The World Organisation for Animal Health describes animal welfare as a “complex and multi-faceted subject with scientific, ethical, economic, cultural, social, religious and political dimensions.” In this study, an online survey in English and Japanese was developed based on the Five Freedoms, with the aim of investigating attitudes of veterinarians and behaviour/welfare scientists in the United Kingdom (UK) and Japan toward management of companion, farmed, experimental, zoo and wildlife animals. Respondents from the UK (n = 212) were more familiar with the Five Freedoms than those from Japan (n = 321) but both countries tended to prioritise ‘survival-related’ attributes (health and nutrition) over ‘situation-related’ attributes (behaviour) and the environmental impacts (discomfort). In Japan, however, fewer respondents recognised the ‘Freedom to express normal behaviour’ as important for domesticated animals compared to UK respondents. When considering vignettes with practical situations of cat management and dog euthanasia, UK respondents considered the provision of outdoor access to represent better management for cat welfare while most Japanese respondents thought cats should be managed entirely indoors, although the benefits and risks of going outdoors were similarly recognised in both countries. For the vignette of dog pain relating to an incurable tumour, severe pain and the dog’s mental stress motivated respondents from both countries to consider euthanasia. However, for Japanese respondents, the data suggested a perception that mental stress did not have an association with the dog’s inabilities to express normal behaviour. These data highlighted the importance of understanding the manner in which people perceive animals in different contexts and the value of considering different cultural approaches.

To qualify and quantify animal welfare, novel assessment tools have been and are being developed, while existing assessment tools are being modified so that they can be applied to multiple species living under different housing and management conditions. The results of such assessments should be reliable, consistent and reproducible. We review the steps that should ideally be taken to develop, validate and apply animal welfare assessment tools. The first step should be to find a definition of animal welfare that the various stakeholders can agree upon. The second step should be to formulate and agree upon a framework for the evaluation of animal welfare. Both theoretical/conceptual frameworks, which provide a structure for research and suggest which facets are considered important, and ethical frameworks, which explicate the underlying moral position, should be considered. Finally, animal welfare assessment tools should be developed and validated based on both the adopted welfare definition and the welfare evaluation framework(s). However, this three-step approach has not always been followed in the development of welfare assessment tools currently in use. We expect that transparency and clarity regarding the underlying definitions and frameworks will increase the likelihood that the resulting welfare assessment tools will give similar weight to the aspects considered relevant to animal welfare, as it helps to specify the aspects that are considered to be key elements of animal welfare. This approach should lead to convergent assessment results and higher correlation of welfare indicators between assessment tools.

A large range of variables can affect the welfare of the dairy cow, making it difficult to assess the overall ‘level of welfare’ of the individual animal. Two groups of individuals completed a questionnaire based upon the ‘five freedoms’: 26 respondents had expertise either in the field of dairy cow welfare or as practicing veterinary surgeons, and 30 were veterinary students in their penultimate year of study. Conjoint analysis was used to calculate the average importance scores (AIS) for 34 variables presented to the respondents as 52 ‘model cows’ in the form of grouped questions, phrases and pictures. Conjoint analysis identified the most important factors for each ‘freedom’: access to forage, body condition score, foot conformation, hock lesions, and the encouragement required for a dairy cow to walk into the parlour. There was a significant difference between the expert and student groups for seven out of 34 factors, which may be attributed to individual variation of opinion, knowledge, experience and expectation. The factors were ranked within each ‘freedom’ using the experts' AIS but it was not assumed that each freedom had equal ‘weight’; therefore, the factors within each freedom were compared only with factors within the same freedom. These scores produced a weighting scale, which was applied on-farm, in a preliminary exercise comparing ‘model’ and ‘perceived’ welfare scores.