The concept of animal welfare is evolving due to progress in our scientific understanding of animal biology and changing societal expectations. Animal welfare science has been primarily concerned with minimizing suffering, but there is growing interest in also promoting positive experiences, grouped under the term positive animal welfare (PAW). However, there are discrepancies in the use of the term PAW. An interdisciplinary group arrived at a consensus that 'PAW can be defined as the animal flourishing through the experience of predominantly positive mental states and the development of competence and resilience. PAW goes beyond ensuring good physical health and the prevention and alleviation of suffering. It encompasses animals experiencing positive mental states resulting from rewarding experiences, including having choices and opportunities to actively pursue goals and achieve desired outcomes'. The definition also considers individual and species-specific differences. It provides a framework for researchers to investigate PAW and thereby generate innovative, informative and reproducible science. Studies of PAW can contribute to a richer picture of an animal's life and may elucidate the biological foundations of happiness. The definition creates opportunities to inspire scientific progress in animal biology and to align animal care practices, legislation and markets with societal expectations.

Animal Husbandry and Ethology Albrecht Daniel Thaer Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences Faculty of Life Sciences Humboldt Universität zu Berlin Berlin Germany

Animal Production Systems group Department of Animal Sciences Wageningen University and Research Wageningen The Netherlands

Animal Welfare and Behaviour Group Bristol Veterinary School University of Bristol Langford UK

Biosciences Institute Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne UK

Centre of Biosciences Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava Slovakia

Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences Faculty of Biosciences Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ås Norway

Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences Aarhus University Tjele Denmark

Department of Applied Animal Science and Welfare Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden

Department of Culture and Learning Aalborg University Aalborg Denmark

Department of Ethology and Companion Animal Science Faculty of Agrobiology Food and Natural Resources Czech University of Life Sciences Prague Czechia

Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems BOKU University Vienna Austria

Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences and Department of Food and Resource Economics University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark

Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences University of Copenhagen Frederiksberg Denmark

Herbivores Université Clermont Auvergne INRAE VetAgro Sup Saint Genès Champanelle France

ICREA Barcelona Spain

Institut de Neurociències Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Barcelona Spain

Institute of Animal Welfare Science University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna Vienna Austria

School of Biological Sciences University of Canterbury Christchurch New Zealand

School of Geography and Planning Cardiff University Cardiff UK

Scotland's Rural College Edinburgh UK

The Norwegian Veterinary Institute Ås Norway

The Roslin Institute Easter Bush Campus Midlothian UK

University of Oslo Oslo Norway

Zobrazit více v PubMed

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) . 2009. General approach to fish welfare and to the concept of sentience in fish. EFSA J. 7, 954. (10.2903/j.efsa.2009.954) DOI

Birch J, Burn CC, Schnell A, Browning H, Crump A. 2021. Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans 107.

Fraser D, Duncan IJH. 1998. ‘'Pleasures’, ’Pains’ and Animal Welfare: Toward a Natural History of Affect. Anim. Welf. 7, 383–396. (10.1017/s0962728600020935) DOI

Boissy A, et al. . 2007. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol. Behav. 92, 375–397. (10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003) PubMed DOI

Yeates JW, Main DCJ. 2008. Assessment of positive welfare: A review. Vet. J. 175, 293–300. (10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009) PubMed DOI

Balcombe J. 2009. Animal pleasure and its moral significance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 118, 208–216. (10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.012) DOI

Miele M, Veissier I, Evans A, Botreau R. 2011. Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Anim. Welf. 20, 103–117. (10.1017/s0962728600002475) DOI

Vigors B. 2019. Citizens’ and Farmers’ Framing of ‘Positive Animal Welfare’ and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication. Animals 9, 147. (10.3390/ani9040147) PubMed DOI PMC

Noble Foods . The Happy Egg Co. See https://www.noblefoods.co.uk/egg-brands/the-happy-egg-co/ (accessed 19 September 2024).

Greenbaum J. 2022. Advertising Law Updates. When Do Sheep ‘Live the Good Life’?. New York, NY: Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC. See https://advertisinglaw.fkks.com/post/102hmyz/when-do-sheep-live-the-good-life (accessed 19 September 2024).

Interquell GmbH. Happy Dog - healthy premium pet food. See https://happydog-petfood.com/.

Arla Foods . 2024. Happy cows are healthy cows. A happy cow produces more and better milk. Happy Cows = Healthy Cows = better milk. See https://www.arla.com/company/farmer-owned/happy-cows-are-healthy-cows/.

Miele M. 2011. The Taste of Happiness: Free-Range Chicken. Environ. Plan. A. 43, 2076–2090. (10.1068/a43257) DOI

Lawrence AB, Vigors B, Sandøe P. 2019. What Is so Positive about Positive Animal Welfare?—A Critical Review of the Literature. Animals 9, 783. (10.3390/ani9100783) PubMed DOI PMC

Rault JL, Hintze S, Camerlink I, Yee JR. 2020. Positive Welfare and the Like: Distinct Views and a Proposed Framework. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 370. (10.3389/fvets.2020.00370) PubMed DOI PMC

Cuff BMP, Brown SJ, Taylor L, Howat DJ. 2016. Empathy: A Review of the Concept. Emot. Rev. 8, 144–153. (10.1177/1754073914558466) DOI

Jensen MB, Webb LE. 2022. COST Action CA21124. LIFT: Lifting farm animal lives—laying the foundations for positive animal welfare. European Cooperation in Science and Technology, 2022–2026. See https://liftanimalwelfare.eu/

TallBear K. 2014. Standing with and speaking as faith: A feminist-Indigenous approach to inquiry. J. Res. Pract. 10, N17. (10.4324/9781315528854) DOI

Celermajer D, Ryan E, Franks B. Animals in the Room. See https://animalsintheroom.org/ (accessed 19 September 2024).

Seligman MEP. 2011. Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York, NY: Free Press.

VanderWeele TJ. 2017. On the promotion of human flourishing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 8148–8156. (10.1073/pnas.1702996114) PubMed DOI PMC

Keyes CLM. 2002. The Mental Health Continuum: From Languishing to Flourishing in Life. J. Health Soc. Behav. 43, 207–222.. (10.2307/3090197) PubMed DOI

Huppert FA, So TTC. 2013. Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being. Soc. Indic. Res. 110, 837–861. (10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7) PubMed DOI PMC

Maslow AH. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370–396. (10.1037/h0054346) DOI

Webb LE, Veenhoven R, Harfeld JL, Jensen MB. 2019. What is animal happiness? Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1438, 62–76. (10.1111/nyas.13983) PubMed DOI PMC

Hintze S, Yee JR. 2023. Animals in flow—towards the scientific study of intrinsic reward in animals. Biol. Rev. 98, 792–806. (10.1111/brv.12930) PubMed DOI

Mellor DJ. 2015. Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours. N. Z. Vet. J. 63, 9–16. (10.1080/00480169.2014.926800) PubMed DOI

Mendl M, Paul ES. 2020. Animal affect and decision-making. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 112, 144–163. (10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.025) PubMed DOI

Paul ES, Mendl MT. 2018. Animal emotion: Descriptive and prescriptive definitions and their implications for a comparative perspective. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 205, 202–209. (10.1016/j.applanim.2018.01.008) PubMed DOI PMC

Mogil JS. 2009. Animal models of pain: progress and challenges. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 283–294. (10.1038/nrn2606) PubMed DOI

Gururajan A, Reif A, Cryan JF, Slattery DA. 2019. The future of rodent models in depression research. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 20, 686–701. (10.1038/s41583-019-0221-6) PubMed DOI

Panksepp J. 1998. Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions, pp. xii–xii. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Emery NJ, Clayton NS. 2015. Do birds have the capacity for fun? Curr. Biol. 25, R16–20. (10.1016/j.cub.2014.09.020) PubMed DOI

Richardson M, McEwan K, Maratos F, Sheffield D. 2016. Joy and Calm: How an Evolutionary Functional Model of Affect Regulation Informs Positive Emotions in Nature. Evol. Psychol. Sci. 2, 308–320. (10.1007/s40806-016-0065-5) DOI

McManus MD, Siegel JT, Nakamura J. 2019. The predictive power of low-arousal positive affect. Motiv. Emot. 43, 130–144. (10.1007/s11031-018-9719-x) DOI

Nelson XJ, Taylor AH, Cartmill EA, Lyn H, Robinson LM, Janik V, Allen C. 2023. Joyful by nature: approaches to investigate the evolution and function of joy in non‐human animals. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 98, 1548–1563. (10.1111/brv.12965) PubMed DOI

Mendl M, Burman OHP, Paul ES. 2010. An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 2895–2904. (10.1098/rspb.2010.0303) PubMed DOI PMC

Harding EJ, Paul ES, Mendl M. 2004. Cognitive bias and affective state. Nature 427, 312. (10.1038/427312a) PubMed DOI

Bateson M, Desire S, Gartside SE, Wright GA. 2011. Agitated Honeybees Exhibit Pessimistic Cognitive Biases. Curr. Biol. 21, 1070–1073. (10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.017) PubMed DOI PMC

Lagisz M, Zidar J, Nakagawa S, Neville V, Sorato E, Paul ES, Bateson M, Mendl M, Løvlie H. 2020. Optimism, pessimism and judgement bias in animals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 118, 3–17. (10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.07.012) PubMed DOI

Diener E, Sandvik E, Pavot W. 2009. Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In Assessing well-being: the collected works of Ed Diener, pp. 213–231. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. (10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_10) DOI

Alexander R, et al. . 2021. The neuroscience of positive emotions and affect: Implications for cultivating happiness and wellbeing. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 121, 220–249. (10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.12.002) PubMed DOI

Dejonckheere E, Mestdagh M, Houben M, Rutten I, Sels L, Kuppens P, Tuerlinckx F. 2019. Complex affect dynamics add limited information to the prediction of psychological well-being. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 478–491. (10.1038/s41562-019-0555-0) PubMed DOI

Špinka M. 2019. Animal agency, animal awareness and animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 28, 11–20. (10.7120/09627286.28.1.011) DOI

Spinka M, Newberry RC, Bekoff M. 2001. Mammalian Play: Training for the Unexpected. Q. Rev. Biol. 76, 141–168. (10.1086/393866) PubMed DOI

Puls F, Kosin L, Garbisch F, Touma C, Thöne‐Reineke C, Gygax L. 2024. Steps into a Small World: First glimpses on everyday moment‐to‐moment decision making in an ecologically meaningful multi‐choice system for assessing animal preferences. Ethology 130, e13468. (10.1111/eth.13468) DOI

Oliveira RF. 2009. Social behavior in context: Hormonal modulation of behavioral plasticity and social competence. Integr. Comp. Biol. 49, 423–440. (10.1093/icb/icp055) PubMed DOI

Dantzer R, Cohen S, Russo SJ, Dinan TG. 2018. Resilience and immunity. Brain Behav. Immun. 74, 28–42. (10.1016/j.bbi.2018.08.010) PubMed DOI PMC

Wemelsfelder F. 1997. The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 53, 75–88. (10.1016/s0168-1591(96)01152-5) DOI

Englund MD, Cronin KA. 2023. Choice, control, and animal welfare: definitions and essential inquiries to advance animal welfare science. Front. Vet. Sci. 10, 1250251. (10.3389/fvets.2023.1250251) PubMed DOI PMC

Franks B, Tory Higgins E. 2012. Chapter six - Effectiveness in Humans and Other Animals: A Common Basis for Well-being and Welfare. In Advances in experimental social psychology (eds Olson JM, Zanna MP), pp. 285–346. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Arndt SS, Goerlich VC, van der Staay FJ. 2022. A dynamic concept of animal welfare: The role of appetitive and adverse internal and external factors and the animal’s ability to adapt to them. Front. Anim. Sci. 3. (10.3389/fanim.2022.908513) DOI

Fredrickson BL. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. 56, 218–226. (10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.218) PubMed DOI PMC

Colditz IG. 2022. Competence to thrive: resilience as an indicator of positive health and positive welfare in animals. Anim. Prod. Sci. 62, 1439–1458. (10.1071/an22061) DOI

Reed JM, Wolfe BE, Romero LM. 2024. Is resilience a unifying concept for the biological sciences?. iScience 27, 109478. (10.1016/j.isci.2024.109478) PubMed DOI PMC

Friggens NC, et al. . 2022. Resilience: reference measures based on longer-term consequences are needed to unlock the potential of precision livestock farming technologies for quantifying this trait. Peer Community J. 2. (10.24072/pcjournal.136) DOI

Fredrickson BL, Joiner T. 2018. Reflections on Positive Emotions and Upward Spirals. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 194–199. (10.1177/1745691617692106) PubMed DOI PMC

Wolfer DP, Litvin O, Morf S, Nitsch RM, Lipp HP, Würbel H. 2004. Cage enrichment and mouse behaviour. Nature 432, 821–822. (10.1038/432821a) PubMed DOI

Honess PE, Marin CM. 2006. Enrichment and aggression in primates. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30, 413–436. (10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.05.002) PubMed DOI

Lay DC, et al. . 2011. Hen welfare in different housing systems 1. Poult. Sci. 90, 278–294. (10.3382/ps.2010-00962) PubMed DOI

Burghardt GM. 2005. The genesis of animal play: testing the limits. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

D’Eath R, Conington J, Lawrence A, Olsson I, Sandøe P. 2010. Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: practical, economic and ethical considerations. Anim. Welf. 19, 17–27. (10.1017/s0962728600002207) DOI

Sandøe P, Hocking PM, Förkman B, Haldane K, Kristensen HH, Palmer C. 2014. The Blind Hens’ Challenge: Does It Undermine the View That Only Welfare Matters in Our Dealings with Animals? Environ. Values 23, 727–742. (10.3197/096327114x13947900181950) DOI

Doyle RE, Fisher AD, Hinch GN, Boissy A, Lee C. 2010. Release from restraint generates a positive judgement bias in sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 122, 28–34. (10.1016/j.applanim.2009.11.003) DOI

Nguyen D, Naffziger EE, Berridge KC. 2021. Positive affect: nature and brain bases of liking and wanting. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 39, 72–78. (10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.013) PubMed DOI PMC

Gygax L. 2017. Wanting, liking and welfare: The role of affective states in proximate control of behaviour in vertebrates. Ethology 123, 689–704. (10.1111/eth.12655) DOI

Dawkins MS. 2021. The science of animal welfare: understanding what animals want. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mellor DJ. 2015. Enhancing animal welfare by creating opportunities for positive affective engagement. N. Z. Vet. J. 63, 3–8. (10.1080/00480169.2014.926799) PubMed DOI

Nicol CJ, Caplen G, Edgar J, Browne WJ. 2009. Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Anim. Behav. 78, 413–424. (10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.05.016) DOI

Holt RV, Skånberg L, Keeling LJ, Estevez I, Newberry RC. 2024. Resource choice during ontogeny enhances both the short- and longer-term welfare of laying hen pullets. Sci. Rep. 14, 3360. (10.1038/s41598-024-53039-7) PubMed DOI PMC

Nagel T. 2024. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? Philos. Rev. 83, 435–450. (10.1093/oso/9780197752791.003.0001) DOI

Yong E. 2023. An immense world: how animal senses reveal the hidden realms around us. London, UK: Random House.

Turcsán B, Kubinyi E, Miklósi Á. 2011. Trainability and boldness traits differ between dog breed clusters based on conventional breed categories and genetic relatedness. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 132, 61–70. (10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.006) DOI

Lukas M, Wöhr M. 2015. Endogenous vasopressin, innate anxiety, and the emission of pro-social 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations during social play behavior in juvenile rats. Psychoneuroendocrinology 56, 35–44. (10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.03.005) PubMed DOI

Nettle D, Bateson M. 2015. Adaptive developmental plasticity: what is it, how can we recognize it and when can it evolve? Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20151005. (10.1098/rspb.2015.1005) PubMed DOI PMC

Morley-Fletcher S, Rea M, Maccari S, Laviola G. 2003. Environmental enrichment during adolescence reverses the effects of prenatal stress on play behaviour and HPA axis reactivity in rats. Eur. J. Neurosci. 18, 3367–3374. (10.1111/j.1460-9568.2003.03070.x) PubMed DOI

Coulon M, Nowak R, Andanson S, Petit B, Lévy F, Boissy A. 2015. Effects of prenatal stress and emotional reactivity of the mother on emotional and cognitive abilities in lambs. Dev. Psychobiol. 57, 626–636. (10.1002/dev.21320) PubMed DOI

Novick AM, Levandowski ML, Laumann LE, Philip NS, Price LH, Tyrka AR. 2018. The effects of early life stress on reward processing. J. Psychiatr. Res. 101, 80–103. (10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.02.002) PubMed DOI PMC

Kundakovic M, Champagne FA. 2015. Early-Life Experience, Epigenetics, and the Developing Brain. Neuropsychopharmacology 40, 141–153. (10.1038/npp.2014.140) PubMed DOI PMC

Dawkins M. 1976. Towards an objective method of assessing welfare in domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 2, 245–254. (10.1016/0304-3762(76)90056-0) DOI

Petherick JC, Duncan IJH, Waddington D. 1990. Previous experience with different floors influences choice of peat in a Y-maze by domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 27, 177–182. (10.1016/0168-1591(90)90017-8) DOI

Charlton GL, Rutter SM. 2017. The behaviour of housed dairy cattle with and without pasture access: A review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 192, 2–9. (10.1016/j.applanim.2017.05.015) DOI

Anisman H, Matheson K. 2005. Stress, depression, and anhedonia: Caveats concerning animal models. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 29, 525–546. (10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.03.007) PubMed DOI

Van der Harst JE, Spruijt BM. 2007. Tools to measure and improve animal welfare: reward-related behaviour. Anim. Welf. 16, 67–73. (10.1017/s0962728600031742) DOI

Burn CC. 2017. Bestial boredom: a biological perspective on animal boredom and suggestions for its scientific investigation. Anim. Behav. 130, 141–151. (10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.06.006) DOI

MacLellan A, Fureix C, Polanco A, Mason G. 2021. Can animals develop depression? An overview and assessment of ‘depression-like’ states. Behaviour 158, 1303–1353. (10.1163/1568539x-bja10132) DOI

Widowski TM, Duncan IJH2000. Working for a dustbath: are hens increasing pleasure rather than reducing suffering? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 68, 39–53. (10.1016/s0168-1591(00)00088-5) PubMed DOI

Achterberg EJM, Burke CJ, Pellis SM. 2023. When the individual comes into play: The role of self and the partner in the dyadic play fighting of rats. Behav. Process. 212, 104933. (10.1016/j.beproc.2023.104933) PubMed DOI

EFSA-European Food Safety Authority . 2012. Statement on the use of animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA J. 10, 2767. (10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2767) DOI

Keeling LJ, Winckler C, Hintze S, Forkman B. 2021. Towards a Positive Welfare Protocol for Cattle: A Critical Review of Indicators and Suggestion of How We Might Proceed. Front. Anim. Sci. 2. (10.3389/fanim.2021.753080) DOI

Lawrence AB, Newberry RC, Špinka M. 2024. Positive welfare: What does it add to the debate over pig welfare? In Advances in pig welfare (eds Camerlink I, Baxter EM), pp. 83–112, 2nd edn. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing. (10.1016/b978-0-323-85676-8.00009-2) DOI

McMillan FD. 2000. Quality of life in animals. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 216, 1904–1910. (10.2460/javma.2000.216.1904) PubMed DOI

FAWC-Farm Animal Welfare Council . 2009. Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future. London, UK: FAWC

Aydede M. 2019. Does the IASP definition of pain need updating? Pain Rep. 4, e777. (10.1097/PR9.0000000000000777) PubMed DOI PMC

Burghardt GM. 2011. Defining and Recognizing Play. In The oxford handbook of the development of play (eds Nathan P, Pellegrini AD), pp. 9–18. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Zonderland JJ, Wolthuis-Fillerup M, van Reenen CG, Bracke MBM, Kemp B, Hartog L den, Spoolder HAM. 2008. Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 110, 269–281. (10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.005) DOI

Jensen MB, Herskin MS, Forkman B, Pedersen LJ. 2015. Effect of increasing amounts of straw on pigs’ explorative behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 171, 58–63. (10.1016/j.applanim.2015.08.035) DOI

Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas J. 2023. Welfare of calves. EFSA J. Eur. Food Saf. Auth. 21, e07896. (10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7896) PubMed DOI PMC

Fredrickson BL. 2013. Updated thinking on positivity ratios. Am. Psychol. 68, 814–822. (10.1037/a0033584) PubMed DOI

Hone LC, Jarden A, Schofield GM, Duncan S. 2014. Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. Int. J. Wellbeing 4, 62–90. (10.5502/ijw.v4i1.4) DOI

Grinde B. 2023. Consciousness: A Strategy for Behavioral Decisions. Encyclopedia 3, 60–76. (10.3390/encyclopedia3010005) DOI

Veit W. 2023. A Darwinian Philosophy for the Science of Consciousness. In A philosophy for the science of animal consciousness, pp. 1–23. New York, NY: Routledge. (10.4324/9781003321729-1) DOI

Browning H, Veit W. 2023. Studying Animal Feelings: Integrating Sentience Research and Welfare Science. J. Conscious. Stud. 30, 196–222. (10.53765/20512201.30.7.196) DOI

Mendl M, Neville V, Paul ES. 2022. Bridging the Gap: Human Emotions and Animal Emotions. Affect. Sci. 3, 703–712. (10.1007/s42761-022-00125-6) PubMed DOI PMC

Le Neindre P, et al. . 2017. Animal Consciousness. EFSA Supp. Publ. 14, 1196. (10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.en-1196) DOI

de Waal FBM, Andrews K. 2022. The question of animal emotions. Science 375, 1351–1352. (10.1126/science.abo2378) PubMed DOI

Andrews K, Birch J, Sebo J, Sims T. 2024. The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness. Background. See https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nydeclaration/background?authuser=0.

LeDoux JE. 2021. What emotions might be like in other animals. Curr. Biol. 31, R824–R829. (10.1016/j.cub.2021.05.005) PubMed DOI

Key B, Zalucki O, Brown DJ. 2022. A First Principles Approach to Subjective Experience. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 16, 756224. (10.3389/fnsys.2022.756224) PubMed DOI PMC

Berridge K, Winkielman P. 2003. What is an unconscious emotion? (The case for unconscious ‘liking’). Cogn. Emot. 17, 181–211. (10.1080/02699930302289) PubMed DOI

Birch J. 2017. Animal sentience and the precautionary principle. Anim. Sentience 2. (10.51291/2377-7478.1200) DOI

WOAH-World Organization for Animal Health . 2019. Chapter 7.1. Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare. In Terrestrial animal health code. See https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2023/chapitre_aw_introduction.pdf.

Task-specific morphological and kinematic differences in Lipizzan horses