The Animal Biology

Download full text in PDF

Kovtun OV, Admina NG. Animal welfare in livestock production: Biological and social dimensions and modern approaches to assessment. Bìol Tvarin. 2026; 28 (1): 13–25. DOI: 10.15407/animbiol28.01.013.
https://doi.org/10.15407/animbiol28.01.013
Received 12.02.2026 ▪ Revision 23.04.2026 ▪ Accepted 10.05.2026 ▪ Published online 11.06.2026

Animal welfare in livestock production: biological and social dimensions and modern approaches to assessment

O. V. Kovtun1*, N. G. Admina2

1Institute of Animal Biology of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, S. Gzhytsky Laboratory of Metabolism, 38 V. Stusa St., Lviv 79034, Ukraine
2Institute of Animal Husbandry of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, Laboratory of Livestock Technologies, 1-A Tvarynnykyv St., Kharkiv, 61026, Ukraine

This article presents a review and analysis of the main biological and social aspects of animal welfare and substantiates the methods used for its assessment and monitoring. The paper consists of an introduction, two main sections, and a list of references. The first section highlights the biological and social dimensions of animal welfare. The interdisciplinary nature of the animal welfare concept lies in its comprehensive consideration of various animal states—physical, biological, and affective—rather than focusing solely on productive characteristics, as was traditionally emphasized in agricultural practice. In modern livestock production, increasing importance is given to welfare-oriented management systems, as growing evidence indicates a close relationship between animal welfare, health status, productive performance, and reproductive functions. International organizations play a crucial role in preventing biased and inhumane treatment of animals. Institutions such as the World Organisation for Animal Health and the European Food Safety Authority are responsible for promoting animal welfare strategies worldwide. These organizations contribute to the development and implementation of global standards based on harmonized welfare principles for different animal species, including requirements for housing, transportation, and slaughter practices. The second section outlines and justifies the application of various methods for assessing and monitoring animal welfare in livestock production. A comprehensive welfare assessment based on multidisciplinary approaches enables an objective evaluation of an animal’s condition and facilitates the identification of deviations associated with stress, discomfort, or health disorders. Understanding animal welfare as a multidimensional phenomenon is critically important for improving the efficiency of livestock systems, ensuring the sustainable development of the agricultural sector, and fostering ethical approaches to animal management.

Key words: animal welfare, assessment and monitoring, physiological and behavioral indicators, Welfare Quality®, Five Domains model, ethical and social aspects, animal husbandry

  1. Agnew J, Hendery S. Global agricultural productivity report: every farmer, every tool. Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. 2023. Available at: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/ebec4836-70f0-4747-8045-fa36c33eeb12/content
  2. Alonso ME, González-Montaña JR, Lomillos JM. Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals. 2020; 10 (3): 385. DOI: 10.3390/ani10030385.
  3. Biasato I, D’Angelo A, Bertone I, Odore R, Bellino C. Compost bedded-pack barn as an alternative housing system for dairy cattle in Italy: effects on animal health and welfare and milk and milk product quality. Italian J Anim Sci. 2019; 18 (1): 1142– DOI: 10.1080/1828051X.2019.1623095.
  4. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Winckler C, Forkman B, Dimitrov I, Langbein J, Bakken M, Veissier I, Aubert A. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol Behav. 2007; 92 (3): 375–397. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.20002.003.
  5. Briant C, Riou M, Ruet A. Évaluation du bien-être des chevaux sur le terrain: protocoles disponibles, conditions et limites d’utilisation. INRAE Productions Animales, 2024; 37 (3): 7928. DOI: 10.20870/productions-animales.2024.37.3.7928. (in French)
  6. Broom DM. A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheoretica. 2011; 59 (2): 121–137. DOI: 10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3.
  7. Broom DM. Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. J Anim Sci. 1991; 69(10): 4167–4175. DOI: 10.2527/1991.69104167x.
  8. Broom DM, Fraser AF. Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare. 5th Wallingford, UK: CABI, 2022: 462 p.
  9. Bruckner DW. Animal welfare science, varieties of value and philosophical methodology. Anim Welfare. 2020; 29 (4): 387– DOI: 10.7120/09627286.29.4.387.
  10. Capitanio JP, Vandeleest J, Hannibal DL. Physiological Measures of Welfare. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds). Nonhuman Primate Welfare. Springer, Cham, 2023: 231–254. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-82708-3_10.
  11. Carbillet J, Rey B, Lavabre T, Chaval Y, Merlet J, Débias F, Régis C, Pardonnet S, Duhayer J, Gaillard JM, Hewison AJM, Lemaître JF, Pellerin M, Rannou B, Verheyden H, Gilot-Fromont E. The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio indexes individual variation in the behavioural stress response of wild roe deer across fluctuating environmental conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2019; 73: 144. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-019-2755-z.
  12. Clark B, Proctor A, Boaitey A, Mahon N, Hanley N, Holloway L. Animal health and welfare as a public good: what do the public think? Agric Human Values. 2024; 41: 1841–1856. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0.
  13. Dantzer R, O’Connor JC, Freund GG, Johnson RW, Kelley KW. From inflammation to sickness and depression: When the immune system subjugates the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008; 9(1): 46–56. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2297.
  14. De Almeida AM, Zachut M, Hernández-Castellano LE, Šperanda M, Gabai G, Mobasheri A. Biomarkers of fitness and welfare in dairy animals: healthy living. J Dairy Res. 2019; 86 (4): 379–387. DOI: 10.1017/S0022029919000803.
  15. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA J. 2012; 10 (6): 2767. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2767.
  16. European Commission. Farm to Fork Strategy: For a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. 2020. Available at: https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en
  17. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Technical assistance to support discussions on national risk management measures to address possible shortages of food and feed supply as a consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. EFSA Support Publ. 2022; 19 (7): EN-7407. DOI: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.EN-7407.
  18. Ferreira MF, Stilwell C, Stilwell G. Simplified internal audits of the welfare quality protocol in dairy farms: Are they effective in improving welfare practices? Animals. 2025; 15 (2): 237. DOI: 10.3390/ani15020237.
  19. Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet Scand. 2008; 50 (1): S1. DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1.
  20. Gebert J, Kuhne F. Effects of different husbandry systems and attitudes of cattle farmers on the behavior and welfare of cattle in Germany. J Appl Anim Welfare Sci. 2024; 29 (1): 34–45. DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2024.2409144.
  21. Hapgood JP, Avenant C, Moliki JM. Glucocorticoid-independent modulation of GR activity: Implications for immunoregulation. Pharmacol Ther. 2016; 165: 93– DOI: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2016.06.002.
  22. Hemsworth PH. Human–animal interactions in livestock production. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2003; 81 (3): 185– DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0.
  23. Huber N, Marasco V, Painer J, Vetter SG, Göritz F, Kaczensky P, Walzer C. Leukocyte coping capacity: An integrative parameter for wildlife welfare within conservation interventions. Front Vet Sci. 2019; 6: 105. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00105.
  24. Koolhaas JM, Bartolomucci A, Buwalda B, de Boer SF, Flügge G, Korte SM, Meerlo P, Murison R, Olivier B, Palanza P, Richter-Levin G, Sgoifo A, Steimer T, Stiedl O, van Dijk G, Wöhr M, Fuchs E. Stress revisited: A critical evaluation of the stress concept. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011; 35 (5): 1291–1301. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.02.003.
  25. Kuczynski T, Blanes-Vidal V, Li B, Gates RS, de Alencar Nääs I, Moura DJ, Berckmans D, Banhazi TM. Impact of global climate change on the health, welfare and productivity of intensively housed livestock. Intern J Agric Biol Eng. 2011; 4 (2): 1–22. DOI: 10.3965/j.issn.1934-6344.2011.02.001-022.
  26. Kushnerenko VG. The influence of stress factors on the quality of animal meat. Tavria Sci Bull. 2023; 131: 290–295. DOI: 10.32782/2226-0099.2023.131.35. (in Ukrainian)
  27. Lacetera N. Impact of climate change on animal health and welfare. Anim Front. 2019; 9 (1): 26–31. DOI: 10.1093/af/vfy030.
  28. Lee VE, Arnott G, Turner SP. Social behavior in farm animals: Applying fundamental theory to improve animal welfare. Front Vet Sci 2022; 9: 932217. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.932217.
  29. Linstädt J, Thöne-Reineke C, Merle R. Animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows and their validity and practicality: a systematic review of the existing literature. Front Vet Sci. 2024; 11: 1429097. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1429097.
  30. Losada-Espinosa N, Estévez-Moreno LX, Bautista-Fernández M, Galindo F, Salem AZM, Miranda-de la Lama GC. Cattle welfare assessment at the slaughterhouse level: Integrated risk profiles based on the animal’s origin, pre-slaughter logistics, and iceberg indicators. Prevent Vet Med. 2021; 197: 105513. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.105513.
  31. Main DCJ, Whay HR, Leeb C, Webster AJF. Formal animal-based welfare assessment in UK certification schemes. Anim Welfare. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. 2007; 16 (2): 233–236. DOI: 10.1017/S0962728600031419.
  32. Maji C, Patel NR, Suthar A, Das B. Animal welfare and public health in relation to milk hygiene. In: Rana T (ed). The Microbiology, Pathogenesis and Zoonosis of Milk Borne Diseases. Academic Press, 2024: 359– DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-443-13805-8.00023-5.
  33. Mellor DJ. Operational details of the Five Domains Model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals. 2017; 7 (8): 60. DOI: 10.3390/ani7080060.
  34. Mellor DJ. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living”. 2016; 6 (3): 21. DOI: 10.3390/ani6030021.
  35. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, Wilkins C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Updating the assessment of animal welfare. 2020; 10 (10): 1870. DOI: 10.3390/ani10101870.
  36. Mellor DJ, Reid CSW. Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. Improving the Well-being of Animals in the Research Environment. 1994; 3–18. Available at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=exprawel
  37. Moberg GP. Biological response to stress: Implications for animal welfare. In: Moberg GP, Mench JA (eds.). The Biology of Animal Stress. CABI, 2000: 1–21. DOI: 10.1079/9780851993591.0001.
  38. Moore RS, Cabana F, Nekaris KAI. Factors influencing stereotypic behaviours of animals rescued from Asian animal markets: A slow loris case study. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2015; 166: 131–136. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.02.014.
  39. Mormède P, Andanson S, Aupérin B, Beerda B, Guémené D, Malmkvist J, Manteca X, Manteuffel G, Prunet P, van Reenen CG, Richard S, Veissier I. Exploration of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal function as a tool to evaluate animal welfare. Physiol Behav. 2007; 92(3): 317–339. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.12.003.
  40. Narayan E, Barreto M, Hantzopoulou GC, Tilbrook A. A retrospective literature evaluation of the integration of stress physiology indices, animal welfare and climate change assessment of livestock. 2021; 11 (5): 1287. DOI: 10.3390/ani11051287.
  41. Neal SJ, Schapiro SJ, Magden ER. Longitudinal baboon (Papio anubis) Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), and correlations with monthly sedation rate and within-group sedation order. Vet Sci. 2024; 11 (9): 423. DOI: 10.3390/vetsci11090423.
  42. Nedosekov VV, Petkun GV. Welfare of dairy herd animals. Sci Rep NULES Ukraine. 2021; 17 (4): 120–132. (in Ukrainian)
  43. Odore R, Biasato I, Gardini G, D’Angelo A, Bellino C. Effects of compost-bedded pack barn on circulating cortisol and beta-endorphins in dairy cows: A case study. Animals. 2021; 11 (11): 3318. DOI: 10.3390/ani11113318.
  44. Ofner E, Amon T, Lins M, Amon B. Correlations between the results of animal welfare assessments by the TGI 35 L Austrian Animal Needs Index and health and behavioural parameters of cattle. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Anim Welfare. 2023; 12 (4): 571– DOI: 10.1017/S0962728600026208.
  45. Ogawa NN, Lima-Silva G, da Costa Barbon APA, da Costa Flaiban KKM, da Silva CA, Moura Rocha L, Bridi AM. Animal welfare assessment and meat quality through assessment of stress biomarkers in fattening pigs with and without visible damage during slaughter. Animals. 2024; 14 (5): 700. DOI: 10.3390/ani14050700.
  46. Ogi A, Campera M, Ienco S, Bonelli F, Mariti C, Gazzano A. The correlation between play behavior, serum cortisol and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in welfare assessment of dairy calves within the first month of life. Dairy. 2022; 3 (1): 1– DOI: 10.3390/dairy3010001.
  47. Terrestrial Animal Health Code: Animal Welfare. World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). 2023.
  48. Pereira P, Bašić F, Bogunovic I, Barcelo D. Russian-Ukrainian war impacts the total environment. Sci Total Environ. 2022; 837: 1555865. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155865.
  49. Perrone M, Mazzocchi C, Palladini N, Bava L, Ruggeri G. Farm animal welfare: consumers’ perception toward different breeds of animals in Italy. Animals. 2025; 15 (23): 3406. DOI: 10.3390/ani15233406.
  50. Pilatti JA, Vieira FMC. Environment, behavior and welfare aspects of dairy cows reared in compost bedded pack barns system. J Anim Behav Biometeorol. 2017; 5 (3): 97– DOI: 10.31893/2318-1265jabb.v5n3p97-105.
  51. Rault JL, van den Munkhof M, Buisman-Pijlman FTA. Oxytocin as an indicator of psychological and social well-being in domesticated animals: A critical review. Front Psychol. 2017; 13 (8): 1521. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01521.
  52. Rebez EB, Ninan J. Biomarkers in the cardiovascular system of animals: A review. Indian J Anim Health. 2024; 63 (1): 22–28. DOI: 10.36062/ijah.2024.08023.
  53. Romero M, Rodríguez-Palomares M, Sánchez JA. Animal-based measurements to assess the welfare of dairy cull cows during pre-slaughter. Animals. 2020; 10 (10): 1802. DOI: 10.3390/ani10101802.
  54. Rushen J. Problems associated with the interpretation of physiological data in the assessment of animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1991; 28 (4): 381– DOI: 10.1016/0168-1591(91)90170-3.
  55. Rushen J, de Passillé AM, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. The Welfare of Cattle. Springer Nature, 2008: 310 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6558-3.
  56. Sherwood ER, Toliver-Kinsky T. Mechanisms of the inflammatory response. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2004; 18 (3): 385– DOI: 10.1016/j.bpa.2003.12.002.
  57. Veissier I, Boissy A. Stress and welfare: Two complementary concepts that are intrinsically related to the animal’s point of view. Physiol Behav. 2007; 92 (3): 429– DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.11.008.
  58. Vissers LSM, van Wagenberg CPA, Baltussen WHM. A method for calculating the external costs of farm animal welfare based on the Welfare Quality® Front Anim Sci. 2023; 4: 1195221. DOI: 10.3389/fanim.2023.1195221.
  59. Von Borell E, Langbein J, Després G, Hansen S, Leterrier C, Marchant J, Marchant-Forde R, Minero M, Mohr E, Prunier A, Valance D, Veissier I. Heart rate variability as a measure of autonomic regulation of cardiac activity for assessing stress and welfare in farm animals — A review. Physiol Behav. 2007; 92 (3): 293– DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.01.007.
  60. Welfare Quality® Welfare Quality® assessment protocols for cattle, pigs and poultry. Lelystad, Netherlands: Wageningen UR, 2009. Available at: https://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/en-us/reports/assessment-protocols
  61. Wemelsfelder F. How animals communicate quality of life: The qualitative assessment of behaviour. Anim Welfare. 2007; 16 (S1): 25–31. DOI: 10.1017/S0962728600031699.
  62. Whay HR, Main DCJ, Green LE, Webster AJF. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: Direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet Rec. 2003; 153 (7): 197–202. DOI: 10.1136/vr.153.7.197.
  63. Wickens S. AWIN welfare assessment protocols: donkeys, goats, horses, sheep and turkeys. AnimWelfare. 2015, 24 (3): 357– DOI: 10.1017/S0962728600006990.
  64. Williams J, Randle H. Is the expression of stereotypic behavior a performance-limiting factor in animals? J Vet Behav. 2017; 20: 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.006.
  65. York RA. Assessing the genetic landscape of animal behavior free. Genetics. 2018; 209 (1): 223–232. DOI: 10.1534/gene118.300712.
  66. Zufferey R, Minnig A, Thomann B, Zwygart S, Keil N, Schüpbach G, Miserez R, Zanolari P, Stucki D. Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment in sheep. Animals. 2021; 11 (10): 2973. DOI: 10.3390/ani11102973.
AUTHOR GUIDELINES
PUBLICATION ETHICS
PEER-REVIEW PROCESS
PLAGIARISM POLICY
OPEN ACCESS POLICY
PRIVACY STATEMENT
COPYRIGHT AND LICENSING
ARCHIVE

ICLOGO

gslogoDOAJ logo colourcrossreff

Scilit0

FAO-AGRIS-logo-c13e10a2

cabi

ouci0.png

OpenAlex0

logo_ezb0

cambridge_university2

zdb_logo_weiss

EUI_Liblary

nbuv

WorldCat Logo

CC BY icon     Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0     
© 2016 The Animal Biology
© 2016 Institute of Animal Biology of NAAS
Editorial address: Institute of Animal Biology of NAAS, V. Stusa, 38, Lviv, 79034, Ukraine 
tel: +380-32-260-07-95
E-mail: editor.animbiol@gmail.com

Search