Soa 9 dataset glossary of animal welfare
SOA9 DATASET-GLOSSARY OF ANIMAL WELFARE
This work was co-funded by the European Union's Horizon Europe Project 101136346 EUPAHW.
Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency.
Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
To view and download the original glossary, go to Zenodo, the EU Open Research Repository.
| Term | Definition | Original Reference | Reference Details / Additional References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of an animal based measure | The accuracy of an animal-based measure (ABM) refers to the degree to which a measurement correctly reflects the true physical or mental state of the specific welfare aspect being evaluated. It is comprised of several key elements, such as validity, reliability (inter-observer, intra-observer, and test-retest reliability), sensitivity, specificity, and precision. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs. EFSA Journal2012;10 (1):2512. 85 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2512. | — |
| Adverse effect | A negative welfare consequence resulting from factors/hazards acting upon the animal. This includes the animal’s physical and/or mental state. | Højlund Nielsen, B., Angelucci, A., Scalvenzi, A., Forkman, B., Fusi, F., Tuyttens, F., ... & Thomsen, P. T. (2014). Use of animal based measures for the assessment of dairy cow welfare ANIBAM. EFSA Supporting Publications, 11(9), 659E. | Broom,D. M., 20193017080, English, Miscellaneous, Belgium, Brussels, Animal welfare in the European Union, (74 pp.), European Parliament, Policy Department C, Animal welfare in the European Union., (2017) Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl 1), S1. Mason, G., & Rushen, J. (Eds.). (2006). Stereotypic animal behaviour: fundamentals and applications to welfare. Cabi. Webster, J. (2008). Animal Welfare Limping Towards Eden. Wiley. |
| Affect | Subjective experience of an event considered positive or negative by the animal. | Yeates, J. (2016). Quality of life and animal behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 181, 19-26. | Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M. B., Moe, R. O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L. J., ... & Aubert, A. (2007). Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & behavior, 92(3), 375-397. Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl 1), S1. Paul, E. S., Harding, E. J., & Mendl, M. (2005). Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 29(3), 469-491. |
| Affective state | An affective state is an animal's emotional condition (e.g., fear, pain, pleasure), characterised by its valence as either positive or negative. Additional information Affective states may influence behaviour, decision-making, and overall welfare, reflecting the animal's perception of and response to its environment or internal needs. | Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl 1), S1. | Pavlidis, M., Samaras, A., Papaharisis, L., (2024). Welfare assessment study forEuropean sea bass. University of Crete. https://doi.org/10.26248/4V5N-7V19 |
| Agency | The capacity of animals to engage with their environment through voluntary, self-generated, and goal-directed behaviours that yield meaningful outcomes under conditions offering genuine choice. Behavioural autonomy is shown when animals can consistently select among different options in a manner that reflects individual priorities and these behaviours are independent of immediate triggers. Agency is expressed through species-characteristic behaviours and patterns (e.g., foraging, social interaction, problem-solving) where animals adapt their actions based on environmental feedback. Additional information For welfare assessment, measuring agency involves evaluating whether management practices provide animals with i) meaningful choices, ii) opportunities to initiate their own activities, and iii) the ability to achieve functional outcomes through their behaviour; these elements contribute to positive welfare. Animals can only express their agency if the environment allows them to do so, meaning it must contain choices and surmountable challenges. | Špinka, M., 2019. Animal agency, animal awareness and animal welfare. Animal welfare, 28(1), pp.11-20. | Englund, M. D., & Cronin, K. A. (2023). Choice, control, and animal welfare: Definitions and essential inquiries to advance animal welfare science. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10, 1250251. Špinka, M. and Wemelsfelder, F., 2011. Environmental challenge and animal agency. Wemelsfelder, F., 1997. The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 53(1-2), pp.75-88. |
| Animal welfare | Animal welfare is defined differently according to different ethical viewpoints. In the majority of the interpretations, animal welfare is defined as the animal’s subjective experience of its mental and physical state depending on the satisfaction of its physiological and mental needs, as well as its expectations, including the possibility for animals to express parts of their natural behaviour. Animal welfare is related to the longer-term balance of positive and negative affect. It is therefore different from short-term and variable affective states, such as emotions, as a single change in emotion does not determine overall wellbeing. | Animal Welfare. (2024). World Organisation for Animal Health. Available at: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2024/en_glossaire.htm (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Animal-based measure (ABM) | An animal-based measure (ABM) is a criterion used to directly assess the welfare state of an animal by evaluating its observable characteristics, such as behavior, health, physiology, performance, and disease resistance. Unlike measures focusing solely on the environment, ABMs reflect the animal's actual experience and condition, capturing the combined effects of environmental factors, management practices, and animal-system interactions. This provides a robust indication of its physical and emotional well-being. | Blokhuis HJ, Jones RB, Geers R, Miele M, Veissier I. Measuring and Monitoring Animal Welfare: Transparency in the Food Product Quality Chain. Animal Welfare. 2003;12(4):445-455. doi:10.1017/S096272860002604X | — |
| Anxiety | An emotional state induced by the perception of the possibility of a potential threat to the animal’s physical or psychological integrity. Unlike fear, which is a response to an immediate danger, anxiety is anticipatory and linked to uncertainty, leading to changes in behavior, physiology, and cognition that influence the animal’s welfare. | Boissy, A. (1995). Fear and fearfulness in animals. The quarterly review of biology, 70(2), 165-191. | Forkman, B., Boissy, A., Meunier-Salaün, M. C., Canali, E., & Jones, R. B. (2007). A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology & behavior, 92(3), 340-374. Mendl, M., Neville, V., & Paul, E. S. (2022). Bridging the gap: Human emotions and animal emotions. Affective Science, 3(4), 703-712. Paul, E. S., & Mendl, M. T. (2018). Animal emotion: Descriptive and prescriptive definitions and their implications for a comparative perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 205, 202-209. Steimer, T. (2002). The biology of fear-and anxiety-related behaviors. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 4(3), 231-249. |
| Arousal | A physiological and psychological state of alertness and responsiveness. It is typically conceptualized as a continuum, ranging from low arousal states (e.g., drowsiness, calmness) to high arousal states (e.g., stress, excitement, hypervigilance). Arousal is a key component in adaptive behaviors, as it modulates attention, motivation, and behavior, and plays a central role in how organisms perceive and respond to their environment (e.g., reacting to stressors, fight-or-flight-responses, reproduction and goal-directed behaviors). Additional info Examples of physiological and psychological aspects of arousal: - Physiological aspect: wakefulness, motor activation, sensory responsiveness, emotional reactivity; - Psychological aspect: emotional reactivity, enhanced cognitive processing. In affective science, arousal is considered a core dimension of affect, often paired with valence (pleasure–displeasure) in models like the circumplex model of affect. | de Lecea, L., Carter, M. E., & Adamantidis, A. (2012). Shining light on wakefulness and arousal. Biological psychiatry, 71(12), 1046-1052. | Pfaff, D. W., Martin, E. M., & Faber, D. (2008). Origins of arousal: Roles for medullary reticular neurons. Trends in Neurosciences, 31(8), 450–456. Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145–172. Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: dissecting the elephant. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(5), 805. |
| Awareness | The capacity of an animal to process and respond to information provided by the environment and its internal state. There are varying levels of awareness, and it may be possible to be aware of something without being explicitly conscious of it (e.g., intuitive responses, such as moving away from danger or a predator during recovery from unconsciousness). | Awareness. (2018). American Psychological Association. Available at: https://dictionary.apa.org/awareness (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | LeDoux, J. E. (1994). Emotion, memory and the brain. Scientific american, 270(6), 50-57. Timmermans, B., & Cleeremans, A. (2015). How can we measure awareness? An overview of current methods. Behavioural Methods in Consciousness Research, 21, 21–46. |
| Behaviour | The internally coordinated responses (actions or inactions) of an animal (individuals or groups) to internal and/or external stimuli. | Levitis, D. A., Lidicker Jr, W. Z., & Freund, G. (2009). Behavioural biologists do not agree on what constitutes behaviour. Animal behaviour, 78(1), 103-110. | — |
| Behavioural needs | Behaviours which are part of the natural repertoire (phylogenetically based) and are primarily motivated by internal factors. The need to perform these behaviours is present whatever environment the animal is housed in, and therefore animals will often attempt to perform these behaviours even if external stimulating factors are absent. | Weeks CA and Nicol CJ, 2006. Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 62, 296–307. | EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare), Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Schmidt CG, Herskin M, Miranda Chueca MA, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Tiemann I, de Jong I, Gebhardt-Henrich SG, Keeling L, Riber AB, Ashe S, Candiani D, García Matas R, Hempen M, Mosbach-Schulz O, Rojo Gimeno C, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M, Bailly-Caumette E and Michel V, 2023. Scientific Opinion on the welfare of broilers on farm. EFSA Journal 2023; 21(2):7788, 236 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7788 |
| Benefit | Benefit is defined as the increase in the possibility of a positive welfare consequence, or a reduction of the risk of a negative welfare consequence. Additional information Risk-Benefit Analysis: a method for weighing up the likely risks (in terms of incidence and severity) associated with exposure to a substance versus the likely benefits. For a risk-benefit assessment a stepwise approach is advised by EFSA et al. 2024: In Step 1, an initial assessment is conducted to determine whether the benefit significantly outweighs the risk or vice versa. In Step 2, a refined assessment is undertaken, aiming to provide semi-quantitative or quantitative estimates of risks and benefits using common metrics. In Step 3, a comparison of the risks and benefits is performed using composite metrics (e.g., DALYs or QALYs) to provide a single net health impact value. Risk-benefit assessments are usually performed at the population level, but where pertinent sensitivities are apparent, it may be necessary to consider subpopulations such as the elderly or infants (in humans). Cost-benefit assessment: is a systematic evaluation method used to weigh the expected harms (costs) to animals against the anticipated benefits to humans, animals, or society resulting from an activity, policy, or intervention. It aims to ensure that any adverse impact on animal welfare is ethically justified by proportionate, meaningful gains. In the European Union, cost-benefit assessment is a legal requirement under Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Article 38(2)(d) states: "Projects shall be allowed only if the use of animals is justified from a scientific or educational point of view and if the expected benefits outweigh the harm to the animals." A harm-benefit analysis in Directive 2010/63/EU is described as a process to assess whether the harm to the animals, in terms of suffering, pain and distress, is justified by the expected outcome, taking into account ethical considerations, and may ultimately benefit human beings, animals, or the environment. | EFSA Scientific Committee, (2024). Guidance on risk–benefit assessment of foods. EFSA Journal, 22(7), e8875. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8875 | EFSA Scientific Committee, More, S. J., Benford, D., Hougaard Bennekou, S., Bampidis, V., Bragard, C., Halldorsson, T. I., Hernández-Jerez, A. F., Koutsoumanis, K., Lambré, C., Machera, K., Mullins, E., Nielsen, S. S., Schlatter, J., Schrenk, D., Turck, D., Naska, A., Poulsen, M., Ranta, J., … Younes, M. (2024). Guidance on risk–benefit assessment of foods. EFSA Journal, 22(7), e8875. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8875 |
| Boredom | Negative affective state characterised by suboptimal mental stimulation, arising from a mismatch between an individual’s need for stimulation and a environment that fails to provide it. This results in a motivation to seek stimuli providing novelty or other ways to increase mental stimulation, regardless of whether that stimulation is positive or negative in valence. Behaviourally, boredom ranges from low-arousal states (e.g., drowsiness or lethargy) to high-arousal states (e.g., restlessness and sensation-seeking behaviors). | G. J. Mason & C. Burn (2011). Behavioural restriction. In: Animal Welfare, eds. M. Appleby, J. A. Mench, A. Olsson, B. O. Hughes, CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 98-119. | Burn, C. C. (2017). Bestial boredom: A biological perspective on animal boredom and suggestions for its scientific investigation. Animal Behaviour, 130, 141–151 Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012). The unengaged mind: Defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 482–495. Fahlman, S. A., Mercer-Lynn, K. B., Flora, D. B., & Eastwood, J. D. (2013). Development and validation of the multidimensional state boredom scale. Assessment, 20, 68-85. Merrifield, C., & Danckert, J. (2014). Characterizing the psychophysiological signature of boredom. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 481–491. |
| Cognition | A range of processes involved in the acquisition, storage, and manipulation of information. Additional information: In animal welfare context these processes include i) how animals perceive and interpret their environment, ii) how they learn from and remember experiences, and iii) how they adapt behaviour to meet needs, avoid harm, or obtain rewards. | Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M. B., Moe, R. O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L. J., ... & Aubert, A. (2007). Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & behavior, 92(3), 375-397. | — |
| Cognitive ability | The capacity of animals to acquire, process, store, and act on information from their environment, including perception, learning, memory, and decision-making processes. | Shettleworth, S. J. (2001). Animal cognition and animal behaviour. Animal behaviour, 61(2), 277-286. | Mendl, M., & Paul, E. S. (2004). Consciousness, emotion and animal welfare: insights from cognitive science. Animal Welfare, 13(1), 17-25. |
| Conceptual model for welfare assessment | A written description and/or visual representation of predicted relationships between factors that affect welfare and the animal welfare aspects that are being considered in a problem formulation. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Consciousness | State of awareness (state of mind) in which an animal has knowledge of its own existence and its surroundings. Consciousness is a state of mind in which the mind (the animal's internal mental processes, such as perception, attention, memory, emotion) is aware that it is working, and the animal experiences itself as a distinct individual living in a particular place, surrounded by objects and events in its environment. If a mind exists, consciousness represents the specific state in which that mind recognizes its own operation and its placement within a functional environment. | Damasio. 2010, Damasio, A.R. Self comes to mind : constructing the conscious brain. New York: Pantheon Books, 2010. | — |
| Cope / Coping | The ability to deal successfully with a challenging situation, which can be of physical or emotional nature. | Anshel, M.H. (2012). Coping with Stress. In: Seel, N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_473 | — |
| Data | Facts, measurements, recordings, records, or observations about the world collected by scientists and others, with a minimum of contextual interpretation. Data may be in any format or medium, taking the form of writings, notes, numbers, symbols, text, images, films, video, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, drawings, designs, or other graphical representations, procedural manuals, forms, diagrams, workflow charts, equipment descriptions, data files, data processing algorithms, or statistical records. | Data. (2020). Catalogue - D4Science Infrastructure Gateway. Available at: https://aginfra.d4science.org/catalogue-aginfra?path=/dataset/748-d8b214f5-fb62-4787-9230-2e9f87b0ec7c. (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Data harmonisation | The practice of reconciling various types, levels, and sources of data in formats that are compatible and comparable, and thus useful for better decision-making or analysis. | Cheng, C., Messerschmidt, L., Bravo, I. et al. A General Primer for Data Harmonization. Sci Data 11, 152 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-02956-3 | — |
| Data standardisation | The process of reaching agreement on common data definitions, formats, representations, and structures of all data layers and elements. | Data Standardisation. (2020). Catalogue - D4Science Infrastructure Gateway. Available at: https://aginfra.d4science.org/catalogue-aginfra?path=/dataset/824-12c87c80-b3fb-4682-b8e5-c2e24a7c440b. (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Discomfort | Animal discomfort is a short- or long-lived negative affective state characterized by physical, physiological, and/or mental components, triggered by internal or external stimuli. It can range from mild to severe. Discomfort typically results in avoidance behaviors or attempts to alleviate the source of uneasiness, reflecting the animal’s subjective experience of suboptimal conditions that compromise its well-being. | Franchi, G. A., Bagaria, M., Boswijk, H., Fabrega, E., Herskin, M. S., & Westin, R. (2024). Animal discomfort: A concept analysis using the domesticated pig (Sus scrofa) as a model. Livestock Science, 286, 105524. | — |
| Distress | A negative affective state of an animal that occurs when it has been unable to adapt to stressors, whether they are of physiological or psychological nature. It may manifest as physiological and/or behavioural responses. Distress results from severe, prolonged, or cumulative stress and has effects on biological function, welfare, and health. Distress can be acute (short-term) or chronic (long-term) with consequences such as impaired immune function potentially leading to increased vulnerability to diseases. | 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. | — |
| Early detection system | An animal welfare monitoring or surveillance system for the prompt detection and identification of an animal welfare issue or incident. A similar term or synonym often used is 'early warning system'. | Early Warning System. (2024). World Organisation for Animal Health. Available at: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2024/en_glossaire.htm (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Emotion | Although there is no consensus on a single definition of emotions, this is the workable definition: emotion refers to a subjective mental state allowing complex, adaptive reactions involving experiential, behavioral, and physiological components. Emotions are short-term, valenced states - going from positive to negative and vice versa - triggered by the appraisal of specific stimuli or events as beneficial or harmful to the animal. Additional information Emotions serve as mechanisms for an animal to respond to significant challenges or opportunities in its environment, influencing behavior and decision-making in a way that enhances survival and welfare. | Mendl, M., Burman, O. H., & Paul, E. S. (2010). An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1696), 2895-2904. | Boissy et al. (2007). Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & behavior, 92(3), 375-397. Fraser, D. (2023). Understanding animal welfare: The science in its cultural context. John Wiley & Sons. Mendl, M., & Paul, E. S. (2020). Animal affect and decision-making. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 112, 144-163. Panksepp, J. (2004). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford university press. Paul, E. S., Harding, E. J., & Mendl, M. (2005). Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 29(3), 469-491. |
| Emotional state | An animal's integrated response to its environment, characterized by dimensions of valence (from positive to negative) and arousal (from low to high). These states reflect both the animal's current experience and its previous interactions with similar situations. Additional information: Emotional states may be inferred through careful assessment of multiple responses, including behaviours, physiological parameters, facial expressions, vocalizations, and cognitive biases, though no single measure alone provides definitive evidence. | Mendl, M., Burman, O. H., & Paul, E. S. (2010). An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1696), 2895-2904. | — |
| Endpoint | A physical, behavioural or physiological outcome that can be assessed by a test (e.g., bruises on the body,panting, heart rate). In the framework of animal welfare risk assessment, an endpoint is a measurable outcome that indicates the welfare impact of a specific factor or intervention on an animal. The endpoint serves as a criterion to assess the degree of improvement/impairment of the welfare state. Additional information: Examples of endpoints for the assessment of the risk of poor welfare: For a given factor in a given exposure scenario: Risk (associatedwith a factorF) = (Magnitude of the welfare consequence) × (Probability of the welfare consequence given exposure to factorF) × (Probability of exposure tothe factor within the considered scenario); For an exposure scenario: Risk (associatedwith an exposure scenarioS) = (Magnitude ofthe welfare consequence) × (Probability of the welfare consequence given exposure to a set of factors) × (Probability of exposure to a set of factors within the considered scenario). | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Environment | The complete set of physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that affect an animal's welfare state, behavior and physiology. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of broilers. EFSA Journal2012;10(7):2774. [74 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2774. | — |
| Ethical/Humane approach | A humane or ethical approach to animal welfare refers to the treatment of animals in a way that minimizes pain, distress, and suffering, and respects their physical and behavioral needs, acknowledging their sentience. | Chapter 7.1. Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare. (2024). World Organisation for Animal Health. Available at: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2024/en_glossaire.htm (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Ethology | The scientific and objective study of animal behaviour, usually with a focus on behaviour under natural conditions, and viewing behaviour as an evolutionarily adaptive trait. | Ethology. (2022). Food and Agricultural Organization - AGROVOC Multilingual Thesaurus. https://agrovoc.fao.org/browse/agrovoc/en/page/c_10679 . (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Euthanasia | The act by humans of inducing death using a method aiming at a rapid and irreversible loss of consciousness with minimal pain and distress to an animal, to avoid or stop suffering. Euthanasia is used as a term when inducing the death of an animal is for the benefit of the animal. Otherwise, the term 'killing' is used. Additional information: Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending an animal's life to relieve suffering, typically in cases of severe illness or injury where there is no hope of recovery. It is performed humanly, meaning it minimizes fear, and distress. | Euthanasia. (2024). World Organisation for Animal Health. Available at: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2024/en_glossaire.htm (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Expert elicitation | A specific survey or consultation of expert opinion that can inform decision-making by characterizing uncertainty and filling data gaps where traditional scientific research is not possible, or data are not yet accessible or available. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Expert opinion (Judgement) | The informed assessment of a specific question at stake, including its interpretation, and the associated decision-making process, undertaken by individuals with specialized knowledge, training, and experience in animal behavior, physiology, and welfare science. This judgment integrates empirical evidence, theoretical understanding, and practical experience to evaluate welfare conditions, guide ethical considerations, and inform policy, management, and research decisions. Expert opinion plays a critical role in areas where empirical data are limited or where complex, multifactorial welfare assessments require nuanced interpretation. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | Duncan, I. J. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals. Revue scientifique et technique-Office international des epizooties, 24(2), 483. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2015). Principles and process for dealing with data and evidence in scientific assessments. EFSA Journal, 13(6), 4121. Fraser, D. (1995). Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal welfare, 4(2), 103-117. Mellor, D. J., & Reid, C. S. W. (1994). Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. Improving the well-being of animals in the research environment, 3-18. Rushen, J., Butterworth, A., & Swanson, J. C. (2011). Animal behavior and well-being symposium: Farm animal welfare assurance: Science and application. Journal of animal science, 89(4), 1219-1228. |
| Exposure assessment | Exposure assessment in animal welfare is the qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of the likelihood, frequency, duration, and intensity of an animal’s exposure to biological, chemical, physical, environmental, or management-related factors that have the potential to affect its welfare. This process identifies and characterizes the conditions under which exposure occurs, providing the basis for understanding the risks posed to the animal's health and welfare. | Exposure Assessment. (2020). Catalogue - D4Science Infrastructure Gateway. Available at: https://aginfra.d4science.org/catalogue-aginfra?path=/dataset/208-4b9ad539-ece7-4399-ae81-1035098002a0. (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Factor | Any physical and/or mental circumstance which may have the potential to impair or improve animal welfare, such as i) housing and management conditions, ii) boredom, iii) genetic background, iv) environmental and/or social condition. Example Housing and management, genetic background, environmental and/or social conditions. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| FAIR Data | Data that are managed under the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) Guiding Principle, defined as follows: 1. Findable: For data to be findable, there must be a minimum level of metadata; there must be a unique and persistent identifier; and the data must be registered or indexed in a searchable resource. 2. Accessible: To be accessible, metadata and data should be readable by humans and by machines, and they must reside in a trusted repository. 3. Interoperable: Data must share a common structure, and metadata must use recognized, formal terminologies for description. 4. Reusable: Data and collections must have clear usage licenses and clear provenance, and must meet relevant community standards for the domain. | Wilkinson, M., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 | — |
| Fatigue | Physiological state representing extreme tiredness and exhaustion of an animal, where functionality of muscles and/or organs is reduced because of an imbalance in terms of energy or other causes. | EFSA AHAW Panel (2022). Methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. EFSA Journal 2022;20(7):7403, 29 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7403 | EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortazar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Michel V, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Edwards S, Ashe S, Candiani D, Fabris C, Lima E, Mosbach-Schulz O, Gimeno CR, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M and Winckler C, 2022. Scientific Opinion on the methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. EFSA Journal 2022;20(7):7403, 29 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7403 |
| Fear | Negative emotional state triggered by the perception of actual or potential danger, harm, or threat, which activates physiological and behavioral responses aimed at ensuring the animal's safety. Fear is adaptive in promoting survival but, when prolonged or excessive, can lead to distress and negatively affect welfare by altering normal behavior, physiology, and social interactions. | Kumar, P., Abubakar, A. A., Imlan, J. C., Ahmed, M. A., Goh, Y. M., Kaka, U., ... & Sazili, A. Q. (2023). Importance of knife sharpness during slaughter: Shariah and kosher perspective and scientific validation. Animals, 13(11), 1751. | Kumar, P., Abubakar, A. A., Imlan, J. C., Ahmed, M. A., Goh, Y. M., Kaka, U., ... & Sazili, A. Q. (2023). Importance of knife sharpness during slaughter: Shariah and kosher perspective and scientific validation. Animals, 13(11), 1751. |
| Feasibility | Practicality of applying welfare indicators during assessment. This means selecting indicators that are time-efficient, cost-effective, and minimally disruptive to existing routine operations. Feasible indicators should not require complex equipment, laboratory analysis, or additional labor, and must be easily integrated into existing routine operations without causing any harm to animals. Additional information On-farm feasibility, as an example, is the practical possibility of using the indicators during on-farm inspection. The level of feasibility depends on several constraints: 1. Time constraints: the collection of welfare indicators should not require too much time and ideally should not require further processing after collection (e.g. for laboratory analysis). 2. Cost: the indicator should not be expensive (e.g. in terms of specific equipment, consumables, or laboratory costs). 3. Acceptability by farmers and stakeholders: the indicator should not require more than one person to collect it, should not require altering the farm routine (e.g. moving animals out of the pen or altering feeding or milking times), should not require a specific location to be recorded, should not cause stress to the animals (e.g. isolation, fear), should not require individual identification of the animals and should be easily recorded on all animals or on a representative sample of animals. | Battini, M., Vieira, A., Barbieri, S., Ajuda, I., Stilwell, G., & Mattiello, S. (2014). Invited review: Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment for dairy goats. Journal of dairy science, 97(11), 6625-6648. | Battini, M., Vieira, A., Barbieri, S., Ajuda, I., Stilwell, G., & Mattiello, S. (2014). Invited review: Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment for dairy goats. Journal of dairy science, 97(11), 6625-6648. |
| Feelings | Feelings are the subjective, perceived component of emotions. Additional information: Feelings are inferred interpretations of emotions. Observable factors are used to infer feelings (the subjective internal state). | Feelings. (2018). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Avaliable at: https://dictionary.apa.org/feeling. (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Five Domains | The Five Domains Model is a structured framework used to assess animal welfare, considering both physical and mental states. This model links to the Five Freedom framework and emphasizes that welfare is not just about avoiding negative experiences, but also about promoting positive states that contribute to overall well-being. The model recognizes that an animal’s welfare is influenced by its biological function, environment, and subjective experiences. The Five Domains are: 1. Nutrition - Availability of appropriate food and water that meet the animal’s physiological needs, supporting health and well-being. 2. Physical Environment – The conditions in which an animal lives, including shelter, space, temperature, and other environmental factors that impact comfort and safety. 3. Health – The animal’s physical condition, including the presence or absence of injury, disease, and other medical concerns affecting well-being. 4. Behavioural Interactions – The animal’s ability to express species-specific behaviors and interact with conspecifics, other species, and humans in a way that supports psychological and physical well-being. 5. Mental State – The subjective experiences of the animal, including positive emotions (e.g., pleasure, comfort) and negative emotions (e.g., fear, anxiety, distress), which arise from the conditions in the other four domains. | Mellor, D. J., & Reid, C. S. W. (1994). Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. | Green, T. C., & Mellor, D. J. (2011). Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’and related concepts. New Zealand veterinary journal, 59(6), 263-271. Mellor, D. J. (2017). Operational details of the five domains model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals, 7(8), 60. Mellor, D. J., & Beausoleil, N. J. (2015). Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare, 24(3), 241-253. Webster, J. (2008). Animal Welfare Limping Towards Eden. Wiley. |
| Five Freedoms | The Five Freedoms Model is a foundational framework in animal welfare science, first proposed by the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) in 1979 and based on the 1965 Brambell Report. These principles define basic conditions that must be met to ensure an animal’s well-being, focusing on the avoidance of suffering and the provision of essential needs. The Five Freedoms are: 1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst – By providing ready access to fresh water and a diet that maintains full health and vigor. 2. Freedom from Discomfort – By ensuring an appropriate environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area. 3. Freedom from Pain, Injury, or Disease – Through prevention, rapid diagnosis, and appropriate treatment. 4. Freedom to Express Normal Behavior – By providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and the company of the animal’s own kind. 5. Freedom from Fear and Distress – By ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid mental suffering. | Webster, J. Assessment of animal welfare: The five freedoms. In Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 1994; pp. 10–14 | Farm Animal Welfare Council. (1979, December). Press notice: The five freedoms. London: FAWC. Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl 1), S1. Mellor, D. J. (2016). Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “a Life Worth Living”. Animals, 6(3), 21. Webster, J. (2008). Animal Welfare Limping Towards Eden. Wiley. |
| Flourishing | The term comes from human literature and increasingly incorporated in animal welfare science, acknowledging the importance of mental states in animal welfare. In human psychology, to flourish means to live within an optimal range of individual functioning, one that connotes goodness, generativity, mental growth, and resilience. In humans, flourishing contrasts not just with pathology but also with languishing: a disorder intermediate along the mental health continuum, experienced by people who describe their lives as “hollow” or “empty.” In animals, flourishing encompasses at least mental growth (capacity to learn, engagement with the environment and, problem-solving) and resilience. | Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678 | — |
| Frustration | Negatively valenced emotional state resulting from the impossibility of obtaining what is expected or needed. Frustration is very often triggered by the restriction of natural behaviours, thus resulting in thwarted motivation to perform these behaviours. | EFSA AHAW Panel (2022). Methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. EFSA Journal 2022;20(7):7403, 29 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7403 | EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortazar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Michel V, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Edwards S, Ashe S, Candiani D, Fabris C, Lima E, Mosbach-Schulz O, Gimeno CR, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M and Winckler C. (2022). Scientific Opinion on the methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. EFSA Journal 2022;20(7):7403, 29 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7403 |
| Group-based welfare indicators | Outcome-based indicators (animal-based measures) derived from measurements or observations at the group level (e.g., flock, herd, batch). Examples inlcude mortality rate, percentage of dirty animals, and feeding behavior synchronization. Additional information:Two types of group-based indicators can be considered i) indicators that can only be measured at group level (e.g., synchrony, aggressive encounters, social networks) and ii) aggregation of measurements on individual animals (see individual-based welfare indicators). Example: 'Percentage of dirty animals' is an aggregate based on a sample of 10 animals in a barn. | Pavlidis, M., Samaras, A., Papaharisis, L., (2024). Welfare assessment study forEuropean sea bass. University of Crete. https://doi.org/10.26248/4V5N-7V19 | — |
| Hazard | Biological, chemical, or physical agent in, or a condition of, an animal or animal product with the potential to cause an adverse health and/or welfare effect. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Indicator-based surveillance | The systematic (regular) collection, monitoring, analysis, and interpretation of structured data, i.e. of indicators produced by a number of well-identified formal sources. | World Health Organization. (2014). Early detection, assessment and response to acute public health events: implementation of early warning and response with a focus on event-based surveillance: interim version (No. WHO/HSE/GCR/LYO/2014.4) | — |
| Individual-based welfare indicators | Outcome-based indicators derived from measurements or observations carried out on individual animals (e.g., morphological features, condition factors, health status, physiology, and the behaviour of an individual animal). | Pavlidis, M., Samaras, A., Papaharisis, L., (2024). Welfare assessment study forEuropean sea bass. University of Crete. https://doi.org/10.26248/4V5N-7V19 | — |
| Inter-observer agreement of an ABM - reproducibility of an ABM | The level of agreement between measurements or observations conducted in replicates by different people. It is an essential measure to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of outcome-based assessments in animal welfare and behavior studies. Inter-observer agreement (IOA) is also called the 'reproducibility of an ABM'. Additional information Agreement is typically evaluated using statistical methods such as correlation tests or concordance coefficients. For example: using appropriate statistical design, thresholds for acceptable inter-observer agreement can generally include Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (>0.7) – which suggests a good level of agreement among observers. | Battini, M., Vieira, A., Barbieri, S., Ajuda, I., Stilwell, G., & Mattiello, S. (2014). Invited review: Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment for dairy goats. Journal of dairy science, 97(11), 6625-6648. | Battini, M., Vieira, A., Barbieri, S., Ajuda, I., Stilwell, G., & Mattiello, S. (2014). Invited review: Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment for dairy goats. Journal of dairy science, 97(11), 6625-6648. Giammarino, M., Mattiello, S., Battini, M., Quatto, P., Battaglini, L. M., Vieira, A. C. L., Stilwell, G., & Renna, M. (2021). Evaluation of Inter-Observer Reliability of Animal Welfare Indicators: Which Is the Best Index to Use? Animals, 11(5), 1445. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051445 Torsiello, B., Giammarino, M., Quatto, P., Battini, M., Mattiello, S., Battaglini, L., & Renna, M. (2024). Evaluation of inter-observer reliability in the case of trichotomous and four-level animal-based welfare indicators with two observers. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 23(1), 938–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2024.2367681 |
| Interoperability | The ability of systems to exchange and use information. Interoperability can help structure data and enrich data representation, improving knowledge representation, data integration, data analysis, and decision support systems. Example Data in open XML format paired with standardised metadata vocabularies. | Bahlo, C. (2021). Open data and interoperability standards: opportunities for animal welfare in extensive livestock systems (Doctoral dissertation, Federation University Australia). | — |
| Intra-observer agreement of an ABM - repeatability of an ABM | The level of agreement between repeated measurements of the animal-based measure on the same sample by the same assessor, conducted on different occasions. It ensures the consistency and reproducibility of observations over time by that assessor. Intra-observer agreement is also called the repeatability of an ABM. Additional information Reliability is typically evaluated using statistical methods such as correlation tests or concordance coefficients. For example, using appropriate statistical design, thresholds for acceptable intra-observer reliability can generally include: Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (> 0.7), which suggests a good level of reliability. Depending on the time interval between successive observations, reliability may be classified as: - short-term reliability (1–7 days); - medium-term reliability (1 week to 1 month); - long-term reliability (>1 month). | Battini, M., Vieira, A., Barbieri, S., Ajuda, I., Stilwell, G., & Mattiello, S. (2014). Invited review: Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment for dairy goats. Journal of dairy science, 97(11), 6625-6648. | Battini, M., Vieira, A., Barbieri, S., Ajuda, I., Stilwell, G., & Mattiello, S. (2014). Invited review: Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment for dairy goats. Journal of dairy science, 97(11), 6625-6648. |
| Killing | Any intentionally induced process which causes the death of an animal. | Paolucci, G., Cagnasso, D., Cassani, F., & Pattono, D. (2015). Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009: state of the art and its application in a local health unit in Piedmont, Italy. Italian journal of food safety, 4(2), 4520. | — |
| Magnitude (of welfare consequence) | The magnitude of a welfare consequence refers to the extent of its impact on individual animals, and is determined by the combination of intensity/severity (degree of positive or negative experience) and duration (length of time over which the experience occurs). On a population or group level, it can be defined as the combination of intensity/severity (degree of positive or negative experience), duration (length of time over which the experience occurs) and prevalence (the proportion of individuals or frequency within a population experiencing the consequence). Additional information Including prevalence in the definition is valid when applied to population-level welfare assessments, but could overcomplicate individual-level evaluations, for which duration and intensity/severity are fundamental. | EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), 2022. Scientific Opinion on the methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. EFSA Journal 2022;20(7):7403 | EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortazar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Michel V, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Edwards S, Ashe S, Candiani D, Fabris C, Lima E, Mosbach-Schulz O, Gimeno CR, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M and Winckler C, 2022. Scientific Opinion on the methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. EFSA Journal 2022;20(7):7403, 29 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7403 |
| Management-based measure (MBM) | Evaluations of the actions, practices, and tools implemented by animal caretakers or managers that may have an impact on animal welfare. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs. EFSA Journal2012;10 (1):2512. 85 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2512. | — |
| Metadata | Structured information that describes, locates, classifies, contextualizes, or documents an information resource. Additional information Metadata can be organized into the following general types: 1. Metadata element sets or schemas (sometimes called data structure standards): categories of data that make up a record or other information object. 2. Controlled vocabularies and name authorities (sometimes called data value standards): lists of standardized terms and names used to create metadata. 3. Data content standards: guidelines for inputting data into metadata elements. 4. Data exchange standards: specifications for encoding data | Metadata. (2021). NIH Data Glossary - National Library of Medicine. Available at: https://www.nnlm.gov/resources/data-glossary/metadata. (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Monitoring (of Animal Welfare) | The systematic, continuous or repeated measurement, collection, collation, analysis, and interpretation of data related to animal welfare in defined populations, with the aim of ensuring awareness and early detection of changes in welfare status. These activities are not linked to a specific, pre-defined risk mitigation plan, although significant deviations from expected conditions may trigger increased awareness and/or responsive actions. | Glossary | RISKSUR. (2026). Risk-Based Animal Health Surveillance Systems. Available at: https://www.fp7-risksur.eu/terminology/glossary. (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Mood | Relatively enduring, temporally extended pattern of responding that emerges from the cumulative effect of recent experiences and influences how animals perceive, process, and behaviourally respond to stimuli across multiple contexts. | Mendl, M., Burman, O. H., & Paul, E. S. (2010). An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1696), 2895-2904. | — |
| Motivation | Animal motivation refers to internal processes that arouse and direct behaviour toward specific goals, such as finding food, avoiding danger, or seeking a mate. It reflects a temporary state that varies in intensity and is influenced by both internal and external factors, as well as previous learning and experience. | Balkenius, C. (1993). The roots of motivation. From animals to animats, 2. | — |
| Natural behaviour | Behaviour expressed by animals when not subjected to human-imposed constraints, allowing them to live according to their nature and to perform their full range of potential behaviours. | Keeling, L., Evans, A., Forkman, B., & Kjaernes, U. (2013). Welfare Quality® principles and criteria. In Improving farm animal welfare (pp. 91-114). Wageningen Academic. | Keeling, L., Evans, A., Forkman, B., & Kjaernes, U. (2013). Welfare Quality® principles and criteria. In Improving farm animal welfare (pp. 91-114). Wageningen Academic. |
| Need - Welfare need | A welfare need from the animal's point of view arising from its biological and behavioral requirements, necessitating access to specific resources or the ability to respond appropriately to environmental or internal stimuli to maintain physical health, psychological well-being, and optimal functioning. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Pain | Unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage. Pain is always an individual experience that is influenced to varying degrees by biological, psychological, and social factors.Pain and nociception are different phenomena. Pain cannot be inferred solely from activity in sensory neurons.Through life experiences, individuals learn the concept of pain.A person’s report of an experience as pain should be respected.Although pain usually serves an adaptive role, it may have adverse effects on function and social and psychological well-being.Verbal description is only one of several behaviours used to express pain; inability to communicate does not negate the possibility that a human or a nonhuman animal experiences pain. | Raja et al. (2020). The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. PAIN 161(9):p 1976-1982, doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001939 | Raja, Srinivasa N.; Carr, Daniel B.; Cohen, Miltonc; Finnerup, Nanna B.; Flor, Hertaf; Gibson, Stephen; Keefe, Francis J.; Mogil, Jeffrey S.; Ringkamp, Matthiasj; Sluka, Kathleen A.; Song, Xue-Jun; Stevens, Bonnie; Sullivan, Mark D.; Tutelman, Perri R.; Ushida, Takahiro; Vader, Kyle. (2020). The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. PAIN 161(9):p 1976-1982. |
| Positive animal welfare | Positive animal welfare is defined as the animal flourishing through the experience of predominantly positive mental states and the development of competence and resilience. Positive animal welfare goes beyond ensuring good physical health and the prevention and alleviation of suffering. Positive mental states result from rewarding experiences, including having choices and opportunities to actively pursue goals and achieve desired outcomes, according to species-specific and individual capabilities. Additional information Genetic, developmental, and experiential factors (e.g., pre-natal, early life, environmental) contribute to individual differences in the ability to achieve positive animal welfare. Positive animal welfare can be assessed using animal-based indicators and can be evaluated over different timescales, thereby contributing to a lifetime picture. | Rault et al. (2025). A consensus on the definition of positive animal welfare. Biology letters, 21(1).098/rsbl.2024.0382 | Jean-Loup Rault, Melissa Bateson, Alain Boissy, Björn Forkman, Bjørn Grinde, Lorenz Gygax, Jes Lynning Harfeld, Sara Hintze, Linda J. Keeling, Lubor Kostal, Alistair B. Lawrence, Michael T. Mendl, Mara Miele, Ruth C. Newberry, Peter Sandøe, Marek Špinka, Alex H. Taylor, Laura E. Webb, Laura Whalin, Margit Bak Jensen. (2025). A consensus on the definition of positive animal welfare. Biology letters, 21(1).098/rsbl.2024.0382 |
| Positive Welfare consequence | A positive welfare consequence refers to an outcome or experience that actively enhances an animal's welfare, going beyond the mere absence of negative states such as pain or distress. This concept is central to the framework of Positive Animal Welfare (PAW), which emphasizes not only preventing suffering but also promoting positive experiences to contribute to an animal's quality of life. | Rault et al. (2025). A consensus on the definition of positive animal welfare. Biology letters, 21(1).098/rsbl.2024.0382 | Jean-Loup Rault, Melissa Bateson, Alain Boissy, Björn Forkman, Bjørn Grinde, Lorenz Gygax, Jes Lynning Harfeld, Sara Hintze, Linda J. Keeling, Lubor Kostal, Alistair B. Lawrence, Michael T. Mendl, Mara Miele, Ruth C. Newberry, Peter Sandøe, Marek Špinka, Alex H. Taylor, Laura E. Webb, Laura Whalin, Margit Bak Jensen. (2025). A consensus on the definition of positive animal welfare. Biology letters, 21(1).098/rsbl.2024.0382 |
| Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) | Scientific method for assessing animals as whole sentient beings, describing and quantifying the dynamic expressive qualities that can be observed in the way animals engage with their environment – showing for example a relaxed, curious, fearful, or distressed demeanour. Scores for such qualitative descriptors are integrated using multivariate analysis (e.g., Principal Component Analysis, factor analysis) to detect emergent dimensions of emotional expression. | Cooper, R., & Wemelsfelder, F. (2020). Qualitative behaviour assessment as an indicator of animal emotional welfare in farm assurance. Livestock, 25(4), 180-183. | Wemelsfelder, F. 2007. How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of animal behaviour. Animal Welfare 16(S) 25-31. |
| Qualitative risk assessment | Assessment where the outputs on the likelihood of the outcome or the magnitude of the consequences are described as categorical or ordinal expressions of risk, such as 'high','medium', 'low', or 'negligible'. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Quality of Life (QOL) | The long-term, subjective, and dynamic evaluation by the individual of their circumstances (internal and external) and the extent to which these meet their expectations. These expectations may be innate or learned and may or may not include anticipation of future events. They may result in, or include, an affective (emotional) response to those circumstances. The evaluation may be a conscious or unconscious process and its complexity depends at least partly on the cognitive capacity of the individual. | Wiseman-Orr et al. (2006). Validation of a structured questionnaire as an instrument to measure chronic pain in dogs on the basis of effects on health-related quality of life. American journal of veterinary research, 67(11), 1826-1836. | Wiseman-Orr, M. L., Scott, E. M., Reid, J., & Nolan, A. M. (2006). Validation of a structured questionnaire as an instrument to measure chronic pain in dogs on the basis of effects on health-related quality of life. American journal of veterinary research, 67(11), 1826-1836. |
| Quantitative risk assessment | A risk assessment that provides numerical expressions of risk and the attendant uncertainties. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Redirected behaviour | Actions directed away from the primary/appropriate target and toward another, secondary/less appropriate target (e.g., when the animal is in a state of emotional arousal and is unable to reach the primary target). | Redirected Behaviour in Animals. (2024). MSD Veterinary Manual. Available at: https://www.msdvetmanual.com/behavior/behavioral-medicine-introduction/glossary-of-behavioral-terms-for-veterinary-medicine#Frustration_v3296340. (Accessed: 17 March 2026) | Redirected Behaviour in Animals. (2024, September). MSD Manual - Veterinary Manual. Available at: https://www.msdvetmanual.com/behavior/behavioral-medicine-introduction/glossary-of-behavioral-terms-for-veterinary-medicine#Frustration_v3296340. (Accessed: 17 March 2026). |
| Reliability of an ABM | The ability of an ABM to be measured under various conditions while still providing similar results. A reliable ABM should not be affected by irrelevant factors relative to the expected welfare consequence. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs. EFSA Journal2012;10 (1):2512. 85 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2512. | — |
| Repeatability of an ABM | See intra-observer agreement of an ABM | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs. EFSA Journal2012;10 (1):2512. 85 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2512. | — |
| Reproducibility of an ABM | See Inter-observer agreement of an ABM | Nielsen et al. (2014). Use of animal based measures for the assessment of dairy cow welfare ANIBAM. EFSA Supporting Publications, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.en-659 | Nielsen, B. H., Angelucci, A., Scalvenzi, A., Björn Forkman, Fusi, F., Tuyttens, F., Houe, H., Blokhuis, H., Sørensen, J. T., Rothmann, J., Matthews, L., Mounier, L., Bertocchi, L., Marie‐Madeleine, R., Donati, M., Peetz, N. P., Romolo Salini, Graaf, S. de, Hild, S., & Stefano Messori. (2014). Use of animal based measures for the assessment of dairy cow welfare ANIBAM.EFSA Supporting Publications,11(9). https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.en-659 |
| Resilience | Animal's ability to overcome biotic or abiotic perturbations and return quickly to its normal state. Return to a normal state can refer either to health, behavior, physical or psychological state, and biological performance. Additional information Biotic perturbations are disturbances caused by living organisms. They may include: 1. Pathogens - bacteria, viruses, and parasites that cause disease 2. Predators - threats from animals that may attack or prey on them 3. Competition - rivalry with other animals (of the same or different species) for resources like food, mates, or territory 4. Social stress - aggression, isolation, or hierarchical pressure within social groups (especially in domesticated or farmed animals). Abiotic perturbations are disturbances caused by non-living environmental factors. They may include: 1. Temperature extremes - heat waves, cold stress, or sudden temperature shifts 2. Humidity or drought - affecting hydration, thermoregulation, or comfort 3. Noise 4. Pollution/Toxins - chemicals in the air, water, or feed that can cause physiological stress 5. Mechanical factors - injuries from handling or poor housing conditions | Friggens NC, Ithurbide M, Lenoir G. Getting to grips with resilience: Toward large-scale phenotyping of this complex trait. JDS Commun. 2024 5(6):761-766. doi: 10.3168/jdsc.2023-0434. | — |
| Resistance | Animals' ability to prevent or limit the effects of biotic and abiotic stressors by actively counteracting or limiting their effects. | Doeschl-Wilson, A., Knap, P. W., Opriessnig, T., & More, S. J. (2021). Review: Livestock disease resilience: from individual to herd level. Animal, 15, 100286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100286 | — |
| Resource-based measure (RBM) | Evaluations of factors or combinations of factors related to the environment, facilities, or management systems provided to animals, that may have an impact on animal welfare. These measures include physical resources (e.g., housing design, space allowance, air quality, handling and restraint equipment, and stunning parameters) and logistical inputs (e.g., personnel training, equipment, financial resources). | ISO/TS 34700:2016. (2016, December 1). ISO. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/64749.html . (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Risk | Risk in animal welfare is the function of the probability of occurrence of negative welfare consequences and the magnitude of those consequences, resulting from exposure to a specific hazard, factor, or scenario within a defined population. It integrates both the likelihood of exposure and the severity of its impact, accounting for individual- and population-level variability, as well as environmental and management factors that influence the probability of welfare outcomes. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Risk analysis | A process consisting of the three components: risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Risk assessment | Risk assessment in animal welfare is a scientifically based process used to evaluate the likelihood and severity of negative welfare consequences due to exposure to specific hazards or scenarios. It consists of three interconnected steps: Exposure assessment, which evaluates the probability and extent of animals encountering the hazardConsequence characterization, which estimates the magnitude and nature of the welfare impactRisk characterization, which integrates exposure and consequence information to quantify the overall risk and identify factors influencing its variability within a population. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Risk characterisation | Risk characterization in animal welfare is the qualitative or quantitative estimation of the probability and magnitude of adverse welfare consequences in a target population, based on the integration of factor identification, exposure assessment, and consequence characterization. It incorporates uncertainties and variability in the data to provide an overall evaluation of the likelihood and severity of welfare impacts under specified conditions. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Risk management | The process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy alternatives in consultation with interested parties, considering risk assessment and other legitimate factors, and, if need be, selecting appropriate prevention and control options. | Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 (2002). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2002/178/oj . (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Risk mitigation | Risk mitigation in animal welfare refers to the implementation of measures designed to reduce the likelihood and severity of negative welfare consequences associated with identified risk factors. These measures may include changes in management practices, environmental modifications, handling procedures, or resource provision to minimize harm, distress, or discomfort and improve overall welfare outcomes. The extent of risk mitigation can vary. | Bicout, D. J., Velarde, A., & Michel, V. (2024). Risk assessment in animal welfare. Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, 167-174. | — |
| Robustness of an animal | The animal’s ability to withstand, adapt to, and recover from challenges while maintaining essential biological functions that support health, welfare, and future reproductive capacity. This encompasses physiological, behavioral, and immunological responses that enable the animal to cope with environmental constraints, stressors, or management conditions without significant welfare deterioration. | de La Torre et al. (2022). Exploration of robustness indicators using adaptive responses to short-term feed restriction in suckling primiparous beef cows. animal, 16(7), 100556. | Friggens, N. C., Blanc, F., Berry, D. P., & Puillet, L. (2017). Review: Deciphering animal robustness. A synthesis to facilitate its use in livestock breeding and management. Animal, 11(12), 2237–2251. |
| Sensitivity (of an ABM) | Proportion of animals experiencing a WC that exhibit that ABM. It is therefore indicative of the ABM’s ability to identify animals experiencing the welfare consequence, meaning how good it is at detecting the WC in an animal or group of animals. An ABM that exhibits high sensitivity will produce a low number of false negatives. | Nielsen et al. (2014). Use of animal based measures for the assessment of dairy cow welfare ANIBAM. EFSA Supporting Publications, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.en-659 | Nielsen, B. H., Angelucci, A., Scalvenzi, A., Björn Forkman, Fusi, F., Tuyttens, F., Houe, H., Blokhuis, H., Sørensen, J. T., Rothmann, J., Matthews, L., Mounier, L., Bertocchi, L., Marie‐Madeleine, R., Donati, M., Peetz, N. P., Romolo Salini, Graaf, S. de, Hild, S., & Stefano Messori. (2014). Use of animal based measures for the assessment of dairy cow welfare ANIBAM.EFSA Supporting Publications,11(9). https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.en-659 |
| Sensor-based assessment | Sensor technologies that measure relevant factors, which can be used for the welfare assessment of individual animals or groups. Sensor technologies allow continuous measurement, and sensors can be placed on the animals and/or in their environment. Additional information Relevant factors can be, for example i) features of individual behavior, ii) physical/physiological and/or environmental conditions, and iii) brain activity. | Gómez et al. (2021). A Systematic Review on Validated Precision Livestock Farming Technologies for Pig Production and Its Potential to Assess Animal Welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 8:660565. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.660565 | Gómez, Y., Stygar, A. H., Boumans, I. J., Bokkers, E. A., Pedersen, L. J., Niemi, J. K., ... & Llonch, P. (2021). A systematic review on validated precision livestock farming technologies for pig production and its potential to assess animal welfare. Frontiers in veterinary science, 8, 660565. |
| Space allowance | The usable surface or volume available to an individual animal. It can be expressed as: Area per animal (m^2/animal). Allometric index (A); based on Body Weight (BW), using a species-specific k-value or welfare-based coefficient, following the formula: A (space allowance in m^2) = k x BW^2/3 Volume based (m^3/animal)Linear based index (e.g., for feeding or lying area's cm/animal). | Animal Welfare. (2024). World Organisation for Animal Health. Available at: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2024/en_glossaire.htm (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Specificity (of an ABM) | The specificity of a given ABM with respect to a welfare consequence (WC) is the proportion of animals that are not experiencing a WC, and that do not exhibit this ABM. Therefore, specificity refers to the extent to which an ABM is specific for one welfare consequence, or relates to several welfare consequences. An ABM that exhibits high specificity will produce a low number of false positives and this implies that the ABM is specific to a single WC. Low specificity implies that the ABM could refer to something other than the WC of interest. This could be a different WC or multiple WCs, or it could imply something else completely, like exercise, for example. | Nielsen et al. (2014). Use of animal based measures for the assessment of dairy cow welfare ANIBAM. EFSA Supporting Publications, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.en-659 | Nielsen, B. H., Angelucci, A., Scalvenzi, A., Björn Forkman, Fusi, F., Tuyttens, F., Houe, H., Blokhuis, H., Sørensen, J. T., Rothmann, J., Matthews, L., Mounier, L., Bertocchi, L., Marie‐Madeleine, R., Donati, M., Peetz, N. P., Romolo Salini, Graaf, S. de, Hild, S., & Stefano Messori. (2014). Use of animal based measures for the assessment of dairy cow welfare ANIBAM.EFSA Supporting Publications,11(9). https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.en-659 |
| Stereotypical behaviour | Repetitive, relatively invariant behaviours that appear to serve no obvious function. These behaviors often arise in environments that restrict natural behaviors or fail to meet an animal's physiological or mental needs. While stereotypies are frequently linked to frustration, stress, or poor welfare, they may also persist due to behavioral reinforcement, neurological changes, or long-term coping mechanisms, even when the original cause is removed. | Mason, G., & Rushen, J. (Eds.). (2006). Stereotypic animal behaviour: fundamentals and applications to welfare. Cabi. | Broom, D. M. (2017). Animal welfare in the European Union. Fraser, D. (2023). Understanding animal welfare: The science in its cultural context. John Wiley & Sons. Garner, J. P. (2006). Perseveration and stereotypy-systems-level insights from clinical psychology. In Stereotypic animal behaviour: fundamentals and applications to welfare (pp. 121-152). Wallingford UK: Cabi. Latham, N. R., & Mason, G. J. (2008). Maternal deprivation and the development of stereotypic behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 110(1-2), 84-108. Mason, G., & Rushen, J. (Eds.). (2006). Stereotypic animal behaviour: fundamentals and applications to welfare. Cabi. |
| Stocking density | Number of animals housed or transported within a given space, typically expressed as animals or body weight per unit area (e.g., animals/m^2; kg/m^2). | Stocking Density. (2024). World Organisation for Animal Health. Available at: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2024/en_glossaire.htm (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Stress | Stress is a controversial and debated term, for which no consensus has been obtained yet. A workable proposed definition is the following: stress is a state that arises when an animal’s homeostasis is challenged or when the animal perceives a situation as threatening. Importantly, in the second scenario, the animal will experience stress regardless of whether the threat is real or not, because it is the animal’s own evaluation of the situation that determines the stress response. Additional information In animal welfare science, stress is typically associated with a negative state because prolonged or intense stress can impair health, behaviour, and overall function. However, not all stress is harmful; short-term stress responses can be adaptive. The concern arises when the stress causes a high degree of unpleasantness (e.g pain, thirst, fear), is prolonged or repeated intermittently over a persistent period, or when the animal feels or anticipates that its coping capacity is exceeded. A stressor is any factor that triggers a stress response. Stressors may be: 1. Biotic: caused by living sources (e.g., social conflict, predators, pathogens). 2. Abiotic: environmental or physical factors (e.g., temperature extremes, noise, poor air quality) 3. Mental: due to negative or unfulfilled positive expectations, unpredictability, novelty, or perceived lack of control. The stress response is the animal’s reaction to a stressor, involving physiological systems, such as activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis, cardiovascular changes, or immune function adjustments, as well as behavioural changes, such as avoidance, vigilance, escape behaviour, or reduced exploration. These responses are aimed at restoring homeostasis and enabling the animal to cope with the challenges. Stress is not a single fixed state but a continuum. Animals may exhibit a wide variety of responses, even to the same stressor, because individual animals perceive and appraise stressors differently. Animals' responses depend on their perceived ability to cope, their experiences, and available behavioural or mental strategies. The stress response depends on perceived control; an animal that believes it cannot influence the situation will typically show stronger or more negative stress responses. Based on this appraisal, each animal activates the behavioural and physiological mechanisms it has at its disposal to manage the perceived threat or challenge. | Salomon, K. (2013). Stress. In: Gellman, M.D., Turner, J.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_285 | Broom, D. M., Johnson, K. G. (2020). Stress and Animal Welfare: Key Issues in the Biology of Humans and Other Animals. 2nd Ed. Springer. Dickens, M. J., & Romero, L. M. (2013). A consensus endocrine profile for chronically stressed wild animals does not exist. General and comparative endocrinology, 191, 177-189. Fink, G. (2016). Stress, definitions, mechanisms, and effects outlined: Lessons from anxiety. In Stress: Concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior (pp. 3-11). Academic Press. Fink, G. (2016). Stress: Concepts, definition and history. Change. MacDougall-Shackleton, S. A., Bonier, F., Romero, L. M., & Moore, I. T. (2019). Glucocorticoids and “stress” are not synonymous. Integrative Organismal Biology, 1(1), obz017. Ramanathan, R., & Desrouleaux, R. (2022). Introduction: the science of stress. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 95(1), 1. Tiemann I., Fijn L.B., Bagaria M., Langen E.M.A., van der Staay F.J., Arndt S.S., Leenaars C. and Goerlich V.C. (2023). Glucocorticoids in relation to behavior, morphology, and physiology as proxy indicators for the assessment of animal welfare. A systematic mapping review. Front. Vet. Sci. 9:954607. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.954607 Turner-Cobb JM, Katsampouris E. Stress. In: Llewellyn CD, Ayers S, McManus C, et al., eds. (2019). Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge University Press; 149-153. |
| Stunning | The intentional induction of unconsciousness to avoid the animal suffering during the slaughter process. Additional information Irreversible stunning means any process which causes a permanent loss of consciousness and sensibility to the animal, which will never be recovered. Reversible stunning (or simple stunning): any process which causes a temporary loss of consciousness and sensibility to the animal. This means that, without any intervention, the animal will recover the consciousness after a time. Effective Stun: successfully making and keeping an animal unconscious throughout shackling, sticking, and bleeding, until death occurs. Ineffective Stun: A stunning attempt that makes contact with the animal but does not make and keep the animal unconscious throughout shackling, sticking, and bleeding, until death occurs. | Terlouw, C., Bourguet, C., & Deiss, V. (2016). Consciousness, unconsciousness and death in the context of slaughter. Part II. Evaluation methods. Meat science, 118, 147-156. | — |
| Suffering | A state in which the animal experiences one or more intensely aversive subjective affective states (e.g., pain), arising from one or more physical and/or mental stressors or accompanied by a long-term failure of coping, such that the animal’s ability to avoid, adapt to, or recover from the adverse conditions is compromised, threatening its viability as an organism. | Fordyce, P. (2017). Suffering in non-human animals. The Global Journal of Animal Law, (1). | Olsson, I. A. S., J Nicol, C., Niemi, S. M., & Sandøe, P. (2019). From unpleasant to unbearable—why and how to implement an upper limit to pain and other forms of suffering in research with animals. ILAR journal, 60(3), 404-414. Tate, T., & Pearlman, R. (2019). What we mean when we talk about suffering—and why Eric Cassell should not have the last word. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 62(1), 95-110. Veit, W., & Browning, H. (2021). Phenomenology applied to animal health and suffering. In Phenomenology of bioethics: Technoethics and lived-experience (pp. 73-88). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Weary, D. M. (2014). What is suffering in animals?. In Dilemmas in animal welfare (pp. 188-202). Wallingford UK: Cabi. Yao, V. (2019). Two Problems Posed by the Suffering of Animals. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 33(2), 324-339. |
| Surveillance (of animal welfare) | This entails monitoring of animal welfare (see animal welfare monitoring). In surveillance, the results of monitoring are used to evaluate the welfare status of the target population or to promote measures to maintain welfare, or to implement interventions when welfare issues are detected. | Glossary | RISKSUR. (2026). Risk-Based Animal Health Surveillance Systems. Available at: https://www.fp7-risksur.eu/terminology/glossary. (Accessed: 17 March 2026). | — |
| Target population | A population considered in a risk assessment, where a population is a group of animals defined by a set of common characteristics (e.g., a geographical area, and intrinsic attributes such as age, breed or sex). | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Temperament | An animal's characteristic behavioural and physiological responses to environmental challenges, which are consistent across time and situations and may have an important genetic basis. Temperament influences how individuals perceive, process, and react to their environment. | Réale, D., Reader, S.M., Sol, D., McDougall, P.T. and Dingemanse, N.J. (2007), Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biological Reviews, 82: 291-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00010.x | — |
| Threshold of an ABM (animal-based measure) - cut off | A threshold (or cut-off) of an ABM refers to the specific value or boundary that distinguishes between different welfare states or categories. It represents the point at which a measured parameter indicates a change in welfare status, often used by risk managers to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable conditions. Thresholds are meant to evolve over time and according to the current scientific knowledge, and can be used to support risk management decisions. In practice, a cut-off point may define the threshold value that: 1. Indicates when intervention is needed (intervention threshold). Example: if body condition scoring is used as an ABM, a cut-off score of 2 out of 5 might trigger the requirement for immediate nutritional intervention; 2. Determines compliance with welfare standards. Example: In broiler chickens, a footpad dermatitis score exceeding a certain percentage of the flock might indicate non-compliance with welfare requirements; 3. Separates different welfare categories in assessment schemes. Example, 'acceptable' versus 'warning' or 'critical' ; 'good' versus 'immediate action required'. | Nielsen et al. (2014). Use of animal based measures for the assessment of dairy cow welfare ANIBAM. EFSA Supporting Publications, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.en-659 | Nielsen, B. H., Angelucci, A., Scalvenzi, A., Björn Forkman, Fusi, F., Tuyttens, F., Houe, H., Blokhuis, H., Sørensen, J. T., Rothmann, J., Matthews, L., Mounier, L., Bertocchi, L., Marie‐Madeleine, R., Donati, M., Peetz, N. P., Romolo Salini, Graaf, S. de, Hild, S., & Stefano Messori. (2014). Use of animal based measures for the assessment of dairy cow welfare ANIBAM.EFSA Supporting Publications,11(9). https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.en-659 |
| Tolerance | An animal's ability to endure and mitigate the negative effects of biotic and abiotic perturbations, without necessarily reducing the presence or intensity of the stressor itself. Additional information Biotic perturbations are disturbances caused by living organisms. They may include: 1. Pathogens - bacteria, viruses, and parasites that cause disease 2. Predators - threats from animals that may attack or prey on them 3. Competition - rivalry with other animals (of the same or different species) for resources like food, mates, or territory 4. Social stress - aggression, isolation, or hierarchical pressure within social groups (especially in domesticated or farmed animals). Abiotic perturbations are disturbances caused by non-living environmental factors. They may include: 1. Temperature extremes - heat waves, cold stress, or sudden temperature shifts 2. Humidity or drought - affecting hydration, thermoregulation, or comfort 3. Noise 4. Pollution/Toxins - chemicals in the air, water, or feed that can cause physiological stress 5. Mechanical factors - injuries from handling or poor housing conditions | Råberg, L. (2014). How to live with the enemy: understanding tolerance to parasites. PLoS Biology, 12(11), e1001989. | — |
| Validity of an ABM | The extent to which the measurement truly reflects the intented welfare consequence that it is supposed to measure. | Coutant, M., Rasmussen, B. H., Rousing, T., Pedersen, L. J., & Larsen, M. L. (2025). Validity and reliability of animal-based measures of welfare protocols in finisher pigs. Livestock Science, 105704. | — |
| Welfare assessment | A systematic, independent, and documented process for evaluating the degree of fulfillment of all welfare needs, as well as the welfare status of animals associated with infrastructure, environment, and management practices for a selected group, during a defined period. Welfare assessment is normally carried out according to a standardised method. | Pavlidis, M., Samaras, A., Papaharisis, L., (2024). Welfare assessment study forEuropean sea bass. University of Crete. https://doi.org/10.26248/4V5N-7V19 | — |
| Welfare consequence (WC) | A positive or negative change in welfare that results from the effect of a factor or factors. Welfare consequences can be identified and assessed by animal-based measures and can lead to negative affective states such as stress or anxiety, among others, or to positive affective states such as joy. Example Heat stress is a welfare consequence experienced by an animal when exposed to a high environmental temperature (the factor). The main ABMs to assess heat stress could be (i) Sweating and (ii) Panting. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare.EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. | — |
| Welfare indicator | A welfare indicator is an observation, record, or measurement used to assess and provide information about an animal's welfare state. This comprises ABMs, RBM and MBMs. Welfare indicators can be: 1. Direct (ABMs; evaluating the animal itself, such as behavior, physiology, or health) or 2. Indirect (RBMs or MBMs; evaluating environmental or management factors that influence welfare, such as housing or feeding conditions). They are selected based on their reliability, validity, and relevance to specific welfare consequences, and are integral to welfare assessment frameworks. Additional information In general, the term 'welfare indicator' comprises animal-based, resource-based, and management-based measures, which together provide information on the welfare state and its determinants, though animal-based measures are often prioritized as the most direct reflection of welfare. | EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs. EFSA Journal2012;10 (1):2512. 85 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2512. | — |
| Welfare state | An individual animal's affective state; it could also be expressed as an aggregated quality (referred to as 'quality of life) of an individual's subjective experiences over time. | Broom, D. M., Johnson, K. G. (2020). Stress and Animal Welfare: Key Issues in the Biology of Humans and Other Animals. 2nd Ed. Springer. | — |
101 entries total