hen-day egg production, egg mass, and feed intake were lower for (P < 0.01) 10 birds/m2 stock density than other stock densities.;R58;2766;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
676;Over the course of the entire experiment (34 to 41 wk) hen-day egg production, egg mass, and feed intake were lower for (P < 0.01) 10 birds/m2 stock density than other stock densities.;R58;2766;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
677;However, heterophils and the H/L ratio were greater (P< 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than stock density than 6, and 7 birds/m2 stock density.;R58;2767;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;HPA;-1,00;Health, Safety;;;;;;;;;
677;However, heterophils and the H/L ratio were greater (P< 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than stock density than 6, and 7 birds/m2 stock density.;R58;2767;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;HPA;-1,00;Health, Safety;;;;;;;;;
677;However, heterophils and the H/L ratio were greater (P< 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than stock density than 6, and 7 birds/m2 stock density.;R58;2767;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>1325-<1550 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Health, Safety;;;;;;;;;
677;However, heterophils and the H/L ratio were greater (P< 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than stock density than 6, and 7 birds/m2 stock density.;R58;2767;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>1325-<1550 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Health, Safety;;;;;;;;;
678;During the initial (34 to 37 wk) and final 4 wk of the experiment (38 to 41 wk), serum corticosterone was greater (P < 0.01) 10 birds/m2 than stock density than other stock densities (Table 6).;R58;2767;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550-<3000 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Health, Safety;;;;;;;;;
678;During the initial (34 to 37 wk) and final 4 wk of the experiment (38 to 41 wk), serum corticosterone was greater (P < 0.01) 10 birds/m2 than stock density than other stock densities (Table 6).;R58;2767;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;HPA;-1,00;Health, Safety;;;;;;;;;
679;litter moisture, gas emission (CO2 and NH3) were greater (P < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than stock density than in 5, 6, and 7 birds/m2 stock density (Table 7).;R58;2768;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550-<3000 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
679;litter moisture, gas emission (CO2 and NH3) were greater (P < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than stock density than in 5, 6, and 7 birds/m2 stock density (Table 7).;R58;2768;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550-<3000 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
679;litter moisture, gas emission (CO2 and NH3) were greater (P < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than stock density than in 5, 6, and 7 birds/m2 stock density (Table 7).;R58;2768;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
679;litter moisture, gas emission (CO2 and NH3) were greater (P < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than stock density than in 5, 6, and 7 birds/m2 stock density (Table 7).;R58;2768;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
680;Additionally, as stocking density increased, the amount of caked litter in the pens also increased. Higher stock density increases nitrogen and moisture level in the litter and thus favors microbial activity.;R58;2768;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550-<3000 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
680;Additionally, as stocking density increased, the amount of caked litter in the pens also increased. Higher stock density increases nitrogen and moisture level in the litter and thus favors microbial activity.;R58;2768;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
683;"The range has great potential to improve welfare, as a well-designed range provides opportunities to fulfil behavioural needs such as foraging and dustbathing (Weeks and Nicol, 2006; Lay et al., 2011)";R59;3;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;2,00;Exploration, Body care;;;;;;;;;
683;"The range has great potential to improve welfare, as a well-designed range provides opportunities to fulfil behavioural needs such as foraging and dustbathing (Weeks and Nicol, 2006; Lay et al., 2011)";R59;3;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Body care;;;;;;;;;
201;In addition, the risk of vent pecking was increased in single-tier systems when perches were placed at more than 50 cm above the slats, compared with less than 50 cm or no perches (Lambton et al., 2015);R23;8;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
201;In addition, the risk of vent pecking was increased in single-tier systems when perches were placed at more than 50 cm above the slats, compared with less than 50 cm or no perches (Lambton et al., 2015);R23;8;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
202;In non-cages systems, the minimum perch height to adequately meet the hens’ preference should be 60 cm from ground leve;R23;54;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
688;Shelter, whether natural or artificial, provides protection from the elements and can reduce bird fearfulness by increasing their perception of safety from predators (Collias, 1987).;R59;13;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
688;Shelter, whether natural or artificial, provides protection from the elements and can reduce bird fearfulness by increasing their perception of safety from predators (Collias, 1987).;R59;13;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
689;As chickens are prey animals provision of shelter may increase the range use if they feel safer. In both experimental and on-farm trials carried out in Australia the provision of shelterbelts and artificial shelter increased percentage range use. In fact, 17 times more hens used the shelterbelt areas than control areas (Nagle and Glatz, 2012).;R59;14;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;artifical cover/shelter (e.g. cloths, shelter belts);Preferences;1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
689;As chickens are prey animals provision of shelter may increase the range use if they feel safer. In both experimental and on-farm trials carried out in Australia the provision of shelterbelts and artificial shelter increased percentage range use. In fact, 17 times more hens used the shelterbelt areas than control areas (Nagle and Glatz, 2012).;R59;14;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
690;A study using small flocks of 256 birds found that percentage range use averaged 31% for ranges with negligible cover but increased to 293 38% for ranges with vegetation cover (Harlander-Matauschek et al., 2006).;R59;14;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
691;When a simple roofed box with sand was placed in the furthest quarter of the range, a higher percentage of birds were found in this area (Zeltner and Hirt, 2003).;R59;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;artifical cover/shelter (e.g. cloths, shelter belts);Preferences;1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
691;When a simple roofed box with sand was placed in the furthest quarter of the range, a higher percentage of birds were found in this area (Zeltner and Hirt, 2003).;R59;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
692;Flocks with structures on the range had a significantly greater percentage of birds using the middle area of the range compared with controls (Zeltner and Hirt, 2008);R59;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
693;Similarly, the addition of vertical structures encouraged hens to range further (Rault et al., 2013).;R59;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
694;Gilani et al. (2014) found a strongly significant effect of cover on the range in increasing the proportion of birds ranging away from the house.;R59;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
695;Cooper and Hodges (2010) reported that trees have positive effects on ranging up to 50m but no further;R59;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
695;Cooper and Hodges (2010) reported that trees have positive effects on ranging up to 50m but no further;R59;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
696;When different structures were provided outside, hens were mostly found near those that provided shelter and shade (Zeltner and Hirt, 2008;R59;16;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Safety, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
697;The important positive attributes of free-range (including organic) layer farming are the birds’ access to an outdoor range, exposure to natural daylight (sunlight), ability to move freely, increased space to better regulate social interactions, and opportunities for expression of natural behaviours [1,2];R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration, Body care;;;;;;;;;
697;The important positive attributes of free-range (including organic) layer farming are the birds’ access to an outdoor range, exposure to natural daylight (sunlight), ability to move freely, increased space to better regulate social interactions, and opportunities for expression of natural behaviours [1,2];R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
697;The important positive attributes of free-range (including organic) layer farming are the birds’ access to an outdoor range, exposure to natural daylight (sunlight), ability to move freely, increased space to better regulate social interactions, and opportunities for expression of natural behaviours [1,2];R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Body care;;;;;;;;;
697;The important positive attributes of free-range (including organic) layer farming are the birds’ access to an outdoor range, exposure to natural daylight (sunlight), ability to move freely, increased space to better regulate social interactions, and opportunities for expression of natural behaviours [1,2];R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
697;The important positive attributes of free-range (including organic) layer farming are the birds’ access to an outdoor range, exposure to natural daylight (sunlight), ability to move freely, increased space to better regulate social interactions, and opportunities for expression of natural behaviours [1,2];R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Safety, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
698;Free-range systems may also have some potential risks such as parasitic infections [3], increased disease exposure [4], heat stress [5], and predation [6,7].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
698;Free-range systems may also have some potential risks such as parasitic infections [3], increased disease exposure [4], heat stress [5], and predation [6,7].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
698;Free-range systems may also have some potential risks such as parasitic infections [3], increased disease exposure [4], heat stress [5], and predation [6,7].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Survival;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
698;Free-range systems may also have some potential risks such as parasitic infections [3], increased disease exposure [4], heat stress [5], and predation [6,7].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
698;Free-range systems may also have some potential risks such as parasitic infections [3], increased disease exposure [4], heat stress [5], and predation [6,7].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
698;Free-range systems may also have some potential risks such as parasitic infections [3], increased disease exposure [4], heat stress [5], and predation [6,7].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
698;Free-range systems may also have some potential risks such as parasitic infections [3], increased disease exposure [4], heat stress [5], and predation [6,7].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
699;However, welfare benefits such as reduced plumage damage and reduced footpad dermatitis can be seen in individuals that range more [8,9].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
699;However, welfare benefits such as reduced plumage damage and reduced footpad dermatitis can be seen in individuals that range more [8,9].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
699;However, welfare benefits such as reduced plumage damage and reduced footpad dermatitis can be seen in individuals that range more [8,9].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
699;However, welfare benefits such as reduced plumage damage and reduced footpad dermatitis can be seen in individuals that range more [8,9].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
700;The outdoor range needs to be attractive to increase use by hens, i.e., offering different kinds of natural or artificial shelters and/or shades within the range [10,18,26];R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Safety, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
701;These shelters may increase hens’ ranging by serving as protection from predators [27,28] or diffusing intense sunlight [17,29].;R60;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Fitness;-1,00;Safety, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
702;"Overall, more hens were found underneath the 90% UV-filtering shelters (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 16.9 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 29.1 ± 1.52 hens), followed by the 70% (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 9.7 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 15.7 ± 1.52 hens) then 50% UVfiltering shelters (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 5.2 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 8.4 ± 1.52 hens) in both study flocks (Flock-A: F2 6 = 16.25, p = 0.004, and Flock-B: F2 6 = 134.09, p < 0.0001).";R60;7;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;artifical cover/shelter (e.g. cloths, shelter belts);Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation, Safety;;;;;;;;;
702;"Overall, more hens were found underneath the 90% UV-filtering shelters (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 16.9 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 29.1 ± 1.52 hens), followed by the 70% (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 9.7 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 15.7 ± 1.52 hens) then 50% UVfiltering shelters (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 5.2 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 8.4 ± 1.52 hens) in both study flocks (Flock-A: F2 6 = 16.25, p = 0.004, and Flock-B: F2 6 = 134.09, p < 0.0001).";R60;7;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;artifical cover/shelter (e.g. cloths, shelter belts);Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation, Safety;;;;;;;;;
702;"Overall, more hens were found underneath the 90% UV-filtering shelters (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 16.9 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 29.1 ± 1.52 hens), followed by the 70% (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 9.7 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 15.7 ± 1.52 hens) then 50% UVfiltering shelters (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 5.2 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 8.4 ± 1.52 hens) in both study flocks (Flock-A: F2 6 = 16.25, p = 0.004, and Flock-B: F2 6 = 134.09, p < 0.0001).";R60;7;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;artifical cover/shelter (e.g. cloths, shelter belts);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation, Safety;;;;;;;;;
702;"Overall, more hens were found underneath the 90% UV-filtering shelters (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 16.9 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 29.1 ± 1.52 hens), followed by the 70% (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 9.7 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 15.7 ± 1.52 hens) then 50% UVfiltering shelters (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 5.2 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 8.4 ± 1.52 hens) in both study flocks (Flock-A: F2 6 = 16.25, p = 0.004, and Flock-B: F2 6 = 134.09, p < 0.0001).";R60;7;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;artifical cover/shelter (e.g. cloths, shelter belts);Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation, Safety;;;;;;;;;
702;"Overall, more hens were found underneath the 90% UV-filtering shelters (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 16.9 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 29.1 ± 1.52 hens), followed by the 70% (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 9.7 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 15.7 ± 1.52 hens) then 50% UVfiltering shelters (LSM mean ± SEM, Flock-A: 5.2 ± 2.67 hens; Flock-B: 8.4 ± 1.52 hens) in both study flocks (Flock-A: F2 6 = 16.25, p = 0.004, and Flock-B: F2 6 = 134.09, p < 0.0001).";R60;7;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;artifical cover/shelter (e.g. cloths, shelter belts);Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Thermoregulation, Safety;;;;;;;;;
703;this result aligns with the jungle fowl origins of domestic chickens, as well as previous observations that the greatest numbers of hens on commercial farms are attracted to natural shelter provided by trees [10], or will preferably gather under dense vegetation and established trees [30];R60;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Natural behaviour;2,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
703;this result aligns with the jungle fowl origins of domestic chickens, as well as previous observations that the greatest numbers of hens on commercial farms are attracted to natural shelter provided by trees [10], or will preferably gather under dense vegetation and established trees [30];R60;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
703;this result aligns with the jungle fowl origins of domestic chickens, as well as previous observations that the greatest numbers of hens on commercial farms are attracted to natural shelter provided by trees [10], or will preferably gather under dense vegetation and established trees [30];R60;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;2,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
703;this result aligns with the jungle fowl origins of domestic chickens, as well as previous observations that the greatest numbers of hens on commercial farms are attracted to natural shelter provided by trees [10], or will preferably gather under dense vegetation and established trees [30];R60;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Natural behaviour;2,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
703;this result aligns with the jungle fowl origins of domestic chickens, as well as previous observations that the greatest numbers of hens on commercial farms are attracted to natural shelter provided by trees [10], or will preferably gather under dense vegetation and established trees [30];R60;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;2,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
703;this result aligns with the jungle fowl origins of domestic chickens, as well as previous observations that the greatest numbers of hens on commercial farms are attracted to natural shelter provided by trees [10], or will preferably gather under dense vegetation and established trees [30];R60;15;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
704;While hens may not always seek shelter on the range and may use the sunlight for sunbathing [41] and warmth [12], conditions of extreme heat and intense sunlight are likely more aversive than enticing.;R60;16;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
704;While hens may not always seek shelter on the range and may use the sunlight for sunbathing [41] and warmth [12], conditions of extreme heat and intense sunlight are likely more aversive than enticing.;R60;16;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
704;While hens may not always seek shelter on the range and may use the sunlight for sunbathing [41] and warmth [12], conditions of extreme heat and intense sunlight are likely more aversive than enticing.;R60;16;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
704;While hens may not always seek shelter on the range and may use the sunlight for sunbathing [41] and warmth [12], conditions of extreme heat and intense sunlight are likely more aversive than enticing.;R60;16;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
705;Nagle and Glatz (2012) determined that enriching freerange area with waterproof shade cloth, forage (vetch and wheat pastures), and shelterbelts has a significant benefit of attracting hens into the range. However, the level of hen s attraction was highest, moderate, and lowest into the range with forage, shelterbelt, and artificial shade enrichments, respectively.;R61;1400;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;2,00;Safety, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
705;Nagle and Glatz (2012) determined that enriching freerange area with waterproof shade cloth, forage (vetch and wheat pastures), and shelterbelts has a significant benefit of attracting hens into the range. However, the level of hen s attraction was highest, moderate, and lowest into the range with forage, shelterbelt, and artificial shade enrichments, respectively.;R61;1400;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;artifical cover/shelter (e.g. cloths, shelter belts);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Safety, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
705;Nagle and Glatz (2012) determined that enriching freerange area with waterproof shade cloth, forage (vetch and wheat pastures), and shelterbelts has a significant benefit of attracting hens into the range. However, the level of hens attraction was highest, moderate, and lowest into the range with forage, shelterbelt, and artificial shade enrichments, respectively.;R61;1400;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;artifical cover/shelter (e.g. cloths, shelter belts);Preferences;1,00;Safety, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
706;When Regmi et al. (2018) investigated the welfare and production issues of different litter substrates (Astroturf, wood shavings, or straw and bare concrete floor as control) in a multi-tier aviary system, it was identified that in the first cycle crop feather loss was higher in Astroturf than straw treatment at mid-lay.;R61;1400;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;long straw;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
203;Although there is no evidence for a maximum height, hens should not have to jump more than 80 cm vertically, horizontally or diagonally to reach or leave a perch, and they should not jump an angle of more than 45 ° (measured from the horizontal plane).;R23;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
593;When laying hens had access to either low (45 cm) or higher (70 cm) perches, in the experimental pens with the higher perches, feather damage particularly at the vent was poorer in the pens with low compared to higher perches even if observed feather pecking interactions did not differ between treatments (Wechsler and Huber-Eicher, 1998).;R51;421;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
708;Schreiter et al. (2020c) investigated the effect of additional environmental enrichment materials (pecking stones and alfalfa bales) on prevalence of plumage damage, skin injuries, and toe injuries while emphasizing the possible differences between laying hen genotypes (Lohmann Brown classic, Bovans Brown, Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic and Dekalb White). It was reported that environmental enrichments improved the plumage condition in all the genotypes excluding Bovans Brown groups, decreased toe injuries for the genotypes excluding Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups, and reduced skin injuries in Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups compared with non-enriched treatment.;R61;1402;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
708;Schreiter et al. (2020c) investigated the effect of additional environmental enrichment materials (pecking stones and alfalfa bales) on prevalence of plumage damage, skin injuries, and toe injuries while emphasizing the possible differences between laying hen genotypes (Lohmann Brown classic, Bovans Brown, Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic and Dekalb White). It was reported that environmental enrichments improved the plumage condition in all the genotypes excluding Bovans Brown groups, decreased toe injuries for the genotypes excluding Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups, and reduced skin injuries in Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups compared with non-enriched treatment.;R61;1402;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
708;Schreiter et al. (2020c) investigated the effect of additional environmental enrichment materials (pecking stones and alfalfa bales) on prevalence of plumage damage, skin injuries, and toe injuries while emphasizing the possible differences between laying hen genotypes (Lohmann Brown classic, Bovans Brown, Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic and Dekalb White). It was reported that environmental enrichments improved the plumage condition in all the genotypes excluding Bovans Brown groups, decreased toe injuries for the genotypes excluding Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups, and reduced skin injuries in Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups compared with non-enriched treatment.;R61;1402;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
708;Schreiter et al. (2020c) investigated the effect of additional environmental enrichment materials (pecking stones and alfalfa bales) on prevalence of plumage damage, skin injuries, and toe injuries while emphasizing the possible differences between laying hen genotypes (Lohmann Brown classic, Bovans Brown, Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic and Dekalb White). It was reported that environmental enrichments improved the plumage condition in all the genotypes excluding Bovans Brown groups, decreased toe injuries for the genotypes excluding Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups, and reduced skin injuries in Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups compared with non-enriched treatment.;R61;1402;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
708;Schreiter et al. (2020c) investigated the effect of additional environmental enrichment materials (pecking stones and alfalfa bales) on prevalence of plumage damage, skin injuries, and toe injuries while emphasizing the possible differences between laying hen genotypes (Lohmann Brown classic, Bovans Brown, Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic and Dekalb White). It was reported that environmental enrichments improved the plumage condition in all the genotypes excluding Bovans Brown groups, decreased toe injuries for the genotypes excluding Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups, and reduced skin injuries in Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups compared with non-enriched treatment.;R61;1402;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
708;Schreiter et al. (2020c) investigated the effect of additional environmental enrichment materials (pecking stones and alfalfa bales) on prevalence of plumage damage, skin injuries, and toe injuries while emphasizing the possible differences between laying hen genotypes (Lohmann Brown classic, Bovans Brown, Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic and Dekalb White). It was reported that environmental enrichments improved the plumage condition in all the genotypes excluding Bovans Brown groups, decreased toe injuries for the genotypes excluding Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups, and reduced skin injuries in Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic groups compared with non-enriched treatment.;R61;1402;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
709;"With regard to the latter [fear], free-range hens are probably less fearful than birds kept inside, as found for caged birds (Scott et a!', 1998).
";R4;135;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Safety;;;;;;;;;
709;"With regard to the latter [fear], free-range hens are probably less fearful than birds kept inside, as found for caged birds (Scott et a!', 1998).
";R4;135;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Exploration, Safety;;;;;;;;;
710;"Gayer et al. (2004) calculated that predation losses within one laying period ranged from 0.8% to 12.5% (96 to 445 hens) per farm. The economic significance of predation for the farmer will largely depend on the size of his flock, with larger flocks being proportionally less affected than smaller ones.
";R4;137;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Survival;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
710;"Gayer et al. (2004) calculated that predation losses within one laying period ranged from 0.8% to 12.5% (96 to 445 hens) per farm. The economic significance of predation for the farmer will largely depend on the size of his flock, with larger flocks being proportionally less affected than smaller ones.
";R4;137;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
711;Free-range access may also have negative impacts by increased risk for diseases carried by wildlife, parasitic infections, predation and contact with soil contaminants (Newberry 2017).;R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
711;Free-range access may also have negative impacts by increased risk for diseases carried by wildlife, parasitic infections, predation and contact with soil contaminants (Newberry 2017).;R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
711;Free-range access may also have negative impacts by increased risk for diseases carried by wildlife, parasitic infections, predation and contact with soil contaminants (Newberry 2017).;R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Survival;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
711;Free-range access may also have negative impacts by increased risk for diseases carried by wildlife, parasitic infections, predation and contact with soil contaminants (Newberry 2017).;R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Fitness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
711;Free-range access may also have negative impacts by increased risk for diseases carried by wildlife, parasitic infections, predation and contact with soil contaminants (Newberry 2017).;R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
711;Free-range access may also have negative impacts by increased risk for diseases carried by wildlife, parasitic infections, predation and contact with soil contaminants (Newberry 2017).;R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
711;Free-range access may also have negative impacts by increased risk for diseases carried by wildlife, parasitic infections, predation and contact with soil contaminants (Newberry 2017).;R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
711;Free-range access may also have negative impacts by increased risk for diseases carried by wildlife, parasitic infections, predation and contact with soil contaminants (Newberry 2017).;R39;119;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
712;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;"Pecking objects	";available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
712;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
712;There were a similar number of pecks directed at the forages and dustbaths with fewer pecks directed at the novel objects. There were also no significant differences in the number of pecks directed at the variants in each enrichment category.;R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
713;Nevertheless, alternative range vegetation such as trees, shrubs and bushes may provide enrichment while limiting the negative consequences that can be observed when exposing hens to uncontrolled pasture access.;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
713;Nevertheless, alternative range vegetation such as trees, shrubs and bushes may provide enrichment while limiting the negative consequences that can be observed when exposing hens to uncontrolled pasture access.;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
714;"However, from an epidemiological (case-control) study on feather pecking, including 100 free-range flocks, Nicol et al. (2003) concluded that outdoor ranges were better used when they had more trees or hedges
";R4;138;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;2,00;Safety, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
714;"However, from an epidemiological (case-control) study on feather pecking, including 100 free-range flocks, Nicol et al. (2003) concluded that outdoor ranges were better used when they had more trees or hedges
";R4;138;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Safety, Safety;;;;;;;;;
716;"Indeed, several studies found a preventive effect of a good use of the outdoor run on the prevalence of feather pecking (Green et a!', 2000; Bestman & Wagenaar, 2003; Nicol et a!', 2003; Mahboub et a!', 2004).
";R4;134;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
716;"Indeed, several studies found a preventive effect of a good use of the outdoor run on the prevalence of feather pecking (Green et a!', 2000; Bestman & Wagenaar, 2003; Nicol et a!', 2003; Mahboub et a!', 2004).
";R4;134;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
717;"This can result in a lower incidence of maladaptive behaviours like feather pecking and cannibalism, if the hens use the outdoor area, as reported in different studies (Bestman et al. 2017;Jung et al. 2019).";R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
717;"This can result in a lower incidence of maladaptive behaviours like feather pecking and cannibalism, if the hens use the outdoor area, as reported in different studies (Bestman et al. 2017;Jung et al. 2019).";R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
717;"This can result in a lower incidence of maladaptive behaviours like feather pecking and cannibalism, if the hens use the outdoor area, as reported in different studies (Bestman et al. 2017;Jung et al. 2019).";R39;120;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
718;However, the dustbathing substrates used in this study have been shown to be preferred substrates compared to other materials, such as wood shavings (eg Petherick & Duncan 1989);R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care;;;;;;;;;
718;However, the dustbathing substrates used in this study have been shown to be preferred substrates compared to other materials, such as wood shavings (eg Petherick & Duncan 1989);R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care;;;;;;;;;
718;However, the dustbathing substrates used in this study have been shown to be preferred substrates compared to other materials, such as wood shavings (eg Petherick & Duncan 1989);R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;1,00;Body care;;;;;;;;;
718;However, the dustbathing substrates used in this study have been shown to be preferred substrates compared to other materials, such as wood shavings (eg Petherick & Duncan 1989);R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care;;;;;;;;;
718;However, the dustbathing substrates used in this study have been shown to be preferred substrates compared to other materials, such as wood shavings (eg Petherick & Duncan 1989);R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;1,00;Body care;;;;;;;;;
718;However, the dustbathing substrates used in this study have been shown to be preferred substrates compared to other materials, such as wood shavings (eg Petherick & Duncan 1989);R42;432;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care;;;;;;;;;
719;Nevertheless, alternative range vegetation such as trees, shrubs and bushes may provide enrichment while limiting the negative consequences that can be observed when exposing hens to uncontrolled pasture access.;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
719;Nevertheless, alternative range vegetation such as trees, shrubs and bushes may provide enrichment while limiting the negative consequences that can be observed when exposing hens to uncontrolled pasture access.;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
719;Nevertheless, alternative range vegetation such as trees, shrubs and bushes may provide enrichment while limiting the negative consequences that can be observed when exposing hens to uncontrolled pasture access.;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
719;Nevertheless, alternative range vegetation such as trees, shrubs and bushes may provide enrichment while limiting the negative consequences that can be observed when exposing hens to uncontrolled pasture access.;R49;906;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;trees OR dense vegetation;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
720;"The influence of EE (environmental enrichment) on the performance of pigs is more noticeable when straw is used as EE material or when the overlapping bedding condition is adopted (Van de Weerd & Day, 2009; Averós et al., 2010).";R27;5;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete with litter/substrate (straw or sawdust or full length straw);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
720;"The influence of EE (environmental enrichment) on the performance of pigs is more noticeable when straw is used as EE material or when the overlapping bedding condition is adopted (Van de Weerd & Day, 2009; Averós et al., 2010).";R27;5;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);concrete without litter;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
721;"The majority of cows (59%) pushed just as hard or harder to access pasture as they did to access the TMR (binomial test P >​ 0.52).
";R64;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
721;"The majority of cows (59%) pushed just as hard or harder to access pasture as they did to access the TMR (binomial test P >​ 0.52).
";R64;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Demand;5,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
721;"The majority of cows (59%) pushed just as hard or harder to access pasture as they did to access the TMR (binomial test P >​ 0.52).
";R64;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
722;" After the evening milking, cows pushed harder for access to pasture than in the morning (binomial test P =​ 0.05), with survival analysis (log-rank test PM vs TMR: P >​ 0.3; log-rank test AM vs TMR: P <​ 0.01; Fig. 1b) and reservation price (mean max weight [SEM] in kg: afternoon =​ 29.27 [3.90] and morning =​ 23.55 [3.00]; paired t(18) =​ 2.08, P <​ 0.05) both showing higher motivation for pasture in the evening.

";R64;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Demand;3,00;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
722;" After the evening milking, cows pushed harder for access to pasture than in the morning (binomial test P =​ 0.05), with survival analysis (log-rank test PM vs TMR: P >​ 0.3; log-rank test AM vs TMR: P <​ 0.01; Fig. 1b) and reservation price (mean max weight [SEM] in kg: afternoon =​ 29.27 [3.90] and morning =​ 23.55 [3.00]; paired t(18) =​ 2.08, P <​ 0.05) both showing higher motivation for pasture in the evening.

";R64;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Demand;5,00;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
723;"Hard, abrasive, or slippery concrete floors on walkways of free-stall barns may contribute to trauma and predispose to claw horn lesions (Cook et al., 2004), and the use ofrubber mats on the walkways improves locomotion comfort and reduces the risk ofinjury (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005; Rushen and de Passille´, 2006).
";R65;3716;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-0,50;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
723;"Hard, abrasive, or slippery concrete floors on walkways of free-stall barns may contribute to trauma and predispose to claw horn lesions (Cook et al., 2004), and the use ofrubber mats on the walkways improves locomotion comfort and reduces the risk ofinjury (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005; Rushen and de Passille´, 2006).
";R65;3716;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
723;"Hard, abrasive, or slippery concrete floors on walkways of free-stall barns may contribute to trauma and predispose to claw horn lesions (Cook et al., 2004), and the use ofrubber mats on the walkways improves locomotion comfort and reduces the risk ofinjury (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005; Rushen and de Passille´, 2006).
";R65;3716;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-0,50;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
723;"Hard, abrasive, or slippery concrete floors on walkways of free-stall barns may contribute to trauma and predispose to claw horn lesions (Cook et al., 2004), and the use ofrubber mats on the walkways improves locomotion comfort and reduces the risk ofinjury (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005; Rushen and de Passille´, 2006).
";R65;3716;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
724;Besides providing better comfort, it is assumed that elastic rubber mats in the walking areas may have favorable effects on claw health due to decreased pressure on the claw soles (Cook et al., 2004). ;R65;3716;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Illness;-0,50;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
724;Besides providing better comfort, it is assumed that elastic rubber mats in the walking areas may have favorable effects on claw health due to decreased pressure on the claw soles (Cook et al., 2004). ;R65;3716;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
726;"The proportion of cows standing on either of the rubber mats was significantly higher than the control level (Figure 2). [Rubbermats: soft rubber mat20mm thick and extra soft ruber mat 30mm thick]
";R65;3719;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
726;"The proportion of cows standing on either of the rubber mats was significantly higher than the control level (Figure 2). [Rubbermats: soft rubber mat20mm thick and extra soft ruber mat 30mm thick]
";R65;3719;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
726;"The proportion of cows standing on either of the rubber mats was significantly higher than the control level (Figure 2). [Rubbermats: soft rubber mat20mm thick and extra soft ruber mat 30mm thick]
";R65;3719;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
726;"The proportion of cows standing on either of the rubber mats was significantly higher than the control level (Figure 2). [Rubbermats: soft rubber mat20mm thick and extra soft ruber mat 30mm thick]
";R65;3719;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
727;"There was a tendency for cows to prefer extra soft rubber mats over soft rubber mats. 
";R65;3719;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,50;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
727;"There was a tendency for cows to prefer extra soft rubber mats over soft rubber mats. 
";R65;3719;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
728; When the rubber mats [slatted rubber mats 22mm thick and  solid rubber mats 22mm thick] were tested against concrete floor, the proportion of WTS (walking on the test side) was significantly higher than the control level, and increased gradually with time of observation on the same side ;R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
728; When the rubber mats [slatted rubber mats 22mm thick and  solid rubber mats 22mm thick] were tested against concrete floor, the proportion of WTS (walking on the test side) was significantly higher than the control level, and increased gradually with time of observation on the same side ;R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
728; When the rubber mats [slatted rubber mats 22mm thick and  solid rubber mats 22mm thick] were tested against concrete floor, the proportion of WTS (walking on the test side) was significantly higher than the control level, and increased gradually with time of observation on the same side ;R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
728; When the rubber mats [slatted rubber mats 22mm thick and  solid rubber mats 22mm thick] were tested against concrete floor, the proportion of WTS (walking on the test side) was significantly higher than the control level, and increased gradually with time of observation on the same side ;R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
729;"The majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber flooring rather than on concrete floors. The
";R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
729;"The majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber flooring rather than on concrete floors. The
";R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
729;"The majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber flooring rather than on concrete floors. The
";R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
729;"The majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber flooring rather than on concrete floors. The
";R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
730;" The cows showed a slightly higher preference for walking on solid rather than slatted rubber mats, and a slight tendency to prefer standing on extra soft rubber mats.
";R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
730;" The cows showed a slightly higher preference for walking on solid rather than slatted rubber mats, and a slight tendency to prefer standing on extra soft rubber mats.
";R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
730;" The cows showed a slightly higher preference for walking on solid rather than slatted rubber mats, and a slight tendency to prefer standing on extra soft rubber mats.
";R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
730;" The cows showed a slightly higher preference for walking on solid rather than slatted rubber mats, and a slight tendency to prefer standing on extra soft rubber mats.
";R65;3720;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
731;An earlier demonstration of cow preference for a soft track surface by Gregory and Taylor (2002) showed that, when walking in groups, 96% of the cows preferred to walk on woodchips instead of on hard-core track.;R65;3723;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Preferences;2,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
731;An earlier demonstration of cow preference for a soft track surface by Gregory and Taylor (2002) showed that, when walking in groups, 96% of the cows preferred to walk on woodchips instead of on hard-core track.;R65;3723;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;not used ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
732;Kremer (2006) criticized the use of rubber flooring, because it resulted in claw horn overgrowth due to the low abrasiveness of rubber mats. However, other studies showed that cows kept on rubber flooring showed not only decreased claw horn wear, but also decreased claw horn growth (Vanegas et al., 2006) and that net growth rate on rubber mats did not exceed that on concrete (Vokey et al., 2001). ;R65;3723;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
732;Kremer (2006) criticized the use of rubber flooring, because it resulted in claw horn overgrowth due to the low abrasiveness ofrubber mats. However, other studies showed that cows kept on rubber flooring showed not only decreased claw horn wear, but also decreased claw horn growth (Vanegas et al., 2006) and that net growth rate on rubber mats did not exceed that on concrete (Vokey et al., 2001). ;R65;3723;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
733;"The main reported advantages – particularly compared to cubicle systems – include improved comfort while lying, enhanced claw health, a lower prevalence of lameness and enhanced leg and joint health (Table 10).
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Illness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
733;"The main reported advantages – particularly compared to cubicle systems – include improved comfort while lying, enhanced claw health, a lower prevalence of lameness and enhanced leg and joint health (Table 10).
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
733;"The main reported advantages – particularly compared to cubicle systems – include improved comfort while lying, enhanced claw health, a lower prevalence of lameness and enhanced leg and joint health (Table 10).
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
733;"The main reported advantages – particularly compared to cubicle systems – include improved comfort while lying, enhanced claw health, a lower prevalence of lameness and enhanced leg and joint health (Table 10).
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
733;"The main reported advantages – particularly compared to cubicle systems – include improved comfort while lying, enhanced claw health, a lower prevalence of lameness and enhanced leg and joint health (Table 10).
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
733;"The main reported advantages – particularly compared to cubicle systems – include improved comfort while lying, enhanced claw health, a lower prevalence of lameness and enhanced leg and joint health (Table 10).
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
733;"The main reported advantages – particularly compared to cubicle systems – include improved comfort while lying, enhanced claw health, a lower prevalence of lameness and enhanced leg and joint health (Table 10).
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
733;"The main reported advantages – particularly compared to cubicle systems – include improved comfort while lying, enhanced claw health, a lower prevalence of lameness and enhanced leg and joint health (Table 10).
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
734;"Compared to cubicle systems with various lying surfaces, a lower prevalence of hock lesions (Fulwider et al., 2007; Klaas et al., 2010; Lobeck et al., 2011) and lameness (Lobeck et al., 2011; Borchers, 2018) or moderate lameness (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) was found in compost-bedded pack systems in some studies.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
734;"Compared to cubicle systems with various lying surfaces, a lower prevalence of hock lesions (Fulwider et al., 2007; Klaas et al., 2010; Lobeck et al., 2011) and lameness (Lobeck et al., 2011; Borchers, 2018) or moderate lameness (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) was found in compost-bedded pack systems in some studies.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
734;"Compared to cubicle systems with various lying surfaces, a lower prevalence of hock lesions (Fulwider et al., 2007; Klaas et al., 2010; Lobeck et al., 2011) and lameness (Lobeck et al., 2011; Borchers, 2018) or moderate lameness (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) was found in compost-bedded pack systems in some studies.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
734;"Compared to cubicle systems with various lying surfaces, a lower prevalence of hock lesions (Fulwider et al., 2007; Klaas et al., 2010; Lobeck et al., 2011) and lameness (Lobeck et al., 2011; Borchers, 2018) or moderate lameness (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) was found in compost-bedded pack systems in some studies.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
734;"Compared to cubicle systems with various lying surfaces, a lower prevalence of hock lesions (Fulwider et al., 2007; Klaas et al., 2010; Lobeck et al., 2011) and lameness (Lobeck et al., 2011; Borchers, 2018) or moderate lameness (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) was found in compost-bedded pack systems in some studies.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
734;"Compared to cubicle systems with various lying surfaces, a lower prevalence of hock lesions (Fulwider et al., 2007; Klaas et al., 2010; Lobeck et al., 2011) and lameness (Lobeck et al., 2011; Borchers, 2018) or moderate lameness (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) was found in compost-bedded pack systems in some studies.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
735;"In terms of integument damage, the prevalence appears to vary significantly depending on the bedding material used in the bedded packs (Shane et al., 2010), but a lower prevalence of moderate and severe integument alterations (Fern´andez et al., 2020) and fewer hairless patches, leg lesions and swellings of lower hind legs (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) have been reported for compost-bedded pack systems compared to cubicles.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
735;"In terms of integument damage, the prevalence appears to vary significantly depending on the bedding material used in the bedded packs (Shane et al., 2010), but a lower prevalence of moderate and severe integument alterations (Fern´andez et al., 2020) and fewer hairless patches, leg lesions and swellings of lower hind legs (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) have been reported for compost-bedded pack systems compared to cubicles.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
735;"In terms of integument damage, the prevalence appears to vary significantly depending on the bedding material used in the bedded packs (Shane et al., 2010), but a lower prevalence of moderate and severe integument alterations (Fern´andez et al., 2020) and fewer hairless patches, leg lesions and swellings of lower hind legs (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) have been reported for compost-bedded pack systems compared to cubicles.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
735;"In terms of integument damage, the prevalence appears to vary significantly depending on the bedding material used in the bedded packs (Shane et al., 2010), but a lower prevalence of moderate and severe integument alterations (Fern´andez et al., 2020) and fewer hairless patches, leg lesions and swellings of lower hind legs (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) have been reported for compost-bedded pack systems compared to cubicles.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
735;"In terms of integument damage, the prevalence appears to vary significantly depending on the bedding material used in the bedded packs (Shane et al., 2010), but a lower prevalence of moderate and severe integument alterations (Fern´andez et al., 2020) and fewer hairless patches, leg lesions and swellings of lower hind legs (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) have been reported for compost-bedded pack systems compared to cubicles.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
735;"In terms of integument damage, the prevalence appears to vary significantly depending on the bedding material used in the bedded packs (Shane et al., 2010), but a lower prevalence of moderate and severe integument alterations (Fern´andez et al., 2020) and fewer hairless patches, leg lesions and swellings of lower hind legs (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) have been reported for compost-bedded pack systems compared to cubicles.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
735;"In terms of integument damage, the prevalence appears to vary significantly depending on the bedding material used in the bedded packs (Shane et al., 2010), but a lower prevalence of moderate and severe integument alterations (Fern´andez et al., 2020) and fewer hairless patches, leg lesions and swellings of lower hind legs (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) have been reported for compost-bedded pack systems compared to cubicles.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
735;"In terms of integument damage, the prevalence appears to vary significantly depending on the bedding material used in the bedded packs (Shane et al., 2010), but a lower prevalence of moderate and severe integument alterations (Fern´andez et al., 2020) and fewer hairless patches, leg lesions and swellings of lower hind legs (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020) have been reported for compost-bedded pack systems compared to cubicles.
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
736;"Research has indicated that cows are dirtier in compost-bedded packs than in cubicle housing systems (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020; Fern´andez et al., 2020), although other studies indicate that adequate cow cleanliness and udder health can be achieved (Fulwider et al., 2008; Ofner-Schr¨ock et al., 2015).";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
736;"Research has indicated that cows are dirtier in compost-bedded packs than in cubicle housing systems (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2020; Fern´andez et al., 2020), although other studies indicate that adequate cow cleanliness and udder health can be achieved (Fulwider et al., 2008; Ofner-Schr¨ock et al., 2015).";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
737;"In terms of cow behaviour, a study conducted in the US reported that cows in compost-bedded pack systems tended to adopt natural lying positions (Endres and Barberg, 2007).
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
737;"In terms of cow behaviour, a study conducted in the US reported that cows in compost-bedded pack systems tended to adopt natural lying positions (Endres and Barberg, 2007).
";R53;24;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;organic material open bedded;Natural behaviour;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Illness;-1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Pain;-1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Pain;-1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
739;"Impaired udder health in terms of increased somatic cell counts and incidence of clinical mastitis (Goldberg et al., 1992; Washburn et al., 2002; Firth et al., 2019), locomotor disorders including integument alterations, claw disorders and lameness (Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007; Olmos et al., 2009a; Burow et al., 2013a,b; de Vries et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2018; Sj¨ostr¨om et al., 2018) and reproductive disorders (Olmos et al., 2009b; Palmer et al., 2012) have been reported to be reduced with longer grazing periods, compared with zerograzing or in a comparison of summer pasture to winter indoor housing.
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
740;"Nielsen et al., 2011). With regard to mortality, which could be considered an iceberg indicator for cow welfare, lower rates were found with increasing number of hours on pasture or compared to zero-grazing (Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002; Burow et al., 2011; Alv˚asen et al., 2014)
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Survival;-1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
740;"Nielsen et al., 2011). With regard to mortality, which could be considered an iceberg indicator for cow welfare, lower rates were found with increasing number of hours on pasture or compared to zero-grazing (Washburn et al., 2002; White et al., 2002; Burow et al., 2011; Alv˚asen et al., 2014)
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
741;"Herd behaviour was found to be more synchronised (Krohn, 1994; Crump et al., 2019), and agonistic interactions between conspecifics occurred less often on pasture compared to during indoor housing (O’Connell et al., 1989).
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
741;"Herd behaviour was found to be more synchronised (Krohn, 1994; Crump et al., 2019), and agonistic interactions between conspecifics occurred less often on pasture compared to during indoor housing (O’Connell et al., 1989).
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
741;"Herd behaviour was found to be more synchronised (Krohn, 1994; Crump et al., 2019), and agonistic interactions between conspecifics occurred less often on pasture compared to during indoor housing (O’Connell et al., 1989).
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Aggression;-1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
741;"Herd behaviour was found to be more synchronised (Krohn, 1994; Crump et al., 2019), and agonistic interactions between conspecifics occurred less often on pasture compared to during indoor housing (O’Connell et al., 1989).
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
743;"Dairy cows can suffer from heat stress at pasture (Polsky and von Keyserlingk, 2017).
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Illness;-0,50;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
743;"Dairy cows can suffer from heat stress at pasture (Polsky and von Keyserlingk, 2017).
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
744;"Systems that include access to pasture have potential weaknesses in terms of certain disease complexes, including parasitic infestation (e.g. Ostertagia ostertagi (Charlier et al., 2005; Forbes et al., 2008), Fasciola hepatica (Bennema et al., 2011), thermal stress due to cold or hot climatic conditions (review in Moons et al., 2014) and aspects of animal nutrition due to an insufficient or discontinuous energy supply and variable feed quality.";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Illness;-0,50;Health ;;;;;;;;;
744;"Systems that include access to pasture have potential weaknesses in terms of certain disease complexes, including parasitic infestation (e.g. Ostertagia ostertagi (Charlier et al., 2005; Forbes et al., 2008), Fasciola hepatica (Bennema et al., 2011), thermal stress due to cold or hot climatic conditions (review in Moons et al., 2014) and aspects of animal nutrition due to an insufficient or discontinuous energy supply and variable feed quality.";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
744;"Systems that include access to pasture have potential weaknesses in terms of certain disease complexes, including parasitic infestation (e.g. Ostertagia ostertagi (Charlier et al., 2005; Forbes et al., 2008), Fasciola hepatica (Bennema et al., 2011), thermal stress due to cold or hot climatic conditions (review in Moons et al., 2014) and aspects of animal nutrition due to an insufficient or discontinuous energy supply and variable feed quality.";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Fitness;-0,50;Thermoregulation, Health;;;;;;;;;
744;"Systems that include access to pasture have potential weaknesses in terms of certain disease complexes, including parasitic infestation (e.g. Ostertagia ostertagi (Charlier et al., 2005; Forbes et al., 2008), Fasciola hepatica (Bennema et al., 2011), thermal stress due to cold or hot climatic conditions (review in Moons et al., 2014) and aspects of animal nutrition due to an insufficient or discontinuous energy supply and variable feed quality.";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation, Health;;;;;;;;;
745;"(pasture access has potential weaknesses of animal nutriton due to insufficiant or discontinuous energy supply and variable feed quality]. These nutritional issues  can lead to lower productivity, increase the risk of suboptimal body condition (Burow et al., 2013a; Crossley et al., 2021) and metabolic disorders (review in Mee, 2012)
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Fitness;-0,50;Food intake, Health;;;;;;;;;
745;"(pasture access has potential weaknesses of animal nutriton due to insufficiant or discontinuous energy supply and variable feed quality]. These nutritional issues  can lead to lower productivity, increase the risk of suboptimal body condition (Burow et al., 2013a; Crossley et al., 2021) and metabolic disorders (review in Mee, 2012)
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake, Health;;;;;;;;;
745;"(pasture access has potential weaknesses of animal nutriton due to insufficiant or discontinuous energy supply and variable feed quality]. These nutritional issues  can lead to lower productivity, increase the risk of suboptimal body condition (Burow et al., 2013a; Crossley et al., 2021) and metabolic disorders (review in Mee, 2012)
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Fitness;-0,50;Food intake, Health;;;;;;;;;
745;"(pasture access has potential weaknesses of animal nutriton due to insufficiant or discontinuous energy supply and variable feed quality]. These nutritional issues  can lead to lower productivity, increase the risk of suboptimal body condition (Burow et al., 2013a; Crossley et al., 2021) and metabolic disorders (review in Mee, 2012)
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake, Health;;;;;;;;;
745;"(pasture access has potential weaknesses of animal nutriton due to insufficiant or discontinuous energy supply and variable feed quality]. These nutritional issues  can lead to lower productivity, increase the risk of suboptimal body condition (Burow et al., 2013a; Crossley et al., 2021) and metabolic disorders (review in Mee, 2012)
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Illness;-0,50;Food intake, Health;;;;;;;;;
745;"(pasture access has potential weaknesses of animal nutriton due to insufficiant or discontinuous energy supply and variable feed quality]. These nutritional issues  can lead to lower productivity, increase the risk of suboptimal body condition (Burow et al., 2013a; Crossley et al., 2021) and metabolic disorders (review in Mee, 2012)
";R53;28;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake, Health;;;;;;;;;
746;"Several studies that have compared different housing systems with regard to foot and leg disorders have reported advantages in terms of lameness (Table 19) and integument alterations (Table 21)in cubicle systems compared to tie-stall systems, and in open-bedded systems (both straw yards and compost-bedded pack) compared to cubicle systems. (Dendani-Chadi et al. (2020) Katzenberger et al. (2020) Olechnowicz et al. (2010) Kara et al. (2011)
Ostoji´c Andri´c et al. (2011) P´erez-Cabal and Alenda (2014) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Griffiths et al. (2018)Barker et al. (2010) Burgstaller et al. (2016) Fern´andez et al. (2020) Lobeck et al. (2011) Eckelkamp et al. (2016b)


";R53;36;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles ;Pain;-1,00;Movement, Rest;;;;;;;;;
746;"Several studies that have compared different housing systems with regard to foot and leg disorders have reported advantages in terms of lameness (Table 19) and integument alterations (Table 21)in cubicle systems compared to tie-stall systems, and in open-bedded systems (both straw yards and compost-bedded pack) compared to cubicle systems. (Dendani-Chadi et al. (2020) Katzenberger et al. (2020) Olechnowicz et al. (2010) Kara et al. (2011)
Ostoji´c Andri´c et al. (2011) P´erez-Cabal and Alenda (2014) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Griffiths et al. (2018)Barker et al. (2010) Burgstaller et al. (2016) Fern´andez et al. (2020) Lobeck et al. (2011) Eckelkamp et al. (2016b)


";R53;36;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;free lying (straw yard (deep bedded) OR organic open bedded);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Rest;;;;;;;;;
746;"Several studies that have compared different housing systems with regard to foot and leg disorders have reported advantages in terms of lameness (Table 19) and integument alterations (Table 21)in cubicle systems compared to tie-stall systems, and in open-bedded systems (both straw yards and compost-bedded pack) compared to cubicle systems. (Dendani-Chadi et al. (2020) Katzenberger et al. (2020) Olechnowicz et al. (2010) Kara et al. (2011)
Ostoji´c Andri´c et al. (2011) P´erez-Cabal and Alenda (2014) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Griffiths et al. (2018)Barker et al. (2010) Burgstaller et al. (2016) Fern´andez et al. (2020) Lobeck et al. (2011) Eckelkamp et al. (2016b)


";R53;36;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles ;Pain;-1,00;Movement, Rest;;;;;;;;;
746;"Several studies that have compared different housing systems with regard to foot and leg disorders have reported advantages in terms of lameness (Table 19) and integument alterations (Table 21)in cubicle systems compared to tie-stall systems, and in open-bedded systems (both straw yards and compost-bedded pack) compared to cubicle systems. (Dendani-Chadi et al. (2020) Katzenberger et al. (2020) Olechnowicz et al. (2010) Kara et al. (2011)
Ostoji´c Andri´c et al. (2011) P´erez-Cabal and Alenda (2014) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Griffiths et al. (2018)Barker et al. (2010) Burgstaller et al. (2016) Fern´andez et al. (2020) Lobeck et al. (2011) Eckelkamp et al. (2016b)


";R53;36;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;free lying (straw yard (deep bedded) OR organic open bedded);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Rest;;;;;;;;;
746;"Several studies that have compared different housing systems with regard to foot and leg disorders have reported advantages in terms of lameness (Table 19) and integument alterations (Table 21)in cubicle systems compared to tie-stall systems, and in open-bedded systems (both straw yards and compost-bedded pack) compared to cubicle systems. (Dendani-Chadi et al. (2020) Katzenberger et al. (2020) Olechnowicz et al. (2010) Kara et al. (2011)
Ostoji´c Andri´c et al. (2011) P´erez-Cabal and Alenda (2014) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Griffiths et al. (2018)Barker et al. (2010) Burgstaller et al. (2016) Fern´andez et al. (2020) Lobeck et al. (2011) Eckelkamp et al. (2016b)


";R53;36;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles ;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Rest;;;;;;;;;
746;"Several studies that have compared different housing systems with regard to foot and leg disorders have reported advantages in terms of lameness (Table 19) and integument alterations (Table 21)in cubicle systems compared to tie-stall systems, and in open-bedded systems (both straw yards and compost-bedded pack) compared to cubicle systems. (Dendani-Chadi et al. (2020) Katzenberger et al. (2020) Olechnowicz et al. (2010) Kara et al. (2011)
Ostoji´c Andri´c et al. (2011) P´erez-Cabal and Alenda (2014) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Sj¨ostr¨om et al. (2018) Griffiths et al. (2018)Barker et al. (2010) Burgstaller et al. (2016) Fern´andez et al. (2020) Lobeck et al. (2011) Eckelkamp et al. (2016b)


";R53;36;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;free lying (straw yard (deep bedded) OR organic open bedded);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Rest;;;;;;;;;
747;However, other studies showed that cows kept on rubber flooring showed not only decreased claw horn wear, but also decreased claw horn growth (Vanegas et al., 2006) and that net growth rate on rubber mats did not exceed that on concrete (Vokey et al., 2001).;R65;3723;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
747;However, other studies showed that cows kept on rubber flooring showed not only decreased claw horn wear, but also decreased claw horn growth (Vanegas et al., 2006) and that net growth rate on rubber mats did not exceed that on concrete (Vokey et al., 2001).;R65;3723;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
748;It has been argued that the number of group members that laying hens can recognise might be around one hundred (Nicol et al., 1999), and thus it might be expected that laying hens would prefer social groups of approximately this size.;R66;46;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Preferences;0,50;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
748;It has been argued that the number of group members that laying hens can recognise might be around one hundred (Nicol et al., 1999), and thus it might be expected that laying hens would prefer social groups of approximately this size.;R66;46;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
749;Nicol et al. (1999) reported lower aggression in groups of more than 200 compared with groups of 72.;R66;46;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
749;Nicol et al. (1999) reported lower aggression in groups of more than 200 compared with groups of 72.;R66;46;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;50-100 birds;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
751;Barren environments and a lack of elevated structures are hazards because of the reduced possibilities for birds to escape or hide. [Hazards for aggression include factors that may increase competition or prevent escape.][The hazards described for laying hens apply also to pullets];R66;49;Poultry;Laying hens, Rearing chicks;Enrichment;Foraging material OR Dust bathing material;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
753;Free-range access potentially reduces the welfare consequence as it gives the choice to birds to several places and more space availability, decreasing as well the density. [group stress];R66;50;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
753;Free-range access potentially reduces the welfare consequence as it gives the choice to birds to several places and more space availability, decreasing as well the density. [group stress];R66;50;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Rest, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
754;According to Riddle et al. (2018), the space used for dustbathing was between 1,000 and 1,190 cm2 per hen.;R66;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>775-950cm2/hen;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
754;According to Riddle et al. (2018), the space used for dustbathing was between 1,000 and 1,190 cm2 per hen.;R66;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
756;"On the contrary, preening is reduced by inflammation-induced pain in a familiar environment (Gregory et al., 2009), following the administration of a mild air puff stressor to individuals or their conspecifics (Edgar et al., 2015; Edgar and Nicol, 2018) and by spatial restriction (542 cm2/bird vs 1,648 cm2/bird (Engel et al., 2019); or less than 750 cm2/bird, reviewed by Hemsworth and Edwards (2021)";R66;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550 cm2/hen;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
756;"On the contrary, preening is reduced by inflammation-induced pain in a familiar environment (Gregory et al., 2009), following the administration of a mild air puff stressor to individuals or their conspecifics (Edgar et al., 2015; Edgar and Nicol, 2018) and by spatial restriction (542 cm2/bird vs 1,648 cm2/bird (Engel et al., 2019); or less than 750 cm2/bird, reviewed by Hemsworth and Edwards (2021)";R66;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;<650 cm2/hen;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
756;"On the contrary, preening is reduced by inflammation-induced pain in a familiar environment (Gregory et al., 2009), following the administration of a mild air puff stressor to individuals or their conspecifics (Edgar et al., 2015; Edgar and Nicol, 2018) and by spatial restriction (542 cm2/bird vs 1,648 cm2/bird (Engel et al., 2019); or less than 750 cm2/bird, reviewed by Hemsworth and Edwards (2021)";R66;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;650-775cm2/hen;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
756;"On the contrary, preening is reduced by inflammation-induced pain in a familiar environment (Gregory et al., 2009), following the administration of a mild air puff stressor to individuals or their conspecifics (Edgar et al., 2015; Edgar and Nicol, 2018) and by spatial restriction (542 cm2/bird vs 1,648 cm2/bird (Engel et al., 2019); or less than 750 cm2/bird, reviewed by Hemsworth and Edwards (2021)";R66;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>775-950cm2/hen;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
757;Moreover, the absence of any substrate and, in cages, the rubbing of the feathers against the wire may result in feather abrasion;R66;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
758;Provision of cover panels in strategic locations may be effective to reduce disturbances during resting (Cornetto et al., 2002).;R59;68;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Partial covers/visual separation;available;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
758;Provision of cover panels in strategic locations may be effective to reduce disturbances during resting (Cornetto et al., 2002).;R59;68;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Partial covers/visual separation;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
760;Restriction of movement causes physiological stress (reviewed in (Hemsworth and Edwards, 2021)) with floor spaces below 565 cm2 per bird;R66;69;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;<650 cm2/hen;HPA;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
760;Restriction of movement causes physiological stress (reviewed in (Hemsworth and Edwards, 2021)) with floor spaces below 565 cm2 per bird;R66;69;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;650-775cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
761;Kang et al. (2016) found heterophils and the H/L ratio were greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 (1,000 cm2/ bird) than in stock density of 6 or 7 birds/m2 (1,600–1,400 cm2/ bird). Serum corticosterone was greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than the other stock densitie;R66;69;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;HPA;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
761;Kang et al. (2016) found heterophils and the H/L ratio were greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 (1,000 cm2/ bird) than in stock density of 6 or 7 birds/m2 (1,600–1,400 cm2/ bird). Serum corticosterone was greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than the other stock densitie;R66;69;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;HPA;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
761;Kang et al. (2016) found heterophils and the H/L ratio were greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 (1,000 cm2/ bird) than in stock density of 6 or 7 birds/m2 (1,600–1,400 cm2/ bird). Serum corticosterone was greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than the other stock densitie;R66;69;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>950-1325cm2/hen;HPA;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
761;Kang et al. (2016) found heterophils and the H/L ratio were greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 (1,000 cm2/ bird) than in stock density of 6 or 7 birds/m2 (1,600–1,400 cm2/ bird). Serum corticosterone was greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than the other stock densitie;R66;69;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>1325-<1550 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
761;Kang et al. (2016) found heterophils and the H/L ratio were greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 (1,000 cm2/ bird) than in stock density of 6 or 7 birds/m2 (1,600–1,400 cm2/ bird). Serum corticosterone was greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than the other stock densitie;R66;69;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>1325-<1550 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
761;Kang et al. (2016) found heterophils and the H/L ratio were greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 (1,000 cm2/ bird) than in stock density of 6 or 7 birds/m2 (1,600–1,400 cm2/ bird). Serum corticosterone was greater (p < 0.01) for 10 birds/m2 than the other stock densitie;R66;69;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
762;Restriction of movement below 565 cm2 may increase mortality and reduce egg production (reviewed in (Hemsworth and Edwards, 2021)).;R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;<650 cm2/hen;Survival;-1,00;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
762;Restriction of movement below 565 cm2 may increase mortality and reduce egg production (reviewed in (Hemsworth and Edwards, 2021)).;R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;<650 cm2/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
762;Restriction of movement below 565 cm2 may increase mortality and reduce egg production (reviewed in (Hemsworth and Edwards, 2021)).;R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;650-775cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
762;Restriction of movement below 565 cm2 may increase mortality and reduce egg production (reviewed in (Hemsworth and Edwards, 2021)).;R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;650-775cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
763;"As floor space decreases, within a range of 650–300 cm2/hen, biological function generally decreases, leading to either higher mortality, lower egg production and body weight or poorer feed conversion (Hughes, 1983; Sohail et al., 2004).";R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;<650 cm2/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
763;"As floor space decreases, within a range of 650–300 cm2/hen, biological function generally decreases, leading to either higher mortality, lower egg production and body weight or poorer feed conversion (Hughes, 1983; Sohail et al., 2004).";R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;<650 cm2/hen;Survival;-1,00;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
763;"As floor space decreases, within a range of 650–300 cm2/hen, biological function generally decreases, leading to either higher mortality, lower egg production and body weight or poorer feed conversion (Hughes, 1983; Sohail et al., 2004).";R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;<650 cm2/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
763;"As floor space decreases, within a range of 650–300 cm2/hen, biological function generally decreases, leading to either higher mortality, lower egg production and body weight or poorer feed conversion (Hughes, 1983; Sohail et al., 2004).";R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;<650 cm2/hen;Fitness;-1,00;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
763;"As floor space decreases, within a range of 650–300 cm2/hen, biological function generally decreases, leading to either higher mortality, lower egg production and body weight or poorer feed conversion (Hughes, 1983; Sohail et al., 2004).";R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;650-775cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
763;"As floor space decreases, within a range of 650–300 cm2/hen, biological function generally decreases, leading to either higher mortality, lower egg production and body weight or poorer feed conversion (Hughes, 1983; Sohail et al., 2004).";R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;650-775cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
763;"As floor space decreases, within a range of 650–300 cm2/hen, biological function generally decreases, leading to either higher mortality, lower egg production and body weight or poorer feed conversion (Hughes, 1983; Sohail et al., 2004).";R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;650-775cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
763;"As floor space decreases, within a range of 650–300 cm2/hen, biological function generally decreases, leading to either higher mortality, lower egg production and body weight or poorer feed conversion (Hughes, 1983; Sohail et al., 2004).";R66;70;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;650-775cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
765;Another possible risk for toe damage may come from feeding chains. Birds may be trapped with toes between the chain and the feed trough or between the chain and narrow openings to next compartments. Also, corner wheels in chain feeders may constitute a risk for trapped toes.;R66;75;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Type of feeder;chain feeder;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
765;Another possible risk for toe damage may come from feeding chains. Birds may be trapped with toes between the chain and the feed trough or between the chain and narrow openings to next compartments. Also, corner wheels in chain feeders may constitute a risk for trapped toes.;R66;75;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Type of feeder;chain feeder;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
766;Access to the range and/or a covered veranda can reduce control over the indoor climate of the house (as air and humidity moves through the popholes). This may expose hens to an increased risk of heat stress as well as cold stress if it results in ambient temperatures outside the hens’ thermal comfort zone, and more severe consequences for temperatures outside the thermoneutral zone.;R66;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Fitness;-0,50;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
766;Access to the range and/or a covered veranda can reduce control over the indoor climate of the house (as air and humidity moves through the popholes). This may expose hens to an increased risk of heat stress as well as cold stress if it results in ambient temperatures outside the hens’ thermal comfort zone, and more severe consequences for temperatures outside the thermoneutral zone.;R66;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Fitness;-0,50;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
766;Access to the range and/or a covered veranda can reduce control over the indoor climate of the house (as air and humidity moves through the popholes). This may expose hens to an increased risk of heat stress as well as cold stress if it results in ambient temperatures outside the hens’ thermal comfort zone, and more severe consequences for temperatures outside the thermoneutral zone.;R66;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
766;Access to the range and/or a covered veranda can reduce control over the indoor climate of the house (as air and humidity moves through the popholes). This may expose hens to an increased risk of heat stress as well as cold stress if it results in ambient temperatures outside the hens’ thermal comfort zone, and more severe consequences for temperatures outside the thermoneutral zone.;R66;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
766;Access to the range and/or a covered veranda can reduce control over the indoor climate of the house (as air and humidity moves through the popholes). This may expose hens to an increased risk of heat stress as well as cold stress if it results in ambient temperatures outside the hens’ thermal comfort zone, and more severe consequences for temperatures outside the thermoneutral zone.;R66;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;available;Fitness;-0,50;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
766;Access to the range and/or a covered veranda can reduce control over the indoor climate of the house (as air and humidity moves through the popholes). This may expose hens to an increased risk of heat stress as well as cold stress if it results in ambient temperatures outside the hens’ thermal comfort zone, and more severe consequences for temperatures outside the thermoneutral zone.;R66;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;not available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
766;Access to the range and/or a covered veranda can reduce control over the indoor climate of the house (as air and humidity moves through the popholes). This may expose hens to an increased risk of heat stress as well as cold stress if it results in ambient temperatures outside the hens’ thermal comfort zone, and more severe consequences for temperatures outside the thermoneutral zone.;R66;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;available;Fitness;-0,50;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
766;Access to the range and/or a covered veranda can reduce control over the indoor climate of the house (as air and humidity moves through the popholes). This may expose hens to an increased risk of heat stress as well as cold stress if it results in ambient temperatures outside the hens’ thermal comfort zone, and more severe consequences for temperatures outside the thermoneutral zone.;R66;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability winter garten;not available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
767;For instance, well-shaded areas on the range may offer a favourable climate on hot days (Bonnefous et al., 2022);R66;79;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Shelter in outdoor run;no shelter/hides available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
768;Salmonella, mostly Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium (Van Hoorebeke et al., 2010), Campylobacter and avian influenza can contaminate flocks after direct or indirect contact with infected wild animals. Salmonella and Campylobacter having, most of the time, no clinical manifestation, the health and welfare of birds are rarely impacted. But the risk of contamination has been proved to be higher in outdoor systems (Koch and Elbers, 2006) leading to both morbidity and mortality.;R66;81;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Illness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
768;Salmonella, mostly Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium (Van Hoorebeke et al., 2010), Campylobacter and avian influenza can contaminate flocks after direct or indirect contact with infected wild animals. Salmonella and Campylobacter having, most of the time, no clinical manifestation, the health and welfare of birds are rarely impacted. But the risk of contamination has been proved to be higher in outdoor systems (Koch and Elbers, 2006) leading to both morbidity and mortality.;R66;81;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Survival;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
768;Salmonella, mostly Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium (Van Hoorebeke et al., 2010), Campylobacter and avian influenza can contaminate flocks after direct or indirect contact with infected wild animals. Salmonella and Campylobacter having, most of the time, no clinical manifestation, the health and welfare of birds are rarely impacted. But the risk of contamination has been proved to be higher in outdoor systems (Koch and Elbers, 2006) leading to both morbidity and mortality.;R66;81;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
769;The contamination can occur through direct contact between laying hens and wild birds on the outdoor range, or when the droppings of contaminated wild birds fall on the range and are ingested by poultry.;R66;81;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Illness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
769;The contamination can occur through direct contact between laying hens and wild birds on the outdoor range, or when the droppings of contaminated wild birds fall on the range and are ingested by poultry.;R66;81;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
770;Hence the experts judged that the minimum area for the enclosure of groups of less than 30 birds should be at least 25 m2.;R66;88;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=3000 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
770;Hence the experts judged that the minimum area for the enclosure of groups of less than 30 birds should be at least 25 m2.;R66;88;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
687;Studies on the ability of hens to jump between and up to perches suggest that vertical jumps over 50cm start to present difficulties (Scott et al., 1997).;R59;10;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
687;Studies on the ability of hens to jump between and up to perches suggest that vertical jumps over 50cm start to present difficulties (Scott et al., 1997).;R59;10;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
771;The usable space (above the floor and tiers) should be high enough for the bird to perform all natural behaviours including wing flapping and therefore should be more than 55 cm for layers or 77 cm for breeding birds.Therefore, it is considered that a vertical distance between perches and between the highest perches and the ceiling is the same as the one requested above the usable area.;R66;88;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
772;Outdoor production is believed to have higher mortality rate than indoor production, with crushing by sow being the number one reason [7]. However, study shows that there really isn’t much difference between the two production systems [10], and there is a tendency to overestimate crushing [11].;R67;1208;Pigs;Farrowing sows, Suckling piglets;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;survival;-0,50;Maternal behaviour, Safety;;;;;;;;;
772;Outdoor production is believed to have higher mortality rate than indoor production, with crushing by sow being the number one reason [7]. However, study shows that there really isn’t much difference between the two production systems [10], and there is a tendency to overestimate crushing [11].;R67;1208;Pigs;Farrowing sows, Suckling piglets;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Maternal behaviour, Safety;;;;;;;;;
778;Free-ranging hens are seen to dustbathe mostly in sand (Foelsch and Vestergaard, 1981 );R68;127;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
779;All 23 hens were observed to dustbathe on sand both before and after deprivation. On woodshavings, 17 and 22 hens were observed to dustbathe before and after deprivation, respectively;R68;132;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;2,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
779;All 23 hens were observed to dustbathe on sand both before and after deprivation. On woodshavings, 17 and 22 hens were observed to dustbathe before and after deprivation, respectively;R68;132;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Demand;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
779;All 23 hens were observed to dustbathe on sand both before and after deprivation. On woodshavings, 17 and 22 hens were observed to dustbathe before and after deprivation, respectively;R68;133;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
780;In sand, long periods (up to 10-15 min) of side rubbing and lying on the side were performed which never occurred on woodshavings.;R68;136;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Natural behaviour;2,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
780;In sand, long periods (up to 10-15 min) of side rubbing and lying on the side were performed which never occurred on woodshavings.;R68;136;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
782;"Sand was easily tossed among the feathers and reached the skin of the back, belly and wings. Woodshavings were tossed between the proximate parts of the feathers and were only seen to reach the skin in the featherless spaces (e.g. the uropygial eminence and the adjacent area; Lucas and Stettenheim,";R68;136;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
782;"Sand was easily tossed among the feathers and reached the skin of the back, belly and wings. Woodshavings were tossed between the proximate parts of the feathers and were only seen to reach the skin in the featherless spaces (e.g. the uropygial eminence and the adjacent area; Lucas and Stettenheim,";R68;136;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Fitness;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
783;"Strengths of straw yards include offering potential for improved claw health and locomotion, and less integument damage compared to cubicle systems (Brinkmann et al., 2011; de Boyer des Roches et al., 2014; Frankena et al., 2009; Haskell et al., 2006; Rutherford et al., 2009; Somers et al., 2003).";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Illness;-0,50;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
783;"Strengths of straw yards include offering potential for improved claw health and locomotion, and less integument damage compared to cubicle systems (Brinkmann et al., 2011; de Boyer des Roches et al., 2014; Frankena et al., 2009; Haskell et al., 2006; Rutherford et al., 2009; Somers et al., 2003).";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Preferences;0,01;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
783;"Strengths of straw yards include offering potential for improved claw health and locomotion, and less integument damage compared to cubicle systems (Brinkmann et al., 2011; de Boyer des Roches et al., 2014; Frankena et al., 2009; Haskell et al., 2006; Rutherford et al., 2009; Somers et al., 2003).";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Fitness;-1,00;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
783;"Strengths of straw yards include offering potential for improved claw health and locomotion, and less integument damage compared to cubicle systems (Brinkmann et al., 2011; de Boyer des Roches et al., 2014; Frankena et al., 2009; Haskell et al., 2006; Rutherford et al., 2009; Somers et al., 2003).";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Preferences;0,01;Health, Rest;;;;;;;;;
783;"Strengths of straw yards include offering potential for improved claw health and locomotion, and less integument damage compared to cubicle systems (Brinkmann et al., 2011; de Boyer des Roches et al., 2014; Frankena et al., 2009; Haskell et al., 2006; Rutherford et al., 2009; Somers et al., 2003).";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Rest;;;;;;;;;
783;"Strengths of straw yards include offering potential for improved claw health and locomotion, and less integument damage compared to cubicle systems (Brinkmann et al., 2011; de Boyer des Roches et al., 2014; Frankena et al., 2009; Haskell et al., 2006; Rutherford et al., 2009; Somers et al., 2003).";R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Fitness;-0,50;Movement, Rest;;;;;;;;;
784;During both the 5 days before and the 5 days after deprivation, hens showed a clear preference for dustbathing in the sand compartment of the tray. The average number of times per day hens were observed to dustbathe in sand differed significantly both before and after deprivation from the number of times per day hens dustbathed in woodshavings (Table 2). The number of times per day hens were observed to dustbathe after deprivation was signifi- cantly higher than before deprivation for dustbaths in sand (Table 2 ), but not for dustbaths in woodshavings.;R68;136;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;3,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
784;During both the 5 days before and the 5 days after deprivation, hens showed a clear preference for dustbathing in the sand compartment of the tray. The average number of times per day hens were observed to dustbathe in sand differed significantly both before and after deprivation from the number of times per day hens dustbathed in woodshavings (Table 2). The number of times per day hens were observed to dustbathe after deprivation was signifi- cantly higher than before deprivation for dustbaths in sand (Table 2 ), but not for dustbaths in woodshavings.;R68;136;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
785;Apparently, hens used to sand, are reluctant to dustbathe in woodshavings when this substrate is given after sand, and show a rebound-like effect when put back from wood- shavings on sand. This suggests that woodshavings are less attractive as a dust- bathing material than sand.;R68;136;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
785;Apparently, hens used to sand, are reluctant to dustbathe in woodshavings when this substrate is given after sand, and show a rebound-like effect when put back from wood- shavings on sand. This suggests that woodshavings are less attractive as a dust- bathing material than sand.;R68;136;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Demand;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
785;Apparently, hens used to sand, are reluctant to dustbathe in woodshavings when this substrate is given after sand, and show a rebound-like effect when put back from wood- shavings on sand. This suggests that woodshavings are less attractive as a dust- bathing material than sand.;R68;136;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
786;With regard to aspects of natural behaviour, an investigation of cows’ time budgets by Fregonesi and Leaver (2001) reported that cows in straw yard systems spent more time lying and ruminating, and increased synchronisation of lying behaviour to a higher degree than cows in cubicle systems, which may be attributed to increased comfort around resting.;R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
786;With regard to aspects of natural behaviour, an investigation of cows’ time budgets by Fregonesi and Leaver (2001) reported that cows in straw yard systems spent more time lying and ruminating, and increased synchronisation of lying behaviour to a higher degree than cows in cubicle systems, which may be attributed to increased comfort around resting.;R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
786;With regard to aspects of natural behaviour, an investigation of cows’ time budgets by Fregonesi and Leaver (2001) reported that cows in straw yard systems spent more time lying and ruminating, and increased synchronisation of lying behaviour to a higher degree than cows in cubicle systems, which may be attributed to increased comfort around resting.;R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;free lying straw yards (deep bedding) ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
786;With regard to aspects of natural behaviour, an investigation of cows’ time budgets by Fregonesi and Leaver (2001) reported that cows in straw yard systems spent more time lying and ruminating, and increased synchronisation of lying behaviour to a higher degree than cows in cubicle systems, which may be attributed to increased comfort around resting.;R53;23;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of flooring lying area;cubicles;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
787;If dustbathing in woodshavings is less effective, which causes the tendency to dustbathe to decrease slowly compared with dust- bathing in sand, then the aforementioned paradox may simply be explained by the idea that hens on woodshavings need more time to reach the same effect. Indeed, in the 5-day period following deprivation, hens spent more time ba- thing in woodshavings than in sand (Table 1 ), whereas the removal of feather lipids was virtually the same (Table 3). These findings fit the assumption that dustbathing maintains feather lipid homeostasis (Levine et al., 1974;R68;139;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
787;If dustbathing in woodshavings is less effective, which causes the tendency to dustbathe to decrease slowly compared with dust- bathing in sand, then the aforementioned paradox may simply be explained by the idea that hens on woodshavings need more time to reach the same effect. Indeed, in the 5-day period following deprivation, hens spent more time ba- thing in woodshavings than in sand (Table 1 ), whereas the removal of feather lipids was virtually the same (Table 3). These findings fit the assumption that dustbathing maintains feather lipid homeostasis (Levine et al., 1974;R68;139;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Fitness;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
788;Study showed that outdoor reared pigs spent more time walking and playing compared to indoor reared pigs (p<0.05), and though statistically insignificant, outdoor reared pigs spent more time standing than laying [10].;R67;1208;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
788;Study showed that outdoor reared pigs spent more time walking and playing compared to indoor reared pigs (p<0.05), and though statistically insignificant, outdoor reared pigs spent more time standing than laying [10].;R67;1208;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
789;With longer active period, outdoor reared pigs require more feed to gain the same amount of weight as indoor reared pigs.;R67;1209;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
789;With longer active period, outdoor reared pigs require more feed to gain the same amount of weight as indoor reared pigs.;R67;1210;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Food intake, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
790;"Using preference tests, it has been shown that laying hens chose sand or peat moss for dustbathing whereas woodshavings were not favoured (Van Liere and Siard, 1991; Van Liere and Wiepkema, 1992; Sanotra et al., 1995)";R69;25;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
790;"Using preference tests, it has been shown that laying hens chose sand or peat moss for dustbathing whereas woodshavings were not favoured (Van Liere and Siard, 1991; Van Liere and Wiepkema, 1992; Sanotra et al., 1995)";R69;25;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
790;"Using preference tests, it has been shown that laying hens chose sand or peat moss for dustbathing whereas woodshavings were not favoured (Van Liere and Siard, 1991; Van Liere and Wiepkema, 1992; Sanotra et al., 1995)";R69;25;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
791;When given feed ad libitum, outdoor reared barrows had a higher average daily feed intake (ADFI), which resulted in a lower gain:feed (G:F) (p<0.01) [16].;R67;1208;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
791;When given feed ad libitum, outdoor reared barrows had a higher average daily feed intake (ADFI), which resulted in a lower gain:feed (G:F) (p<0.01) [16].;R67;1208;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Food intake, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
791;When given feed ad libitum, outdoor reared barrows had a higher average daily feed intake (ADFI), which resulted in a lower gain:feed (G:F) (p<0.01) [16].;R67;1208;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
791;When given feed ad libitum, outdoor reared barrows had a higher average daily feed intake (ADFI), which resulted in a lower gain:feed (G:F) (p<0.01) [16].;R67;1208;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Food intake, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
792;Hens were much more likely to show dustbathing after gaining access to peat moss than to the other substrates,;R69;33;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
792;Hens were much more likely to show dustbathing after gaining access to peat moss than to the other substrates,;R69;33;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
792;Hens were much more likely to show dustbathing after gaining access to peat moss than to the other substrates,;R69;33;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
793;Using e = 1 as the cut-off point for essential resources or luxuries further confirmed that dustbathing in peat is a high priority for laying hens.;R69;33;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Demand;3,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
793;Using e = 1 as the cut-off point for essential resources or luxuries further confirmed that dustbathing in peat is a high priority for laying hens.;R69;33;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
793;Using e = 1 as the cut-off point for essential resources or luxuries further confirmed that dustbathing in peat is a high priority for laying hens.;R69;33;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
796;"When pigs were placed in either an outdoor hoop structure or in indoor confinement, no season×housing type interaction was observed for the start and the end weights (p>0.05); however, outdoor reared pigs were heavier at marketing and gained more weight than indoor reared pigs (p<0.05).
";R67;1209;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Food intake, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
796;"When pigs were placed in either an outdoor hoop structure or in indoor confinement, no season×housing type interaction was observed for the start and the end weights (p>0.05); however, outdoor reared pigs were heavier at marketing and gained more weight than indoor reared pigs (p<0.05).
";R67;1209;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
797; A survey of different housing systems in Danish pig farms showed that outdoor rearing environment provided particularly favorable conditions for helminth transmission [34].;R67;1209;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
797; A survey of different housing systems in Danish pig farms showed that outdoor rearing environment provided particularly favorable conditions for helminth transmission [34].;R67;1209;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
798;"When Jolie et al [35] studied the effects of production systems on the presence and severity of liver white spots in feeder pigs, which is indicative of ascarid larval migration, they found that the outdoor reared pigs had a significantly higher liver score (p<0.001), which meant that the ascarid larval fibroma, or the liver white spots, were significantly more present and more severe in the outdoor reared pigs.
";R67;1209;Pigs;Pigs Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
798;"When Jolie et al [35] studied the effects of production systems on the presence and severity of liver white spots in feeder pigs, which is indicative of ascarid larval migration, they found that the outdoor reared pigs had a significantly higher liver score (p<0.001), which meant that the ascarid larval fibroma, or the liver white spots, were significantly more present and more severe in the outdoor reared pigs.
";R67;1209;Pigs;Pigs Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
799;In a similar study, Tozawa et al [38] compared the behaviors and the wounds on the body of pigs reared in five different environments: an indoor housing system, an outdoor pasturing system, a concrete floor paddock system, a concrete floor paddock system with fresh grass, or a soil floor paddock system. They concluded that the presence of a soil floor is the most important aspect of a pig production system that best improves animal welfare.;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
799;In a similar study, Tozawa et al [38] compared the behaviors and the wounds on the body of pigs reared in five different environments: an indoor housing system, an outdoor pasturing system, a concrete floor paddock system, a concrete floor paddock system with fresh grass, or a soil floor paddock system. They concluded that the presence of a soil floor is the most important aspect of a pig production system that best improves animal welfare.;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
799;In a similar study, Tozawa et al [38] compared the behaviors and the wounds on the body of pigs reared in five different environments: an indoor housing system, an outdoor pasturing system, a concrete floor paddock system, a concrete floor paddock system with fresh grass, or a soil floor paddock system. They concluded that the presence of a soil floor is the most important aspect of a pig production system that best improves animal welfare.;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
799;In a similar study, Tozawa et al [38] compared the behaviors and the wounds on the body of pigs reared in five different environments: an indoor housing system, an outdoor pasturing system, a concrete floor paddock system, a concrete floor paddock system with fresh grass, or a soil floor paddock system. They concluded that the presence of a soil floor is the most important aspect of a pig production system that best improves animal welfare.;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
799;In a similar study, Tozawa et al [38] compared the behaviors and the wounds on the body of pigs reared in five different environments: an indoor housing system, an outdoor pasturing system, a concrete floor paddock system, a concrete floor paddock system with fresh grass, or a soil floor paddock system. They concluded that the presence of a soil floor is the most important aspect of a pig production system that best improves animal welfare.;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
800;Though not significantly different, when Yonezawa et al [36] compared the behaviors of indoor and outdoor reared pigs, the outdoor reared pigs showed a larger number of rooting episodes (p = 0.05) and a longer total time of rooting behaviors (p = 0.06).;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
800;Though not significantly different, when Yonezawa et al [36] compared the behaviors of indoor and outdoor reared pigs, the outdoor reared pigs showed a larger number of rooting episodes (p = 0.05) and a longer total time of rooting behaviors (p = 0.06).;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
801;Outdoor pigs were also found to have fewer injuries to the body [37].;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
801;Outdoor pigs were also found to have fewer injuries to the body [37].;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Pain;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
803;When van Grevenhof et al [40] compared the joint health of pigs reared in different housing systems, a partially slatted concrete floor or a deep litter floor with extra space allowance, they found that the conventionally reared pigs were more affected by Osteochondrosis than the pigs reared in the deep litter floor.;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);partly slatted floor;Pain;-1,00;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
803;When van Grevenhof et al [40] compared the joint health of pigs reared in different housing systems, a partially slatted concrete floor or a deep litter floor with extra space allowance, they found that the conventionally reared pigs were more affected by Osteochondrosis than the pigs reared in the deep litter floor.;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);deep bedding/deep litter;Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
804;Several studies have shown that dairy cattle have a partial preference for pasture access (5, 31–35), with cows choosing to spend from 8% (34) to 72% (35) of their available time on pasture.;R70;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;1,00;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
804;Several studies have shown that dairy cattle have a partial preference for pasture access (5, 31–35), with cows choosing to spend from 8% (34) to 72% (35) of their available time on pasture.;R70;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
805;Similar results were found by Etterlin et al [41]. [see Statement ID 804] The authors concluded that the extra space allowed for the deep litter herd strengthened the joint supportive tissue and provided some pain relief through exercise.;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);partly slatted floor;Pain;-1,00;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
805;Similar results were found by Etterlin et al [41]. [see Statement ID 804] The authors concluded that the extra space allowed for the deep litter herd strengthened the joint supportive tissue and provided some pain relief through exercise.;R67;1212;Pigs;Pigs ;Flooring;floortype/bedding material (other than lying);deep bedding/deep litter;Preferences;0,01;Health, Movement;;;;;;;;;
806;Cows prefer to spend time on pasture at night rather than during the day (31–33), possibly to avoid high solar radiation during the day (36).;R70;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
806;Cows prefer to spend time on pasture at night rather than during the day (31–33), possibly to avoid high solar radiation during the day (36).;R70;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
807;"Several motivation tests have shown the importance of pasture access for cows, especially at night (5, 33)
";R70;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;2,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
807;"Several motivation tests have shown the importance of pasture access for cows, especially at night (5, 33)
";R70;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;2,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
807;"Several motivation tests have shown the importance of pasture access for cows, especially at night (5, 33)
";R70;3;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
808;The quality of the indoor environment may also influence the value of outdoor access for dairy cattle. In a study by Falk et al. (37), cow preference for pasture was not influenced by the number oflying stalls available indoors (24, 16, 8, or 0 stalls per group of24 cows), showing that even when overstocked cows preferred to be indoors for much of the day and on pasture at night.;R70;3-4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
808;The quality of the indoor environment may also influence the value of outdoor access for dairy cattle. In a study by Falk et al. (37), cow preference for pasture was not influenced by the number oflying stalls available indoors (24, 16, 8, or 0 stalls per group of24 cows), showing that even when overstocked cows preferred to be indoors for much of the day and on pasture at night.;R70;3-4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
809;"When free-stall housed, mid-lactation dairy cows could choose between a large pasture or a smaller (i.e., 12 m2/cow) outdoor sand pack during the night in late summer, they spent around 90% of their time on pasture and only 1% on the sand pack (38)
";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;not used ;Preferences;2,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
809;"When free-stall housed, mid-lactation dairy cows could choose between a large pasture or a smaller (i.e., 12 m2/cow) outdoor sand pack during the night in late summer, they spent around 90% of their time on pasture and only 1% on the sand pack (38)
";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;access to alternative outdoor areas;Frustration and avoidance;-3,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
810;"Jørgensen et al. (40) showed that cows provided access to an exercise paddock (0.74 ha in size in a small forest) spent less time outdoors than did cows provided access to pasture (a total 2.8 ha in size that was used for strip grazing). These two latter studies were based on a single group of cows in each treatment and thus should be interpreted with caution given the lack ofreplication.
";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;access to alternative outdoor areas;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
810;"Jørgensen et al. (40) showed that cows provided access to an exercise paddock (0.74 ha in size in a small forest) spent less time outdoors than did cows provided access to pasture (a total 2.8 ha in size that was used for strip grazing). These two latter studies were based on a single group of cows in each treatment and thus should be interpreted with caution given the lack ofreplication.
";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,50;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
811;"When preference offree-stall housed cows for access to an outdoor pack was tested in summer and winter, cows spent 25% of the time outside in summer and only 2% in winter (41)
";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;access to alternative outdoor areas;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
811;"When preference offree-stall housed cows for access to an outdoor pack was tested in summer and winter, cows spent 25% of the time outside in summer and only 2% in winter (41)
";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;access to alternative outdoor areas;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
812;"Cows especially spent time outside during summer nights (50.0 ± 8.4%) rather than during summer days (3.3 ± 1.3 %) and generally avoided adverse weather (i.e., snow, strong wind, and/or low air temperatures) during the winter months.
";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;access to alternative outdoor areas;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
812;"Cows especially spent time outside during summer nights (50.0 ± 8.4%) rather than during summer days (3.3 ± 1.3 %) and generally avoided adverse weather (i.e., snow, strong wind, and/or low air temperatures) during the winter months.
";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;access to alternative outdoor areas;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
813;"Haskell et al. (42) investigated the use of an outdoor concrete loafing area by free-stall housed cows when given the option during the day. These authors reported that the cows spent about 14% of their time outside on the concrete loafing area during the day in spring and summer, with the majority of this time being when the weather was sunny; cows rarely went outside in the rain";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;access to alternative outdoor areas;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
813;"Haskell et al. (42) investigated the use of an outdoor concrete loafing area by free-stall housed cows when given the option during the day. These authors reported that the cows spent about 14% of their time outside on the concrete loafing area during the day in spring and summer, with the majority of this time being when the weather was sunny; cows rarely went outside in the rain";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Movement;;;;;;;;;
818;Similarly, in pigs more fights occurred after mixing in groups of 6 and 12 pigs than in groups of 24 pigs and the percentage of pigs not participating in fights was higher in the largest group (Andersen et al., 2004).;R56;207;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
818;Similarly, in pigs more fights occurred after mixing in groups of 6 and 12 pigs than in groups of 24 pigs and the percentage of pigs not participating in fights was higher in the largest group (Andersen et al., 2004).;R56;207;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
818;Similarly, in pigs more fights occurred after mixing in groups of 6 and 12 pigs than in groups of 24 pigs and the percentage of pigs not participating in fights was higher in the largest group (Andersen et al., 2004).;R56;207;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
819;Turner et al. (2001) showed that pigs from a group of 80 were less aggressive to unfamiliar pigs than pigs from groups of 20 individuals, while they could still recognise familiar pigs.;R56;207;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
819;Turner et al. (2001) showed that pigs from a group of 80 were less aggressive to unfamiliar pigs than pigs from groups of 20 individuals, while they could still recognise familiar pigs.;R56;207;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
820;Similarly, in pigs, Barnett et al. (1986) found higher cortisol levels in pigs housed in pairs than in pigs housed in groups of 4 or 8 individuals with the same space allowance per pig.;R56;209;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;HPA;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
820;Similarly, in pigs, Barnett et al. (1986) found higher cortisol levels in pigs housed in pairs than in pigs housed in groups of 4 or 8 individuals with the same space allowance per pig.;R56;209;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
820;Similarly, in pigs, Barnett et al. (1986) found higher cortisol levels in pigs housed in pairs than in pigs housed in groups of 4 or 8 individuals with the same space allowance per pig.;R56;209;Pigs;Pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
821;In pigs, providing shelter after mixing did help to reduce aggression (McGlone and Curtis, 1985).;R56;209;Pigs;Pigs ;Barn construction;solid pen partitions;available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
821;In pigs, providing shelter after mixing did help to reduce aggression (McGlone and Curtis, 1985).;R56;209;Pigs;Pigs ;Barn construction;solid pen partitions;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
822;"Higher lying times indoors may also be a consequence of boredom; an alternative explanation for the longer lying times reported in free-stalls compared to pasture is that cows are seeking refuge from the concrete standing surfaces elsewhere in the barn; soft, dry standing surfaces are rarely available indoors (66, 67)
";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
822;"Higher lying times indoors may also be a consequence of boredom; an alternative explanation for the longer lying times reported in free-stalls compared to pasture is that cows are seeking refuge from the concrete standing surfaces elsewhere in the barn; soft, dry standing surfaces are rarely available indoors (66, 67)
";R70;4;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;not used;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
823;"When housed in pens with rubber flooring in front of the feed bunk, cows spent less time perching, and standing fully in the free-stalls and less time lying down in the free-stalls, and more time standing idle at the feed bunk (66, 69) [compared to concrete]
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type feeding area;rubber flooring ;Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
823;"When housed in pens with rubber flooring in front of the feed bunk, cows spent less time perching, and standing fully in the free-stalls and less time lying down in the free-stalls, and more time standing idle at the feed bunk (66, 69) [compared to concrete]
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type feeding area;concrete flooring ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
824;"Boyle et al. (70), however, found no difference in lying time between cows housed in free-stall pens with concrete or rubber flooring, but found that cows housed on concrete stood more in the free-stalls compared to cows in pens with rubber flooring. In the latter case, cows stood more on the rubber flooring at the feed face, again suggesting that cows seek refuge from standing on hard surfaces. Taken together, these studies indicate that standing on a soft surface is important for dairy cattle.
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type feeding area;rubber flooring ;Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
824;"Boyle et al. (70), however, found no difference in lying time between cows housed in free-stall pens with concrete or rubber flooring, but found that cows housed on concrete stood more in the free-stalls compared to cows in pens with rubber flooring. In the latter case, cows stood more on the rubber flooring at the feed face, again suggesting that cows seek refuge from standing on hard surfaces. Taken together, these studies indicate that standing on a soft surface is important for dairy cattle.
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type feeding area;concrete flooring ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
826;"Cows generally walk more on pasture than in a free-stall barn [e.g., (72, 73)], likely because of the need to move while grazing. Exercise has been suggested to be positive for dairy cattle welfare (73), although the higher energy expenditure of cattle on pasture compared to zero-grazing systems may pose challenges (74).
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;General welfare;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
826;"Cows generally walk more on pasture than in a free-stall barn [e.g., (72, 73)], likely because of the need to move while grazing. Exercise has been suggested to be positive for dairy cattle welfare (73), although the higher energy expenditure of cattle on pasture compared to zero-grazing systems may pose challenges (74).
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;General welfare;floor type movement;not used;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
826;"Cows generally walk more on pasture than in a free-stall barn [e.g., (72, 73)], likely because of the need to move while grazing. Exercise has been suggested to be positive for dairy cattle welfare (73), although the higher energy expenditure of cattle on pasture compared to zero-grazing systems may pose challenges (74).
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;General welfare;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
826;"Cows generally walk more on pasture than in a free-stall barn [e.g., (72, 73)], likely because of the need to move while grazing. Exercise has been suggested to be positive for dairy cattle welfare (73), although the higher energy expenditure of cattle on pasture compared to zero-grazing systems may pose challenges (74).
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;General welfare;floor type movement;not used;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
827;"The increased opportunities for exercise in outdoor areas compared to the generally more restrictive indoor housing environments may also provide benefits for animal welfare. This may be especially true in bedded packs as cows prefer to walk on softer materials such as rubber than on concrete flooring (67), potentially because they are more prone to falling and slipping on concrete (77).
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
827;"The increased opportunities for exercise in outdoor areas compared to the generally more restrictive indoor housing environments may also provide benefits for animal welfare. This may be especially true in bedded packs as cows prefer to walk on softer materials such as rubber than on concrete flooring (67), potentially because they are more prone to falling and slipping on concrete (77).
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
827;"The increased opportunities for exercise in outdoor areas compared to the generally more restrictive indoor housing environments may also provide benefits for animal welfare. This may be especially true in bedded packs as cows prefer to walk on softer materials such as rubber than on concrete flooring (67), potentially because they are more prone to falling and slipping on concrete (77).
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
827;"The increased opportunities for exercise in outdoor areas compared to the generally more restrictive indoor housing environments may also provide benefits for animal welfare. This may be especially true in bedded packs as cows prefer to walk on softer materials such as rubber than on concrete flooring (67), potentially because they are more prone to falling and slipping on concrete (77).
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-0,50;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
827;"The increased opportunities for exercise in outdoor areas compared to the generally more restrictive indoor housing environments may also provide benefits for animal welfare. This may be especially true in bedded packs as cows prefer to walk on softer materials such as rubber than on concrete flooring (67), potentially because they are more prone to falling and slipping on concrete (77).
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
827;"The increased opportunities for exercise in outdoor areas compared to the generally more restrictive indoor housing environments may also provide benefits for animal welfare. This may be especially true in bedded packs as cows prefer to walk on softer materials such as rubber than on concrete flooring (67), potentially because they are more prone to falling and slipping on concrete (77).
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-0,50;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
828;"Other important factors that help to prevent tail biting are a good diet (sufficient iodised salt and protein) and supplying substrate (straw, compost; Bracke et al., 2004).";R56;211;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
829;Schrøder-Petersen and Simonsen (2001) also suggested other stimuli that may help to reduce tail biting: iron chains, car tyres, pieces of wood, ropes or an ‘udder substitute’ after weaning.;R56;211;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;metal chain;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
829;Schrøder-Petersen and Simonsen (2001) also suggested other stimuli that may help to reduce tail biting: iron chains, car tyres, pieces of wood, ropes or an ‘udder substitute’ after weaning.;R56;211;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
829;Schrøder-Petersen and Simonsen (2001) also suggested other stimuli that may help to reduce tail biting: iron chains, car tyres, pieces of wood, ropes or an ‘udder substitute’ after weaning.;R56;211;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR wood shavings OR wood/fresh wood OR compost;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
829;Schrøder-Petersen and Simonsen (2001) also suggested other stimuli that may help to reduce tail biting: iron chains, car tyres, pieces of wood, ropes or an ‘udder substitute’ after weaning.;R56;211;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;toy OR rope;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
829;Schrøder-Petersen and Simonsen (2001) also suggested other stimuli that may help to reduce tail biting: iron chains, car tyres, pieces of wood, ropes or an ‘udder substitute’ after weaning.;R56;211;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not used;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
829;Schrøder-Petersen and Simonsen (2001) also suggested other stimuli that may help to reduce tail biting: iron chains, car tyres, pieces of wood, ropes or an ‘udder substitute’ after weaning.;R56;211;Pigs;Pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
833;"In experimental settings, oral stereotypies in cattle were never observed on pasture (90–92), but were present in loose housing (91)
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows, Cattle;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
833;"In experimental settings, oral stereotypies in cattle were never observed on pasture (90–92), but were present in loose housing (91)
";R70;5;Cattle;Dairy cows, Cattle;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
836;"Cows housed on pasture often show synchronized feeding (105) and lying behavior (73, 106), which is thought to be positive for their welfare, perhaps especially so for more subordinate cows (107).
";R70;6;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
836;"Cows housed on pasture often show synchronized feeding (105) and lying behavior (73, 106), which is thought to be positive for their welfare, perhaps especially so for more subordinate cows (107).
";R70;6;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
836;"Cows housed on pasture often show synchronized feeding (105) and lying behavior (73, 106), which is thought to be positive for their welfare, perhaps especially so for more subordinate cows (107).
";R70;6;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;pasture available ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
836;"Cows housed on pasture often show synchronized feeding (105) and lying behavior (73, 106), which is thought to be positive for their welfare, perhaps especially so for more subordinate cows (107).
";R70;6;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;outdoor access ;no access to any outdoor area ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
841;"The effects of rubber flooring in loose housing systems are variable; cows housed on rubber mats showed a higher frequency of mounting than when housed on concrete (77), but no beneficial effects on estrus behavior of rubber over concrete flooring were found by Boyle et al. (70).";R70;7;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Natural behaviour;1,00;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
841;"The effects of rubber flooring in loose housing systems are variable; cows housed on rubber mats showed a higher frequency of mounting than when housed on concrete (77), but no beneficial effects on estrus behavior of rubber over concrete flooring were found by Boyle et al. (70).";R70;7;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
842;Vailes and Britt (133) suggested that cows may feel unsure of their footing on concrete and are therefore less inclined to perform estrus behaviors on this flooring.;R70;7;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
842;Vailes and Britt (133) suggested that cows may feel unsure of their footing on concrete and are therefore less inclined to perform estrus behaviors on this flooring.;R70;7;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;not used;Preferences;0,50;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
843;"Concrete flooring has been linked with more slipping during mounting compared to pasture (128) or rubber flooring (77). In the latter study, 19 out of 23 mounts on a concrete floor were accompanied with collapsing or slipping.
";R70;7;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Preferences;1,00;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
843;"Concrete flooring has been linked with more slipping during mounting compared to pasture (128) or rubber flooring (77). In the latter study, 19 out of 23 mounts on a concrete floor were accompanied with collapsing or slipping.
";R70;7;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
843;"Concrete flooring has been linked with more slipping during mounting compared to pasture (128) or rubber flooring (77). In the latter study, 19 out of 23 mounts on a concrete floor were accompanied with collapsing or slipping.
";R70;7;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
843;"Concrete flooring has been linked with more slipping during mounting compared to pasture (128) or rubber flooring (77). In the latter study, 19 out of 23 mounts on a concrete floor were accompanied with collapsing or slipping.
";R70;7;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-3,00;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
843;"Concrete flooring has been linked with more slipping during mounting compared to pasture (128) or rubber flooring (77). In the latter study, 19 out of 23 mounts on a concrete floor were accompanied with collapsing or slipping.
";R70;7;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-1,00;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
843;"Concrete flooring has been linked with more slipping during mounting compared to pasture (128) or rubber flooring (77). In the latter study, 19 out of 23 mounts on a concrete floor were accompanied with collapsing or slipping.
";R70;7;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
846;"The commonly used concrete slatted floor in loose housing systems clashes with the cattle-specific demands of a “pasture-like” subsurface (Benz and Wandel, 2004). It puts too much biomechanical strain on the claw (van der Tol et al., 2003) and is considered one of the risk factors for laminitis and associated claw horn lesions (Cook et al., 2004).
";R71;999;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Illness;-0,50;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
846;"The commonly used concrete slatted floor in loose housing systems clashes with the cattle-specific demands of a “pasture-like” subsurface (Benz and Wandel, 2004). It puts too much biomechanical strain on the claw (van der Tol et al., 2003) and is considered one of the risk factors for laminitis and associated claw horn lesions (Cook et al., 2004).
";R71;999;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
846;"The commonly used concrete slatted floor in loose housing systems clashes with the cattle-specific demands of a “pasture-like” subsurface (Benz and Wandel, 2004). It puts too much biomechanical strain on the claw (van der Tol et al., 2003) and is considered one of the risk factors for laminitis and associated claw horn lesions (Cook et al., 2004).
";R71;999;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-0,50;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
846;"The commonly used concrete slatted floor in loose housing systems clashes with the cattle-specific demands of a “pasture-like” subsurface (Benz and Wandel, 2004). It puts too much biomechanical strain on the claw (van der Tol et al., 2003) and is considered one of the risk factors for laminitis and associated claw horn lesions (Cook et al., 2004).
";R71;999;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;soft surface (wood chips/straw yard/pasture);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
847;These rubber mat layers [slats with rubber coating] allowed the claws to sink in some millimeters, thus reducing the impact load. In addition, lateral slipping was prevented (Hultgren, 2001), and claw health (Hultgren and Bergsten, 2001) and locomotion in both lame and nonlame cows was improved (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005). [compared to concrete slats];R71;999;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Safety;;;;;;;;;
847;These rubber mat layers [slats with rubber coating] allowed the claws to sink in some millimeters, thus reducing the impact load. In addition, lateral slipping was prevented (Hultgren, 2001), and claw health (Hultgren and Bergsten, 2001) and locomotion in both lame and nonlame cows was improved (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005). [compared to concrete slats];R71;999;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Movement, Safety;;;;;;;;;
847;These rubber mat layers [slats with rubber coating] allowed the claws to sink in some millimeters, thus reducing the impact load. In addition, lateral slipping was prevented (Hultgren, 2001), and claw health (Hultgren and Bergsten, 2001) and locomotion in both lame and nonlame cows was improved (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005). [compared to concrete slats];R71;999;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
847;These rubber mat layers [slats with rubber coating] allowed the claws to sink in some millimeters, thus reducing the impact load. In addition, lateral slipping was prevented (Hultgren, 2001), and claw health (Hultgren and Bergsten, 2001) and locomotion in both lame and nonlame cows was improved (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005). [compared to concrete slats];R71;999;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Illness;-1,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
847;These rubber mat layers [slats with rubber coating] allowed the claws to sink in some millimeters, thus reducing the impact load. In addition, lateral slipping was prevented (Hultgren, 2001), and claw health (Hultgren and Bergsten, 2001) and locomotion in both lame and nonlame cows was improved (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005). [compared to concrete slats];R71;999;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement, Safety;;;;;;;;;
847;These rubber mat layers [slats with rubber coating] allowed the claws to sink in some millimeters, thus reducing the impact load. In addition, lateral slipping was prevented (Hultgren, 2001), and claw health (Hultgren and Bergsten, 2001) and locomotion in both lame and nonlame cows was improved (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005). [compared to concrete slats];R71;999;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement, Safety;;;;;;;;;
848;"The step length on concrete floor was 58 ± 1 cm. On the rubberized floor, step length increased to 70 ± 1cm (P < 0.01).
";R71;1001;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement, Safety;;;;;;;;;
848;"The step length on concrete floor was 58 ± 1 cm. On the rubberized floor, step length increased to 70 ± 1cm (P < 0.01).
";R71;1001;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement, Safety;;;;;;;;;
849;The number of daily steps per cow increased from 4,226 ± 450 on concrete slatted floor (first phase) to 5,611 ± 495 on rubberized floor (third phase, P < 0.01).;R71;1001;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement, Safety;;;;;;;;;
849;The number of daily steps per cow increased from 4,226 ± 450 on concrete slatted floor (first phase) to 5,611 ± 495 on rubberized floor (third phase, P < 0.01).;R71;1001;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement, Safety;;;;;;;;;
850;"Analysis of the course of mounting revealed that collapsing and slipping occurred in 19 ofa total of23 cases on concrete slatted floor. Although on soft flooring 112 mounting actions were observed without any occurrences of collapsing or slipping, there was no statistical difference.
";R71;1001;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,50;Sexual behavior , Safety;;;;;;;;;
850;"Analysis of the course of mounting revealed that collapsing and slipping occurred in 19 ofa total of23 cases on concrete slatted floor. Although on soft flooring 112 mounting actions were observed without any occurrences of collapsing or slipping, there was no statistical difference.
";R71;1001;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Sexual behavior , Safety;;;;;;;;;
850;"Analysis of the course of mounting revealed that collapsing and slipping occurred in 19 ofa total of23 cases on concrete slatted floor. Although on soft flooring 112 mounting actions were observed without any occurrences of collapsing or slipping, there was no statistical difference.
";R71;1001;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-0,50;Sexual behavior , Safety;;;;;;;;;
851;"Individual elements ofhygiene behavior that depend on secure footing, such as licking while standing on 3 legs and caudal licking, increased (P < 0.01) on rubberized flooring
";R71;1001;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
851;"Individual elements ofhygiene behavior that depend on secure footing, such as licking while standing on 3 legs and caudal licking, increased (P < 0.01) on rubberized flooring
";R71;1001;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
852;"A further sign of the attractiveness of soft flooring was shown by the preference for the rubberized side of the walkway to the milking parlor (Figure 1), which was also expressed by the lower frequency of changes of sides if there was a choice between the 2 floor qualities. T
";R71;1003;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
852;"A further sign of the attractiveness of soft flooring was shown by the preference for the rubberized side of the walkway to the milking parlor (Figure 1), which was also expressed by the lower frequency of changes of sides if there was a choice between the 2 floor qualities. T
";R71;1003;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
853;"Tucker and Weary (2004) showed that cows spent more time lying down in heavily bedded stalls and hesitated to lie down on inadequately bedded mattresses.
";R71;1003;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material cubicle;not used;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
853;"Tucker and Weary (2004) showed that cows spent more time lying down in heavily bedded stalls and hesitated to lie down on inadequately bedded mattresses.
";R71;1003;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;type of bedding material cubicle;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
857;In conclusion, covering concrete slatted floor with perforated rubber mats seems a relatively less challenging environment, providing afirm grip and improved ability to express normal behavior. I;R71;1003;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Natural behaviour;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
857;In conclusion, covering concrete slatted floor with perforated rubber mats seems a relatively less challenging environment, providing afirm grip and improved ability to express normal behavior. I;R71;1003;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
859;The mean daylight GS was larger when pigs were resting than when they were grazing (13.8±0.6 vs. 5.6±0.3) pigs, P< 0.001).;R72;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Natural behaviour;2,00;Social contact, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
859;The mean daylight GS was larger when pigs were resting than when they were grazing (13.8±0.6 vs. 5.6±0.3) pigs, P< 0.001).;R72;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Natural behaviour;2,00;Social contact, Rest;;;;;;;;;
859;The mean daylight GS was larger when pigs were resting than when they were grazing (13.8±0.6 vs. 5.6±0.3) pigs, P< 0.001).;R72;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Frustration and avoidance;-3,00;Social contact, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
860;Knowledge elicitation and modelling exercises were used, leading to recommendation for adult laying hens and layer breeders of a maximum stocking density of 4 birds per m2 to reduce the risk of plumage damage and allow unconstrained performance of motivated behaviours, including those that occupy most space (e.g. wing flapping);R66;3;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Movement, Body care;;;;;;;;;
860;Knowledge elicitation and modelling exercises were used, leading to recommendation for adult laying hens and layer breeders of a maximum stocking density of 4 birds per m2 to reduce the risk of plumage damage and allow unconstrained performance of motivated behaviours, including those that occupy most space (e.g. wing flapping);R66;3;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;not used;Fitness;-0,50;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
860;Knowledge elicitation and modelling exercises were used, leading to recommendation for adult laying hens and layer breeders of a maximum stocking density of 4 birds per m2 to reduce the risk of plumage damage and allow unconstrained performance of motivated behaviours, including those that occupy most space (e.g. wing flapping);R66;3;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550-<3000 cm2/hen;Natural behaviour;0,50;Movement, Body care;;;;;;;;;
860;Knowledge elicitation and modelling exercises were used, leading to recommendation for adult laying hens and layer breeders of a maximum stocking density of 4 birds per m2 to reduce the risk of plumage damage and allow unconstrained performance of motivated behaviours, including those that occupy most space (e.g. wing flapping);R66;3;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550-<3000 cm2/hen;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
862;Benz (2002) examined the claw health of dairy cows kept in free-stall barns on concrete slatted flooring followed by housing on rubber-matted slatted flooring. Her results demonstrated decreasing severity of sole hemorrhages, sole ulcers, and white line lesions on elastic flooring.;R73;4603;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
862;Benz (2002) examined the claw health of dairy cows kept in free-stall barns on concrete slatted flooring followed by housing on rubber-matted slatted flooring. Her results demonstrated decreasing severity of sole hemorrhages, sole ulcers, and white line lesions on elastic flooring.;R73;4603;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-1,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
862;Benz (2002) examined the claw health of dairy cows kept in free-stall barns on concrete slatted flooring followed by housing on rubber-matted slatted flooring. Her results demonstrated decreasing severity of sole hemorrhages, sole ulcers, and white line lesions on elastic flooring.;R73;4603;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
862;Benz (2002) examined the claw health of dairy cows kept in free-stall barns on concrete slatted flooring followed by housing on rubber-matted slatted flooring. Her results demonstrated decreasing severity of sole hemorrhages, sole ulcers, and white line lesions on elastic flooring.;R73;4603;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-1,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
862;Benz (2002) examined the claw health of dairy cows kept in free-stall barns on concrete slatted flooring followed by housing on rubber-matted slatted flooring. Her results demonstrated decreasing severity of sole hemorrhages, sole ulcers, and white line lesions on elastic flooring.;R73;4603;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (slatted OR solid);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
862;Benz (2002) examined the claw health of dairy cows kept in free-stall barns on concrete slatted flooring followed by housing on rubber-matted slatted flooring. Her results demonstrated decreasing severity of sole hemorrhages, sole ulcers, and white line lesions on elastic flooring.;R73;4603;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete (slatted OR solid with or without straw);Pain;-1,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
863;GSs of resting pigs at sunset were 9.5±0.9 pigs outside and 28.0±0.7 pigs inside the shelters (P< 0.001). Pigs inside each shelter constituted a single subgroup.;R72;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size;6-25 animals;Natural behaviour;2,00;Social contact, Rest;;;;;;;;;
864;"Also, due to the maintenance of smaller GS when grazing grass (without any space limitations) [5,6 pigs/group], it could be suggested that the GS observed would be the ideal GS for fattening pigs from a natural behaviour point of view.
";R72;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Natural behaviour;2,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
864;"Also, due to the maintenance of smaller GS when grazing grass (without any space limitations) [5,6 pigs/group], it could be suggested that the GS observed would be the ideal GS for fattening pigs from a natural behaviour point of view.
";R72;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Space;group size; <6 animals OR >25 animals;Frustration and avoidance;-3,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
866;Cows drink at a higher rate (1.5-24.6 l/min) in a shorter time (2.0-7.8 min) from water troughs than from drinking cups.;R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Water;type of drinker ;water troughs ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
866;Cows drink at a higher rate (1.5-24.6 l/min) in a shorter time (2.0-7.8 min) from water troughs than from drinking cups.;R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Water;type of drinker ;drinking bowls;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
866;Cows drink at a higher rate (1.5-24.6 l/min) in a shorter time (2.0-7.8 min) from water troughs than from drinking cups.;R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Water;type of drinker ;water troughs ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
866;Cows drink at a higher rate (1.5-24.6 l/min) in a shorter time (2.0-7.8 min) from water troughs than from drinking cups.;R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Water;type of drinker ;drinking bowls;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
869;Free access to the 1 m food trough afforded the birds apparently ideal feeding conditions. The trough length per bird was much greater than the 14 cm available under normal husbandry conditions (Card, 1961), and was in fact greater than the 27 cm per bird recommended by Faure and Mallard (1973) on the basis of inter-individual distances in large flocks. It is therefore likely that the behaviour shown at this feeder (i.e. high total feeding times with low numbers of long feeding bouts, high coefficients of synchrony and association, and low levels of aggression) is optimal with respect to the birds' welfare, and being such can be used as a welfare standard against which the birds' behaviour at the other feeders can be compared. Thus, if the birds' behaviour at other types of feeder differs markedly from their behaviour at the 1 m trough, it may be indicative of a reduction in their welfare.;R75;138;Poultry;Laying hens ;Feed;Type of feeder;trough;Natural behaviour;1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
872;Cooper and Appleby (1996a) found that hens would squeeze through narrow gaps of up to 95mm width (compared with an average hen body width of 120 mm) to access a nest-box before oviposition, but would go without food for an average of eight hours before passing through such a small gap.;R77;299;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Demand;5,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
872;Cooper and Appleby (1996a) found that hens would squeeze through narrow gaps of up to 95mm width (compared with an average hen body width of 120 mm) to access a nest-box before oviposition, but would go without food for an average of eight hours before passing through such a small gap.;R77;299;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Preferences;3,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
872;Cooper and Appleby (1996a) found that hens would squeeze through narrow gaps of up to 95mm width (compared with an average hen body width of 120 mm) to access a nest-box before oviposition, but would go without food for an average of eight hours before passing through such a small gap.;R77;299;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;open sited;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
873;Using a load-recording push-door Cooper and Appleby (2003) revealed that the work rate for the nest site at 40 minutes prior to the expected time of oviposition was comparable to the work rate for food after 4 hours’ deprivation. At 20 minutes prior to oviposition, hens exhibited four times the work rate in order to overcome the loaded door;R77;299;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Demand;5,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
873;Using a load-recording push-door Cooper and Appleby (2003) revealed that the work rate for the nest site at 40 minutes prior to the expected time of oviposition was comparable to the work rate for food after 4 hours’ deprivation. At 20 minutes prior to oviposition, hens exhibited four times the work rate in order to overcome the loaded door;R77;299;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Preferences;3,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
873;Using a load-recording push-door Cooper and Appleby (2003) revealed that the work rate for the nest site at 40 minutes prior to the expected time of oviposition was comparable to the work rate for food after 4 hours’ deprivation. At 20 minutes prior to oviposition, hens exhibited four times the work rate in order to overcome the loaded door;R77;299;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;open sited;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
874;"Substrates of a particulate nature, such as peat and sand, are preferred over sawdust, and straw (e.g. Petherick and Duncan, 1989; Van Liere et al., 1990; Van Liere and Siard, 1991; Matthews et al., 1995, de Jong et al. 2005).";R77;300;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
874;"Substrates of a particulate nature, such as peat and sand, are preferred over sawdust, and straw (e.g. Petherick and Duncan, 1989; Van Liere et al., 1990; Van Liere and Siard, 1991; Matthews et al., 1995, de Jong et al. 2005).";R77;300;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
875;"Unfamiliar hens may be aversive to others (Grigor et al., 1995; Freire et al., 1997b). Although the maximum number of flock-mates that can be recognised by each hen is not known, it is thought to be slightly less than one hundred individuals (Nicol et al., 1999) so we might expect to find that hens prefer to belong to groups of this size or smaller.";R77;303;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
875;"Unfamiliar hens may be aversive to others (Grigor et al., 1995; Freire et al., 1997b). Although the maximum number of flock-mates that can be recognised by each hen is not known, it is thought to be slightly less than one hundred individuals (Nicol et al., 1999) so we might expect to find that hens prefer to belong to groups of this size or smaller.";R77;303;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;"50-100 birds
";Preferences;0,50;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
876;Lindberg and Nicol (1996) reported that hens showed a strong preference for a group of 5 hens over a group of 120 hens in the samesized space;R77;303;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;5-20 birds;Preferences;2,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
876;Lindberg and Nicol (1996) reported that hens showed a strong preference for a group of 5 hens over a group of 120 hens in the samesized space;R77;303;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Group size;100-500 birds;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
878;"In the current study, more drinking episodes were observed at tank troughs (n = 2435) than at valve troughs (n = 1650), which might be attributable to the different volumes of these troughs (70 L and ~5–15 L, respectively).
";R78;8;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;type of drinker ;water troughs ;Preferences;1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
878;"In the current study, more drinking episodes were observed at tank troughs (n = 2435) than at valve troughs (n = 1650), which might be attributable to the different volumes of these troughs (70 L and ~5–15 L, respectively).
";R78;8;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;type of drinker ;valve trough;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
880;"At valve troughs, the “total duration of drinking” was higher and cows showed more and longer “drinking breaks” as well as more “swallowing difficulties.”
";R78;8;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;type of drinker ;water troughs ;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
880;"At valve troughs, the “total duration of drinking” was higher and cows showed more and longer “drinking breaks” as well as more “swallowing difficulties.”
";R78;8;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;type of drinker ;valve trough;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
880;"At valve troughs, the “total duration of drinking” was higher and cows showed more and longer “drinking breaks” as well as more “swallowing difficulties.”
";R78;8;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;type of drinker ;water troughs ;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
880;"At valve troughs, the “total duration of drinking” was higher and cows showed more and longer “drinking breaks” as well as more “swallowing difficulties.”
";R78;8;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;type of drinker ;valve trough;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
880;"At valve troughs, the “total duration of drinking” was higher and cows showed more and longer “drinking breaks” as well as more “swallowing difficulties.”
";R78;8;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;type of drinker ;water troughs ;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
880;"At valve troughs, the “total duration of drinking” was higher and cows showed more and longer “drinking breaks” as well as more “swallowing difficulties.”
";R78;8;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;type of drinker ;valve trough;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
881;"Interactions with other cows might explain the different number of visits and higher proportion of drinking interruptions due to an increased number of agonistic behavior events at tank troughs compared with that at valve troughs
";R78;8;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;type of drinker ;water troughs ;Aggression;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
881;"Interactions with other cows might explain the different number of visits and higher proportion of drinking interruptions due to an increased number of agonistic behavior events at tank troughs compared with that at valve troughs
";R78;8;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;type of drinker ;valve trough;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
885;"When water bowls (typically with muzzle-operated levers) are used, the flow rate of these restricts cattle’s water consumption rate, and typically bowls do not allow cattle to drink as fast as from troughs; hence, troughs are recommended.
";R79;11376;Cattle;Cattle ;Water;type of drinker ;drinking bowls;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
885;"When water bowls (typically with muzzle-operated levers) are used, the flow rate of these restricts cattle’s water consumption rate, and typically bowls do not allow cattle to drink as fast as from troughs; hence, troughs are recommended.
";R79;11376;Cattle;Cattle ;Water;type of drinker ;water troughs ;Preferences;0,50;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
888;The exploration durations rearing pigs spent at the material dispenser differed significantly between the offered plant-based enrichment materials (LME, factor material, F3 261 = 65.1, p < 0.0001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that rearing pigs spent significantly more time exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP), compared to chopped hay (CH) and chopped straw (CS) (for all four comparisons p < 0.001). Additionally, they spent significantly more time exploring CH than with CS (p = 0.01).;R81;4;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
888;The exploration durations rearing pigs spent at the material dispenser differed significantly between the offered plant-based enrichment materials (LME, factor material, F3 261 = 65.1, p < 0.0001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that rearing pigs spent significantly more time exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP), compared to chopped hay (CH) and chopped straw (CS) (for all four comparisons p < 0.001). Additionally, they spent significantly more time exploring CH than with CS (p = 0.01).;R81;4;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
888;The exploration durations rearing pigs spent at the material dispenser differed significantly between the offered plant-based enrichment materials (LME, factor material, F3 261 = 65.1, p < 0.0001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that rearing pigs spent significantly more time exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP), compared to chopped hay (CH) and chopped straw (CS) (for all four comparisons p < 0.001). Additionally, they spent significantly more time exploring CH than with CS (p = 0.01).;R81;4;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
888;The exploration durations rearing pigs spent at the material dispenser differed significantly between the offered plant-based enrichment materials (LME, factor material, F3 261 = 65.1, p < 0.0001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that rearing pigs spent significantly more time exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP), compared to chopped hay (CH) and chopped straw (CS) (for all four comparisons p < 0.001). Additionally, they spent significantly more time exploring CH than with CS (p = 0.01).;R81;4;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
888;The exploration durations rearing pigs spent at the material dispenser differed significantly between the offered plant-based enrichment materials (LME, factor material, F3 261 = 65.1, p < 0.0001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that rearing pigs spent significantly more time exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP), compared to chopped hay (CH) and chopped straw (CS) (for all four comparisons p < 0.001). Additionally, they spent significantly more time exploring CH than with CS (p = 0.01).;R81;4;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
888;The exploration durations rearing pigs spent at the material dispenser differed significantly between the offered plant-based enrichment materials (LME, factor material, F3 261 = 65.1, p < 0.0001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that rearing pigs spent significantly more time exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP), compared to chopped hay (CH) and chopped straw (CS) (for all four comparisons p < 0.001). Additionally, they spent significantly more time exploring CH than with CS (p = 0.01).;R81;4;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
889;"The different plant-based enrichment materials did not affect the Δ-tail length [changes in tail length while one type of enrichment material was offered], however, there was a tendency (GLMM, factor material, n = 378, χ2 3 = 7.5, p = 0.057; Fig. 3a). Category 0 [= no changes in tail length] was most frequently scored in 91.5% of the tails when SP [straw pellets] was offered. Whereby, after CS [chopped straw] was offered, the examination of the tails showed the most tail length losses (43.2% category 1 and 4.2% category 2).";R81;5;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
889;"The different plant-based enrichment materials did not affect the Δ-tail length [changes in tail length while one type of enrichment material was offered], however, there was a tendency (GLMM, factor material, n = 378, χ2 3 = 7.5, p = 0.057; Fig. 3a). Category 0 was most frequently scored in 91.5% of the tails when SP was offered. Whereby, after CS was offered, the examination of the tails showed the most tail length losses (43.2% category 1 and 4.2% category 2).";R81;5;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Abnormal behaviour;-0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
889;"The different plant-based enrichment materials did not affect the Δ-tail length [changes in tail length while one type of enrichment material was offered], however, there was a tendency (GLMM, factor material, n = 378, χ2 3 = 7.5, p = 0.057; Fig. 3a). Category 0 was most frequently scored in 91.5% of the tails when SP was offered. Whereby, after CS was offered, the examination of the tails showed the most tail length losses (43.2% category 1 and 4.2% category 2).";R81;5;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Pain;-0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
890;The severity of injuries at the tails were affected by the different plant-based enrichment materials (GLMM, factor material, n = 378, χ2 3 = 21.6, p < 0.0001, Fig. 4a). During the whole test, most of the scored tails had no injuries (category 0). After SP [straw pellets] was offered, 91.5% of the tails showed category 0 [no injuries]. The most injuries of category 3 (19.1%) were scored after LP [lucerne pellets] was offered.;R81;5;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
890;The severity of injuries at the tails were affected by the different plant-based enrichment materials (GLMM, factor material, n = 378, χ2 3 = 21.6, p < 0.0001, Fig. 4a). During the whole test, most of the scored tails had no injuries (category 0). After SP [straw pellets] was offered, 91.5% of the tails showed category 0 [no injuries]. The most injuries of category 3 (19.1%) were scored after LP [lucerne pellets] was offered.;R81;5;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
891;"The different plant-based enrichment materials affected the exploration duration of fattening pigs at the material dispenser (LME, factor material, F3 501 = 15.8, p < 0.0001, Fig. 5). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that pigs spent significant more time exploring at the material dispenser when CH [chopped hay] was offered, compared to CS [chopped straw] and SP [straw pellets] (both p < 0.05), but not between the other materials.
";R81;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
891;"The different plant-based enrichment materials affected the exploration duration of fattening pigs at the material dispenser (LME, factor material, F3 501 = 15.8, p < 0.0001, Fig. 5). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that pigs spent significant more time exploring at the material dispenser when CH [chopped hay] was offered, compared to CS [chopped straw] and SP [straw pellets] (both p < 0.05), but not between the other materials.
";R81;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
891;"The different plant-based enrichment materials affected the exploration duration of fattening pigs at the material dispenser (LME, factor material, F3 501 = 15.8, p < 0.0001, Fig. 5). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that pigs spent significant more time exploring at the material dispenser when CH [chopped hay] was offered, compared to CS [chopped straw] and SP [straw pellets] (both p < 0.05), but not between the other materials.
";R81;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;saw dust OR sand OR wood shavings OR compost;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw OR pellets;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;chopped straw ;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;saw dust OR sand OR wood shavings OR compost;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
892;The relative duration of the time the pigs spent exploring the different chambers of the experimental trough differed between the respective enrichment materials (Friedman test, n = 55, Chi2 = 113.7, df = 5, P<0.001, Fig. 2a). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the animals spent significantly longer durations exploring lucerne pellets (LP) and straw pellets (SP) compared to the other three enrichment materials (i.e., chopped hay, chopped straw and lignocellulose) offered (see Fig. 2a). The shortest explored option was the control (i.e., the empty chamber).;R82;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs ;Enrichment;enrichment material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
893;"These curtains provide enclosed shelter, which is a main criterion for acceptance of nests by laying hens (Appleby and Smith, 1991; Kruschwitz et al., 2008; Zupan et al., 2008; Buchwalder and Frohlich, 2011).";R83;554;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest curtains;no curtain;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
894;"A further reason for inconsistency in nest choice could be that laying hens are gregarious in egg laying and choose to lay their eggs in the company of other hens rather than alone (Appleby et al., 1984; Lundberg and Keeling, 1999).";R83;558;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;enclosed (individual) box;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
894;"A further reason for inconsistency in nest choice could be that laying hens are gregarious in egg laying and choose to lay their eggs in the company of other hens rather than alone (Appleby et al., 1984; Lundberg and Keeling, 1999).";R83;558;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Type of nestsite;group nest;Preferences;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
895;Sherwin and Nicol (1993) and Reed and Nicol (1992) found a positive correlation between the number of nest visits and the number of eggs found in the nest and concluded that more nest visits are directed to preferred nests. It was therefore assumed that the SL-nests [sliced] were slightly preferred over the OPnests.[one piece];R83;559;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest curtains;sliced curtains;Preferences;0,50;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
895;Sherwin and Nicol (1993) and Reed and Nicol (1992) found a positive correlation between the number of nest visits and the number of eggs found in the nest and concluded that more nest visits are directed to preferred nests. It was therefore assumed that the SL-nests [sliced] were slightly preferred over the OPnests.[one piece];R83;559;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest curtains;one-piece curtain;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
896;Opportunities to exit (and enter) the nest are spatially limited to the central entrance, although a few hens left (or entered) the nest by slipping under the OP curtains. [one piece] The results for nest exits through the SL-curtains [sliced]  support this suggestion, as the hens appeared to appreciate the opportunity to leave the nest through the curtains.;R83;559;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest curtains;sliced curtains;Preferences;0,50;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
896;Opportunities to exit (and enter) the nest are spatially limited to the central entrance, although a few hens left (or entered) the nest by slipping under the OP curtains. [one piece] The results for nest exits through the SL-curtains [sliced]  support this suggestion, as the hens appeared to appreciate the opportunity to leave the nest through the curtains.;R83;559;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest curtains;one-piece curtain;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
903;"Other studies showed that littered nests are very attractive to laying hens (Kite and Duncan, 1987; Duncan and Kite, 1989; Appleby et al., 1988, 2004).";R86;108;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;no material;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
904;Struelens et al. (2005) found that hens preferred peat and artificial turf to coated wire mesh for egg laying;R86;108;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;astroturf OR peat OR woodshavings;Preferences;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
904;Struelens et al. (2005) found that hens preferred peat and artificial turf to coated wire mesh for egg laying;R86;108;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;astroturf OR peat OR woodshavings;Preferences;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
904;Struelens et al. (2005) found that hens preferred peat and artificial turf to coated wire mesh for egg laying;R86;108;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;no material;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
905;"In the absence of flaps, hens sat less and showed less nest-building behaviour (scratching) and stood and moved more than in the presence of flaps. These findings are comparable with previous observations of hens without nest sites or with nest sites of various degrees of suitability. Situations without nests or with less attractive nests resulted in prolonged locomotor behaviour, less nest-building and less sitting prior to oviposition suggesting more restlessness during the prelaying period (Wood-Gush and Gilbert, 1969; Meijsser and Hughes, 1989; Sherwin and Nicol, 1993).";R86;115;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest curtains;sliced curtains;Preferences;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
905;"In the absence of flaps, hens sat less and showed less nest-building behaviour (scratching) and stood and moved more than in the presence of flaps. These findings are comparable with previous observations of hens without nest sites or with nest sites of various degrees of suitability. Situations without nests or with less attractive nests resulted in prolonged locomotor behaviour, less nest-building and less sitting prior to oviposition suggesting more restlessness during the prelaying period (Wood-Gush and Gilbert, 1969; Meijsser and Hughes, 1989; Sherwin and Nicol, 1993).";R86;115;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest curtains;no curtain;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
906;Also the finding that more pecks were received and performed in the absence of flaps suggests the opposite. A plausible explanation is that the more restless behaviour in the absence of flaps leads to more confrontations between the hens resulting in more pecking at cage mates. We conclude therefore that the provision of nest boxes with non-transparent flaps seem to have a beneficial influence on pre-laying behaviour.;R86;115;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest curtains;sliced curtains;Preferences;0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
906;Also the finding that more pecks were received and performed in the absence of flaps suggests the opposite. A plausible explanation is that the more restless behaviour in the absence of flaps leads to more confrontations between the hens resulting in more pecking at cage mates. We conclude therefore that the provision of nest boxes with non-transparent flaps seem to have a beneficial influence on pre-laying behaviour.;R86;115;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest curtains;no curtain;Aggression;-1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
907;Major differences were found between the pre-laying behaviour on peat and artificial turf compared to the pre-laying behaviour on coated wire mesh. On coated wire mesh, nest visits were of a shorter mean duration, hens performed more standing and moving behaviour and less sitting behaviour, and performed less object pecking;R86;115;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;astroturf OR peat OR woodshavings;Preferences;0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
907;Major differences were found between the pre-laying behaviour on peat and artificial turf compared to the pre-laying behaviour on coated wire mesh. On coated wire mesh, nest visits were of a shorter mean duration, hens performed more standing and moving behaviour and less sitting behaviour, and performed less object pecking;R86;115;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;astroturf OR peat OR woodshavings;Preferences;0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
907;Major differences were found between the pre-laying behaviour on peat and artificial turf compared to the pre-laying behaviour on coated wire mesh. On coated wire mesh, nest visits were of a shorter mean duration, hens performed more standing and moving behaviour and less sitting behaviour, and performed less object pecking;R86;115;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;no material;Frustration and avoidance;-3,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
914;Nipple drinkers to provide cleaner water, reduce water spillage and labour for drinker cleaning has replaced the conventional open water system. ;R89;1;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Water;Type of drinker;nipple drinker;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
914;Nipple drinkers to provide cleaner water, reduce water spillage and labour for drinker cleaning has replaced the conventional open water system. ;R89;1;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Fitness;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
914;Nipple drinkers to provide cleaner water, reduce water spillage and labour for drinker cleaning has replaced the conventional open water system. ;R89;1;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Water;Type of drinker;nipple drinker;Preferences;0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
914;Nipple drinkers to provide cleaner water, reduce water spillage and labour for drinker cleaning has replaced the conventional open water system. ;R89;1;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Fitness;-1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
915;May et al. [25], observed that chicken consumed more water when reared with conventional open water system in an experiment that compared the conventional open water system to nipple drinking;R89;1;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Water;Type of drinker;nipple drinker;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
915;May et al. [25], observed that chicken consumed more water when reared with conventional open water system in an experiment that compared the conventional open water system to nipple drinking;R89;1;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Natural behaviour;1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
915;May et al. [25], observed that chicken consumed more water when reared with conventional open water system in an experiment that compared the conventional open water system to nipple drinking;R89;1;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Water;Type of drinker;bell drinker;Preferences;1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
771;The usable space (above the floor and tiers) should be high enough for the bird to perform all natural behaviours including wing flapping and therefore should be more than 55 cm for layers or 77 cm for breeding birds.Therefore, it is considered that a vertical distance between perches and between the highest perches and the ceiling is the same as the one requested above the usable area.;R66;88;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Natural behaviour;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
919;Based on three studies, EFSA AHAW Panel (2015) recommended that the perch height should be at least 60 cm above the ground in non-cage systems.;R66;95;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;>=60-<=80cm;Preferences;0,50;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
600;as distances between perches increase beyond approximately 75cm-80cm vertically, horizontally or diagonally, or as angles increase beyond 45 ° (measured at the horizontal plane), the risk of bad landing is increase;R23;40;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;not used [between perches];Fitness;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
600;as distances between perches increase beyond approximately 75cm-80cm vertically, horizontally or diagonally, or as angles increase beyond 45 ° (measured at the horizontal plane), the risk of bad landing is increase;R23;40;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;not used [between perches];Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
164;The distance between the perch and the cage roof, tier roof or building ceiling should be more than 20 cm.;R23;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;restricted;Preferences;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
164;The distance between the perch and the cage roof, tier roof or building ceiling should be more than 20 cm.;R23;55;Poultry;Laying hens ;Rest;Perch height;restricted;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
921;"For dustbathing, laying hens prefer material of a fine structure such as sand or peat compared to material with larger particle sizes such as straw or wood shavings (Petherick and Duncan, 1989; van Liere et al., 1990; Sanotra et al., 1995; Gunnarsson et al., 2000a; Shields et al., 2004; Alvino et al., 2013; Monckton et al., 2020).";R66;96;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
921;"For dustbathing, laying hens prefer material of a fine structure such as sand or peat compared to material with larger particle sizes such as straw or wood shavings (Petherick and Duncan, 1989; van Liere et al., 1990; Sanotra et al., 1995; Gunnarsson et al., 2000a; Shields et al., 2004; Alvino et al., 2013; Monckton et al., 2020).";R66;96;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;sand;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
921;"For dustbathing, laying hens prefer material of a fine structure such as sand or peat compared to material with larger particle sizes such as straw or wood shavings (Petherick and Duncan, 1989; van Liere et al., 1990; Sanotra et al., 1995; Gunnarsson et al., 2000a; Shields et al., 2004; Alvino et al., 2013; Monckton et al., 2020).";R66;96;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
921;"For dustbathing, laying hens prefer material of a fine structure such as sand or peat compared to material with larger particle sizes such as straw or wood shavings (Petherick and Duncan, 1989; van Liere et al., 1990; Sanotra et al., 1995; Gunnarsson et al., 2000a; Shields et al., 2004; Alvino et al., 2013; Monckton et al., 2020).";R66;96;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
921;"For dustbathing, laying hens prefer material of a fine structure such as sand or peat compared to material with larger particle sizes such as straw or wood shavings (Petherick and Duncan, 1989; van Liere et al., 1990; Sanotra et al., 1995; Gunnarsson et al., 2000a; Shields et al., 2004; Alvino et al., 2013; Monckton et al., 2020).";R66;96;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;peat moss;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
921;"For dustbathing, laying hens prefer material of a fine structure such as sand or peat compared to material with larger particle sizes such as straw or wood shavings (Petherick and Duncan, 1989; van Liere et al., 1990; Sanotra et al., 1995; Gunnarsson et al., 2000a; Shields et al., 2004; Alvino et al., 2013; Monckton et al., 2020).";R66;96;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Dust bathing material;wood shavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
922;"Regarding foraging behaviour, laying hens prefer litter that contains palatable particles over litter that does not contain nutritive ingredients (Scholz et al., 2010; Guinebreti`ere et al., 2014).
";R66;96;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Preferences;1,00;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
922;"Regarding foraging behaviour, laying hens prefer litter that contains palatable particles over litter that does not contain nutritive ingredients (Scholz et al., 2010; Guinebreti`ere et al., 2014).
";R66;96;Poultry;Laying hens ;Enrichment;Foraging material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
923;Scatter feed items (such as grains or mealworms) can be an effective form of enrichment, as they encourage the birds to perform natural foraging behaviours (Pichova et al. (2016) and Wood et al. (2021), in broilers);R66;97;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Enrichment;Foraging material;maize/pea-barley silage OR carrots OR alfa alfa bales OR feathers OR wood shavings OR grain in litter OR short straw OR suet holder with forage ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
923;Scatter feed items (such as grains or mealworms) can be an effective form of enrichment, as they encourage the birds to perform natural foraging behaviours (Pichova et al. (2016) and Wood et al. (2021), in broilers);R66;97;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Enrichment;Foraging material;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
924;"Complex environment can also be achieved thanks to elevated surfaces, outdoor area, veranda, cover panels and dark brooders [A complex environment increases the birds’ opportunities to choose among resources and stimulates locomotion (review in Est´evez and Newberry, 2017; Campbell et al., 2019) with profound and long-lasting benefits for the welfare and stress adaptation of chickens]";R66;97;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Enrichment;Partial covers/visual separation;available;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
924;"Complex environment can also be achieved thanks to elevated surfaces, outdoor area, veranda, cover panels and dark brooders [A complex environment increases the birds’ opportunities to choose among resources and stimulates locomotion (review in Est´evez and Newberry, 2017; Campbell et al., 2019) with profound and long-lasting benefits for the welfare and stress adaptation of chickens]";R66;97;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Enrichment;Availability winter garten;available;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
924;"Complex environment can also be achieved thanks to elevated surfaces, outdoor area, veranda, cover panels and dark brooders [A complex environment increases the birds’ opportunities to choose among resources and stimulates locomotion (review in Est´evez and Newberry, 2017; Campbell et al., 2019) with profound and long-lasting benefits for the welfare and stress adaptation of chickens]";R66;97;Poultry;Laying hens, Broilers;Enrichment;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
928;"Flooring: Hens prefer a soft nest floor substrate which they can mould with their body and feet and which allows nest-building behaviour (Duncan and Kite, 1989), such as straw, which is more suitable than plastic floor, synthetic grass or wire mesh (Huber et al., 1985; Struelens et al., 2005; Struelens et al., 2008b).";R66;98;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;straw;Natural behaviour;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
928;"Flooring: Hens prefer a soft nest floor substrate which they can mould with their body and feet and which allows nest-building behaviour (Duncan and Kite, 1989), such as straw, which is more suitable than plastic floor, synthetic grass or wire mesh (Huber et al., 1985; Struelens et al., 2005; Struelens et al., 2008b).";R66;98;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;no material;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
928;"Flooring: Hens prefer a soft nest floor substrate which they can mould with their body and feet and which allows nest-building behaviour (Duncan and Kite, 1989), such as straw, which is more suitable than plastic floor, synthetic grass or wire mesh (Huber et al., 1985; Struelens et al., 2005; Struelens et al., 2008b).";R66;98;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;astroturf OR peat OR woodshavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
928;"Flooring: Hens prefer a soft nest floor substrate which they can mould with their body and feet and which allows nest-building behaviour (Duncan and Kite, 1989), such as straw, which is more suitable than plastic floor, synthetic grass or wire mesh (Huber et al., 1985; Struelens et al., 2005; Struelens et al., 2008b).";R66;98;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;no material;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
929;In a study including only organic substrates as nesting material, straw was preferred compared to wood-shavings and peat (Clausen and Riber, 2012).;R66;98;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;straw;Preferences;1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
929;In a study including only organic substrates as nesting material, straw was preferred compared to wood-shavings and peat (Clausen and Riber, 2012).;R66;98;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;astroturf OR peat OR woodshavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
929;In a study including only organic substrates as nesting material, straw was preferred compared to wood-shavings and peat (Clausen and Riber, 2012).;R66;98;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nesting material/flooring;astroturf OR peat OR woodshavings;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
931;This [mislaid eggs] indicates that grids are better to enable access to nests compared to perches as used in the study (Stampfli et al., 2013);R66;99;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest access;perches;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
932;In multi-tier systems, it is recommended platforms in front of the nests should be more than 30 cm in width (Lentfer et al., 2011).;R66;99;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest access;grids > 30 cm wide;Preferences;0,50;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
932;In multi-tier systems, it is recommended platforms in front of the nests should be more than 30 cm in width (Lentfer et al., 2011).;R66;99;Poultry;Laying hens ;Nesting;Nest access;grids <= 30 cm wide;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Nesting ;;;;;;;;;
933;[However, water intake is known to peak 2–3 h prior to lights-off (Xin et al. 2002) and drinking is synchronised (i.e. seeing other hens drink makes a hen more likely to drink herself, at least in small groups (Hoppitt and Laland, 2008)). This means that more drinkers are required for hens to enable them to drink freely.] In line with this, the practice on the field (implementing the current Council Directive (EC, 1999/74/EC)) sets a minimum of 1 drinking nipple per 10 hens in non-cage systems (or 2.5 cm of linear water through space, or 1 cm of circular water through space per animal).;R66;99;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Space at drinker;10 animals : 1 nipple [nipple drinker] OR 1 animal:2.5 cm of linear water through space [bell drinker];Preferences;0,50;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
933;[However, water intake is known to peak 2–3 h prior to lights-off (Xin et al. 2002) and drinking is synchronised (i.e. seeing other hens drink makes a hen more likely to drink herself, at least in small groups (Hoppitt and Laland, 2008)). This means that more drinkers are required for hens to enable them to drink freely.] In line with this, the practice on the field (implementing the current Council Directive (EC, 1999/74/EC)) sets a minimum of 1 drinking nipple per 10 hens in non-cage systems (or 2.5 cm of linear water through space, or 1 cm of circular water through space per animal).;R66;99;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Space at drinker;>10 animals : 1 nipple [nipple drinker] OR >1 animal:2.5 cm of linear water through space [bell drinker];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
933;[However, water intake is known to peak 2–3 h prior to lights-off (Xin et al. 2002) and drinking is synchronised (i.e. seeing other hens drink makes a hen more likely to drink herself, at least in small groups (Hoppitt and Laland, 2008)). This means that more drinkers are required for hens to enable them to drink freely.] In line with this, the practice on the field (implementing the current Council Directive (EC, 1999/74/EC)) sets a minimum of 1 drinking nipple per 10 hens in non-cage systems (or 2.5 cm of linear water through space, or 1 cm of circular water through space per animal).;R66;99;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Space at drinker;10 animals : 1 nipple [nipple drinker] OR 1 animal:2.5 cm of linear water through space [bell drinker];Preferences;0,50;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
933;[However, water intake is known to peak 2–3 h prior to lights-off (Xin et al. 2002) and drinking is synchronised (i.e. seeing other hens drink makes a hen more likely to drink herself, at least in small groups (Hoppitt and Laland, 2008)). This means that more drinkers are required for hens to enable them to drink freely.] In line with this, the practice on the field (implementing the current Council Directive (EC, 1999/74/EC)) sets a minimum of 1 drinking nipple per 10 hens in non-cage systems (or 2.5 cm of linear water through space, or 1 cm of circular water through space per animal).;R66;99;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Space at drinker;>10 animals : 1 nipple [nipple drinker] OR >1 animal:2.5 cm of linear water through space [bell drinker];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
933;[However, water intake is known to peak 2–3 h prior to lights-off (Xin et al. 2002) and drinking is synchronised (i.e. seeing other hens drink makes a hen more likely to drink herself, at least in small groups (Hoppitt and Laland, 2008)). This means that more drinkers are required for hens to enable them to drink freely.] In line with this, the practice on the field (implementing the current Council Directive (EC, 1999/74/EC)) sets a minimum of 1 drinking nipple per 10 hens in non-cage systems (or 2.5 cm of linear water through space, or 1 cm of circular water through space per animal).;R66;99;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Space at drinker;10 animals : 1 nipple [nipple drinker] OR 1 animal:2.5 cm of linear water through space [bell drinker];Preferences;0,50;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
933;[However, water intake is known to peak 2–3 h prior to lights-off (Xin et al. 2002) and drinking is synchronised (i.e. seeing other hens drink makes a hen more likely to drink herself, at least in small groups (Hoppitt and Laland, 2008)). This means that more drinkers are required for hens to enable them to drink freely.] In line with this, the practice on the field (implementing the current Council Directive (EC, 1999/74/EC)) sets a minimum of 1 drinking nipple per 10 hens in non-cage systems (or 2.5 cm of linear water through space, or 1 cm of circular water through space per animal).;R66;99;Poultry;Laying hens ;Water;Space at drinker;>10 animals : 1 nipple [nipple drinker] OR >1 animal:2.5 cm of linear water through space [bell drinker];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
937;The absence of access to an outdoor area mainly contributes to the welfare consequence ‘inability to perform comfort behaviour’, ‘inability to perform foraging and exploratory behaviour’, ‘group stress’ and ‘soft tissue and integument damage’.;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
937;The absence of access to an outdoor area mainly contributes to the welfare consequence ‘inability to perform comfort behaviour’, ‘inability to perform foraging and exploratory behaviour’, ‘group stress’ and ‘soft tissue and integument damage’.;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
937;The absence of access to an outdoor area mainly contributes to the welfare consequence ‘inability to perform comfort behaviour’, ‘inability to perform foraging and exploratory behaviour’, ‘group stress’ and ‘soft tissue and integument damage’.;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration, Body care;;;;;;;;;
937;The absence of access to an outdoor area mainly contributes to the welfare consequence ‘inability to perform comfort behaviour’, ‘inability to perform foraging and exploratory behaviour’, ‘group stress’ and ‘soft tissue and integument damage’.;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Body care;;;;;;;;;
937;The absence of access to an outdoor area mainly contributes to the welfare consequence ‘inability to perform comfort behaviour’, ‘inability to perform foraging and exploratory behaviour’, ‘group stress’ and ‘soft tissue and integument damage’.;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
937;The absence of access to an outdoor area mainly contributes to the welfare consequence ‘inability to perform comfort behaviour’, ‘inability to perform foraging and exploratory behaviour’, ‘group stress’ and ‘soft tissue and integument damage’.;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
937;The absence of access to an outdoor area mainly contributes to the welfare consequence ‘inability to perform comfort behaviour’, ‘inability to perform foraging and exploratory behaviour’, ‘group stress’ and ‘soft tissue and integument damage’.;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
937;The absence of access to an outdoor area mainly contributes to the welfare consequence ‘inability to perform comfort behaviour’, ‘inability to perform foraging and exploratory behaviour’, ‘group stress’ and ‘soft tissue and integument damage’.;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;HPA;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
938;More specifically, the outdoor range forms a preferred environment for foraging and dustbathing (Campbell et al., 2017a) and increases comfort behaviour while decreasing agonistic behaviour (Sokołowicz et al., 2020).;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
938;More specifically, the outdoor range forms a preferred environment for foraging and dustbathing (Campbell et al., 2017a) and increases comfort behaviour while decreasing agonistic behaviour (Sokołowicz et al., 2020).;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
938;More specifically, the outdoor range forms a preferred environment for foraging and dustbathing (Campbell et al., 2017a) and increases comfort behaviour while decreasing agonistic behaviour (Sokołowicz et al., 2020).;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
938;More specifically, the outdoor range forms a preferred environment for foraging and dustbathing (Campbell et al., 2017a) and increases comfort behaviour while decreasing agonistic behaviour (Sokołowicz et al., 2020).;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
938;More specifically, the outdoor range forms a preferred environment for foraging and dustbathing (Campbell et al., 2017a) and increases comfort behaviour while decreasing agonistic behaviour (Sokołowicz et al., 2020).;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
938;More specifically, the outdoor range forms a preferred environment for foraging and dustbathing (Campbell et al., 2017a) and increases comfort behaviour while decreasing agonistic behaviour (Sokołowicz et al., 2020).;R66;103;Poultry;Laying hens ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
939;Although systematic studies are on the extents of its benefits are currently lacking, access to a covered veranda of 20% of the floor area (not included in the usable area) will benefit the welfare of pullets, laying hens and layers breeders. It provides choice for different light and temperature conditions and provides more opportunities to perform natural behaviour as compared to indoor housing only.;R66;104;Poultry;Rearing chicks ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
939;Although systematic studies are on the extents of its benefits are currently lacking, access to a covered veranda of 20% of the floor area (not included in the usable area) will benefit the welfare of pullets, laying hens and layers breeders. It provides choice for different light and temperature conditions and provides more opportunities to perform natural behaviour as compared to indoor housing only.;R66;104;Poultry;Rearing chicks ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;available;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
939;Although systematic studies are on the extents of its benefits are currently lacking, access to a covered veranda of 20% of the floor area (not included in the usable area) will benefit the welfare of pullets, laying hens and layers breeders. It provides choice for different light and temperature conditions and provides more opportunities to perform natural behaviour as compared to indoor housing only.;R66;104;Poultry;Rearing chicks ;Outdoor;Availability outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
940;Through manure and litter handling the amount of droppings and the length of time they remain on the belts and the litter could be manipulated. This in uenced output of both sources of ammonia, which changed continuously because of degra- dation and volatilisation processes;R90;391;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Manure belts;available;Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
941;"Frequent removal of laying hen manure from the houses, via manure belt, greatly improves indoor air quality (i.e., lowering NH3 and dust levels) and reduces house-level air emissions (Grood Koerkamp et al., 1995; Liang et al., 2005)";R113;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Manure belts;available;Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
942;Layer houses with manure belt have been shown to emit less than 10% ofNH3 released from the high-rise houses (Liang et al., 2005).;R113;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Manure belts;available;Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
940;Through manure and litter handling the amount of droppings and the length of time they remain on the belts and the litter could be manipulated. This in uenced output of both sources of ammonia, which changed continuously because of degra- dation and volatilisation processes;R90;391;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Manure belts;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
941;"Frequent removal of laying hen manure from the houses, via manure belt, greatly improves indoor air quality (i.e., lowering NH3 and dust levels) and reduces house-level air emissions (Grood Koerkamp et al., 1995; Liang et al., 2005)";R113;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Manure belts;not available;Fitness;-2,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
942;Layer houses with manure belt have been shown to emit less than 10% ofNH3 released from the high-rise houses (Liang et al., 2005).;R113;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Barn construction;Manure belts;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
943;Using the results obtained from the behavioural model, experts concluded that a maximum stocking density of 3.9 birds/m2 (median value during day light) allows full and unconstrained expression of selected behaviours (90% certainty range from 3.5 to 4.5 birds/m2).;R66;93;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;>=1550-<3000 cm2/hen;Natural behaviour;0,50;Exploration, Body care;;;;;;;;;
943;Using the results obtained from the behavioural model, experts concluded that a maximum stocking density of 3.9 birds/m2 (median value during day light) allows full and unconstrained expression of selected behaviours (90% certainty range from 3.5 to 4.5 birds/m2).;R66;93;Poultry;Laying hens ;Space;Space per hen;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Body care;;;;;;;;;
945;Hens spent less time feeding under all intensities of UVA light and showed more foraging, ground pecking, and preening at lower levels of UVA/B light.;R66;100;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Safety;;;;;;;;;
404;Other general positive effects related to provision of UVA, such as reduced fearfulness in broilers [32] and in layers [12,13,33] have been found;R30;12;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Preferences;0,01;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
393;Basal corticosterone levels are higher in chicks reared in a UV-deficient environment than in chicks supplied with UV [12] and layers provided with additional UV have lower stress and fear levels [13].;R30;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;not available;HPA;-1,00;Safety ;;;;;;;;;
946;Indeed, Bestman et al. (2019) confirmed that a larger amount of daylight inside the house was related to a higher range use and a better plumage cover in free range hens. ;R66;101;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Safety;;;;;;;;;
394;However, while turkeys show reduced levels of injurious pecking under UV light [14], brown layers under commercial conditions have been found to have more skin injuries and plumage damage when housed with additional UV light [15].;R30;2;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;not available;Pain;-1,00;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
947;Also for keel bone damage, the absence of daylight was identified as a risk factor in organic laying hen flocks (Jung et al., 2019).;R66;101;Poultry;Laying hens ;Light;Additional UVA/B [artificial] light;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Safety;;;;;;;;;
948;"Two other studies reported that cows prefer drinking from a trough
compared to either an open stream (Sheffield et al., 1997) or a water bowl (Kocsis and
Mikecz, 1986)
";R91;186;Cattle;Cattle ;Water;type of drinker ;water troughs ;Preferences;1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
948;"Two other studies reported that cows prefer drinking from a trough
compared to either an open stream (Sheffield et al., 1997) or a water bowl (Kocsis and
Mikecz, 1986)
";R91;186;Cattle;Cattle ;Water;type of drinker ;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
948;"Two other studies reported that cows prefer drinking from a trough
compared to either an open stream (Sheffield et al., 1997) or a water bowl (Kocsis and
Mikecz, 1986)
";R91;186;Cattle;Cattle ;Water;type of drinker ;water troughs ;Preferences;1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
948;"Two other studies reported that cows prefer drinking from a trough
compared to either an open stream (Sheffield et al., 1997) or a water bowl (Kocsis and
Mikecz, 1986)
";R91;186;Cattle;Cattle ;Water;type of drinker ;drinking bowls;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
950;"Automatic manure scrapers are standard equipment in dairy cow loose-housing systems with solid floors. Introduced to reduce labour input, they also help to decrease ammonia emissions (Braam et al., 1997).
";R92;130;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Other;manure scraper;automatic scraper OR  V-blade scraper ;Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
950;"Automatic manure scrapers are standard equipment in dairy cow loose-housing systems with solid floors. Introduced to reduce labour input, they also help to decrease ammonia emissions (Braam et al., 1997).
";R92;130;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Other;manure scraper;autmatic straight blade scraper OR no automatic scraper (manuell) ;Illness;-1,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
951;"Johansson and Sällvik (2001) investigated the influence of different types of manure scrapers on the behaviour of dairy cows, and found that there were fewer behavioural disturbances (e.g. movement away from the scraper, slipping) when cows were faced with a low V-blade scraper as opposed to a higher straight-blade scraper.
";R92;130;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Other;manure scraper;automatic scraper OR  V-blade scraper ;Preferences;0,01;Safety, Movement;;;;;;;;;
951;"Johansson and Sällvik (2001) investigated the influence of different types of manure scrapers on the behaviour of dairy cows, and found that there were fewer behavioural disturbances (e.g. movement away from the scraper, slipping) when cows were faced with a low V-blade scraper as opposed to a higher straight-blade scraper.
";R92;130;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Other;manure scraper;autmatic straight blade scraper OR no automatic scraper (manuell) ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Safety, Movement;;;;;;;;;
951;"Johansson and Sällvik (2001) investigated the influence of different types of manure scrapers on the behaviour of dairy cows, and found that there were fewer behavioural disturbances (e.g. movement away from the scraper, slipping) when cows were faced with a low V-blade scraper as opposed to a higher straight-blade scraper.
";R92;130;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Other;manure scraper;automatic scraper OR  V-blade scraper ;Preferences;0,01;Safety, Movement;;;;;;;;;
951;"Johansson and Sällvik (2001) investigated the influence of different types of manure scrapers on the behaviour of dairy cows, and found that there were fewer behavioural disturbances (e.g. movement away from the scraper, slipping) when cows were faced with a low V-blade scraper as opposed to a higher straight-blade scraper.
";R92;130;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Other;manure scraper;autmatic straight blade scraper OR no automatic scraper (manuell) ;Pain;-1,00;Safety, Movement;;;;;;;;;
952;"Seeking a secluded place to give birth is another important behavior in domestic dairy cattle
";R93;7110;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);available ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
952;"Seeking a secluded place to give birth is another important behavior in domestic dairy cattle
";R93;7110;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);not available ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
953;"The preference for seeking a secluded place to give birth has also been seen in indoor-housed cows kept in individual (Proudfoot et al., 2014a) and group (Rørvang et al., 2018a) maternity pens when provided man-made shelters
";R93;7110;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);available ;Preferences;1,00;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
953;"The preference for seeking a secluded place to give birth has also been seen in indoor-housed cows kept in individual (Proudfoot et al., 2014a) and group (Rørvang et al., 2018a) maternity pens when provided man-made shelters
";R93;7110;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);not available ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
956;"Females in a late stage of pregnancy also show clear signs of having specific needs at this time. Dairy cows try to separate at calving and it might be regarded as a need, because when they are calving in a group pen there may be disturbance from the other cows in the group.
";R24;22;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;calving pen;group pen;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
956;"Females in a late stage of pregnancy also show clear signs of having specific needs at this time. Dairy cows try to separate at calving and it might be regarded as a need, because when they are calving in a group pen there may be disturbance from the other cows in the group.
";R24;22;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;calving pen;individual pen;Preferences;0,01;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
957;"A negative effect of
using a group-calving pen may be that because cows at the beginning of calving are very restless they may disturb other cows with newly born calves (Jensen and Röntved, 2006). Also, cows which are calving may be disturbed and the negative effect could be a prolonged calving.

";R24;133;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;calving pen;group pen;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
957;"A negative effect of
using a group-calving pen may be that because cows at the beginning of calving are very restless they may disturb other cows with newly born calves (Jensen and Röntved, 2006). Also, cows which are calving may be disturbed and the negative effect could be a prolonged calving.

";R24;133;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;calving pen;individual pen;Preferences;0,01;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
957;"A negative effect of
using a group-calving pen may be that because cows at the beginning of calving are very restless they may disturb other cows with newly born calves (Jensen and Röntved, 2006). Also, cows which are calving may be disturbed and the negative effect could be a prolonged calving.

";R24;133;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;calving pen;group pen;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
957;"A negative effect of
using a group-calving pen may be that because cows at the beginning of calving are very restless they may disturb other cows with newly born calves (Jensen and Röntved, 2006). Also, cows which are calving may be disturbed and the negative effect could be a prolonged calving.

";R24;133;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;calving pen;individual pen;Preferences;0,01;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
958;"At a cow:brush ratio of 12:1, DeVries et al. (2007) observed an average of 0.12+- 0.39 displacements from the brush per cow per day.
";R53;71;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;cow-brush-ratio;>=12:1;Aggression;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
958;"At a cow:brush ratio of 12:1, DeVries et al. (2007) observed an average of 0.12+- 0.39 displacements from the brush per cow per day.
";R53;71;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;cow-brush-ratio;<12:01;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
959;"In a study by Val-Laillet et al. (2008) using the same cow:brush ratio
(12:1), the frequency of displacements at the brush was six times higher compared with displacements at the feeding place when adjusted for time of use (Val-Laillet et al., 2008). Under commercial conditions there are typically more than 12 cows per brush.
";R53;71;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;cow-brush-ratio;>=12:1;Aggression;-2,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
959;"In a study by Val-Laillet et al. (2008) using the same cow:brush ratio
(12:1), the frequency of displacements at the brush was six times higher compared with displacements at the feeding place when adjusted for time of use (Val-Laillet et al., 2008). Under commercial conditions there are typically more than 12 cows per brush.
";R53;71;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Enrichment;cow-brush-ratio;<12:01;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
960;Results indicate that increasing space allowance at the feeder (0.5 m -> 1.0 m) increases feeding activity and reduces competition among lactating dairy cows.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
960;Results indicate that increasing space allowance at the feeder (0.5 m -> 1.0 m) increases feeding activity and reduces competition among lactating dairy cows.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;>=1m/cow ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
960;Results indicate that increasing space allowance at the feeder (0.5 m -> 1.0 m) increases feeding activity and reduces competition among lactating dairy cows.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
960;Results indicate that increasing space allowance at the feeder (0.5 m -> 1.0 m) increases feeding activity and reduces competition among lactating dairy cows.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;>=1m/cow ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
961;The frequency with which cows were displaced from the feed bunk was significantly reduced when they were given 0.92m of feed bunk space/cow compared with when they were given 0.64 m of feed bunk space/cow. ;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;< 1m/cow - 0,7m/cow ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
961;The frequency with which cows were displaced from the feed bunk was significantly reduced when they were given 0.92m of feed bunk space/cow compared with when they were given 0.64 m of feed bunk space/cow. ;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
962;Winckler (2000) reports that a reduction in manger space allowance from 70 to 40 cm per animal resulted in increased butting and displacement during feeding.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;< 1m/cow - 0,7m/cow ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
962;Winckler (2000) reports that a reduction in manger space allowance from 70 to 40 cm per animal resulted in increased butting and displacement during feeding.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
962;Winckler (2000) reports that a reduction in manger space allowance from 70 to 40 cm per animal resulted in increased butting and displacement during feeding.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;< 1m/cow - 0,7m/cow ;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
962;Winckler (2000) reports that a reduction in manger space allowance from 70 to 40 cm per animal resulted in increased butting and displacement during feeding.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;space per cow at the feeder;<0,7m/cow ;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
963;"Zeeb et al. (1988) found a higher incidence of displacement from the feeding area in groups of cows with less than one feeding place per cow (feeding place/animal relation <1:1) than in groups with more than one feeding space per cow (feeding place/animal
";R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;>1:1-<2:1;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
963;"Zeeb et al. (1988) found a higher incidence of displacement from the feeding area in groups of cows with less than one feeding place per cow (feeding place/animal relation <1:1) than in groups with more than one feeding space per cow (feeding place/animal
";R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Feed;Animal:feeding place ratio;<=1:1;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
965;The only way to be certain in all situations that cows have access to sufficient amounts of water is to have one water bowl per cow.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;animal drinker place ratio (water bowl);01:01;Demand;1,00;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
965;The only way to be certain in all situations that cows have access to sufficient amounts of water is to have one water bowl per cow.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Water;animal drinker place ratio (water bowl);>1:1 - < 07:01;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Water intake ;;;;;;;;;
966;While on pasture, especially during hot weather, cattle frequent water areas, often wading into a stream or pond for cooling and relief from insects.;R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;cooling options;not used;Preferences;2,00;Thermoregulation, Body care;;;;;;;;;
966;While on pasture, especially during hot weather, cattle frequent water areas, often wading into a stream or pond for cooling and relief from insects.;R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;cooling options;not used;Preferences;2,00;Thermoregulation, Body care;;;;;;;;;
966;While on pasture, especially during hot weather, cattle frequent water areas, often wading into a stream or pond for cooling and relief from insects.;R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;cooling options;not used;Preferences;2,00;Thermoregulation, Body care;;;;;;;;;
966;While on pasture, especially during hot weather, cattle frequent water areas, often wading into a stream or pond for cooling and relief from insects.;R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;cooling options;not used;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
968;Narrow passageways in a cubicle house can cause problems, for example Konggaard (1983) saw more contact, yielding, turning and waiting if passageways were 1.2 m wide than if they were 2 m wide.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;width walking alley behind cubicles ;1,2-2m;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
968;Narrow passageways in a cubicle house can cause problems, for example Konggaard (1983) saw more contact, yielding, turning and waiting if passageways were 1.2 m wide than if they were 2 m wide.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;width walking alley behind cubicles ;1,2-2m;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
970;The majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber flooring  than on concrete floors. Cows showed a slightly higher preference for walking on solid  than slatted rubber mats, and a slight tendency to prefer standing on extra soft rubber mats.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (solid OR slatterd) ;Preferences;2,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
970;The majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber flooring  than on concrete floors. Cows showed a slightly higher preference for walking on solid  than slatted rubber mats, and a slight tendency to prefer standing on extra soft rubber mats.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete flooring (solid or slattered or with or without straw) ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
970;The majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber flooring  than on concrete floors. Cows showed a slightly higher preference for walking on solid  than slatted rubber mats, and a slight tendency to prefer standing on extra soft rubber mats.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (solid OR slatterd) ;Preferences;2,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
970;The majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber flooring  than on concrete floors. Cows showed a slightly higher preference for walking on solid  than slatted rubber mats, and a slight tendency to prefer standing on extra soft rubber mats.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;concrete flooring (solid or slattered or with or without straw) ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
970;The majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber flooring  than on concrete floors. Cows showed a slightly higher preference for walking on solid  than slatted rubber mats, and a slight tendency to prefer standing on extra soft rubber mats.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (solid OR slatterd) ;Preferences;1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
970;The majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber flooring  than on concrete floors. Cows showed a slightly higher preference for walking on solid  than slatted rubber mats, and a slight tendency to prefer standing on extra soft rubber mats.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type movement;rubber flooring (solid OR slatterd) ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
971;Providing rubber for the cows to stand on during eating is more comfortable for the cows’ feet and facilitates higher feed consumption, higher milk production, and decreased lameness.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type feeding area;rubber flooring ;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
971;Providing rubber for the cows to stand on during eating is more comfortable for the cows’ feet and facilitates higher feed consumption, higher milk production, and decreased lameness.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type feeding area;concrete flooring ;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
971;Providing rubber for the cows to stand on during eating is more comfortable for the cows’ feet and facilitates higher feed consumption, higher milk production, and decreased lameness.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type feeding area;rubber flooring ;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
971;Providing rubber for the cows to stand on during eating is more comfortable for the cows’ feet and facilitates higher feed consumption, higher milk production, and decreased lameness.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type feeding area;concrete flooring ;Fitness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
971;Providing rubber for the cows to stand on during eating is more comfortable for the cows’ feet and facilitates higher feed consumption, higher milk production, and decreased lameness.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type feeding area;rubber flooring ;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
971;Providing rubber for the cows to stand on during eating is more comfortable for the cows’ feet and facilitates higher feed consumption, higher milk production, and decreased lameness.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Flooring;floor type feeding area;concrete flooring ;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
972; Freestalls should be comfortable, and there should be 1 freestall for every cow in the pen, because overcrowding will increase lameness.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;>0.89:1-<=1.50:1;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
972; Freestalls should be comfortable, and there should be 1 freestall for every cow in the pen, because overcrowding will increase lameness.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Rest;animal:lying place ratio CUBICLES;>0.89:1-<=1.50:1;Pain;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
973;Whitaker et al (2000) found evidence that larger herds had more lameness problems, and Alban (1995) found that cows in herds having more than 124 cows had a 4 times greater risk for lameness than cows in herds between 20 and 30 cows.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;group size ;>90;Pain;-3,00;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
973;Whitaker et al (2000) found evidence that larger herds had more lameness problems, and Alban (1995) found that cows in herds having more than 124 cows had a 4 times greater risk for lameness than cows in herds between 20 and 30 cows.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Space;group size ;>10-50;Preferences;0,01;Movement, Social contact;;;;;;;;;
974;"Unconfined semi-wild cows near calving look for a hidden place to give birth and stay apart from the herd for several days (Schloeth, 1961; Reinhardt, 1980). During this time, mother-infant ties are established, ensuring the calf of food, care and protect";R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);available ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
974;"Unconfined semi-wild cows near calving look for a hidden place to give birth and stay apart from the herd for several days (Schloeth, 1961; Reinhardt, 1980). During this time, mother-infant ties are established, ensuring the calf of food, care and protect";R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);not available ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
975;"If cows are calved in a group pen, it is important for the pen to be big enough for the cow to isolate herself when she is calving, because her natural tendency is to move away from the main herd to calve.
";R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);available ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
975;"If cows are calved in a group pen, it is important for the pen to be big enough for the cow to isolate herself when she is calving, because her natural tendency is to move away from the main herd to calve.
";R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);not available ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
976;"Isolation is generally not a natural state for such gregarious animals as cattle, but there are occasions when they prefer to be (partial isolated) solitary; cows about to calve, mature bulls, subordinate or sick cows.";R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Calving;secluded area (calving);available ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
976;"Isolation is generally not a natural state for such gregarious animals as cattle, but there are occasions when they prefer to be (partial isolated) solitary; cows about to calve, mature bulls, subordinate or sick cows.";R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Calving;secluded area (calving);not available ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
978;"Cattle are stressed by driving rain and will seek shelter, particularly avoiding facing the rain.
";R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
978;"Cattle are stressed by driving rain and will seek shelter, particularly avoiding facing the rain.
";R74;database;Cattle;Cattle ;Outdoor;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
980;Cows with access to evaporative cooling had greater milk yields in hot weather than did cows with access to shade only.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
980;Cows with access to evaporative cooling had greater milk yields in hot weather than did cows with access to shade only.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
981;Milk yield was higher by 9% for cows receiving evaporative cooling plus shade than for cows receiving shade alone.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
981;Milk yield was higher by 9% for cows receiving evaporative cooling plus shade than for cows receiving shade alone.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
983;It is reported (from work in Louisiana) that sprinkling cows before entering a shade reduced respiration rate by 65 to 81% and body temperatures by 46 to 50% over shade alone. Using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
983;It is reported (from work in Louisiana) that sprinkling cows before entering a shade reduced respiration rate by 65 to 81% and body temperatures by 46 to 50% over shade alone. Using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
983;It is reported (from work in Louisiana) that sprinkling cows before entering a shade reduced respiration rate by 65 to 81% and body temperatures by 46 to 50% over shade alone. Using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
983;It is reported (from work in Louisiana) that sprinkling cows before entering a shade reduced respiration rate by 65 to 81% and body temperatures by 46 to 50% over shade alone. Using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
983;It is reported (from work in Louisiana) that sprinkling cows before entering a shade reduced respiration rate by 65 to 81% and body temperatures by 46 to 50% over shade alone. Using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
983;It is reported (from work in Louisiana) that sprinkling cows before entering a shade reduced respiration rate by 65 to 81% and body temperatures by 46 to 50% over shade alone. Using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
984;Cooling cows with evaporative tunnel ventilation reduced respiration rates by 15.5 ± 0.56 breaths/min and rectal temperatures by 0.6 ± 0.02°C compared with shade and fans alone in 2003.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
984;Cooling cows with evaporative tunnel ventilation reduced respiration rates by 15.5 ± 0.56 breaths/min and rectal temperatures by 0.6 ± 0.02°C compared with shade and fans alone in 2003.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
984;Cooling cows with evaporative tunnel ventilation reduced respiration rates by 15.5 ± 0.56 breaths/min and rectal temperatures by 0.6 ± 0.02°C compared with shade and fans alone in 2003.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
984;Cooling cows with evaporative tunnel ventilation reduced respiration rates by 15.5 ± 0.56 breaths/min and rectal temperatures by 0.6 ± 0.02°C compared with shade and fans alone in 2003.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
985;Cooling cows with evaporative tunnel ventilation reduced respiration rates by 13.1 ± 0.78 breaths/min and rectal temperatures by 0.4 ± 0.03°C compared with fans and sprinklers in 2001.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
985;Cooling cows with evaporative tunnel ventilation reduced respiration rates by 13.1 ± 0.78 breaths/min and rectal temperatures by 0.4 ± 0.03°C compared with fans and sprinklers in 2001.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
985;Cooling cows with evaporative tunnel ventilation reduced respiration rates by 13.1 ± 0.78 breaths/min and rectal temperatures by 0.4 ± 0.03°C compared with fans and sprinklers in 2001.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
985;Cooling cows with evaporative tunnel ventilation reduced respiration rates by 13.1 ± 0.78 breaths/min and rectal temperatures by 0.4 ± 0.03°C compared with fans and sprinklers in 2001.;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
986;Straw-yard systems were associated with lower prevalence of  interdigital dermatitis and heel-horn erosion, relative to cubicle houses (Somers et al., 2003).;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;free lying (straw yard (deep bedded) OR organic open bedded);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
986;Straw-yard systems were associated with lower prevalence of  interdigital dermatitis and heel-horn erosion, relative to cubicle houses (Somers et al., 2003).;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles ;Illness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
986;Straw-yard systems were associated with lower prevalence of  interdigital dermatitis and heel-horn erosion, relative to cubicle houses (Somers et al., 2003).;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;free lying (straw yard (deep bedded) OR organic open bedded);Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
986;Straw-yard systems were associated with lower prevalence of  interdigital dermatitis and heel-horn erosion, relative to cubicle houses (Somers et al., 2003).;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles ;Illness;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
987;Mechanical stress applied to the bovine claw and limb is considerably reduced on a soft surface. In this respect it makes sense that straw-yard systems proved to be more favourable with respect to claw health than cubicle houses (Hughes et al., 1997;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;free lying (straw yard (deep bedded) OR organic open bedded);Preferences;0,01;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
987;Mechanical stress applied to the bovine claw and limb is considerably reduced on a soft surface. In this respect it makes sense that straw-yard systems proved to be more favourable with respect to claw health than cubicle houses (Hughes et al., 1997;R74;database;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Barn construction;type of flooring lying area;cubicles ;Illness;-1,00;Movement, Health;;;;;;;;;
988;"Shade for dairy cows (protection from solar radiation) is considered essential to minimize loss in milk production and reproductive efficiency.
";R94;1247;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
988;"Shade for dairy cows (protection from solar radiation) is considered essential to minimize loss in milk production and reproductive efficiency.
";R94;1247;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
988;"Shade for dairy cows (protection from solar radiation) is considered essential to minimize loss in milk production and reproductive efficiency.
";R94;1247;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
988;"Shade for dairy cows (protection from solar radiation) is considered essential to minimize loss in milk production and reproductive efficiency.
";R94;1247;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
989;"Cows in a shade vs. no shade environment had lower rectal temperatures (38.9 and 39.4°C), reduced respiratory rate (54 and 82 breaths/ min), and yielded 10% more milk
";R94;1247;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
989;"Cows in a shade vs. no shade environment had lower rectal temperatures (38.9 and 39.4°C), reduced respiratory rate (54 and 82 breaths/ min), and yielded 10% more milk
";R94;1247;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
989;"Cows in a shade vs. no shade environment had lower rectal temperatures (38.9 and 39.4°C), reduced respiratory rate (54 and 82 breaths/ min), and yielded 10% more milk
";R94;1247;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
989;"Cows in a shade vs. no shade environment had lower rectal temperatures (38.9 and 39.4°C), reduced respiratory rate (54 and 82 breaths/ min), and yielded 10% more milk
";R94;1247;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
989;"Cows in a shade vs. no shade environment had lower rectal temperatures (38.9 and 39.4°C), reduced respiratory rate (54 and 82 breaths/ min), and yielded 10% more milk
";R94;1247;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
989;"Cows in a shade vs. no shade environment had lower rectal temperatures (38.9 and 39.4°C), reduced respiratory rate (54 and 82 breaths/ min), and yielded 10% more milk
";R94;1247;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
990;"Similarly, Florida workers observed that cattle with no shade had reduced ruminal contractions, higher rectal temperature, and reduced milk yield compared with shaded cows.
";R94;1247;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
990;"Similarly, Florida workers observed that cattle with no shade had reduced ruminal contractions, higher rectal temperature, and reduced milk yield compared with shaded cows.
";R94;1247;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
990;"Similarly, Florida workers observed that cattle with no shade had reduced ruminal contractions, higher rectal temperature, and reduced milk yield compared with shaded cows.
";R94;1247;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
990;"Similarly, Florida workers observed that cattle with no shade had reduced ruminal contractions, higher rectal temperature, and reduced milk yield compared with shaded cows.
";R94;1247;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
990;"Similarly, Florida workers observed that cattle with no shade had reduced ruminal contractions, higher rectal temperature, and reduced milk yield compared with shaded cows.
";R94;1247;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;weather protection;shade places AND/OR Shelter  available ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
990;"Similarly, Florida workers observed that cattle with no shade had reduced ruminal contractions, higher rectal temperature, and reduced milk yield compared with shaded cows.
";R94;1247;Cattle;Cattle ;Climate;weather protection;no shade or shelter available ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
992;"They concluded that using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan alone or sprinkling. [measured respiration rate and body temperature]
";R94;1248;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
992;"They concluded that using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan alone or sprinkling. [measured respiration rate and body temperature]
";R94;1248;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
992;"They concluded that using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan alone or sprinkling. [measured respiration rate and body temperature]
";R94;1248;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
992;"They concluded that using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan alone or sprinkling. [measured respiration rate and body temperature]
";R94;1248;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
992;"They concluded that using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan alone or sprinkling. [measured respiration rate and body temperature]
";R94;1248;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
992;"They concluded that using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan alone or sprinkling. [measured respiration rate and body temperature]
";R94;1248;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
992;"They concluded that using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan alone or sprinkling. [measured respiration rate and body temperature]
";R94;1248;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;sprinkling + shade OR sprinkling + airflow OR evaporite tunnel + ventilation OR water spray + fans OR evaporation cooling + shade ;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
992;"They concluded that using sprinklers in combination with supplemental airflow was superior to a fan alone or sprinkling. [measured respiration rate and body temperature]
";R94;1248;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Climate;cooling options;fans OR shade OR sprinkler OR fans + sprinkler OR fans + shade ;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
993;"Wallows have both more shallow and deeper areas to accommodate different wallowing needs at different temperatures (standing in cool water when it is slightly warm; sitting; rolling, immersing themselves when it gets warmer; McGlone 1999).";R95;350;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
993;"Wallows have both more shallow and deeper areas to accommodate different wallowing needs at different temperatures (standing in cool water when it is slightly warm; sitting; rolling, immersing themselves when it gets warmer; McGlone 1999).";R95;350;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
994;"Mud is preferred over water for cooling (Ingram 1965; Jensen 2002).";R95;350;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
994;"Mud is preferred over water for cooling (Ingram 1965; Jensen 2002).";R95;350;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
995;As reviewed in Bracke (2011), wallowing in mud has been ascribed several functions, some of which relate to pain (sunburn protection) and others to disease (wound healing, protection from ectoparasites, heat stroke, cooling during general illness).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
995;As reviewed in Bracke (2011), wallowing in mud has been ascribed several functions, some of which relate to pain (sunburn protection) and others to disease (wound healing, protection from ectoparasites, heat stroke, cooling during general illness).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Pain;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
995;As reviewed in Bracke (2011), wallowing in mud has been ascribed several functions, some of which relate to pain (sunburn protection) and others to disease (wound healing, protection from ectoparasites, heat stroke, cooling during general illness).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
995;As reviewed in Bracke (2011), wallowing in mud has been ascribed several functions, some of which relate to pain (sunburn protection) and others to disease (wound healing, protection from ectoparasites, heat stroke, cooling during general illness).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Pain;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
995;As reviewed in Bracke (2011), wallowing in mud has been ascribed several functions, some of which relate to pain (sunburn protection) and others to disease (wound healing, protection from ectoparasites, heat stroke, cooling during general illness).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
995;As reviewed in Bracke (2011), wallowing in mud has been ascribed several functions, some of which relate to pain (sunburn protection) and others to disease (wound healing, protection from ectoparasites, heat stroke, cooling during general illness).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Illness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
995;As reviewed in Bracke (2011), wallowing in mud has been ascribed several functions, some of which relate to pain (sunburn protection) and others to disease (wound healing, protection from ectoparasites, heat stroke, cooling during general illness).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
995;As reviewed in Bracke (2011), wallowing in mud has been ascribed several functions, some of which relate to pain (sunburn protection) and others to disease (wound healing, protection from ectoparasites, heat stroke, cooling during general illness).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
996;Overall, wallowing appears to have significant thermoregulatory benefits for pigs. Whether or not this is actually the case depends on the pigs’ exposure to thermal conditions (discussed in the section on Wallowing in current pig husbandry).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
996;Overall, wallowing appears to have significant thermoregulatory benefits for pigs. Whether or not this is actually the case depends on the pigs’ exposure to thermal conditions (discussed in the section on Wallowing in current pig husbandry).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
997;Wallowing may increase general activity levels during periods of hot weather (Dellmeier & Friend 1991).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
997;Wallowing may increase general activity levels during periods of hot weather (Dellmeier & Friend 1991).;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
998;"Wallowing reduces elevated respiration rates due to (over-) heating. Indoor-housed sows with drip cooling had consistently higher respiratory rates than outdoor sows with access to mud wallows, implying that outdoor mud wallows provide a much more effective cooling substrate (McGlone 1999).
";R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
998;"Wallowing reduces elevated respiration rates due to (over-) heating. Indoor-housed sows with drip cooling had consistently higher respiratory rates than outdoor sows with access to mud wallows, implying that outdoor mud wallows provide a much more effective cooling substrate (McGlone 1999).
";R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
999;pigs prefer wallowing to cope with high temperatures, especially at elevated relative humidities (Huynh et al 2007;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
999;pigs prefer wallowing to cope with high temperatures, especially at elevated relative humidities (Huynh et al 2007;R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1000;Furthermore, pigs on pasture without wallows had elevated body temperatures as high as 41°C on hot days, whereas similarly housed pigs with access to wallows had body temperatures between 39 and 40°C (Bray & Singletary 1948);R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1000;Furthermore, pigs on pasture without wallows had elevated body temperatures as high as 41°C on hot days, whereas similarly housed pigs with access to wallows had body temperatures between 39 and 40°C (Bray & Singletary 1948);R95;351;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1001;"Wallowing may increase productivity (eg Tidwell & Fletcher 1951; Dellmeier & Friend 1991), and it allows pigs to maintain productivity that would otherwise be lost, especially at times of acclimatisation to high ambient temperatures (Fraser 1970).";R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1001;"Wallowing may increase productivity (eg Tidwell & Fletcher 1951; Dellmeier & Friend 1991), and it allows pigs to maintain productivity that would otherwise be lost, especially at times of acclimatisation to high ambient temperatures (Fraser 1970).";R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1002;Heitman et al (1959) showed that wallows (with or without shade or additional air flow) increased productivity in growing/finishing pigs when exposed to temperatures up to 35°C (as did access to an air-conditioned house).;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1002;Heitman et al (1959) showed that wallows (with or without shade or additional air flow) increased productivity in growing/finishing pigs when exposed to temperatures up to 35°C (as did access to an air-conditioned house).;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1003;More recently, Anindita Panja Patel et al (2008) compared water sprays, water wallows and mud wallows for weaned piglets. They found that the daily water requirement was highest for water sprays and that weekly feed intake was highest in the (mud) wallows. These authors recommended mud wallows to ameliorate heat stress in piglets.;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1003;More recently, Anindita Panja Patel et al (2008) compared water sprays, water wallows and mud wallows for weaned piglets. They found that the daily water requirement was highest for water sprays and that weekly feed intake was highest in the (mud) wallows. These authors recommended mud wallows to ameliorate heat stress in piglets.;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1003;More recently, Anindita Panja Patel et al (2008) compared water sprays, water wallows and mud wallows for weaned piglets. They found that the daily water requirement was highest for water sprays and that weekly feed intake was highest in the (mud) wallows. These authors recommended mud wallows to ameliorate heat stress in piglets.;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1004;Also, Gnanaraj et al (2008) reported significantly improved growth rates and feed-conversion ratios in weaned piglets provided with mud wallows compared to water wallows and water sprays;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1004;Also, Gnanaraj et al (2008) reported significantly improved growth rates and feed-conversion ratios in weaned piglets provided with mud wallows compared to water wallows and water sprays;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1004;Also, Gnanaraj et al (2008) reported significantly improved growth rates and feed-conversion ratios in weaned piglets provided with mud wallows compared to water wallows and water sprays;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1004;Also, Gnanaraj et al (2008) reported significantly improved growth rates and feed-conversion ratios in weaned piglets provided with mud wallows compared to water wallows and water sprays;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1004;Also, Gnanaraj et al (2008) reported significantly improved growth rates and feed-conversion ratios in weaned piglets provided with mud wallows compared to water wallows and water sprays;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1004;Also, Gnanaraj et al (2008) reported significantly improved growth rates and feed-conversion ratios in weaned piglets provided with mud wallows compared to water wallows and water sprays;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1005;Wallowing can prevent pigs from dying due to heat stroke and heat stress.;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1005;Wallowing can prevent pigs from dying due to heat stroke and heat stress.;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Survival;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Illness;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Natural behaviour;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Natural behaviour;1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Natural behaviour;1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Natural behaviour;1,00;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
1006;There, it was shown that thermoregulation is a main function of wallowing in pigs and that other fitness-supporting functions cannot be excluded, including skin care (including aiding in shedding of hair/skin and protection against sunburn, biting insects and ectoparasites), health (eg disinfection of wounds), sexual functioning (eg scent marking), social cohesion, rest, play and protection against predators (eg scent masking);R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Sexual behavior  ;;;;;;;;;
1007;In addition, wallowing probably plays a thermoregulatory role in several of these control systems, eg cooling when ill, when engaged in sexual behaviour (heat, sexual aggression), after play and when engaged in flight or fight.;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1007;In addition, wallowing probably plays a thermoregulatory role in several of these control systems, eg cooling when ill, when engaged in sexual behaviour (heat, sexual aggression), after play and when engaged in flight or fight.;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-0,50;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1008;Another risk may arise from (incidental) wallowing at (too) low temperatures, exposing pigs to cold stress, elevated food-intake requirements and possibly increased illness. Pigs may be vulnerable to this, because of the interrelated functions of wallowing (see Bracke 2011) and because pigs are not very well able to remove (cold) wet mud from their bodies (Sambraus 1981).;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Illness;-0,50;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1008;Another risk may arise from (incidental) wallowing at (too) low temperatures, exposing pigs to cold stress, elevated food-intake requirements and possibly increased illness. Pigs may be vulnerable to this, because of the interrelated functions of wallowing (see Bracke 2011) and because pigs are not very well able to remove (cold) wet mud from their bodies (Sambraus 1981).;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1008;Another risk may arise from (incidental) wallowing at (too) low temperatures, exposing pigs to cold stress, elevated food-intake requirements and possibly increased illness. Pigs may be vulnerable to this, because of the interrelated functions of wallowing (see Bracke 2011) and because pigs are not very well able to remove (cold) wet mud from their bodies (Sambraus 1981).;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Fitness;-0,50;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1008;Another risk may arise from (incidental) wallowing at (too) low temperatures, exposing pigs to cold stress, elevated food-intake requirements and possibly increased illness. Pigs may be vulnerable to this, because of the interrelated functions of wallowing (see Bracke 2011) and because pigs are not very well able to remove (cold) wet mud from their bodies (Sambraus 1981).;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1008;Another risk may arise from (incidental) wallowing at (too) low temperatures, exposing pigs to cold stress, elevated food-intake requirements and possibly increased illness. Pigs may be vulnerable to this, because of the interrelated functions of wallowing (see Bracke 2011) and because pigs are not very well able to remove (cold) wet mud from their bodies (Sambraus 1981).;R95;352;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Fitness;-0,50;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1008;Another risk may arise from (incidental) wallowing at (too) low temperatures, exposing pigs to cold stress, elevated food-intake requirements and possibly increased illness. Pigs may be vulnerable to this, because of the interrelated functions of wallowing (see Bracke 2011) and because pigs are not very well able to remove (cold) wet mud from their bodies (Sambraus 1981).;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1009;Finally, wallowing may impose health risks related to reduced hygiene and lameness.;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1009;Finally, wallowing may impose health risks related to reduced hygiene and lameness.;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1009;Finally, wallowing may impose health risks related to reduced hygiene and lameness.;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1009;Finally, wallowing may impose health risks related to reduced hygiene and lameness.;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1010;"Hygiene has been recognised as a major problem associated with wallowing (Day 1915; Smith & Hawkes 1978; Gegner 2001; Huynh et al 2006). Since pigs have a preference to eliminate in wet and cool places (Hacker et al 1994), pigs may urinate and defaecate in the wallow. In addition, they may drink from the water, hence spreading parasites, such as coccidiosis (Henry & Tokach 1995) and lungworm (Day 1915)";R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Illness;-3,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1010;"Hygiene has been recognised as a major problem associated with wallowing (Day 1915; Smith & Hawkes 1978; Gegner 2001; Huynh et al 2006). Since pigs have a preference to eliminate in wet and cool places (Hacker et al 1994), pigs may urinate and defaecate in the wallow. In addition, they may drink from the water, hence spreading parasites, such as coccidiosis (Henry & Tokach 1995) and lungworm (Day 1915)";R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1011;Kaller and Kelso (2006) reported increased bacterial loads near feral-pig wallows and changed bacterial compositions of streams. Callaway et al (2005) found no significant differences in Salmonella, generic E. coli and coliform populations between indoor farrowing stalls and outdoor farrowing huts with wallows.;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1011;Kaller and Kelso (2006) reported increased bacterial loads near feral-pig wallows and changed bacterial compositions of streams. Callaway et al (2005) found no significant differences in Salmonella, generic E. coli and coliform populations between indoor farrowing stalls and outdoor farrowing huts with wallows.;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1012;Anindita Panja Patel et al (2009) showed that wallowing of weaned piglets in mud or water significantly reduced plasma cortisol levels compared to water spray and control groups.;R95;353;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;HPA;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1012;Anindita Panja Patel et al (2009) showed that wallowing of weaned piglets in mud or water significantly reduced plasma cortisol levels compared to water spray and control groups.;R95;353;Pigs;Rearing pigs ;Climate;cooling options;not available;HPA;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1013;Also, other blood values were affected and the authors concluded that maximum relief of heat stress was observed in piglets which have access to mud wallowing, followed by waterwallowing and water-spraying treatments.;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1013;Also, other blood values were affected and the authors concluded that maximum relief of heat stress was observed in piglets which have access to mud wallowing, followed by waterwallowing and water-spraying treatments.;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1013;Also, other blood values were affected and the authors concluded that maximum relief of heat stress was observed in piglets which have access to mud wallowing, followed by waterwallowing and water-spraying treatments.;R95;353;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-2,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1014;With rising temperatures, pigs increased lying on the slatted floor, wallowing in excrement and increased showering of pigs with urine from other pigs and urinating while lying.;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not used;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1014;With rising temperatures, pigs increased lying on the slatted floor, wallowing in excrement and increased showering of pigs with urine from other pigs and urinating while lying.;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1015;Most evidence, however, suggests that wallowing in dung is abnormal and not indicative of good welfare. Excreta tend to be irritant substances, and pigs are aversive to their own dung (eg Bracke 2007).;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not used;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1015;Most evidence, however, suggests that wallowing in dung is abnormal and not indicative of good welfare. Excreta tend to be irritant substances, and pigs are aversive to their own dung (eg Bracke 2007).;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1015;Most evidence, however, suggests that wallowing in dung is abnormal and not indicative of good welfare. Excreta tend to be irritant substances, and pigs are aversive to their own dung (eg Bracke 2007).;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1016;It has also been suggested that pigs will restrict wallowing in excreta to higher temperatures compared to mud (Huynh et al 2005). Therefore, wallowing in excreta (faeces and urine) is likely to happen only when pigs do not have more suitable wallowing substrate, such as mud, available.;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1016;It has also been suggested that pigs will restrict wallowing in excreta to higher temperatures compared to mud (Huynh et al 2005). Therefore, wallowing in excreta (faeces and urine) is likely to happen only when pigs do not have more suitable wallowing substrate, such as mud, available.;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,50;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1017;Intensively raised pigs can often be observed ‘playing’ with drinking water. This may be interpreted as a sign of exploration, play, boredom or redirected foraging behaviour. It may, however, also be an intention movement indicating a motivation to wallow;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Demand;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1017;Intensively raised pigs can often be observed ‘playing’ with drinking water. This may be interpreted as a sign of exploration, play, boredom or redirected foraging behaviour. It may, however, also be an intention movement indicating a motivation to wallow;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1018;Wallowing is related to dominance in pigs, indicating that pigs may regard the opportunity to wallow as a resource. For example, Hsia et al (1974) suggested that (exclusive) occupation by dominant animals may be one of the reasons why artificial wallows (usually provided as steel or concrete water baths) have compared less favourably to sprinklers for thermoregulation.;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1018;Wallowing is related to dominance in pigs, indicating that pigs may regard the opportunity to wallow as a resource. For example, Hsia et al (1974) suggested that (exclusive) occupation by dominant animals may be one of the reasons why artificial wallows (usually provided as steel or concrete water baths) have compared less favourably to sprinklers for thermoregulation.;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1018;Wallowing is related to dominance in pigs, indicating that pigs may regard the opportunity to wallow as a resource. For example, Hsia et al (1974) suggested that (exclusive) occupation by dominant animals may be one of the reasons why artificial wallows (usually provided as steel or concrete water baths) have compared less favourably to sprinklers for thermoregulation.;R95;354;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1019;Wallowing is clearly a natural behaviour for which pigs are motivated;R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Natural behaviour;2,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1019;Wallowing is clearly a natural behaviour for which pigs are motivated;R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1019;Wallowing is clearly a natural behaviour for which pigs are motivated;R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Demand;3,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1020;"Incidentally, wallowing preferences have been reported, eg that mud is preferred over water (Jensen 2002) and over dung (Huynh et al 2005) to roll in,
";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1020;"Incidentally, wallowing preferences have been reported, eg that mud is preferred over water (Jensen 2002) and over dung (Huynh et al 2005) to roll in,
";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1021;"In line with the previous paragraph and as explained in more detail in Bracke (2011), however, it is likely that pigs may experience positive emotions in relation to wallowing. Wallowing is in part a body-care behaviour which is probably (partly) internally motivated and pigs are inclined to seek out opportunities to wallow (eg wallowing may reduce pasture damage due to (otherwise preferred) rooting activities; Van der Mheen & Spoolder 2005). This suggests that pigs prefer to wallow (when environmental conditions allow it).";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Natural behaviour;0,50;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1021;"In line with the previous paragraph and as explained in more detail in Bracke (2011), however, it is likely that pigs may experience positive emotions in relation to wallowing. Wallowing is in part a body-care behaviour which is probably (partly) internally motivated and pigs are inclined to seek out opportunities to wallow (eg wallowing may reduce pasture damage due to (otherwise preferred) rooting activities; Van der Mheen & Spoolder 2005). This suggests that pigs prefer to wallow (when environmental conditions allow it).";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1021;"In line with the previous paragraph and as explained in more detail in Bracke (2011), however, it is likely that pigs may experience positive emotions in relation to wallowing. Wallowing is in part a body-care behaviour which is probably (partly) internally motivated and pigs are inclined to seek out opportunities to wallow (eg wallowing may reduce pasture damage due to (otherwise preferred) rooting activities; Van der Mheen & Spoolder 2005). This suggests that pigs prefer to wallow (when environmental conditions allow it).";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Demand;0,50;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1021;"In line with the previous paragraph and as explained in more detail in Bracke (2011), however, it is likely that pigs may experience positive emotions in relation to wallowing. Wallowing is in part a body-care behaviour which is probably (partly) internally motivated and pigs are inclined to seek out opportunities to wallow (eg wallowing may reduce pasture damage due to (otherwise preferred) rooting activities; Van der Mheen & Spoolder 2005). This suggests that pigs prefer to wallow (when environmental conditions allow it).";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1021;"In line with the previous paragraph and as explained in more detail in Bracke (2011), however, it is likely that pigs may experience positive emotions in relation to wallowing. Wallowing is in part a body-care behaviour which is probably (partly) internally motivated and pigs are inclined to seek out opportunities to wallow (eg wallowing may reduce pasture damage due to (otherwise preferred) rooting activities; Van der Mheen & Spoolder 2005). This suggests that pigs prefer to wallow (when environmental conditions allow it).";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,50;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1021;"In line with the previous paragraph and as explained in more detail in Bracke (2011), however, it is likely that pigs may experience positive emotions in relation to wallowing. Wallowing is in part a body-care behaviour which is probably (partly) internally motivated and pigs are inclined to seek out opportunities to wallow (eg wallowing may reduce pasture damage due to (otherwise preferred) rooting activities; Van der Mheen & Spoolder 2005). This suggests that pigs prefer to wallow (when environmental conditions allow it).";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1022;"Several authors have suggested that pigs are prepared to work in order to be able to wallow (eg Van Putten 2000; Horrell et al 2001). In fact, willingness to work is implied by the fact that they will make their own wallows when
given the opportunity.
";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Demand;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1022;"Several authors have suggested that pigs are prepared to work in order to be able to wallow (eg Van Putten 2000; Horrell et al 2001). In fact, willingness to work is implied by the fact that they will make their own wallows when
given the opportunity.
";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1023;"Wild pigs also engage in wallowing under high-risk conditions. For example, local hunters in the Cherokee National Forest, USA, reported instances of pigs breaking the ice to wallow and of pigs wallowing in streams that they crossed while being chased by hunters during the winter (Stegeman 1938; Graves 1984).";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Demand;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1023;"Wild pigs also engage in wallowing under high-risk conditions. For example, local hunters in the Cherokee National Forest, USA, reported instances of pigs breaking the ice to wallow and of pigs wallowing in streams that they crossed while being chased by hunters during the winter (Stegeman 1938; Graves 1984).";R95;355;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1027;OP [outdoor pasture] pigs expressed more chewing and less rooting in the latter period than in the prior period, whereas time spent foraging and exploring did not change between the two periods. These results suggest that OP pigs behaved consistently throughout their growing stage, which might lead to higher ADG in the latter period. [compared to indoor pigs];R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1027;OP [outdoor pasture] pigs expressed more chewing and less rooting in the latter period than in the prior period, whereas time spent foraging and exploring did not change between the two periods. These results suggest that OP pigs behaved consistently throughout their growing stage, which might lead to higher ADG in the latter period. [compared to indoor pigs];R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1028;In addition, play behavior as an expression of positive emotion was performed in OP [outdoor pasture] pigs even in the latter period when the expression of play behavior is usually rarely observed.[indoor pigs];R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Natural behaviour;1,00;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1028;In addition, play behavior as an expression of positive emotion was performed in OP [outdoor pasture] pigs even in the latter period when the expression of play behavior is usually rarely observed.[indoor pigs];R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1029;Compared with the behaviors of OP [outdoor pasture] pigs, CF pigs [concrete floor outdoor] showed less chewing and rooting in both periods and were less active and did not play in the latter period;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1029;Compared with the behaviors of OP [outdoor pasture] pigs, CF pigs [concrete floor outdoor] showed less chewing and rooting in both periods and were less active and did not play in the latter period;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1029;Compared with the behaviors of OP [outdoor pasture] pigs, CF pigs [concrete floor outdoor] showed less chewing and rooting in both periods and were less active and did not play in the latter period;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Natural behaviour;1,00;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1029;Compared with the behaviors of OP [outdoor pasture] pigs, CF pigs [concrete floor outdoor] showed less chewing and rooting in both periods and were less active and did not play in the latter period;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Natural behaviour;2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1030;The number of disturbed behaviors and wound scores in FG pigs [concrete floor outdoor with fresh grass] were the same as that in OP [outdoor pasture] pigs and was less than that in IS [indoor] pigs, whereas chewing was the same as that in OP pigs and was more frequent than in IS pigs.;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1030;The number of disturbed behaviors and wound scores in FG pigs [concrete floor outdoor with fresh grass] were the same as that in OP [outdoor pasture] pigs and was less than that in IS [indoor] pigs, whereas chewing was the same as that in OP pigs and was more frequent than in IS pigs.;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1030;The number of disturbed behaviors and wound scores in FG pigs [concrete floor outdoor with fresh grass] were the same as that in OP [outdoor pasture] pigs and was less than that in IS [indoor] pigs, whereas chewing was the same as that in OP pigs and was more frequent than in IS pigs.;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1030;The number of disturbed behaviors and wound scores in FG pigs [concrete floor outdoor with fresh grass] were the same as that in OP [outdoor pasture] pigs and was less than that in IS [indoor] pigs, whereas chewing was the same as that in OP pigs and was more frequent than in IS pigs.;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1030;The number of disturbed behaviors and wound scores in FG pigs [concrete floor outdoor with fresh grass] were the same as that in OP [outdoor pasture] pigs and was less than that in IS [indoor] pigs, whereas chewing was the same as that in OP pigs and was more frequent than in IS pigs.;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1030;The number of disturbed behaviors and wound scores in FG pigs [concrete floor outdoor with fresh grass] were the same as that in OP [outdoor pasture] pigs and was less than that in IS [indoor] pigs, whereas chewing was the same as that in OP pigs and was more frequent than in IS pigs.;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1031;A soil floor stimulated not only rooting but also chewing as oral behavior for pigs. In addition, the softness of the soil floor might encourage pigs to play because of its lower impact on the feet and limbs (KilBride et al., 2009). Consequently, SF pigs [soil floor outdoor] could perform a wide array of their behavioral repertoire (Haskell et al., 1996).;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Natural behaviour;2,00;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1031;A soil floor stimulated not only rooting but also chewing as oral behavior for pigs. In addition, the softness of the soil floor might encourage pigs to play because of its lower impact on the feet and limbs (KilBride et al., 2009). Consequently, SF pigs [soil floor outdoor] could perform a wide array of their behavioral repertoire (Haskell et al., 1996).;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Natural behaviour;1,00;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1031;A soil floor stimulated not only rooting but also chewing as oral behavior for pigs. In addition, the softness of the soil floor might encourage pigs to play because of its lower impact on the feet and limbs (KilBride et al., 2009). Consequently, SF pigs [soil floor outdoor] could perform a wide array of their behavioral repertoire (Haskell et al., 1996).;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Natural behaviour;2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1031;A soil floor stimulated not only rooting but also chewing as oral behavior for pigs. In addition, the softness of the soil floor might encourage pigs to play because of its lower impact on the feet and limbs (KilBride et al., 2009). Consequently, SF pigs [soil floor outdoor] could perform a wide array of their behavioral repertoire (Haskell et al., 1996).;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1031;A soil floor stimulated not only rooting but also chewing as oral behavior for pigs. In addition, the softness of the soil floor might encourage pigs to play because of its lower impact on the feet and limbs (KilBride et al., 2009). Consequently, SF pigs [soil floor outdoor] could perform a wide array of their behavioral repertoire (Haskell et al., 1996).;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1031;A soil floor stimulated not only rooting but also chewing as oral behavior for pigs. In addition, the softness of the soil floor might encourage pigs to play because of its lower impact on the feet and limbs (KilBride et al., 2009). Consequently, SF pigs [soil floor outdoor] could perform a wide array of their behavioral repertoire (Haskell et al., 1996).;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1032;A pasture rearing system was better than an indoor system for pigs’ welfare, as shown by the long term expression of normal oral behaviors which are strongly motivated and play behavior which is an indicator of positive emotion.;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Natural behaviour;1,00;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1032;A pasture rearing system was better than an indoor system for pigs’ welfare, as shown by the long term expression of normal oral behaviors which are strongly motivated and play behavior which is an indicator of positive emotion.;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Natural behaviour;2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1032;A pasture rearing system was better than an indoor system for pigs’ welfare, as shown by the long term expression of normal oral behaviors which are strongly motivated and play behavior which is an indicator of positive emotion.;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run ;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1032;A pasture rearing system was better than an indoor system for pigs’ welfare, as shown by the long term expression of normal oral behaviors which are strongly motivated and play behavior which is an indicator of positive emotion.;R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run ;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1033;"In addition, OP pigs showed relatively few wounds on the body and favourable live weight gain. [The highest score was in the IS pigs (47.5±22.7), which was significantly higher than scores for pigs in the other treatments. The highest score in IS pigs was followed by CF (27% of IS scores), FG (15%), and OP (13%) pigs, and the lowest average score found was for SF (3%) pigs.;In the latter period, the ADG of OP and SF pigs was significantly higher than that of FG pigs.
";R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run ;not available;Pain;-3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1033;"In addition, OP pigs showed relatively few wounds on the body and favourable live weight gain. [The highest score was in the IS pigs (47.5±22.7), which was significantly higher than scores for pigs in the other treatments. The highest score in IS pigs was followed by CF (27% of IS scores), FG (15%), and OP (13%) pigs, and the lowest average score found was for SF (3%) pigs.;In the latter period, the ADG of OP and SF pigs was significantly higher than that of FG pigs.
";R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1033;"In addition, OP pigs showed relatively few wounds on the body and favourable live weight gain. [The highest score was in the IS pigs (47.5±22.7), which was significantly higher than scores for pigs in the other treatments. The highest score in IS pigs was followed by CF (27% of IS scores), FG (15%), and OP (13%) pigs, and the lowest average score found was for SF (3%) pigs.;In the latter period, the ADG of OP and SF pigs was significantly higher than that of FG pigs.
";R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1033;"In addition, OP pigs showed relatively few wounds on the body and favourable live weight gain. [The highest score was in the IS pigs (47.5±22.7), which was significantly higher than scores for pigs in the other treatments. The highest score in IS pigs was followed by CF (27% of IS scores), FG (15%), and OP (13%) pigs, and the lowest average score found was for SF (3%) pigs.;In the latter period, the ADG of OP and SF pigs was significantly higher than that of FG pigs.
";R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1033;"In addition, OP pigs showed relatively few wounds on the body and favourable live weight gain. [The highest score was in the IS pigs (47.5±22.7), which was significantly higher than scores for pigs in the other treatments. The highest score in IS pigs was followed by CF (27% of IS scores), FG (15%), and OP (13%) pigs, and the lowest average score found was for SF (3%) pigs.;In the latter period, the ADG of OP and SF pigs was significantly higher than that of FG pigs.
";R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1033;"In addition, OP pigs showed relatively few wounds on the body and favourable live weight gain. [The highest score was in the IS pigs (47.5±22.7), which was significantly higher than scores for pigs in the other treatments. The highest score in IS pigs was followed by CF (27% of IS scores), FG (15%), and OP (13%) pigs, and the lowest average score found was for SF (3%) pigs.;In the latter period, the ADG of OP and SF pigs was significantly higher than that of FG pigs.
";R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1033;"In addition, OP pigs showed relatively few wounds on the body and favourable live weight gain. [The highest score was in the IS pigs (47.5±22.7), which was significantly higher than scores for pigs in the other treatments. The highest score in IS pigs was followed by CF (27% of IS scores), FG (15%), and OP (13%) pigs, and the lowest average score found was for SF (3%) pigs.;In the latter period, the ADG of OP and SF pigs was significantly higher than that of FG pigs.
";R97;434;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1034;The behaviors and performances of pigs in SF resembled those of pigs in the pasture. This led to the conclusion that the presence of a soil floor to stimulate appetitive feeding behavior and emotionally supportive play behavior, is the most important component of grazing system for improving the welfare of pigs.;R97;435;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1034;The behaviors and performances of pigs in SF resembled those of pigs in the pasture. This led to the conclusion that the presence of a soil floor to stimulate appetitive feeding behavior and emotionally supportive play behavior, is the most important component of grazing system for improving the welfare of pigs.;R97;435;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1034;The behaviors and performances of pigs in SF resembled those of pigs in the pasture. This led to the conclusion that the presence of a soil floor to stimulate appetitive feeding behavior and emotionally supportive play behavior, is the most important component of grazing system for improving the welfare of pigs.;R97;435;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Natural behaviour;3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1034;The behaviors and performances of pigs in SF resembled those of pigs in the pasture. This led to the conclusion that the presence of a soil floor to stimulate appetitive feeding behavior and emotionally supportive play behavior, is the most important component of grazing system for improving the welfare of pigs.;R97;435;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1034;The behaviors and performances of pigs in SF resembled those of pigs in the pasture. This led to the conclusion that the presence of a soil floor to stimulate appetitive feeding behavior and emotionally supportive play behavior, is the most important component of grazing system for improving the welfare of pigs.;R97;435;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1034;The behaviors and performances of pigs in SF resembled those of pigs in the pasture. This led to the conclusion that the presence of a soil floor to stimulate appetitive feeding behavior and emotionally supportive play behavior, is the most important component of grazing system for improving the welfare of pigs.;R97;435;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Natural behaviour;3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1036;"Additionally, access to an outdoor run offers fattening pigs more options for creating functional areas, such as a dunging area (Olsen et al., 2001; Ocepek and Skorjanc, 2016).[Pigs tend to perform their natural behaviour patterns, including elimination, in different functional areas and thus separate the dunging area from a comfortable lying area (e.g., Ocepek and Skorjanc, 2016; Nannoni et al., 2020; Zerboni and Grauvogl, 1984).]";R99;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1036;"Additionally, access to an outdoor run offers fattening pigs more options for creating functional areas, such as a dunging area (Olsen et al., 2001; Ocepek and Skorjanc, 2016).[Pigs tend to perform their natural behaviour patterns, including elimination, in different functional areas and thus separate the dunging area from a comfortable lying area (e.g., Ocepek and Skorjanc, 2016; Nannoni et al., 2020; Zerboni and Grauvogl, 1984).]";R99;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,50;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1036;"Additionally, access to an outdoor run offers fattening pigs more options for creating functional areas, such as a dunging area (Olsen et al., 2001; Ocepek and Skorjanc, 2016).[Pigs tend to perform their natural behaviour patterns, including elimination, in different functional areas and thus separate the dunging area from a comfortable lying area (e.g., Ocepek and Skorjanc, 2016; Nannoni et al., 2020; Zerboni and Grauvogl, 1984).]";R99;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1037;The results showed that the fattening pigs in our study used the outdoor run, especially during the day, and defaecated there in 99.4% of all observed defaecation events. In addition, the filling level of the rack was an important factor for the daily usage of the outdoor run. While defaecation occurred mostly outside, the pigs themselves were mostly located inside, with specific daily patterns.;R99;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Elimination ;;;;;;;;;
1037;The results showed that the fattening pigs in our study used the outdoor run, especially during the day, and defaecated there in 99.4% of all observed defaecation events. In addition, the filling level of the rack was an important factor for the daily usage of the outdoor run. While defaecation occurred mostly outside, the pigs themselves were mostly located inside, with specific daily patterns.;R99;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;1,00;Elimination ;;;;;;;;;
1038;"Outdoor runs have been described as an environmental enrichment, allowing the animals to separate functional areas such as dunging places (Ocepek and Skorjanc, 2016; Olsen et al., 2001). Knoll et al. (2021) noted a more active behaviour in the outdoor rooting area between 08:00 h to 12:00 h and 14:00 h to 18:00 h, indicating that the fattening pigs used the offered outdoor run essentially during the daytime.";R99;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Elimination ;;;;;;;;;
1038;"Outdoor runs have been described as an environmental enrichment, allowing the animals to separate functional areas such as dunging places (Ocepek and Skorjanc, 2016; Olsen et al., 2001). Knoll et al. (2021) noted a more active behaviour in the outdoor rooting area between 08:00 h to 12:00 h and 14:00 h to 18:00 h, indicating that the fattening pigs used the offered outdoor run essentially during the daytime.";R99;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;1,00;Elimination ;;;;;;;;;
1039;In our study, we observed 532 events of defaecation behaviours in which 99.4% events took place in the outdoor run and, thus, only approximately 0.6% occurred within the indoor area. This strongly suggests that fattening pigs prefer to defaecate in the outdoor run, away from the lying area (Andersen et al., 2020).;R99;6;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Elimination ;;;;;;;;;
1039;In our study, we observed 532 events of defaecation behaviours in which 99.4% events took place in the outdoor run and, thus, only approximately 0.6% occurred within the indoor area. This strongly suggests that fattening pigs prefer to defaecate in the outdoor run, away from the lying area (Andersen et al., 2020).;R99;6;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;3,00;Elimination ;;;;;;;;;
1040;Cooling by evaporation can be realized by sprinklers (shower) and by conduction by floor cooling. (Godyń et al., 2020). The use of showers significantly reduced pen fouling while simultaneous reducing ammonia emission by 43 % (Jeppsson et al., 2021) The absence of these cooling devices will increase heat stress.;R100;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1040;Cooling by evaporation can be realized by sprinklers (shower) and by conduction by floor cooling. (Godyń et al., 2020). The use of showers significantly reduced pen fouling while simultaneous reducing ammonia emission by 43 % (Jeppsson et al., 2021) The absence of these cooling devices will increase heat stress.;R100;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1040;Cooling by evaporation can be realized by sprinklers (shower) and by conduction by floor cooling. (Godyń et al., 2020). The use of showers significantly reduced pen fouling while simultaneous reducing ammonia emission by 43 % (Jeppsson et al., 2021) The absence of these cooling devices will increase heat stress.;R100;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1040;Cooling by evaporation can be realized by sprinklers (shower) and by conduction by floor cooling. (Godyń et al., 2020). The use of showers significantly reduced pen fouling while simultaneous reducing ammonia emission by 43 % (Jeppsson et al., 2021) The absence of these cooling devices will increase heat stress.;R100;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1040;Cooling by evaporation can be realized by sprinklers (shower) and by conduction by floor cooling. (Godyń et al., 2020). The use of showers significantly reduced pen fouling while simultaneous reducing ammonia emission by 43 % (Jeppsson et al., 2021) The absence of these cooling devices will increase heat stress.;R100;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1040;Cooling by evaporation can be realized by sprinklers (shower) and by conduction by floor cooling. (Godyń et al., 2020). The use of showers significantly reduced pen fouling while simultaneous reducing ammonia emission by 43 % (Jeppsson et al., 2021) The absence of these cooling devices will increase heat stress.;R100;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
1040;Cooling by evaporation can be realized by sprinklers (shower) and by conduction by floor cooling. (Godyń et al., 2020). The use of showers significantly reduced pen fouling while simultaneous reducing ammonia emission by 43 % (Jeppsson et al., 2021) The absence of these cooling devices will increase heat stress.;R100;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
1041;"Insulate windows or use white chalk; chalk or moisten the roofs (note: sufficient insulation of the roof is important to prevent solar heat from entering the pig house), but maintain sufficient light (>40lux); [effective strategy against heat stress]";R100;12;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;isolated roof OR white chalk on window OR floor cooling OR moisten roof;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1041;"Insulate windows or use white chalk; chalk or moisten the roofs (note: sufficient insulation of the roof is important to prevent solar heat from entering the pig house), but maintain sufficient light (>40lux); [effective strategy against heat stress]";R100;12;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;isolated roof OR white chalk on window OR floor cooling OR moisten roof;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1041;"Insulate windows or use white chalk; chalk or moisten the roofs (note: sufficient insulation of the roof is important to prevent solar heat from entering the pig house), but maintain sufficient light (>40lux); [effective strategy against heat stress]";R100;12;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;isolated roof OR white chalk on window OR floor cooling OR moisten roof;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1041;"Insulate windows or use white chalk; chalk or moisten the roofs (note: sufficient insulation of the roof is important to prevent solar heat from entering the pig house), but maintain sufficient light (>40lux); [effective strategy against heat stress]";R100;12;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1042;Compared to pasture systems, indoor systems with OUTRUN provide potential advantages regarding the performance of growing-finishing pigs (Leeb et al., 2019), protection against adverse weather and infectious diseases (e.g. African Swine Fever).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1042;Compared to pasture systems, indoor systems with OUTRUN provide potential advantages regarding the performance of growing-finishing pigs (Leeb et al., 2019), protection against adverse weather and infectious diseases (e.g. African Swine Fever).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1042;Compared to pasture systems, indoor systems with OUTRUN provide potential advantages regarding the performance of growing-finishing pigs (Leeb et al., 2019), protection against adverse weather and infectious diseases (e.g. African Swine Fever).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1042;Compared to pasture systems, indoor systems with OUTRUN provide potential advantages regarding the performance of growing-finishing pigs (Leeb et al., 2019), protection against adverse weather and infectious diseases (e.g. African Swine Fever).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1042;Compared to pasture systems, indoor systems with OUTRUN provide potential advantages regarding the performance of growing-finishing pigs (Leeb et al., 2019), protection against adverse weather and infectious diseases (e.g. African Swine Fever).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1042;Compared to pasture systems, indoor systems with OUTRUN provide potential advantages regarding the performance of growing-finishing pigs (Leeb et al., 2019), protection against adverse weather and infectious diseases (e.g. African Swine Fever).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1043;However, many OUTRUNs do not fulfil behavioural needs, which may be contributing to a higher prevalence of tail lesions compared to pigs on pasture (Leeb et al., 2019).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Natural behaviour;2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1043;However, many OUTRUNs do not fulfil behavioural needs, which may be contributing to a higher prevalence of tail lesions compared to pigs on pasture (Leeb et al., 2019).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Preferences;0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1043;However, many OUTRUNs do not fulfil behavioural needs, which may be contributing to a higher prevalence of tail lesions compared to pigs on pasture (Leeb et al., 2019).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1043;However, many OUTRUNs do not fulfil behavioural needs, which may be contributing to a higher prevalence of tail lesions compared to pigs on pasture (Leeb et al., 2019).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Pain;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1043;However, many OUTRUNs do not fulfil behavioural needs, which may be contributing to a higher prevalence of tail lesions compared to pigs on pasture (Leeb et al., 2019).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1044;As pigs prefer to separate lying and elimination areas, excretions accumulate in defined locations (Andersen et al., 2020).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;available;Preferences;1,00;Elimination, Rest;;;;;;;;;
1044;As pigs prefer to separate lying and elimination areas, excretions accumulate in defined locations (Andersen et al., 2020).;R101;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Elimination, Rest;;;;;;;;;
1045;Like their ancestor the wild boar, domestic pigs distinguish functional areas for behaviours such as resting, exploration, elimination (defaecation and urination), thermoregulation and social behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989).;R101;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Elimination ;;;;;;;;;
1045;Like their ancestor the wild boar, domestic pigs distinguish functional areas for behaviours such as resting, exploration, elimination (defaecation and urination), thermoregulation and social behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989).;R101;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1045;Like their ancestor the wild boar, domestic pigs distinguish functional areas for behaviours such as resting, exploration, elimination (defaecation and urination), thermoregulation and social behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989).;R101;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
1045;Like their ancestor the wild boar, domestic pigs distinguish functional areas for behaviours such as resting, exploration, elimination (defaecation and urination), thermoregulation and social behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989).;R101;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1045;Like their ancestor the wild boar, domestic pigs distinguish functional areas for behaviours such as resting, exploration, elimination (defaecation and urination), thermoregulation and social behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989).;R101;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1045;Like their ancestor the wild boar, domestic pigs distinguish functional areas for behaviours such as resting, exploration, elimination (defaecation and urination), thermoregulation and social behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989).;R101;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Elimination ;;;;;;;;;
1045;Like their ancestor the wild boar, domestic pigs distinguish functional areas for behaviours such as resting, exploration, elimination (defaecation and urination), thermoregulation and social behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989).;R101;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1045;Like their ancestor the wild boar, domestic pigs distinguish functional areas for behaviours such as resting, exploration, elimination (defaecation and urination), thermoregulation and social behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989).;R101;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
1045;Like their ancestor the wild boar, domestic pigs distinguish functional areas for behaviours such as resting, exploration, elimination (defaecation and urination), thermoregulation and social behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989).;R101;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1045;Like their ancestor the wild boar, domestic pigs distinguish functional areas for behaviours such as resting, exploration, elimination (defaecation and urination), thermoregulation and social behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989).;R101;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1047;Pigs prefer to lie close to solid pen partitions, which provide protection from draughts (Jackson et al., 2020), on a soft surface with similar texture to soil (Beattie et al., 1998);R101;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;solid pen partitions;available;Preferences;1,00;Rest, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
1047;Pigs prefer to lie close to solid pen partitions, which provide protection from draughts (Jackson et al., 2020), on a soft surface with similar texture to soil (Beattie et al., 1998);R101;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest, Thermoregulation;;;;;;;;;
1048;"Providing roughage in a rack (Høøk Presto et al., 2009) or a rooting area Provid-(Vermeer et al., 2015; Olsson et al., 2016b) in the OUTRUN can increase activity and attracts pigs to the OUTRUN.";R101;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1048;"Providing roughage in a rack (Høøk Presto et al., 2009) or a rooting area Provid-(Vermeer et al., 2015; Olsson et al., 2016b) in the OUTRUN can increase activity and attracts pigs to the OUTRUN.";R101;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1050;"In accordance, most studies of systems where the lying and feeding areas are located indoors show that pigs prefer to eliminate in the OUTRUN (e.g. Olsen et al., 2001; Guo et al., 2015).
";R101;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Elimination ;;;;;;;;;
1050;"In accordance, most studies of systems where the lying and feeding areas are located indoors show that pigs prefer to eliminate in the OUTRUN (e.g. Olsen et al., 2001; Guo et al., 2015).
";R101;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;1,00;Elimination ;;;;;;;;;
1051;With increasing temperature, pigs change their preferred lying area from the straw-bedded area to the concrete floor, including the OUTRUN, and prefer shaded areas (Olsen et al., 2001).;R101;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1051;With increasing temperature, pigs change their preferred lying area from the straw-bedded area to the concrete floor, including the OUTRUN, and prefer shaded areas (Olsen et al., 2001).;R101;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;available;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1052;"In tropical conditions, pigs provided with water baths or water sprinklers had lower respiration rates and skin temperatures than a control group, and fewer pigs were lying laterally (Huynh et al., 2006). However, the evaporative heat loss is less effective when using clear water compared to mud, as it lasts for a shorter time and declines rapidly (Ingram, 1965).
";R101;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1052;"In tropical conditions, pigs provided with water baths or water sprinklers had lower respiration rates and skin temperatures than a control group, and fewer pigs were lying laterally (Huynh et al., 2006). However, the evaporative heat loss is less effective when using clear water compared to mud, as it lasts for a shorter time and declines rapidly (Ingram, 1965).
";R101;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1052;"In tropical conditions, pigs provided with water baths or water sprinklers had lower respiration rates and skin temperatures than a control group, and fewer pigs were lying laterally (Huynh et al., 2006). However, the evaporative heat loss is less effective when using clear water compared to mud, as it lasts for a shorter time and declines rapidly (Ingram, 1965).
";R101;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1052;"In tropical conditions, pigs provided with water baths or water sprinklers had lower respiration rates and skin temperatures than a control group, and fewer pigs were lying laterally (Huynh et al., 2006). However, the evaporative heat loss is less effective when using clear water compared to mud, as it lasts for a shorter time and declines rapidly (Ingram, 1965).
";R101;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;sprinklers OR water bath/wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1052;"In tropical conditions, pigs provided with water baths or water sprinklers had lower respiration rates and skin temperatures than a control group, and fewer pigs were lying laterally (Huynh et al., 2006). However, the evaporative heat loss is less effective when using clear water compared to mud, as it lasts for a shorter time and declines rapidly (Ingram, 1965).
";R101;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Climate;cooling options;mud wallow;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1054;Regarding slatted floor systems, the floor material is an important influencing factor. Commonly used concrete slats result in higher NH3 emissions compared to metal or plastic slats, which seem to have better drainage properties (Philippe et al., 2011). Systems with partly slatted floors seem to have lower emissions as long as the solid area remains clean (Philippe et al., 2011).;R101;6;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Fitness;-1,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
1054;Regarding slatted floor systems, the floor material is an important influencing factor. Commonly used concrete slats result in higher NH3 emissions compared to metal or plastic slats, which seem to have better drainage properties (Philippe et al., 2011). Systems with partly slatted floors seem to have lower emissions as long as the solid area remains clean (Philippe et al., 2011).;R101;6;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
1054;Regarding slatted floor systems, the floor material is an important influencing factor. Commonly used concrete slats result in higher NH3 emissions compared to metal or plastic slats, which seem to have better drainage properties (Philippe et al., 2011). Systems with partly slatted floors seem to have lower emissions as long as the solid area remains clean (Philippe et al., 2011).;R101;6;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1054;Regarding slatted floor systems, the floor material is an important influencing factor. Commonly used concrete slats result in higher NH3 emissions compared to metal or plastic slats, which seem to have better drainage properties (Philippe et al., 2011). Systems with partly slatted floors seem to have lower emissions as long as the solid area remains clean (Philippe et al., 2011).;R101;6;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
1054;Regarding slatted floor systems, the floor material is an important influencing factor. Commonly used concrete slats result in higher NH3 emissions compared to metal or plastic slats, which seem to have better drainage properties (Philippe et al., 2011). Systems with partly slatted floors seem to have lower emissions as long as the solid area remains clean (Philippe et al., 2011).;R101;6;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1055;A roof protects pigs from rain, wind and sunlight and keeps bedding, rooting material and feed provided in the OUTRUN dry.;R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
1055;A roof protects pigs from rain, wind and sunlight and keeps bedding, rooting material and feed provided in the OUTRUN dry.;R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Thermoregulation, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
1056;It is commonly argued that having the choice between different climatic zones (e.g. roofed and unroofed) is beneficial for animal welfare and provides additional environmental stimuli. For wild pigs, the choice between shaded and unshaded areas is reported to be weather dependent (Allwin et al., 2016).;R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Thermoregulation, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
1056;It is commonly argued that having the choice between different climatic zones (e.g. roofed and unroofed) is beneficial for animal welfare and provides additional environmental stimuli. For wild pigs, the choice between shaded and unshaded areas is reported to be weather dependent (Allwin et al., 2016).;R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;available;Preferences;1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1057;Pigs housed in systems with OUTRUNs may suffer from sunburn, depending particularly on the degree of roofing. Cagienard et al. (2005) reported a mean percentage of 2.9% (ranging from 0 to 47%) of pigs with sunburn in a housing system with an OUTRUN. However, the authors did not indicate the degree of roofing of the OUTRUN. Providing sufficient shade has also been reported to increase play in systems with OUTRUNs (Olsen et al., 2002).;R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1057;Pigs housed in systems with OUTRUNs may suffer from sunburn, depending particularly on the degree of roofing. Cagienard et al. (2005) reported a mean percentage of 2.9% (ranging from 0 to 47%) of pigs with sunburn in a housing system with an OUTRUN. However, the authors did not indicate the degree of roofing of the OUTRUN. Providing sufficient shade has also been reported to increase play in systems with OUTRUNs (Olsen et al., 2002).;R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1057;Pigs housed in systems with OUTRUNs may suffer from sunburn, depending particularly on the degree of roofing. Cagienard et al. (2005) reported a mean percentage of 2.9% (ranging from 0 to 47%) of pigs with sunburn in a housing system with an OUTRUN. However, the authors did not indicate the degree of roofing of the OUTRUN. Providing sufficient shade has also been reported to increase play in systems with OUTRUNs (Olsen et al., 2002).;R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1057;Pigs housed in systems with OUTRUNs may suffer from sunburn, depending particularly on the degree of roofing. Cagienard et al. (2005) reported a mean percentage of 2.9% (ranging from 0 to 47%) of pigs with sunburn in a housing system with an OUTRUN. However, the authors did not indicate the degree of roofing of the OUTRUN. Providing sufficient shade has also been reported to increase play in systems with OUTRUNs (Olsen et al., 2002).;R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run roof;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Play behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1058;"Although pigs prefer a surface similar to soil, e.g. peat, compost (Beattie et al., 1998), these materials are rare or not allowed in practice. Providing additional areas with a cooler surface in the OUTRUN, e.g. by reducing bedding material, is important at high temperatures when pigs increasingly lie on a cooler surface such as concrete (Olsen et al., 2001; Knoll et al., 2021).";R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Enrichment;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1058;"Although pigs prefer a surface similar to soil, e.g. peat, compost (Beattie et al., 1998), these materials are rare or not allowed in practice. Providing additional areas with a cooler surface in the OUTRUN, e.g. by reducing bedding material, is important at high temperatures when pigs increasingly lie on a cooler surface such as concrete (Olsen et al., 2001; Knoll et al., 2021).";R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Enrichment;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1058;"Although pigs prefer a surface similar to soil, e.g. peat, compost (Beattie et al., 1998), these materials are rare or not allowed in practice. Providing additional areas with a cooler surface in the OUTRUN, e.g. by reducing bedding material, is important at high temperatures when pigs increasingly lie on a cooler surface such as concrete (Olsen et al., 2001; Knoll et al., 2021).";R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Enrichment;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1058;"Although pigs prefer a surface similar to soil, e.g. peat, compost (Beattie et al., 1998), these materials are rare or not allowed in practice. Providing additional areas with a cooler surface in the OUTRUN, e.g. by reducing bedding material, is important at high temperatures when pigs increasingly lie on a cooler surface such as concrete (Olsen et al., 2001; Knoll et al., 2021).";R101;7;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Enrichment;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Fitness;-1,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1059;"smooth materials (cast iron, metal and plastic) result in less NH3 than concrete (Philippe et al., 2011). However, low attractiveness of these materials for locomotion and higher risk of leg disorders need to be considered; this may be, next to cost, a reason to choose concrete slats in OUTRUNs.";R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;iron/metal/plastic/concrete [slats];Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1060;EU regulations emphasise the provision of rooting material in the OUTRUN (European Parliament and Council, 2018), while suitable materials are regulated on a national or private basis in some countries (Table 1). A structurally separated rooting area with substrates such as wood shavings, peat or compost is highly attractive for pigs;R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Preferences;3,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1060;EU regulations emphasise the provision of rooting material in the OUTRUN (European Parliament and Council, 2018), while suitable materials are regulated on a national or private basis in some countries (Table 1). A structurally separated rooting area with substrates such as wood shavings, peat or compost is highly attractive for pigs;R101;8;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;soil floor;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1061;A combination of closed and open partitions [in the outdoor run] allows the pigs to choose between areas with high or low air flow, thus increasing the pig’s possibilities for thermoregulation.;R101;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;solid pen partitions;available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1061;A combination of closed and open partitions [in the outdoor run] allows the pigs to choose between areas with high or low air flow, thus increasing the pig’s possibilities for thermoregulation.;R101;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;solid pen partitions;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1062;Solid partitions within the pen can help to structure functional areas, e.g. by keeping bedding material in their designated locations and preventing manure from being spread. Pigs need hiding walls to retreat behind in case of aggressive interactions and like to lie down along a wall protected from draughts (Jackson et al., 2020).;R101;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;solid pen partitions;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1062;Solid partitions within the pen can help to structure functional areas, e.g. by keeping bedding material in their designated locations and preventing manure from being spread. Pigs need hiding walls to retreat behind in case of aggressive interactions and like to lie down along a wall protected from draughts (Jackson et al., 2020).;R101;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;solid pen partitions;not available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1062;Solid partitions within the pen can help to structure functional areas, e.g. by keeping bedding material in their designated locations and preventing manure from being spread. Pigs need hiding walls to retreat behind in case of aggressive interactions and like to lie down along a wall protected from draughts (Jackson et al., 2020).;R101;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1062;Solid partitions within the pen can help to structure functional areas, e.g. by keeping bedding material in their designated locations and preventing manure from being spread. Pigs need hiding walls to retreat behind in case of aggressive interactions and like to lie down along a wall protected from draughts (Jackson et al., 2020).;R101;9;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1066;Elevated platforms can provide additional space for the pigs and can be used to enrich pens through establishing different functional areas.;R103;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
1066;Elevated platforms can provide additional space for the pigs and can be used to enrich pens through establishing different functional areas.;R103;1;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
1067;Thus, there is a potential conflict in the design of the elevated platform between cleanliness on top and underneath the platform (Fig. 1).;R103;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Fitness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1067;Thus, there is a potential conflict in the design of the elevated platform between cleanliness on top and underneath the platform (Fig. 1).;R103;2;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1069;"Because warm air rises, temperatures on elevated platforms can be higher than temperatures at the floor area of the pen (Vermeij et al., PR 2003). Possible explanations for fouling of elevated platforms are that at high temperatures pigs often defecate in the lying area to cool down by evaporation (Aarnink et al., 2006; Opderbeck et al., 2020; Savary et D P al., 2009). This may lead to an increased fouling of the platform if used as lying area, in particular if temperatures on the platform are higher than on the floor area of the pen (Fraser and Phillips, 1989). ";R103;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Fitness;-1,00;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1069;"Because warm air rises, temperatures on elevated platforms can be higher than temperatures at the floor area of the pen (Vermeij et al., PR 2003). Possible explanations for fouling of elevated platforms are that at high temperatures pigs often defecate in the lying area to cool down by evaporation (Aarnink et al., 2006; Opderbeck et al., 2020; Savary et D P al., 2009). This may lead to an increased fouling of the platform if used as lying area, in particular if temperatures on the platform are higher than on the floor area of the pen (Fraser and Phillips, 1989). ";R103;3;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Preferences;0,01;Thermoregulation ;;;;;;;;;
1071;By offering elevated platforms, pens can be enriched with three dimensional structures and pigs can choose between different areas with different microclimates within the pen;R103;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Preferences;1,00;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
1071;By offering elevated platforms, pens can be enriched with three dimensional structures and pigs can choose between different areas with different microclimates within the pen;R103;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration, Rest;;;;;;;;;
1072;"It is assumed that pigs better can escape from or avoid aggressive pen mates in pens with elevated platforms, shown by a lower skin lesion score (Laves et al., 2021), indicating a positive effect on the welfare of pigs (Bulens et al., 2017; Laves et al., 2021; Vermeij et al., 2003).";R103;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1072;"It is assumed that pigs better can escape from or avoid aggressive pen mates in pens with elevated platforms, shown by a lower skin lesion score (Laves et al., 2021), indicating a positive effect on the welfare of pigs (Bulens et al., 2017; Laves et al., 2021; Vermeij et al., 2003).";R103;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Pain;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1073;"The spatial structure as provided by elevated platforms can better match the behavioral needs of rearing and fattening pigs, what can improve welfare (Algers et al., 2007; Baxter et al., 2011; Pedersen, 2018)";R103;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Elimination, Rest;;;;;;;;;
1073;"The spatial structure as provided by elevated platforms can better match the behavioral needs of rearing and fattening pigs, what can improve welfare (Algers et al., 2007; Baxter et al., 2011; Pedersen, 2018)";R103;4;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Elimination, Rest;;;;;;;;;
1074;"Compared to pens without elevated platforms, reduced tail biting was found in pens with elevated platforms, both when the space of the elevated platform was counted as usable area (Fraser et al., 1986) or was offered additionally (Bulens et al., 2017; pigs with docked tails).";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
1074;"Compared to pens without elevated platforms, reduced tail biting was found in pens with elevated platforms, both when the space of the elevated platform was counted as usable area (Fraser et al., 1986) or was offered additionally (Bulens et al., 2017; pigs with docked tails).";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Pain;-1,00;Social contact, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
1074;"Compared to pens without elevated platforms, reduced tail biting was found in pens with elevated platforms, both when the space of the elevated platform was counted as usable area (Fraser et al., 1986) or was offered additionally (Bulens et al., 2017; pigs with docked tails).";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Social contact, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
1075;Furthermore, pigs housed in pens with additional space due to an elevated platform showed reduced aggressive behavior (Bulens et al.,2017) and less fighting between pigs was observed (Laves et al., 2021) compared to pigs in pens without platforms.;R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
1075;Furthermore, pigs housed in pens with additional space due to an elevated platform showed reduced aggressive behavior (Bulens et al.,2017) and less fighting between pigs was observed (Laves et al., 2021) compared to pigs in pens without platforms.;R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
1075;Furthermore, pigs housed in pens with additional space due to an elevated platform showed reduced aggressive behavior (Bulens et al.,2017) and less fighting between pigs was observed (Laves et al., 2021) compared to pigs in pens without platforms.;R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
1075;Furthermore, pigs housed in pens with additional space due to an elevated platform showed reduced aggressive behavior (Bulens et al.,2017) and less fighting between pigs was observed (Laves et al., 2021) compared to pigs in pens without platforms.;R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
1076;"Due to the additional space per pig by elevated platforms, it is assumed that pigs have the opportunity to better escape from aggressive pen mates or avoid them (Bulens et al., 2017; Laves et al., 2021; Vermeij et al., 2003)";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
1076;"Due to the additional space per pig by elevated platforms, it is assumed that pigs have the opportunity to better escape from aggressive pen mates or avoid them (Bulens et al., 2017; Laves et al., 2021; Vermeij et al., 2003)";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
1077;"Since reduced tail biting was also found when the elevated platform was included as useable area (Fraser et al., 1986), it seems that the positive effects on tail biting and aggression primarily are related to the improved pen structure by the platform rather than just by additional space, as this kind of environmental enrichment seems to encourage pigs to perform explorative behaviors (Fraser et al., 1986; Novak et al., 2020).";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
1077;"Since reduced tail biting was also found when the elevated platform was included as useable area (Fraser et al., 1986), it seems that the positive effects on tail biting and aggression primarily are related to the improved pen structure by the platform rather than just by additional space, as this kind of environmental enrichment seems to encourage pigs to perform explorative behaviors (Fraser et al., 1986; Novak et al., 2020).";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Pain;-1,00;Social contact, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
1077;"Since reduced tail biting was also found when the elevated platform was included as useable area (Fraser et al., 1986), it seems that the positive effects on tail biting and aggression primarily are related to the improved pen structure by the platform rather than just by additional space, as this kind of environmental enrichment seems to encourage pigs to perform explorative behaviors (Fraser et al., 1986; Novak et al., 2020).";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Social contact, Exploration;;;;;;;;;
1077;"Since reduced tail biting was also found when the elevated platform was included as useable area (Fraser et al., 1986), it seems that the positive effects on tail biting and aggression primarily are related to the improved pen structure by the platform rather than just by additional space, as this kind of environmental enrichment seems to encourage pigs to perform explorative behaviors (Fraser et al., 1986; Novak et al., 2020).";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
1077;"Since reduced tail biting was also found when the elevated platform was included as useable area (Fraser et al., 1986), it seems that the positive effects on tail biting and aggression primarily are related to the improved pen structure by the platform rather than just by additional space, as this kind of environmental enrichment seems to encourage pigs to perform explorative behaviors (Fraser et al., 1986; Novak et al., 2020).";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Social contact, Safety;;;;;;;;;
1077;"Since reduced tail biting was also found when the elevated platform was included as useable area (Fraser et al., 1986), it seems that the positive effects on tail biting and aggression primarily are related to the improved pen structure by the platform rather than just by additional space, as this kind of environmental enrichment seems to encourage pigs to perform explorative behaviors (Fraser et al., 1986; Novak et al., 2020).";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1077;"Since reduced tail biting was also found when the elevated platform was included as useable area (Fraser et al., 1986), it seems that the positive effects on tail biting and aggression primarily are related to the improved pen structure by the platform rather than just by additional space, as this kind of environmental enrichment seems to encourage pigs to perform explorative behaviors (Fraser et al., 1986; Novak et al., 2020).";R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1078;Laves et al. (2021) even found an increase in weight gains of rearing pigs housed in pens with elevated platforms, where the platform offered additional space for the pigs, compared to pigs in pens without elevated platform.;R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;available;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1078;Laves et al. (2021) even found an increase in weight gains of rearing pigs housed in pens with elevated platforms, where the platform offered additional space for the pigs, compared to pigs in pens without elevated platform.;R103;5;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Barn construction;elevated platforms;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1080;This implies that the pigs either preferred to encounter a range of illuminances throughout each day, or that they were strongly motivated to explore, perhaps foraging or monitoring their environment, and did not choose to restrict themselves to only one compartment.;R104;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;available;Preferences;1,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1080;This implies that the pigs either preferred to encounter a range of illuminances throughout each day, or that they were strongly motivated to explore, perhaps foraging or monitoring their environment, and did not choose to restrict themselves to only one compartment.;R104;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1080;This implies that the pigs either preferred to encounter a range of illuminances throughout each day, or that they were strongly motivated to explore, perhaps foraging or monitoring their environment, and did not choose to restrict themselves to only one compartment.;R104;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;available;Demand;2,00;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1080;This implies that the pigs either preferred to encounter a range of illuminances throughout each day, or that they were strongly motivated to explore, perhaps foraging or monitoring their environment, and did not choose to restrict themselves to only one compartment.;R104;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Exploration ;;;;;;;;;
1081;The only active behaviour associated significantly with illuminance was defecation, with more defecation in higher illuminances. It is likely that this finding is influenced by the pigs’ preference to defecate away from their resting/sleeping area (Olsen et al., 2001), hence in this experiment as they preferred to rest in the lower illuminances, they consequently moved to the higher illuminances to defecate. An alternate explanation would be that the animals showed a preference to defecate in the brighter illuminances and consequently slept in the darker compartments to avoid these fouled areas.;R104;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;available;Preferences;1,00;Elimination, Rest;;;;;;;;;
1081;The only active behaviour associated significantly with illuminance was defecation, with more defecation in higher illuminances. It is likely that this finding is influenced by the pigs’ preference to defecate away from their resting/sleeping area (Olsen et al., 2001), hence in this experiment as they preferred to rest in the lower illuminances, they consequently moved to the higher illuminances to defecate. An alternate explanation would be that the animals showed a preference to defecate in the brighter illuminances and consequently slept in the darker compartments to avoid these fouled areas.;R104;28;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Elimination, Rest;;;;;;;;;
1082;One way of incorporating these findings into commercial systems, such as grouphousing, would be to provide a night period of 6 h of darkness as well as a spatial region of dim illuminance throughout the day, with zones of temporally higher illuminance.;R104;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;available;Preferences;1,00;Rest, Elimination;;;;;;;;;
1082;One way of incorporating these findings into commercial systems, such as grouphousing, would be to provide a night period of 6 h of darkness as well as a spatial region of dim illuminance throughout the day, with zones of temporally higher illuminance.;R104;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest, Elimination;;;;;;;;;
1083;This would provide pigs with their preferred light environment for their preferred occupation, which could be assumed to be a less stressful environment than an aversive illuminance.;R104;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;available;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Elimination;;;;;;;;;
1083;This would provide pigs with their preferred light environment for their preferred occupation, which could be assumed to be a less stressful environment than an aversive illuminance.;R104;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;not available;HPA;-1,00;Rest, Elimination;;;;;;;;;
1084;Provision of a distinguishable resting area should further enable the pigs to distance themselves from their dunging area, with consequent benefits for hygiene;R104;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;available;Preferences;0,01;Rest, Elimination;;;;;;;;;
1084;Provision of a distinguishable resting area should further enable the pigs to distance themselves from their dunging area, with consequent benefits for hygiene;R104;30;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Light;different illumination areas;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Rest, Elimination;;;;;;;;;
1085;Feeder T enables a number of pigs to drink tagether at the same place and this design could promote play behaviour, at least in the beginning of the test periods. [compared to V][T allows for wet meals, V only dry meal];R105;41;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;type of feeder;wet and dry meal;Natural behaviour;1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1085;Feeder T enables a number of pigs to drink tagether at the same place and this design could promote play behaviour, at least in the beginning of the test periods. [compared to V][T allows for wet meals, V only dry meal];R105;41;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;type of feeder;dry meal only;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1086;Surprisingly, diurnal feeding activity was respected with feeder T, although the non-individual feeding place was only 60 cm long. However with this system, pigs can face each other when cating on either side and this situation maybe induces some social facilitation which accelerates ingestion [compared to V][T allows for wet meals, V only dry meals];R105;41;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;type of feeder;wet and dry meal;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1086;Surprisingly, diurnal feeding activity was respected with feeder T, although the non-individual feeding place was only 60 cm long. However with this system, pigs can face each other when cating on either side and this situation maybe induces some social facilitation which accelerates ingestion [compared to V][T allows for wet meals, V only dry meals];R105;41;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;type of feeder;dry meal only;Natural behaviour;1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1087;When comparing multi- and single-space troughs, Nielsen et nl. (1996) observed high Ievels of allelomimetic feeding by pigs using the multi-space trough but without any significant effect on total time spent feeding or on daily food intake.;R105;41;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;social feeding;multi-feeder;Preferences;1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1087;When comparing multi- and single-space troughs, Nielsen et nl. (1996) observed high Ievels of allelomimetic feeding by pigs using the multi-space trough but without any significant effect on total time spent feeding or on daily food intake.;R105;41;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;social feeding;single feeder;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1088;Grouping 40 weaned pigs araund feeder V effectively prevented preferential diurnal feed ing activity. In such conditions, pigs could thus be forced to eat faster and at different times than they would wish. [compared to T][T allows wet meals, V only dry meals];R105;41;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;type of feeder;wet and dry meal;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1088;Grouping 40 weaned pigs araund feeder V effectively prevented preferential diurnal feed ing activity. In such conditions, pigs could thus be forced to eat faster and at different times than they would wish. [compared to T][T allows wet meals, V only dry meals];R105;41;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;type of feeder;dry meal only;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1090;"Housing systems with ad lib feeding and multiple feed spaces have been shown to have lower prevalences of tail-biting and other lesions (Hansen et al., 1982; Hunter et al., 1999; Georgsson and Svendsen, 2001; Moinard et al., 2003).";R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;social feeding;single feeder;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1090;"Housing systems with ad lib feeding and multiple feed spaces have been shown to have lower prevalences of tail-biting and other lesions (Hansen et al., 1982; Hunter et al., 1999; Georgsson and Svendsen, 2001; Moinard et al., 2003).";R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;social feeding;single feeder;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1090;"Housing systems with ad lib feeding and multiple feed spaces have been shown to have lower prevalences of tail-biting and other lesions (Hansen et al., 1982; Hunter et al., 1999; Georgsson and Svendsen, 2001; Moinard et al., 2003).";R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;social feeding;single feeder;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1090;"Housing systems with ad lib feeding and multiple feed spaces have been shown to have lower prevalences of tail-biting and other lesions (Hansen et al., 1982; Hunter et al., 1999; Georgsson and Svendsen, 2001; Moinard et al., 2003).";R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;social feeding;single feeder;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1090;"Housing systems with ad lib feeding and multiple feed spaces have been shown to have lower prevalences of tail-biting and other lesions (Hansen et al., 1982; Hunter et al., 1999; Georgsson and Svendsen, 2001; Moinard et al., 2003).";R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;feeding regime;restricted;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1090;"Housing systems with ad lib feeding and multiple feed spaces have been shown to have lower prevalences of tail-biting and other lesions (Hansen et al., 1982; Hunter et al., 1999; Georgsson and Svendsen, 2001; Moinard et al., 2003).";R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;feeding regime;ad libitum;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1090;"Housing systems with ad lib feeding and multiple feed spaces have been shown to have lower prevalences of tail-biting and other lesions (Hansen et al., 1982; Hunter et al., 1999; Georgsson and Svendsen, 2001; Moinard et al., 2003).";R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;feeding regime;restricted;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1090;"Housing systems with ad lib feeding and multiple feed spaces have been shown to have lower prevalences of tail-biting and other lesions (Hansen et al., 1982; Hunter et al., 1999; Georgsson and Svendsen, 2001; Moinard et al., 2003).";R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;feeding regime;restricted;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1091;Providing partitions or head partitions at the feed space, as recommended in RSPCA standards (RSPCA, 2008), can help reduce competition, as they prevent pigs controlling more than one defined access point to food, and lower the prevalence of tail-biting (Morrow and Walker, 1994);R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;solid pen partitions;available;Preferences;0,01;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1091;Providing partitions or head partitions at the feed space, as recommended in RSPCA standards (RSPCA, 2008), can help reduce competition, as they prevent pigs controlling more than one defined access point to food, and lower the prevalence of tail-biting (Morrow and Walker, 1994);R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;solid pen partitions;not available;Pain;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1091;Providing partitions or head partitions at the feed space, as recommended in RSPCA standards (RSPCA, 2008), can help reduce competition, as they prevent pigs controlling more than one defined access point to food, and lower the prevalence of tail-biting (Morrow and Walker, 1994);R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;solid pen partitions;not available;Abnormal behaviour;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1091;Providing partitions or head partitions at the feed space, as recommended in RSPCA standards (RSPCA, 2008), can help reduce competition, as they prevent pigs controlling more than one defined access point to food, and lower the prevalence of tail-biting (Morrow and Walker, 1994);R107;143;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Feed;solid pen partitions;not available;Aggression;-1,00;Food intake ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs, Pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run floor type;pasture;Preferences;1,00;Movement;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Fitness;-2,00;Movement;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Fitness;-2,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Aggression;-2,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-2,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Pain;-2,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Pain;-2,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Preferences;0,01;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Illness;-2,00;Respiration ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Aggression;-1,00;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Rest ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Social contact ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Pain;-1,00;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Exploration, Food intake;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Pain;-1,00;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Movement ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1093;The highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by rearing pigs in indoor group housing are restriction of movements, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. Hazards leading to these welfare consequences and ABMs that can be used to assess them are presented in Section 7.5. The highly relevant welfare consequences identified in the case of rearing pigs kept in indoor systems with access to an outdoor area are group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, locomotory disorders (including lameness), soft tissue lesions and integument damage and respiratory disorders. In the case of rearing pigs kept in outdoor paddock systems, no highly relevant welfare consequences were identified by expert opinion. However, other welfare consequences may negatively affect the welfare of rearing pigs, but in the opinion of the panel, they were classified as of minor or moderate relevanc;R108;246;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Outdoor;outdoor run;not available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1094;Pigs also prefer to maintain separate functional areas in the pen, e.g. for lying and dunging, and require sufficient space to do this.;R108;226;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;available;Preferences;1,00;Rest, Elimination;;;;;;;;;
1094;Pigs also prefer to maintain separate functional areas in the pen, e.g. for lying and dunging, and require sufficient space to do this.;R108;226;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Rearing pigs;Barn construction;separate resting and defecation area;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Rest, Elimination;;;;;;;;;
1095;Whenever possible cattle tend to withdraw from the herd when injured or sick.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1095;Whenever possible cattle tend to withdraw from the herd when injured or sick.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1096;Sick cows kept with the herd are a threat to healthy animals spreading infection, e.g. via contaminated bedding or flooring (e.g. several mastitis agents, bovine salmonellosis).;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1096;Sick cows kept with the herd are a threat to healthy animals spreading infection, e.g. via contaminated bedding or flooring (e.g. several mastitis agents, bovine salmonellosis).;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;not available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1096;Sick cows kept with the herd are a threat to healthy animals spreading infection, e.g. via contaminated bedding or flooring (e.g. several mastitis agents, bovine salmonellosis).;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1096;Sick cows kept with the herd are a threat to healthy animals spreading infection, e.g. via contaminated bedding or flooring (e.g. several mastitis agents, bovine salmonellosis).;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;not available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1097;Prolonged lying on hard surfaces, as may happen with injured or sick cows kept with the herd, causes irreversible muscle and nerve lesions, leading to the Downer Cow Syndrome.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1097;Prolonged lying on hard surfaces, as may happen with injured or sick cows kept with the herd, causes irreversible muscle and nerve lesions, leading to the Downer Cow Syndrome.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;not available;Pain;-3,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1097;Prolonged lying on hard surfaces, as may happen with injured or sick cows kept with the herd, causes irreversible muscle and nerve lesions, leading to the Downer Cow Syndrome.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1097;Prolonged lying on hard surfaces, as may happen with injured or sick cows kept with the herd, causes irreversible muscle and nerve lesions, leading to the Downer Cow Syndrome.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;not available;Pain;-3,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1097;Prolonged lying on hard surfaces, as may happen with injured or sick cows kept with the herd, causes irreversible muscle and nerve lesions, leading to the Downer Cow Syndrome.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1097;Prolonged lying on hard surfaces, as may happen with injured or sick cows kept with the herd, causes irreversible muscle and nerve lesions, leading to the Downer Cow Syndrome.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;not available;Illness;-3,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1098;Proper facilities for severely sick or injured animals are essential because such animals need isolation or extra space to move, because it reduces spread of infection and because it prevents complications, trauma, stress and fear.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1098;Proper facilities for severely sick or injured animals are essential because such animals need isolation or extra space to move, because it reduces spread of infection and because it prevents complications, trauma, stress and fear.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;not available;Illness;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1098;Proper facilities for severely sick or injured animals are essential because such animals need isolation or extra space to move, because it reduces spread of infection and because it prevents complications, trauma, stress and fear.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1098;Proper facilities for severely sick or injured animals are essential because such animals need isolation or extra space to move, because it reduces spread of infection and because it prevents complications, trauma, stress and fear.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;not available;HPA;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1098;Proper facilities for severely sick or injured animals are essential because such animals need isolation or extra space to move, because it reduces spread of infection and because it prevents complications, trauma, stress and fear.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;available;Preferences;0,01;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1098;Proper facilities for severely sick or injured animals are essential because such animals need isolation or extra space to move, because it reduces spread of infection and because it prevents complications, trauma, stress and fear.;R24;163;Cattle;Cattle ;General welfare;sick pen;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-1,00;Health ;;;;;;;;;
1099;"Under semi-natural conditions, rubbing posts are generally found near wallows and at other places in the enclosure (Stegeman 1938). This includes opportunities for various kinds of rubbing (anogenital rub; side rub; head rub). To this end, a tree and stone next to the pool may suffice (Jensen 2002). Scratch posts that have been used extensively show signs of mud up to the height of the tallest animal in the group (Stegeman 1938).";R95;350;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Body care;scratching object;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1099;"Under semi-natural conditions, rubbing posts are generally found near wallows and at other places in the enclosure (Stegeman 1938). This includes opportunities for various kinds of rubbing (anogenital rub; side rub; head rub). To this end, a tree and stone next to the pool may suffice (Jensen 2002). Scratch posts that have been used extensively show signs of mud up to the height of the tallest animal in the group (Stegeman 1938).";R95;350;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Body care;scratching object;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1100;"Pitch pines less than 15 cm in diameter appear to be preferred under natural conditions (Stegeman 1938; Graves 1984). Others report that creosotetreated posts were preferred perhaps as an aid in ectoparasite control (Stevens 1996; Dickson et al 2001).";R95;350;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Body care;scratching object;available;Preferences;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1100;"Pitch pines less than 15 cm in diameter appear to be preferred under natural conditions (Stegeman 1938; Graves 1984). Others report that creosotetreated posts were preferred perhaps as an aid in ectoparasite control (Stevens 1996; Dickson et al 2001).";R95;350;Pigs;Fattening pigs, Pigs;Body care;scratching object;not available;Fitness;-1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1101;Swine engage in a significant amount of self-grooming behavior. They can actively scratch areas around the head, neck and forelegs with a hindleg, as well as the belly, and they frequently rub the body actively against objects in the environment.;R109;333;Pigs;Pigs, Sows;Body care;scratching object;available;Preferences;2,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1101;Swine engage in a significant amount of self-grooming behavior. They can actively scratch areas around the head, neck and forelegs with a hindleg, as well as the belly, and they frequently rub the body actively against objects in the environment.;R109;333;Pigs;Pigs, Sows;Body care;scratching object;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1102;When kept extensively, they often perform self-grooming in behavioral sequences in which specific objects are approached and those body areas most easily brought into contact with them are then rubbed against the object;R109;333;Pigs;Pigs, Sows;Body care;scratching object;available;Natural behaviour;1,00;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1102;When kept extensively, they often perform self-grooming in behavioral sequences in which specific objects are approached and those body areas most easily brought into contact with them are then rubbed against the object;R109;333;Pigs;Pigs, Sows;Body care;scratching object;not available;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Body care ;;;;;;;;;
1105;Cows also seek isolation when housed indoors (Proudfoot et al., 2014a,b);R111;126;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);available ;Natural behaviour;1,00;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;
1105;Cows also seek isolation when housed indoors (Proudfoot et al., 2014a,b);R111;126;Cattle;Dairy cows ;Calving;secluded area (calving);not available ;Frustration and avoidance;-0,01;Maternal behaviour ;;;;;;;;;