EPI-DOM approach for comprehensive assessment of integral animal welfare

Introduction: Animal welfare is a critical component of sustainable production systems, affecting ethical practices and product quality. This review aims to clarify the concept of animal welfare, particularly regarding the mental state highlighted by the World Organization for Animal Health.

Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted, focusing on studies published between 1980 and 2024. Databases used included CAB Abstracts, Scopus, PubMed, ISI Web, Scielo, Google Scholar, and specialized websites for scientific and technical information dissemination. The search incorporated keywords such as animal, sentience, consciousness, intelligence, freedoms, domains, indicators, measurement, hazard, risk factor, and management, all related to animal welfare.

Results: This review presents a detailed analysis of the convergence and divergence between the Five Freedoms and the Five Domains, which are widely used for assessing animal welfare. The analysis identifies gaps in addressing the complexities of animal welfare, especially regarding mental states and risk factors.

Discussion: This analysis introduces the EPI-DOM approach, a conceptual framework that integrates basic epidemiological concepts (EPI) with a new vision and classification of animal welfare domains (DOM). The EPI-DOM approach separates indicators measured in animals from external factors influencing their welfare, offering a more holistic evaluation that includes physical, mental, and behavioral dimensions. The framework incorporates risk factors, classified into the domains of management, environment, and interaction, making it a versatile tool for improving welfare assessment across species and production systems.

Conclusion: The EPI-DOM framework provides a comprehensive and adaptable model for animal welfare evaluation, with potential to enhance management practices and ethical production. Future research should focus on validating and refining EPI-DOM across different species and production environments to optimize welfare and management strategies.

1 Introduction

Animal welfare continues to be a topic of global interest and relevance in modern animal production, with significant implications for ethics (Blaxter et al., 2024; Nallappan and Kanathasan, 2024), health (Goetschel, 2024), and planetary sustainability (Campo et al., 2024; Sardar et al., 2023). It is known that animal welfare is fundamental to sustainable production and efficiency in livestock systems (Phillips, 2024), as well as to the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2024), such as health and well-being, sustainable industrialization, and responsible production and consumption (United Nations and OMSA). Moreover, consumer perception of animal welfare impacts purchasing decisions, with an increasing demand for ethically produced and high-quality animal products (Hafez, 2023; Toyota and Tan, 2024). In Europe and Latin America, consumers generally have a positive attitude towards products from farming systems with welfare practices and are willing to pay a premium for them (Estévez-Moreno et al., 2022; Janssen et al., 2016). Animal welfare also impacts public health, animal health, and, consequently, the quality of products intended for consumption (OMSA, 2023; Oliveira et al., 2022). Thus, the science of animal welfare must have a multidisciplinary approach to be addressed correctly and comprehensively (Marchant-Forde, 2015). This involves integrating knowledge from veterinary medicine, biology, ethology, ethics, epidemiology, among others, to ensure that all aspects of animal welfare are considered in various situations and environments. Collaboration between these disciplines enables the development of more effective strategies that promote not only the physical health of animals but also their emotional and social well-being, which is essential for a fulfilling life, “a life worth living” (Yeates, 2011). This comprehensive approach not only benefits animals but also fosters greater awareness and responsibility in society about the importance of treating all living beings with respect and dignity. Therefore, it is essential to implement good welfare practices and systematically evaluate them in production units. Traditionally, animal welfare has been assessed through various methodologies, many of which are based on the Five Freedoms (Brambell, 1965; OMSA, 2023) or, more recently, the Five Domains (Mellor et al., 2020). However, these methodologies have limitations in their ability to provide a comprehensive, practical, and valid assessment method that captures both the evaluation of the indicators to be measured and the risk factors that influence and affect animal welfare.

2 Methodology

The present review aimed to a) clarify the concept of animal welfare, particularly regarding the mental state mentioned by OMSA (2023); b) provide a detailed analysis of the points of convergence and divergence between the Five Freedoms (Brambell, 1965) and the Five Domains (Mellor, 2017, 2020), which have been used up to today for evaluating the welfare animal; and c) propose a new way of organizing the indicators and risk factors associated with animal welfare. For this purpose, a review of the literature published between 1980 and 2024 was conducted, using databases such as CAB Abstracts, PubMed, ISI Web, Scielo, Google Scholar, Scopus, and specialized websites for the dissemination of technical and scientific information. The keywords used were animal, sentience, consciousness, intelligence, freedoms, domains, indicators, measurement, hazard, risk factor, and management, all of them related to animal welfare.

3 Result

3.1 Sentience, perception, consciousness, cognition, and intelligence

To address and clarify the concept of animal welfare, particularly the mental state, the concepts of sentience, perception, consciousness, cognition, and intelligence were considered. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com) was used to define the concepts of sentience, perception, consciousness, cognition, and intelligence. “Sentience” is defined as “a sentient quality or state” and “feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought”. The adjective “sentient” is described as “capable of sensing or feeling, conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling”. Perception is “awareness of the elements of the environment through physical sensation”. Consciousness is “the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself” and “the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought (mind)”. Meanwhile, cognition is defined as “a cognitive mental process”. The adjective “cognitive” is described as “of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (such as thinking, reasoning, or remembering)” and as “based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge”. Intelligence is defined as “the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations” and “the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment”.

In specialized literature, sentience is identified as the capacity of an organism to have experiences and to be affected in a positive, negative, or neutral way (Tye, 2017). Sentience is defined as the capacity for conscious experience, particularly experiences with a positive or negative valence, such as pain or pleasure (Birch, 2024; Browning and Birch, 2022). Research indicates that sentience is present in a wide range of species, including most vertebrates and some invertebrates such as cephalopods and decapod crustaceans. The study of animal sentience involves indicators, such as behavioral and physiological responses, to infer the presence of subjective experiences (Browning and Birch, 2022). Currently research accepts that animals demonstrating high cognitive complexity or intelligence are sentient (Shettleworth, 2010). The concept of sentience is essential for understanding animal welfare; it is the capacity of an animal to perceive external and internal stimuli and experience the response to such stimuli. Perception is the action and effect of perceiving, which involves capturing images, sounds, impressions, or sensations, both external and internal, through one of the senses. It involves gathering information from the environment. In this sense, any animal with a nervous system has specialized neuronal cells capable of perceiving this information from both the external and internal environment, processing it, and generating an appropriate response to the stimulus received, which can trigger various behavioral patterns (Gabbiani and Midtgaard, 2024).

Consciousness, on the other hand, consists of the immediate awareness an individual has of both the internal and external environment, of their own experiences and actions; that is, having a sense of self and some understanding of one’s place in the world (Tye, 2017). In other words, an organism is conscious when it perceives stimuli that alters its mental or psychological state. The definition of cognition is widely accepted and refers to the process by which animals acquire, process, store, and act upon the information gathered from the environment (Shettleworth, 2010). It consists of the mental transformation of sensory information into knowledge about the environment and the flexible application of this knowledge, including processes such as learning, memory, or decision-making. While cognition focuses on the process of acquiring this knowledge, intelligence refers to the ability to apply it successfully (de Waal, 2016), particularly in solving everyday problems. It is impossible to discuss welfare without considering these fundamental aspects that help us understand what we mean when we refer to the mental state of the animal.

3.2 Evolution of animal welfare

Currently, according to the Terrestrial Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OMSA, formerly OIE), animal welfare is defined as “the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies” (OMSA, 2023). The concept emerged in the mid-20th century, when the book Animal Machines by Ruth Harrison was published in 1964, highlighting the deplorable conditions of animals in intensive farming and calling for improvements in their quality of life (Harrison, 1964). W. H. Thorpe, an ethologist who significantly contributed to the study of animal welfare, emphasized the importance of understanding the biology of animals, their specific needs, and their behavioral responses. His work highlights those animals are not mere machines but living beings that require the ability to express natural behaviors, a perspective reflected in the Brambell Committee Report.

The 1965 Brambell Report established the so-called Five Freedoms, which have been identified to guide the evaluation of animal welfare: 1) Freedom from hunger, thirst, or inadequate nutrition; 2) Freedom from pain, injury, or disease; 3) Freedom from fear and distress; 4) Freedom from discomfort; 5) Freedom to express natural behaviors. They focus on preventing suffering by limiting conditions that promote chronic hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, fear, and ensuring that animals can satisfy their need to behave naturally. This marked a turning point in the history of animal welfare by establishing the foundations for the evaluation of animals used in production (Brambell, 1965). Regarding the concept, Fraser et al. (1997) define the subject of animal welfare, represented by naturalness, affective states, and biological functioning. This means that animals must be able to behave naturally according to their species, while affective states reflect the sentience and emotions experienced by animals. At the same time, biological functioning is influenced by the environment and can be measured through productivity indices and outcomes. However, it is important to note that an animal’s biological functioning may not be affected even when facing various adverse stimuli, which does not necessarily mean that the animal is experiencing a good level of welfare (Broom, 2024). Moreover, the perception of an animal’s quality of life (QoL) not only involves the absence of suffering but also the quality of its interactions with the environment, allowing it to meet its needs (Stockman et al., 2011) and experience comfort. This comprehensive view of animal welfare encompasses both physical and mental well-being, emphasizing the importance of an environment that supports natural behaviors and social interactions. The integration of these elements is crucial to ensuring that animals not only survive but thrive in their environment. Quality-of-life assessment tools are indispensable in veterinary medicine for evaluating animal welfare. These tools often measure aspects such as activity levels, desire for interaction, and appetite, which are indicative of an animal’s overall well-being (Fulmer et al., 2022), as well as behavioral parameters, physical condition, and resource- or management-based factors (Long et al., 2022). These instruments have been primarily employed to evaluate the health and welfare of aging zoo mammals, thereby facilitating informed decision-making concerning end-of-life care, including the determination of the appropriate timing for euthanasia (Campbell-Ward, 2023). Therefore, welfare is linked to the individual experiences and perceptions of the animals, meaning that animal welfare should be understood as the quality of life as perceived by the animal itself. Given these facts, it is incorrect to assume that simply implementing good husbandry practices will ensure good welfare for animals merely because they are “producing” or not dying.

Consequently, the concept of animal welfare is based on the balanced relationship between the animal and its environment (both external and internal), where its physical and psychological state play a crucial role (Broom, 2005). A general definition of animal welfare might be “the state of an individual in relation to its attempts to cope with its environment” (Broom, 2011). This refers to the physical, emotional, and social state of animals and their ability to express natural and normal behaviors in response to favorable or adverse environmental conditions, which may result in pain, stress, or unnecessary suffering, as well as pleasure or play. Most animal welfare scientists and the public agree that animal welfare relates to what animals individually experience and perceive, meaning that the degree of welfare would be equivalent to the quality of life as perceived by the animal itself.

Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal in terms of good to bad; it is measurable and quantifiable, and when evaluating it, it is essential to understand the biology of the individual, incorporating emotions and their measurement as well (Broom, 2024). In this sense, emphasis is placed on both physical and mental states, and the end-of-life stage is also incorporated. Considering this definition and from a regulatory perspective, animals are entirely vulnerable beings, like young children; consequently, it is the ethical and moral responsibility of humans to ensure that, throughout their lives and during the end-of-life stage, animals under human care are able to have their needs met, express their natural behavior and emotions, in an ethical, dignified, and appropriate environment (Arvizu-Tovar and Téllez, 2016). Therefore, it is imperative to observe and safeguard welfare at all stages of an animal’s life, particularly during critical moments such as transport and even the slaughtering process. A good level of welfare, with a higher degree of positive experiences compared to negative ones, is a fundamental part of the concept. The level or degree of welfare can be scientifically measured based on the knowledge of the species’ biology and how organisms cope with the challenges of daily life. Measurement and interpretation must be objective, and once a welfare status (rating and qualification) has been determined, decisions can then be made (Broom, 2024).

3.3 Evaluation of animal welfare

As part of the evolution of the Five Freedoms and as a result of scientific findings in the field of animal welfare, the Five Domains model has also been introduced (Mellor et al., 2020; Mellor, 2017). This model consists of four physical domains, with the fifth domain being the mental domain, which is the result of the first four. It is established that the sum and interaction of factors related to survival (1: nutrition, 2: environment, and 3: health) and situational factors (4: behavior) directly influence the mental state of individuals (Domain no. 5: affective experiences, both positive and negative). It is essential to consider the intelligence, learning, and memory of the species, allowing for the assessment of the welfare status or condition of animals, both physically and mentally, at a given moment (Mellor et al., 2020; Mellor, 2017). This approach is more recent and holistic, where the mental domain also includes the emotional states of animals. When comparing both approaches, the Five Freedoms and the Five Domains in the context of animal welfare, it becomes clear that each framework analyzes different aspects of animal care and management (Table 1).

1. Nutrition: The first freedom, known as freedom from hunger and thirst, establishes that animals must have constant access to fresh and clean water, as well as food that meets their nutritional needs, adapted to their species, life stage, and productive purpose. This freedom is reflected in the Nutrition Domain of the Five Domains, which focuses on ensuring that animals have access to an adequate diet and that their feeding is regularly evaluated to ensure their needs and nutritional requirements are met. It can be observed that there are similarities in both methodologies, meaning the animal must be fed and nourished, satisfying its needs and meeting its nutritional requirements.

2. Environment and Safety: The freedom from fear and distress emphasizes the importance of providing animals with an environment that minimizes stress and negative emotions related to fear or distress, while also providing them with safety. This aspect is addressed in the Five Domains through an approach that links the Environment and the Mental State of animals, although there is some ambiguity as to which of these two aspects this freedom best fits. The also, of these two domains is to ensure that animals live in an environment that is not only safe but also mentally comfortable.

3. Comfort in Housing: The freedom from discomfort highlights the need for animals to live in housing that minimizes both physical and thermal discomfort. This correlates with the Environment Domain, which examines the environmental conditions, primarily housing, to ensure that animals are in a safe and comfortable environment, protecting them from cold, heat, and other physical discomforts. Comfort also refers to the distribution of spaces: for resting, moving, interacting with conspecifics, feeding, and waste elimination such as feces and urine, among others.

4. Health and Medical Care: The freedom from pain, injury, and disease establishes that animals must have preventive measures to avoid illness, the implementation of practices that ensure early diagnosis, and timely treatment, which aligns with the spirit of the Five Domains methodology, as it corresponds to the Health Domain. This domain evaluates the physical health, both internal and external, of individuals through the prevention and treatment of diseases and/or injuries, ensuring that animals remain in good physical condition.

5. Natural Behavior: Finally, the freedom to express normal behavior emphasizes the importance of allowing animals to exhibit individual and social behaviors according to their own nature. This aspect corresponds to the Behavior Domain, which ensures that animals have the opportunity to express natural behaviors according to species, age, physiological state, sex, breed, among other characteristics, which is essential for their overall well-being.

Table 1

Table 1. Elements of the Five Freedoms and the Five Domains (Brambell, 1965; Mellor, 2017, 2020; OMSA, 2023).

Regarding Domain 5, this refers to the emotional and mental welfare of an animal (Mellor, 2017), but it is limited in the approach of the Five Freedoms, as it is not clearly distinguished (Table 1). As previously mentioned, freedoms are principles that focus primarily on limiting negative emotions: preventing animals from suffering, feeling fear, or distress. In contrast, the Five Domains model proposes a comprehensive evaluation, considering not only physical needs or the absence of suffering but also incorporating the mental states of animals, as well as the presence of positive experiences that contribute to a good general state of welfare (Mellor et al., 2020).

By conducting a more detailed analysis, fundamental differences between both approaches can be observed, both in their scope and practical application (Table 2). Both frameworks have played a crucial role in the evolution of animal welfare, but they have done so from different perspectives and philosophies that reflect the growing complexity of this field. In this sense, the Five Freedoms is a concept that has prevailed since its introduction and focuses, regarding the mental aspect, on preventing animal suffering. This approach has been widely accepted and adopted in regulations and public policies, as well as in the development of guides or protocols due to its simplicity and clarity. Each freedom addresses an essential aspect of animal welfare, from freedom from hunger and thirst to freedom to express natural behaviors. This framework, by focusing on the prevention of negative experiences, provides an accessible and easily understandable starting point for both the public and professionals involved in animal care. However, the simplicity of the Five Freedoms also constitutes its greatest limitation, as this approach, by centering on avoiding suffering, tends to overlook more positive aspects of welfare, such as promoting enriching experiences that could improve the emotional and mental state of animals. Additionally, the lack of an explicit approach to the mental state can lead to erroneous or insufficient interpretations of what truly constitutes an optimal, integral state of welfare.

Table 2

Table 2. Comparative analysis between different aspects of the Five Freedoms and the Five Domains.

On the other hand, the Five Domains represent a significant advancement towards a more holistic assessment of animal welfare. This framework not only considers the absence of negative experiences but also actively promotes the inclusion of positive experiences in animals’ lives. The Five Domains address both physical and mental aspects more comprehensively, incorporating a more integrated approach that considers nutrition, environment, physical health, behavior, and most importantly, the evaluation of mental state. This perspective allows for a richer and more nuanced understanding of welfare, in which not only is suffering avoided, but efforts are made to actively improve the animal’s quality of life. However, the inherent complexity of this approach presents challenges in its practical application, particularly in the accurate and objective assessment of animals’ mental states and the factors affecting overall welfare. Furthermore, the adoption of the Five Domains in regulations and public policies has been slower, partly due to the technical complexity involved in its evaluation and effective implementation.

From an ethical standpoint, the Five Freedoms focus on harm prevention, a solid and widely accepted foundation in the field of animal welfare. In contrast, the Five Domains promote a more proactive ethic, centered on maximizing positive welfare. This difference highlights a paradigm shift in how animal welfare is understood and addressed: from a focus on limiting negative effects to one that also values and actively seeks to promote positive experiences. Although the Five Domains are more complex, they offer a more sophisticated tool for evaluating animal welfare by incorporating the mental aspect, ambivalent yet ambiguous. This has sparked interest in its study in research contexts and detailed evaluations. Nevertheless, its practical application requires deeper technical training, which may limit its implementation in less specialized settings.

Finally, the measurement of welfare in both frameworks also reflect their fundamental differences. While the Five Freedoms tend to rely on the absence of negative states, focusing more on the evaluation of the environment and management as well as the animal’s physical state, the Five Domains consider not only the absence of negative states but also the presence of positive states. However, this latter approach still faces challenges in clearly identifying and measuring welfare indicators, especially regarding the evaluation of mental state. Although the Five Freedoms and the Five Domains share the common goal of improving animal welfare, they approach it from different perspectives and with different tools. The Five Freedoms, with their simplicity and focus on preventing suffering or physical harm, have been essential in establishing a solid initial foundation for evaluating animal welfare. Meanwhile, the Five Domains, with their more comprehensive approach, represent a step towards a more complete and sophisticated understanding of the physical and mental welfare of animals. The choice between one framework or the other, or their combination, will depend on the context and the specific objectives of those working in this field, as well as the practical and ethical possibilities that each approach offers for implementation at the field level.

However, when evaluating and assessing animal welfare, various questions always arise: What should be measured? Where? What should the focus be on? How to evaluate? What is the factor causing welfare problems? What are the appropriate indicators? What relationship can be found between indicators and/or factors? To answer these questions, it is necessary to review welfare indicators. Therefore, it is essential to consider that animal welfare assessment should be based on measurable indicators that reflect their physical and mental state. Subsequently, the factors affecting their welfare should be identified, considering aspects such as management practices and the environment in which they live and are ultimately culled. A common oversight in animal welfare assessments is the tendency to focus on environmental conditions rather than the actual condition of the animals. This issue arises from the complexity of welfare evaluations, which require a balance between animal-based and environmental measures, along with their relationship with humans (Beaver and Golab, 2023). Animal-based measures are crucial as they directly reflect the welfare status of the animals, capturing physiological, health, and behavioral outcomes, and others. These measures are often quantitative and provide an accurate welfare assessment, independent of environmental conditions (Dalmau and Velarde, 2024). The development of welfare assessment tools is further complicated by potential biases and the need for standardized methodologies (Beaver and Golab, 2023).

According to Merriam-Webster, “indicator” is “something that indicates, an index, a pointer.” It can be described as an observable and measurable characteristic, focused, clear, and specific. It should precisely describe what is being measured and be defined in accurate terms. Indicators are data resulting from established measurement procedures, serving as tools to quantify/qualify and verify conditions, compare situations, and anticipate trends (Copo, 2023). They are useful for assessing health, production, and management, although their accuracy varies depending on the different measures of welfare (Barry et al., 2024). Additionally, it is suggested that welfare is dynamic and should be assessed over time, focusing on the animal’s ability to respond to environmental stimuli (Arndt et al., 2023). Therefore, the concept of a welfare indicator must encompass various metrics used to evaluate both the physical and mental state of the animal, reflecting both negative and positive aspects. In this way, the concept should also cover various frameworks and methodologies aimed at assessing the animal holistically, at a given moment, and, if necessary, modifying the factors that put its welfare at risk. Thus, animal welfare indicators are essential tools that measure or determine the level of an individual’s welfare, and with which changes can be recorded to make decisions for timely and effective actions (Blokhuis et al., 2010).

Welfare indicators that are measured directly in animals (animal-based welfare) have been used. For example, in production animals like dairy cows, indicators include body condition score, presence or absence of lameness, hoof health, somatic cell count, among others (Linstädt et al., 2024). In rearing piglets, the presence and frequency of sneezing, the number of animals with tail-biting, the time spent on certain behaviors, and human-animal relationship tests have been studied (Witt et al., 2023). Welfare indicators measured in horses include stereotypies, aggression towards humans, lack of response to the environment, and hypervigilance, using methodologies such as scan sampling and surveys (Ruet et al., 2022). In sheep, natural behavior, lameness, body condition score, pain assessment, skin irritation scratching, presence of ocular damage, lying time, and tooth loss are considered welfare indicators (Zufferey et al., 2021). At slaughterhouses, damage grade and skin lesion size, tail length, bite injuries, lameness, coughing, rectal/vaginal prolapse, lung prolapse, pleuritis, pericarditis, and liver lesions are welfare indicators measured in finishing pigs (Hernandez et al., 2023). Additionally, slip, fall, or the number of animals showing vocalizations during stunning, or signs of consciousness post-stunning are measured (Grandin, 2010).

As can be observed, welfare in production species is significantly influenced by environmental conditions, management, and handling, meaning external factors that affect both the physical and mental welfare of the animals. Resource-based indicators, or those that can be measured outside the animal, have also been used. Among these, environmental conditions play a crucial role in animal welfare. The environment is composed of various elements, such as the physical surroundings, which include housing design, factors like available space, ventilation, and access to natural light, all of which can have a direct positive or negative effect on the animal. Well-designed environments allow animals to express natural behaviors, which in turn reduces stress and promotes their health (Li et al., 2023; Bayne and Turner, 2014). On the other hand, microbial and chemical factors are highly relevant, especially in intensive production systems. Elements such as ammonia concentration and noise levels in animal housing, and poor-quality bedding regarding type and dimensions, can have a severe impact, triggering physiological responses that compromise the animal’s welfare (Li et al., 2015).

Regarding management practices, meeting the nutritional needs of animals is fundamental. A proper diet, tailored to the specific needs and requirements of each animal while considering their physiological state, is essential for maintaining not only welfare but also productivity, reducing losses and unnecessary expenses (Hutu and Onan, 2019). Environmental enrichment in production units has become an indispensable component that enhances both physical and mental welfare, allowing animals to live in a more stimulating and healthier environment. Likewise, providing opportunities for social interaction and exercise has been shown to significantly improve welfare assessments in animals intended for slaughter (Taylor et al., 2023). This underscores the need to implement better management practices to mitigate any type of risk that may compromise the overall welfare of the animal. In this regard, Table 3 presents an analysis with examples of welfare indicators measured in animals and the factors that may influence them.

Table 3

Table 3. Exemplified analysis of indicators and factors influencing animal welfare.

One important detail to emphasize is that, upon analyzing the information in Table 3, it becomes evident that certain welfare indicators appear in multiple domains, reflecting the complex interconnections between them. While these interactions are expected, they may pose challenges when categorizing indicators and designing welfare assessments. The key points where such conceptual overlaps or redundancies occur are outlined below:

1. Mental state and environment: Some environmental factors, such as novel noises in housing, can trigger emotional responses like fear. However, fear itself is categorized within the mental state domain. This raises the question: should welfare evaluation prioritize the environmental factors or the animal’s emotional response? This conceptual redundancy can lead to variations in how welfare is assessed, with some approaches focusing on external conditions while others emphasize the animal’s internal state.

2. Mental state and behavior: Both behavior and mental state are intrinsic to the animal, yet they are categorized into separate domains. Many behaviors are interpreted both as natural behavior and as indicators of emotional or mental state. For example, avoidance behaviors, stereotypies, and signs of anxiety or depression can be classified under both domains, as can positive behaviors like play and social interactions. This dual classification complicates the interpretation of welfare indicators, making it difficult to distinguish between the external cause (stressor) and the behavioral expression (natural behavior vs. emotional response).

3. Behavior and environment: Environmental enrichment is traditionally considered a welfare indicator. However, does it belong to the behavior domain or the environment domain? Conceptually, indicators should be assessed in the animal, meaning behavior falls within the animal’s response, while the environment serves as an external factor influencing that response. For instance, environmental modifications, such as enrichment strategies, significantly impact the expression of natural behaviors. Similarly, housing conditions, temperature, and humidity influence welfare but should not be considered primary welfare indicators themselves. Overemphasizing environmental conditions without directly linking them to animal-based indicators may shift the focus of welfare evaluations away from the animal.

Based on this analysis, it is necessary to refine the classification criteria of indicators and reconsider the definition of domains to enhance the clarity, precision, and practical application of animal welfare assessments.

3.4 Proposal for a new approach: EPI-DOM

As derived from the analysis of Table 3, the direct and indirect welfare indicators, although not contrary to the spirit of the definition of animal welfare: the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies (OMSA, 2023), are distinguished by their measurement. “Direct” indicators are assessed on the animal itself, while the so-called “indirect” indicators are evaluated in the environment. However, the latter does not address what happens to the animal both physically and mentally. Therefore, the condition or situation in which animals live and die refers to the set of external factors or circumstances that affect an individual at a specific moment in time. This leads to key questions: Who registers the changes? Whose welfare is being evaluated? Who is affected? The answer is straightforward: welfare must be assessed in the animal. So, what about everything else? How does the relationship between the animal’s state and the conditions of its environment arise? And which conditions are we referring to? To address the identified overlaps and improve the clarity and precision in the assessment of animal welfare, this document proposes a new approach: EPI-DOM. This is a conceptual framework that links basic epidemiological concepts (EPI), proposing a new vision and classification of animal welfare domains (DOM). Additionally, EPI-DOM clearly separates indicators (measured in the animal) from external factors that influence the welfare of individuals (measured outside the animal). This approach facilitates the identification of causal relationships between the factors and the animal’s response, allowing for more precise and targeted interventions to improve individual welfare.

The multidimensional approach presented by EPI-DOM for the evaluation of animal welfare indicators is essential not only for obtaining a complete understanding of the animal’s physical (internal and external) and mental state but also for implementing effective strategies to improve its quality of life in various contexts. Moreover, evaluating welfare indicators from this perspective, i.e., focused on the animal, also allows for identifying the risk factors surrounding the individual that may affect his welfare. As mentioned earlier, animal welfare is influenced by risk factors. To associate these two terms, it is necessary to apply concepts from epidemiology, such as hazard, risk, and risk factors, which are fundamental to understanding not only the occurrence of diseases but also other events that affect the physical (and mental) health of communities. Epidemiology is the study of diseases that occur in populations and the factors that determine their occurrence, with the key word being “population.” Veterinary epidemiology, furthermore, includes the investigation and evaluation of other health-related events, particularly those impacting production (Thrusfield, 2018). Epidemiological research involves observing and making inferences based on those observations. If this same concept is applied to animal welfare, data can be obtained by observing welfare indicators in individuals, which are influenced by the factors that affect their welfare state (risk factors).

Another term that should be borrowed from epidemiology to analyze animal welfare is hazard, defined as the potential source of harm or a situation that can cause an adverse event or disease, such as poor facility conditions, inadequate diet, biosecurity failures, lack of preventive medicine, among others. A hazard is inherently dangerous by nature but does not necessarily imply that the harm will occur. On the other hand, risk is defined as the probability of an adverse event occurring, such as bodily injury, elevated cortisol levels, signs of disease, or abnormal behaviors in a population or individual over a specific period of time due to exposure to a hazard. Finally, a risk factor is a characteristic or condition that increases the likelihood that an animal or group of animals will suffer an adverse event or develop a disease (Thrusfield, 2018). In summary, a hazard is the source of harm, risk is the probability that this harm will occur, and a risk factor is something that increases the likelihood of an adverse event related to that hazard. When these terms are applied to animal welfare, some questions arise: where are these hazards located? Where should risk factors affecting animal welfare be evaluated? The answer lies in determining the conditions in which the individual lives and dies, which stem from the concept of animal welfare (OMSA, 2023).

The epidemiological approach to animal welfare involves the use of epidemiological methods to assess, monitor, and improve the welfare of animals in various environments, including farms, zoos, and domestic settings. This approach enables researchers to identify risk factors, understand the prevalence of welfare issues, and develop strategies to mitigate these problems. By integrating data from multiple sources and employing statistical analyses, epidemiology provides a robust framework for comprehensively assessing animal welfare. Large-scale epidemiological studies on zoo elephants in North America have highlighted the importance of social and management factors in determining welfare outcomes. These studies have provided benchmarks for welfare indicators, such as abnormal behavior and health issues, and have underscored the need for science-based welfare optimization in zoos (Carlstead et al., 2013; Meehan et al., 2016). An epidemiological study in Sweden used data from official inspections to assess equine welfare. The study identified factors such as non-compliance with care requirements and facility design as significant contributors to poor welfare. This approach allowed for the identification of trends and risk factors, facilitating targeted interventions to improve welfare standards (Hitchens et al., 2017). In tilapia, an epidemiological approach was used to evaluate the impact of different feeding rates on the incidence of adverse welfare events, such as mortality, body condition decline, and fin damage. This study found significant associations between feeding rates and these welfare indicators, suggesting that optimal feeding practices are a crucial risk factor for maintaining fish welfare (Flores-García et al., 2022). In turkeys, human interaction during inspections, such as the number of daily inspections and the number of different individuals involved, affects the prevalence of head/neck injuries, highlighting those workers can also be a risk factor for animal welfare (Leishman et al., 2022).

3.5 Recategorization of welfare indicators

In the EPI-DOM Approach, animal welfare evaluation indicators are systematically classified into three categories: External, Internal, and Behavioral Indicators (see Table 4). These, in turn, are divided into invasive indicators, which require handling and manipulating the animal, and non-invasive indicators, which can be determined through observation without direct contact. An example of how these categories relate in practice: an animal with a physical injury (external indicator) may exhibit a stress response, leading to alterations in cortisol levels (internal indicator), and subsequently show changes in resting behavior (behavioral indicator). These relationships illustrate how welfare assessments can benefit from integrating multiple types of indicators. However, the selection of indicators should be based on the specific research question or practical context rather than a strict requirement to collect all categories in every assessment. The EPI-DOM approach provides a structured classification system that helps organize welfare indicators systematically, reducing domain conceptual overlaps or redundancies and clarifying their interpretation. Nevertheless, the interactions between indicators are complex and context-dependent, requiring careful consideration of causal relationships when designing welfare assessments.

Table 4

Table 4. Animal welfare Indicators according to the EPI-DOM Approach.

3.5.1 External indicators

External indicators encompass aspects of physical condition and body conformation, related to observable and quantifiable traits (degrees of impact), such as injuries or physical alterations. They are associated with structural integrity, morphology, and body function, as well as the overall physical condition of an organism. These are evaluated externally by the animal and refer to the physical attributes of the body, specifically body integrity. They are clearly visible to the naked eye without interaction with the individual (indirect indicators) but also include those that can be perceived through direct palpation during a physical examination (direct indicators), allowing the assessment of body integrity. Examples of these indicators include the body condition of mammals and birds, lesions on various parts of the body, wounds, deformities, fractures, locomotion alterations, and, in the case of fish, Fulton’s condition factor (K), tears or the total or partial absence of fins.

3.5.2 Internal indicators

In contrast, internal indicators are those that are not perceptible to the naked eye and require specialized equipment to measure. These indicators provide valuable information on how animals cope with their living and dying conditions. Internal indicators reflect the animal’s response to external conditions. They are essential for assessing the internal state of the individual, as they include quantifiable parameters at the physiological, biochemical, hematological, or immunological levels, among others. They are closely related to the integrity and function of organs, tissues, and homeostatic systems. Therefore, these indicators help identify the general physiological state, health, physical performance, as well as hormonal, metabolic, and nutritional states of the animal. Examples of these indicators include heart and respiratory rates, body temperature, hormonal levels such as cortisol, and various metabolites like glucose, hemoglobin, plasma proteins, lactate, and enzymes such as lactate dehydrogenase or creatine kinase, among others.

3.5.3 Behavioral indicators

Lastly, behavioral indicators encompass natural behavior and behavior as a response to the animal’s mental state. These indicators are visible and measurable through the observation of social and individual behaviors typical of the species, age, sex, among others. Ethograms and other behavioral tests are used, including the evaluation of facial expressions and cognitive functions (memory and learning). These indicators provide insight into emotional and psychological well-being. They are the observable and quantifiable expressions of an animal’s actions, which provide information about its welfare, specifically in relation to its emotional state and adaptability to its surrounding environment. Examples of these indicators include natural behaviors like vocalization, social interaction, feeding, resting, learning, and memory, as well as positive emotional states such as joy, pleasure, play, and negative states like depression, anxiety, and despair.

Table 4 provides a conceptual framework for evaluating welfare, integrating both the physical and emotional aspects of the animal, considering that welfare refers to the physical and mental state of an animal (OMSA, 2023), which can be assessed through the categories of indicators shown therein. The classification of animal welfare indicators presents the following opportunities/possibilities:

1. Comprehensive assessment: By combining external, internal, and behavioral indicators, a holistic evaluation of the animal’s welfare is enabled. External indicators provide immediate information about the animal’s physical condition, while internal indicators offer a deeper understanding of its physiological state. Behavioral indicators, on the other hand, reveal crucial aspects of the individual’s emotional and mental well-being. This integration ensures that all important dimensions of welfare are considered, avoiding a reductionist view.

2. Early detection of problems: External indicators are easily observable and can alert to visible problems such as injuries or deteriorated physical conditions, allowing for timely interventions. Meanwhile, internal indicators, although some require specialized equipment, facilitate the detection of physiological imbalances before external signs appear. This is essential for implementing preventive measures and early management of diseases or conditions like malnutrition. Finally, behavioral indicators can point to problems in the animal’s emotional or social welfare, often before physical signs manifest.

3. Depth of information: Each category of indicators provides specific but complementary types of information. Internal indicators reveal detailed physiological responses to stress and other factors, which is essential for understanding, at a biological level, how an animal is coping with and responding to its environment. This is particularly important in assessing long-term health. Additionally, behavioral indicators add a layer of depth by showing how these internal physiological responses translate into behavior, providing a more complete picture of the animal’s overall welfare.

4. Adaptability to different contexts: This approach is flexible and can be adapted to different species and environments. The selection of specific relevant indicators should be associated with the conditions of an animal or group of animals. For example, in an environment where physical manipulation is limited, behavioral and external indicators may be prioritized, whereas in research or clinical settings, internal indicators may receive more attention.

5. Improvement in decision-making: Having information from multiple angles (physical, physiological, and behavioral) allows animal caretakers and managers to make more informed decisions about the management and interventions necessary to improve the individual’s welfare. Additionally, timely decision-making can optimize resources and efforts by focusing interventions on critical areas.

6. Greater accuracy in welfare assessment: The combination of external, internal, and behavioral indicators minimizes the risk of erroneous or incomplete assessments when used independently. For example, an animal with no visible injuries (external) might be suffering from significant physiological imbalances (internal) or experiencing chronic stress or pain reflected in its behavior and mental state (behavioral). By considering all these aspects, a more precise and valid evaluation of animal welfare is achieved.

3.6 Risk factors: management, environment, and interactions

These conditions encompass the risk factors and consist of three key areas: management practices, the environment, and animal interactions.

A. Management in animal production refers to the set of activities and processes carried out to plan, organize, integrate, direct, and control operations related to animal breeding and production. This term encompasses a variety of aspects aimed at optimizing animal efficiency and productivity (Squires and Bryden, 2019; Phillips, 2018). However, it is also necessary to include within this management the role of human actions concerning animal welfare (Webster, 2005). When the term administration is used in facilities housing animals, it refers to the planning, organization, integration, direction, and control of resources and activities involved in production. This also implies the application of management principles and practices as well as sustainability of operations (Malik et al., 2015; Shadbolt and Martin, 2005; Olson, 2003; Zarbà et al., 2023). Therefore, administrative and management actions must aim to achieve a balance between productivity and animal welfare, meaning improving production without compromising animal welfare, while also meeting ethical and environmental sustainability requirements. This includes optimizing resource use while complying with various regulations and quality standards demanded by the market (Figure 1). In management practices, risks arise from human decision-making and related actions, such as feeding, health management, reproduction, and transportation. For instance, inadequate or poor management can lead to situations that endanger animal welfare, such as improper nutritional management or lack of timely veterinary care (Haddad, 2024; Mohammed, 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to continuously identify, control, and improve these risk factors to ensure they align with the welfare needs of the animals.

B. In the environment, hazards manifest in the physical and environmental conditions in which both terrestrial and aquatic animals live. This includes air quality (Kang et al., 2022), temperature (Polsky and von Keyserlingk, 2017), humidity (Suárez et al., 2013), available space (Nannoni et al., 2019), cleanliness (Maji et al., 2024), or facility design, such as ponds (Khudai et al., 2023). Therefore, poor environmental management (a risk factor) can lead to the emergence of diseases, injuries, or abnormal behaviors that severely compromise animal welfare. Thus, it is essential to regularly assess the environment to prevent, identify, and mitigate any potential hazards.

C. Regarding animal interactions, whether among conspecifics or with other species, including humans, hazards that affect welfare may arise. Negative social interactions, such as isolation (Siebert et al., 2011), high transport density (Gerritzen et al., 2013), or poorly managed social hierarchies (Oliveira et al., 2023), can cause stress, aggression, and other behaviors that negatively impact the animals’ physical and mental health. Interactions with predatory wildlife, such as canines (Temple and Manteca, 2020), or disease-carrying insects, such as vector flies (Onmaz et al., 2013), are also critical. When it comes to personnel directly working with animals, training them to implement compassionate and respectful handling practices is essential. Effective management of human resources, such as promoting a culture of learning and perseverance among workers and linking animal care outcomes with compensation, can be beneficial and, above all, crucial to improving animal welfare standards (Chen et al., 2021). Therefore, it is essential to evaluate these interactions to identify and mitigate any associated risk factors.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Human responsibility in the management and administration of animal production and its relationship with the balance between efficiency – productivity and animal welfare. Created based on information from Squires and Bryden (2019), Phillips (2018), Malik et al. (2015), Webster (2005), Shadbolt and Martin (2005) and Olson (2003).

Moreover, these aspects of animal welfare have been incorporated into legislation. For example, the European Union’s Directive 98/58/EC (updated in 2019) establishes minimum standards for the protection of all animals in livestock units (EUR-Lex, 2019). These standards aim to mitigate the hazards and risks those animals on farms may face. Considering these terms—hazard and risk from the European directive, as well as adverse event or risk, and risk factor in the evaluation of animal welfare concerning the conditions in which they live and die—can be applied to specific examples by species, as shown in Table 5. That said, combining the categories of welfare indicators (external, internal, and behavioral) with the epidemiological concepts of hazard, risk, and risk factors could help structure the analysis of potential associations between conditions affecting animal welfare. While observational studies do not establish causal relationships, this approach can be useful for identifying patterns and generating hypotheses about possible cause-effect relationships, which can later be tested through experimental studies.

Table 5

Table 5. Examples of the probables asociaciones between condition, hazard, risk and risk factors in productive species.

Table 6 presents examples of welfare indicators and their relationship to the previously mentioned risk factors.

Table 6

Table 6. Examples of application of the EPI-DOM Approach in productive animals, relating welfare indicators and their risk factors.

3.7 Redefinition of the domains

By analyzing Tables 5 and 6 under the concept of animal welfare and recategorizing the domains a) behavior and b) mental state as behavioral indicators (Table 4), it becomes essential to modify Mellor et al.’s (2020) five domains model, incorporating the EPI-DOM approach based on risk factors, hazards, and risks, for the following reasons:

3.7.1 Preventive and proactive approach

● Identification and mitigation: This approach allows for more precise identification of the specific factors that can negatively affect animal welfare, enabling preventive actions before they materialize and become serious problems.

● Continuous improvement: By focusing on risk factors, management strategies can be continuously adapted and improved based on the ongoing evaluation of new emerging hazards and risks.

3.7.2 Comprehensive evaluation

● Broad coverage: Redefining the welfare domains to include risk factors allows for a more comprehensive assessment that considers not only the direct effects on the animals but also the management, environmental, and interaction factors that can directly influence their welfare.

● Adaptability: This approach can be implemented across different species and situations, offering a flexible framework for assessing welfare in various circumstances.

3.7.3 Evidence-based approach

● Objectivity: Evaluating welfare indicators and associated risk factors provides a more objective and quantifiable framework for assessing animal welfare, making it easier to measure and compare across different scenarios or interventions.

● Scientific and documented: This approach aligns with the growing trend in science to base management decisions on empirical data and solid scientific evidence, enhancing the validity and credibility of welfare assessments.

3.7.4 Alignment with regulations and standards

● Regulatory compliance: International animal welfare regulations and standards already use terminology and concepts related to risks and hazards; therefore, adopting this approach facilitates alignment and standardization, ensuring compliance and facilitating communication with auditors and regulatory bodies.

● Responsibility and transparency: A risk factor-based approach reinforces human responsibility and transparency in managing animal welfare, demonstrating a clear commitment to identifying, controlling, and mitigating the factors that could compromise welfare.

3.7.5 Ease in decision-making

● Prioritization and resource allocation: This approach helps prioritize interventions and allocate resources more efficiently, focusing on the most critical risk factors that have the greatest potential to affect animal welfare.

● Strategic planning: It provides a solid foundation for long-term strategic planning, allowing managers to anticipate potential risks and develop effective contingency plans.

3.7.6 Connection with public health and food safety

● Impact on human health: By properly managing risk factors related to animal welfare, it is also possible to mitigate risks to public health, such as the spread of zoonotic diseases or antimicrobial resistance.

● Food quality and safety: Proper management of risk factors for animal welfare can lead to improvements in the quality and safety of animal products, benefiting the entire food chain.

As a result of the above, it is proposed to redefine the domains of animal welfare through the incorporation of risk factors, using the EPI-DOM Approach. This not only enhances the understanding and management of animal welfare but also integrates them into a broader context of public health, food safety, and sustainability. Therefore, the EPI-DOM Approach proposes the following domains: management, environment, and interaction (Table 7), with their respective categories, which are described below.

Table 7

Table 7. Proposed Domains and Categories according to EPI-DOM approach.

3.8 Management domain

The “Management” domain encompasses all aspects related to the administration and care of animals, from genetics to feeding, health, transport, and slaughter. Additionally, natural resources and economics are considered. Effective management is crucial for ensuring high levels of welfare, minimizing risks, and promoting optimal living conditions for animals.

3.8.1 Genetic and reproductive management

Genetic management plays a fundamental role in animal welfare, as inherited traits can predispose animals to certain diseases, behaviors, and physical conditions that affect their quality of life. It is a human responsibility to select genetic lines that not only maximize production but also promote health and welfare. This includes avoiding the breeding of animals with genetic predispositions to diseases, physical defects, or problematic behaviors. Reproductive management includes the planning and control of animal reproduction, ensuring that the methods used are ethical and minimize stress and suffering. Reproductive practices should be designed to avoid pregnancies and deliveries that compromise the health of females or their offspring, prevent unnecessary inbreeding, and reduce stress during reproductive management and complications during birth. It is important to balance reproductive efficiency with the long-term health and welfare of the animals.

3.8.2 Feeding and nutritional management

Proper feeding and nutrition are vital for animal welfare, as they directly influence health, growth, and the ability to cope with diseases. Feeding management involves ensuring that animals receive a balanced diet, in sufficient quantity and frequency, that meets all their nutritional requirements according to species, age, sex, and productive stage. The amount, feeding frequency, quality, and composition of the diet should be carefully monitored to prevent malnutrition, obesity, or nutritional deficiencies. Additionally, feeding methods should be appropriate to avoid competitive, aggressive behaviors or anxiety among the animals.

3.8.3 Animal management (individual and population-level)

This category encompasses the technical management practices carried out in production units, both at the individual and population levels, and refers to the procedures and practices to be followed. It is crucial that these management practices be carried out ethically, minimizing pain, stress, and suffering. Procedures should be performed by trained personnel, following protocols based on the best available scientific evidence. Examples of these practices include immersion baths for deworming and other physical interventions that aim to optimize animal health, growth, and productivity, while avoiding unnecessary practices like tail docking, beak trimming, ear cropping, or tusk trimming. Continuous evaluation of these practices is essential to assess their impact on animal welfare and adjust or eliminate methods to reduce any negative effects.

3.8.4 Health and sanitary management

Health and sanitation management are pillars of animal welfare. This involves prevention and early diagnosis of diseases. All biosecurity measures should be included in this category. It is essential to implement preventive health programs, including vaccinations, deworming, and regular veterinary check-ups. Additionally, facilities should be hygienic and safe to reduce the risk of contagious diseases. Staff must comply with site biosecurity policies to maintain a clean and safe environment.

3.8.5 Therapeutic management

Therapeutic management refers to the treatment of diseases and medical conditions in animals, ensuring that the methods used are appropriate and minimize pain and suffering. Treatments must be administered by qualified personnel, following evidence-based protocols. Furthermore, animals must be monitored after treatment to ensure proper recovery and minimize the risk of adverse effects. Antibiotic management should be strict and responsible to prevent antimicrobial resistance in animals, risks to public health, or contamination of ecosystems.

3.8.6 Transport management

Animal transport must be carefully managed to prevent stress, injuries, and other welfare issues such as anxiety, fear, or distress. This includes planning, choosing vehicles with appropriate spaces for the size and volume of animals, selecting personnel with the right profile for compassionate animal handling, driving during transport, and ensuring transport conditions that allow for a comfortable journey. It is essential to ensure animals have enough space, adequate ventilation, and access to water during transport. Additionally, transport time should be minimized, and animals should be handled with care during loading and unloading to avoid stress and injury.

3.8.7 Slaughter management

Slaughter should be managed ethically, ensuring the process is quick, painless, and minimizes animal suffering. This includes handling animals in production units and during their stay at the slaughterhouse. The selection of stunning and slaughter methods and equipment should be appropriate for the species, age, quantity, and size of animals, ensuring rapid, safe, and effective loss of consciousness and death. The entire process, before and during slaughter, should be calm and avoid any type of stress or fear that could alter the animal’s mental state or jeopardize the safety of workers. Staff performing these activities should be trained according to established procedures and have developed values such as empathy towards animals.

3.8.8 Natural resource management

The management of natural resources used in animal production, such as water, soil, and vegetation, is crucial for ensuring a sustainable environment that aligns with the spirit of “one welfare” for animals, people, and the environment. It is important to use these resources sustainably, avoiding overexploitation, rotating pastures without harming the ecosystem, and ensuring animals have access to quality natural resources such as shade and living fences.

3.8.9 Human resource management

Human resource management similarly involves ensuring the well-being of workers who interact with animals. Therefore, staff should be provided with wages commensurate with their duties, ongoing and comprehensive training to perform humane and compassionate animal care, social security, and retention of high-performing staff. Selecting suitable profiles before hiring and avoiding abusive practices by omission or intention are also crucial. Fostering a culture of continuous learning and resilience among staff, as well as correlating animal care outcomes with remuneration, can generate significant advantages and, most importantly, play a vital role in improving animal welfare standards.

3.8.10 Economic management

Economic management involves optimizing financial resources to ensure that both the animals’ and people’s needs, and requirements are met without compromising the economic viability of production and, therefore, the agricultural business. It is necessary to balance costs and benefits, ensuring that investments in animals and people are sustainable in the long term. Furthermore, economics should not hinder the implementation of appropriate integral welfare practices.

3.9 Environment domain

The “Environment” domain refers to all the physical and environmental aspects surrounding the animal, which have a direct or indirect impact on its welfare. This domain includes both the structural and spatial characteristics of the animal’s habitat, as well as the climatic and environmental factors that influence its health and behavior. It is divided into three categories: Physical, Climate/Environment, and Additional Environmental Factors.

3.9.1 Physical

3.9.1.1 Facilities

The facilities where animals are housed, such as barns, pens, cages, or resting areas, are crucial for their welfare. The quantity must be sufficient, and the design functional. The facilities should have adequate capacity to house the number of animals in a way that minimizes stress and injuries and segregates animals by age and zootechnical purpose. They must be designed so that animal movement is smooth and in one direction, avoiding distractions and stress. Additionally, they must be safe for both animals and humans. This means they should not have sharp or hazardous elements that could cause injuries and should be built to make animals feel comfortable and secure, allowing personnel to perform tasks efficiently and safely. This includes the design of work areas that facilitate access to animals and the performance of procedures such as vaccinations and weighing. Without being exhaustive, the facilities should include ramps, pens, weighing areas, restraint and handling areas, feed storage areas, medication storage, administrative offices, and staff bathrooms, among others.

3.9.1.2 Space

The space or area available for each animal is crucial for its physical and mental well-being. This includes both individual spaces, necessary for moving and performing species-specific behaviors such as moving freely, resting, and accessing feeding areas and areas for elimination without, for example, cross-contamination. It is also important to consider group space, which allows for positive social interactions between animals. Insufficient space can compromise the animal’s mental state, for example, by increasing aggressive behaviors, stress, and health problems related to lack of exercise or injury. The ideal space should allow the animal to express natural behaviors. Space must also be flexible to accommodate variations in the size or number of animals and should provide safety and comfort to individuals.

3.9.1.3 Materials

The materials used in animal facilities and environments (such as floors, bedding, feeding structures) play a key role in their welfare. Inappropriate materials can cause discomfort, injury, or disease. Materials must be durable, safe, non-toxic, and suitable for the species using them. Additionally, they should be easy to clean and maintain, preventing the excessive accumulation of organic matter, pathogens, and other harmful agents.

3.9.2 Climate

3.9.2.1 Macroclimate

The macroclimate refers to the general climatic conditions of the environment where the animals are located, such as temperature, humidity, and precipitation. These conditions directly affect the comfort and health of the animals. Extreme temperature conditions (heat or cold) can lead to thermal stress, respiratory problems, or dehydration. It is essential to have mitigation measures in place, such as the use of region-specific vegetation, shade, ventilation, and access to water. If necessary, animals should be sheltered from extreme conditions.

3.9.2.2 Microclimate

The microclimate refers to the immediate environmental conditions within the facilities or in the space occupied by the animals, including ventilation, internal temperature, and air quality. An inadequate microclimate, such as poor ventilation or abrupt temperature fluctuations, can lead to decreased feed intake, health problems such as respiratory diseases, and increased discomfort, stress, reactivity, and aggression among animals, which negatively affects their overall welfare.

3.9.3 Additional environmental factors

These factors include additional environmental elements that may affect animal welfare, such as the presence of contaminants (chemical, biological), intense or persistent noise, and other environmental disturbances. Prolonged exposure to contaminants, noise, and other adverse environmental factors, such as distractors (hoses, buckets, reflections, or standing water), direct light towards the eyes, lost nets or elements in ponds, or excessive proliferation of macroalgae, can have negative physical and psychological effects, altering normal behavior and animal health, or complicating their management. It is essential to monitor and control these factors to minimize their impact.

3.10 Interaction domain

The “Interaction” domain refers to the quality and nature of the interactions animals have with humans, other animals of their own species (conspecifics), and other species, including both animals and plants. These interactions influence the emotional, social, and behavioral welfare of the animals.

3.10.1 Human-animal

The interaction between humans and animals directly affects animal welfare, depending on the quality, frequency, and nature of these interactions. Animals that regularly interact with humans, whether in a management, care, or production context, can experience different degrees of welfare depending on the quality of such interactions. It is important that human-animal interactions are positive, respectful, and as minimally invasive as possible. Proper handling and socialization can reduce fear and stress in animals, fostering a relationship of trust. Training personnel in compassionate handling practices and animal communication techniques is essential to improving these interactions.

3.10.2 With conspecifics

Interaction with conspecifics (other animals of the same species) is crucial for the social and behavioral welfare of animals, especially for those that are naturally social, as isolation compromises their mental state. These interactions allow for the expression of natural behaviors, such as play, cooperation, and competition. An environment that facilitates positive interactions among conspecifics can prevent behavioral problems such as aggression or anxiety, reducing the occurrence of stereotypies. Conversely, in naturally solitary species, grouping can cause tension and fights. Therefore, it is essential to properly manage population density, providing enough space and resources for interactions to be balanced and beneficial for all individuals.

3.10.3 With other species

Animals also interact with other species in their environment, including both animals and plants. These interactions can be positive, neutral, or negative, depending on the circumstances and the type of relationship established.

3.10.3.1 Fauna

Interactions with other animal species may include predators or coexisting animals. These relationships can affect behavior, emotional state, and overall animal welfare. In production environments, for example, introducing compatible species and proper segregation can help avoid conflicts and promote a more harmonious environment.

3.10.3.2 Flora

Interactions with plant species, whether shrubland or forest, involve their use as food sources, shelter, or environmental enrichment. Plants can provide nutritional resources and a more natural and stimulating environment for animals. The incorporation of vegetation in animal shelters or the use of grasslands improves their welfare by offering opportunities for thermoregulation, foraging, and exploration, stimulating curiosity. This can be positive, as it indicates a healthy mental state and a willingness to learn about their habitat. It is important to select plant species that are compatible with the ecosystem, safe, non-toxic, and appropriate for the species in question, avoiding toxic or harmful plants.

3.10.3.3 Microorganisms

Interactions with microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi, and viruses, play a crucial role in the health and welfare of animals. These interactions can influence the immune system, digestion, and overall well-being. Beneficial microorganisms, such as those involved in the gut microbiota, can enhance nutrient absorption and contribute to a balanced immune response. However, pathogenic microorganisms can lead to infections, disease, and stress, negatively impacting welfare. Therefore, maintaining a healthy balance of microorganisms through proper hygiene, management, and health monitoring is essential for animal welfare. Additionally, interactions with microorganisms can influence behavioral responses, particularly in cases of infection or disease, leading to changes in activity levels, social interactions, and other behaviors that reflect the animal’s health and mental state.

4 Conclusion

The comparative analysis between the Five Freedoms and the Five Domains conducted in this study highlights areas of convergence and divergence between these approaches, underscoring the need to design tools capable of capturing the complexity and multifactorial nature of animal welfare. However, both methodologies face challenges in identifying and accurately quantifying welfare indicators, particularly in relation to assessing mental state. When developing the proposed EPI-DOM Approach, the identification and classification of indicators (external, internal, and behavioral) were considered, along with the categories in which risk factors are located, grouped under the domains (management, environment, and interaction). This approach details the general condition of individuals at a specific time and under specific circumstances, reflecting the complexity of welfare more effectively, expanding the scope of assessment, and providing valuable data to improve management practices and animal welfare.

Moreover, it can be used as a guide for adopting preventive and corrective measures to improve individual welfare conditions. It is hoped that the implementation of the EPI-DOM Approach will not only contribute to a significant improvement in the evaluation of animal welfare but also promote more ethical and sustainable management practices. Likewise, it addresses the shortcomings detected in previous approaches and provides an adaptable framework for different species, identifying welfare indicators under the various conditions in which animals live and die, which may represent risk factors. The methodology provides a solid foundation for informed decision-making in management, which can reduce the incidence of adverse welfare events and improve animal quality of life. In the future, EPI-DOM is expected to be used to develop predictive models and management systems that optimize animal welfare in real time, using dynamic data to proactively adjust management strategies. Finally, although this study focuses on providing an overview of the elements that make up the approach, the importance of future research aimed at its validation and refinement is recognized. It is suggested to conduct studies that address the application of the method across various species and contexts, to maximize its impact and practical efficacy for the welfare of animals, people, and ecosystems.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

RM-Y: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PM-M: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft. PA-A: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Abdel-Tawwab M., Hagras A. E., Elbaghdady H. A. M., Monier M. N. (2014). Dissolved oxygen level and stocking density effects on growth, feed utilization, physiology, and innate immunity of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. J. Appl. Aquacult. 26, 340–355. doi: 10.1080/10454438.2014.959830

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Admassu B., Kebede E., Shite A. (2015). Review on bovine tuberculosis. Eur. J. Biol. Sci. 7, 169–185. doi: 10.5829/idosi.ejbs.2015.7.04.96114

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Arndt S. S., Goerlich V. C., Staay F. J. (2023). 74 the dynamic animal welfare concept: A guideline to assess, safeguard and promote animal welfare. J. Anim. Sci. 101 (Suppl 2), 11. doi: 10.1093/jas/skad341.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Arvizu-Tovar L., Téllez E. (2016). Bienestar animal en méxico. Un panorama normativo, 1st ed. Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, UNAM. Diciembre 2016, Ciudad de México, México. 59–63.

Google Scholar

Bain M. J. (2020). Surgical and behavioral relationships with welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 7. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00519

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barry C., Ellingsen-Dalskau K., Winckler C., Kielland C. (2024). Exploring uses for an algorithmically generated “Animal Welfare Indicator” for welfare assessment of dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 107 (6), 3941–3958. doi: 10.3168/jds.2023-24158

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Baxter M. (1983). Farm Animal Housing and Welfare. Vol. 24. (Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media).

Google Scholar

Bayne K., Turner V. T. (2014). “Animal environments and their impact on laboratory animal welfare,” in Laboratory Animal Welfare. Eds. Bayne K., Turner P. V. (Elsevier, Netherlands: Academic Press), 77–93. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00007-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Beaver B., Golab G. (2023). “Assessing animal welfare,” in The veterinarian’s guide to animal welfare. Eds. Beaver B., Golab G. (Elsevier, London, UK: Academic Press), 117–138. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-91018-7.00005-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Begum A., Mondal S., Ferdous Z., Zafar M. A., Ali M. M. (2014). Impact of water quality parameters on monosex tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) production under pond condition. Int. J. Anim. fish. Sci. 2, 14–21.

Google Scholar

Birch J. (2024). “The concept of sentience,” in The Edge of Sentience: Risk and Precaution in Humans, Other Animals, and AI (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 23–42. doi: 10.1093/9780191966729.003.0003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blackshaw J. K. (1986). Objective measures of welfare in farming environments. Aust. Vet. J. 63 (11), 361–364. doi: 10.1111/J.1751-0813.1986.TB02897.X

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blaxter T., Åsbjer E., Fraanje W. (2024). Animal welfare and ethics in food and agriculture. Food Ethics. doi: 10.56661/f2d8f4c7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blokhuis H. J., Veissier I., Miele M., Jones B. (2010). The Welfare Quality^® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agricult. Scand. Sect. A - Anim. Sci. 60, 129–140. doi: 10.1080/09064702.2010.523480

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brambell Report (1965). Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems (London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office).

Google Scholar

Briefer E. F., Sypherd C. C. R., Linhart P., Leliveld L. M., Padilla de la Torre M., Read E. R., et al. (2022). Classification of pig calls produced from birth to slaughter according to their emotional valence and context of production. Sci. Rep. 12, 3409. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07174-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (1986). Indicators of poor welfare. Br. Vet. J. 142 (6), 524–526. doi: 10.1016/0007-1935(86)90109-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (1991). Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. J. Anim. Sci. 69, 4167–4175. doi: 10.2527/1991.69104167x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2011). Bienestar animal: conceptos, métodos de estudio e indicadores. Rev. Colombiana Cienc. Pecuarias 24, 306–321. doi: 10.17533/udea.rccp.324688

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. (2005). The effects of land transport on animal welfare. Rev. Scientif. Techn. l’Office Int. Des. Epizoot. 24, 683–691. doi: 10.20506/rst.issue.24.2.29

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. (2021). Animal welfare concepts. In: Knight A., Phillips C., Sparks P. (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Animal Welfare. London, UK, 12–21. doi: 10.4324/9781003182351

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2022a). “Motivation,” in Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 6th ed. Ed. Nielsen B. L. (Wallingford UK: CABI), 225–234. doi: 10.1079/9781789249835.0000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2022b). “Defense and attack behaviour,” in Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 6th ed. Ed. Nielsen B. L. (Wallingford UK: CABI), 103–107. doi: 10.1079/9781789249835.0000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2022c). “Finding and acquiring food,” in Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 6th ed. Ed. Nielsen B. L. (Wallingford UK: CABI), 108–125. doi: 10.1079/9781789249835.0000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2022d). “Body care,” in Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 6th ed. Ed. Nielsen B. L. (Wallingford UK: CABI), 126–135. doi: 10.1079/9781789249835.0000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2022e). “Exploration,” in Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 6th ed. Ed. Nielsen B. L. (Wallingford UK: CABI), 142–144. doi: 10.1079/9781789249835.0000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2022f). “Maternal and neonatal behaviour,” in Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 6th ed. Ed. Nielsen B. L. (Wallingford UK: CABI), 210–224. doi: 10.1079/9781789249835.0000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2022g). “Juvenile and play behaviour,” in Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 6th ed. Ed. Nielsen B. L. (Wallingford UK: CABI), 225–234. doi: 10.1079/9781789249835.0000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2022h). “Abnormal behaviour 1: stereotypies,” in Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 6th ed. Ed. Nielsen B. L. (Wallingford UK: CABI), 272–280. doi: 10.1079/9781789249835.0000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2022i). “General social behaviour,” in Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 6th ed. Ed. Nielsen B. L. (Wallingford UK: CABI), 163–173. doi: 10.1079/9781789249835.0000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Broom D. M. (2024). “Bienestar animal,” in Etología aplicada: Fundamento científico del comportamiento y bienestar animal. Eds. Galindo M. F., Orihuela T. A., Ungerfeld M. R. (de México, México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México). Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia. Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial. www.libros.unam.mx.

Google Scholar

Browning H., Birch J. (2022). Teaching and learning guide for: Animal sentience. Philos. Compass 17, 1–4. doi: 10.1111/phc3.12878

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bukhari S. V. R., Syed H., Sneddon G. A., Parkes U. L., McElligott A. G. (2024). The behavior and welfare of neglected species: some examples from fish and mammals. PeerJ 12, e17149. doi: 10.7717/peerj.17149

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Butterworth A., Weeks C. A. (2010). The impact of disease on welfare. In The welfare of domestic fowl and other captive birds (pp. 189–218). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3650-6_8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Campbell-Ward M. (2023). Quality-of-life assessments in zoo animals: Not just for the aged and charismatic. Animals 13, 213394. doi: 10.3390/ani13213394

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Campo M., Montossi F., Lima J., Brito G. (2024). Future cattle production: Animal welfare as a critical component of sustainability and beef quality, a South American perspective. Meat Sci. 219, 109672. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2024.109672

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Canozzi M. E. A., Clariget J. M., Roig G., Perez E., Aznárez V., Banchero G., et al. (2022). Shade effect on behaviour, physiology, performance, and carcass weight of heat-stressed feedlot steers in humid subtropical area. Anim. Product. Sci. 62, 1692–1705. doi: 10.1071/an22128

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carlstead K., Mench J. A., Meehan C. L., Brown J. L. (2013). An epidemiological approach to welfare research in zoos: the Elephant Welfare Project. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 16, 319–337. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2013.827915

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carnovale F., Xiao J., Shi B., Kaart T., Arney D., Phillips C. J. (2021). The effects of vehicle type, transport duration and pre-transport feeding on the welfare of sheep transported in low temperatures. Animals 11, 1659. doi: 10.3390/ani11061659

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Celi P., Cowieson A. J., Fru-Nji F., Steinert R. E., Kluenter A.-M., Verlhac V. (2017). Gastrointestinal functionality in animal nutrition and health: New opportunities for sustainable animal production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 234, 88–100. doi: 10.1016/J.ANIFEEDSCI.2017.09.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chandroo K. P., Yue S., Moccia R. D. (2004). An evaluation of current perspectives on consciousness and pain in fishes. Fish Fish. 5, 281–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2004.00156.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen M., von Keyserlingk M. A. G., Magliocco S., Weary D. M. (2021). Employee management and animal care: A comparative ethnography of two large-scale dairy farms in China. Animals 11, 1260. doi: 10.3390/ani11051260

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Collins T., Stockman C. A., Barnes A. L., Miller D. W., Wickham S. L., Fleming P. A. (2018). Qualitative behavioural assessment as a method to identify potential stressors during commercial sheep transport. Animals 8, 209. doi: 10.3390/ani8110209

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Colombino E., Prieto-Botella D., Capucchio M. T. (2021). Gut health in veterinary medicine: A bibliometric analysis of the literature. Animals 11, 1–13. doi: 10.3390/ani11071997

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Copo H. F. B. (2023). Rhetoric in the construction of a system of socioeconomic indicators. Rev. Centro Sur 7, 56–61. doi: 10.37955/cs.v7i1.302

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cronin G. M., Glatz P. C. (2020). Causes of feather pecking and subsequent welfare issues for the laying hen: a review. Anim. Product. Sci. 61, 990–1005. doi: 10.1071/AN19628

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dalmau A., Fàbrega E., Manteca X., Velarde A. (2014). Health and welfare management of pigs based on slaughter line records. J. Dairy Vet. Anim. Res. 1 (3), 73–78. doi: 10.15406/JDVAR.2014.01.00016

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dalmau A., Velarde A. (2024). “Animal welfare assessment at slaughter,” in Encyclopedia of meat sciences, 3rd ed. Ed. Dikeman M. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier), 175–184. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-85125-1.00204-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dawkins M. S. (1990). From an animal’s point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behav. Brain Sci. 13, 1–61. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00077104

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dawkins M. S. (2021). The Science of Animal Welfare: Understanding What Animals Want (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press). doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198848981.001.0001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

De Greef K. H., Leenstra F. (2019). Discomfort analysis in farmed animals: reconsiderations of the underlying welfare approach. Proc. Article. pp. 197–203. doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-892-6_27

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

de Waal F. (2016). Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are? (New York, USA: W.W. Norton & Co), pp. 1–352.

Google Scholar

Đud D., Gantner V., Đidara M., Pavlić M., Šperanda M. (2022). Biochemical and hematological parameters and body condition score of Holstein cows under different welfare conditions. Poljoprivreda 28, 81–90. doi: 10.18047/poljo.28.2.9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Duncan I. J. H. (1993). Welfare is to do with what animals feel. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 6, 8–14.

Google Scholar

Duncan I. J. (2006). The changing concept of animal sentience. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100, 11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Edwards-Callaway L. N., Cramer M. C., Cadaret C. N., Bigler E. J., Engle T. E., Wagner J. J., et al. (2021). Impacts of shade on cattle well-being in the beef supply chain. J. Anim. Sci. 99 (2), 1–21. doi: 10.1093/JAS/SKAA375

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen S. S., Alvarez J., Bicout D. J., Calistri P., Depner K., et al. (2020). Welfare of cattle at slaughter. EFSA J. 18, e06275. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6275

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Estévez-Moreno L. X., Miranda-de-la-Lama G. C., Miguel-Pacheco G. G. (2022). Consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia: A segmentation-based study. Meat Sci. 187, 108747. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108747

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

EUR-Lex (2019). Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Available online at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1998/58/oj. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:01998L0058-20191214&qid=1743877802384. (Accessed February 11, 2024).

Google Scholar

Faria A. F. P. A., Maia A. S. C., Moura G. A. B., Fonseca V. F. C., Nascimento S. T., Milan H. F. M., et al. (2023). Use of solar panels for shade for holstein heifers. Animals 13, 329–329. doi: 10.3390/ani13030329

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Flores-García L., Camargo-Castellanos J. C., Pascual-Jiménez C., Almazán-Rueda P., Monroy-López J. F., Albertos-Alpuche P. J., et al. (2022). Welfare indicators in tilapia: an epidemiological approach. Front. Vet. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.882567

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fraser D. (2008). Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. UFAW, 2nd ed. (Nueva Jersey, USA: Wiley-Blackwell Ed), pp. 1–384.

Google Scholar

Fraser A. F., Broom D. M. (1990). Farm animal behaviour and welfare (Bailliere Tindall). CAB International, Oxford, UK. 437.

Google Scholar

Fraser D., Weary D., Pajor E., Milligan B. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Anim. Welf. 6, 187–205. doi: 10.1017/S0962728600019795

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fulmer A., Laven L. J., Hill K. (2022). Quality of life measurement in dogs and cats: A scoping review of generic tools. Animals 12, 400. doi: 10.3390/ani12030400

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gabbiani F., Midtgaard J. (2024). Neural information processing. In Encyclopedia of life sciences (New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd) 2, 1–19. doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0029420

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gerritzen M. A., Hindle V. A., Steinkamp K., Reimert H. G. M., van der Werf J. T. N., Marahrens M. (2013). The effect of reduced loading density on pig welfare during long distance transport. Animal 7, 1849–1857. doi: 10.1017/S1751731113001523

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Goetschel A. (2024). Animal welfare as the basis of One Health: A UN convention on animal welfare, health, and protection poses a realistic solution to improved animal welfare and human health. CABI One Health. 3 (1). doi: 10.1079/cabionehealth.2024.0003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Góngora Medina M. (2010). Reconocimiento y manejo del distress, sufrimiento y dolor en animales de laboratorio: una revisión. Suma Psicológica. 17 (2), 195–200. doi: 10.14349/SUMAPSI2010.563

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Govindaiah P. M., Maheswarappa N. B., Banerjee R., Mishra B. P., Manohar B. B. (2023). Unveiling the biochemical, enzymatic and hormonal stress biomarkers: effects of transportation and lairage on sheep welfare and the meat quality. J. Meat Sci. 18, 1–8. doi: 10.48165/jms.2023.180101

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grandin T. (2010). Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Sci. 86, 56–65. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.022

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Graunke K. L., Telezhenko E., Hessle A., Bergsten C., Loberg J. M. (2011). Does rubber flooring improve welfare and production in growing bulls in fully slatted floor pens? Anim. Welf. 20, 173–183. doi: 10.1017/S0962728600002657

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Haddad K. K. (2024). How successful are veterinary weight management plans for canine patients experiencing poor welfare due to being overweight and obese? Animals 14, 740. doi: 10.3390/ani14050740

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hafez H. M. (2023). Public health issues related to poultry and poultry products: Cuestiones de salud pública relacionadas con las aves de corral y los productos avícolas. South Florida J. Environ. Anim. Sci. 3, 20–28. doi: 10.53499/sfjeasv3n1-003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Harlander-Matauschek A., Häusler K. (2009). Understanding feather eating behaviour in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 117, 35–41. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.11.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Harrison R. (1964). Animal machines (London, UK: Vincent Stuart Publishers).

Google Scholar

Headley S. A., de Oliveira T. E. S., Cunha C. W. (2020). A review of the epidemiological, clinical, and pathological aspects of Malignant catarrhal fever in Brazil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 51, 1405–1432. doi: 10.1007/s42770-020-00273-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Herdt T. H., Rumbeiha W., Braselton W. E. (2000). The use of blood analyses to evaluate mineral status in livestock. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 16, 423–444. doi: 10.1016/s0749-0720(15)30078-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hernandez R. O., Romero M. H., Sanchez J. A. (2023). Assessment of slaughterhouse-based measures as animal welfare indicators in fattening pigs. Front. Anim. Sci. 4. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2023.1064933

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hitchens P. L., Hultgren J., Frössling J., Emanuelson U., Keeling L. J. (2017). An epidemiological analysis of equine welfare data from regulatory inspections by the official competent authorities. Animal 11, 1237–1248. doi: 10.1017/S1751731116002512

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hornok S., Mester A., Takács N., Fernández de Mera I. G., de la Fuente J., Farkas R. (2014). Re-emergence of bovine piroplasmosis in Hungary: has the etiological role of Babesia divergens been taken over by B. major and Theileria buffeli? Parasites Vectors 7, 1–4. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-434

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hutson G. D., Grandin T. (2014). “Behavioural principles of sheep handling,” in Livestock handling and transport (CABI, Wallingford UK), 193–217. doi: 10.1079/9781780643212.0193

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hutu I., Onan G. (2019). “Animal management and welfare,” in Alternative Swine Management Systems. Eds. Hutu I., Onan G. (London, UK: Academic Press), 53–70. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818967-2.00004-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Huynh T. T. T., Aarnink A. J. A., Gerrits W. J. J., Heetkamp M. J. H., Canh T. T., Spoolder H. A. M., et al. (2005a). Thermal behaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature and humidity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 91, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.10.020

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Huynh T. T. T., Aarnink A. J. A., Verstegen M. W. A., Gerrits W. J. J., Heetkamp M. J. W., Kemp B., et al. (2005b). Effects of increasing temperatures on physiological changes in pigs at different relative humidities. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 1385–1396. doi: 10.2527/2005.8361385x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Janssen M., Rödiger M., Hamm U. (2016). Labels for animal husbandry systems meet consumer preferences: Results from a meta-analysis of consumer studies. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 29, 1071–1100. doi: 10.1007/s10806-016-9647-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kamphues J., Böhme R., Flachowsky G., Lahrssen-Wiederholt M., Meyer U., Schenkel H. (2007). Empfehlungen zur Beurteilung der hygienischen Qualität von Tränkwasser für Lebensmittel liefernde Tiere unter Berücksichtigung der gegebenen rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen. Landbauforschung Völkenrode: FAL Agric. Res. 57, 255–272. Available at: https://www.openagrar.de/receive/timport_mods_00032234 (Accessed February, 14, 2024).

Google Scholar

Kang H. J., Bae S., Lee H. (2022). Correlation of animal-based parameters with environment-based parameters in an on-farm welfare assessment of growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 64, 539–563. doi: 10.5187/jast.2022.e23

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khudai M. Y., Abdulateef S. M., Mouhammed T. T., Alamili H. S. (2023). Use of modern geometric design of fish ponds to increase welfare and blood parameters. Rev. Bionatura 8, 82. doi: 10.21931/RB/2023.08.02.82

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kpodo K. R., Duttlinger A. W., Johnson J. S. (2019). Effects of pen location on thermoregulation and growth performance in grow-finish pigs during late summer. Trans. Anim. Sci. 3, 1375–1382. doi: 10.1093/tas/txz033

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kramer J. A., Ford E. W., Capuano S. (2012). “Preventative medicine in nonhuman primates,” in American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, Nonhuman Primates in Biomedical Research, 2nd ed. Eds. Abee C. R., Mansfield K., Tardif S., Morris T. (USA: Academic Press), 293–321. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-381365-7.00012-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Laporta J., Podversich F., Dubeux J. C. B., Gonella-Diaza A. M., DiLorenzo N. (2023). Artificial shade as a heat abatement strategy to grazing beef cow-calf pairs in a subtropical climate. PloS One 18 (7), 1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288738

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lechner I., Léger A., Zimmermann A., Atkinson S., Schuppers M. (2021). Discomfort period of fattening pigs and sows stunned with CO2: Duration and potential influencing factors in a commercial setting. Meat Sci. 180, 108535. doi: 10.1016/J.MEATSCI.2021.108535

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee G. H., Jo W., Park J. S., Kang T. K., Sung S. E., Oh T., et al. (2023). Regular medical checkup program (in K-MEDI hub) to enhance the welfare of laboratory dogs and pigs. Lab. Anim. Res. 39, 24. doi: 10.1186/s42826-023-00170-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leishman E. M., van Staaveren N., Osborne V. R., Wood B. J., Baes C. F., Harlander-Matauschek A. (2022). The prevalence of integument injuries and associated risk factors among Canadian Turkeys. Front. Vet. Sci. 8. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.757776

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li G., Geng Y., Pang H. (2015). “Study on Animal Environmental Welfare in the Intensive Livestock and Poultry Farms,” in Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering (Xián, China: Atlantis Press), 284–289. doi: 10.2991/essaeme-15.2015.64

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li B., Wang Y., Rong L., Zheng W. (2023). Research progress on animal environment and welfare. Anim. Res. One Health 1, 78–91. doi: 10.1002/aro2.16

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Linstädt J., Thöne-Reineke C., Roswitha M. (2024). Animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows and their validity and practicality: A systematic review of the existing literature. Front. Vet. Sci. 11. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1429097

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lombard J. E., Tucker C. B., Von Keyserlingk M. A. G., Kopral C. A., Weary D. M. (2010). Associations between cow hygiene, hock injuries, and free stall usage on US dairy farms. J. dairy Sci. 93, 4668–4676. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3225

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Long M., Dürnberger C., Jenner F., Kelemen Z., Auer U., Grimm H. (2022). Quality of life within horse welfare assessment tools: Informing decisions for chronically ill and geriatric horses. Animals 12, 1822. doi: 10.3390/ani12141822

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lopez J. F. (2007). Animal welfare: global issues, trends and challenges. Scientific and technical review. Can. Vet. Journal-Revue Veterinaire Can. 48 (11), 1163–1164.

Google Scholar

Lupu M., Militaru M. (2022). Aggression of broiler breeder males against females in a poultry reproduction farm: injuries and possible contributing factors. Sci. Works. Ser. C. Vet. Med. LXVIII, 36–42.

Google Scholar

Madzingira O. (2018). Animal Welfare Considerations in Food-Producing Animals. In Animal Welfare. Edited by Muhammad Abubakar M., Manzoor S. (Eds.). Vienna, Austria: IntechOpen. https://www.intechopen.com/books/6473. doi: 10.5772/INTECHOPEN.78223

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maes D., Sibila M., Pieters M., Haesebrouck F., Segalés J., de Oliveira L. G. (2023). Review on the methodology to assess respiratory tract lesions in pigs and their production impact. Vet. Res. 54 (8), 1–17e>. doi: 10.1186/s13567-023-01136-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maia A. S. C., Moura G. A. B., Pacheco R., Milan H. M., Chiquitelli-Neto M., Fonseca V. F. C., et al. (2022). “Economically sustainable shade for feedlot cattle in Brazil,” in 2022 ASABE Annual International Meeting (p. 1). American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Eds. Michigan, USA. Conference Proceedings. doi: 10.13031/aim.202201150

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maji C., Patel N. R., Suthar A., Das B. (2024). “Animal welfare and public health in relation to milk hygiene,” in The Microbiology, Pathogenesis and Zoonosis of Milk Borne Diseases. Ed. Rana T. (Elsevier, USA: Academic Press), 359–385. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-13805-8.00023-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Malik P., Bhatta R., Takahashi J., Kohn R., Prasad C. (2015). “Livestock production and climate change,” in Livestock Production and Climate Change (CABI, Oxford, UK), 100–120.

Google Scholar

Marchant-Forde J. N. (2015). The science of animal behavior and welfare: challenges, opportunities, and global perspective. Front. Vet. Sci. 2, 16. doi: 10.3389/FVETS.2015.00016

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Martelli P., Krishnasamy K. (2023). The role of preventative medicine programs in animal welfare and wellbeing in zoological institutions. Animals 13, 1–11. doi: 10.3390/ani13142299

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Matthews L. R., Cameron C., Sheahan A. J., Kolver E. S., Roche J. R. (2012). Associations among dairy cow body condition and welfare-associated behavioral traits. J. Dairy Sci. 95, 2580–2588. doi: 10.3168/JDS.2011-4889

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McDonald S. E., Sweeney J., Niestat L., Doherty C. (2022). Grooming-related concerns among companion animals: Preliminary data on an overlooked topic and considerations for animals’ access to health-related services. Front. Vet. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.827348

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meehan C. L., Mench J. A., Carlstead K., Hogan J. N. (2016). Determining connections between the daily lives of zoo elephants and their welfare: an epidemiological approach. PloS One 11, 1–15. doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0158124

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mellor D. J. (2016). Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living. Animals 6, 2. doi: 10.3390/ani6030021

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mellor D. (2017). Operational details of the Five Domains Model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals 7, 60. doi: 10.3390/ani7080060

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mellor D. J., Beausoleil N. J. (2015). Extending the “Five Domains” model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Anim. Welf. 24, 241–253. doi: 10.7120/09627286.24.3.241

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mellor D., Beausoleil N., Littlewood K., McLean A., McGreevy P., Jones B., et al. (2020). The 2020 five domains model: Including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 10, 1870. doi: 10.3390/ani10101870

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mills D. S., Marchant-Forde J. N. (2010). The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare (Wallingford, UK: CABI). doi: 10.1079/9780851997247.0000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mohammed A. N. (2014). A potential approach for monitoring and evaluation of drinking water sources and quality for livestock animals at Beni-Suef Province. Global Veterinaria 13, 534–543. doi: 10.5829/idosi.gv.2014.13.04.8646

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mohammed S. S. (2019). Animal welfare: wrong approaches and mistreatment of some affected and diseased animals: case reports. J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 20, 52–63.

Google Scholar

Moneva P., Yanchev I., Dyavolova M., Gudev D. (2016). Hematocrit as a potential marker of acclimatization capacity and stress sensitivity in sheep exposed to transport and high altitude. Bulgarian J. Agric. Sci. 22, 999–1005.

Google Scholar

Nallappan D., Kanathasan J. S. (2024). “Navigating Ethics and Animal Welfare,” in Advances in Environmental Engineering and Green Technologies Book. Cellular Agriculture for Revolutionized Food Production Series. Hershey, Pensilvania, USA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing e-Book Collections, 67–91. doi: 10.4018/979-8-3693-4115-5.ch004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nannoni E., Martelli G., Rubini G., Sardi L. (2019). Effects of increased space allowance on animal welfare, meat and ham quality of heavy pigs slaughtered at 160 kg. PloS One 14, e0212417. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212417

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Oliveira V., Navasquez L. M. L., Gomes W. R. V., Pereira D. A. (2022). Bem-estar animal no contexto da cadeia produtiva de alimentos. Pubvet 16 (Supl. 1), a1319, p.1-6. doi: 10.31533/pubvet.v16supl.a1319.1-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Oliveira A. C. F., Webber S. H., Ramayo-Caldas Y., Dalmau A., Costa L. B. (2023). Hierarchy establishment in growing finishing pigs: Impacts on behavior, growth performance, and physiological parameters. Animals 13, 292. doi: 10.3390/ani13020292

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Olson K. (2003). Farm management: Principles and strategies (USA: Wiley).

Google Scholar

Onmaz A. C., Beutel R. G., Schneeberg K., Pavaloiu A. N., Komarek A., van den Hoven R. (2013). Vectors and vector-borne diseases of horses. Vet. Res. Commun. 37, 65–81. doi: 10.1007/s11259-012-9537-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Opriessnig T., Giménez-Lirola L. G., Halbur P. G. (2011). Polymicrobial respiratory disease in pigs. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 12, 133–148. doi: 10.1017/S1466252311000120

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) (2023). Section 7 “Animal Welfare,” in “Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2023”. Retrieved from: https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=titre_1.7.htm (Accessed July, 12, 2024).

Google Scholar

Panzera M. (2013). Sickness and abnormal behaviors as indicators of animal suffering. Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism 1 (1), 23–31.

Google Scholar

Phillips C. (2018). Principles of cattle production. 3rd ed (Oxford, UK: CABI).

Google Scholar

Phillips C. J. C. (2024). Farm animal welfare—From the farmers’ perspective. Animals 14, 671. doi: 10.3390/ani14050671

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pokludová L. (2020). “Prevention is better than cure,” in Antimicrobials in Livestock 1: Regulation, Science, Practice. Ed. Pokludová L. (Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-46721-0_6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Polsky L., von Keyserlingk M. A. G. (2017). Effects of heat stress on dairy cattle welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 100, 8645–8657. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-12651

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Randle H., Dennis A. (2022). A simple collar can make all the difference: A practical solution to a potentially serious equine welfare problem. J. Vet. Behav. 57, 64–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2022.09.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reynolds L. P. (2019). The importance of animals to food security and agricultural sustainability. J. Anim. Sci. 97, 181–182. doi: 10.1093/JAS/SKZ258.374

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Robisalmi A., Alipin K., Gunadi B. (2021). Effect of different feed restrictions on growth, biometric, and hematological response of juvenile Red Tilapia (Oreochromis spp). J. Ilmiah Perikanan dan Kelautan 13, 243–254. doi: 10.20473/jipk.v13i2.26302

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Roche J. R., Friggens N., Kay J. K., Fisher M. W., Stafford K. J., Berry D. P. (2009). Invited review: Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 5769–5801. doi: 10.3168/JDS.2009-2431

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruet A., Arnould C., Lemarchand J., Parias C., Mach N., Moisa M. P., et al. (2022). Horse welfare: A joint assessment of four categories of behavioural indicators using the AWIN protocol, scan sampling and surveys. Anim. Welf. 31, 455–466. doi: 10.7120/09627286.31.3.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Russell G. C., Stewart J. P., Haig D. M. (2009). Malignant catarrhal fever: a review. Vet. J. 179, 324–335. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.11.007

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rusu R. O., Ailincai L. I., Malancus R. N. (2021). Stress induced by pre-slaughter farm conditions in pigs. Arquivo Brasileiro Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia 73, 1357–1360. doi: 10.1590/1678-4162-12361

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rybarczyk A., Tobolska I. (2023). Pre-slaughter pig welfare and carcass and meat quality. Acta Scientia. Polonorum. Zootech. 22, 3–16. doi: 10.21005/asp.2023.22.1.01

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Saeed H. A., Haider M. J., Ansari T. S., Fatima A., Khalid A., Gilani M. A., et al. (2023). Role of animal behaviour and welfare in livestock production and management. Balochistan Curr. Sci. Res. J. 2023, 442. doi: 10.54112/bcsrj.v2023i1.442

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sakyi M. E., Cai J., Tang J., Xia L., Li P., Abarike E. D., et al. (2020). Short term starvation and re-feeding in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus, Linnaeus 1758): Growth measurements, and immune responses. Aquacult. Rep. 16, 100261. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2019.100261

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sanmiguel Plazas R. A., Plazas Hernández F. A., Trujillo Piso D. Y., Pérez Rubio M., del R., Peñuela Sierra L. M., et al. (2018). Requerimientos para la medición de indicadores de estrés invasivos y no invasivos en producción animal. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perú 29 (1), 15–30. doi: 10.15381/RIVEP.V29I1.14195

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sardar M. A., Khan M. I. A., Salman M., Ullah I. (2023). Farm animal welfare as a key element of sustainable food production: Animal welfare and sustainable food production. Lett. In Anim. Biol. 3, 1–18. doi: 10.62310/liab.v3i2.116

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sardi L., Gastaldo A., Borciani M., Bertolini A., Musi V., Martelli G., et al. (2020). Identification of possible pre-slaughter indicators to predict stress and meat quality: A study on heavy pigs. Animals 10, 945. doi: 10.3390/ani10060945

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schulze Westerath H., Gygax L., Hillmann E. (2014). Are special feed and being brushed judged as positive by calves? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 156, 12–21. doi: 10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2014.04.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shadbolt N., Martin S. (2005). Farm management in New Zealand: Production management for farmers (Chicago, USA: Oxford University Press).

Google Scholar

Shettleworth S. J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, and behaviour. 2nd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Google Scholar

Siebert K., Langbein J., Schön P.-C., Tuchscherer A., Puppe B. (2011). Degree of social isolation affects behavioural and vocal response patterns in dwarf goats (Capra hircus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 131, 53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.01.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sipos W., Sipos S. (2022). Clinical Efficacy of Two Novel, Differentially Administered (IM, ID) Vaccines against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and PCV2 in Swine under Field Conditions. Animals 12, 3467. doi: 10.3390/ani12243467

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sipos W., Cvjetković V., Dobrokes B., Sipos S. (2021). Evaluation of the efficacy of a vaccination program against actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae based on lung-scoring at slaughter. Animals 11 (10), 2778. doi: 10.3390/ani11102778

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Squires V., Bryden W. (2019). Livestock: Production, management strategies and challenges (New York: Nova Science Publishers).

Google Scholar

Stockman C., Collins T., Barnes A., Miller D., Wickham S., Beatty D., et al. (2011). Qualitative behavioral assessment and quantitative physiological measurement of cattle naive and habituated to road transport. Anim. Product. Sci. 51, 240–249. doi: 10.1071/AN10122

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Suárez E., Reza S., Díaz E., García F., Pastrana I., Cuadrado H., et al. (2013). Efectos de las condiciones ambientales sobre el comportamiento ingestivo en bovinos de carne en un sistema intensivo en el Valle del Sinú. Ciencia y Tecnol. Agro. 13, 207–212. doi: 10.21930/rcta.vol13_num2_art:257

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tadich N. (2016). Bienestar animal en bovinos lecheros. Rev. Colombiana Cienc. Pecuarias 24, 293–300. doi: 10.17533/udea.rccp.324685

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Taylor P. S., Schrobback P., Verdon M., Lee C. (2023). An effective environmental enrichment framework for the continual improvement of production animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 32, e14. doi: 10.1017/awf.2023.5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Telezhenko E., Bergsten C., Magnusson M., Ventorp M., Nilsson C. (2008). Effect of different flooring systems on weight and pressure distribution on claws of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 1874–1884. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0742

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tello-Pasos A. J., González-Pech P. G. (2022). Determining the frequency of discomfort-related behaviors displayed by horses when pulling carriages. J. Vet. Behav. 54, 62–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2022.06.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Temple D., Manteca X. (2020). Animal welfare in extensive production systems is still an area of concern. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.545902

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thrusfield M. (2018). Veterinary epidemiology. 4th ed (Edinburgh: Wiley Blackwell).

Google Scholar

Torcivia C., McDonnell S. M. (2021). Equine discomfort ethogram. Animals 11, 580. doi: 10.3390/ANI11020580

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Toyota N., Tan C. (2024). Tell me more: Examining consumer perception and behavior toward animal welfare certification labels in Japan. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 18 (6), 1483–1504. doi: 10.1108/jabs-07-2023-0255

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tye M. (2017). Tense bees and shell-shocked crabs: Are the animals conscious? (New York: Oxford University Press).

Google Scholar

United Nations. (2024). Home - United Nations Sustainable Development (United Nations Sustainable Development). Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (Accessed July, 12, 2024).

Google Scholar

Waiblinger S., Boivin X., Pedersen V., Tosi M. V., Janczak A. M., Visser E. K., et al. (2006). Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 101, 185–242. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weary D. M., Appleby M. C., Sandøe P. (2014). What is suffering in animals? In Dilemmas in animal welfare. Wallingford UK: Cabi, pp. 188–202. doi: 10.1079/9781780642161.0188

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Webster J. (2005). Animal welfare: Limping towards Eden (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).

Google Scholar

Webster J. (2008). Animal Welfare: limping towards eden: A practical approach to redressing the problem of our dominion over the animals (Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons).

Google Scholar

Wemelsfelder F., Wemelsfelder F., Mullan S. M. (2014). Applying ethological and health indicators to practical animal welfare assessment. Rev. Scientif. Et Techn. L Off. Int. Des. Epizoot. 33 (1), 111–120. doi: 10.20506/RST.33.1.2259

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Witt J., Krieter J., Wilder T., Czycholl I. (2023). Measuring welfare in rearing piglets: Test-retest reliability of selected animal-based indicators. J. Anim. Sci. 101, skad162. doi: 10.1093/jas/skad162

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yeates J. (2011). Is ‘a life worth living’ a concept worth having? Anim. Welf. 20 (3), 397–406. doi: 10.1017/S0962728600002955

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yeates J. W., Main D. C. J. (2008). Assessment of positive welfare: A review. Vet. J. 175, 293–300. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yuvarajan P., Felix S., Kumar J. S. S., Ahilan B., Mahadevi K. B. (2019). Tilapia-low cost! high nutrient! alleviate malnutrition. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 8, 2154–2157. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2019.807.259

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zarbà C., Pecorino B., Pappalardo G. (2023). Animal welfare in the Common Agricultural Policy evolution. Ital. Rev. Agric. Econ. (REA) 78, 97–107. doi: 10.36253/rea-14423

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zufferey R., Minnig A., Thomann B., Zwygart S., Keil N., Schüpbach G., et al. (2021). Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment in sheep. Animals 11, 2973. doi: 10.3390/ani11102973

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar