Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management book. Happy reading Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management Pocket Guide.
1. Introduction

Painful husbandry procedures in livestock and poultry. In: Grandin T. Ventura B. Views on contentious practices in dairy farming: The case of early cow-calf separation. Dairy Sci. Lidfors L. Integration of natural behavior in housing systems. Duncan I. Science-based assessment of animal welfare: Farm animals. Walker M. Animal welfare science: Recent publication trends and future research priorities. Edwards J. Dawkins M. The science of animal suffering. Evolution and animal welfare.

Fisher M. Defining animal welfare—Does consistency matter? Fraser D. Nielsen H. How to consider the value of farm animals in breeding goals. A review of current status and future challenges. Vanhonacker F. The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. Webster J. Zoomorphism and anthropomorphism: Fruitful fallacies?

Mellor D. Critical control points in the delivery of improved animal welfare. Nordenfelt L. Health and welfare in animals and humans. Acta Biotheor.

Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management

Ohl F. Animal welfare at the group level: More than the sum of individual welfare? Animal welfare: At the interface between science and society. Taylor K. Is quality of life a useful concept for companion animals? Barnett J. The validity of physiological and behavioural measures of animal welfare. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Korte S.

A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis. Boissy A. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Van Eerdenburg F. A cow comfort monitoring scheme to increase the milk yield of a dairy farm. In: Aland A. Livestock Housing. Yeates J. Assessment of positive welfare: A review. Blokhuis H. Acta Agric. Zanella A. Knowledge is power. Brambell F. Zupan M. The effect of biting tails and having tails bitten in pigs. Jendral M. Beak trimming in chickens: Historical, economical, physiological and welfare implications, and alternatives for preventing feather pecking and cannibalistic activity.

Avian Poult. Nicol C. The prevention and control of feather pecking: Application to commercial systems. Worlds Poult. Prunier A. A review of the welfare consequences of surgical castration in piglets and the evaluation of non-surgical methods. Aggrey S. Modification of animals versus modification of the production environment to meet welfare needs. Craig J. Beak trimming and genetic stock effects on behavior and mortality from cannibalism in white leghorn-type pullets. Bates R. The influence of canine teeth clipping on nursing and nursery pig performance.

Swine Health Prod. Gallois M. Influence of tooth resection in piglets on welfare and performance. Van Beirendonck S. Improving survival, growth rate, and animal welfare in piglets by avoiding teeth shortening and tail docking. The welfare of confined sows: Physiological, behavioural and production responses to contrasting housing systems and handler attitudes. Van der Staay F. Effects of recurrent chronic stress: A comparison between tethered and loose sows. Chidgey K. Observations of sows and piglets housed in farrowing pens with temporary crating or farrowing crates on a commercial farm.

Baxter E. Alternative farrowing systems: Design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets.

Organisations | Animal Ethics Infolink

Hales J. Temporary confinement of loose-housed hyperprolific sows reduces piglet mortality. Baldwin B. Illumination preferences of pigs. Taylor N. Preference of growing pigs for illuminance. Martelli G. Growth parameters, behavior, and meat and ham quality of heavy pigs subjected to photoperiods of different duration. Olanrewaju H. A review of lighting programs for broiler production. Das H. The effect of different photoperiods and stocking densities on fattening performance, carcass and some stress parameters in broilers. Manser C. Effects of lighting on the welfare of domestic poultry: A review.

Sanotra G. In Influence of light-dark schedules and stocking density on behaviour, risk of leg problems and occurrence of chronic fear in broilers. Deep A. Effect of light intensity on broiler behaviour and diurnal rhythms. Vermeer H. Motivation for additional water use of growing-finishing pigs. Nannoni E. Water requirements of liquid-fed heavy pigs: Effect of water restriction on growth traits, animal welfare and meat and ham quality. Dixon L. Measuring motivation for appetitive behaviour: Food-restricted broiler breeder chickens cross a water barrier to forage in an area of wood shavings without food.

Buckley L. Too hungry to learn? Hungry broiler breeders fail to learn a Y-maze food quantity discrimination task. De Jong I. Effect of scattered feeding and feeding twice a day during rearing on indicators of hunger and frustration in broiler breeders. Mench J. The development of aggressive behavior in male broiler chicks: A comparison with laying-type males and the effects of feed restriction.

Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare, technical performance, and carcass yield in broiler chickens. Rault J. The effects of water deprivation on the behavior of laying hens. Algers B. 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. Influence of floor type and stocking density on leg weakness, osteochondrosis and claw disorders in slaughter pigs.

Social discrimination and aggression by laying hens in large groups: From peck orders to social tolerance. Estevez I. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Najafi P. Environmental temperature and stocking density effects on acute phase proteins, heat shock protein 70, circulating corticosterone and performance in broiler chickens.

Hall A. The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. The effect of stocking density on certain broiler welfare parameters. Council of the European Communities. Council of the European Communities; Brussels, Belgium: Miranda-de la Lama G. The importance of social behaviour for goat welfare in livestock farming. Small Rumin. Bradshaw R. Discrimination of group members by laying hens Gallus domesticus.

Coulon M. Individual recognition in domestic cattle Bos taurus : Evidence from 2D images of heads from different breeds. Keil N. Are head cues necessary for goats Capra hircus in recognising group members? Kendrick K. Kristensen H. The use of olfactory and other cues for social recognition by juvenile pigs. Patt A. Factors influencing the welfare of goats in small established groups during the separation and reintegration of individuals. The introduction of individual goats into small established groups has serious negative effects on the introduced goat but not on resident goats.

Rhim S. Effects of mixing on the aggressive behavior of commercially housed pigs. Backus G. Evaluation of producing and marketing entire male pigs. Life Sci. Fredriksen B. Entire male pigs in farrow-to-finish pens—Effects on animal welfare. Rydhmer L. Welfare of entire male pigs is improved by socialising piglets and keeping intact groups until slaughter. Fels M. Social hierarchy formation in piglets mixed in different group compositions after weaning. Cheng H. Effects of group size and repeated social disruption on the serotonergic and dopaminergic system in two genetic lines of White Leghorn hens.

Van de Ven L. Effects of a combined hatching and brooding system on hatchability, chick weight, and mortality in broilers. Kemp B. Effects of boar contact and housing conditions on estrus expression in sows. Dairy calf housing systems across Europe and risk for calf infectious diseases. Flower F. Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf: 2. Separation at 1 day and 2 weeks after birth. Weary D. Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf: 1. Separation at 6 h, 1 day and 4 days after birth. Van Dixhoorn I.

  • The Shadow - 020 - The Kings of Crime;
  • Aperiodic layers.
  • Finding Your Way: A Medical Ethics Handbook for Patients and Families.
  • The Perfect Stranger (Berkley Sensation);

Familiekudde State of Art. Oostindjer M. Socialising piglets before weaning improves social hierarchy formation when pigs are mixed post-weaning. Morgan T. Socialising piglets in lactation positively affects theirpost-weaning behaviour. The effects of alternative weaning methods on behaviour in beef calves. Haley D. The effects of weaning beef calves in two stages on their behavior and growth rate. Norouzian M. Effect of weaning method on lamb behaviour and weight gain.

Minimising the stress of weaning of beef calves: A review. Acta Vet. The natural behaviour of the pig—chapter 2. In: Marchant-Forde J. The Welfare of Pigs. Animal Welfare. Stolba A. The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Scott K. Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems 1.

Hanging toy versus rootable substrate. Studnitz M. Why do pigs root and in what will they root?

What poor management do to your animals

A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Expression of rooting motivation in gilts following different lengths of deprivation. Day J. The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Damm B. Nest-building, behavioural disturbances and heart rate in farrowing sows kept in crates and Schmid pens.

Thodberg K. Nest building and farrowing in sows: Relation to the reaction pattern during stress, farrowing environment and experience. Behaviour of pre-parturient sows housed in intensive outdoor or indoor systems. Arey D. Behaviour and productivity of sows and piglets in a family system and in farrowing crates. Blackshaw J. Getting-up and lying-down behaviours of loose-housed sows and social contacts between sows and piglets during day 1 and day 8 after parturition.

Matur E. The effect of furnished cages on the immune response of laying hens under social stress. Kanis E. Breeding for improved welfare in pigs: A conceptual framework and its use in practice. Turner S. Breeding against harmful social behaviours in pigs and chickens: State of the art and the way forward. Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: Practical, economic and ethical considerations.

Olsson I. Taking ethics into account in farm animal breeding: What can breeding companies achieve? Bayvel A. Animal welfare: A complex domestic and international public-policy issue—Who are the key players? Understanding animal welfare. Miele M. Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Buller H. Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare: The economisation of layer chickens.

Rural Stud. Olesen I. Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. Faure J. Chapter 8: Improving the adaptability of animals by selection. Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals. Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Canario L. Genetics of behavioural adaptation of livestock to farming conditions. Ellen E. The prospects of selection for social genetic effects to improve welfare and productivity in livestock. Kjaer J. Divergent selection on feather pecking behaviour in laying hens Gallus gallus domesticus Appl.

Grams V. Genetic parameters and signatures of selection in two divergent laying hen lines selected for feather pecking behaviour. Nordquist R. Laying hens selected for low mortality: Behaviour in tests of fearfulness, anxiety and cognition. Rodenburg T. Breeding amiable animals? Improving farm animal welfare by including social effects in breeding programmes. King T. Breeding dogs for beauty and behaviour: Why scientists need to do more to develop valid and reliable behaviour assessments for dogs kept as companions. Lawrence A. Sheep welfare: A future perspective.

In: Dwyer C. The Welfare of Sheep. Star L. A plea to implement robustness into a breeding goal: Poultry as an example. Thompson P. Why using genetics to address welfare may not be a good idea. Genetic and environmental effects on piglet survival and maternal behaviour of the farrowing sow. Selection against aggressiveness in pigs at re-grouping: Practical application and implications for long-term behavioural patterns. Breeding for societally important traits in pigs. Gunnarsson S.

Rearing without early access to perches impairs the spatial skills of laying hens. Wechsler B. Adaptation by learning: Its significance for farm animal husbandry. Young R. Applying animal learning theory: Training captive animals to comply with veterinary and husbandry procedures. Figueroa J. Social learning of feeding behaviour in pigs: Effects of neophobia and familiarity with the demonstrator conspecific.

To adapt the environment to the bird or the bird to the environment? In: Moss R. The Laying Hen and Its Environment. Ferguson D. Adverse impact of industrial animal agriculture on the health and welfare of farmed animals. Morgan K. Sources of stress in captivity. Kilgour R. The application of animal behavior and the humane care of farm animals.

Council of the Europen Union. Council of the Europen Union; Brussels, Belgium: McGlone J. Compilation of the scientific literature comparing housing systems for gestating sows and gilts using measures of physiology, behavior, performance, and health. Anil L. Comparison of injuries in sows housed in gestation stalls versus group pens with electronic sow feeders. De Greef K. Proof of principle of the comfort class concept in pigs: Experimenting in the midst of a stakeholder process on pig welfare.

The LayWel project: Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. Tuyttens F. Hemsworth P. Ethical stockmanship. Rushen J.

The importance of good stockmanship and its benefits for the animals. Livesey C. Hock injuries in cattle kept in straw yards or cubicles with rubber mats or mattresses. Mowbray L. Potterton S. Risk factors associated with hair loss, ulceration, and swelling at the hock in freestall-housed UK dairy herds. Van Gastelen S.

A study on cow comfort and risk for lameness and mastitis in relation to different types of bedding materials. Grandin T. Whay H. Promoting farmer engagement and activity in the control of dairy cattle lameness. Spoelstra S. Innovation for sustainable egg production: Realigning production with societal demands in The Netherlands.

Klerkx L. Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations. Botreau R. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: Analysis of constraints. Chielo L. Ranging behaviour of commercial free-range laying hens. Eklund B. Domestication effects on behavioural synchronization and individual distances in chickens Gallus gallus Behav. Reimert I. Indicators of positive and negative emotions and emotional contagion in pigs. Veasey J. On comparing the behavior of zoo housed animals with wild conspecifics as a welfare indicator.

Price E. Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Appleby M. Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: Implications for animal welfare. Many authors simply assume that an animal like a bat has a point of view, but there seems to be little interest in exploring the details involved. Philosophers Peter Singer Princeton , Jeff McMahan Oxford and others also counter that the issue is not one of consciousness, but of sentience. A related argument revolves around non-human organisms' ability to feel pain.

If animals could be shown to suffer, as humans do, then many of the arguments against human suffering could be extended to animals. As noted by John Webster emeritus professor of animal husbandry at the University of Bristol :. People have assumed that intelligence is linked to the ability to suffer and that because animals have smaller brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic, sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated to seek it, you only have to watch how cows and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's day.

Ethics of eating meat

Just like humans. When people choose to do things about which they are ambivalent and which they would have difficulty justifying, they experience a state of cognitive dissonance , which can lead to rationalization , denial , or even self-deception. For example, a experiment found that, when the harm that their meat-eating causes animals is explicitly brought to people's attention, they tend to rate those animals as possessing fewer mental capacities compared to when the harm is not brought to their attention.

This is especially evident when people expect to eat meat in the near future. Such denial makes it less uncomfortable for people to eat animals.

Navigation menu

The data suggest that people who consume meat go to great lengths to try to resolve these moral inconsistencies between their beliefs and behaviour by adjusting their beliefs about what animals are capable of feeling. For example, venison or meat from a wild deer generally has a much higher nutritional quality and a much lower carbon footprint than meat from domestically-raised animals.

In addition, it can be virtually assured that the deer was never bred or raised in unnatural conditions, confined to a cage, fed an unnatural diet of grain, or injected with any artificial hormones. However, since the necessary act of killing a deer to procure the venison is generally much more apparent to anyone who encounters this sort of meat, some people can be even more uncomfortable with eating this than meat from animals raised on factory farms. Many ethical vegetarians and ethical meat-eaters argue that it is behaviour rather than supporting beliefs that should be adjusted.

According to a report by LEAD Livestock's Long Shadow , "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. This is due to feed production, enteric fermentation from ruminants, manure storage and processing, and transportation of animal products. Some authors argue that by far the best thing we can do to slow climate change is a global shift towards a vegetarian or vegan diet.

Animals that feed on grain or rely on grazing require more water than grain crops. This cycling and processing of water and nutrients is less prevalent in most plant production systems, so may bring the efficiency rate of animal production closer to the efficiency of plant based agricultural systems. There are also environmentalist arguments in favor of the morality of eating meat.

One such line of argument holds that sentience and individual welfare are less important to morality than the greater ecological good. Following environmentalist Aldo Leopold 's principle that the sole criterion for morality is preserving the "integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community", this position asserts that sustainable hunting and animal agriculture are environmentally healthy and therefore good. Hinduism holds vegetarianism as an ideal for three reasons: the principle of nonviolence ahimsa applied to animals; the intention to offer only "pure" vegetarian or sattvic food to a deity and then to receive it back as prasad ; and the conviction that an insentient diet is beneficial for a healthy body and mind and that non-vegetarian food is detrimental for the mind and for spiritual development.

Buddhist vegetarianism has similar strictures against hurting animals. The actual practices of Hindus and Buddhists vary according to their community and according to regional traditions. Jains are especially rigorous about not harming sentient organisms. Islamic Law and Judaism have dietary guidelines called Halal and Kashrut , respectively. In Judaism, meat that may be consumed according to halakha Jewish law is termed kosher ; meat that is not compliant with Jewish law is called treif. Causing unnecessary pain to animals is prohibited by the principle of tza'ar ba'alei chayim.

While it is neither required nor prohibited for Jews to eat meat, a number of medieval scholars of Judaism, such as Joseph Albo and Isaac Arama , regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal. Rules of fasting also vary. There are also Christian monastic orders that practice vegetarianism. It has been argued that a moral community requires all participants to be able to make moral decisions, but animals are incapable of making moral choices e.

Thus, some opponents of ethical vegetarianism argue that the analogy between killing animals and killing people is misleading. This does not excuse cruelty, but it implies animals are not morally equivalent to humans and do not possess the rights a human has. He claims that non-human animals do not meet this standard. Benjamin Franklin describes his conversion to vegetarianism in chapter one of his autobiography, but then he describes why he periodically ceased vegetarianism in his later life:.

Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and, when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc'd some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs; then thought I, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do. Robinson describes the billions of non-human animals that suffer and die at the hands of human beings for consumption as a "holocaust" and, citing Jeremy Bentham's formulation "The question is not, Can they reason?

Various programs operate in the US that promote the notion that animals raised for food can be treated humanely. Some spokespeople for the factory farming industry argue that the animals are better off in total confinement. They're in state-of-the-art confinement facilities.

The conditions that we keep these animals in are much more humane than when they were out in the field. Today they're in housing that is environmentally controlled in many respects. And the feed is right there for them all the time, and water, fresh water. They're looked after in some of the best conditions, because the healthier and [more] content that animal, the better it grows.

So we're very interested in their well-being up to an extent. In response, animal welfare advocates ask for evidence that any factory-bred animal is better off caged than free. Peter Singer [52] has pointed out that the ethical argument for vegetarianism may not apply to all non-vegetarian food. For example, any arguments against causing pain to animals would not apply to animals that do not feel pain. It has also often been noted that, while it takes a lot more grain to feed some animals such as cows for human consumption than it takes to feed a human directly, not all animals consume land plants or other animals that consume land plants.

For example, oysters consume underwater plankton and algae. In , Christopher Cox wrote:. Biologically, oysters are not in the plant kingdom, but when it comes to ethical eating , they are almost indistinguishable from plants. Oyster farms account for 95 percent of all oyster consumption and have a minimal negative impact on their ecosystems; there are even nonprofit projects devoted to cultivating oysters as a way to improve water quality. Since so many oysters are farmed, there's little danger of overfishing.

No forests are cleared for oysters, no fertilizer is needed, and no grain goes to waste to feed them—they have a diet of plankton, which is about as close to the bottom of the food chain as you can get. Oyster cultivation also avoids many of the negative side effects of plant agriculture: There are no bees needed to pollinate oysters, no pesticides required to kill off other insects, and for the most part, oyster farms operate without the collateral damage of accidentally killing other animals during harvesting.

Cox went on to suggest that oysters would be acceptable to eat, even by strict ethical criteria, if they did not feel: "while you could give them the benefit of the doubt, you could also say that unless some new evidence of a capacity for pain emerges, the doubt is so slight that there is no good reason for avoiding eating sustainably produced oysters. Critics of ethical vegetarianism say that there is no agreement on where to draw the line between organisms that can and cannot feel.

Justin Leiber, a philosophy professor at Oxford University , writes that:. Montaigne is ecumenical in this respect, claiming consciousness for spiders and ants, and even writing of our duties to trees and plants. Singer and Clarke agree in denying consciousness to sponges. Singer locates the distinction somewhere between the shrimp and the oyster.

He, with rather considerable convenience for one who is thundering hard accusations at others, slides by the case of insects and spiders and bacteria, they pace Montaigne, apparently and rather conveniently do not feel pain. The intrepid Midgley, on the other hand, seems willing to speculate about the subjective experience of tapeworms There are also some who argue that, although only suffering animals feel anguish, plants, like all organisms, have evolved mechanisms for survival.

No living organism can be described as "wanting" to die for another organism's sustenance. When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage to the plants.

Inside the plant, repair systems are engaged and defenses are mounted, the molecular details of which scientists are still working out, but which involve signaling molecules coursing through the body to rally the cellular troops, even the enlisting of the genome itself, which begins churning out defense-related proteins If you think about it, though, why would we expect any organism to lie down and die for our dinner? Organisms have evolved to do everything in their power to avoid being extinguished. How long would any lineage be likely to last if its members effectively didn't care if you killed them?

Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University , argues that the least harm principle does not require giving up all meat. Davis states that a diet containing beef from grass-fed ruminants such as cattle would kill fewer animals than a vegetarian diet, particularly when one takes into account animals killed by agriculture. This conclusion has been criticized by Jason Gaverick Matheny founder of in vitro meat organization New Harvest because it calculates the number of animals killed per acre instead of per consumer. Matheny says that, when the numbers are adjusted, Davis' argument shows veganism as perpetrating the least harm.

When differentiating between animals killed by farm machinery and those killed by other animals, he says that the studies again show veganism to do the "least harm". One of the main differences between a vegan and a typical vegetarian diet is the avoidance of both eggs and dairy products such as milk, cheese, butter, and yogurt. Ethical vegans do not consume dairy or eggs because they believe their production causes animal suffering or premature death [60] and because of the environmental effect of dairy production.

To produce milk from dairy cattle , most calves are separated from their mothers soon after birth and fed milk replacement in order to retain the cows' milk for human consumption. Battery cages are the predominant form of housing for laying hens worldwide; these cages reduce aggression and cannibalism among hens , but are barren, restrict movement, and increase rates of osteoporosis.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Food ethics topic. See also: Animal consciousness and Emotion in animals. Main article: Pain in animals. See also: Pain in invertebrates. Main articles: Environmental vegetarianism and Environmental impact of meat production. Main article: Vegetarianism and religion.

Food Ethics: The Basics. Retrieved 11 February Journal of the American Dietetic Association. HuffPost Living. Retrieved 19 May Animal rights: All that matters. Animal Rights and Wrongs. New York: Continuum. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management
Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management
Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management
Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management
Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management

Related Ethical, Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved