Integrating On-Farm Animal Welfare Assessments into Regulatory Frameworks: Challenges and Solutions for Improved Animal Care

Abstract

Animal welfare is a complex issue of growing importance in global agriculture. This chapter examines the challenges of integrating on-farm animal welfare assessments into Indian regulatory frameworks. It reviews theoretical approaches such as ethology, the Five Freedoms, and ecofeminism, emphasizing animal-based measures like body condition scoring for direct evaluation of animal well-being. These challenges include achieving consistent standards across India’s diverse farming systems, ensuring economic feasibility for farmers, and bridging potential gaps in understanding between farmers and regulators. This chapter advocates for a collaborative approach, involving industry, government, animal welfare science, and consumers, to develop practical, science-based regulatory frameworks tailored to Indian agriculture. Furthermore, technology, including precision livestock farming and sensors, offers promising tools to enhance assessment accuracy, efficiency, and affordability. Drawing on global models from Canada, the EU, and New Zealand, this chapter advocates for integrating on-farm welfare assessments into India’s agricultural regulations, tailored to the specific conditions of smallholder farms and indigenous livestock. This chapter calls for a collaborative and science-based approach to drive continuous improvement in animal care on Indian farms, promoting both animal welfare and agricultural sustainability.

1. Introduction

Animal welfare is a longstanding and widely understood concept among those involved in animal production and beyond. It encompasses both scientific and ethical dimensions. Essentially, it refers to an animal’s ability to adapt physiologically, behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally to its living environment, including both physical and social factors. In short, how an animal behaves reflects the conditions in which it is kept. Animal welfare depends on how animals perceive their living environment, taking into account not only the physical aspects but also the social aspects [1]. To ensure that animals’ welfare is not compromised and that the animals are stress free, the Five Freedoms must be completely fulfilled. To ensure the safety and quality of animal products, good animal welfare is an explicit goal. This includes providing animals with an environment and management system that promotes naturalness and harmony within the herd, allowing them to perform natural behaviors and achieve social harmony. The production system is not sustainable if animals show evidence of pain, disease, or distress as a result of an inadequate system or disharmony between the animals and the system. In this context, welfare assessment has many roles, such as identifying current welfare problems, checking if farm assurance and legislative requirements have been met, indicating risk factors leading to welfare problems, testing the efficacy of interventions, formulating a product information/labeling system, and serving as a research tool for evaluating and comparing production systems, environments, management systems, and animal genotypes [2]. Therefore, it is of crucial importance to be able to assess and evaluate the animals’ response to the system. However, there is no single established method for assessing animal welfare, and various regulatory processes have come into view.

Mainly three approaches are practiced for assessing animal welfare, that is, naturalistic, functional, and subjective [3]. Improvements in animal welfare may be achieved through (1) assessment of animal welfare, (2) identification of risk factors potentially resulting in welfare problems, and (3), interventions in response to the risk factors. One should be able to determine the impact of the interventions. Operational on-farm welfare assessment tools must involve measures that at the same time are (1) valid and reliable, (2) easily operated by trained people, and (3) require limited time.

On-farm welfare assessments have mainly been used for nonregulatory purposes, such as farmer education or to qualify for voluntary welfare assurance programs. Currently, there is an urgent need to incorporate on-farm assessments into regulatory structures to safeguard animal welfare.

2. Some of the theoretical approaches and frameworks used in animal welfare assessments

2.1 Ethology and behavioral biology

Ethological studies focus on animal behavior and its relation to welfare. Behavioral biologists, such as Patrick Bateson, suggest moral arguments for using animals in research that contributes to the understanding of biology and alleviation of suffering for humans and other animals. The effort is to minimize animal suffering while focusing research on important biological problems [4].

Ethology, the scientific study of animal behavior, is critical to understanding animal welfare because it provides insights into the needs and natural behaviors of animals. Behavioral biologists contribute to the field of animal welfare assessment by identifying behaviors that indicate well-being or distress.

Patrick Bateson is a proponent of studying animal behavior to enhance our understanding of their welfare. Bateson’s work highlights the moral responsibility to ensure that the usage of animals in research is defensible. The research should be valuable enough to warrant the use of animal subjects, and the potential benefits to human or other animal life should outweigh the moral cost. This approach emphasizes the refinement of research methods to reduce distress, replacement of animals with alternative methods wherever possible, and reduction in the number of animals used in research without compromising the quality of the scientific output. Studies on animal behavior have led to improved welfare assessment through direct observation of animals, looking for specific behaviors that are indicative of their mental state. For instance, certain stereotypic behaviors, such as pacing or bar-biting, are commonly interpreted as signs of frustration or distress. Conversely, the presence of natural behaviors, such as foraging or grooming, can be indicative of good welfare.

The incorporation of behavioral biology in welfare assessments also hinges on understanding that animals should be provided with opportunities to express species-specific behaviors, acknowledging that behavioral needs are as important as physical needs. This resulted in the design of environments that are more closely aligned with animals’ behavioral adaptations—a reflection of the “ethological need.”

2.2 Five freedoms and the animal needs index

The Five Freedoms represent a foundational concept in animal welfare that is embraced widely in assessments and guidelines for the humane treatment of animals. Formulated in the 1960s by the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council, the Five Freedoms are as follows:

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst: by ensuring animals have access to fresh water and a diet that maintains full health and vigor.

2. Freedom from discomfort: by providing an appropriate environment that includes shelter and a comfortable resting area.

3. Freedom from pain, injury, or disease: by prevention through good management practices and rapid diagnosis and treatment.

4. Freedom to express normal behavior: by ensuring sufficient space, proper facilities, and the company of the animal’s species.

5. Freedom from fear and distress: by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid mental suffering.

These principles have been operationalized into various welfare assessment tools and indices, such as the Animal Needs Index [5]. It takes into account numerous criteria that directly impact the well-being of animals, and enabling a structured and systematic approach to evaluate and score different aspects of an animal’s life and the conditions under which they are kept.

2.3 On-farm welfare assessment

This involves direct assessment methods on the farm, considering environment, management, and genetics. A discussion was made on implementing these assessments for regulatory purposes, reflecting a complex interaction of various factors affecting animal welfare [6].

On-farm welfare assessments acknowledge that animal welfare is influenced by various interacting factors. Observing animals in their typical farm environment is essential for a holistic evaluation. Various research underscores the need to assess the physical, biological, and psychological states of animals in their farm settings for a well-rounded approach to animal welfare.

The approach typically involves both resource-based measures (assessing the quality of the environment provided to the animals, such as space, shelter, and feeding systems) and animal-based measures (assessing the animals directly through health, behavior, and physiological indicators). Animal-based measures provide a more direct insight into the welfare of the animals and are often considered the most reliable indicators, as they are the ultimate recipients of their environment and management.

For regulatory purposes, on-farm welfare assessments might need to be standardized to ensure fairness and consistency across different farms and assessments. This standardization can be quite challenging due to the diversity of farming systems and the variability in animal responses to their environment. However, it was suggested that involving various stakeholders, including producers, regulatory bodies, animal welfare scientists, and representatives from animal welfare advocacy groups, can aid in establishing a consensus on what constitutes acceptable welfare standards and practices.

In conducting on-farm assessments, it is essential to have trained and skilled assessors to ensure that the welfare scoring is objective and repeatable. Interobserver reliability is important to reduce the influence of subjective judgment and ensure consistent welfare assessment. In addition to the training of personnel, the development of clear and practical assessment protocols is crucial.

On-farm welfare assessments must also consider the ethical and economic implications for the farmers. Standards and regulations should be set in a way that is practical, economically feasible, and does not pose an undue burden. This balanced approach aims to protect the welfare of the animals while also allowing for sustainable and viable farm operations.

Ultimately, on-farm welfare assessment is an evolving field that seeks to incorporate scientific research, ethical considerations, and practical realities. It offers a means to not only improve the welfare of the animals on farms but also to respond to public concern about the treatment of farm animals and enhance consumer confidence in agricultural products. The long-term goal is to support a transition toward farming practices that are more humane and sustainable.

2.4 Ecofeminism

This approach includes an “ethic of care” toward animals, emphasizing an effective response to animal suffering and well-being, and acknowledging the socio-political context of meat consumption and production.

Ecofeminism is an interdisciplinary framework that connects the exploitation and domination of women with that of animals and the environment. It seeks to understand and address the interconnectedness of all forms of oppression. Within ecofeminism, animal welfare is seen not only through the lens of avoiding animal suffering but also in terms of critiquing and dismantling the patriarchal structures that undervalue both nonhuman life and the feminine.

The dominant narratives have often sidelined the significance of animal domination as a part of the larger ecofeminist discourse on the domination of nature. The ongoing exploitation of animals is tied to the strained relationship between ecofeminism and animal liberation, showcasing how speciesism is inherently linked with forms of human discrimination such as racism, sexism, and classism. Engaging with ecofeminism obliges a critical look at our dietary choices and the moral consideration of animals [7].

These perspectives urge a reconception of animal welfare assessments that does not only evaluate the direct suffering of animals (through measures of health, comfort, or natural behavior) but also includes a broader ethical and political evaluation of the systems that perpetuate animal use and exploitation. This can lead to advocating for systems that reduce reliance on animal products, challenge intensive animal farming practices, and promote alternatives that are more aligned with ecofeminist principles.

Ecofeminism thus not only critiques the cruel treatment of animals in certain practices but also the underlying societal structures, including consumer habits and industrial practices, that perpetuate a cycle of exploitation and environmental degradation. It is about creating spaces for more compassionate and sustainable relations among humans, animals, and the environment, thereby aiming for a holistic approach to welfare that encompasses ecological health, animal well-being, and social justice.

2.5 Validation by expert opinion

Validation by expert opinion is a crucial process in the development and refinement of animal welfare assessment tools, such as decision support systems. Tools like decision support systems are designed to assist in the evaluation of welfare standards for animals. For example, overall welfare assessment tools for pregnant sows in housing and management systems can be validated by expert opinion to ensure their effectiveness and accuracy. These systems incorporate expert knowledge to enhance the objectivity and reliability of on-farm assessments [8]. The decision support systems, such as the sow welfare (SOWEL) model, utilize welfare-relevant attributes linked to the biological needs and scientific findings concerning the animals’ well-being. These attributes can include factors such as social contact, health and hygiene status, space per pen, and the availability of resources such as water and food. The validation process typically involves comparing the assessments made by the decision support system against the collective opinion of a panel of experts in animal welfare science. Experts are selected based on their knowledge and experience and are often asked to rank or score different housing systems or management practices based on their welfare implications. To ensure that the decision support system aligns with expert opinion, questionnaires or surveys may be used to gather experts’ assessments of various welfare attributes. This captures a broad range of perspectives and provides insights that may not be immediately obvious from the data alone. The aim is to calibrate the tool so that its outputs correspond closely with the collective judgment of knowledgeable individuals in the field. Expert opinion is used as a form of validation because it encapsulates years of observational studies, research findings, and practical experience within the field of animal welfare. Experts are able to integrate their understanding of animal behavior, physiology, and welfare science to inform their judgments. However, while expert opinion is invaluable, it is also important to recognize that it is not free from subjectivity. Hence, when validating decision support systems, it is crucial to have a diverse range of expert opinions to balance individual biases and to consider using a formalized consensus-building process.

Furthermore, expert validation is only one part of the process. Ongoing refinement of these systems with empirical data from on-farm assessments, outcomes of welfare interventions, and advances in the understanding of animal needs and behaviors are necessary. This comprehensive approach helps in evolving the decision support systems to be more precise, reliable, and reflective of current welfare science.

2.6 Animal-based measures

Directly assessing the state of animals using measures such as body condition scoring (BCS) in dairy cattle is an approach to assess welfare from an animal-centric perspective [9]. Animal-based measures are the cornerstone of a contemporary and holistic approach to assessing animal welfare. They focus on the actual state of the animals rather than just the environmental or management factors. These measures are indicators of the animal’s health, behavior, and physiological status, providing a direct assessment of their well-being. BCS is a practical method of assessing an animal’s fat reserves, which can indicate the nutritional status and overall energy balance of the animal. A standardized scoring system, often on a scale from 1 to 5, is used to evaluate the animal’s body fat by palpation and visual assessment of certain anatomical landmarks, such as the spine, ribs, and tailhead.

Effective BCS provides valuable information on an individual animal’s health and is predictive of future performance, reproductive efficiency, and potential health problems. For example, over-conditioned cows (those with a high BCS) are at greater risk of metabolic and peripartum diseases following calving, while under-conditioned cows (those with a low BCS) may have lower peak milk yields and compromised reproductive performance. Animal-based measures are not limited to BCS and include other assessments, such as lameness scoring, lesion scoring, and behavioral observations, that capture the presence of natural behaviors, social interactions, or abnormal behaviors indicative of stress or poor welfare. It is crucial that those conducting these assessments are trained and experienced to ensure accuracy and consistency. Animal-based measures are valuable because they reflect the direct outcomes of the animals’ genetics, nutrition, environment, and management. They provide actionable data that can be used to make management decisions, such as dietary adjustments, housing modifications, or changes to handling practices to improve animal welfare.

Moreover, animal-based measures are increasingly recognized as crucial for transparently communicating welfare assurance to consumers and regulatory purposes, as society and regulatory bodies demand evidence of good welfare practices. Continual improvements in animal welfare science are refining these measures, making them more reliable, valid, and applicable across diverse farming systems.

In conclusion, animal-based measures such as body condition scoring in dairy cattle serve as a valuable tool for on-farm welfare assessment. They offer a direct reflection of an animal’s well-being and allow for targeted interventions, overall contributing to the advancement and enforcement of animal welfare standards.

3. Concept of on-farm welfare assessment

Various countries and organizations have developed their criteria for assessing welfare. It is known that the animals cannot speak to tell how they feel but they express the feelings by their body language. A scientific method must be involved for assessing their body language that would improve the understanding of the experiences of farm animals and thus interpret health and welfare measurements more precisely [10]. This science-based assessment could prove to be a more universal approach dealing with animal welfare, as such approach would definitely attempt to accommodate most views in widely accepted guidelines [11]. The scientific work on animal welfare has been more recently highlighted in the last 15 years. The concepts were refined to develop various methods to assess animal welfare. The main focus of assessment is on animal production systems, which may be either nutrition, housing, health, human interaction, or disease. Some measures of animal welfare involve assessing the degree of impaired function associated with injury, disease, and malnutrition. Similarly, other assessment measures include the information on needs of animals and other affective states such as hunger, pain, stress, and fear, also by measuring animals’ strengths of preferences, motivations, and aversions. Others also measure the animal’s physiological, behavioral, and immunological changes that animals show in response to various challenges [12, 13, 14]. Health assessment should not be combined with disease assessment, as health is a broad term that encompasses both normal and diseased states. Health assessment includes a wide range of indicative measurements, while diseases have comparatively fewer indicators. The disease is in many cases regarded as important to welfare because it is often associated with negative experiences such as pain, discomfort, and distress [15]. For measuring animal welfare, assessment needs to be based on a wide range of measures in addition to health indices, as disease is just one of the major criteria [16, 17]. However, these measuring indicators are difficult to explain, and normal ranges may be difficult to establish or interpret due to variations in individuality, which may be due to temperament, breed, and other factors. For a scientific approach to animal welfare assessment, prime importance should be given to considering the individuality of each animal and the specific factors affecting its welfare on a case-by-case basis before making a judgment.

The welfare assessment system depends on whether the goal is to certify or control the level of welfare on a specific farm, to evaluate the welfare in different productions system, or to serve as an advisory tool that allows the farmers to identify, prevent, or solve welfare issues on their farms [18]. Two notable welfare assessment systems that focus on housing systems and management are the Animal Needs Index (ANI) and the RSPCA’s Freedom Food Scheme, which was launched in 1994. The ANI system consists of five important husbandry components, that is, possibility of movement, social contact, condition of the flooring, indoor climate, and stockman’s care and consists of scoring of the housing system [19]. Freedom Food Scheme is based on Five Freedoms of animal welfare listed by FAWC (1993) [3]. In Europe, animal welfare assessment is developed focusing on the housing system and management. Still, more of the indicators are required to be included in the assessment [12]. Consequently, behavioral and health indicators have to be developed for assistance in system and management parameters in the provision of a complete welfare assessment [20, 21]. The development of methods for assessing welfare at the herd level allows the farmer to use it as a management tool.

Science-based assessment involves two different schools for assessing the welfare of animals’ needs. One school suggests that welfare is all related to the animals’ physical health and well-being. The other school deals with psychological health and the animals’ feelings. These two schools later came to be known as biological school and feelings school. The assessment based on biological functioning was found to be more advantageous and satisfactory as the variables involved in the measurement are substantive and relatively easier to measure. A new framework has been initiated for the assessment of on-farm animal welfare that combines the three determinants that are crucial when discussing the important topic of animal welfare: animal, human, and housing. The framework is made up of three basic elements: the classical welfare analysis with an existing welfare assessment tool, an assessment of the stockholder, and an implementation of the free choice profiling technique.

4. Understanding the importance of animal welfare in farming practices

Animal welfare in farming practices is a multifaceted issue that encompasses the health, behavior, and well-being of animals raised for agricultural purposes. Understanding its importance and integrating this understanding into regulatory frameworks is paramount for ensuring ethical treatment and sustainable farming operations. The significance of animal welfare is increasingly acknowledged not only for ethical reasons but also for the broad societal implications it has. It is understood that good animal welfare practices can lead to healthier animals and higher quality products, which are centrally tied to the social and economic outcomes of farmers and related industry workers.

Farm animal welfare is often conceptualized through various frameworks, which include resource-based measures, such as the provision of appropriate food, water, and housing, and animal-based measures, which provide a more direct assessment of the animal’s welfare through observations of their health and behavior [6]. When designing on-farm animal welfare assessments for regulatory purposes, the challenge is to select criteria that accurately reflect animals’ well-being while also being acceptable and practicable within diverse farming systems. This challenge is compounded by the fact that views on what constitutes good welfare can vary significantly between producers and nonproducers [6]. Producers often place higher importance on aspects such as stockmanship and effective handling to reduce stress. Nonproducers, on the other hand, are usually more concerned with the animal’s ability to express natural behaviors and to live in an environment that they view as being more “natural.” This disconnect is why collaborative approaches, involving both groups, are essential when developing welfare criteria, leading to standards that are both scientifically valid and socio-ethically acceptable.

To ensure validity, a welfare assessment must be objectively quantifiable, repeatable, and capable of distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable welfare states.

Technological advancements can aid in achieving more precise and less subjective welfare assessments. Decision support systems, for instance, have been developed to assist in evaluating the welfare of pregnant sows and can be an integral part of welfare assessment protocols.

5. Navigating the complexities of on-farm animal welfare assessments

Navigating the complexities of on-farm animal welfare assessments entails understanding the layered dimensions of farm animal care and the multitude of factors that affect it. Effective welfare assessments must evolve to encompass the varied definitions of “good welfare” from different stakeholders while adhering to scientific principles for validation and reliability. Farm animal welfare is affected by a complex interaction of genetic, environmental, and management factors, which means that standards based purely on the physical environment are insufficient predictors of animal well-being. A shift toward on-farm welfare assessments that involve direct animal observations and measurements has been recognized as necessary for more accurate representations of the animals’ state. There exists a diversity in the perception of what constitutes good welfare between various stakeholders, particularly between producers and nonproducers. Producers focus on good stockmanship, parasite control, and practical aspects of animal handling, while nonproducers place greater eminence on allowing animals to express natural behaviors and live in environments perceived as “natural” [6]. These differences can influence the selection of criteria for welfare assessments, and the challenge lies in harmonizing the goals of various stakeholders and the accepted scientific understanding of animal welfare into a workable and credible assessment program. To bridge the gap, deliberative processes involving both producers and nonproducers may be proposed to create a platform for discussion and agreement on animal welfare standards. For example, in New Zealand and Canada, projects have demonstrated that collaborative efforts can result in widely accepted and practical welfare assessment schemes [6]. In New Zealand, the development of on-farm welfare assessments for pigs was achieved using a consultative approach, where indicators were selected in cooperation with industry stakeholders, including producers, pig veterinarians, and members of animal protection organizations.

Canada’s approach to dairy cattle welfare also reflects a collaborative strategy. The code of practice for the care and handling of dairy cattle was developed through a multi-stakeholder process that included inputs from producers, regulators, veterinarians, and the humane movement. Notably, this process culminated in a set of agreed-upon standards that included the use of pain management during disbudding—a painful procedure whereby young calves have their horn buds removed to prevent horn growth. These deliberative models not only provide a space for stakeholders to voice their concerns and contributions but also integrate a scientific understanding of animal welfare into the standards. In the case of the Canadian dairy industry, for example, the guidelines crafted would have been informed by scientific literature and research to ensure that the welfare measures were grounded in empirical evidence and best practices. Deliberation in this context serves multiple purposes. It helps align welfare outcomes with societal values, addresses public concerns, and ensures that industry practices meet both ethical and scientific welfare standards.

When setting these standards, the distinction between evaluating practices and quantitative measures is crucial. Practices such as certain housing systems or painful procedures can be straightforwardly deemed ethically unacceptable, while quantitative measures may require the gathering of extensive data to determine what levels of welfare are actually being met on farms producing acceptable welfare outcomes. The assessment process must also ensure fairness and objectivity, preventing “false failures” that could unjustly jeopardize a producer’s livelihood. Consistent training of auditors and identification of objective measures are required. Scientific research can assist by providing data on the precision and repeatability of scoring systems, as seen with the welfare quality assessment protocol developed for dairy cattle. Techniques such as BCS in dairy cattle are pivotal for on-farm assessments. They enable the evaluation of an animal’s nutrition and health status through visual and palpable assessment of body fat and muscle, offering immediate insights [9].

6. Assessment challenges: bridging the gap between farmers and regulators

The sources provided do not contain information directly related to the specific challenges of bridging the gap between farmers and regulators within the context of animal welfare assessments. However, based on general knowledge of the topic, there are several key challenges when it comes to aligning perspectives and practices between farmers and regulators:

• Diverse perspectives on welfare: there can be substantial differences in how animal welfare is perceived by farmers versus regulators or the general public. Farmers often emphasize practical aspects of animal husbandry such as stockmanship and production efficiency, while regulators may focus on broader societal concerns and ethical standards [6].

• Communication and trust: effective communication is essential but often lacking; both farmers and regulators need clear, open, and consistent dialog to understand each other’s concerns and objectives. Mutual trust is crucial for collaboration and compliance.

• Economic considerations: regulators may propose standards that farmers perceive as economically unsustainable or that require significant changes to established practices. Conversely, regulators may feel that farmers’ economic pressures could compromise welfare standards.

• Standard setting: developing welfare standards that are both scientifically grounded and socially acceptable is challenging. They need to be specific enough to be meaningful and measurable, yet flexible enough to apply to different farming systems.

• Consistency and fairness in enforcement: ensuring that welfare assessments are carried out consistently and fairly across farms is imperative to maintain credibility and trust in the regulatory system. Farmers need assurance that assessments will not lead to false failures due to subjective judgments.

• Knowledge and education gap: there may be a gap in knowledge and education about animal welfare science and the rationale behind certain regulations among farmers. At the same time, regulators may lack a practical understanding of farming operations and constraints.

• Cultural differences: different cultural contexts can affect how animal welfare is valued and managed on farms. These differences need to be bridged to develop welfare standards that are universally relevant and acceptable.

• Deliberative processes: engaging in deliberative processes involving diverse stakeholders can help to develop standards that are reasonable, attainable, and reflect the values of the community. This could include workshops, focus groups, and advisory committees.

• To address these challenges, it is important to involve a wide range of stakeholders in the development and implementation of welfare standards. Collaborative efforts should be informed by the best available science and ethical considerations and should be transparent, adaptable, and supported by adequate resources for education.

7. Strategies for incorporating animal welfare into regulatory standards

Incorporating animal welfare into regulatory standards involves a multifaceted approach that includes scientific research, stakeholder engagement, and careful consideration of ethical implications. Based on the information and examples discussed in the provided sources, here are some strategies for effectively embedding animal welfare into regulatory frameworks:

• Stakeholder involvement: engage a wide range of stakeholders, including farmers, animal welfare scientists, veterinarians, animal welfare advocates, and consumers, in a deliberative process to establish criteria that reflect societal values and scientific understanding of animal welfare.

• Setting clear standards: develop and implement clear, objective, and enforceable standards that specify minimum levels of care and acceptable practices.

• Science-based approach: use the latest research to establish standards, ensuring they are based on objective measures of welfare and are consistent with the best available scientific knowledge [22].

• Ethical considerations: consider the ethical implications of farming practices and integrate these considerations into regulatory standards to ensure the humane treatment of animals.

• Transparency and public availability: make standards accessible and transparent to the public to promote accountability and consumer trust in the welfare assurances provided by regulatory frameworks.

• Use of on-farm assessments: implement on-farm welfare assessments using resource-based and animal-based measures to provide direct evidence of the animals’ conditions, with a focus on outcomes rather than just inputs [6].

• Regular updates and review: establish mechanisms to regularly review and update welfare standards in response to new scientific findings, technological advancements, and evolving societal expectations.

• Training and education: provide education and training for farmers, auditors, and other stakeholders on the requirements and the rationale behind them, ensuring widespread understanding and compliance.

• Monitoring and enforcement: set up robust systems for monitoring compliance and enforcing standards, including penalties for noncompliance and support for those who strive to meet the standards.

• Promoting best practices: encourage the adoption of best practices beyond the minimum standards through incentives, recognition programs, and consumer labeling schemes that inform about higher welfare conditions.

• International collaboration: work toward the harmonization of welfare standards across different jurisdictions to promote high welfare standards globally and to facilitate international trade.

• Funding and support for transition: provide financial and technical support to help producers transition to systems that improve animal welfare, recognizing that such changes often involve significant investment.

8. The role of technology in enhancing on-farm welfare assessments

The role of technology in enhancing on-farm welfare assessments is pivotal as it expands the capability for more accurate, efficient, and objective measurements of animal health and well-being. Here are ways technology is applied in on-farm welfare assessments, using the provided sources as reference points:

Precision livestock farming: PLF involves the use of technologies to closely monitor and manage the welfare of animals on an individual basis. These technologies collect and analyze data on animal growth, reproduction, health, and overall welfare. Precision livestock farming is a contemporary approach to animal farming that employs advanced technologies to enhance productivity, management, and animal welfare. By using a combination of sensors, data analysis, and automation, PLF enables farmers to monitor the condition and performance of individual animals in real time. This approach allows for more informed and timely decisions to be made regarding animal health and welfare.

Here is how PLF contributes to better welfare assessments and management:

1. Individual animal monitoring: PLF utilizes technologies, such as wearable sensors, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, and cameras, that continuously gather data on each animal’s activities, behaviors, and physiological state. The recorded data can include movement patterns, feeding behavior, and indicators of stress or illness.

2. Health management: early detection of health issues is a significant benefit of PLF. For instance, changes in an animal’s behavior or activity may be indicative of illness, and PLF systems can alert farmers to these changes quickly, so they can intervene before conditions worsen.

3. Improved reproduction management: technologies such as activity monitors and automated estrus detection systems can indicate optimal breeding times, helping to improve reproduction rates and reduce the stress associated with missed breeding opportunities.

4. Enhanced nutrition: automated feeding systems provide precise control over diet, ensuring that each animal receives the right amount of food and nutrients based on its individual requirements, activity levels, and productivity data.

5. Environmental management: PLF can include environmental sensors that track factors such as temperature, humidity, and ammonia levels. Automated control systems can adjust the environment to the ideal conditions for animal comfort and welfare.

6. Data analysis and decision support: the vast amount of data collected by PLF technologies are analyzed to provide farmers with actionable insights into animal welfare and farm management. Advanced analytics can predict health trends and recommend adjustments to improve welfare outcomes.

7. Stress reduction: minimizing human-animal interaction in stressful situations, such as milking or feeding, through automated systems can reduce stress for the animals. Additionally, maintaining optimal living conditions using environmental controls enhances overall animal well-being.

8. Labor efficiency: PLF technologies can facilitate more efficient use of labor on the farm, allowing staff to focus on tasks that improve animal care and welfare rather than routine monitoring and data collection.

Precision livestock farming represents a shift toward more sustainable and welfare-oriented animal farming practices. It aligns closely with society’s growing expectations for ethical treatment of animals in agricultural systems and helps farmers to meet these expectations in an economically viable way.

• Automated monitoring systems: farms can utilize automated systems to monitor and adjust environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and ventilation, all of which are critical to animal welfare. For instance, climate control systems mitigate heat stress in livestock by maintaining optimal temperature and air quality within the barns. These systems are crucial in organic farming, where welfare standards are strict (The IFOAM basic standards for organic production and processing, n.d).

• Wearable sensors: sensors can be attached to animals to monitor health indicators such as body temperature, heart rate, and movement patterns. This technology assists in the early detection of disease or discomfort, enabling timely intervention and treatment [6].

• Dairy farming technologies: tools like automated milking systems and BCS software capture detailed data on milk yield and cow health, aiding in the assessment of dairy cattle welfare [9].

• Unmanned aerial vehicles: UAVs, or drones, offer a way to remotely monitor animal welfare, especially in extensive farming systems. They can survey large areas and use visual or thermal imaging to detect changes in animal behavior, body condition, or identify animals in distress.

• Decision support systems: these systems integrate data from various technologies and apply algorithms to aid in decision-making. They provide recommendations for management actions to improve welfare, based on an analysis of collected farm data [8].

• Virtual fencing: this technology allows for the control and monitoring of livestock movements using GPS and wireless technologies, which can help in managing grazing and prevent overstocking, thereby promoting better welfare.

The integration of on-farm welfare assessments into regulatory frameworks is a progressive step that several countries around the world have taken to enhance animal welfare. These assessments can take various forms, such as welfare scoring systems for evaluating animal body conditions, or more comprehensive frameworks that measure a range of welfare indicators. Examining such global practices can provide models that could be adapted to the context of India, taking into account the country’s unique agricultural landscape, species bred, and socioeconomic factors.

In the European Union, welfare assessments are part of a broader regulatory mechanism that includes the Welfare Quality® project. This comprehensive assessment protocol covers cattle, pigs, and poultry and looks at a wide range of factors, from housing and feeding to health and behavior. It aims to provide a standardized approach to welfare assessment that can be used across the EU, reflecting the latest scientific research and societal concerns about animal welfare. The system is designed to be rigorous and reliable, with trained assessors and standardized methods for scores that can be compared across farms and countries.

Canada is another example where welfare assessments have been codified into the regulatory framework. In particular, the Canadian National Farm Animal Care Council oversees the development of codes of practice for the care and handling of farm animals. These codes serve as guidelines for the minimum standards of animal care and include assessments such as BCS for dairy cattle, among other welfare indicators. These measures are developed in collaboration with stakeholders, including farmers, veterinarians, researchers, and animal welfare groups, creating a sense of shared responsibility and buy-in from the industry.

New Zealand has developed an on-farm welfare assessment scheme for pigs using a model involving producers, veterinarians, and animal welfare organizations. This scheme employs a “traffic-light” system of green, amber, and red to score indicators of welfare that were selected in consultation with all parties. This collaborative approach can facilitate acceptance and compliance with welfare standards by engaging stakeholders in the process [6].

In adapting such models to India, it is crucial to consider the particular conditions of Indian agriculture, which is characterized by a large number of smallholder farms and a significant population of indigenous cattle breeds. India can potentially adopt a multi-stakeholder approach to developing welfare assessments, as seen in New Zealand’s pig welfare scheme. This model encourages buy-in from local farmers by involving them directly in the creation of assessment criteria and standards.

Further, the use of basic and easily trainable assessment methods, such as BCS, for dairy cattle could be beneficial for widespread uptake in India, where varying levels of access to education and veterinary services can be a challenge.

9. Conclusion

The integration of on-farm animal welfare assessments into regulatory frameworks is essential for ensuring good animal welfare and building a more sustainable and ethical food production system within India. A multifaceted approach that embraces scientific best practices, technological innovation, and stakeholder collaboration is crucial for success.

Direct animal-based measures, such as BCS, and resource-based assessments of housing and environment, offer a comprehensive perspective on animal welfare. These assessments should be guided by theoretical frameworks, such as ethology, the Five Freedoms, and ecofeminism, to ensure a holistic understanding that encompasses animal behavior, basic needs, and the broader societal implications of livestock management.

Technology plays a transformative role in enhancing on-farm assessments. Precision livestock farming, automated monitoring systems, wearable sensors, decision support systems, and even drones empower farmers and regulators with more precise, efficient, and objective ways to gather data on animal health, behavior, and environmental conditions. This data-driven approach allows for timely interventions, targeted management changes, and continuous improvement in welfare outcomes.

To successfully implement welfare assessments in India, lessons can be drawn from international examples in the European Union, Canada, and New Zealand. A collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach involving producers, animal welfare scientists, veterinarians, policymakers, and the public is critical for developing contextually relevant standards that are both scientifically sound and practically achievable.

Further research is essential to continue validating animal-based measures, optimizing technological tools, and exploring economically viable welfare-enhancing practices specifically tailored to India’s diverse agricultural landscape. Additionally, consumer education and awareness campaigns can drive the demand for higher welfare standards, creating a market incentive for ethical farming practices. Such a commitment aligns with growing societal expectations for ethical food production, ultimately benefiting both animals and the agricultural sector.

The ultimate goal is not just to prevent cruelty but to proactively promote good welfare for farm animals. Prioritizing animal-based measures, investing in technologies that enhance monitoring and data analysis, and engaging all stakeholders in shaping regulations will move India toward a future where animal welfare is an integral part of sustainable agriculture.