The concept of animal welfare has evolved considerably over the last 20 years. Traditionally, animal welfare science focused primarily on preventing suffering caused by negative experiences like pain, fear, and distress. The Five Freedoms, a set of baseline requirements designed to minimize animal suffering, became one of the most influential frameworks for ensuring the welfare of farmed animals.

Over time, however, advances in our understanding of animals and how they experience the world have shown that preventing harm alone isn’t enough. To have “a life worth living“ (a term introduced by the U.K. Farm Animal Welfare Council in 2009), animals also need opportunities to have positive experiences, such as comfort, enjoyment, and satisfaction. Reflecting this shift, animal welfare scientists increasingly use the term “positive animal welfare“ to refer to animals flourishing through predominantly positive mental states, alongside the development of competence and resilience.

While positive animal welfare is now a well-established topic among academics, there’s concern that these ideas aren’t being shared more widely, particularly in practical settings such as farms. This study therefore aimed to explore how sheep farmers and industry experts define and interpret the term “positive animal welfare.”

Interviews were carried out with 25 sheep farmers and 11 industry experts from across the United Kingdom. These experts included veterinarians, an assurance scheme agent, agricultural advisors, a researcher, and wool and meat supply chain representatives. Data were collected through a combination of individual interviews as well as a group workshop attended by 24 of the interviewees.

Awareness And Understanding

Most of the farmers interviewed (18 out of 25) hadn’t heard the term “positive animal welfare.” They reported that welfare-related discussions within their social networks — primarily other farmers and veterinarians — tended to focus on health, productivity, and prevention of poor outcomes.

However, as other studies have found, a lack of familiarity with the term didn’t necessarily indicate a lack of concern for animal well-being. When prompted, some farmers interpreted positive welfare in ways that aligned with existing practices and values, such as good stockmanship, proper handling, or ensuring animals were “content” or “thriving.” Others framed positive welfare as simply achieving a high standard of welfare within the existing Five Freedoms framework.

Farmers who were familiar with the term were often hesitant to use it in conversation with other farmers, expressing concern that it might be viewed as unusual or disconnected from practical farming realities.

Industry experts generally demonstrated greater awareness of positive animal welfare. Those working in the wool sector were most familiar with the term, suggesting a shift in mindset within parts of the industry. In contrast, the veterinarians and assurance scheme agent indicated that their work still largely centers around the Five Freedoms. Several industry participants described it as a new and emerging area that was likely to become more important in the future, but noted that it wasn’t yet being actively communicated within the industry.

These findings suggest that knowledge of positive animal welfare remains largely concentrated within academic and specialist contexts, with limited integration into everyday farming discussions.

Resistance And Farmer Identity

Some farmers expressed skepticism about positive animal welfare, largely due to uncertainty about what the term meant and how it could be applied on farms. The language associated with positive welfare was sometimes described as vague, subjective, or difficult to measure, making it less appealing than established concepts like health, productivity, or compliance with assurance schemes.

Concerns were also raised about anthropomorphism and emotional attachment to farmed animals. Some farmers worried that emphasizing positive experiences or behaviors commonly associated with companion animals, such as stroking or back-scratching, which have been shown to induce positive experiences in farmed animals, could misrepresent the realities of farming and reduce public willingness to consume meat.

The study also highlighted the role of farmer identity in shaping responses to positive animal welfare. Similar to previous research, more traditional farmers were more resistant to new ideas, particularly when these felt imposed or inconsistent with their experience and professional identity. This suggests that acceptance of positive welfare concepts depends not only on knowledge, but also on how ideas are framed and communicated.

Despite these reservations, many farmers expressed clear emotional connections to their animals, often using positive and emotive language when discussing their care. This indicates that values consistent with positive animal welfare were frequently present, even if they weren’t framed using academic terminology.

Study Limitations

The findings were based on a relatively small group of sheep farmers and industry experts, meaning they may not be applicable to other farming sectors or countries. Veterinarians were under-represented, particularly academic veterinarians who may be more familiar with positive animal welfare concepts. Nevertheless, the study provides valuable insight into how positive animal welfare is currently understood and discussed in practice.

Improving Awareness And Acceptance

The authors emphasized the need to improve awareness, understanding, and acceptance of positive animal welfare within farming communities to support practical improvements on farms. They suggested several strategies, including:

• Improving knowledge exchange between researchers and farmers (e.g., through talks or workshops)
• Encouraging peer-to-peer learning, with farmers who have already adopted positive welfare practices sharing their experiences
• Exploring how language around positive welfare can be framed to improve acceptance within farming communities

Together, these approaches may help bridge the gap between scientific concepts of positive animal welfare and how welfare is understood and enacted on farms.