Document type: scientific review published in animal
Authors: C.M. Dwyer, G.H.M. Jørgensen, J.-M. Gautier
Abstract in French (translation): Analysis: How to Measure animal welfare on the Farm? Indicators, Indirect Variables, and Benchmarks
The well-being of farm animals is assessed to verify compliance with legislation and labeling programs, to analyze the impacts of management changes, and to conduct research on animal welfare. Here, we ask the following question: How can we assess how an animal experiences its daily life on the farm?
animal welfare refers to what the animal feels and encompasses emotional states ranging from very negative to very positive. Well-being is influenced by diet, environment, health, and behavioral interactions among animals; all these factors are integrated through their effects on the animal’s mental state. Although we can often easily measure and describe the conditions under which an animal is housed on a farm (input factors) as well as its physical condition under those conditions, these elements alone are not sufficient to tell us what the animal is actually experiencing.
The gold standard for animal well-being would therefore be a measure that provides information about the animal’s mental state. Currently, mental state is not considered a directly measurable entity, and it may remain a hypothetical rather than a realistic concept in the assessment of well-being. Thus, the assessment of well-being relies on a series of measurable outcomes, or indicators, which serve as proxies for the state of well-being. Emotional state and well-being are then inferred from these measures. Animal-based measures are considered the most relevant for understanding the animal’s experience, although they require a rigorous assessment of the validity and reliability of the measures.
Many animal-based measures rely on behavioral assessment. These may include continuous changes in reactions—such as approach or avoidance, facial expressions, qualitative behavioral assessments, and circadian rhythms—or complex behavioral patterns—such as preferences, motivational priorities, or perceptions—that provide insight into the animal’s likely mental state. Many measures are currently suitable only for research purposes and may be difficult to assess on the farm, but some could lend themselves to the use of sensors or automated methods in the future. These present technological and ethical challenges that must be overcome and require an understanding of what is being measured and how it relates to the animal’s mental state, but they could offer future opportunities for continuous assessment of animal behavior and well-being.
At present, however, the theoretical understanding of animal welfare—particularly positive welfare and cumulative “quality of life”—is not adequately reflected in existing assessments of welfare in farming systems. We conclude that a more comprehensive and integrated approach is needed to develop methods capable of truly reflecting the animal’s experience in farming systems.
Preview:
Farm animal welfare is assessed for compliance with legislation and labelling schemes, to evaluate the impacts of management change and for animal welfare research. Here, we ask: how can we assess how the animal experiences its life on farm?
Animal welfare is what the animal experiences and spans from very negative to very positive emotional states. Welfare is influenced by nutrition, the environment, health and the behavioural interactions that animals have, integrated through the impacts that these have on the mental state of the animal. Whilst we can often readily measure and describe the conditions under which the animal is housed on farm (inputs), and the physical state of the animal within these conditions, these are not sufficient to tell us what the animal is experiencing.
The Gold Standard for animal welfare, therefore, would be a measure that tells us something about the mental state of the animal. Currently, this is not considered a directly measurable entity, and it may remain a hypothetical rather than a realistic construct in welfare assessment. Thus, welfare assessment relies on a series of measurable outputs, or indicators, that serve as proxies for the welfare state. Emotional state and welfare are then inferred from these measures. Animal-based measures are considered the most relevant to understanding animal experience, although these require rigorous assessment of the validity and reliability of measurement.
Many animal-based measures rely on the assessment of behaviour. These may be ongoing changes in response, such as approach or avoidance, facial expression, Qualitative Behaviour Assessment and circadian rhythms or complex patterns of behaviour, such as preferences, motivational priorities, or perceptions, which allow deeper insight into the likely mental state of the animal. Many measures are only suitable for research purposes at present and can be challenging to assess on farm, but some may be amenable to the use of sensors or automated methods in the future. These have technological and ethical challenges to overcome and require an understanding of what is being measured and how this relates to the animal’s mental state but may offer opportunities for continual assessment of animal behaviour and welfare in the future.
Currently, however, theoretical understanding of animal welfare, particularly positive welfare and cumulative ‘Quality of Life’, is not well-captured in existing on−farm welfare assessment. We conclude that there is a need for a more comprehensive and integrated approach to the development of methods that can truly address the animal’s experience on farm.
