Assessment of bovine welfare: Evolution towards the approach from the 5 Domains

Evaluación del bienestar bovino: Evolución hacia el enfoque de los 5 Dominios

Positive animal welfare (PAW) is a relatively recent idea that emphasizes the good experiences to improve the mental state. The objective of this review was, describe the indicators used in bovine welfare protocols, identify the domains considered, and establish a proposal focused on indicators to assess positive welfare. It was identified that the protocols require excessive evaluation times, qualify by granting a single score and do not allow regional adaptations according to the critical conditions that may exist in different countries. Furthermore, the main focus of the existing protocols is on the first 3 domains (nutrition, physical environment and health), leaving the recording of the behavior and the mental state of the animals to a lesser degree of importance. A series of indicators were specified, which would promote positive well-being, related to the domains of physical environment and behavioral interactions, emphasizing comfort, environmental, social, sensory, and nutritional enrichment. In conclusion including the diagnosis of the mental state of animals in a comprehensive way is necessary to identify shortcomings and propose improvements that contribute to improving the quality of life of animals.

1. Meagher RK, Beaver A, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Invited review: A systematic review of the effects of prolonged cow–calf contact on behavior, welfare, and productivity. J Dairy Sci. 2019; 102(7):5765–5783. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-16021
2. Tarazona AM, Ceballos MC, Broom DM. Human Relationships with Domestic and Other Animals: One Health, One Welfare, One Biology. Animals. 2020; 10(1):43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10010043
3. Mench JA. Farm animal welfare in the U.S.A.: Farming practices, research, education, regulation, and assurance programs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008; 113(4):298–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.009
4. Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bock B, Roe E. European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008; 113(4):279–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008
5. Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH. Welfare Monitoring Schemes: Using Research to Safeguard Welfare of Animals on the Farm. J Appl Animal Welfare Sci. 2009; 12(2):114–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888700902719856
6. Blokhuis HJ, Veissier I, Miele M, Jones B. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agric Scand - A: Anim. 2010; 60(3):129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2010.523480
7. Fraser D, Weary DM, Pajor EA, Milligan BN, Milligan BN. A Scientific Conception of Animal Welfare that Reflects Ethical. Anim Welfare. 1997; 6:187-205. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=ethawel
8. Mellor DJ, Reid CSW. Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. Wellbing Intern. 1997. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=exprawel
9. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, et al. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals. 2020; 10(10):1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870
10. Lawrence AB, Vigors B, Sandøe P. What Is so Positive about Positive Animal Welfare?-A Critical Review of the Literature. Animals. 2022; 9(10):783. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100783
11. Mellor DJ. Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living.” Animals. 2016; 6(3):21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6030021
12. Yeates J. Naturalness and Animal Welfare. Animals. 2018; 8(4):53. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8040053
13. Andreasen SN, Wemelsfelder F, Sandøe P, Forkman B. The correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2013; 15:143(1):9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.013
14. Canali E, Keeling L. Welfare Quality® project: From scientific research to on farm assessment of animal welfare. Ital J Anim Sci. 2009; 8(SUPPL 2):900–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s2.900
15. Racciatti DS, Bottegal DN, Aguilar NM, Menichelli ML, Soteras T, Zimerman M, et al. Development of a welfare assessment protocol for practical application in Argentine feedlots. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2022; 253:105662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105662
16. Martínez GM, Suárez VH. Protocolo de evaluación de bienestar animal en tambos del noroeste argentino. Colección Investigaón, Desarrollo e Innovación: Santa Ediciones-INTA; 2017. https://www.ocla.org.ar/noticias/14798784-protocolo-de-evaluacion-de-buenas-practicas-en-tambos-bovinos-del-noroeste-argen
17. Salas MÁS, Cardona MGT, Pérez LB, Peralta Ortiz JJG, Del Rosario Jiménez-Badillo M. Evaluación de bienestar de vacas lecheras en sistema de producción a pequeña escala aplicando el protocolo propuesto por Welfare Quality®. Rev Mex Ciencias Pecu. 2017; 8(1):53–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v8i1.4306
18. Capdeville J, Veissier I. A method of assessing welfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, Focusing on animal observations. Acta Agric Scand A-Anim Sci. 2001; 51(030):62–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647001316923081
19. De Rosa G, Di Palo R, Serafini R, Grasso F, Bragaglio A, Braghieri A, et al. Different assessment systems fail to agree on the evaluation of dairy cattle welfare at farm level. Livest Sci. 2019; 229:145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.09.024
20. Grandin T. Practical Application of the Five Domains Animal Welfare Framework for Supply Food Animal Chain Managers. Animals. 2022; 12(20):2831. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202831
21. Broom DM. Indicators of poor welfare. Br Vet J. 1986; 142(6):524–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1935(86)90109-0
22. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario. Metodología para la evaluación de bienestar animal en las especies bovina y bufalina. 2022. https://www.ica.gov.co/getattachment/Areas/Pecuaria/Servicios/Inocuidad-en-las-Cadenas-Agroalimentarias/Bienestar-Animal/Metodologia-bienestar-en-bovinos-y-bufalos.pdf.aspx?lang=es-CO
23. Odeón M, Romera S. Estrés en ganado: causas y consecuencias. Rev Vet. 2017; 28(1):69–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.30972/vet.2811556
24. Romero Peñuela M, Uribe-Velásquez L, Sánchez Valencia J. Biomarcadores De Estrés Como Indicadores De Bienestar Animal En Ganado De Carne. Biosalud. 2011; 10(1):71–87. https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/biosalud/article/view/4753/4338
25. Park RM, Foster M, Daigle CL. A scoping review: The impact of housing systems and environmental features on beef cattle welfare. Animals. 2020; 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040565
26. Mason GJ. Stereotypies: a critical review. Anim Behav. 1991; 41:1015–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80640-2
27. Newby JM, Mackenzie A, Williams AD, Mcintyre K, Watts S, Wong N, et al. Internet cognitive behavioural therapy for mixed anxiety and depression: a randomized controlled trial and evidence of effectiveness in primary care. Psychol Med Psychol Med. 2013; 43(12):2635-2648. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291713000111
28. Bak Jensen M, Erik Larsen L. Effects of level of social contact on dairy calf behavior and health. J Dairy Sci. 2014; 97:5035–44. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7311
29. Miranda-de la Lama G. Comportamiento y bienestar en la produccion animal: Hacia una interpretación integral. REDVET. Revista Electrónica de Veterinaria, vol. IX, núm. 10B, octubre, 2008, pp. 1-8. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/636/63617111003.pdf
30. Mason GJ. Stereotypies: a critical review. Anim. Behav. 1991, 41, 1015-1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80640-2
31. Wredle E, Rushen J, de Passillé AM, Munksgaard L. Training cattle to approach a feed source in response to auditory signals. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 84(4): 567-572. https://doi.org/10.4141/A03-081