TM I TECHNICAL BACKGROUND PAPER Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action i i TECHNICAL BACKGROUND PAPER Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action Authors Rebecca Doyle FAO, University of Edinburgh/ILRI, GASL Animal Welfare Action Network lead Amy Cripps The Donkey Sanctuary Anna Marry Brooke Barbara Wieland The Federal Institute of Virology and Immunology Becky Whay University of Galway Brian Lindsay Dairy Sustainability Framework Carolina Munoz Gallardo University of Melbourne Federica Di Leonardo Compassion in World Farming Hsin Huang International Meat Secretariat Jessica Stark World Horse Welfare Linda Keeling Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences María Sánchez Mainar International Dairy Federation Mathilde Merridale-Punter SPANA Ruaraidh Petre Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef Sandra Zafra World Horse Welfare Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2025 iii Recommended citation Doyle, R., Cripps, A., Marry, A., Wieland, B., Whay, B., Lindsay, B., Munoz Gallardo, C., Di Leonardo, F., Huang, H., Stark, J., Keeling, L., Sánchez Mainar, M., Merridale-Punter, M., Petre, R. & Zafra, S. 2025. Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd6930en 2025 Cover image: © Ismail Saidi The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-140118-7 © FAO, 2025 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution- 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If a translation or adaptation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation [or adaptation] was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation [or adaptation]. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”  Any dispute arising under this licence that cannot be settled amicably shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The parties shall be bound by any arbitration award rendered as a result of such arbitration as the final adjudication of such a dispute.  Third-party materials. This Creative Commons licence CC BY 4.0 does not apply to non-FAO copyright materials included in this publication. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.   FAO photographs. FAO photographs that may appear in this work are not subject to the above-mentioned Creative Commons licence. Queries for the use of any FAO photographs should be submitted to: photo-library@ fao.org.  Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/ publications) and print copies can be purchased through the distributors listed there. For general enquiries about FAO publications please contact: publications@fao.org. Queries regarding rights and licensing of publications should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v PREFACE vi ABBREVIATIONS vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii Part 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 What is animal welfare 2 1.1.1 Evolution in understanding animal welfare 3 Part 2 WHY ANIMAL WELFARE IS A PRIORITY ISSUE 5 2.1 Animal sentience 6 2.2 Animal welfare and the Sustainable Development Goals 6 2.3 One Health and One Welfare 9 2.4 Role of animal welfare in sustainable animal production 11 2.4.1 Animal health and animal welfare 12 2.4.2 Food and nutrition security 15 2.4.3 Livelihoods and economic growth 17 2.4.4 Climate and natural resource use 20 Contents iv v Part 3 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOGNITION OF THE ROLE OF ANIMAL WELFARE IN SUSTAINABLE LIVESTOCK AND AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS 23 Part 4 CONCLUSIONS 28 REFERENCES 31 FIGURES Figure 1 Five freedoms contrasted with five domains 3 Figure 2 Proposed links between livestock, aquaculture and working animal welfare and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 8 Figure 3 Interconnectedness between animal welfare, human well-being and environmental conservation 9 Figure 4 How to consider animal welfare as part of a multidimensional approach 10 Figure 5 Conflict between Animal Welfare and productivity 11 iv v Acknowledgements The document was developed by the Animal Welfare Action Network of the Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock (GASL) –. GASL is a multi-stakeholder partnership hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and committed to sustainable development through livestock. GASL answers the need for concerted and collective action to address the sector’s unprecedented challenges. This technical document was written by Rebecca Doyle (FAO; University of Edinburgh; International Livestock Research Institute) with input from the following members of the GASL Action Network: Amy Cripps (The Donkey Sanctuary), Anna Marry (Brooke), Barbara Wieland (The Federal Institute of Virology and Immunology), Becky Whay (University of Galway), Brian Lindsay (Dairy Sustainability Framework), Carolina Muñoz Gallardo (University of Melbourne), Federica Di Leonardo (Compassion in World Farming), Hsin Huang (International Meat Secretariat), Jessica Stark (World Horse Welfare), Linda Keeling (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), María Sánchez Mainar (International Dairy Federation), Mathilde Merridale-Punter (Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad - SPANA), Ruaraidh Petre (Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef), and Sandra Zafra (World Horse Welfare). Examples and case studies used in the paper were collated from the literature, GASL partner organizations and external collaborators. Feedback from a wide range of action network member partners were integrated to the paper. The advanced draft document was finetuned by Lavinia Scudiero (FAO) who liaised with Rebecca Doyle under the overall guidance of Camillo De Camillis (FAO) to address pending comments from the review process. We thank the following experts who peer-reviewed the draft technical paper: Cathy Dwyer (University of Edinburgh/Scottish Rural Agricultural College), Megan Verdon (University of Tasmania), Peta Taylor (University of Melbourne), and Theo Knight- Jones (International Livestock Research Institute). We thank the GASL editorial board led by Rogerio Mauricio (Federal University of São João del-Rei, Brazil) and Nancy Luethy Bourgeois (University of Bern, Switzerland) for having coordinated the peer-reviewed process. Greatly appreciated are the final input from the editorial board of FAO Animal Production and Health Division (NSA) led by Fairouz Larfaoui and Ugo Pica-Ciamarra. vi vii Preface The goal of this technical paper is to draw attention to the importance of animal welfare and how it connects to wider social, environmental, and agricultural issues. It focuses on how animal welfare improvements within farming systems can lead to other benefits, as well as benefiting the animals themselves. The examples throughout this paper demonstrate how sustainable livestock systems can benefit when animal welfare is incorporated as a priority. It is hypothesized that many more opportunities for welfare and sustainability gains exist. To identify these, and to mitigate situations that create trade-offs, system changes need to be grounded by evidence of improvements and include animal welfare assessment. vi vi vii Abbreviations AMR antimicrobial resistance FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GASL Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock GHG Greenhouse gas GRSB Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef IFC International Finance Corporation LGD livestock guarding dog LMIC Low- and Middle-Income Countries NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans NDC Nationally Determined Contribution NSA FAO Animal Production and Health Division NSAL Livestock Innovation, Climate and Post-Harvest Solutions Branch OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PGI Protected Geographical Indication PMP-TAB Progressive Management Pathway for Terrestrial Animal Biosecurity SAFI Sustainable Agriculture Finance Initiative SASB The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board SCC Somatic cell count SDG Sustainable Development Goal UN United Nations UNEA The United Nations Environment Assembly WOAH World Organisation for Animal Health vi viii ix Executive summary Livestock play vital and diverse roles. For transformation to more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems, animal welfare needs to be integrated. Across species there are strong correlations between improved welfare and improved production; positive connections between animals and their users; and societal concerns for animals and an ethical duty-of-care for the well-being of animals. We conclude that the benefits and contributions of good animal welfare would be even greater if it were better incorporated at multiple levels of agrifood systems governance. Improved animal welfare needs to be more widely implemented across farming systems and integrated into sustainability frameworks, and where implementation has started, continuous improvement approaches should be taken. Applying a One Health/One Welfare lens can assist in identifying the important contributions animal welfare makes to society, and its interconnectedness with the environment and human well-being. Changes made to improve animal welfare, for the benefit of animals and for wider benefits, need to be grounded by evidence that demonstrates improvements. The impact of changing food systems, from incremental to transformative, should consider animal welfare. In many situations, improvements in animal welfare can contribute to agrifood system change. Integration of animal welfare into efforts to improve animal health can be effective but will only capture certain aspects of animal welfare. There is a responsibility to respect animals’ capacity for feelings and ensure that their biological and behavioural needs are met. Identifying animal sentience in policy helps define how they need to be cared for. The behavioural or emotional needs of animals are rarely considered and are typically not provided for by measures to improve health alone. There are many diverse options for providing animals with environmental enrichment that can address these needs. As well as welfare improvements, health, production, and environmental benefits are viii ix associated with effective enrichment with greater behavioural opportunities. Good animal welfare can contribute positively to major livestock issues of sustainable livestock systems including food security and nutrition, inclusive economic growth, One Health/One Welfare, and natural resource use and climate change adaptation. Good animal welfare can lead to improved animal health. Often the link between good health leading to good welfare is emphasized, but there are numerous examples where good welfare leads to improved animal health, and this can include the reduction of the need for antimicrobials. Good animal welfare can contribute to improved nutrition and food safety. Good animal welfare is associated with reduced risks to food safety, and nutritional benefits for consumers. Good animal welfare can also increase the longevity and functionality of animals, directly improving the food security of their owners and local communities that rely on them. Opportunities for livelihoods and economic growth resulting from improved animal welfare are possible for individual animal owners, men and women, to sector-level gains, including diverse examples of investment in specific agriculture approaches that consider animal welfare. Different market opportunities also provide examples of where animal welfare can drive economic growth and gender equality. As women are key in livestock keeping in smallholder systems, they are not only essential to animal welfare but will also profit from more resilient livestock production systems. Good animal welfare and environmental outcomes can occur simultaneously. There are numerous examples of production systems that are beneficial to both climate and natural resources and animal welfare. These can include alternative systems to those that are currently common, as well as modifications to existing systems to create these win-wins. x 1x © Te m o B er ish vil i © To m Fi sk x 1x 1. Introduction 1 2 3 1.1 Background Production and working animals are more than an agricultural commodity. They contribute to aspects of all United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly poverty alleviation, food security and nutrition, health and well-being, gender equality, economic growth, responsible production, and climate action. There are also strong social connotations to animal keeping. Our most common production animals — poultry, pigs, small and large ruminants — have welfare needs that, when provided, can improve their quality of life, as well as their productive lives and enhance the contributions they make to us and the environment. Working equids, which are a key production species in subsistence farming and lower-input food systems, have similar welfare needs and contributions to the domains of sustainability, and so have been equally incorporated and considered here. While animal welfare is recognized and incorporated by private and public groups, from individual farms to intergovernmental organizations, growth opportunities and needs remain. Considering animal welfare in production, development and policy is important for more equitable and sustainable outcomes for animal owners and society, and so the needs of the foundational stakeholder — the animals — are met. What is animal welfare Animal health and animal welfare are complementary but not synonymous concepts. Without good health, there cannot be good welfare, but good health alone does not guarantee good welfare. Not only does science recognize a multidimensional approach to animal needs, but animal owners describe this as well: farmers, consumers and society consider welfare to be more than just animal health (Alonso et al., 2020; Lemma et al., 2022; Vigors et al., 2021). Animal welfare is ‘the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies’ (WOAH, 2019). Good animal welfare is based on the principle that an animal should be treated in a way that meets its biological, behavioural, and emotional state needs, giving the animal a good quality of life. This means that an animal’s welfare is not a simple provision of resources, or action at a point of time, it involves ongoing considerations and care. 2 3 Based on scientific evidence, our understanding of animals has evolved to understand how the resources and care we provide to them interact with their experiences and feelings, to give an overall view of their welfare. These resources, and their interaction with feelings, are described by the concept of the ‘Five Domains’. Animals need to have their nutritional, environmental, health and behavioural needs met, and in doing so their mental state, or emotional, needs will be met. Evolution in understanding animal welfare The ‘Five Freedoms’ framework has been the basis for animal welfare action and policy work since its inception in 1965. While this is a sound foundation, an updated framework — ‘Five Domains’ — recognizes the importance of limiting animal welfare constraints, while recognizing more directly (1) that animals are sentient (meaning that they experience feelings and have an awareness of this) and (2) that providing positive opportunities, resources and experiences is beneficial for animals beyond the prevention/alleviation of negative experiences. This framework has been taken up by a number of different industry groups to guide their action on animal welfare (e.g. Fonterra, 2022). Figure 1 demonstrates how the five domains interact with each other. 1.1.1 Figure 1 Five freedoms contrasted with five domains. Source: Adapted from Mellor et al., 2020. 1. 2. 3. 5. 5. Nutrition Giving suf�cient, balanced, varied and clean food and water. Environment Comfort through temperature, substrate, space air, odour, noise and predictability. Health Enabling goog health through the absence of disease, injury, impairment with a good �tness level. Behaviour Providing varied, novel, and engaging enrichment through sensory inputs, exploration, foraging, bonding, playing, retreating, and others. Mental state The animal should bene�t from predominantly positive states, e.g., pleasure of comfort, while reducing negative states such as fear, frustration, hunger, pain, or boredom. Fr ee do m f ro m h un ge r a nd th irs t Fre ed om fo rm disc omfort Freedom from pain, injury and disease Freedom to express normal behaviour Freedom from fear and distress 4. 4. THE FIVE DOMAINSTH E FIVE FREEDOMS 2. 3. Nutrition Environment Physical Health BehaviourPHYSICAL / FUNCTIONAL DOMAINS Positive | Negative Positive | Negative Positive | Negative Positive | N egativ e WELFARE STATUS Negative experiences | Positive experiencesMENTAL DOMAINS 1. Introduction Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 4 54 © To bi To un © L or ra ny Es ta cio Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 4 54 2. Why animal welfare is a priority issue 5 7 Animal welfare is a priority consideration in production because it is ethically important to treat animals well. Animal welfare also impacts, and is impacted by, all different domains of agricultural sustainability. In the long term, good animal welfare can make good economic sense as well. The following sections outline the evidence behind why animal welfare is a priority issue. It starts with the needs of animals as a unique key stakeholder and then describes how animal welfare is connected to universal goals for development. The relevance of animal welfare to higher-level frameworks that connect people, animals and the environment are then outlined. Following this, specific examples of the co-benefits of improving animal welfare to the four domains of sustainable livestock production are provided, further highlighting the importance of including animal welfare comprehensively when considering sustainable livestock production. Throughout these subsequent sections, examples from global to local levels are provided. 6 7 Animal sentience Animals are sentient. More simply, they have feelings and can experience both positive and negative states. For animals under human care, we have a responsibility to respect their capacity for feelings and ensure that their biological and behavioural needs are met, giving them the chance to experience positive feelings and limit negative. This ability to experience feelings is what underpins both the practical and moral concerns when caring for animals and why they need a high standard of care, including a humane death. Animal keepers have long recognized the emotional capacity of their animals. This has been associated with better welfare outcomes too (Haddy et al., 2023). Animal sentience is recognized as a specific term in legislation across a growing number of countries (e.g. WAP, 2025). Animal sentience is also used by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (FAO, 2009) and by industry groups (e.g. IDF, 2019). Acknowledgment of sentience also occurs indirectly, including descriptions of “providing positive experiences” for animals (Fonterra, 2022), and the French national Livestock, Meat and Dairy Associations. While sentience may not be included explicitly as a term, the recognition of positive experiences for animals implies their ability to feel. Recognizing the term sentience in policy has fundamental importance, as it underpins how we need to care for animals, and with farmed animals having this capacity, it relates to all systems worldwide. By recognizing sentience, the need to provide essential nutrition, health and environmental resources, behavioural opportunities, and limit negative experiences are implied. Sentience recognizes an animal’s ability to feel. Alongside the essential need to consider animal experiences, recognizing and improving the welfare of animals is connected to a number of human- and production-related benefits. Animal welfare and the Sustainable Development Goals FAO links sustainable livestock systems to all 17 of the SDGs (FAO, 2015) and considers animal welfare to be a core component of sustainable livestock production (FAO, 2018), making animal welfare an important need to consider when delivering on the SDGs, even though both welfare, and livestock in general, are largely missing from the heavily anthropocentric SDGs. This is shown in Figure 2, where the animal icons represent different examples of animal species interacting with the SDGs. 2.2 2.1 Why animal welfare is a priority issue 6 Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 98 A systematic evaluation of the compatibility between achieving the SDGs and improving animal welfare indicated that there is a mutually beneficial relationship between improving animal welfare and achieving SDGs. Improving animal welfare was evaluated as being a significant contributor to achieving SDG 2 Zero Hunger, and the strongest mutual reinforcements were identified for SDG 12, which deals with responsible production and consumption, and SDG 14, which deals with life below water. Identifying these relationships between animal welfare and the SDGs helps highlight the importance of animal welfare when implementing these goals in practice (Keeling et al., 2019). Beyond SDG 2, 12 and 14, in most scenarios, acting on the SDGs can positively contribute to the improvement of animal welfare, making it an indirect way to improve on welfare. However, due to the mutually beneficial relationship between animal welfare and many of the SDGs, taking action to improve animal welfare can lead to progress on SDGs. For example, improving the welfare of working equids has been directly associated with improved opportunities and quality of life for women and girls in households reliant on these animals (Grace et al., 2022; World Horse Welfare, 2023). Figure 2 Proposed links between livestock, aquaculture and working animal welfare and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Source: Summarized from Doyle et al., 2017, Keeling et al., 2018, WorldFish, 2019 and ICWE, 2020. 9 Why animal welfare is a priority issue 8 Animal industries have also outlined contributions of their species to the SDGs, and both dairy and working equids in particular have presented detailed analyses of their species’ contributions to the SDGs (Bonsi et al., 2023; Grace et al., 2022; World Horse Welfare, 2023). Contextualizing species production amidst global development is an important way to have livestock recognized in these broader contexts. In these documents, the welfare of these livestock species is implicit. One Health and One Welfare One Health and One Welfare recognize the interconnectedness of people, animals and the environment. This is depicted in Figure 3. One Health describes these connections on a health dimension, which includes a broader definition of health that recognizes not only the interconnectedness between the three entities, but also the societal dimension to One Health (de Leeuw et al., 2024; WHO, 2021). One Welfare complements this and describes these connections between animal welfare, human well–being and the environment (Pinillos, 2018; Stephens, 2021). Figure 3 Interconnectedness between animal welfare, human well-being and environmental conservation. Source: Pinillos, 2018. ANIMAL WELFARE HUMAN WELLBEING ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION POVERTY & LOCAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT PRISON PROJECTS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMELESS GANGS & DANGEROUS DOG HOARDING CHILDA BUSE FOOD SAFETY FOOD SECURITY MULTIDISCIPLINARY INSPECTIONS REDUCTION ANIMAL HUMAN ABUSE CONSUMERS CRIME REDUCTION SEPARATION ANXIETY LIVESTOCK WORRYING WORKING ANIMALS IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES LIVESTOCK ROLE IN SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION CARE FARMING INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY CROSS ANXIETY COLLABORATIONS PETS COMPANION ANIMALS WILD LIFE FARM WORKING ANIMALS ANIMAL/HUMAN ABUSE LIFE CHANCES SOCIOECONOMICAL ISSUES SUSTAINABILITY 2.3 REDUCTION OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 10 11 Recognizing these connections is important because they help to identify the complex interactions that exist. When animal welfare is assessed simplistically, and contrasted only with productivity or economic gains, important and tangible benefits may be overlooked. The impact assessments of specific interventions aimed at improving animal welfare would benefit from being multidimensional assessments, which is something that a One Health and One Welfare framework would provide. Similarly, many sustainability assessments, and evaluations of systems aimed at addressing unsustainable farming practices largely fail to address animal welfare beyond a token mention. The current approach of monodimensional assessments of systems and interventions mean that the benefits of improving animal welfare are likely underrepresented at minimum, or that environmental- or production-focused adaptations can be negatively affecting animal welfare at worst. Evaluating actions, including welfare– focused interventions, dynamically across the complexity of a system is important to effectively capture impacts in a more holistic way than is done currently. Figure 4 shows examples of ways to consider evaluation of animal welfare as part of a multidimensional approach, capturing animal welfare beyond health and production measures. Figure 4 Example of One Welfare in Action. Source: Developed by CIWF (n.d.). • Animal nutrition; • breeds adapted to the environment; • transport distances; • natural behaviour in natural environments. • Zoonotic disease; • antibiotic use / resistance; • working conditions; • food and nutrition security; • local communities Planetary limits: • greenhouse gas emissions; • Nitrogen and Phosphorus use and pollution; • land use; • biodiversity loss; • freshwater use. SYSTEMIC CHANGE ONE HEALTH / ONE WELFARE ENVIRONMENT HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL-BEING ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Example of One Welfare in Action Composting shelters used by the dairy industry create One Welfare benefits. Composting shelters use deep bedding comprising plant-based material that composts urine and dung in situ. Composting shelters have demonstrated animal welfare benefits, specifically improving cow comfort and calmness. Staff well-being has also increased, with staff being able to manage cows more easily, and the system credited with reducing aspects of staff stress and labour. Positive environmental benefits include creating a composted organic fertilizer and eliminating the need for effluent management/capture (Perrin Ag Consultants Ltd., 2022). 10 11 Why animal welfare is a priority issue Role of animal welfare in sustainable animal production Animal productivity cannot be a proxy for welfare. Animal productivity and welfare may be positively correlated in many production systems as shown in Figure 5; however, pushing productivity too high can compromise animal welfare, as described by McInerney (2004). Figure 5 Conflict between Animal Welfare and productivity. Source: McInerney, 2004. PE RC EI VE D W EL FA RE (A N IM A L BE N EF IT ) LIVESTOCK PRODUCTIVITY (HUMAN BENEFIT) Wmin [’cruelty’] “natural” walfare “maximal” walfare “desired/appropriate” walfare “minimal” walfare C? B D A All production systems will have welfare benefits and disadvantages. The welfare of the animal is highly dependent on the practices involved in that management system and can affect animal welfare in different ways; however, some systems have ceilings where important aspects of welfare can never be met due to restrictions in how they are produced. These limitations particularly exist in very intensive confined systems where there are practical limits to “good” welfare (Murphy and Legrand, 2023; Webster, 1994). Tethered cows are an example of a system that has a welfare ceiling. Many aspects of their welfare can be managed exceptionally well, but important aspects, like movement, exercise, and self-grooming, cannot be met due to the physical limitations of the system. Understanding these restrictions is important when evaluating system options and demonstrates why evaluating animal welfare using a comprehensive definition is so important. This builds on the recognition of sentience and what that means for animal needs. The co-benefits of improving animal welfare in sustainable livestock production can be identified across a variety of different areas and have been recently published in the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) Vision Paper (WOAH, 2024). The Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock (GASL) has taken on a livestock systems approach to address economic, social, and environmental connections with livestock. This paper frames animal welfare’s contributions to sustainable livestock using the four sustainability domains that the Livestock Innovation, Climate and Post-Harvesting Solutions Branch (NSAL), in the FAO Animal Production and Health Division (NSA), presented at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture in Berlin in 2018. This is complementary to the themes covered in the WOAH vision paper (WOAH, 2024): 2.4 Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 12 13 � Animal health and animal welfare � Food and nutrition security � Livelihoods and economic growth � Climate and natural resource use Co-benefits of improving animal welfare are outlined against these four sustainability domains below, further highlighting the importance of including animal welfare comprehensively when considering sustainable livestock production. Animal health and animal welfare Animal health and welfare are tightly interconnected: good health is a central component of welfare, and good welfare promotes good health. Poor health/welfare can impair productivity, and it can block trade. Consequently, poor health and welfare can negatively impact income at a farm level to a national one. Animal diseases may also directly affect humans by transmission of disease-causing zoonotic microbes or as foodborne diseases. Good animal welfare can bolster animal health by increasing resilience to disease and climate shocks. For instance, responsible use of antimicrobials by improving health preventive measures and husbandry has important implications for human health and the environment, making it a One Health issue. At the same time, blanket elimination of antimicrobials also creates an animal health and welfare issue for those in need of treatment. Judicious use of antimicrobials, facilitated by antimicrobial stewardship, creates One Health benefits (Magnusson et al., 2022). Animal management strategies that benefit the welfare of animals can reduce the need for antimicrobial use. Better welfare of farm animals is associated with lower antimicrobial use (Rodrigues da Costa and Diana, 2022), and this includes reduced antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in organic farming systems (EMA and EFSA, 2017) with evidence of this in cattle, chicken, pigs and turkeys (Ager et al., 2023). Conversely, farming intensification has been linked to increased diversity of antibiotic resistance in the feces of a variety of farmed animals (Wang et al., 2023). Evidence indicates that increased movement is associated with good physical welfare and health. Broilers that had access to an outdoor range and moved further from the shed also had improved leg health and reduced physiological stress responses to acute challenges (Taylor et al., 2020). Birds that accessed the outdoors more frequently also had better cardiovascular health, plumage and leg health (Taylor et al., 2018). Environments must both feel safe and stimulating to animals for them to be effectively used. The rate of production also affects both broiler health and welfare, with slower-growing broiler strains having both significantly better health (less morbidity and mortality) and displaying more behavioural indicators of positive welfare (Rayner et al., 2020). 2.4.1 12 13 Why animal welfare is a priority issue In situations where painful husbandry practices continue to be practiced at the moment, these practices need to be performed in the least painful and most ethical way possible to reduce the short- and long-term impacts on animal production and performance. Extensive research around effective approaches to painful husbandry practices, including the use of pain relief, is well established. Good welfare for disbudding Based on research, best practice approaches for the removal of horns in cattle have been established. If this process needs to be undertaken, the most humane way to do this includes (Mainau et al., 2012): � Disbudding is preferred to dehorning. � Should be performed as soon as horns are palpable (~3 weeks of age). � Hot iron/cauterized disbudding is the best practice method. � Anesthesia and analgesia should be used to reduce pain during and after the procedure. � Sedation beforehand helps reduce pain and improve ease of handling. Even with all these practices in place, the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs combined with a local anesthetic does not fully eliminate the welfare challenges from disbudding with healing and pain being long-term (Herskin and Nielsen, 2018). An alternative to dehorning is to select for polled calves, which is an option for some cattle breeds already. In many geographies, access to these methods of disbudding and pain relief are unavailable and/or too expensive, highlighting that best practice cannot always be achieved. For these reasons, moving away from painful husbandry procedures altogether is still a necessary goal. Antimicrobial use and animal welfare The connections between different ways to improve animal welfare and reduced antimicrobial use are well documented. A snapshot of evidence from pigs and poultry: � A study comparing national production systems identified that pig production in Sweden uses substantially less antimicrobials post-weaning compared to Belgium, France and Germany (Sjölund et al., 2016). This over 20-fold difference in antimicrobial use has been attributed to an older weaning age in Sweden (35 days old) compared to the other countries (24, 22, 25 days old respectively). Later weaning is also attributed to better social and cognitive development. � Welfare-friendly production systems have been shown to use less antimicrobials later in production too. Farms producing pigs for welfare-friendly labels have lower antimicrobial use levels than conventional farms (Nielsen et al., 2021; Tarakdjian et al., 2020). Pigs raised in welfare-friendly grower and finisher systems (described as housing systems with multiple areas, straw bedding and daily access to outdoor facilities) receive fewer antimicrobials than traditional slatted floor systems (Cagienard et al., 2005). Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 14 15 � The reduction of antimicrobials in pigs raised in welfare-friendly systems has been established to be the result of reduced environmental and management stressors, which allow pigs to become more immunocompetent and prepared to overcome pathogenic challenges (Albernaz-Gonçalves et al., 2022a). � With AMR being primarily associated by the pig industry as relevant to human medicine, rather than livestock farming, personal behaviours change alone is not strong enough to create practice change (Albernaz-Gonçalves et al., 2022b). Pig producers in Brazil cite agro-industries and foreign markets as motivators for change around antimicrobial use, making these potential drivers for other welfare changes too (Albernaz-Gonçalves et al., 2021). Slower-growing broiler chickens (with improved welfare outcomes) require fewer antibiotics (Vissers et al., 2021). � Dutch slower-growing broilers use nearly nine times less antibiotics than fast-growing breeds. They also have better health and reduced mortality and culling (SDa Autoriteit Diergeneesmiddelen, 2023). Health and welfare are closely linked, and both are of importance in production. Farmers have been shown to prioritize the minimization of health issues for their animals, while also wanting to create environments where animals are able to express natural behaviors, a key aspect of creating positive animal welfare (Vigors et al., 2021). Advocating for animal health improvements is therefore critical for animal welfare improvements, making campaigns such as Action for Animal Health (n.d.), important ways in which animal welfare improvements can occur. Animal welfare action can be effectively integrated with animal health. At an industry level, many industry bodies are integrating animal health and animal welfare, including having specific appointments to address health and welfare (e.g., Dairy South Africa, 2023; Fonterra, 2022). Industry-led auditing now includes animal welfare as a part of routine farm assessments (e.g., Dairy South Africa includes Animal Welfare Standards in their Farm Food Safety Audits. Beef Quality Assurance, Verified Beef Production Plus, and New Zealand Farm Assurance Programme all assess animal welfare compliance to ISO/TS 34000:2016). When done effectively, this can be a powerful way to improve health, welfare, and production at once. It brings attention to the importance of animal welfare beyond health where it may not be already a point of focus and offers an approach where it can be integrated into the farming system, rather than an addition afterward. Focusing only on health is oversimplifying the complexity of welfare and animal requirements. While integration of health and welfare messaging and action is positive, the emphasis is largely on the absence of disease and injury. Health is strongly tied to productivity and profitability, as well as being simpler to measure than other aspects of welfare. Suitable husbandry, housing, and veterinary care can still be hard to provide in many production systems/regions of the world; however, these are more readily understood and more often enacted improvements. The lesser-addressed and understood component of welfare tends to be meeting behavioural needs and the positive emotional experiences that come as a consequence of positive behavioural opportunities. These behavioural needs are often harder to communicate to farmers and other stakeholders as well. Enriching environments are essential for creating these behavioural opportunities. Enrichment means increasing the complexity of the animal’s environment and may include foraging opportunities, social housing, or positive human contact where appropriate (WOAH, 2019). 14 15 Why animal welfare is a priority issue When used in conjunction with good management, enrichment can improve the welfare of animals in many environments, including intensive production systems (Grandin, 2023). Enrichment does not always imply good welfare. To improve welfare, it needs to be effective. The provision of effective enrichment, which is defined as: being implementable, leading to an improvement in animal welfare, and affordable, is key to providing these behavioural opportunities (Taylor et al., 2023). Of the wide variety of environmental enrichments available, welfare benefits of effective enrichment can include one or more of the following: � Improved health; � Generating pleasure/enjoyment, which may also reduce stress; � And/or generating other long-term benefits through cognitive development, stable social interactions, or stress resilience. Enrichments that improve health indicate that welfare is compromised without enrichment. As a result, these should be considered as essential resources and provided at minimum for animals. Effective enrichment has the potential to improve animal welfare to create a “life worth living” (Taylor et al., 2023). Policy action is demonstrating increased focus on animal welfare on neglected species. With growing awareness of animal welfare, the gaps that exist in policy are being incrementally filled. The welfare of working equids, which are a chronically overlooked set of animals that contribute significantly to production, has received attention on a global level with the creation of a specific chapter on the welfare of working equids in the WOAH’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code in 2016 (WOAH, 2016). Guidelines for working equids specific to tourism were also published in 2022 by the European Union Platform on Animal Welfare (European Commission, 2022). Improving animal welfare can enhance animal health. Examples of this include using best practice approaches for management practices in the short term (e.g., painful husbandry practices) and long term (e.g., ongoing provision of behavioural opportunities and effective enrichment). While combining animal health and welfare is an effective way to integrate welfare into production systems, this needs to be done in a way that recognizes good animal welfare requires action beyond good animal health. Food and nutrition security Livestock species, including working equids, are essential to food and nutrition security of their owners, and the community on a local to global scale. Animal-derived foods could be a critical contributor to the unmet nutritional needs of around 3 billion people worldwide (FAO et al., 2022). Taking care of livestock welfare directly therefore makes meaningful contributions to important aspects of food and nutrition security. At the same time, significant overconsumption of animal-derived food is contributing to negative health outcomes, as well as other aspects of sustainability. Opportunities to reduce consumption and as a result reduce some populations of livestock are being explored (Verkuijl et al., 2023). 2.4.2 Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 16 17 Hen welfare, farmer and community wins. Small-holder cage-free egg production can be a model system for food security. Farmer cooperatives pool their eggs to supply high-end buyers in the cities, boosting rural economies. For example, Happy Hens in India (Happy Hens Farm, n.d.) is a partnership of free-range farmers, each with an average of just two acres. The enterprises are largely run by women and are family owned. They are certified by Humane Farm Animal Care (Certified Humane, n.d.), and so are inspected and audited for animal welfare. Some of the farmers supplement income from eggs by growing semi- perennial fruit trees in the area where the hens range outdoors. The model is a win-win-win solution for small farmers, rural communities, and the animals. Buyers benefit from telling the story of how the eggs were produced and the benefits for animal welfare and alleviating rural poverty. Poor welfare of working animals leads to reduced longevity and functionality, directly putting at risk the food security of their owners and local communities. Small-scale farmers are responsible for producing 80% of food in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) (Ricciardi et al., 2018). Many of these farmers rely on working equids for labour support, field work, market transport and other household contributions to produce this food (Grace et al., 2022). Despite this, their contribution and other critical roles of working equids are often overlooked when considering veterinary care, national livestock management plans, policies, and the economic contributions of livestock to the detriment of working equid welfare. The role of working animals to transhumant populations will increase because of the important role they play supporting community movement, which is a climate mitigation strategy. Poor welfare and stress in production species can pose risks to consumers, for example through common food-borne infections such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli. Good animal welfare practices not only reduce unnecessary suffering but also help to make animals healthier. Good animal welfare can lead to improved food safety. Poor animal welfare contributes to food-borne disease, with increased shedding of contaminating zoonotic bacteria (E. coli, Salmonella, and Campylobacter) from stress and poor management (EFSA, 2023). Good welfare can increase the immune status of animals, reducing susceptibility to and spread of disease (Manteca, 2008). Good animal welfare has been associated with potential nutritional benefits for consumers. Higher-welfare chickens have more protein, less fat, and better fat, with free- ranging chickens having higher protein content and lower fat compared to intensively reared birds (da Silva et al., 2017). Free-range chicken also had higher levels of unsaturated fatty acids, more favorable ratios between polyunsaturated fatty acids and monounsaturated fatty acids than intensively reared birds (Stadig et al., 2016). Conversely, fast-growing broilers can develop meat quality issues (white striping caused by myopathy) (Petracci et al., 2019). Free-range eggs had more total fat, monounsaturated fat and polyunsaturated fat, higher n-3 fatty acids, and beta-carotene than caged-hens’ eggs (Anderson, 2011). 16 17 Why animal welfare is a priority issue Pasture-fed beef, which is commonly associated with better welfare, has more beneficial fatty acids for human health than concentrate-based diets (Davis et al., 2022). Forage- based finishing and differential fatty acid profiles are included in the Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) descriptions of types of grass-fed beef and sheep (e.g. GOV UK, 2021). As PGIs are a way to create consumer demand and market products, this also relates to the economic benefits of good animal welfare outlined in the following section. Housing systems associated with positive welfare in pigs also contribute to improved meat quality and nutritional profiles beneficial to human health (Edwards, 2005; Lebret, 2008). When animal-based products provide beneficial micronutrients, while significant overconsumption creates health risks, it is essential to understand how rearing conditions contribute to the nutritional value of the meat produced by the animal. This is an example of how integrated One Health, One Welfare research would add real depth to the evaluation of different production systems and interventions. Livelihoods and economic growth The contribution livestock make to individual livelihoods through to national economies is extensive. In LMICs, livestock contribute to more than 40% of agricultural gross domestic product. In LMICs, livestock support the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of poor people (Salmon, 2018). Welfare improvements are associated with livelihoods and economic growth in several different ways. Beyond this, and as outlined in the One Health, One Welfare section above, animals can serve other important functions, which are not always captured economically. Livelihoods are interconnected with good animal welfare, and this is recognized by animal owners, providing them with feelings of satisfaction while also being sources of household nutrition and income (Alemayehu et al., 2022). Good animal welfare, including that of working equids, has been associated with women’s empowerment and economic opportunities (Geiger et al., 2020; Lemma et al., 2022; Ravichandran et al., 2023). Examples exist in different farming settings where improving practices can improve welfare and production. Immunocastration, rather than physically castrating male pigs, has economic gains for both the production and slaughter components of the supply chain due to improvements on farm and in carcass traits (Linden, 2013). Part of this economic benefit is attributed to an improved feed conversion in immunocastrated pigs, which is also associated with environmental benefits. Similar economic and feed conversion benefits exist for raising entire male pigs, compared to physically castrated males (Lundström et al., 2009). Both alternatives remove the need for painful physical castration. Positive human-animal interactions can result in improved health and productivity of farm animals, while on the contrary, animals subjected to aversive human contact become more fearful of humans, which can cause stress-mediated reductions in reproduction and growth (Zulkifli, 2013). These positive human-animal interactions are also beneficial to farmers because it is a strategy for farmers to “work safely and efficiently in a healthy environment” (Beaujouan et al., 2021). 2.4.3 Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 18 19 Good handling and animal care also have immediate benefits at points along the production system. Improved handling practices can reduce carcass bruising by over 50% compared to routine farm handling practices (da Costa et al., 2012). Acute stress pre- slaughter, including the use of electric prodders, leads to tougher meat with inferior quality (Warner et al., 2007). Refining farming practices has created sustainable gains for farmers. Technology in farming makes important contributions; at the same time, revisiting traditional practices has been used to make substantive improvements for livelihoods and animal welfare. Livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) remain one of the most effective non-lethal methods to reduce losses to predators. Other than reducing predation, using LGDs has been attributed to calmer, easier-to-handle and therefore more productive livestock. LGDs provide farmers with a work companion and transmit self-security and emotional support to the farmer/shepherds (Temple et al., 2020), acting as an example of One Welfare connections. Examples now exist where cow-and-calf dairy systems are both technically possible and financially viable, having been tested at the family farm scale (e.g., The Ethical Dairy, n.d.) The price gap in production between conventional and higher-welfare production is also closing and the higher-welfare product can command a higher price than conventional in the market that the dairy operates, so profit margins are growing. These cow-calf systems are associated with other One Welfare benefits as well: staff satisfaction/retention can be improved; rearing more robust heifers that better integrate into the milking herd, recover from first calving better; and it leads to reduced greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)/kg milk produced at that farm (Diavão et al., 2023; Meagher et al., 2019; Ospina Rios, et al., 2023; Wagner et al., 2012). Investment in specific agricultural approaches that consider animal welfare can support the transition to sustainable systems. One example from the Sustainable Agriculture Finance Initiative (SAFI) is a New Zealand-based organization providing guidance for decision-making to encourage sustainable agriculture finance. The SAFI guidance aims to integrate environmental and social factors, including animal health and welfare metrics, to encourage sustainable investment, lending, insurance, and risk management (Sustainable Finance, 2024). SAFI guidance includes a requirement of “adequate natural shade and shelter at all times of the year”, in addition to meeting domestic animal welfare standards. Another example is the “the International Financial Corporation Practices for Sustainable Investment in Private Sector Livestock Operations,” which is the lending policy of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private arm of the World Bank. The fundamental practices that inform IFC investments in livestock include animal welfare. IFC guidelines require group housing for sows and prohibit force-feeding of ducks and geese and the keeping of animals exclusively for fur production (IFC, n.d.). The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), whose global standards guide investors on financially material sustainability information of companies, now has identified crate confinement as reasonably likely to affect the financial performance of a company. Their Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Sustainability Accounting Standard states that “Consumer demand has driven shifts in industry practices, such as eliminating the use of gestation crates in pig production and eliminating caged enclosures for poultry. Entities that are prepared to anticipate or adapt to these trends may be able to increase their market share by capturing this changing demand and being first to market with products that comply with new regulations” (SASB Standards, 2023). 18 19 Why animal welfare is a priority issue Consumer willingness to pay for high-welfare is an established opportunity for value chains in many countries. Minimum standards are critical to guarantee important aspects of animal welfare. These are changing in response to societal concerns for animal welfare. At the same time, markets exist for animal welfare that goes beyond minimum standards in several different countries and animal products. Many market examples for this exist across countries and livestock products and are not only limited to the high-income or Western contexts (Parlasca et al., 2023). Discrete choice experiments indicate that a significant proportion of consumers are willing to pay for welfare labeling and products associated with causes (Gorton et al., 2023). The 2023 Eurobarometer on Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare found that six in ten Europeans are willing to pay more for products sourced from animal-welfare-friendly farming systems (European Union, 2023). While willingness is not always evenly distributed across species, there is an increasing appreciation of animal welfare parameters over other quality attributes and growing awareness of importance on action to improve animal welfare (Alonso, 2020). Consumer awareness and concern regarding farm animal welfare is increasing and is not limited to high-income countries. A study published in 2022 surveyed over 4,000 members of the general public in 14 countries on their perceptions of animals and animal welfare. Most participants agreed that the welfare of farm animals is important, without distinction between developed and developing regions (Sinclair et al., 2022). Marketing and consumer purchasing power is not a solution to all welfare issues, nor is it applicable to all contexts; however, it does create opportunities for progressive improvements in animal welfare. Welfare standards can be both a source of trade opportunity and a barrier. The 2023 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct recognize that enterprises should respect animal welfare standards and that animals have the opportunity to experience good welfare (OECD, 2023). Animal welfare can be a marketing opportunity, while low-welfare practices can put companies and investors at a higher risk. Conversely, when welfare standards are not harmonized, it can distort competitiveness. Because consumer sentiments are evolving, and because companies are paying more attention to responsible purchasing, national and international brands are enacting animal welfare policies. There are hundreds of companies that have made public-facing commitments to rid their supply chains of cages for egg-laying hens and gestation crates for sows (Cage Free World n.d.; Crate Free World, n.d.). Independent evaluation of the policies, management systems, reporting, and performance of companies with regard to animal welfare is also publicly produced (e.g., Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare). Welfare action is also being industry-led. As just some examples, members of the Dairy Sustainability Framework identified Animal Care as the number one priority in 2022 (DSF, 2023) and have included Animal Health and Welfare Plans as a part of their annual reporting process. Eight of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) member countries are also either developing or demonstrating progress toward global goals on animal health and welfare in 2023 (GRSB, 2024). Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 20 21 Beyond company- or industry-level decisions, both international and domestic trade is at risk or has been negatively affected by animal welfare issues. Industries have been severely disrupted (e.g., live export in Australia), received challenge in the court (e.g., fast-growing broilers in UK), and are a recognized risk by industry groups (e.g., Dairy SA, 2023). If consumer willingness to pay is a positive driver for animal welfare improvement, barriers to trade are an example of a command-and-control policy tool. Animal welfare can drive livelihood and economic opportunities from improved animal growth and production at an on-farm level through to positive and negative sales and trade opportunities. The diversity of these opportunities and wide range of existing examples makes this an important facet of sustainable production systems that animal welfare can connect to, and is a particularly valuable driver for animal owners, private enterprise, and government to explore. Climate and natural resource use Livestock production contributes to climate change and natural resource degradation, and the welfare of animals will be at risk from extreme weather events and overarching changes in climate. Contributions of good animal health to sustainability have been well quantified (e.g. Health For Animals, 2021). Beyond these health-related contributions, other aspects of welfare can positively contribute to climate and environmental interactions with livestock. Improving welfare can reduce climate emissions. Improving sheep health and welfare can provide relative reductions in GHG emissions of sheep. Compared to other emission mitigation measures, there are no welfare hazards of using this approach (Llonch et al., 2017). Evidence from the dairy industry demonstrates how positive cow health and welfare correlates with reduced GHG emissions. Clinical mastitis increased the carbon footprint of milk (Mostert et al., 2019). Reducing culling rates contributes to lower whole system GHG emissions (Knapp et al., 2014). Cows of 5–8 lactations have lower intensity emissions compared to heifers (von Soosten et al., 2020); with longevity attributed to good health and welfare, this demonstrates the importance of quality cow care. Awareness of production implications from climatic extremes can be a further driver for action that improves animal welfare. Swedish farmers attribute hot summers to reduced milk production and increased somatic cell count (SCC), indicating health issues in cows (Tamminen et al., 2024). Heat also impacts fertility and has other long-term consequences, but farmers do not connect the two as readily. Farmers may benefit from increased awareness of the impacts of animal heat in the longer term, also making the animals more thermally comfortable at the time. These needs for animal care and raising awareness for farmers will become more important with climate extremes and increasingly erratic weather conditions. Changing climate will make animal health and welfare management substantially more challenging. 2.4.4 20 21 Why animal welfare is a priority issue Good animal welfare and environmental outcomes can occur simultaneously. There are numerous examples of production systems that are beneficial to both climate and natural resources and to animal welfare. Silvopastoral systems, which suit tropical climates, are more resilient to climatic changes, have reduced methane emissions from improved nutrition, higher carbon sequestration, better soil water retention and deeper infiltration, and higher biodiversity compared with conventional extensive systems without trees or bushes. These systems lead to improved animal welfare due to reduced temperature stress, reduced parasite load, reduced stress and increased nutrition (CIWF, 2017; Broom, 2023). Mutual benefits between animal welfare and livelihoods in small-scale agroforestry systems have also been recognized (Gelan et al., 2022; Parlasca et al., 2023). Other alternative systems for dairying, including sustainable intensification and multifunctionality, are likely to have welfare benefits, but are less well documented (Clay et al., 2019). Each system is specific to climatic conditions needed for plant/tree growth as well as other key environmental factors (rain, soil, etc.). Pasture systems that use hay over winter are demonstrating positive environmental and animal welfare benefits in New Zealand dairying. The hay is used for animal bedding and insulation in colder winter months to help maintain their body temperature and energy, and it is hypothesized to reduce nitrate leaching and paddock pugging (mud) (AGresearch, 2022). This type of modification is less dramatic than an ecosystem change, like silvopastoral systems, for example. When cattle are housed indoors, much of the nitrogen and ammonia ends up in the atmosphere, where it contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, and particulate matter that impacts lung health (Wyer et al., 2022). Warmer climates allow for soil integrity to be conserved year-round, and so nitrogen and ammonia from cattle waste can be sealed in soil where it can be converted to nitrates as fertilizer for plants (Misselbrook and Gilhespy, 2021; RAND Europe, 2018). Cattle also prefer to be on pasture when conditions are good, so this benefits the cows, climate and natural resource use (O’Connor and Webster, 2023; Turner et al., 2023). Straw is a highly effective form of enrichment for indoor-housed pigs (Gody et al., 2019), as well as bedding material for multiple domestic animals. Increasing the amount of straw per animal can reduce emissions as it provides a barrier between the urine and air (RAND Europe, 2018). The use of straw facilitates the collection of waste as a solid rather than a liquid slurry, and this is easier to store and emits less ammonia (RAND Europe, 2018). The mixture of manure and straw can then be converted to biogas (e.g. Meyer et al., 2018). Each of the examples above describe systems that are specific to climate/resources that enable both environmental and animal welfare benefits. As alternative systems for production are evaluated, animal welfare needs to be a key consideration in all.   Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 22 2322 © K irs te n Bu hn e © M ou ss a I dr iss i Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 22 2322 3. Policy recommendations: Recognition of the role of animal welfare in sustainable livestock and agrifood systems 23 24 25 Animal welfare is a key component of sustainable livestock development, with broad relevance to animal health, public health, environmental sustainability, food security, nutrition, livelihoods and gender equality. Its integration into national, regional and global policies is increasingly recognized as essential to achieving the transformation of agrifood systems. The importance of animal welfare in promoting sustainable development and addressing interconnected environmental and health challenges has long been acknowledged. Since 2014, this recognition has been reflected in a series of international policy developments, including recomxons by the Committee on World Food Security (FAO, 2014; FAO, 2016), the identification of animal welfare as a priority in the Global Sustainable Development Report (UN, 2019), and the recognition of animal sentience by the United Nations Secretary- General in his 2020 report on Harmony with Nature (UN, 2020). In 2022, Member Nations adopted The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) resolution 5/14 (UNEP, 2022), which highlights the linkages between animal welfare, environmental outcomes and the SDGs. In 2023, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 78/168 further underscored the importance of strengthening efforts to enhance animal health and welfare in the context of sustainable food and agriculture (UN, 2023). The FAO Strategic Framework for Sustainable Livestock Transformation (2023) explicitly identifies animal health and welfare as essential to productivity, public health and environmental outcomes (FAO, 2023). Importantly, the relevance of animal welfare spans all types of production and working animals, regardless of species, systems or geographies. Scientific evidence outlined in this report confirms that good animal welfare reduces the negative effects of stress on animal health, with positive impacts on resilience and productivity. These findings support the need for a comprehensive policy response that embeds animal welfare in planning, programming and implementation across multiple sectors and levels of governance. The following recommendations are hence proposed for consideration by policymakers at global, regional and national levels, to explore more deeply how animal welfare can be potentially adopted into existing and new work programs: 24 25 Recognize and embed animal welfare within sustainable livestock and agrifood systems strategies � Acknowledge animal welfare as a cross-cutting enabler of sustainable development and include it in livestock strategies, agrifood policies, climate action plans, and biodiversity frameworks. � Integrate animal welfare considerations into global initiatives involving livestock, such as FAO Global Plan of Action for Sustainable Livestock Transformation, the Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and UNEA resolution 5/2. � Ensure animal welfare is reflected in assessments of livestock contributions to food security, nutrition, and healthy diets at all levels. Advance animal welfare as a driver of One Health and antimicrobial resistance mitigation � Promote the integration of animal welfare into One Health strategies and national AMR action plans as a mechanism to reduce disease risk and reliance on antimicrobials. � Support the adoption of animal management systems that align with improved welfare outcomes, including preventative veterinary care, responsible stocking densities, and species-appropriate housing and handling. � Strengthen implementation of frameworks such as the Progressive Management Pathway for Terrestrial Animal Biosecurity (PMP-TAB), ensuring animal welfare is a core component. Align animal welfare actions with environmental goals and biodiversity commitments � Promote the role of animal welfare in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen waste and land degradation, and enhancing the adaptive capacity of food systems. � Ensure that national contributions to climate and biodiversity goals—such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)—account for the links between improved animal welfare and ecosystem health. � Support diversified production systems (e.g. agroecological, silvopastoral, or welfare- enhancing indoor systems) that demonstrate co-benefits for welfare, biodiversity and climate outcomes. Support inclusive growth, equity and food security through improved animal welfare � Integrate animal welfare into rural development and gender equity policies, recognizing the key role of women and small-scale producers in livestock care and the productivity gains associated with welfare improvements. � Invest in training, infrastructure, and service delivery systems that enable producers— Policy recommendations: Recognition of the role of animal welfare in sustainable livestock and agrifood systems Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 27 particularly in LMICs—to adopt animal-friendly practices. � Promote knowledge exchange and inclusive innovation that respects local contexts while enhancing welfare, productivity, and resilience in livestock systems. Strengthen global and regional cooperation and knowledge systems � Encourage multilateral institutions and regional bodies to collaborate on animal welfare policy development, implementation and monitoring, particularly in the context of climate, biodiversity, One Health and sustainable agriculture. � Foster partnerships among governments, intergovernmental agencies, private sector actors, research institutions and civil society to accelerate progress and share good practices. � Expand evidence generation and dissemination through targeted investment in animal welfare data systems, research, and capacity building across regions 26 Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 2727 © G iu lia B ot an © Q ua ng N gu ye n Vi nh 26 Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 28 29 4. Conclusions 28 28 2928 This document captures examples of where good animal welfare can potentially create positive gains in key domains of livestock sustainability – health and welfare, food and nutrition, livelihoods and economic growth, and climate and natural resources. However, trade-offs between good animal welfare and sustainability domains also do occur. Examples include slow-growing strains of broiler chickens having a greater carbon footprint than fast- growing strains. Shade trees/hedges on farms have welfare, environmental, and biodiversity benefits, but the financial and labour requirements for maintenance by farmers may go unrecognized. Providing more space to animals may require significant infrastructure and investment. Mono-dimensional assessments of modifications to existing farming practices, or alternative farming approaches, risk missing broader benefits and trade-offs. It is recommended that evaluation occur more dynamically at the systems level, using One Health and One Welfare approaches, to capture impacts across all aspects of sustainability. It is of real importance that animal welfare be incorporated into assessments for the system benefits it can provide, and critically, for the lives of the animals themselves. A growing international consensus affirms that sustainable livestock transformation cannot be achieved without meaningful attention to animal welfare. The policy actions outlined in this report are both feasible and urgent, aligning with global efforts to promote efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems. Integrating animal welfare into policy and decision-making processes at national, regional and global levels will deliver tangible benefits for animals, people and the planet. Conclusions 30 31 Background Production and working animals are more than an agricultural commodity. They contribute to aspects of all United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly poverty alleviation, food security and nutrition, health and well-being, gender equality, economic growth, responsible production, and climate action. There are also strong social connotations to animal keeping. Our most common production animals — poultry, pigs, small and large ruminants — have welfare needs that, when provided, can improve their quality of life, as well as their productive lives and enhance the contributions they make to us and the environment. Working equids, which are a key production species in subsistence farming and lower- input food systems, have similar welfare needs and contributions to the domains of sustainability, and so have been equally incorporated and considered here. While animal welfare is recognized and incorporated by private and public groups, from individual farms to intergovernmental organizations, growth opportunities and needs remain. Considering animal welfare in production, development and policy is important for more equitable and sustainable outcomes for animal owners and society, and so the needs of the foundational stakeholder — the animals — are met. What is animal welfare Animal health and animal welfare are complementary but not synonymous concepts. Without good health, there cannot be good welfare, but good health alone does not guarantee good welfare. Not only does science recognize a multidimensional approach to animal needs, but animal owners describe this as well: farmers, consumers and society consider welfare to be more than just animal health (Alonso et al., 2020; Lemma et al., 2022; Vigors et al., 2021). 30 © M ar k S te bn ick i © M ag da Eh le rs Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 30 31 References 3130 32 33 Action for Animal Health. n.d. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://actionforanimalhealth.org/ Ager, E.O., Carvalho, T., Silva, E., Ricke, S.C., & Hite, J.L. 2023. Global trends in antimicrobial resistance on organic and conventional farms. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.07.536071 AGresearch. 2022. Soil Armour tools to help provide winter grazing options. Available at https://www.agresearch.co.nz/news/soil-armour-tools-to-help-provide-winter-grazing- options/ Albernaz-Gonçalves, R., Olmos Antillón, G., & Hötzel, M.J. 2022a. Linking Animal Welfare and Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming—A Review. Animals, 12(2):216. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12020216 Albernaz-Gonçalves, R., Olmos Antillón, G., & Hötzel M.J. 2022b. Waiting for markets to change me—Highstakeholders’ views of antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance in pig production in Brazil. Front. Vet. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.980546 Albernaz-Gonçalves, R., Olmos, G., & Hötzel, M.J. 2021. Exploring Farmers’ Reasons for Antibiotic Use and Misuse in Pig Farms in Brazil. Antibiotics, 10(3):331. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10030331 Alemayehu, G., Berhe, T., Gelan, E., Mokria, M., Jaldessa, J., Molu, J., Wieland, B., Knight Jones, T., & Doyle, R.E. 2022. Animal welfare knowledge, attitudes, and practices among livestock holders in Ethiopia. Front. Vet, Sci. 9:1006505. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1006505 Alonso, M.E., González-Montaña, J.R., & Lomillos, J.M. 2020. Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals, 10(3), 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385 Anderson, K.E. 2011. Comparison of fatty acid, cholesterol, and vitamin A and E composition in eggs from hens housed in conventional cage and range production facilities. Poultry Science, Volume 90, Issue 7. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01289 Australian Parliament. n.d. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research BBFAW Benchmark. n.d. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://www.bbfaw.com/benchmark/ Beaujouan, J., Cromer, D., & Boivin, X. 2021. From human–animal relation practice research to the development of the livestock farmer’s activity: an ergonomics–applied ethology interaction. Animal. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03469481v1/document 32 33 Bonsi, M., Anderson, N.E., & Carder, G. 2023. The socioeconomic impact of health problems of working equids in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review on the female- gender perspectives. CABI One Health. https://doi.org/10.1079/cabionehealth.2023.0023 Broom, D.M. 2023. The Sustainability of Cattle Production Systems. In: Haskell, M. (eds) Cattle Welfare in Dairy and Beef Systems. Animal Welfare, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-031-21020-4_13 Cage-Free World. n.d. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://cagefreeworld.org/ Cagienard, A., Regula, G., & Danuser, J. 2005. The impact of different housing systems on health and welfare of grower and finisher pigs in Switzerland. Prev Vet Med. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15795015/ Certified Humane. n.d. Humane Farm Animal Care. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://certifiedhumane.org/ CIWF. 2017. Silvopastoralism. Available at https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/7430275/case- study-6-silvopastoral-systemspdf_87238.pdf CIWF. n.d. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://www.ciwf.org.uk/ Clay, N., Garnett, T., & Lorimer, J. 2020. Dairy intensification: Drivers, impacts and alternatives. Ambio, 49, 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01177-y Colditz, I.G., & Hine, B. C. 2016. Resilience in farm animals: biology, management, breeding and implications for animal welfare. Animal Production Science, 56, 1961-1983. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15297 Crate-Free World. n.d. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://cratefreeworld.org/ da Costa, M.J., Huertas, S.M., Gallo, C., & Dalla Costa, O.A. 2012. Strategies to promote farm animal welfare in Latin America and their effects on carcass and meat quality traits. Meat Sci, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22503613/ Davis, H., Magistrali, A., Butler, G., & Stergiadis, S. 2022. Nutritional Benefits from Fatty Acids in Organic and Grass-Fed Beef. Foods, 11(5):646. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11050646 Dairy South Africa. 2023. Animal welfare – more than sentience?. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://milksa.co.za/node/3862 Diavão, J., Silva, A.S., Sguizzato, A.L.L., Silva, C.S., Tomich, T.R., & Pereira, L.G.R. 2023. How does reproduction account for dairy farm sustainability?. Anim Reprod. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-3143-AR2023-0066 Doyle, R. E. 2017. Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare. In Advances in sheep welfare (pp. 55-71). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2 References Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 34 35 DSF. 2023. DSF Annual Sustainability Progress – 2022 Calendar Year Reporting. Available at https://www.dairysustainabilityframework.org/publication/dsf-annual-sustainability- progress-2022-calendar-year-reporting/ Edwards, S.A. 2005. Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production. Livestock Production Science, Volume 94, Issues 1–2, Pages 5-14, ISSN 0301-6226. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.028 EFSA. 2023. Animal welfare, Topics. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/animal-welfare EMA & EFSA. 2017. EMA and EFSA Joint Scientific Opinion on measures to reduce the need to use antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry in the European Union, and the resulting impacts on food safety (RONAFA), EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4666 European Commission. 2019. Guide to good animal welfare practice for the keeping, care, training and use of horses, EU Platform on Animal Welfare. Available at https://food. ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/aw_platform_plat-conc_guide_equidae_en.pdf European Commission. 2022. Guidance for competent authorities and tourism operators to ensure the welfare of working equids in tourism. Available at https://food.ec.europa.eu/ system/files/2022-12/aw_platform_plat-conc_guide_equidae_work_tourism_en.pdf European Union. 2023. Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2996 FAO. 2009. Capacity building to implement good animal welfare practices. Report of FAO Expert Meeting - FAO Headquarters (Rome) - 30 September - 3 October 2008. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i0483e FAO. 2014. Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems. Rome, FAO. Available at https://www.fao.org/3/a-au866e.pdf FAO. 2015. Synthesis – Livestock and the Sustainable Development Goals, Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://www.livestockdialogue.org/fileadmin/ templates/res_livestock/docs/2016/Panama/FAO-AGAL_synthesis_Panama_Livestock_ and_SDGs.pdf FAO. 2016. Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition, What Roles for Livestock? Rome, FAO. Available at https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/CFS43/ MS207_Food_Sec_General_SAD_Livestock_en.pdf FAO. 2018. Shaping the future of livestock. Rome, FAO. Available at https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/I8384EN/ FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO. 2022. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0639en FAO. 2023. Sustainable livestock transformation – A vision for FAO’s work on animal production and health. Rome. Available at https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7474en 34 35 References FAO. 2023. Global Conference on Sustainable Livestock Transformation. [Concept Note, September 2023], [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/ bitstreams/1e7c61b7-a115-4266-8c91-ab4b5fc0b90d/content Fonterra. 2022. Goog Together from one generation to the next, Sustainability report 2022. Available at: https://view.publitas.com/fonterra/2022-sustainability-report/page/42 Geiger, M., Hockenhull, J., Buller, H., Tefera Engida, G., Getachew, M., Burden, F.A., & Whay, H.R. 2020. Understanding the Attitudes of Communities to the Social, Economic, and Cultural Importance of Working Donkeys in Rural, Peri-urban, and Urban Areas of Ethiopia. Front. Vet, Sci. 7:60. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00060 Gelan, E., Alemayehu, G., Berhe, T., & Doyle R. 2022. Synergies of Animal Welfare and Agroforestry (SAWA), Workshop report. Nairobi, Kenya, ILRI. Available at https://hdl.handle.net/10568/119297 Gody  , D., Nowicki, J. & Herbut, P. 2019. Effects of Environmental Enrichment on Pig Welfare—A Review, Animals. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9060383 Gorton, M., Yeh, C.H., Chatzopoulou, E., White, J., Tocco, B., Hubbard, C., & Hallam, F. 2023. Consumers’ willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label. Ecological Economics, Volume 209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107852 GOV UK. 2021. West Country Beef, Protected food name with Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://www.gov.uk/protected-food-drink-names/west-country-beef Grace, D.C., Diall, O., Saville, K., Warboys, D., Ward, P., Wild, I., & Perry, B. D. 2022. The Global Contributions of Working Equids to Sustainable Agriculture and Livelihoods in Agenda 2030. EcoHealth, 19, 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-022-01613-8 Grandin, T. 2023. A Practical Approach to Providing Environmental Enrichment to Pigs and Broiler Chickens Housed in Intensive Systems. Animals, 13(14):2372. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142372 GRSB. 2024. Annual Report 2023. Available at https://grsbeef.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/GRSB_2023_Annual_Report.pdf Haddy, E., Burden, F., Raw, Z., Rodrigues, J.B., Zappi Bello, J.H., Brown, J., & Proops, L. 2023. Belief in Animal Sentience and Affective Owner Attitudes are linked to Positive Working Equid Welfare across Six Countries. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 28(1), 116– 134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2023.2228029 Happy Hens Farm. n.d. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://thehappyhensfarm.com/ Health for Animals. 2021. Full Report - Animal Health and Sustainability: a Global Data Analysis. Available at https://healthforanimals.org/resources/publications/publications/full-report- animal-health-and-sustainability-a-global-data-analysis Herskin M.S., & Nielsen B.H. 2018. Welfare Effects of the Use of a Combination of Local Anesthesia and NSAID for Disbudding Analgesia in Dairy Calves—Reviewed Across Different Welfare Concerns. Front. Vet. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00117 Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 36 37 ICWE. 2020. Achieving Agenda 2030: How The Welfare Of Working Animals Delivers For Development. Available at https://www.icweworkingequids.org/wp-content/themes/icwe/ pdf/sdg-brochure.pdf IDF. 2019. IDF Guide to Good Animal Welfare in Dairy Production 2.0. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 498/2019. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca4286en IFC. n.d. IFC Practices for Sustainable Investment in Private Sector Livestock Operations. Available at https://www.ifc.org/en/what-we-do/sector-expertise/agribusiness-forestry/ supporting-sustainability/ifc-practices-for-sustainable-investment-in-private-sector- livestock-operations ISO. 2016. ISO/TS 34700:2016, Animal welfare management - General requirements and guidance for organizations in the food supply chain. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://www.iso.org/standard/64749.html OECD. 2023. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, Paris. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://doi.org/10.1787/81f92357-en. Keeling, L. J., Rushen, J., & Duncan, I. J. 2018. Understanding animal welfare. In Animal welfare (pp. 16-35). Wallingford UK: CAB International. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781786390202.001 Keeling, L., Tunón, H., Olmos Antillón, G., Berg C., Jones, M., Stuardo, L., Swanson, J., Wallenbeck, A., Winckler, C., & Blokhuis, H. 2019. Animal Welfare and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Front. Vet. Sci. 6:336. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00336 Knapp, J.R., Laur, G.L., Vadas, P.A., Weiss, W.P., & Tricarico, J.M. 2014. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. Journal of dairy science, 97(6), 3231-3261. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7234 Lebret, B. 2008. Effects of feeding and rearing systems on growth, carcass composition and meat quality in pigs. Animal, Volume 2, Issue 10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108002796 de Leeuw, E., Kickbusch, I., & Rüegg, S.R. 2024. A health promotion perspective on One Health. Can J Public Health, 115, 271–275. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-024-00872-y Lemma, M., Doyle, R., Alemayehu, G., Mekonnen, M., Kumbe, A., & Wieland, B. 2022. Using Community Conversations to explore animal welfare perceptions and practices of rural households in Ethiopia. Front. Vet. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.980192 Linden, J. 2013. Comprehensive Economic Analysis of Improvest Adoption by the US Pork Industry, The Pig Site. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/ comprehensive-economic-analysis-of-improvest-adoption-by-the-us-pork-industry 36 37 References Llonch, P., Haskell, M.J., Dewhurst, R.J., & Turner, S.P. 2017. Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective. Animal, Volume 11, Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116001440 Lundström, K., Matthews, K.R., & Haugen, J-E. 2009. Pig meat quality from entire males. Animal, Volume 3, Issue 11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990693 Magnusson, U., Boqvist, S., Doyle, R., & Robinson, T. 2022. Animal health and welfare for sustainable livestock systems. Rome, Italy. Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock. https:// hdl.handle.net/10568/125970 Mainau, E., Temple, D., & Manteca, X. 2012. Impact of dehorning and disbudding on the welfare of calves, AWEC, farm animals. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://awecadvisors.org/en/farm- animals/impact-of-dehorning-and-disbudding-on-the-welfare-of-calves/ Manteca, X. 2008. Physiology and disease. In Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals (pp. 69-76), Wallingford UK: CABI. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15297 McInerney, J. 2004. Animal welfare, economics and policy. Report on a study undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra, 68. Meagher, R. K., Beaver, A., Weary, D. M., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. 2019. A systematic review of the effects of prolonged cow–calf contact on behavior, welfare, and productivity. Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 102, Issue 7. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-16021 Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N. J., Littlewood, K. E., McLean, A. N., McGreevy, P. D., Jones, B., & Wilkins, C. 2020. The 2020 five domains model: Including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals, 10(10), 1870. Meyer, A.K.P., Ehimen, E.A., & Holm-Nielsen, J.B. 2018. Future European biogas: Animal manure, straw and grass potentials for a sustainable European biogas production. Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.05.013 Milk South Africa. 2023. Animal Welfare - More than sentience? [Cited 17 June 2025]. https:// milksa.co.za/node/3862 Misselbrook, T.H. & Gilhespy, S.L. 2021. Inventory of Ammonia Emissions from UK Agriculture 2019, Inventory Submission Report. Available at https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/ assets/documents/reports/cat07/2103191000_UK_Agriculture_Ammonia_Emission_ Report_1990-2019.pdf Mostert, P.F., Bokkers, E.A.M., de Boer, I.J.M., & van Middelaar, C.E. 2019. Estimating the impact of clinical mastitis in dairy cows on greenhouse gas emissions using a dynamic stochastic simulation model: a case study. Animal. https://doi.org/10.3390/dairy1010003 Murphy, E. & Legrand, A. 2023. Introduction to the concept of “welfare potential” of production systems and its practical relevance to welfare labelling. Front. Anim. Sci, 4:1225839. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2023.1225839 Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 38 39 Nielsen, C.L., Kongsted, H., Sørensen, J.T., & Krogh, M.A. 2021. Antibiotic and medical zinc oxide usage in Danish conventional and welfare-label pig herds in 2016–2018. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Volume 189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105283 Ospina Rios, S.L., Lee, C., Andrewartha, S.J., & Verdon, M. 2023. A Pilot Study on the Feasibility of an Extended Suckling System for Pasture-Based Dairies. Animals, 13(16):2571. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13162571 O’Connor, C. & Webster, J. 2023. Welfare of Dairy Cows in Pasture-Based Systems, In: Haskell, M. (eds) Cattle Welfare in Dairy and Beef Systems. Animal Welfare, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21020-4_5 Parlasca, M., Knößlsdorfer, I., Alemayehu, G., & Doyle, R. 2023. How and why animal welfare concerns evolve in developing countries. Animal Frontiers, Volume 13, Issue 1. https://doi. org/10.1093/af/vfac082 Perrin Ag Consultants Ltd. 2022. Whole systems impact of composting shelters in New Zealand, Our Land and Water Rural Professionals Fund 2021. Available at https://www. perrinag.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/R_Perrin-Ag_OLW_Whole-systems- impact-of-composting-shelters-in-NZ_Aug22_FINAL_compressed.pdf Petracci, M., Soglia, F., Madruga, M., Carvalho, L., Ida, E., & Estévez, M. 2019. Wooden-Breast, White Striping, and Spaghetti Meat: Causes, Consequences and Consumer Perception of Emerging Broiler Meat Abnormalities. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 18: 565-583. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12431 Rabobank. 2016. Dairy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Available at https://research.rabobank.com/far/en/sectors/dairy/dairy-and-the-sustainable- development-goals.html RAND Europe. 2018. The impact of ammonia emissions from agriculture on biodiversity An evidence synthesis. Available at https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/ evidence-synthesis/Ammonia/Ammonia-report.pdf Ravichandran, T., Perumal, R.K., Vijayalakshmy, K., Raw, Z., Cooke, F., Baltenweck, I., & Rahman, H. 2023. Means of Livelihood, Clean Environment to Women Empowerment: The Multi-Faceted Role of Donkeys. Animals, 13(12):1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121927 Rayner, A.C., Newberry, R.C., Vas, J., & Mullan, S. 2020. Slow-growing broilers are healthier and express more behavioural indicators of positive welfare. Sci Rep, 10, 15151. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72198-x Ricciardi, V., Ramankutt,y N., Mehrabi, Z., Jarvis, L., & Chookolingo, B. 2018. How much of the world’s food do smallholders produce?. Global Food Security, Vol. 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002 Rodrigues da Costa, M., & Diana, A. 2022. A Systematic Review on the Link between Animal Welfare and Antimicrobial Use in Captive Animals. Animals, 12(8):1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12081025 38 39 References Salmon, G. 2018. Fact Check 2: Livestock and Economy, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies publications, Edinburg Research Archive. http://hdl.handle.net/1842/30115 SASB Standards. 2023. Meat, Poultry & Dairy Sustainability Accounting Standard. Available at https://d3flraxduht3gu.cloudfront.net/latest_standards/meat-poultry-and-dairy- standard_en-gb.pdf SASDT. 2022. Industry achievements: SANS 1694 The welfare of dairy cattle, The Rotterdam Dairy Declaration. Available at https://www.sasdt.org.za/wp-content/ uploads/2022/06/3_3-JompieDSA-Animal-welfare-SASDT.pdf SDa Autoriteit Diergeesmiddelen. 2023. Het gebruik van antibiotica bij landbouwhuisdieren in 2022. Available at https://cdn.i-pulse.nl/autoriteitdiergeneesmiddelen/userfiles/sda%20 jaarrapporten%20ab-gebruik/AB-rapport%202022/def-sda-rapport-met-brief---het- gebruik-van-antibiotica-bij-landbouwhuisdieren-in-2022.pdf Siddique, H. 2023. ‘Frankenchicken’ farming in England against animal welfare law, high court told, The Guardian. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ may/03/frankenchicken-farming-in-england-against-animal-welfare-law-high-court-told da Silva, D.C.F., de Arruda, A.M.V., & Gonçalves, A.A. 2017. Quality characteristics of broiler chicken meat from free-range and industrial poultry system for the consumers. J Food Sci Technol, 54, 1818–1826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2612-x Sinclair, M., Lee, N.Y.P., Hötze,l M.J., de Luna, M.C.T., Sharma, A., Idris, M., Derkle,y T., Li, C., Islam, M.A., Iyasere, O.S., Navarro, G., Ahmed, A.A., Khruapradab, C., Curry, M., Burns, G.L., & Marchant, J.N. 2022. International perceptions of animals and the importance of their welfare. Front. Anim. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.960379 Sjölund, M., Postma, M., Collineau, L., Lösken, S., Backhans, A., Belloc, C., Emanuelson, U., Große Beilage, E., Stärk, K., & Dewulf, J. 2016. Quantitative and qualitative antimicrobial usage patterns in farrow-to-finish pig herds in Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Volume 130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.06.003 von Soosten, D., Meyer, U., Flachowsky, G., & Dänicke, S. 2020. Dairy cow health and greenhouse gas emission intensity. Dairy, 1(1), 20-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dairy1010003 Stadig, L. M., Rodenburg, T. B., Reubens, B., Aerts, J., Duquenne, B., & Tuyttens, F. A. 2016. Effects of free-range access onproduction parameters and meat quality, composition and taste in slow-growing broiler chickens. Poultry Science, Volume 95, Issue 12. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew226 Stephens, T. 2021. Kangaroo management and animal welfare. Ecological Management & Restoration, 22, 71-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12469 Sustainable Finance. 2024. Developing a Sustainable Finance Taxonomy for Aotearoa New Zealand. Available at https://sustainablefinance.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/ITAG- Taxonomy-Full-Recommendations-Report-FINAL.pdf Animal welfare for production and working animals: evidence and need for action 40 41 Tamminen, L.M., Båge, R., Åkerlind, M., & Antillón, G.O. 2024. Farmers' sense of the biological impact of extreme heat and seasonality on Swedish high-yielding dairy cows – A mixed methods approach. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Volume 224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2024.106131 Tarakdjian, J., Capello, K., Pasqualin, D., Santini, A., Cunial, G., Scollo, A., Mannelli, A., Tomao, P., Vonesch, N., & Di Martino, G. 2020. Antimicrobial use on Italian Pig Farms and its Relationship with Husbandry Practices. Animals. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030417 Taylor, P.S., Hemsworth, P.H., Groves, P.J., Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G., & Rault, J.-L. 2018. Ranging behavior relates to welfare indicators pre- and post-range access in commercial free-range broilers. Poultry Science, Volume 97, Issue 6. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey060 Taylor, P.S., Hemsworth, P.H., Groves, P.J., Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G., & Rault, J.-L. 2020. Frequent range visits further from the shed relate positively to free-range broiler chicken welfare. Animal, Volume 14, Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119001514 Temple, D., Lampreave, G., Mauriès, M., Amat, M., & Manteca, X. 2020. The Livestock Guardian Dog: the best friend of extensive livestock farming, AWEC, companion animals. https://awecadvisors.org/en/highlighted/the-livestock-guardian-dog-the-best-friend-of- extensive-livestock-farming/ Taylor, P.S., Schrobback, P., Verdon, M., & Lee, C. 2023. An effective environmental enrichment framework for the continual improvement of production animal welfare. Animal Welfare. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.5 The Ethical Dairy. n.d. [Cited 17 June 2025]. https://www.theethicaldairy.co.uk/about-ethical-dairy Turner, S.P., Canoz