Articles | Volume 69, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-69-363-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-69-363-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Semantic modelling of animal welfare explained – Part 1: Calculating overall welfare scores for husbandry systems using the ANyWEL model framework
Janine Benthin
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, 29223, Celle, Germany
Karen Kauselmann
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, 29223, Celle, Germany
E. Tobias Krause
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, 29223, Celle, Germany
Marc B. M. Bracke
Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6700 AH, the Netherlands
Margret L. Vonholdt-Wenker
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, 29223, Celle, Germany
Related authors
Margret L. Vonholdt-Wenker, Janine Benthin, Karen Kauselmann, Marc B. M. Bracke, and E. Tobias Krause
Arch. Anim. Breed., 69, 383–396, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-69-383-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-69-383-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Semantic modelling is a procedure that can be used to assess overall animal welfare. Through the selection of scientific statements, semantic models can generate overall welfare scores. Our objective was to provide guidelines to make semantic modelling more formalised and transparent and to facilitate the use of this methodology to assess (farm) animal welfare. Ultimately, those guidelines should aid (new) modellers in applying the principles of semantic modelling in a standardised way.
Margret L. Vonholdt-Wenker, Janine Benthin, Karen Kauselmann, Marc B. M. Bracke, and E. Tobias Krause
Arch. Anim. Breed., 69, 383–396, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-69-383-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-69-383-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Semantic modelling is a procedure that can be used to assess overall animal welfare. Through the selection of scientific statements, semantic models can generate overall welfare scores. Our objective was to provide guidelines to make semantic modelling more formalised and transparent and to facilitate the use of this methodology to assess (farm) animal welfare. Ultimately, those guidelines should aid (new) modellers in applying the principles of semantic modelling in a standardised way.
Cited articles
Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R., and Lomillos, J. M.: Consumers' concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare, Animals, 10, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385, 2020.
Anonymous: Scientists' Assessment of the Impact of Housing and Management on Animal Welfare, J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci., 4, 3–52, https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0401_2, 2001.
Benthin, J., Vonholdt-Wenker, M. L., and Kauselmann, K.: Datenbank mit Literaturangaben, die für die Bewertung der Tiergerechtheit im Projekt InKalkTier verwendet wurden (Database with literature references used for the welfare assessment in the InKalkTier project) [Data set], Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10259931, 2023.
Blanco-Penedo, I., Ouweltjes, W., Ofner-Schröck, E., Brügemann, K., and Emanuelson, U.: Symposium review: Animal welfare in free-walk systems in Europe, J. Dairy Sci., 103, 5773–5782, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17315, 2020.
Blokhuis, H., Veissier, I., Miele, M., and Jones, B.: The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being, Acta Agr. Scand. A-An., 60, 129–140, https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2010.523480, 2010.
Bracke, M. B. M.: Modelling of animal welfare: The development of a decision support system to assess the welfare status of pregnant sows, Doctoral, Wageningen University, Wageningen, 158 pp., https://doi.org/10.18174/196942 2001.
Bracke, M. B. M.: Providing cross-species comparisons of animal welfare with a scientific basis, NJAS, 54, 61–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(06)80004-7, 2006.
Bracke, M. B. M.: RICHPIG: a semantic model to assess enrichment materials for pigs, Anim. Welfare, 17, 289–304, 2008.
Bracke, M. B. M. and Spoolder, H.: Review of wallowing in pigs: implications for animal welfare, Anim. Welfare, 20, 347–363, 2011.
Bracke, M. B. M., Spruijt, B. M., and Metz, J.: Overall animal welfare reviewed. Part 3: Welfare assessment based on needs and supported by expert opinion, Neth. J. Agr. Sci., 47, 307–322, 1999.
Bracke, M. B. M., Metz, J., Dijkhuizen, A. A., and Spruijt, B. M.: Development of a decision support system for assessing farm animal welfare in relation to husbandry systems: Strategy and prototype, J. Agr. Environ. Ethic., 14, 321–337, 2001.
Bracke, M. B. M., Metz, J. H. M., Spruijt, B. M., and Schouten, W. G. P.: Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: validation by expert opinion, J. Anim. Sci., 80, 1835–1845, https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.8071835x, 2002a.
Bracke, M. B. M., Spruijt, B. M., Metz, J., and Schouten, W.: Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: Model structure and weighting procedure, J. Anim. Sci., 80, 1819–1834, https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.8071819x, 2002b.
Bracke, M. B. M., Hulsegge, B., Keeling, L., and Blokhuis, H. J.: Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs 1. Modelling, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 87, 31–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.12.005, 2004a.
Bracke, M. B. M., Hulsegge, B., Keeling, L., and Blokhuis, H. J.: Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs 2. Validation, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 87, 45–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.12.006, 2004b.
Bracke, M. B. M., Zonderland, J. J., and Bleumer, E. J. B.: Expert judgement on enrichment materials for pigs validates preliminary RICHPIG Model, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 104, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.005, 2007.
Bracke, M. B. M., Edwards, S. A., Engel, B., Buist, W. G., and Algers, B.: Expert opinion as “validation” of risk assessment applied to calf welfare, Acta. Vet. Scand., 50, 29, https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-50-29, 2008a.
Bracke, M. B. M., Edwards, S. A., Metz, J. H. M., Noordhuizen, J. P. T. M., and Algers, B.: Synthesis of semantic modelling and risk analysis methodology applied to animal welfare, Animal, 2, 1061–1072, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108002139, 2008b.
Bracke, M. B. M., Koene, P., Estevez, I., Butterworth, A., and Jong, I. C. de: Broiler welfare trade-off: A semi-quantitative welfare assessment for optimised welfare improvement based on an expert survey, PLoS One, 14, e0222955, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222955, 2019.
Bracke, M. B. M., Boumans, I. J. M. M., Nijland, H. J., and Bokkers, E. A. M.: Review: Connecting circularity to animal welfare calls for a “novel” conceptual framework based on integrity, Animal, 17, 100694, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100694, 2023.
Chidgey, K. L.: Review: Space allowance for growing pigs: animal welfare, performance and on-farm practicality, Animal, 18, 100890, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.100890, 2023.
Chowdhary, K., R.: Natural language processing, in: Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence, edited by: Chowhdary, K. G., Springer, New Dehli, 603–649, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3972-7_19 2020.
Cooper, R. and Wemelsfelder, F.: Qualitative behaviour assessment as an indicator of animal emotional welfare in farm assurance, Livestock, 25, 180–183, https://doi.org/10.12968/live.2020.25.4.180, 2020.
De Mol, R. M., Schouten, W., Evers, E., Drost, H., Houwers, H., and Smits, A. C.: A computer model for welfare assessment of poultry production systems for laying hens, NJAS, 54, 157–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(06)80019-9, 2006.
EFSA: Animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets – Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, EFSA J., 5, 572, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2007.572, 2007.
EFSA: Animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on housing and management (EFSA Housing Risk), EFSA Supporting Publications, 7, https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2010.EN-87, 2010.
EFSA: Scientific Opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems, EFSA J., 10, 2669, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2669, 2012.
EFSA: Scientific Opinion on welfare aspects of the use of perches for laying hens, EFSA J., 13, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4131, 2015.
EFSA: Welfare of laying hens on farm, EFSA J., 1–188, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7789, 2023.
European Commission: Study on animal welfare labelling: Final report, Publications Office, https://doi.org/10.2875/676603, 2022.
European Commission: Eurobarometer shows how important Animal Welfare is for Europeans: Eurobarometer, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_23_4951, last access: 2 November 2023.
Folkedal, O., Pettersen, J. M., Bracke, M. B. M., Stien, L. H., Nilsson, J., Martins, C., Breck, O., Midtlyng, P. J., and Kristiansen, T.: On-farm evaluation of the Salmon Welfare Index Model (SWIM 1.0): Theoretical and practical considerations, Anim. Welfare, 25, 135–149, https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.1.135, 2016.
Heinonen, M., Peltoniemi, O., and Valros, A.: Impact of lameness and claw lesions in sows on welfare, health and production, Livest. Sci., 156, 2–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.002, 2013.
Helge Stien, L., Noble, C., Madaro, A., Nilsson, J., Alvestad, R., Gismervik, K., Harasimczuk, E., Bleie, H., Skaar Amthor, K., and Bracke, M. B. M.: Reviewing the Severity of Handling-Induced Injuries in the LAKSVEL Protocol for Salmon Welfare, Rev. Aquacult., 17, e70076, https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.70076, 2025.
Jones, S., Neville, V., Higgs, L., Paul, E. S., Dayan, P., Robinson, E. S., J., and Mendl, M.: Assessing animal affect: an automated and self-initiated judgement bias task based on natural investigative behaviour, Sci. Rep., 8, 12400, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30571-x, 2018.
Kauselmann, K., Krause, E. T., Glitz, B., Gallmann, E., Schrade, H., and Schrader, L.: Effect of plant-based enrichment materials on exploration in rearing and fattening pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus), Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 236, 105261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105261, 2021.
Keeling, L. J., Marier, E. A., Olmos Antillón, G., Blokhuis, H. J., Staaf Larsson, B., and Stuardo, L.: A global study to identify a potential basis for policy options when integrating animal welfare into the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Front. Anim. Sci., 3, https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.974687, 2022.
Kirkden, R. D. and Pajor, E. A.: Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals' feelings, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 100, 29–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.009, 2006.
Neuhauser, J., Hintze, S., Rault, J. L., Smith, S., and Sirovnik, J.: Training for a cognitive judgement bias task does not affect fear or telomere shortening in laying hens, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 265, 105996, 2023.
Pettersen, J. M., Bracke, M. B., Midtlyng, P. J., Folkedal, O., Stien, L. H., Steffenak, H., and Kristiansen, T. S.: Salmon welfare index model 2.0: an extended model for overall welfare assessment of caged Atlantic salmon, based on a review of selected welfare indicators and intended for fish health professionals, Rev. Aquacult., 6, 162–179, https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12039, 2014.
Pinheiro Machado Filho, L. C., Teixeira, D. L., Weary, D. M., Keyserlingk, M. von, and Hötzel, M. J.: Designing better water troughs: dairy cows prefer and drink more from larger troughs, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 89, 185–193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.07.002, 2004.
Qin, L., Chen, Q., Feng, X., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Li, M., Che, W., and Yu, P. S.: Large language models meet nlp: A survey, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.12819, 2024.
Rault, J.-L., Bateson, M., Boissy, A., Forkman, B., Grinde, B., Gygax, L., Harfeld, J. L., Hintze, S., Keeling, L. J., Kostal, L., Lawrence, A. B., Mendl, M. T., Miele, M., Newberry, R. C., Sandøe, P., Špinka, M., Taylor, A. H., Webb, L. E., Whalin, L., and Jensen, M. B.: A consensus on the definition of positive animal welfare, Biol. Letters, 21, 20240382, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0382, 2025.
Reimers, N. and Gurevych, I.: Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.10084, 2019.
Shimmura, T., Bracke, M. B. M., Mol, R. M. de, Hirahara, S., Uetake, K., and Tanaka, T.: Overall welfare assessment of laying hens: comparing science-based, environment-based and animal-based assessments, Anim. Sci. J., 82, 150–160, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00834.x, 2011.
Stien, L. H., Bracke, M. B. M., Folkedal, O., Nilsson, J., Oppedal, F., Torgersen, T., Kittilsen, S., Midtlyng, P. J., Vindas, M. A., Øverli, Ø., and Kristiansen, T. S.: Salmon Welfare Index Model (SWIM 1.0): A semantic model for overall welfare assessment of caged Atlantic salmon: review of the selected welfare indicators and model presentation, Rev. Aquacult., 5, 33–57, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01083.x, 2013.
Tschirren, L., Bachmann, D., Güler, A. C., Blaser, O., Rhyner, N., Seitz, A., Zbinden, E., Wahli, T., Segner, H., and Refardt, D.: MyFishCheck: A Model to Assess Fish Welfare in Aquaculture, Animals, 11, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010145, 2021.
Ursinus, W. W., Schepers, F., Mol, R. M. de, Bracke, M. B. M., Metz, J., and Groot Koerkamp, P.: COWEL: a decision support system to assess welfare of husbandry systems for dairy cattle, Anim. Welfare, 18, 545–552, 2009.
Verdon, M.: A review of factors affecting the welfare of dairy calves in pasture-based production systems, Anim. Prod. Sci., 62, 1, https://doi.org/10.1071/AN21139, 2022.
Vonholdt-Wenker, M. L., Benthin, J., Kauselmann, K., Bracke, M. B. M., and Krause, E. T.: Semantic modelling of animal welfare explained – Part 2: The basis of welfare weighting and usage of scientific information, Arch. Anim. Breed., 69, 383–396, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-69-383-2026, 2026.
Zhang, C., Da Silva Torres, R., Gansel, L., and Bracke, M.: Automated extraction of scientific statements for integrated assessment of animal welfare using Language models, Smart Agric. Technol., 13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2026.101814, 2026.
Short summary
We developed the ANyWEL (ANimal WELfare assessment of anY farm animal) model for improved semantic modelling. The model allows for the synthesis of scientific information about animal welfare. Housing conditions can be compared and ranked and welfare-relevant properties can be distinguished. We explain how this procedure works through a fictitious animal species. Herewith, semantic modelling becomes more transparent with regard to how scientific knowledge can be used to produce overall welfare scores.
We developed the ANyWEL (ANimal WELfare assessment of anY farm animal) model for improved...