Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by
Crossref.
Swart, Jac. A. A.
2014.
Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics.
p.
1.
Bruijnis, M. R. N.
Blok, V.
Stassen, E. N.
and
Gremmen, H. G. J.
2015.
Moral “Lock-In” in Responsible Innovation: The Ethical and Social Aspects of Killing Day-Old Chicks and Its Alternatives.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,
Vol. 28,
Issue. 5,
p.
939.
Kupsala, Saara
Vinnari, Markus
Jokinen, Pekka
and
Räsänen, Pekka
2015.
Citizen Attitudes to Farm Animals in Finland: A Population-Based Study.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,
Vol. 28,
Issue. 4,
p.
601.
Gremmen, B.
and
Blok, V.
2016.
9. The lesser of two evils? The killing of day-old male chicks in the Dutch egg sector.
p.
72.
Aerts, S.
and
De Tavernier, J.
2016.
The end of animal life: a start for ethical debate.
p.
167.
Vizzier Thaxton, Yvonne
Christensen, Karen D.
Mench, Joy A.
Rumley, Elizabeth R.
Daugherty, Christine
Feinberg, Bruce
Parker, Molly
Siegel, Paul
and
Scanes, Colin G.
2016.
Symposium: Animal welfare challenges for today and tomorrow.
Poultry Science,
Vol. 95,
Issue. 9,
p.
2198.
Miranda-de la Lama, G.C.
Estévez-Moreno, L.X.
Sepúlveda, W.S.
Estrada-Chavero, M.C.
Rayas-Amor, A.A.
Villarroel, M.
and
María, G.A.
2017.
Mexican consumers' perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products.
Meat Science,
Vol. 125,
Issue. ,
p.
106.
Schwean-Lardner, Karen
2018.
Advances in Poultry Welfare.
p.
29.
Gurung, Shailesh
White, Dima
Archer, Gregory
Zhao, Dan
Farnell, Yuhua
Byrd, J.
Peebles, E.
and
Farnell, Morgan
2018.
Evaluation of Alternative Euthanasia Methods of Neonatal Chickens.
Animals,
Vol. 8,
Issue. 3,
p.
37.
Gremmen, B.
Bruijnis, M. R. N.
Blok, V.
and
Stassen, E. N.
2018.
A Public Survey on Handling Male Chicks in the Dutch Egg Sector.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,
Vol. 31,
Issue. 1,
p.
93.
Alshamy, Zaher
Richardson, Kenneth C.
Hünigen, Hana
Hafez, Hafez Mohamed
Plendl, Johanna
Al Masri, Salah
and
Yildirim, Arda
2018.
Comparison of the gastrointestinal tract of a dual-purpose to a broiler chicken line: A qualitative and quantitative macroscopic and microscopic study.
PLOS ONE,
Vol. 13,
Issue. 10,
p.
e0204921.
Lawrence, Alistair B.
Newberry, Ruth C.
and
Špinka, Marek
2018.
Advances in Pig Welfare.
p.
415.
Brümmer, N.
Christoph-Schulz, I.
and
Rovers, A.
2018.
20. Dual-purpose chickens as alternative to the culling of day-old chicks – the ethical perspective.
p.
141.
Giersberg, Mona F.
Spindler, Birgit
and
Kemper, Nicole
2019.
Linear Space Requirements and Perch Use of Conventional Layer Hybrids and Dual-Purpose Hens in an Aviary System.
Frontiers in Veterinary Science,
Vol. 6,
Issue. ,
Torres, Alexandr
Muth, Philipp C.
Capote, Juan
Rodríguez, Covadonga
Fresno, Maria
and
Valle Zárate, Anne
2019.
Suitability of dual-purpose cockerels of 3 different genetic origins for fattening under free-range conditions.
Poultry Science,
Vol. 98,
Issue. 12,
p.
6564.
Zoll, Felix
Diehl, Katharina
and
Siebert, Rosemarie
2019.
Integrating Sustainability Goals in Innovation Processes: Applying a Decision Support Tool in a Dual-Purpose Chicken Case Study.
Sustainability,
Vol. 11,
Issue. 14,
p.
3761.
Stehr, Manuel
Grashorn, Michael
Dannenberger, Dirk
Tuchscherer, Armin
Gauly, Matthias
Metges, Cornelia C.
and
Daş, Gürbüz
2019.
Resistance and tolerance to mixed nematode infections in relation to performance level in laying hens.
Veterinary Parasitology,
Vol. 275,
Issue. ,
p.
108925.
Giersberg, Mona Franziska
Spindler, Birgit
Rodenburg, Bas
and
Kemper, Nicole
2019.
The Dual-Purpose Hen as a Chance: Avoiding Injurious Pecking in Modern Laying Hen Husbandry.
Animals,
Vol. 10,
Issue. 1,
p.
16.
Reithmayer, Corrina
and
Mußhoff, Oliver
2019.
Consumer preferences for alternatives to chick culling in Germany.
Poultry Science,
Vol. 98,
Issue. 10,
p.
4539.
Swart, Jac. A. A.
2019.
Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics.
p.
2338.