[
Adamczyk K. (2018). Dairy cattle welfare as a result of human-animal relationship – a review. Ann. Anim. Sci., 18: 601–622.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Adamczyk K., Gil Z., Felenczak A., Skrzyński G., Zapletal P., Choroszy Z. (2011). Relationship between milk yield of cows and their 24-hour walking activity. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 29: 185–195.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Adamczyk K., Pokorska J., Makulska J., Earley B., Mazurek M. (2013). Genetic analysis and evaluation of behavioural traits in cattle. Livest. Sci., 154: 1–12.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Adrion F., Kapun A., Eckert F., Holland E.M., Staiger M., Götz S., Gallmann E. (2018). Monitoring trough visits of growing-finishing pigs with UHF-RFID. Comput. Electron. Agricult., 144: 144–153.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Akhigbe B.I., Munir K., Akinade O., Akanbi L., Oyedele L.O. (2021). IoT technologies for livestock management: a review of present status, opportunities, and future trends. Big Data Cogn. Comput., 5: 10.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Alhamada M., Debus N., Lurette A., Bocquier F. (2016). Validation of automated electronic oestrus detection in sheep as an alternative to visual observation. Small Rum. Res., 134: 97–104.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Amiot C.E., Bastian B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human-animal relations. Psychol. Bull., 141: 6.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Andrews K. (2020). Ethical implications of animal personhood and the role for science. Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, XXII, 1: 13–32.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ashton M.C., Lee K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev., 11: 150–166.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Aydin A. (2016). Precision feeding in laying hens by sound technology. J. Tekird. Agricult. Facult., 13: 3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Babst G.A. (2011). Moral community. In: Encyclopedia of global justice, Chatterjee D.K. (ed.). Dordrecht, Deutschland, Springer, pp. 710–711.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Battini M., Agostini A., Mattiello S. (2019). Understanding cows’ emotions on farm: are eye white and ear posture reliable indicators? Animals, 9: 477.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bentham J. (1789/1996). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 456 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Benton T. (2009). Darwin and Wallace as environmental philosophers. Environ. Values, 18: 487–502.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Benus R.F., Koolhaas J.M., Oortmerssen G.A.V. (1987). Individual differences in behavioural Reaction to a changing environment in mice and rats. Behaviour, 100: 105–121.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bermúdez J.L. (2011). Mindreading and moral significance in non-human animals. In: Handbook to animal ethics, Beauchamp T.L., Frey R.G. (eds). Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, pp. 407–440.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bouissou M.F., Boissy A., Le Neindre P., Veissier I. (2001). The social behaviour of cattle. In: Social behaviour in farm animals, Keeling L.J., Gonyou H.W. (eds). Cambridge, USA CAB International, pp. 113–145.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Boyland N.K., James R., Mlynski D.T., Madden J. R., Croft D.P. (2013). Spatial proximity loggers for recording animal social networks: consequences of inter-logger variation in performance. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 67: 1877–1890.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Broom D.M. (2006). The evolution of morality. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 100: 20–28.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Buller H. (2013). Individuation, the mass and farm animals. Theory, Culture Society, 30: 155–175.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Buskell A. (2022). Cumulative culture and complex cultural traditions. Mind Lang., 37: 284–303.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cabrera D., Nilsson J.R., Griffen B.D. (2021). The development of animal personality across ontogeny: a cross-species review. Anim. Behav., 173: 137–144.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Callicott J.B. (1989). In defense of the land ethic: essays in environmental philosophy. New York, USA, State University of New York Press, 336 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Camerlink I., Turner S.P., Farish M., Arnott G. (2017). The influence of experience on contest assessment strategies. Sci. Rep., 7: 14492.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Camerlink I., Farish M., D’Eath R.B., Arnott G., Turner S.P. (2018). Long term benefits on social behaviour after early life socialization of piglets. Animals, 8: 192.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Camerlink I., Turner S.P., Farish M., Arnott G. (2019). Advantages of social skills for contest resolution. R. Soc. Open Sci., 6: 181456.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Camerlink I., Chou J.Y., Turner S.P. (2020). Intra-group lethal gang aggression in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus). Animals, 10: 1287.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Capitanio J.P., Widaman K.F. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of personality structure in adult male rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Am. J. Primatol., 65: 289–294.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Carpentier L., Berckmans D., Youssef A., Berckmans D., van Waterschoot T., Johnston D., Ferguson N., Earley B., Fontana I., Tullo E., Guarino M., Vranken E., Norton T. (2018). Automatic cough detection for bovine respiratory disease in a calf house. Biosyst. Eng., 173: 45–56.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Carpentier L., Vranken E., Berckmans D., Paeshuyse J., Norton T. (2019). Development of sound-based poultry health monitoring tool for automated sneeze detection. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 162, 573–581.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Carruthers P. (1992). The animals issue: moral theory in practice. Cambridge, USA, Cambridge University Press, 206 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cartwright J. (2000). Evolution and human behavior: darwinian perspectives on human nature. Mendham, Suffolk, UK, MIT Press, Aardvark Editorial, 376 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cavalieri P. (2003). The animal question: why nonhuman animals deserve human rights, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 192 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chelotti J.O., Vanrell S.R., Milone D.H., Utsumi S.A., Galli J.R., Rufiner H.L., Giovanini L.L. (2016). A real-time algorithm for acoustic monitoring of ingestive behavior of grazing cattle. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 127: 64–75.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chen C., Zhu W., Liu D., Steibel J., Siegford J., Wurtz K., Han J., Norton T. (2019). Detection of aggressive behaviours in pigs using a RealSence depth sensor. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 166: 105003.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chen C., Zhu W., Norton T. (2021). Behaviour recognition of pigs and cattle: Journey from computer vision to deep learning. Comput. Electron. Agric., 187: 106255.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chopra K., Hodges H.R., Barker Z.E., Diosdado J.A.V. (2020). Proximity interactions in a permanently housed dairy herd: network structure, consistency, and individual differences. Front. Vet. Sci., 7: 583715.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Clarke S., Zohny H., Savulescu J. (2021). Rethinking moral status. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 352 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Corbet N.J., Patison K. P., Menzies D.J., Swain D.L. (2018). Using temporal associations to determine postpartum oestrus in tropical beef cows. Anim. Product. Sci., 58: 1465–1469.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Coulon M., Baudoin C., Heyman Y., Deputte B.L. (2011). Cattle discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics by using only head visual cues. Anim. Cogn., 14: 279–290.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
D’eath R.B., Jack M., Futro A., Talbot D., Zhu Q., Barclay D., Baxter E.M. (2018). Automatic early warning of tail biting in pigs: 3D cameras can detect lowered tail posture before an outbreak. PLoS ONE, 13: 194524.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
De Waal F., Macedo S.E., Ober J.E. (2006). Primates and philosophers. How morality evolved. Princeton and Oxford, UK, Princeton University Press, 232 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
De Waal F.B.M., Churchland P.S., Pievani T., Parmigiani S. (2014). Evolved morality: the biology and philosophy of human conscience. Behaviour, 151: 137–141.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
DeGrazia D. (2002). Animal rights: a very short introduction. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 131 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Donaldson S., Kymlicka W. (2011). Zoopolis: a political theory of animal rights. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 329 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dufourcq A. (2021). The imaginary of animals. London, UK, Routledge, 1st Edition, 280 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fan B., Bryant R., Greer A. (2022). Behavioral fingerprinting: acceleration sensors for identifying changes in livestock health. J., 5: 435–454.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). 2009. Farm animal welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future. London, UK, (source: http://www.fawc.org.uk).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fast L.A., Funder D.C. (2008). Personality as manifest in word use: correlations with self-report, acquaintance report and behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 94: 334–346.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fernandes D.P.B., da Silva I.J.O., Nazareno A.C., Donofre A.C. (2015). Farm animals’s cognition and the tests used on its evaluation. J. Anim. Behav. Biometeorol., 3: 9–19.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Finkemeier M-A., Langbein J., Puppe B. (2018). Personality research in mammalian farm animals: concepts, measures, and relationship to welfare. Front. Vet. Sci., 5: 131.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Foris B., Thompson A., von Keyserlingk M., Melzer N., Weary D. (2019). Automatic detection of feeding- and drinking-related agonistic behavior and dominance in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 102: 9176–9186.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Forkosh O. (2021) Animal behavior and animal personality from a non-human perspective: getting help from the machine. Patterns, 2: 100194.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Francione G.L. (2008). Animals as persons: essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York, USA, Columbia University Press, 256 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fraser D. (2012). Animal ethics and food production in the twenty-first century. In: The philosophy of food, Kaplan D.M. (ed.). Berkeley, USA, University of California Press, pp. 190–213.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Frondelius L., Järvenranta K., Koponen T., Mononen J. (2015). The effects of body posture and temperament on heart rate variability in dairy cows. Physiol. Behav., 139: 437–441.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gartner M.C. (2015). Pet personality: a review. Pers. Individ. Differ., 75: 102–113.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gilbert B. (2022). The problem of anthropocentrism and the human kind of personhood. Philos. Soc. Crit.: 01914537221110900.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gosling S.D. (2001). From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychol. Bull., 127: 45–86.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gosling S.D., John O.P. (1999). Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals: a cross-species review. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 8: 69–75.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gosling S.D., Vazire S. (2002). Are we barking up the right tree? Evaluating the comparative approach to personality. J. Res. Pers., 36: 607–614.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gosling S.D. (2008). Personality in non-human animals. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass, 2/2: 985–1001.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Goursot C., Düpjan S., Kanitz E., Tuchscherer A., Puppe B., Leliveld L.M.C. (2019). Assessing animal individuality: links between personality and laterality in pigs. Curr. Zool., 65: 541–551.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Grandin T. (2021). The visual, auditory, and physical environment of livestock handling facilities and its effect on ease of movement of cattle, pigs, and sheep. Front. Anim. Sci., 2: 744207.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gray K., Young L., Waytz A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychol. Inq., 23: 2.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Green A., Clark C., Favaro L., Lomax S., Reby D. (2019). Vocal individuality of Holstein-Friesian cattle is maintained across putatively positive and negative farming contexts. Sci. Rep., 9: 18468.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Guzhva O., Ardö H., Herlin A., Nilsson M., Åström K., Bergsten C. (2016). Feasibility study for the implementation of an automatic system for the detection of social interactions in the waiting area of automatic milking stations by using a video surveillance system. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 127: 506–509.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gygax L., Nawroth C. (2019). Farm animals are not humans in sheep clothing. Commentary on Marino & Merskin on sheep complexity. Anim. Sentience, 237.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hagen K., Broom D.M. (2004). Emotional reactions to learning in cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 85: 203–213.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Halachmi I., Guarino M. (2016). Editorial: precision livestock farming: a ‘per animal’ approach using advanced monitoring technologies. Animal, 10: 1482–1483.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hemsworth P.H. (2018). Key determinants of pig welfare: implications of animal management and housing design on livestock welfare. Anim. Prod. Sci., 58: 1375–1386.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hemsworth P.H., Coleman G.J. (2011). Human-livestock interactions: the stockperson and the productivity of intensively farmed animals. 2nd ed. Wallingford, UK, CABI, 194 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Herbeck Y.E., Eliava M., Grinevich V., MacLean E.L. (2022). Fear, love, and the origins of canid domestication: An oxytocin hypothesis. Compr. Psychoneuroendocrinol., 9: 100100.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hessing M.J.C., Hagelso A.M., Schouten W.G.P., Wiepkema P.R., Van Beek J.A.M. (1994). Individual behavioral and physiological strategies in pigs. Physiol. Behav., 55: 39–46.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Islam M.A., Lomax S., Doughty A.K., Islam M.R., Thomson P.C., Clark C.E.F. (2021). Revealing the diversity in cattle behavioural response to high environmental heat using accelerometer-based ear tag sensors. Comput. Electron. Agric., 191: 106511.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Iversen M., Bolhuis J., Camerlink I., Ursinus W., Reimert I., Duijvesteijn N. (2017). Heritability of the backtest response in piglets and its genetic correlations with production traits. Animal, 11: 556–563.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Johnsen J.F., Zipp K.A., Kälber T., Passillé A.M. de, Knierim U., Barth K., Mejdell C.M. (2016). Is rearing calves with the dam a feasible option for dairy farms? – Current and future research. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 181: 1–11.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kaiser M.I., Müller C. (2021). What is an animal personality? Biol. Philos., 36: 1.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kant I. (1797/2017). The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 308 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kashiha M., Bahr C., Haredasht S.A., Ott S., Moons C.P.H., Niewold T.A., Ödberg F.O., Berckmans D.. (2013). The automatic monitoring of pigs water use by cameras. Comput. Electron. Agric., 90: 164–169.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
King J.E., Weiss A., Sisco M.M. (2008). Aping humans: age and sex effects in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and human (Homo sapiens) personality. J. Comp. Psychol., 122: 418–427.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ko H.L., Chong Q., Escribano D., Camerlink I., Manteca X., Llonch P. (2020). Pre-weaning socialization and environmental enrichment affect life-long response to regrouping in commercially-reared pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 229: 105044.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Koski S.E. (2011). How to measure animal personality and why does it matter? Integrating the psychological and biological approaches to animal personality. In: From genes to animal behavior. Social structures, personalities, communication by color, Inoue-Murayama M., Kawamura S., Weiss A. (eds). Tokyo, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, Japan, Nederland, Deutchland, UK, USA, Springer, pp. 115–136.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kralj-Fišer S., Schuett W. (2014). Studying personality variation in invertebrates: why bother? Anim. Behav., 91: 41–52.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kremer L., Bus J.D., Webb L.E., Bokkers E.A.M., Engel B., van der Werf J.T.N., Schnabel S.K., van Reenen C.G. (2021). Housing and personality effects on judgement and attention biases in dairy cows. Sci. Rep., 11: 22984.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kumar S., Singh S.K. (2020). Cattle recognition: a new frontier in visual animal biometrics research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. A Phys. Sci., 90: 689–708.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Leach H.M. (2003). Human domestication reconsidered. Curr. Anthropol., 44: 349–368.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lee H.-J., Roberts S.J., Drake K.A., Dawkins M.S. (2011). Prediction of feather damage in laying hens using optical flows and Markov models. J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 8: 489–499.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lee J., Jin L., Park D., Chung Y. (2016). Automatic recognition of aggressive behavior in pigs using a kinect depth sensor. Sensors, 16: 631.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lee J., Noh B., Jang S., Park D., Chung Y., Chang H.H. (2015). Stress detection and classification of laying hens by sound analysis. Asian-Austral. J. Anim. Sci., 28: 592–598.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Leopold A. (1949/1987). A sand county almanac. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 226 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Li L., Zhao Y., Oliveira J., Verhoijsen W., Liu K., Xin H. (2017). A UHF RFID system for studying individual feeding and nesting behaviors of group-housed laying hens. Trans. ASABE, 60: 1337–1347.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Liu L.S., Ni J.Q., Zhao R.Q., Shen M.X., He C.L., Lu M.Z. (2018). Design and test of a low-power acceleration sensor with Bluetooth Low Energy on ear tags for sow behaviour monitoring. Biosyst. Eng., 176: 162–171.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Luu J., Johnsen J F., de Passillé A.M., de Rushen J. (2013). Which measures of acceleration best estimate the duration of locomotor play by dairy calves? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 148: 21–27.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mainau E., Dalmau A., Ruiz-de-la-Torre J.L., Manteca X. (2009). Validation of an automatic system to detect position changes in puerperal sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 121: 96–102.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maltby J., Day L., Macaskill A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence. Harlow, UK, Pearson Education, 2nd ed., 675 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mandel R., Whay H.R., Klement E., Nicol C.J. (2016). Invited review: environmental enrichment of dairy cows and calves in indoor housing. J. Dairy Sci., 99: 1695–1715.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Manteuffel C., Hartung E., Schmidt M., Hoffmann G., Schön P.C. (2015). Towards qualitative and quantitative prediction and detection of parturition onset in sows using light barriers. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 116: 201–210.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marino L. (2017). Thinking chickens: A review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Anim. Cogn., 20: 127–147.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marino L., Merskin D. (2019). Intelligence, complexity, and individuality in sheep. Anim. Sentience, 206: 1–26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marino L., Allen K. (2017). The psychology of cows. Anim. Behav. Cogn., 4: 474–498.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marino L., Colvin C.M. (2015). Thinking pigs: a comparative review of cognition, emotion, and personality in Sus domesticus. International J. Comp. Psychol., 28.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maselyne J., Adriaens I., Huybrechts T., de Ketelaere B., Millet S., Vangeyte J., van Nuffel A., Saeys W. (2016a). Measuring the drinking behaviour of individual pigs housed in group using radio frequency identification (RFID). Animal, 10: 1557–1566.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maselyne J., Saeys W., Briene P., Mertens K., Vangeyte J., De Ketelaere B., Hessel E.F., Sonck B., Van Nuffel A. (2016b). Methods to construct feeding visits from RFID registrations of growing-finishing pigs at the feed trough. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 128: 9–19.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mather J.A., Carere C. (2019). Consider the individual: personality and welfare in invertebrates. In: The welfare of invertebrate animals. Animal welfare, Carere C., Mather J. (eds). Cham, Switzerland, Springer, pp. 229–245.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McCrae R.R., Costa P.T. Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In: Handbook of personality: theory and research, John O.P., Robins R.W., Pervin L.A. (eds). New York, USA, Guilford Press, 3rd ed., pp. 159–181.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McLennan K., Mahmoud M. (2019). Development of an automated pain facial expression detection system for sheep (Ovis aries). Animals, 9: 1–7.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Meagher R.K., Strazhnik E., von Keyserlingk M.A.G., Weary D.M. (2020). Assessing the motivation to learn in cattle. Sci. Rep., 10: 6847.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mellor D.J., Beausoleil N.J., Littlewood K.E., McLean A.N., McGreevy P.D., Jones B., Wilkins C. (2020). The 2020 Five Domains Model: including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals, 10: 1870.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Melotti L., Oostindjer M., Bolhuis J.E., Held S., Mendl M. (2011). Coping personality type and environmental enrichment affect aggression at weaning in pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 133: 144–153.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Monsó S. (2017). Morality without mindreading. Mind Lang., 32: 338–357.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Morgan T., Pluske J., Miller D., Collins T., Barnes A.L., Wemelsfelder F., Fleming P.A. (2014). Socialising piglets in lactation positively affects their post-weaning behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 158: 23–33.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mota-Rojas D., Broom D.M., Orihuela A., Velarde A., Napolitano F., Alonso-Spilsbury M. (2020). Effects of human-animal relationship on animal productivity and welfare. J. Anim. Behav. Biometeorol., 8: 196–205.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nasirahmadi A., Hensel O., Edwards S., Sturm B. (2016). Automatic detection of mounting behaviours among pigs using image analysis. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 124: 295–302.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Navon S., Mizrach A., Hetzroni A., Ungar E.D. (2013). Automatic recognition of jaw movements in free-ranging cattle, goats and sheep, using acoustic monitoring. Biosyst. Eng., 114: 474–483.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nawroth C., Langbein J., Coulon M., Gabor V., Oesterwind S., Benz-Schwarzburg J., von Borell E. (2019). Farm animal cognition – linking behavior, welfare and ethics. Front. Vet. Sci., 6: 24.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Neave H., Weary D., von Keyserlingk M. (2018). Review: individual variability in feeding behaviour of domesticated ruminants. Animal, 12: S419-S430.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Neethirajan S. (2020). The role of sensors, big data and machine learning in modern animal farming. Sens. Bio-Sens. Res., 29: 100367.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Neethirajan S., Reimert I., Kemp B. (2021). Measuring farm animal emotions – sensor-based approaches. Sensors, 21: 553.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Noddings N. (2013). Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley – Los Angeles, USA, University of California Press, 256 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nogues E., Lecorps B., Weary D.M., von Keyserlingk M.A.G. (2020). Individual variability in response to social stress in dairy heifers. Animals, 10: 1440.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Norris D., Ng‘ambi J.W., Mabelebele M., Alabi O.J., Benyi K. (2014). Genetic selection for docility: a review. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 24: 13–18.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nowicki J., Klocek C., Schwarz T. (2012). Factors affecting maternal behaviour and responsiveness in sows during periparturient and lactation periods. Ann. Anim. Sci., 12: 455–469.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nowicki J., Schwarz T. (2010). Maternal responsiveness of sows housed in two farrowing environments measured in behavioural tests. Ann. Anim. Sci., 10: 179–186.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nussbaum M. (2006). Frontiers of justice disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, USA, Harward University Press, 512 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Okinda C., Lu M., Nyalala I., Li J., Shen M. (2018). Asphyxia occurrence detection in sows during the farrowing phase by inter-birth interval evaluation. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 152: 221–232.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
O’Malley C., Turner S.P., D’Eath R.B., Steibel J., Bates R., Ernst C., Siegford J. (2019). Animal personality in the management and welfare of pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 218: 104821.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Paraforos D.S., Griepentrog H.W. (2021). Digital farming and field robotics: internet of things, cloud computing, and Big Data. In: Fundamentals of agricultural and field robotics. Agriculture automation and control, Karkee M., Zhang Q. (eds). Cham, Switzerland, Springer, pp. 365–385.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pastell M., Hietaoja J., Yun J., Tiusanen J., Valros A. (2016). Predicting farrowing of sows housed in crates and pens using accelerometers and CUSUM charts. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 127: 197–203.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Paul E.S., Harding E.J., Mendl M. (2005). Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 29: 469–491.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Peden R.S., Turner S.P., Boyle L.A., Camerlink I. (2018). The translation of animal welfare research into practice: the case of mixing aggression between pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 204: 1–9.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Phillips C. (2019). Sacrificial lambs. Anim. Sent., 25.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pitts A.D., Weary D.M., Pajor E.A., Fraser D. (2000). Mixing at young ages reduces fighting in unacquainted domestic pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 68: 191–197.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pollo S. (2007). Animal welfare, animal minds and animal individuality. In: Course. Human and non-human animals interaction: contextual, normative and applicative aspects, Vitale A., Laviola G., Manciocco A., Adriani W. (eds). Roma, Italy, Rapporti ISTISAN 07/40, pp. 95–101.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Prunier A., Averos X., Dimitrov I., Edwards S.A., Hillmann E., Holinger M., Ilieski V., Leming R., Tallet C., Turner S.P., Zupan M., Camerlink I. (2020). Review: early life predisposing factors for biting in pigs. Animal, 14: 570–587.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Quwaider M., Daigle C.L., Biswas S.K., Siegford J.M., Swanson J.C. (2010). Development of a wireless body-mounted sensor to monitor location and activity of laying hens in a non-cage housing system. Trans. ASABE., 53: 1705–1713.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ramsey G. (2013). Culture in humans and other animals. Biol. Philos., 28: 457–479.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rasmuson M. (2010). Trends in genetics – before the Molecular Era. Hereditas, 147: 243–249.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rault J.-L., Waiblinger S., Boivin X., Hemsworth P. (2020). The power of a positive human– animal relationship for animal welfare. Front. Vet. Sci., 7.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ravisankar H., Naidu V.S.G.R, Sivaraju K., Babu B.J., Sivarao P. (2014). Expert system for dairy cattle management. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 84: 891–896.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Réale D., Reader S.M., Sol D., McDougall P.T., Dingemanse N.J. (2007). Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol. Rev., 82: 291–318.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Regan T. (1983). The case for animals rights. Berkeley, Los Angeles, USA, University of California Press, 474 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Regan T. (2006). Sentience and rights. In: Animals, Ethics and Trade, Turner J., D’Silva J. (eds). Routledge, 1st Edition, New York, USA, pp. 79–86.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rodriguez-Baena D.S., Gomez-Vela F.A., García-Torres M., Divina F., Barranco C.D., Daz-Diaz N., Jimenez M., Montalvo G. (2020). Identifying livestock behavior patterns based on accelerometer dataset. J. Comput. Sci., 41: 101076.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roland L., Lidauer L., Sattlecker G., Kickinger F., Auer W., Sturm V., Efrosinin D., Drillich M., Iwersen M. (2018). Monitoring drinking behavior in bucket-fed dairy calves using an ear-attached tri-axial accelerometer: a pilot study. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 145: 298–301.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rossi J., Garner S.A. (2014). Industrial farm animal production: a comprehensive moral critique. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 27: 479–522.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Röttgen V., Schön P.C., Becker F., Tuchscherer A., Wrenzycki C., Düpjan S., Puppe B. (2020). Automatic recording of individual oestrus vocalisation in group-housed dairy cattle: development of a cattle call monitor. Animal, 14: 198–205.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rowlands M. (2012). Can animals be moral? New York, USA, Oxford University Press, 272 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rowlands M. (2016). Consciousness and the unity of mind. Anim. Sentience, 10: 1–15.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ruis M.A.W., te Brake J.H.A., van de Burgwal J.A., de Jong I.C., Blokhuis H.J., Koolhaas J.M. (2000). Personalities in female domesticated pigs: behaviouiral and physiological indications. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 66: 31–47.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Salazar L.C., Ko H.L., Yang C.H., Llonch L., Manteca X., Camerlink I., Llonch P. (2018). Early socialisation as a strategy to increase piglets’ social skills in intensive farming conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 206: 25–31.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schillings J., Bennett R., Rose D.C. (2021). Exploring the potential of precision livestock farming technologies to help address farm animal welfare. Front. Anim. Sci., 2: 639678.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schön P.C., Puppe B., Manteuffel G. (2004). Automated recording of stress vocalisations as a tool to document impaired welfare in pigs. Anim. Welfare, 13: 105–110.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schönfeld M. (2006). Animal consciousness: paradigm change in the life sciences. Perspect. Sci., 14: 354–381.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schweitzer A. (1955). Civilization and ethics. London, UK, Adam & Charles Black, XXVIII, 284 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Shahzadi R., Ferzund J., Tausif M., Suryani M.A. (2016). Internet of things based expert system for smart agriculture. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., 7: 341–350.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Shapiro P. (2006). Moral agency in other animals. Theor. Med. Bioeth., 27: 357–373.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sih A., Bell A., Johnson J.C. (2004). Behavioral syndromes: anecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol. Evol., 19: 372–378.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sih A., Bell A.M., Johnson J.C., Ziemba R.E. (2004). Behavioral syndromes: an integrative overview. Q. Rev. Biol., 79: 241–277.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Simitzis P., Tzanidakis C., Tzamaloukas O., Sossidou E. (2022). Contribution of precision livestock farming systems to the Improvement of welfare status and productivity of dairy animals. Dairy, 3: 12–28.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Singer P. (1975). Animal liberation: a new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York, USA, HarperCollins, 311 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Singer P. (1981). The expanding circle: ethics and sociobiology. Oxford, UK, Clarendon Press, 208 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Singer P. (2011). Practical ethics. New Jersey, USA, Princeton University, 3rd ed., 356 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Slater P.J.B. (1981). Individual differences in animal behavior. In: Perspectives in Ethology, Advantages of Diversity, Bateson P.P.G., Klopfer P. (eds). Plenum Press, New York, USA, pp. 35–49.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Solomon T., Hussen E. (2018). Benefits of farm animals genetic adaptation: a review. Eur. Exp. Biol., 8: 22.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sorabji R. (2018). Animal minds and human morals. New York, USA, Cornell University Press, 272 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Steiner G. (2008). Animals and the moral community. New York, USA, Columbia University Press, 232 pp.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Swain D.L., Bishop-Hurley G.J. (2007). Using contact logging devices to explore animal affiliations: quantifying cow-calf interactions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 102: 1–11.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sytsma J., Machery E. (2012). The two sources of moral standing. Rev. Phil. Psych., 3: 303–324.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Thompson R., Matheson S.M., Plötz T., Edwards S.A., Kyriazakis I. (2016). Porcine lie detectors: automatic quantification of posture state and transitions in sows using inertial sensors. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 127: 521–530.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Torrance S. (2013). Artificial agents and the expanding ethical circle. AI Soc., 28: 399–414.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tu X., Du S., Tang L., Xin H., Wood B. (2011). A real-time automated system for monitoring individual feed intake and body weight of group housed turkeys. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 75: 313–320.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Van Der Sluis M., De Klerk B., Ellen E.D., De Haas Y., Hijink T., Rodenburg T.B. (2019). Validation of an ultra-wideband tracking system for recording individual levels of activity in broilers. Animals, 9: 580.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vayssade J.A., Arquet R., Bonneau M. (2019). Automatic activity tracking of goats using drone camera. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 162: 767–772.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Viazzi S., Ismayilova G., Oczak M., Sonoda L.T., Fels M., Guarino M., Vranken E., Hartung J., Bahr C., Berckmans D. (2014). Image feature extraction for classification of aggressive interactions among pigs. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 104: 57–62.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Volkmann N., Kulig B., Hoppe S., Stracke J., Hensel O., Kemper N. (2021). On-farm detection of claw lesions in dairy cows based on acoustic analyses and machine learning. J. Dairy Sci., 104: 5921–5931.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Warren M.A. (1997). Moral status. Obligations to persons and other living things. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, pp. 182–183.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Waytz A., Gray K., Epley N., Wegner D.M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends Cogn. Sci., 14: 383–388.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Weiss A., King J.E., Hopkins W.D. (2007). A cross-setting study of chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) personality structure and development: zoological parks and Yerkes National Primate Research Center. Am. J. Primatol., 69: 1–14.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Welfare Quality® (WQ). (2009). Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands, (source: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Werkheiser I. (2018). Precision livestock farming and farmers’ duties to livestock. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 31: 181–195.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Williams L.R., Moore S.T., Bishop-Hurley G.J., Swain D.L. (2020). A sensor-based solution to monitor grazing cattle drinking behaviour and water intake. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 168: 105141.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wise S.M. (1999). Animal thing to animal person-thoughts on time, place, and theories. Animal L., Essays, 5: 61–68.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Xiao L., Ding K., Gao Y., Rao X. (2019). Behavior-induced health condition monitoring of caged chickens using binocular vision. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 156: 254–262.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yajuvendra S., Lathwal S.S., Rajput N., Raja T.V., Gupta A.K., Mohanty T.K., Ruhil A.P., Chakravarty A.K., Sharma P.C., Sharma V., Chandra G. (2013). Effective and accurate discrimination of individual dairy cattle through acoustic sensing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 146: 11–18.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yang A., Huang H., Yang X., Li S., Chen C., Gan H., Xue Y. (2019). Automated video analysis of sow nursing behavior based on fully convolutional network and oriented optical flow. Comp. Electr. Agricult., 167: 105048.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yang A., Huang H., Zheng B., Li S., Gan H., Chen C., Yang X., Xue Y. (2020). An automatic recognition framework for sow daily behaviours based on motion and image analyses. Biosyst. Eng., 192: 56–71.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zeder M.A. (2017). Domestication as a model system for the extended evolutionary synthesis. Interface Focus, 7: 20160133.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zhang F.Y., Hu Y.M., Chen L.C., Guo L.H., Duan W.J., Wang L. (2016). Monitoring behavior of poultry based on RFID radio frequency network. Int. J. Agricult. Biol. Eng., 9: 139–147.
]Search in Google Scholar
