Today, milk has transformed into a mere commodity for many of us, available at a lower cost than certain brands of bottled water. The growth of the dairy industry can be attributed to the rising demand for luxury food items such as butter, cream, a wide variety of ice creams, yogurts, and cheeses. These indulgences are deemed acceptable by lacto-vegetarians as they do not involve the direct slaughter of animals. In the past, the traditional role of a family cow extended beyond milk provision. They also served as labourers, suppliers of fertilizer, fuel, clothing, and occasionally provided a fatted calf for special occasions. These cows thrived on fibrous feeds that the family members could not digest themselves. They did not compete with the family for food but instead played an essential role in the family's sustenance. In stark contrast, the modern dairy cow, like the Holstein breed, is a vastly different creature. It is bred, fed, and managed in intensive, highly mechanized dairy units with the primary goal of maximizing milk production. Meat production has now become a relatively insignificant factor, as male calves intended for beef or veal are often sent off the farm to other specialized rearing facilities.

Systematic approach to animal welfare

Stafleu et al. (1996) proposed that discussions on animal welfare occur at different levels of abstraction, which they classified as conceptual, explanatory, and operational descriptions. The explanatory stage involves establishing frameworks that incorporate input and outcome criteria, encompassing various aspects such as (1) the animals' environment, including management practices, and (2) the animals' biological functions, which collectively impact their subjective experiences.

Fraser (1999) put forth the notion that animals should experience well-being by being free from prolonged or intense fear, pain, and other unpleasant states, while also being able to partake in normal pleasures. Additionally, animals should exhibit satisfactory health, growth, and normal behavioural and physiological functioning, signifying their overall well-functioning. Lastly, animals should be able to lead natural lives by utilizing and developing their natural adaptations.

In the United Kingdom, a systematic approach to defining and assessing animal welfare was initiated in the 1960s as a response to public concerns about "factory farming." Webster (2013) explains this approach as follows: "The welfare of any sentient farmed animal is determined by its own individual perception of its physical and emotional condition." The OIE World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE 2021, Article 7.1.1) has consolidated these concepts by defining animal welfare as the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies. Good welfare is characterized by the animal being healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, free from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress, and able to exhibit behaviors that are important for its physical and mental well-being. More recently, Dawkins (2008, p. 937; 2021a, p. 11) suggested that welfare encompasses both the health of animals and their ability to fulfil their preferences and desires.

Evolution of the Five Freedoms

In recent times, public concerns about the methods employed in food production have primarily revolved around issues of farm animal welfare. One specific area of criticism has been the industrialization and intensification of animal production, commonly referred to as "factory farming," which treats animals as commodities rather than sentient beings. Ruth Harrison's influential book "Animal Machines" (Harrison, 1964) passionately and extensively criticized the factory farming practices employed in rearing broiler chickens, battery hens, and veal calves within confined spaces. This scrutiny prompted the establishment of the Brambell Committee of Enquiry in 1965, which focused on the welfare of animals kept in intensive housing conditions (Brambell, 1965). The committee's findings became the foundation for the concept of the Five Freedoms, emphasizing the importance of animals being able to stand up, lie down, turn around, stretch their limbs, and groom their bodies.

The recognition and adoption of the Five Freedoms were influenced by public pressure, scientific advancements, and legislative actions. The impactful portrayal presented by Harrison and Brambell played a pivotal role in highlighting the need for enhanced production methods in intensive systems. As a result, the Brambell report led to the establishment of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which later became known as the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). The FAWC's responsibilities encompass the evaluation of farm animal welfare across diverse settings such as agricultural land, markets, transit, and slaughterhouses. They also provide advice to Agriculture Ministers regarding potential legislative changes. The Council possesses the authority to address any subject within its domain.

Subsequently, in 1979, Professor John Webster, prompted by the UK Farm Animal Advisory Committee (later named the Farm Animal Welfare Council or FAWC), expanded the concept of animal welfare to include both physical and mental needs. This encompassed aspects such as the avoidance of fear and distress and the ability to express natural behavior. The outcome of this expansion resulted in the identification of five distinct "freedoms," which collectively provided a comprehensive framework for assessing an animal's welfare state (FAWC, 1979). The inclusion of psychological needs marked a significant advancement in recognizing animal sentience. In 1993, the original Five Freedoms were further refined with explanatory guidelines on how to fulfill each freedom. Additionally, the FAWC addressed the challenges of disease, pain, and injuries that arise from the pursuit of increased productivity through breeding, feeding, and housing "improvements." They focused on applied aspects of animal welfare research and development, aiming to develop improved systems for feeding, housing, handling, transportation, and slaughter that strike a fair balance between the five freedoms and the practical demands of animal farming (FAWC, 1993).

The Five Freedoms Which Define Animal Welfare

After extensive discussions, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) developed a concise yet comprehensive overview of farm animal needs and provisions (Farm Animal Welfare Council, 2006). These include:

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst: Ensuring animals have easy access to fresh water and a diet that adequately sustains their health and vitality.

2. Freedom from discomfort: Providing suitable shelter that offers a dry and comfortable resting area, maintaining a temperature range within their tolerance.

3. Freedom from pain, injury, and disease: Taking preventative measures and promptly diagnosing and treating any pain, injuries, or illnesses. This includes vaccination, regular health monitoring, physical care, appropriate medication, and addressing injuries promptly.

4. Freedom from fear and distress: Creating an environment where animals are acclimated to their surroundings and minimizing situations that induce stress. Conditions and treatment should be designed to avoid mental suffering. Recognizing that an animal's mental well-being is as crucial as its physical health, as psychological stress can quickly manifest as physical illness. Achieving this involves preventing overcrowding, providing sufficient enrichment, and offering safe hiding spaces.

5. Freedom to express normal patterns of behavior: Allowing animals enough space to move, engage in natural behaviors, and have appropriate social interactions with their own species. They should be able to stretch their bodies fully, from nose to tail, as well as engage in running, jumping, and playing. This can be particularly challenging in individual kennel housing situations.

By addressing these five freedoms, animal welfare can be enhanced, ensuring that farm animals are provided with essential physical and psychological well-being.

The policy goal outlined by FAWC (2009a) aimed to establish a minimum standard of welfare that ensures the quality of life for farm animals. This approach emphasizes the use of market forces, farmers' efforts, and legislation to allow British citizens to determine satisfactory standards. The objective is to assure citizens that all farm animals have a life that is valuable, with an increasing number having a good life. The key conditions required for ethical consumerism and improved farm animal welfare include:

i. The government acting as the guardian of farm animal welfare.

ii. Independent bodies defining standards for a good life.

iii. Determining minimum welfare standards based on an animal's quality of life.

iv. Ensuring stockmen are educated and trained to a high standard in animal welfare.

v. Implementing valid, feasible, and rigorous welfare assessments with independent audits.

vi. Requiring due diligence in the food supply chain to verify marketing claims.

vii. Educating citizens about food and farming from an early age.

viii. Labelling animal products according to welfare provenance, enabling consumer choice.

These recommendations have stood the test of time and are considered outcome-based measures, recognized as the most direct approach to assessing animal welfare. They are not intended as a pursuit of perfection but rather as guidelines for good husbandry: simple enough to be memorable yet comprehensive enough to be effective.

1. Brambell, F. W. R. (1965). Report of Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Husbandry Systems. HMSO, London.
2. Colditz Ian G. (2023) A biological integrity framework for describing animal welfare and wellbeing. Animal Production Science 63, 423-440.
3. Dawkins MS (2008) The science of animal suffering. Ethology 114, 937–945.
4. Farm Animal Welfare Council (2006). Second Report on Priorities for Research and Development. Tolworth: HMSO Publications
5. FAWC (1979) Press Statement Dec 5th 1979 p1. Farm Animal Welfare Council, Surrey, UK
6. FAWC (1993) Second Report on Priorities for Research and Development in Farm Animal Welfare. Farm Animal Welfare Council, DEFRA, London, UK.
7. FAWC (2009a) Five freedoms. Available at https://webarchive. nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20121010012427
8. Fraser D (1999) Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 171–189
9. Ruth Harrison (1964) “Animal Machines.”
10. Stafleu FR, Grommers FJ, Vorstenbosch J (1996) Animal welfare: evolution and erosion of a moral concept. Animal Welfare 5, 225–234.
11. Webster J (2013) International standards for farm animal welfare: science and values. The Veterinary Journal 198, (1):3-4
12. Webster J (2016) Animal welfare: freedoms, dominions and ‘A Life Worth Living’. Animals 6(6):35