Assessing good physical health and resilience as a foundation for positive welfare in chickens

Simple SummaryThe words used to communicate farm animal welfare to non-specialists may be more important than knowledge of welfare itself. Framing research finds that human perception is influenced, not by what is said, but by how something is said. By increasing the emphasis placed on animals having positive experiences, positive animal welfare changes the framing of farm animal welfare. Yet, we do not know how such framing of animal welfare may influence the perceptions of key animal welfare stakeholders. In response, this study uses qualitative interviews to explore how citizens and farmers frame positive animal welfare and what this means for the effective communication of this concept. This study finds that ‘positive’ evokes associations with ‘negatives’ amongst citizens. This leads them to frame positive animal welfare as animals having ‘positive experiences’ or being ‘free from negative experiences’. Farmers rely more on their existing frames of animal welfare and integrate positive welfare into this. As such, most farmers frame positive welfare as ‘good husbandry’, a smaller number frame it as ‘proactive welfare improvement’, and a small number frame it as an ‘animal’s point of view’. The implications of such internal frames for effectively transferring positive welfare from science to society are further discussed.Human perception can depend on how an individual frames information in thought and how information is framed in communication. For example, framing something positively, instead of negatively, can change an individual’s response. This is of relevance to ‘positive animal welfare’, which places greater emphasis on farm animals being provided with opportunities for positive experiences. However, little is known about how this framing of animal welfare may influence the perception of key animal welfare stakeholders. Through a qualitative interview study with farmers and citizens, undertaken in Scotland, UK, this paper explores what positive animal welfare evokes to these key welfare stakeholders and highlights the implications of such internal frames for effectively communicating positive welfare in society. Results indicate that citizens make sense of positive welfare by contrasting positive and negative aspects of welfare, and thus frame it as animals having ‘positive experiences’ or being ‘free from negative experiences’. Farmers draw from their existing frames of animal welfare to frame positive welfare as ‘good husbandry’, ‘proactive welfare improvement’ or the ‘animal’s point of view’. Implications of such internal frames (e.g., the triggering of ‘negative welfare’ associations by the word ‘positive’) for the effective communication of positive welfare are also presented.

Simple SummaryThis research looked at how sheep farmers and industry actors in the UK understand, think about, and define “positive animal welfare”. It, therefore, involved interviewing farmers and industry experts, including veterinarians and advisors. The study found that how the farmers (n = 25) and industry actors (n = 11) perceived and viewed what positive animal welfare is differed from those perceptions held by scientists. Some of the study participants linked positive welfare to “positive stockmanship” and “good animal welfare” frames, while others proposed broader ideas and meanings, linked to existing scientific positive welfare definitions, including considering “high welfare” states and “happy, healthy” dimensions. Overall, the findings suggested that scientists should work closely with farmers and industry actors to bridge the gap between academic discourse and perceived meanings held by the farmers and by the industry, to develop practical and effective methods for understand how stakeholders define this concept, and the adoption of positive animal welfare approaches and practices.This research examines how sheep farmers and industry actors in the United Kingdom (UK) understand and conceptualize what animal welfare scientists term ‘positive animal welfare’. It explores their awareness of the concept, and how they interpret it using a qualitative approach. Participants were recruited using a snowballing, purposive sample approach, resulting in 25 sheep farmers and 11 industry actors (veterinarians, farming organizations, advisors, and supply chain) being interviewed. To collect data, a combined approach involving semi-structured interviews and a facilitated workshop were used between April 2021 and March 2022. Data were then thematically analyzed using a hybrid of inductive and deductive coding process. The findings suggested that the perceptions of farmers and industry actors in the study regarding positive welfare differ from contemporary academic discourses. Overall, around 7 of the farmers equated positive welfare with “positive stockmanship”, while six of them expressed “good animal welfare” definitions associated with the Five Freedoms. In contrast, most industry actors (6) expressed interpretations associated with high welfare standards (going above minimum recommended practices) and positive mental experiences (3). Emerging discourses revealed the link between self-identity, social identity and what positive welfare is, the importance of knowledge exchange, and the need for practical indicators through language rephrasing. There is a clear need to enhance and improve knowledge dissemination strategies, particularly in the UK, where much research is being conducted on positive animal welfare.

Positive animal welfare (PAW) is a rising topic in animal welfare science, although its construct, definition, and operational approach remain debated. Despite this scientific uncertainty, there is societal interest to include more indicators of positive welfare in legislation, animal welfare assessment and accreditation schemes. Changes in some farming practices seem to be in line with promoting PAW (e.g., free-range housing), providing animals more opportunities for positive experiences such as rewarding natural behaviour, greater autonomy, or choice. Interestingly, some of the ideas underlying PAW are present in extensive production systems or low-input animal management practices that are common in low-income countries, for example free-roaming livestock or village dogs. Nevertheless, welfare challenges such as neglect, diseases, poor nutrition, animal abuse and other forms of suffering remain ubiquitous, especially where resources like veterinary support are limited. Living conditions for animals in low-income countries provide examples of the delicate balance between positive welfare and welfare risks relating to health and survival, with inextricable ethical dilemmas. In our view, the growing focus on PAW could stimulate a more balanced approach to animal welfare worldwide, promoting PAW while simultaneously limiting various forms of welfare challenges. However, this requires accounting for human factors such as societal and cultural location-specific aspects to find flexible solutions that also benefit and respect people whose livelihood may be at stake. Those human factors also modulate the consideration and importance of providing animals with positive welfare states and the role of underlying ethical concepts like happiness and “a good life.”

Since the beginning of the farm animal welfare debate half a century ago, the focus has been on the negative side of animal welfare, with most research studying the harms induced by modern husbandry to animals and how to prevent them. Here we review the trend to investigate what has become referred to as positive animal welfare. We review the main published papers on positive welfare and distil the commonalities and distinctions made in the different approaches to positive welfare. Next, we describe several animal-based approaches for assessing positive welfare in pigs and the limited data available on the current status of positive welfare in modern pig production. Finally, areas are identified where a focus on positive welfare could set future trends in animal welfare research and implementation of better pig welfare on farms.

The concept of animal welfare is evolving due to progress in our scientific understanding of animal biology and changing societal expectations. Animal welfare science has been primarily concerned with minimising suffering, but there is growing interest in also promoting positive experiences, grouped under the term Positive Animal Welfare (PAW). However, there are discrepancies in the use of the term PAW. An interdisciplinary group arrived at a consensus that “PAW can be defined as the animal flourishing through the experience of predominantly positive mental states and the development of competence and resilience. Positive animal welfare goes beyond ensuring good physical health and the prevention and alleviation of suffering. It encompasses animals experiencing positive mental states resulting from rewarding experiences, including having choices and opportunities to actively pursue goals and achieve desired outcomes”. The definition also considers individual and species-specific differences. It provides a framework for researchers to investigate PAW and thereby generate innovative, informative, and reproducible science. Studies of PAW can contribute to a richer picture of an animal’s life and may elucidate the biological foundations of happiness. The definition creates opportunities to inspire scientific progress in animal biology, and to align animal care practices, legislation and markets with societal expectations.

15 - Positive welfare: What does it add to the debate over pig welfare?

The concept of animal welfare is evolving due to progress in our scientific understanding of animal biology and changing societal expectations. Animal welfare science has been primarily concerned with minimizing suffering, but there is growing interest in also promoting positive experiences, grouped under the term positive animal welfare (PAW). However, there are discrepancies in the use of the term PAW. An interdisciplinary group arrived at a consensus that ‘PAW can be defined as the animal flourishing through the experience of predominantly positive mental states and the development of competence and resilience. PAW goes beyond ensuring good physical health and the prevention and alleviation of suffering. It encompasses animals experiencing positive mental states resulting from rewarding experiences, including having choices and opportunities to actively pursue goals and achieve desired outcomes’. The definition also considers individual and species-specific differences. It provides a framework for researchers to investigate PAW and thereby generate innovative, informative and reproducible science. Studies of PAW can contribute to a richer picture of an animal’s life and may elucidate the biological foundations of happiness. The definition creates opportunities to inspire scientific progress in animal biology and to align animal care practices, legislation and markets with societal expectations.

The concept of animal welfare has fluctuated over time, following changes in values and beliefs, together with advances in the scientific understanding of animals. A relevant driver in the new definitions of animal welfare has been the higher interest in including affective states, especially positive ones, under a new approach known as Positive Animal Welfare (PAW). Under PAW approach promoting animal welfare goes beyond minimizing suffering or the avoidance of negative states, because an absence of suffering does not mean that all the proclivities of an animal are being fulfilled; particularly, it can overlook the potential benefits of providing environments that enable animals to express their whole behavioural repertoire. The sustainability of animal production systems is often defined by their economic and/or environmental impact. However, the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems outlines two additional pillars of sustainability: governance and social. The social pillar covers the quality of life for both humans and animals involved in the system, and the promotion of positive animal welfare (PAW) is, therefore, also inherent to making a system more sustainable. Under the framework of the European Partnership of Animal Health and Welfare (EUPAHW), the trade-offs and synergies between systems promoting animal welfare with the other sustainability pillars have been explored. Three examples of best practices identified in the EUPAHW that promote PAW or help prevent negative welfare outcomes in pig production will be presented, along with their links to sustainability: non tail-docking, free-farrowing and provision of outdoor access. Tail docking is a common practice in European intensive production systems, although routine tail docking is not allowed by legislation; being considered a painful procedure not tackling the underlying causes of tail biting. At present, European farmers are conducting trials to develop strategies to prevent tail biting in undocked pigs, which have direct consequences on the sustainability of the production system. Besides, the European Citizens’ Initiative “End the cage age” was brought to the EU commission, who initiated plans to prohibit cages and improve animal welfare in multiple farmed animal species. In farrowing and lactating sows, crating has been recognized as severely restricting postural movements, nest building and maternal behaviours and, thus, inducing stress and frustration. The new housing designs under zero or semi confinement for sows will be presented, with regards to its possibilities to promote PAW and its potential impacts in sustainability. Finally, the conventional keeping of growing pigs in an indoor, climate-controlled building with fully or partly slatted floors and minimum space allowance has been said to limit the fulfilment of ethological and physiological needs, such as foraging, and will be presented as an example of best practice promoting PAW, together with its sustainability trade-offs.

Simple SummaryPositive animal welfare (PAW) is thought to have come about as a response to there being too much of a focus on avoiding negatives in animal welfare science. However, despite its development over the last 10 years, it is not clear what it adds to the study of animal welfare. To clarify this, we conduct a review of the literature on PAW. We aim to identify the characteristic features of PAW and to show how PAW connects to the wider literature on animal welfare. We find that the PAW literature is characterised by four features: (1) positive emotions which highlights the capacity of animals to experience positive emotions; (2) positive affective engagement which seeks to create a link between positive emotions and behaviours animals are motivated to engage in; (3) quality of life which acts to give PAW a role in defining an appropriate balance of positives over negatives and; (4) happiness which brings a full life perspective to PAW. While the first two are already well situated in animal welfare studies the two last points open research agendas about aggregation of different aspects of PAW and how earlier experiences affect animals’ ability to have well-rounded lives.It is claimed that positive animal welfare (PAW) developed over the last decade in reaction to animal welfare focusing too much on avoiding negatives. However, it remains unclear what PAW adds to the animal welfare literature and to what extent its ideas are new. Through a critical review of the PAW literature, we aim to separate different aspects of PAW and situate it in relation to the traditional animal welfare literature. We find that the core PAW literature is small (n = 10 papers) but links to wider areas of current research interest. The PAW literature is defined by four features: (1) positive emotions which is arguably the most widely acknowledged; (2) positive affective engagement which serves to functionally link positive emotions to goal-directed behavior; (3) quality of life which serves to situate PAW within the context of finding the right balance of positives over negatives; (4) happiness which brings a full life perspective to PAW. While the two first points are already part of welfare research going back decades, the two latter points could be linked to more recent research agendas concerning aggregation and how specific events may affect the ability of animals to make the best of their lives.

Science Literacy 101 (SCIL 101) is required for undergraduate students in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Students in SCIL 101 learn to use scientific information and economics to support their position on socio-scientific issues regarding food, energy, water, and landscape systems. Learning to identify credible information and synthesize it prepares participants to address real-world problems. During Spring of 2025, a group of five students chose to explore animal welfare and societal concerns with animal use. Our objectives were to 1) provide a structured hands-on learning activity focused on animal welfare, 2) to assess participant understanding of animal welfare concerns and their comfort level discussing such topics, and 3) to determine if participant beliefs or comfort level discussing animal welfare concerns changed as a result of participation in structured learning activities. Participants completed a pre-survey that included questions about previous experience with animals, familiarity with public criticisms of animal agriculture, and their level of comfort discussing these topics with farmers and ranchers, peers, and people who do not agree with the consumption of animal products. Participants watched weekly recorded lectures on animal behavior and welfare topics which explained the importance of understanding animal behavior for managing welfare. As part of hands-on learning activities, participants observed and recorded cattle handling in short videos, using an ethogram to identify specific behaviors. Before participating in hands-on learning activities, 60% of participants reported feeling somewhat or very uncomfortable discussing positive animal welfare with farmers and ranchers, and 40% felt somewhat or very comfortable; 80% felt somewhat or very comfortable discussing positive animal welfare with peers. When asked about their comfort level discussing negative animal welfare, 60% of participants reported feeling somewhat comfortable discussing negative welfare with peers; 80% of participants felt somewhat or very uncomfortable discussing negative animal welfare with farmers and ranchers. Interestingly, 60% of participants felt at least somewhat comfortable discussing both positive and negative animal welfare with people who do not agree with the consumption of animal products. Overall, students reported feeling more comfortable discussing welfare topics with peers and people who do not agree with the consumption of animal products than with farmers and ranchers. The goal of formal education is to prepare tomorrow’s leaders. Our findings suggest more work is needed to prepare CASNR students for future roles which may involve communicating with farmers and ranchers about animal welfare.

Simple SummaryTraditionally, health and production measures have been used to assess farm animal welfare, but these do not encompass all aspects of welfare. In recent years, the concept of “positive animal welfare” has been gaining momentum, in line with the notion that a good animal life prevents negative experiences and also promotes positive experiences. Play behaviour is considered to be a good indicator of positive animal welfare. Accelerometers (movement sensors) worn by animals can be used to monitor activity as a proxy for different behaviours in a much less time-consuming manner than traditional behavioural observations. In this study, we assessed whether a commercially available leg-mounted accelerometer could reliably identify play behaviour in newborn dairy calves. Our results showed that accelerometer technology can be used to identify the amount of play behaviour exhibited by newborn calves in the first 48 h of life, and we discuss its potential for use in the assessment of the welfare of newborn calves in the future.Traditionally, the welfare assessment of farm animals has focused on health and production outcomes. Positive welfare is, however, not merely the absence of negative welfare and is an important part of a life worth living. Play behaviour is widely considered to be an indicator of positive emotions because it is a “luxury” behaviour. Direct visual observation is considered the most accurate method of behavioural analysis, but it is time consuming and laborious. There is increasing interest in the use of remote monitoring technology to quantify behaviour. We compared the data output (“motion index” (MI)) from a commercially available tri-axial accelerometer fitted to newborn dairy calves to video footage of the same calves, with a focus on play behaviour. The motion index values over 48 h were positively correlated with both the duration of play behaviour and the number of play bouts. The motion index threshold in each sample interval with the optimal sensitivity and specificity for the identification of play behaviour was MI ≥ 2.5 at a 1 min resolution (sensitivity (Se) = 98.0%; specificity (Sp) = 92.9%) and MI ≥ 24.5 at a 15 min resolution (Se = 98.0%; Sp = 89.9%), but these values consistently overestimated the overall proportion of sample intervals in which play was observed. The MI that best reflected the results obtained from visual one-zero sampling was MI ≥ 23 for 1 min intervals and MI ≥ 62 for 15 min intervals—this may therefore be the basis of a more conservative approach to the identification of play behaviour from accelerometer-generated data. Our results indicate that accelerometer-generated data can usefully indicate the amount of play behaviour shown by newborn calves for up to 48 h, providing an efficient method for identifying this important parameter in future work.

Simple SummaryPositive animal welfare is a relatively new concept which promotes the welfare benefits of providing animals with greater opportunities for positive experiences, in addition to minimising negative experiences. However, little is known about farmers’ attitudes towards this, and their knowledge of positive welfare. This presents a significant hurdle for the promotion of positive welfare indicators on-farm, where their effective implementation may depend on their acceptance by farmers. In response, this study uses qualitative interviews to explore farmers’ positive welfare perspectives. It finds that several aspects, reflective of the literature on positive welfare indicators, are evident in farmers’ positive welfare-related discussions. These include animal autonomy, play, positive affect, positive human–animal relationships, social interaction and appropriate genetic selection. Such findings provide insights into what farmers consider are relevant to, and indicative of, positive welfare. In addition, this paper explores how farmers see their role in the provision of positive welfare. It finds that farmers largely consider their inputs should be focused on making sure their animals’ needs (e.g., resources) are met and negative experiences are reduced, and that positive welfare will arise naturally, or indirectly, out of this. The implications of these findings and their overlaps with the positive welfare literature are discussed.To support the furtherance of positive animal welfare, there is a need to develop meaningful and practical positive welfare indicators for on-farm welfare assessment. Considering the perspectives of farmers is arguably critical in this regard. Doing so helps ensure positive welfare indicators reflect farmers’ existing welfare norms and attitudes and, are thus, of practical relevance to them. However, a key issue for such development is the dearth of knowledge on farmers’ perspectives of positive welfare. To address this, this study uses qualitative interviews to directly examine livestock farmers’ perspectives of positive welfare. Findings reveal that farmers describe elements of positive welfare which are broadly in line with indicators suggested in the positive welfare literature. These elements include animal autonomy, play, positive affect, positive human-animal relationships, social interaction, and appropriate genetic selection. Additionally, this study finds that farmers construct the reduction of negative aspects of welfare as their primary management concern and mostly construct positive welfare as arising indirectly from this. Insights into the importance that farmers of different sectors and systems give to different aspects of positive welfare indicators are also explored. The implications of these findings and the similitudes between farmers’ perspectives and the positive welfare literature are discussed.

For many years, researchers, veterinarians, animal ethics committees, and regulators have focused on minimizing pain and distress as a primary goal of refinement when working with animals in science. More recent publications as well as a shift in animal ethics and public opinion have emphasized promotion of positive affective states, culminating in the concept of positive animal welfare. Robust measures are required to know when positive animal welfare states are occurring, and a number of measures are proposed and discussed. Regardless of whether there are newer methods available that focus exclusively on measuring positive affective states, consistent consideration of research animal behavioral programs, refinement, and adopting periodic stand-alone animal welfare assessments for all species involved will help to push the care and practices of research animals towards an increased focus on positive animal welfare.

Animal welfare denotes how an animal experiences their life. It represents the overall mental experiences of an animal and is a subjective concept that cannot be directly measured. Instead, welfare indicators are used to cautiously infer mental experiences from resource provisions, management factors, and animal-based measures. The Five Domains Model is a holistic and structured framework for collating these indicators and assessing animal welfare. Contemporary approaches to animal welfare management consider how animals can be given opportunities to have positive experiences. However, the uncertainty surrounding positive mental experiences that can be inferred has resulted in risk-averse animal welfare scientists returning to the relative safety of positivism. This has meant that aspects of positive welfare are often referred to as animal ‘wants’. Agency is a concept that straddles the positivist-affective divide and represents a way forward for discussions about positive welfare. Agency is the capacity of individual animals to engage in voluntary, self-generated, and goal-directed behavior that they are motivated to perform. Discrete positive emotions are cautiously inferred from these agentic experiences based on available knowledge about the animal’s motivation for engaging in the behavior. Competence-building agency can be used to evaluate the potential for positive welfare and is represented by the Behavioral Interactions domain of the Five Domains Model. In 2020, The Model was updated to, amongst other things, include consideration of human-animal interactions. The most important aspect of this update was the renaming of Domain 4 from “Behavior” to “Behavioral Interactions” and the additional detail added to allow this domain’s purpose to be clearly understood to represent an animal’s opportunities to exercise agency. We illustrate how the Behavioral Interactions domain of The Model can be used to assess animals’ competence-building agency and positive welfare. In this article, we use the examples of sugar gliders housed in captivity and greyhounds that race to illustrate how the agentic qualities of choice, control, and challenge can be used to assess opportunities for animals to exercise agency and experience positive affective engagement.

Simple SummaryThe basis of livestock farming is preventing disease and improving animal welfare and well-being. Organic dairy farmers have very few options for the treatment of diseases and for the mitigation of pain in dairy calves and cows. Calving may be stressful for first-lactation cows because they must adapt to many different situations when they are milking. Alternative therapies to improve animal welfare must be researched in organic livestock production to verify that their use improves animal well-being. This review provides a brief background on organic production systems, illustrates current understanding of pain management for disbudding dairy calves, and discusses managing transition heifer behaviors and udder health to improve organic livestock well-being.The number of organic dairy farms has increased because of the increased growth of the organic market, higher organic milk price, and because some consumers prefer to purchase products from less intensive production systems. Best management practices are expected from organic dairy farms to ensure animal health and milk production. Organic dairy producers typically transition from conventional systems to avoid chemicals and pesticides, enhance economic viability, improve the environment, and increase soil fertility. Organic dairy producers respect and promote a natural environment for their animals, is also an important component of animal welfare. Organic producers have few options to mitigate pain in dairy calves. In the United States, therapies to mitigate pain for disbudded organic dairy calves are regulated by the US National Organic Program. Organic producers regularly use naturally derived alternatives for the treatment of health disorders of dairy calves, heifers, and cows. Alternative natural products may provide an option to mitigate pain in organic dairy calves. Despite the reluctance to implement pain alleviation methods, some organic farmers have expressed interest in or currently implement plant-based alternatives. Efficacy studies of alternative remedies for organic livestock are needed to verify that their use improves animal welfare. Non-effective practices represent a major challenge for organic dairy animal welfare. The relationship between humans and animals may be jeopardized during milking because first-lactation cows may exhibit adverse behaviors during the milking process, such as kicking and stomping. The periparturient period is particularly challenging for first-lactation cows. Adverse behaviors may jeopardize animal welfare and reduce safety for humans because stressed heifers may kick off the milking unit, kick at milkers, and display other unwanted behaviors in the milking parlor. This may reduce milking efficiency, overall production, and ultimately reduce the profitability of the dairy farm. Positive animal welfare is a challenging balancing act between the three overlapping ethic concerns. Identifying animal welfare deficits in organic livestock production is the first step in capitalizing on these opportunities to improve welfare.