A biological integrity framework for describing animal welfare and wellbeing

Abstract

Ethical treatment of animals is the keystone of livestock production. Assessment of welfare is integral to assurance that animals experience a good life. Underpinning assurance are concepts of what constitutes good welfare, a good life and wellbeing. This review examines the concepts of welfare and wellbeing and the frameworks that have been developed for describing their scope. Historically, the tripartite model of welfare (feeling well, functioning well, leading a natural life) has been translated into the Five Freedoms (FF), Five Domains (FD), Good Life (GL), Welfare through Competence (WtC) and OIE World Organisation for Animal Health Welfare Principles frameworks. These frameworks provide scaffolds for numerous welfare assessment schemes. However, the three-part model of wellbeing (eudaimonia, hedonia, social interaction) lacks an explicit assessment framework, although FD, GL and WtC implicitly address aspects of wellbeing. Whereas positive affective (hedonic) experiences are considered to constitute positive welfare, positive aspects of eudaimonic function and social interaction are considered to be aspects of wellbeing above and beyond any indirect contribution they make to positive affective experiences (i.e. positive welfare). In this view, positive health is more than the absence of ill-health and positive social interactions are more than freedom from social isolation. New phenotypes in farm animals identified through analysis of sensor data are providing new perspectives on the functional integrity of biological processes that align well with concepts of wellbeing. These analyses draw on methods in resilience theory to examine stability in complex dynamic systems, specifically, uniformity of trajectories, periodicity of biorhythms and complexity of networks. A framework is proposed that loosely partitions FF, FD, GL and WtC into inputs, opportunities, and outcomes. The framework positions the outcome of biological integrity within the context of input constraints that can generate harms and deficiencies, and environmental opportunities that can foster acquisition of competencies and flourishing. It combines the eudaimonic, hedonic and social aspects of wellbeing within the tripartite terminology of welfare. It is hoped that the framework can help orientate new descriptions of biological function in farm animals derived from sensor data within the broader literature on welfare and wellbeing.

Indicators of functional integrity in production animals

“…Tamminen et al (2021) noted both elevated and depressed concentration of hair cortisol associated with animal-based indicators of poor welfare in calves and concluded that associations between coping style and HPA axis function during stress could be a confounding factor in interpretation of hair cortisol. High-frequency serial sampling has the potential to identify response patterns that are unique to the individual animal, termed idiographic analysis (Colditz 2023), that may help with interpretation of incremental changes in hair cortisol. Most authors conclude that substantial further work is needed to establish the technical feasibility and construct validity of hair cortisol as an indicator of the cumulative lived experience of the animal.…”

“…The integrity of physical functioning is recognised as an important dimension of an animal's welfare (Fraser et al 1997;Fraser 1999;Verhoog 2000;Dawkins 2021) and wellbeing (Moberg 1985;Turner 2019;Williams 2021;Colditz 2023). Wellbeing is a tripartite construct used to describe the positive aspects of physical eudaimonic functioning, hedonic experience and social interactions that has substantial overlap with concepts in positive welfare (Sandöe et al 2004;Williams 2021;Colditz 2023).…”

“…The integrity of physical functioning is recognised as an important dimension of an animal's welfare (Fraser et al 1997;Fraser 1999;Verhoog 2000;Dawkins 2021) and wellbeing (Moberg 1985;Turner 2019;Williams 2021;Colditz 2023). Wellbeing is a tripartite construct used to describe the positive aspects of physical eudaimonic functioning, hedonic experience and social interactions that has substantial overlap with concepts in positive welfare (Sandöe et al 2004;Williams 2021;Colditz 2023). The quality of an animal's life is determined not only by the absence of harms but also through realisation of opportunities for positive experiences (Boissy et al 2007;Yeates and Main 2008;FAWC 2009;Yeates 2011;Edgar et al 2013;Mellor 2016;Vigors et al 2021;Rowe and Mullan 2022).…”

“…A strong focus in theoretical and empirical studies on positive welfare and wellbeing has been on developing metrics and methods for assessing the prevalence of pleasant hedonic experiences in the animal's life (Lawrence et al 2019;Webb et al 2019;Keeling et al 2021). Nonetheless, the potential for positive physical functions to contribute to the quality of the animal's life is also recognised (Turner 2019;Rault et al 2020;Vigors et al 2021;Williams 2021;Colditz 2023). Measures of the integrity of biological functioning across the whole life of the animal may therefore be able to contribute to assessment of the quality of an animal's life and its lifetime wellbeing.…”

“…The functional capacity of the animal to cope with day-today variations and events in its environment may provide a window on the quality of its lived experience (Bateson and Poirier 2019;Bradshaw 2019;Turner 2019;Colditz 2023). Several approaches can be taken when assessing the functional integrity of the animal on a day-by-day basis.…”