The use of models in the life sciences has greatly expanded in scope and advanced in technique in recent decades. However, the range, type and complexity of models used in farm animal welfare is comparatively poor, despite the great scope for use of modeling in this field of research. In this paper, we review the different modeling approaches used in farm animal welfare science to date, discussing the types of questions they have been used to answer, the merits and problems associated with the method, and possible future applications of each technique. We find that the most frequently published types of model used in farm animal welfare are conceptual and assessment models; two types of model that are frequently (though not exclusively) based on expert opinion. Simulation, optimization, scenario, and systems modeling approaches are rarer in animal welfare, despite being commonly used in other related fields. Finally, common issues such as a lack of quantitative data to parameterize models, and model selection and validation are discussed throughout the review, with possible solutions and alternative approaches suggested.
References
[1]
Van der Gaag, M.A.; Mul, H.F.; Huirne, R.B.M. Food safety and control programs in the Dutch pork production chain. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Chain Management in Agribusiness and the Food Industry, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 25–26 May 2000; pp. 139–145.
[2]
Keeling, M.J.; Woolhouse, M.E.; Shaw, D.J.; Matthews, L.; Chase-Topping, M.; Haydon, D.T.; Cornell, S.J.; Kappey, J.; Wilesmith, J.; Grenfell, B.T. Dynamics of the 2001 UK foot and mouth epidemic: Stochastic dispersal in a heterogeneous landscape. Science 2001, 294, 813–817, doi:10.1126/science.1065973.
Tomassen, F.H.M.; de Koeijer, A; Mourits, M.C.M.; Dekker, A.; Bouma, A.; Huirne, R.B.M. A decision-tree to optimise control measures during the early stage of a foot-and-mouth disease epidemic. Prev. Vet. Med. 2002, 54, 301–324.
[5]
Milne, C.E.; Dalton, G.E.; Stott, A.W. Integrated control strategies for ectoparasites in Scottish sheep flocks. Livest Sci 2007, 106, 243–253, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.08.010.
[6]
Vernon, M.C.; Keeling, M.J. Representing the UK's cattle herd as static and dynamic networks. Proc. R. Soc. B 2009, 276, 469–476, doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1009.
[7]
Tinsley, M.; Lewis, F.I.; Brülisauer, F. Network modeling of BVD transmission. Vet. Res. 2012, 43, doi:10.1186/1297-9716-43-11.
[8]
Del Prado, A.; Misselbrook, T.; Chadwick, D.; Hopkins, A.; Dewhurst, R.J.; Davison, P.; Butler, A.; Schr？der, J.; Scholefield, D. SIMSDAIRY: A modelling framework to identify sustainable dairy farms in the UK. Framework description and test for organic systems and N fertiliser optimisation. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 3993–4009, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.050.
[9]
Roughgarden, J. Ecology. In Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather; Schneider, S.H., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 268–269.
[10]
Drake, K.A.; Donnelly, C.A.; Dawkins, M.S. Influence of rearing and lay risk factors on propensity for feather damage in laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2010, 51, 725–33, doi:10.1080/00071668.2010.528751.
[11]
Moe, R.; Bakken, M. Anxiolytic drugs inhibit hyperthermia induced by handling in farmed silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Anim. Welf. 1998, 7, 97–100.
[12]
Neisen, G.; Wechsler, B.; Gygax, L. Effects of the introduction of single heifers or pairs of heifers into dairy-cow herds on the temporal and spatial associations of heifers and cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 127–136, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.04.006.
[13]
Reefmann, N.; Bütikofer Kaszàs, F.; Wechsler, B.; Gygax, L. Ear and tail postures as indicators of emotional valence in sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 118, 199–207, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.013.
[14]
Smulders, D.; Hautekiet, V.; Verbeke, G.; Geers, R. Tail and ear biting lesions in pigs: An epidemiological study. Anim. Welf. 2008, 17, 61–69.
[15]
Temple, D.; Courboulay, V.; Velarde, A.; Dalmau, A.; Manteca, X. The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems in France and Spain: Assessment of health. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 257–271, doi:10.7120/09627286.21.2.257.
[16]
Temple, D.; Courboulay, V.; Manteca, X.; Velarde, A.; Dalmau, A. The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: Assessment of feeding and housing. Animal 2012, 6, 656–667, doi:10.1017/S1751731111001868.
[17]
Turnbull, J.; Bell, A.; Adams, C.; Bron, J.; Huntingford, F. Stocking density and welfare of cage farmed Atlantic salmon: Application of a multivariate analysis. Aquaculture 2005, 243, 121–132, doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.09.022.
[18]
Zonderland, J.J.; Van Riel, J.W.; Bracke, M.B.M.; Kemp, B.; Den Hartog, L.A.; Spoolder, H.A.M. Tail posture predicts tail damage among weaned piglets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 121, 165–170, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.09.002.
[19]
Turner, S.P.; Roehe, R.; Mekkawy, W.; Farnworth, M.J.; Knap, P.W.; Lawrence, A.B. Bayesian analysis of genetic associations of skin lesions and behavioural traits to identify genetic components of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Behav. Genet. 2008, 38, 67–75, doi:10.1007/s10519-007-9171-2.
[20]
Roberts, S.J.; Cain, R.; Dawkins, M.S. Prediction of welfare outcomes for broiler chickens using Bayesian regression on continuous optical flow data. J. R. Soc. Interface 2012, 9, 3436–3443, doi:10.1098/rsif.2012.0594.
[21]
Oberbauer, A.M.; Berry, S.L.; Belanger, J.M.; McGoldrick, R.M.; Pinos-Rodriquez, J.M.; Famula, T.R. Determining the heritable component of dairy cattle foot lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 605–613, doi:10.3168/jds.2012-5485.
[22]
Asher, L.; Collins, L.M.; Ortiz-Pelaez, A.; Drewe, J.A.; Nicol, C.J.; Pfeiffer, D.U. Recent advances in the analysis of behavioural organization and interpretation as indicators of animal welfare. J. R. Soc. Interface 2009, 6, 1103–1119, doi:10.1098/rsif.2009.0221.
[23]
Collins, L.M.; Asher, L.; Pfeiffer, D.U.; Browne, W.J.; Nicol, C.J. Clustering and synchrony in laying hens: The effect of environmental resources on social dynamics. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 129, 43–53, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2010.10.007.
[24]
Dawkins, M.S.; Lee, H.; Waitt, C.D.; Roberts, S.J. Optical flow patterns in broiler chicken flocks as automated measures of behaviour and gait. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 203–209, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.04.009.
[25]
Rutherford, K.M.D.; Haskell, M.J.; Glasbey, C.; Jones, R.B.; Lawrence, A.B. Fractal analysis of animal behaviour as an indicator of animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, S99–S103.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Animal welfare aspects of husbandry systems for farmed Atlantic salmon. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA J. 2008, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2008.736. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/736.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2013).
[28]
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed fish: Rainbow trout. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA J. 2009, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1012.
[29]
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers. EFSA J. 2010, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1666. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1666.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2013).
[30]
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Scientific Opinion on welfare aspects of the management and housing of the grand-parent and parent stocks raised and kept for breeding purposes. EFSA J. 2010, doi:10.2903/ j.efsa.2010.1667. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/efsajournal/doc/1667.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2013).
[31]
Collins, L.M.; Asher, L.; Summers, J.F.; Diesel, G.; McGreevy, P.D. Welfare epidemiology as a tool to assess the welfare impact of inherited defects on the pedigree dog population. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19, 67–75.
[32]
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Scientific Opinion on welfare of dairy cows in relation to behaviour, fear and pain based on a risk assessment with special reference to the impact of housing, feeding, management and genetic selection. EFSA J. 2009, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1139. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1139.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2013).
[33]
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed seabass and seabream. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA J. 2009, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1010. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/ 1010.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2013).
[34]
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA J. 2007, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2007.564. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/564.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2013).
[35]
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Scientific Opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems. EFSA J. 2012, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2669. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2669.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2013).
[36]
Collins, L.M. Non-intrusive social preference indicators in broiler chickens. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 2005.
[37]
Collins, L.M.; Asher, L.; Summers, J.; McGreevy, P. Getting priorities straight: Risk assessment and decision-making in the improvement of inherited disorders in pedigree dogs. Vet. J. 2011, 189, 147–154, doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.06.012.
[38]
Collins, L.M. Welfare risk assessment: The benefits and common pitfalls. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 73–79.
[39]
Tripepi, G.; Jager, K.J.; Dekker, F.W.; Zoccali, C. Selection bias and information bias in clinical research. Nephron. Clin. Pract. 2010, 115, C94–C99, doi:10.1159/000312871.
[40]
Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Rothstein, H.R. Introduction to Meta-Analysis; Jorn Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2009.
[41]
Nyman, A.-K.; Lindberg, A.; Hallén-Sandgren, C. Can pre-collected register data be used to identify dairy herds with good cattle welfare? Acta Vet. Scand. 2011, 53, S8–S13, doi:10.1186/1751-0147-53-S1-S8.
[42]
Bracke, M.B.M.; Spruijt, B.M.; Metz, J.H.M.; Schouten, W.G.P. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: Model structure and weighting procedure. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 1819–1834.
[43]
Amon, T.; Amon, B.; Ofner, E.; Boxberger, J. Precision of assessment of animal welfare by the “TGI 35 L” Austrian Animal Needs Index. Acta Agr. Scand. A 2001, 51, 114–117.
[44]
Main, D.C.J.; Kent, J.P.; Wemelsfelder, F.; Ofner, E.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Applications for the methods of on-farm welfare assessment. Anim. Welf. 2003, 12, 523–528.
[45]
Sand？e, P.; Munksgaard, L.; B？dsgaard, N.P.; Jensen, K.H. How to manage the management factor—Assessing animal welfare at the farm level. In Livestock Farming Systems: More than Food Production; S？rensen, J.T., Ed.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 221–230.
[46]
Calamari, L.; Bertoni, G. Model to evaluate welfare in dairy cow farms. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 301–323.
[47]
Bartussek, H.; Leeb, C.H.; Held, S. Animal needs index for cattle: ANI35 L/2000—Cattle. Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions: Irdning, Austria, 2000. Available online: http://www.bartussek.at/pdf/anicattle.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2013).
[48]
Bartussek, H. Animal needs index for laying hens: ANI 35-L/2001—Laying hens. Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions: Irdning, Austria, 2001. Available online: http://www.bartussek.at/pdf/anilayinghens.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2013).
[49]
Waiblinger, S.; Knierim, U.; Winckler, C. The development of an epidemiologically based on-farm welfare assessment system for use with dairy cows. Acta Agr. Scand. A 2001, 51, 73–77.
[50]
Whay, H.R.; Main, D.C.J.; Greent, L.E.; Webster, A.J.F. Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: Consensus of expert opinion. Anim. Welf. 2003, 12, 205–217.
[51]
Welfare Quality？ Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009.
[52]
Welfare Quality？ Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009.
[53]
Welfare Quality？ Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009.
[54]
De Mol, R.M.; Schouten, W.G.P.; Evers, E.; Drost, H.; Houwers, H.W.J.; Smits, A.C. A computer model for welfare assessment of poultry production systems for laying hens. Neth. J. Agr. Sci. 2006, 54, 157–168.
[55]
Mononen, J.; M？ller, S.; Hansen, S.; Hovland, A.; Koistinen, T.; Lidfors, L.; Malmkvist, J.; Vinke, C.; Ahola, L. The development of on-farm welfare assessment protocols for foxes and mink: The WelFur project. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 363–371.
[56]
Bracke, M.B.M. RICHPIG: A semantic model to assess enrichment materials for pigs. Anim. Welf. 2008, 17, 289–304.
[57]
Munsterhjelm, C.; Valros, A.; Heinonen, M.; H？lli, O.; Peltoniemi, O.A.T. Welfare index and reproductive performance in the sow. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2006, 41, 494–500, doi:10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00700.x.
[58]
Stott, A.W.; Vosough Ahmadi, B.; Dwyer, C.M.; Kupiec, B.; Morgan-Davies, C.; Milne, C.E.; Ringrose, S.; Goddard, P.; Phillips, K.; Waterhouse, A. Interactions between profit and welfare on extensive sheep farms. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 57–64.
[59]
Bartussek, H. A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1999, 61, 179–192, doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00067-6.
[60]
Bracke, M.B.M. Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 229–231.
[61]
Blokhuis, H.J.; Veissier, I.; Miele, M.; Jones, B. The Welfare Quality？ project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agr. Scand. A 2010, 60, 129–140.
[62]
Aerts, S.; Lips, D.; Spencer, S.; Decuypere, E.; De Tavernier, J. A new framework for the assessment of animal welfare: Integrating existing knowledge from a practical ethics perspective. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 67–76.
[63]
Wemelsfelder, F.; Hunter, T.E.A.; Mendl, M.T.; Lawrence, A.B. The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioral expressions in pigs: First explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 67, 193–215.
Rushen, J. Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: Bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 81, 199–214, doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00281-2.
[66]
Waiblinger, S.; Menke, C.; F？lsch, D.W. Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 84, 23–39.
[67]
Keeling, L.; Veissier, I. Developing a monitoring system to assess welfare quality in cattle, pigs and chickens. In Proceedings of the Welfare Quality Conference: Science and Society Improving Animal Welfare, Brussels, Belguim, 17–18 November 2005; pp. 46–50. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/sum_proceed_wq_conf_en.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2013).
[68]
Krueger, T.; Page, T.; Hubacek, K.; Smith, L.; Hiscock, K. The role of expert opinion in environmental modelling. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2012, 36, 4–18, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.01.011.
[69]
Deen, J.; Anil, S.S.; Anil, L. Sow housing: Opportunities, constraints, and unknowns. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2005, 226, 1331–1334, doi:10.2460/javma.2005.226.1331.
[70]
Botreau, R.; Bracke, M.B.M.; Perny, P.; Butterworth, A.; Capdeville, J.; Van Reenen, C.G.; Veissier, I. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: Analysis of constraints. Animal 2007, 1, 1188–1197.
[71]
Rodenburg, T.B.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.; de Reu, K.; Herman, L.; Zoons, J.; Sonck, B. Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: Assimilating expert opinion. Anim. Welf. 2008, 17, 355–361.
[72]
Bracke, M.B.M.; Metz, J.H.M.; Spruijt, B.M.; Schouten, W.G.P. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: Validation by expert opinion. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 1835–1845.
[73]
Green, P.E.; Krieger, A.M.; Wind, Y. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces (Providence) 2001, 31, S56–S73.
[74]
Angus, L.J.; Bowen, H.; Gill, L.A.S.; Knowles, T.G.; Butterworth, A. The use of conjoint analysis to determine the importance of factors that affect on-farm welfare of the dairy cow. Anim. Welf. 2005, 14, 203–213.
[75]
Den Ouden, M.; Nijsing, J.T.; Dijkhuizen, A.A.; Huirne, R.B.M. Economic optimization of pork production-marketing chains: I. Model input on animal welfare and costs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1997, 48, 23–37, doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(96)01411-X.
[76]
Bracke, M.B.M.; Spoolder, H.A.M. Review of wallowing in pigs: Implications for animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 347–363.
[77]
Bracke, M.B.M.; Edwards, S.A.; Metz, J.H.M.; Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M.; Algers, B. Synthesis of semantic modelling and risk analysis methodology applied to animal welfare. Animal 2008, 2, 1061–1072.
Bracke, M.B.M.; Zonderland, J.J.; Bleumer, E.J.B. Expert consultation on weighting factors of criteria for assessing environmental enrichment materials for pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 104, 14–23.
[80]
Bracke, M.B.M. Multifactorial testing of enrichment criteria: Pigs “demand” hygiene and destructibility more than sound. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 107, 218–232, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.10.001.
[81]
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR？, 4th. Text Revision ed.; American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
[82]
Freudenreich, O. Psychotic Disorders: A Practical Guide; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2008.
[83]
World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1992.
[84]
Van Calker, K.J.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; Giesen, G.W.J.; Huirne, R.B.M. Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agric. Human Values 2005, 22, 53–63.
[85]
Meul, M.; Van Passel, S.; Fremaut, D.; Haesaert, G. Higher sustainability performance of intensive grazing versus zero-grazing dairy systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 629–638, doi:10.1007/s13593-011-0074-5.
[86]
Mollenhorst, H.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; De Boer, I.J.M. On-farm quantification of sustainability indicators: An application to egg production systems. Br. Poult. Sci. 2006, 47, 405–417, doi:10.1080/00071660600829282.
[87]
Castellini, C.; Boggia, A.; Cortina, C.; Dal Bosco, A.; Paolotti, L.; Novelli, E.; Mugnai, C. A multicriteria approach for measuring the sustainability of different poultry production systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 37, 192–201, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.006.
[88]
Anderson, L.H.; Martinson, B.C.; Hall, K.M.; Duncan, I.G. Critical Review of Stochastic Simulation Literature and Applications for Health Actuaries. Society of Actuaries, 2007. Available online: http://www.societyofactuaries.org (accessed on 14 May 2013).
[89]
Plà, L.M. Review of mathematical models for sow herd management. Livest. Sci. 2007, 106, 107–119, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.09.003.
[90]
Boero, R.; Squazzoni, F. Does empirical embeddedness matter? Methodological issues on agent-based models for analytical social science. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 2005, 8. Available online: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/4/6.html (accessed on 26 April 2013).
[91]
Bryceson, K.P.; Smith, C.S. Abstraction and modeling of agri-food chains as complex decision making systems. In Proceedings of the 110th EAAE Seminar on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Network, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria, 18–22 February 2008; Available online: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/49773/2/Bryceson.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2013).
[92]
Eubank, S.; Guclu, H.; Kumar, V.S.A.; Marathe, M.V.; Srinivasan, A.; Toroczkai, Z.; Wang, N. Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks. Nature 2004, 429, 180–184, doi:10.1038/nature02541.
[93]
Yang, Y.; Atkinson, P.; Ettema, D. Individual spacetime activity-based modelling of infectious disease transmission within a city. J. R. Soc. Interface 2008, 5, 759–772, doi:10.1098/rsif.2007.1218.
[94]
Bowles, S.; Gintis, H. The evolution of strong reciprocity: Cooperation in heterogeneous populations. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2004, 65, 17–28, doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2003.07.001.
[95]
Jefferies, P.; Hart, M.L.; Hui, P.M.; Johnson, N.F. From market games to real-world markets. Eur. Phys. J. B 2001, 20, 493–501, doi:10.1007/s100510170228.
[96]
Bruijnis, M.R.N.; Hogeveen, H.; Stassen, E.N. Assessing economic consequences of foot disorders in dairy cattle using a dynamic stochastic simulation model. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 2419–2432, doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2721.
[97]
Bruijnis, M.; Beerda, B.; Hogeveen, H.; Stassen, E. Foot disorders in dairy cattle: Impact on cow and dairy farmer. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 33–40.
[98]
Bruijnis, M.R.N.; Hogeveen, H.; Stassen, E.N. Measures to improve dairy cow foot health: Consequences for farmer income and dairy cow welfare. Animal 2013, 7, 167–175, doi:10.1017/S1751731112001383.
[99]
Waterhouse, A. Animal welfare and sustainability of production under extensive conditions—A European perspective. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1996, 49, 29–40, doi:10.1016/0168-1591(95)00665-6.
[100]
Febrer, K.; Jones, T.A.; Donnelly, C.A.; Dawkins, M.S. Forced to crowd or choosing to cluster? Spatial distribution indicates social attraction in broiler chickens. Anim. Behav. 2006, 72, 1291–1300.
[101]
Collins, L.M.; Sumpter, D. The feeding dynamics of broiler chickens. J. R. Soc. Interface 2007, 4, 65–72, doi:10.1098/rsif.2006.0157.
[102]
Bischl, B.; Trautmann, H.; Weihs, C. Resampling methods for meta-model validation with recommendations for evolutionary computation. Evol. Comput. 2012, 20, 249–275, doi:10.1162/EVCO_a_00069.
[103]
Halfon, E. Probabilistic validation of computer simulations using the bootstrap. Ecol. Modell. 1989, 46, 213–219, doi:10.1016/0304-3800(89)90018-5.
[104]
Verbyla, D.L.; Litvaitis, J.A. Resampling methods for evaluating classification accuracy of wildlife habitat models. Environ. Manage. 1989, 13, 783–787.
[105]
Berentsen, P.B.M.; Giesen, G.W.J.; Schneiders, M.M.F.H. Conversion from conventional to biological dairy farming: Economic and environmental consequences at farm level. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 1998, 16, 311–328.
[106]
Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models; Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S., Eds.; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, USA; pp. 136–162.
[107]
Mackay, M.; Lee, M. Choice of Models for the Analysis and Forecasting of Hospital Beds. Health Care Manag. Sci. 2005, 8, 221–230, doi:10.1007/s10729-005-2013-y.
[108]
Lehmann, D.R. Validity and Goodness of Fit in Data Analysis. Adv. Consum. Res. 1975, 2, 741–750.
[109]
Aleklett, K.; H？？k, M.; Jakobsson, K.; Lardelli, M.; Snowden, S.; S？derbergh, B. The peak of the oil age—Analyzing the world oil production reference scenario in world energy outlook 2008. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1398–1414, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.021.
[110]
Guseo, R.; Dalla Valle, A.; Guidolin, M. World oil depletion models: Price effects compared with strategic or technological interventions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2007, 74, 452–469.
[111]
Owen, N.A.; Inderwildi, O.R.; King, D.A. The status of conventional world oil reserves—Hype or cause for concern? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 4743–4749.
[112]
Sorrell, S.; Speirs, J.; Bentley, R.; Brandt, A.; Miller, R. Global oil depletion: A review of the evidence. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 5290–5295.
[113]
Shafiee, S.; Topal, E. A long-term view of worldwide fossil fuel prices. Appl. Energ. 2010, 87, 988–1000, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.09.012.
[114]
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Energy Roadmap 2050. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/com_2011_8852_en.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2013).
[115]
Thornton, P.K. Livestock production: Recent trends, future prospects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2853–2867, doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0134.
[116]
Bindi, M.; Olesen, J.E. The responses of agriculture in Europe to climate change. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2011, 11, S151–S158, doi:10.1007/s10113-010-0173-x.
[117]
Olesen, J.E.; Bindi, M. Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and policy. Eur. J. Agron. 2002, 16, 239–262, doi:10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00004-7.
[118]
Zachariadis, T. Forecast of electricity consumption in Cyprus up to the year 2030: The potential impact of climate change. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 744–750, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.019.
[119]
Throsby, C.D. Some notes on “dynamic” linear programming. Rev. Mark. Agric. Econ. 1962, 30, 119–141.
[120]
Sniedovich, M. Dijkstra’s algorithm revisited: The dynamic programming connexion. J. Control. Cybern. 2006, 35, 599–620.
[121]
Langford, F.; Stott, A. Culled early or culled late: Economic decisions and risks to welfare in dairy cows. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 41–55, doi:10.7120/096272812X13345905673647.
[122]
Den Ouden, M.; Huirne, R.B.M.; Dijkhuizen, A.A.; Van Beek, P. Economic optimization of pork production-marketing chains. II. Modelling outcome. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1997, 48, 39–50, doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(96)01412-1.
[123]
Kingwell, R. Sheep animal welfare in a low rainfall Mediterranean environment: A profitable investment? Agric. Syst. 2002, 74, 221–240, doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00086-5.
Guy, J.; Cain, P.; Seddon, Y.; Baxter, E.; Edwards, S. Economic evaluation of high welfare indoor farrowing systems for pigs. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 19–24, doi:10.7120/096272812X13345905673520.
[126]
Van Calker, K.J.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; De Boer, I.J.M.; Giesen, G.W.J.; Huirne, R.B.M. Modelling worker physical health and societal sustainability at farm level: An application to conventional and organic dairy farming. Agric. Syst. 2007, 94, 205–219, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2006.08.006.
[127]
Oudshoorn, F.W.; S？rensen, C.A.G.; De Boer, I.J.M. Economic and environmental evaluation of three goal-vision based scenarios for organic dairy farming in Denmark. Agric. Syst. 2011, 104, 315–325, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.12.003.
[128]
Savory, C.J. Laying hen welfare standards: A classic case of “power to the people”. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, S153–S158.
[129]
Kilsby, D. Scenario Modelling 101. Prepared for the Engineers Australia/UNSW Joint Seminar “Planning Sydney’s Transport”. 2 September 2003. Available online: http://www.kilsby.com.au/archive/p0903.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2013).
[130]
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs). Total Income from Farming 2011—2nd Estimate. 2012.
[131]
Li, P.J. Exponential growth, animal welfare, environmental and food safety impact: The case of China’s livestock production. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2009, 22, 217–240, doi:10.1007/s10806-008-9140-7.
[132]
Kitano, H. Computational systems biology. Nature 2002, 420, 206–210, doi:10.1038/nature01254.
[133]
Koch, I.; Schreiber, F. Introduction. In Modeling in Systems Biology: The Petri Net Approach; Koch, I., Reisig, W., Schreiber, F., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: London, UK, 2011; pp. 3–18.
[134]
Butcher, E.C. Can cell systems biology rescue drug discovery? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2005, 4, 461–467, doi:10.1038/nrd1754.
[135]
Hood, L.; Health, J.R.; Phelps, M.E.; Biaoyang, L. Systems biology and new technologies enable predictive and preventative medicine. Science 2004, 306, 640–643, doi:10.1126/science.1104635.
[136]
Rupprecht, J. From systems biology to fuel-Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as a model for a systems biology approach to improve biohydrogen production. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 142, 10–20, doi:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2009.02.008.
[137]
Gibon, A.; Sibbald, A.R.; Flamant, J.C.; Lhoste, P.; Revilla, R.; Rubino, R.; S？rensen, J.T. Livestock farming systems research in Europe and its potential contribution for managing towards sustainability in livestock farming. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1999, 61, 121–137, doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00062-7.
[138]
Del Prado, A.; Scholefield, D.; Chadwick, D.; Misselbrook, T.; Haygarth, P.; Hopkins, A.; Dewhurst, R.; Jones, R.; Moorby, J.; Davison, P.; Lord, E.; Turner, M.; Aikman, P.; Schr？der, J. A modelling framework to identify new integrated dairy production systems. Grassland Sci. Eur. 2006, 11, 766–768.
[139]
Del Prado, A.; Scholefield, D. Use of SIMSDAIRY modelling framework system to compare the scope on the sustainability of a dairy farm of animal and plant genetic-based improvements with management-based changes. J. Agr. Sci. 2008, 146, 195–211.
[140]
Checkland, P.B. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice; John Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1981.
de Passillé, A.M.; Rushen, J. Motivational and physiological analysis of the causes and consequences of non-nutritive sucking by calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997, 53, 15–31, doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01148-3.
[143]
Lawrence, A.B.; Terlouw, E.M. A review of behavioral factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviors in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 1993, 71, 2815–2825.
[144]
Dietl, G.; Nürnberg, G.; Reinsch, N. A note on a quantitative genetic approach for modelling of differentiation tasks. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 100, 319–326.
[145]
Kanis, E.; van den Belt, H.; Groen, A.F.; Schakel, J.; de Greef, K.H. Breeding for improved welfare in pigs: A conceptual framework and its use in practice. Anim. Sci. 2004, 78, 315–329.
[146]
Lagerkvist, C.J.; Hansson, H.; Hess, S.; Hoffmann, R. Provision of farm animal welfare: Integrating productivity and non-use values. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Pol. 2011, 33, 484–509, doi:10.1093/aepp/ppr037.
[147]
de Lauwere, C.; van Asseldonk, M.; van’t Riet, J.; de Hoop, J.; ten Pierick, E. Understanding farmers’ decisions with regard to animal welfare: The case of changing to group housing for pregnant sows. Livest. Sci. 2012, 143, 151–161, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.007.
[148]
Wells, A.E.D.; Sneddon, J.; Lee, J.A.; Blache, D. Farmer’s response to societal concerns about farm animal welfare: The case of mulesing. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2011, 24, 645–658, doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9284-0.
[149]
Lusk, J.L. The market for animal welfare. Agric. Human Values 2011, 28, 561–575, doi:10.1007/s10460-011-9318-x.
[150]
Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Poucke, E.; Pieniak, Z.; Nijs, G.; Tuyttens, F. The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2012, 25, 79–101, doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9299-6.
[151]
McInerney, J. Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. Report on a Study Undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. 2004. Available online: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/animalwelfare.pdf (accessed 26 April 2013).
[152]
de Boer, I.; Cederberg, C.; Eady, S.; Gollnow, S.; Kristensen, T.; Macleod, M.; Meul, M.; Nemecek, T.; Phong, L.T.; Thoma, G.; van der Werf, H.M.G.; Williams, A.G.; Zonderland-Thomassen, M.A. Greenhouse gas mitigation in animal production: Towards an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3, 423–431.
[153]
Kristr？m, B. Practical problems in contingent valuation. In Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Studies in Risk and Uncertainty; Kopp, R.J., Pommerehne, W.W., Schwarz, N., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Press: Norwell, MA, USA, 1997; Volume 10, pp. 235–272.
[154]
Sichtmann, C.; Wilken, R.; Diamantopoulos, A. Estimating Willingness-to-pay with choice-based conjoint analysis—Can consumer characteristics explain variations in accuracy? Br. J. Manage. 2011, 22, 628–645, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00696.x.
[155]
Glass, C.A.; Hutchinson, W.G.; Beattie, V.E. Measuring the value to the public of pig welfare improvements: A contingent valuation approach. Anim. Welf. 2005, 14, 61–69.
[156]
Grimsrud, K.M.; Nielsen, H.M.; Navrud, S.; Olesen, I. Households’ willingness-to-pay for improved fish welfare in breeding programs for farmed Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 2013, 372–375, 19–27.
[157]
Kehlbacher, A.; Bennett, R.; Balcombe, K. Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy 2012, 37, 627–633, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.002.
[158]
Solgaard, H. S.; Yang, Y. Consumers’ perception of farmed fish and willingness to pay for fish welfare. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 997–1010, doi:10.1108/00070701111153751.
[159]
Castella, J.C.; Boissau, S.; Trung, T.N.; Quang, D.D. Agrarian transition and lowland-upland interactions in mountain areas in northern Vietnam: Application of a multi-agent model. Agric. Syst. 2005, 86, 312–332, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2004.11.001.
[160]
Roozmand, O.; Ghasem-Aghaee, N.; Hofstede, G.J.; Nematbakhsh, M.A.; Baraani, A.; Verwaart, T. Agent-based modeling of consumer decision making process based on power distance and personality. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2011, 24, 1075–1095.
[161]
Edwards-Jones, G. Modelling farmer decision-making: Concepts, progress and challenges. Anim. Sci. 2006, 82, 783–790, doi:10.1017/ASC2006112.
[162]
Miller, G.Y.; McNamara, P.E.; Singer, R.S. Stakeholder position paper: Economist’s perspectives on antibiotic use in animals. Prev. Vet. Med. 2006, 73, 163–168, doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.09.018.
[163]
Araújo, M.B.; Pearson, R.G.; Thuiller, W.; Erhard, M. Validation of species—Climate impact models under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2005, 11, 1–10, doi:10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.00895.x.
[164]
Yu, L.; Lai, K.K.; Wang, S.; Huang, W. A bias-variance-complexity trade-off framework for complex system modeling. In Computational Science and its Applications—ICCSA 2006. International Conference Glasgow, UK, May 2006 Proceedings, Part 1; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 518–527.
[165]
Padhye, J.; Firoiu, V.; Towsley, D.F.; Kurose, J.F. Modeling TCP reno performance: A simple model and its empirical validation. IEEE/ACM Trans. Network 2000, 8, 133–145.
[166]
Bolin, C.A.; Smith, S. Life cycle assessment of ACQ-treated lumber with comparison to wood plastic composite decking. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 620–629, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.004.
[167]
Dawkins, M.S.; Donnelly, C.A.; Jones, T.A. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 2004, 427, 342–344, doi:10.1038/nature02226.
[168]
Mench, J.A.; Falcone, C. Welfare Concerns in Feed-Restricted Meat-Type Poultry Parent Stocks. In Proceedings of the 21st World’s Poultry Congress, Montreal, Canada, 20–24 August 2000.
[169]
Bell, N.J. No Lame Cows—Is it Possible? Experiences from the Healthy Feet Project. In Proceedings of the Cattle Lameness Conference, Loughborough, UK, 14 April 2010; pp. 23–29. Available online: http://www.cattlelamenessconference.org.uk/CLC2010proceedings.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2013).
