Stakeholders can hold conflicting values and viewpoints, on what animal welfare is and how a good life is achieved and can signal different problems, or problematize specific aspects of farm animal welfare, and propose different actions or interventions within food supply chains. The aim of the study is to explore the contribution of narrative and argumentative discourse to the social construction and framing of animal welfare and its implications. The methodological approach in this research is composed of two phases with phase 1 being the foundational structured literature search in both academic and grey literature. Phase 2 was the analysis of the secondary data from the literature review to develop a synthesized iterative paper and in doing so develop a typology of five narratives: the ‘farming as a business’ narrative, the ‘religion-based’ narrative, the ‘research, legislative and political based narrative’, the ‘higher welfare’ narrative, and the “animal rights/power-based” narrative. Our findings demonstrate the contestation within the stakeholder discourse of the articulation of why farm animals should have a good life. Performance-related perspectives are rooted in the value-laden language and narratives that shape the arguments regarding notions of good and bad welfare; the emergent positioning of positive welfare for farm animals as well as how to achieve a good life in practice. The novel contribution of this review is the application of an explanatory word-language-discourse-person-situation-environment framework in this specific context to inform future research on animal welfare discourse analysis.

The concept of positive welfare is an expansion of the traditional understanding that animal welfare is defined by minimizing stress, pain, suffering, and disease. Positive welfare shifts the animal welfare narrative from a focus on reducing negative experiences to proactively providing animals with opportunities to have positive experiences and feelings. The concept, although around for several decades, is in its infancy in terms of developing ways of assessing positive welfare on farms, especially in extensive systems, and there are challenges in the adoption of positive welfare practices and the monitoring of continuous improvement at the farm level. Using an iterative approach, this critical review aims to explore the extent to which positive welfare interventions and indicators are positioned and have been developed within the animal welfare literature for sheep. This paper critiques existing positive welfare indicators, such as choices in food and the physical environment, conspecific social synchronization, maternal bonds, intergenerational knowledge transfer, positive human–animal relationships, etc., as currently assessed by the ‘good life framework’. It also reviews the characteristics of scientific measures for (positive) affective states in the current sheep literature and their potential contribution to understanding positive welfare states in sheep. In conclusion, this paper provides recommendations for future research regarding sheep welfare.

This research examines how sheep farmers and industry actors in the United Kingdom (UK) understand and conceptualize what animal welfare scientists term ‘positive animal welfare’. It explores their awareness of the concept, and how they interpret it using a qualitative approach. Participants were recruited using a snowballing, purposive sample approach, resulting in 25 sheep farmers and 11 industry actors (veterinarians, farming organizations, advisors, and supply chain) being interviewed. To collect data, a combined approach involving semi-structured interviews and a facilitated workshop were used between April 2021 and March 2022. Data were then thematically analyzed using a hybrid of inductive and deductive coding process. The findings suggested that the perceptions of farmers and industry actors in the study regarding positive welfare differ from contemporary academic discourses. Overall, around 7 of the farmers equated positive welfare with “positive stockmanship”, while six of them expressed “good animal welfare” definitions associated with the Five Freedoms. In contrast, most industry actors (6) expressed interpretations associated with high welfare standards (going above minimum recommended practices) and positive mental experiences (3). Emerging discourses revealed the link between self-identity, social identity and what positive welfare is, the importance of knowledge exchange, and the need for practical indicators through language rephrasing. There is a clear need to enhance and improve knowledge dissemination strategies, particularly in the UK, where much research is being conducted on positive animal welfare.

The University of Gloucestershire has a vibrant academic community where creative research and cutting-edge scholarship are conducted at a high level. Our learning-led environment enables research to thrive, providing the best support for students.

Positive animal welfare has gained prominence in discussions across animal welfare science, policy and industry. Yet debates surrounding the concept are often interpreted as disagreements about the concept itself. Drawing on insights from previous empirical research, this paper contends that the central tension concerns who gets to define positive animal welfare, whose language becomes legitimate and whose expertise is recognised. It offers a conceptual argument, illustrated through empirical examples from the Great Britain (GB) sheep sector, that positive animal welfare should be understood as a discursive space through which meanings of welfare, identities and claims to epistemic authority are constructed and negotiated. It uses discourse as a sensitising theoretical lens to analyse how actors mobilise different forms of knowledge, including scientific, institutional and experiential knowledge, to legitimise particular interpretations of positive animal welfare while contesting others. These negotiations revealed that disagreements arise not only from differing interpretations but also from struggles over language, legitimacy and the authority to define. Understanding positive animal welfare as a discursive space therefore helps explain why misalignment can persist even where there is broad agreement on the importance of positive animal welfare.

UK sheep farmers rely on a blend of knowledge: family traditions, peer networks, veterinarians, advisory services, digital communities, and international experts. This study explores how trust and relevance shape their choices, especially for animal welfare. Farmers value advice grounded in practical sheep experience and strong relationships. Family and peers remain central, but credible advisory services and select online groups add practical value. International perspectives, notably from New Zealand, also inform decisions. Building trust and tailoring knowledge to farm realities are key to improving welfare outcomes. As an exploratory contribution, this paper opens up a new research agenda on farmer knowledge networks and the conditions under which different knowledge sources gain legitimacy in agricultural decision-making.