Expert Explains New Ways to Measure Farm Animal Well-Being Beyond Basic Health

A Rutgers University animal sciences expert discusses how farmers are moving beyond just checking for illness to evaluate the complete well-being of their livestock. The new approach looks at nutrition, environment, health, behavior, and mental state to get a fuller picture of animal welfare.

(Editor’s note: Taylor Ross serves as a Teaching Instructor and Undergraduate Advisor in the Department of Animal Sciences at Rutgers University-New Brunswick.)

The topic of animal well-being has gained significant attention among both farmers and the general public in recent times. In the past, our focus was primarily on identifying negative conditions through indicators like disease, wounds, stress, and decreased productivity.

While these negative signs are clearly undesirable and relatively straightforward to observe and track, this raises important questions: Does the absence of suffering automatically mean an animal enjoys positive well-being and a good quality of life? How can we evaluate animal welfare in a more comprehensive way that captures the positive aspects? And what happens when an animal displays mixed welfare signals, appearing content while experiencing health problems?

These positive indicators prove more challenging to recognize and measure. Examining multiple factors simultaneously is crucial for this very reason. Understanding the complete picture when evaluating welfare is essential, since the various elements that influence welfare are interconnected and cannot be completely isolated from one another.

Researchers have developed numerous frameworks over the years to tackle these challenges, continuously creating new approaches and improving existing methods as additional research emerges.

Currently, the most comprehensive and effective approach is the Five Domains Model, which Mellor and colleagues published in 2020.

In this model, Mellor and his research team demonstrate how four functional areas, where humans have considerable influence, ultimately combine to shape an animal’s mental state. The framework shows how different aspects of an animal’s life overlap and interact, ultimately influencing how they view their existence and handle various stressors, whether real or perceived.

Animal owners typically research and understand the nutrition area quite well. This category encompasses providing both water and food, with particular emphasis on species-appropriate nutrition. When problems arise, they often stem from insufficient micronutrients or suboptimal feeding schedules and methods.

Feeding practices that mirror what wild ancestors consumed typically work best, such as providing pasture access for most livestock and horses. However, effective strategies exist to balance the constraints of captivity with proper nutrition for all species. Some approaches will intersect with other areas, including behavioral interactions and health considerations.

The environmental category concentrates on the animal’s living conditions, whether that involves a large pasture, medium-sized barn, or small stall. This also encompasses the conditions and elements present within that space: temperature levels, humidity, air quality, structures or furnishings, and other animals.

Health represents another area that owners have consistently prioritized, particularly with veterinary guidance and disease prevention strategies.

Maintaining animals free from disease and injury, or at least minimizing these issues, while ensuring they produce their intended output (meat, milk, offspring, athletic performance, etc.) defines this category. This area also clearly demonstrates how the different domains interconnect. Nutritional deficiencies quickly lead to health deterioration. Extended exposure to extreme temperatures results in weight loss and reduced productivity. Repetitive behaviors or stereotypies can cause physical harm to animals. Historically, this has been the primary domain used to identify welfare concerns.

These initial three categories address internal imbalances and have benefited from solid research foundations for many years, representing some of the first considerations producers address for their animals. The behavioral category has experienced the most significant changes and improvements recently.

This area examines external interactions and behaviors in animals, which can be divided into three main types of interactions: with the environment, other animals, and humans. Observing how animals choose to engage or avoid these three areas, and the manner of their interactions, can strongly indicate positive or negative welfare outcomes. Do they approach or retreat from humans entering their space? Do they engage with enrichment materials provided? Do they groom their herd companions?

These four functional categories collectively influence the mental domain, which ultimately determines what the animal is “experiencing.” This domain essentially represents the positive or negative effects of the elements controlled in the other four areas.

For instance, consuming a well-balanced diet in appropriate amounts produces signs of satisfaction and comfort. Failing to provide adequate mental stimulation leads to boredom-related behaviors. Implementing gentle handling techniques results in fewer stress indicators and increased tolerance of humans, potentially even leading to animals seeking human contact.

This domain is the most individual-specific since it reveals how each animal perceives their experience. Even when providing identical “correct conditions” for cattle, different herds may show varying levels of contentment, with even greater differences among individual animals within the same herd.

One farmer might need to provide additional enrichment, modify their handling techniques, or adjust nutrition more than another to achieve similar results. This is why welfare assessment always considers the complete context and examines the entire herd when individual customization isn’t practical. This approach can also guide culling decisions to relocate animals that don’t adapt as well to different environments.

Evaluating welfare presents challenges because every aspect of an animal’s life influences it. Using a systematic framework to methodically examine each element helps identify improvement opportunities and establishes a foundation for moving toward assessing positive welfare indicators rather than simply noting the absence of suffering.