Introduction
Changes in agricultural practices, such as intensified farming operations, as well as evolving societal expectations, place farm animal welfare at the centre of public, policy, and scientific concern (Devitt et al. Reference Devitt, Hanlon, More, Kelly and Blake2018). Animal welfare incidents, which refer to situations where those responsible for the care of livestock fail to prevent avoidable pain, suffering, or neglect, remain a persistent challenge across agricultural settings (Kelly et al. Reference Kelly, More, Blake and Hanlon2011; Spigarelli et al. Reference Spigarelli, Berton, Corazzin, Gallo, Pinterits, Ramanzin, Ressi, Sturaro, Zuliani and Bovolenta2021). These incidents are most often characterised by chronic neglect due to inadequate housing and hygiene, poor body condition, or untreated injuries rather than deliberate harm (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Hemsworth, Chaplin, Shephard and Fisher2024a). Despite each Canadian province having legislation that assigns legal responsibility to owners and caretakers and permits enforcement agencies to intervene, animal welfare issues on farms persist. In fact, a growing and underexamined risk to farm animal welfare lies with the increasing pressures faced by farmers themselves, whose well-being shapes their capacity to care for their animals (Andrade & Anneberg Reference Andrade and Anneberg2014; Devitt et al. Reference Devitt, Kelly, Blake, Hanlon and More2015).
Farming is a demanding and often isolating occupation marked by financial uncertainty, physical hazards, relationship strain, and emotional fatigue (Jones et al. Reference Jones, Sawatzky, Thompson and Hagen2024; Purc-Stephenson & Doctor Reference Purc-Stephenson and Doctor2025). When stress accumulates and coping resources become depleted, many farmers struggle to maintain the level of care their animals require (Devitt et al. Reference Devitt, Kelly, Blake, Hanlon and More2015; Williams et al. Reference Williams, Hemsworth, Chaplin, Shephard and Fisher2024a). Compounding these challenges is a steadily ageing workforce, whereby more than half of Canada’s farm operators are expected to be over 60 by 2026 (Farm Credit Canada 2025). In this context, changes in animal condition, deterioration of the farm property and physical environment, and observable behaviours of the individual may together provide important indicators of the interconnected animal, environmental, and human conditions that influence animal welfare (Vigors et al. Reference Vigors, Wemelsfelder and Lawrence2023; Williams et al. Reference Williams, Chaplin, Hemsworth, Shephard and Fisher2024b). This recognition reflects a One Welfare perspective, in which the well-being of animals, the environment, and people are understood to be fundamentally interconnected (Pinillos et al. Reference Pinillos2018; Yeates Reference Yeates2024). Despite this conceptual framework, limited research has examined how observable animal, farm property, and human indicators can be integrated into animal welfare assessment approaches.
Risk assessments are commonly used across health and social systems to identify individuals or situations at heightened risk of adverse outcomes (Jardine et al. Reference Jardine, Hrudey, Shortreed, Craig, Krewski, Furgal and McColl2003; Mindell et al. Reference Mindell, Boltong and Forde2008). Within agriculture, early efforts to assess livestock welfare relied primarily on surveillance-based or pre-recorded data sources, such as herd health records, mortality data, or registration information (Houe et al. Reference Houe, Sandøe and Thomsen2011; Otten et al. Reference Otten, Rousing, Houe, Thomsen and Sørensen2014). However, these approaches primarily emphasise animal-based indicators and may overlook the broader human and environmental context in which animal welfare concerns occur because datasets are often incomplete, have a limited set of indicators, and are not applicable to all farming systems (Kelly et al. Reference Kelly, More, Blake and Hanlon2011).
More recently, on-farm animal welfare assessment tools have adopted broader, multi-domain approaches. For example, the Farm System Welfare Assessment (FSWA) includes domains related to: nutrition, health, physical environment, behavioural interactions, and a human-domain (Hendriks et al. Reference Hendriks, Saunders, DeWitt, Timmer-Arends and Jago2025), while Williams et al. (Reference Williams, Hemsworth, Chaplin, Shephard and Fisher2024a) identified a range of observable farm, animal, and management indicators associated with livestock welfare concerns across Australian non-dairy production systems. Despite these advances, neither assessment incorporates indicators related to the farmer’s psychological well-being or coping capacity, limiting their ability to account for the human factors that may influence animal care. This highlights an important gap: animal welfare assessments remain incomplete without considering the human dimensions that shape management practices and animal welfare outcomes.
A growing body of research suggests that farmer mental health is linked with the welfare of their animals. For example, Kauppinen et al. (Reference Kauppinen, Vainio, Valros, Rita and Vesala2010) found that Finnish dairy and pig farmers viewed animal welfare as going “hand-in-hand” with their own well-being. Farmers in that study described animal welfare as dependent on both providing appropriate housing and nutrition and maintaining their own physical and emotional health, while acknowledging how difficult it could be to care for themselves during periods of prolonged stress and exhaustion. Similarly, King et al. (Reference King, Matson and DeVries2021) reported that among Canadian dairy farmers, lower anxiety and depression scores were associated with improved livestock outcomes, including reduced lameness and higher milk protein content. King et al. also found that farmers who worked with another person or used automated feeding systems reported better mental health compared to those who worked alone or fed manually, suggesting that isolation and demanding workloads may contribute to poor mental health. More recently, a scoping review of 22 studies revealed that poorer farmer mental health and well-being was associated with higher herd mortality rates, whereas greater work satisfaction was associated with calm, patient animal-handling practices (Levallois et al. Reference Levallois, Buczinski, Desmarchelier, Lupien and Robichaud2026). Collectively, these findings demonstrate that animal welfare cannot be understood without considering the psychological, emotional, and social conditions of the people responsible for their care.
Evidence from animal welfare investigations further supports this relationship. Williams et al. (Reference Williams, Chaplin, Hemsworth, Shephard and Fisher2024c) analysed 39 years of welfare investigation records involving more than 2,100 cases involving cattle, sheep, and goats in Australia and found that poor animal welfare was frequently accompanied by signs of farmer distress, including illness, financial strain, relationship breakdown, or mental health problems. Farmers involved in animal welfare incidents were more likely to experience depression, alcoholism, social problems, and chronic stress (Kelly et al. Reference Kelly, More, Blake and Hanlon2011; Devitt et al. Reference Devitt, Kelly, Blake, Hanlon and More2014), while severe financial difficulties, divorce, and psychiatric problems were associated with an increased risk of being convictions for animal neglect (Andrade & Anneberg Reference Andrade and Anneberg2014). Animal hoarding has likewise been associated with poor animal welfare, unhealthy living conditions, and mental health problems (Thobaben Reference Thobaben2006; Nathanson Reference Nathanson2009). Together, these studies suggest that supporting animal welfare may also require recognising and responding to observable signs of farmer distress. In the context of this study, farmer distress is understood as observable indicators of psychological, emotional, social, or functional strain that may reduce a farmer’s capacity to manage the farm and provide appropriate care for their animals.
Despite this growing evidence, no animal welfare assessment tool systematically integrates observable human, animal, and environmental indicators within a One Welfare framework. Existing assessment tools primarily focus on animal- and farm property-level indicators, with limited consideration of how psychological distress, coping capacity, and broader social circumstances may influence animal care across diverse production systems. Accordingly, this study adopted a One Welfare framework, which recognises the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental well-being and emphasises that outcomes in one domain cannot be fully understood in isolation from the others (Pinillos et al. Reference Pinillos2018; Yeates Reference Yeates2024). Within this framework, farmer mental health, coping capacity, and social support are viewed as integral components of animal care and farm sustainability. Integrating these human-focused indicators into animal welfare assessments may support more holistic, proactive, and compassionate approaches to identifying and responding to welfare concerns.
This study arose following observations by animal protection officers during farm animal welfare investigations in the province of Alberta, Canada. Officers reported encountering an increasing number of cases in which animal welfare concerns appeared to co-occur with signs of farmer distress or declining capacity. Although they were trained to identify animal distress, they were concerned that they lacked guidance for recognising or responding to potential human distress in agricultural contexts. In many cases, officers may be among the first external professionals to attend farm properties, placing them in a unique position to observe the conditions of the animals, the farm property and physical environment, and the individuals responsible for their care. Therefore, framed within a One Welfare approach, the purpose of this study was to explore Peace Officers’ experiences during farm animal welfare investigations to identify observable property, animal, and human indicators associated with these investigations and to translate these findings into a practical assessment tool to support field-based decisions.
Materials and methods
Research design
This study used a qualitative descriptive, exploratory design to examine animal protection officers’ field observations of factors associated with animal welfare concerns on farms. We chose this approach because we were exploring an underexamined problem, identifying patterns, and generating indicators rather than testing theory. Qualitative approaches are valuable for exploring complex and under-examined issues (Brannen Reference Brannen2005), especially through the perspectives of those who have direct experience with the topic.
Ethical statement
Our study was approved by the University of Alberta’s ethics review board (Pro00150753). Written consent was obtained from participants attending the in-person focus group, and verbal consent was obtained from participants in the virtual focus groups and interviews. Participants could withdrawal from the study at any time before the data analysis was complete.
Participants and setting
To be included in this study, participants had to be Peace Officers employed in the province of Alberta, Canada who had experience responding to suspected animal welfare concerns in rural farming settings and could be employed by either a provincial animal protection organisation or by a rural county. To protect the identities of the participants and their employing organisations, specific agency affiliations and geographical locations are described at a provincial level. No additional exclusion criteria were applied, and no restrictions were placed on the types of agricultural operations discussed during interviews.
In Alberta, livestock welfare concerns are investigated under the Animal Protection Act, which prohibits causing or permitting distress in animals. Under this Act (RSA 2000, c A-41, s. 1), distress is defined as situations in which an animal is deprived of adequate shelter, ventilation, food, water, or veterinary care; is not reasonably protected from extreme temperatures; is injured, sick, in pain, or suffering; or is abused or subjected to undue neglect. Officers in Alberta are appointed under the Peace Officer Act and may be employed by a range of organisations, including provincial animal welfare agencies and municipal governments (RSA 2000, c A-41, s. 3). Depending on their appointment, officers are authorised to enforce provincial or municipal regulations, conduct inspections, respond to animal welfare complaints, arrange care or transport for animals, and when warranted, seize animals or initiate enforcement actions.
Data collection
To recruit participants for this study, we emailed information about our study to the administrators of the participating agencies in February 2025. The administrators shared the study information with their officers, and the officers could choose to participate in a focus group led by the Principal Investigator (PI). Given the relatively small number of Peace Officers involved in farm animal welfare investigations in Alberta, all eligible officers who expressed interest in participating were included in the study. Participation was voluntary, occurred between February and March 2025 during business hours, and was independent of employer supervision. Prior to the focus groups, participants were provided with a consent form to review. All focus groups and interviews were conducted by the PI who had over 20 years of experience conducting qualitative interviews and six years leading research on farmer mental health. The PI conducted three focus groups with officers, with one conducted in-person and two conducted virtually due to distance. After the PI read through the consent form, participants provided their signed consent during the in-person session or verbal consent for the virtual sessions. Once consent was given, the focus group began. The focus groups took approximately 60–75 min, and the PI followed a semi-structured interview protocol to guide the discussion. In addition to the focus groups, we conducted three individual semi-structured interviews with officers who had been unavailable to participate in a focus group. The interviews were conducted by the PI by telephone or virtually and took approximately 60 min to complete. All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
We developed an interview protocol based on the literature and refined through feedback from our participating agency administrators. The final interview protocol included 10 questions, with five focusing on officers’ observations while working in the field (e.g. ‘Have you ever suspected that a farmer was struggling with their mental health, and if so, what made you think that?’ ‘Have you noticed any patterns that seem to coincide when farmers may be more vulnerable to distress?’ ‘Have you encountered a situation where a farmer’s mental health seemed to improve or decline over time? If so, what changes did you notice?’), two about communication and interactions with farmers (e.g. ‘If you have had a positive interaction with a farmer struggling with mental health issues, what made it go well?’), and three about their training and support needs (e.g. ‘What resources or support systems do you currently use when dealing with farmers in distress?’ ‘If you had a checklist or tool to help identify farmers at risk, what key indicators do you think should be included based on your experiences in the field?’). Demographic information including age, gender, and years working in their current role was collected via an anonymous Google Form survey that the administrator shared with participants, and the completed anonymous responses were shared with the PI.
Data analysis
Before analysis, identifying information was removed from the transcripts and participant names were replaced with codes. Once completed, transcripts were uploaded to Quirkos software (Quirkos 2023) for analysis. The transcripts were independently analysed by the PI and two research assistants. We used Braun and Clarke’s (Reference Braun and Clarke2006) six-step thematic analysis process: (a) reading the transcripts and making notes about observations; (b) generating codes by identifying concepts that seem meaningful; (c) developing themes by identifying related codes, similarities, differences, and patterns; (d) refining themes by reviewing previously coded data to ensure meaningful information was included; (e) defining themes with a label and writing a description; and (f) producing the report. We stopped coding when no new ideas emerged (Braun & Clarke Reference Braun and Clarke2023). To ensure our analysis was inductive, we used bracketing, which are activities to acknowledge preconceptions about the topic so that participants’ perspectives are captured (Tufford & Newman Reference Tufford and Newman2012). For this, our analysis team consisted of one research assistant with limited knowledge of the subject, double-coding all data, and meeting weekly to review the coding, our interpretations, and address discrepancies through consensus. Responses were double-coded, and inter-coder agreement was assessed using simple percentage agreement. Coders agreed on 95% of coding decisions. Next, we shared our findings with one agency expert and two Peace Officers to review our analyses and provide feedback to ensure it was cohesive and captured officers’ perspectives.
Following the thematic analysis, the research team translated the identified themes and subthemes into an initial set of observable, non-judgmental indicators intended to reflect field-observable behaviours and conditions. Indicators were intentionally framed to reflect visible conditions only and were organised into three domains: property, animals, and the individual. Clear instructions accompanied the tool, emphasising that it was not a diagnostic tool but a structured aid to support Peace Officers in identifying potential concerns and guiding next steps during investigations. An initial draft of the indicators was reviewed by two agency subject-matter experts and four additional Peace Officers for clarity, relevance, and feasibility in field contexts. Based on this feedback, revisions to the tool were made, including the addition of four Levels of Concern scale to reflect the overall severity of concerns within each domain: low, moderate, high, and critical. These Levels of Concern are informed by the pattern and severity of observable indicators rather than by an additive scoring system. Each level is accompanied by suggested actions, such as monitoring, providing resources, referrals, or coordinated follow-up to support decision-making in the field. The revised tool was then reviewed by 10 external stakeholders (i.e., five farmers and five mental health professionals with agricultural experience) to assess clarity of language, face validity of the indicators, and appropriateness of recommended actions. Following refinement, two Peace Officers used the checklist during field investigations to evaluate its usability, clarity, and feasibility in practice. Feedback informed minor wording revisions and confirmed that the checklist could be integrated into routine investigations.
Results
Sample description
Participants included 18 Peace Officers, of which 12 were men and 6 were female. Ages ranged from their late 20s to early 60s. The average length of employment as a Peace Officer was approximately five years, ranging from one month to 15 years.
Qualitative Analysis
Our analysis of the data revealed six major themes that highlighted animal, environmental, and human factors officers observed during animal welfare investigations. Each theme and sub-theme are described below with verbatim quotes from the participants.
Property and grounds disrepair
Officers emphasised that the properties they visited were in markedly poorer condition than surrounding properties and showed deterioration beyond the normal ageing of buildings. For example, many described homes with collapsing roofs, broken or boarded-up windows, damaged exteriors, or makeshift repairs. Others noted broken gates that could not swing and fencing in poor condition. These observations are reflected in one participant’s comment, “The entire property, like the corals, are dilapidated. Front gates are usually in poor condition. The house itself is run down and in very poor condition” [Focus Group 1].
Many participants also described observing a large amount of debris and garbage scattered around, accumulated broken or unused equipment stored outdoors, and extensive overgrowth around the house and barns. One participant explained what they might see when they arrive on site, “It’s a lot of disarray. …you’ll see a lot of overgrowth, you’ll see a lot of broken down items, equipment, debris, garbage, non-functioning of things, collapsing barns” [Interview 3]. Nearly all officers described interconnections between the condition of the property, the behaviour or circumstances of the owner, and animal welfare. In particular, the state of the yard and buildings was often interpreted by officers as an observable indicator associated with changes in the owner’s capacity or well-being. One officer explained:
“You go out to some pretty rickety farms, …they’re the ones where you take a look around and say, ‘I don’t think the animals are being fed here’ …And [the owners] don’t leave the house. You know, it’s not uncommon to arrive at these places at noon and …there’s not a track in the snow. Nobody has made a move yet. …The animals kind of get forgotten [for] a day or two in some of these situations” [Focus Group 1].
Compromised human living conditions
Within the living space, many noted that farmers lacked basic utilities, such as electricity and clean water, and had excessive clutter making it difficult to move. One officer explained, “So inside the property -- maybe I wouldn’t even go in but I’d see through the windows -- there would be aisles of garbage and household items” (Interview 2). Another officer further explained, “You walk in and can’t move without stepping over something… that’s usually when we know the person might be struggling” [Focus Group 1].
In several situations, officers observed livestock, including cattle and other outdoor animals, being housed indoors and sharing living spaces with the owners. In one case, an officer described how calves had been brought indoors for care, but grew larger than the door frames, so they remained inside. Officers described how these conditions posed clear health and safety risks for both farmers and their animals. Yet, they also noted that owners failed to recognise the extent to which their living spaces had become compromised. One officer explained:
“He wanted to care for his cats, and that’s why he was living in those conditions…. No power, no water, living in a car, in a garage …like that is his home. And it’s not acceptable for any living thing. But he had bags of cat food in there, and those cats were his world. So it’s hard when the animals what’s keeping some people around, right? Like they don’t see that their living situation negatively affects animals” [Focus Group 2].
These accounts show how living conditions that were intended to support animals often resulted in shared environments that created safety and welfare concerns for both animals and their owners, but such concerns remained largely unrecognised by the owner.
Farmer distress
Officers often described encountering owners who appeared overwhelmed, distressed, frustrated, or experiencing some sort of psychological or cognitive decline. To capture the range of these observable presentations, we organised the data into six sub-themes.
Physical appearance
While officers recognised that farmers’ clothing can become dirty and worn out due to daily work, they described encountering individuals whose appearance reflected poor self-care, limited hygiene, and an overall dishevelled presentation. Officers emphasised that appearance alone was not interpreted as concerning but became meaningful when observed alongside property conditions and animal care. One officer explained, “it’s personal appearances that you can tell they just kind of don’t really care anymore” [Focus Group 1]. For officers familiar with the farmer, changes in appearance signalled a noticeable decline in self-care. For example, one officer explained how a drastic change in appearance was an important indicator of well-being:
“They’re not what they used to be. They always had tans, dyed hair, nails … For seven years I’ve seen them very well dressed, very well spoken, very well and now they’re sort of hiding. In sweatpants, hair in a bun… doing different” [Focus Group 2].
Substance use
Several officers described observing situations that raised concerns about potential substance use, such as empty beer cans or bottles on tables, porches, or inside vehicles. In some cases, officers smelled alcohol during their interactions. As one officer explained, “I believe [he] didn’t work off the farm. He had told me he had some mental health issues, and whether there was some substance use involved there with some beer cans and things I saw laying around” [Focus Group 1]. Officers emphasised how their concerns reflected several issues they observed during their investigation. In a small number of cases, officers noted that substance use appeared to coincide with difficulties maintaining daily chores and animal care. As one officer explained, “There’s been a couple cases of substance abuse… It affects the way they live and the way they’re able to look after and treat their animals” [Focus Group 3].
Emotional state
Many officers described encountering farmers who displayed intense emotional reactions during investigations. Through conversation, they learned these emotional reactions often reflected personal circumstances, including stress, grief, trauma, or serious illness. As one officer shared, “he was a very extreme example of severe mental health…a trauma from the past, then the trauma from his wife passing. [He] was just stuck in this mindset” [Interview 2]. Officers noted that emotional distress and declining health often co-occurred with reduced capacity to manage daily chores, as well as self-care, property maintenance, and animal care. As one participant explained, “she is a late-stage cancer patient… the mental health implications of dealing with that diagnosis was a factor on why the horse’s condition deteriorated so far” [Focus Group 3]. In other cases, officers observed emotional reactions that exceeded what they described as typical reactions during their visits. Fear and anxiety was commonly reported, especially about possible animal seizure. As one officer recalled, “[I’ve] left notices for people and have them call in tears, …saying they haven’t slept because they think ‘they’re going to take all my animals away’” [Focus Group 1].
Disordered thinking and confusion
Several officers described interactions with farmers who appeared confused or had difficulty organising their thoughts. Officers explained that this made communication difficult and raised concerns whether the individual was able to follow the conversation or process information about animal care and next steps. As one participant explained, “it’s just, you know, the way they carry themselves, head down. They’re really not wanting to look [you] in the eye when they talk to you. They’re not talking to you. They’re talking somewhere else” [Focus Group 3]. Others described rapid and unfocused speech that made it difficult to maintain a coherent discussion. Some officers linked these communication difficulties to broader patterns they observed on the property. For example, one officer explained, “a more disorganised way of thinking, a more disorganised way of life in general” [Focus Group 2].
Defensiveness and hostility
Officers frequently described encounters in which property owners initially responded with defensiveness or hostility when concerns were raised. These reactions ranged from visible agitation and emotional volatility to verbal aggression or physical obstruction. One officer explained, “sometimes it’s shifting blame, and it’s yelling, and it’s talking very fast, and it’s telling me all about everything that went wrong to that person” [Interview 2]. Interactions escalated in some cases. One officer recalled an incident in which the owner “ended up yelling at [their co-worker] and then blocking [them] in from leaving with a car” [Focus Group 3].
Other officers described situations where farmers referenced having guns on the property, contributing to officers’ heightened safety concerns. In a few cases, officers observed adults displaying submissive or fearful behaviour while in the presence of other individuals, which changed how officers engaged during the investigations. Despite these tense situations, officers emphasised that such reactions usually subsided with time and communication. One officer explained, “Especially in rural areas, it can be very volatile and very high, high emotion on their end. But once you kind of get past that, and [they know] we’re not there to put them in cuffs or to take all their animals. I’m here to help too” [Interview 2].
Lacking support
Many officers described situations in which farmers appeared to have little or no social support and were living in relative isolation. Isolation was described as both social and geographic, and officers saw it as a contributing factor that made it more difficult for individuals to manage their own needs and their animals. Several officers noted that their offices were receiving more calls to rural and remote areas. One officer described a situation with a farmer, “He was far from any kind of area with a population. Talking with him, his wife had died several years prior… he was thin, …He just had a run-down look to him, but very friendly [Focus Group 3]. Many cases involved older adults living alone with limited help. Another officer explained:
“There’s just a lot of single and lone elderly that we seem to come across. …[I]t’s a full time job looking after even a small herd when you have mobility issues and lack of funds. And then add in, you know, whether there’s mental challenges, [such as] Alzheimer’s. Things that are starting to creep in that they just don’t seem to have support” [Focus Group 1].
Officers also noted that many farmers did not actively seek assistance and, in some cases, were reluctant to accept help even when it was offered, further contributing to isolation and limiting opportunities for earlier intervention.
Animal neglect
Officers described many cases in which basic animal care needs were not being met. They commonly observed animals that were underfed or malnourished, lacked clean water or adequate shelter, or had injuries that had received little or no treatment. One participant stated, “Almost one to three animals of every animal group had minor lacerations or injuries, not enough feed, not enough shelter… [The owners] truly believed that they weren’t doing anything wrong” [Focus Group 2]. In more severe cases, officers described the presence of dead animals or carcases left on the property. As one participant stated, “[T]there might be some carcases or some bones, especially on some of the older rural properties where animals clearly have passed away, and they just left them on the property to be scavenged” [Focus Group 1]. Several officers also noted that calls increased in the winter months when cold temperatures, financial strain, and physical limitations made it more difficult for farmers to maintain care for their animals. One officer explained:
“When it’s minus 30 or colder, they were going to be experiencing an even tougher time trying to keep weight on their horses because they were already thin, and they already had financial constraints or physical constraints to actually go pick up the feed… So yeah, the winter months would be the most stressful” [Interview 2].
Livestock management
Officers described livestock management which varied from typical practices and created risk for the animals and people, such as housing animals in makeshift pens and mixing species in paddocks. Seasonal pressures also shaped management choices and could create competing demands and heavier workloads. For example, one officer observed, “Older farmers are pushing their calving season to planting season. So I will go out on some calls [in] April, May, June, and they’re calving…but they also have to plant the field” [Focus Group 2]. Officers further explained how such decisions often increased stress and could put their animals at risk due to overcrowding transportation. One officer explained:
“Their cows aren’t at market late until closer to the end of the auctions closing for the winter. So then there’s that panic to get the animals hauled so they may load a little bit more than they would have, so they could do less trips. They don’t tag or they don’t band the calves, so then they’re hauling in 20 bulls instead of steers” [FG2].
Farmers’ animal management practices varied widely, ranging from leaving animals, “to their own devices… because that’s how they do it in the wild” [Interview 2] to bringing livestock into homes or enclosed spaces.
Overaccumulation of animals and objects
Officers commonly described situations where owners accumulated an excessive number of animals as well as objects. We created two sub-themes to describe each issue in detail.
Animal accumulation
It was common for officers to describe situations in which farmers owned more animals than they were capable of providing adequate care for. These cases involved livestock, horse rescue or breeding operations, and companion animals, including dogs and cats, where animal numbers continued to increase without a clear management plan or economic purpose. Officers noted that, in many cases, there was no plan to sell, rehome, or move the animals, which resulted in overcrowding and compromised welfare. Large-scale pet accumulation of companion animals on farm properties was often described as one officer explained, “you might see 75 dogs on a property,” while in other situations “it’s older animals, herds of horses that are starting to get up there in years. They’re not used for anything anymore, but they’re just holding on to them” [Focus Group 1]. Another officer described horse collectors who were “holding on to these horses that are of a significant colour or a significant blood line, but they were really not worth much to another person because they had no training, no handling” [Interview 2].
Reflecting on these cases, one officer described that owners often had a strong sense of responsibility towards the animals, stating that some owners believed “only they can prevent this animal’s suffering” despite struggling themselves [Interview 3]. Others noted that accumulation involving livestock was often viewed differently than companion animal hoarding. As one officer stated, “we only classify an individual as a hoarder if it’s dogs or cats…but it’s just as prevalent in livestock. It seems to be more accepted in the industry” [Focus Group 2].
Object accumulation
It was also common for officers to describe situations of extensive accumulation of equipment, debris, and household items that created unsafe and unsanitary living or working conditions. Material accumulation was often described as “going hand-in-hand” with animal accumulation, and was associated with severely compromised living spaces with little space to move around safely. Officers noted that this accumulation typically developed gradually over time. In rural and remote areas where social contact and support were limited, officers were often not called until conditions had become hazardous. One officer explained how the extent of accumulation provided insight into its progression: “the longer the hoarding has been going on, the less access in the house…So between the items that are there and the severity of it on the inside of the home is where you start to construct this timeline” [Interview 3].
Similar patterns were observed outdoors, where unused machinery and equipment accumulated across yards and fields. As one participant stated, “if they have 15 tractors, and you can tell that probably 13 of them don’t start or run… you can start to put two and two together… their house will be run down” [Focus Group 3]. Officers frequently described object accumulation as interconnected with social isolation and declining living conditions. One officer explained, “a breakdown of relationships will happen pretty quickly… now friends are kind of out of the picture, and nobody’s allowed to come in. …They’re really shut in. They start boarding windows so nobody can look in” [Interview 3].
Signs of distress: Tool development
Findings from the thematic analysis were translated into a preliminary set of 68 observable indicators that reflected three broad categories: environment, humans, and animal management practices. Through an interactive review process, items were removed if they were redundant or could not be reliably assessed through direct observation. The remaining indicators were refined to ensure each captured a single issue, were grounded in officers’ observations, and were framed in clear, non-judgmental language to limit interpretation.
Following stakeholder review, two Peace Officers piloted the tool during routine field investigations. Officers reported that the tool was practical to use, the observable indicators were easy to interpret, and the structured format supported documentation during investigations. Minor wording changes were made following pilot testing to improve clarity.
The final tool consists of 60 indicators across three domains: property and grounds (n = 23), human factors (n = 27), and animal management factors (n = 10), which are reported in Table 1. The indicators are intended to support officers’ judgment about concerns and appropriate next steps, rather than to serve as a checklist that must be completed during every field visit.
Summary of property, human, and animal indicators in a One Welfare-informed assessment tool for farm animal welfare investigations
Table 1. Long description
The table summarises three domains of observable indicators to support decision-making during farm animal welfare investigations. Property and grounds indicators include building conditions, yard and land maintenance, waste and sanitation, hazards, vehicles and equipment, living conditions, and isolation. Property owner appearance and behaviour indicators include social support, resistance or denial, number of animals, cognition and communication, physical appearance, emotional state, interactions with authority figures, substance use, and signs of relationship issues. Animal welfare and care indicators include nutrition, basic necessities, health and injury management, and livestock management practices. The indicators are presented in summary form to protect the assessment tool’s integrity.
Note. Indicators are presented in summary form to protect the integrity of the assessment tool. The tool is intended to complement, not replace, existing animal welfare assessment protocols used by officers.
The levels of concern scale is presented in Table 2. Although the full tool includes animal management indicators, these items were not incorporated into the version used by our animal welfare partners as those officers are required to document animal welfare concerns using established organisational policies and assessment frameworks, and the inclusion of parallel animal indicators within this tool could create inconsistencies between checklist observations and formal investigative records. For publication purposes, indicators are presented in short-form to convey the domains and content areas assessed, while preserving the integrity of the full tool wording used in practice.
Levels of concern and recommended officer actions in a One Welfare-informed assessment tool for farm animal welfare investigations
Table 2. Long description
The table presents four levels of concern with corresponding actions during farm animal welfare investigations. Low-level concern involves one or two signs that appear situational or temporary, but otherwise the conditions are stable. Officers should monitor as required, provide the resource tool, normalise stress, and reinforce that support is available. Moderate concern involves multiple signs across one or more domains, suggesting there is stress, overwhelm, or reduced capacity without immediate risk. Officers should monitor as required, provide and explain resources, give a direct contact card, and recommend the National Farmer Wellness Line or local support. High concern involves clear emotional distress, impaired functioning, or possible cognitive decline, with compromised capacity to manage property, animals, or daily demands. Officers should discuss concerns with property owners and offer help to connect with the National Farmer Wellness Line or other available supports. Critical concern involves multiple serious signs and possible immediate risk to the individual or animals. Officer safety may also be a concern. Officers should initiate intervention according to policy and engage emergency services or crisis response as required.
Discussion
We used officers’ direct experiences to understand how animal welfare investigations can also reveal broader challenges affecting farmers, animals, and farm environments. In addition to observing animal welfare concerns, the officers consistently observed deteriorating property conditions and visible signs of farmer distress during their investigations. These indicators rarely occurred in isolation. Rather, participants described a pattern in which difficulties in one area often co-occurred with or intensified challenges in others, such as building disrepair coinciding with animal neglect or emotional distress. Using a One Welfare approach, our findings highlight the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental well-being in agricultural contexts. This finding aligns with existing research that farmer well-being, animal care, and farm environments are linked (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Chaplin, Hemsworth, Shephard and Fisher2024c; Levallois et al. Reference Levallois, Buczinski, Desmarchelier, Lupien and Robichaud2026). However, by incorporating officers’ field-based observations across human, animal, and environmental domains, this study builds upon existing welfare assessment approaches by identifying observable human and property indicators that complement animal-based measures and provide a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding animal welfare investigations.
A central finding of this study was the role of property conditions as indicators of animal welfare risk. Officers consistently described cluttered yards, structural disrepair, including collapsing buildings, garbage and debris, and hazardous living and work spaces. Importantly, property disrepair rarely appeared in isolation. This is consistent with previous research that property conditions often co-occurred with compromised animal care and observable signs of farmer distress (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Hemsworth, Chaplin, Shephard and Fisher2024a; Hendriks et al. Reference Hendriks, Saunders, DeWitt, Timmer-Arends and Jago2025). For example, Williams et al. (Reference Williams, Hemsworth, Chaplin, Shephard and Fisher2024a) reported four property factors (e.g. fencing in working order, stock handling facilities were in working order, dead animals removed from paddocks, facilities were clean) consistently differentiated low- from high-risk properties. We found similar findings whereby property disrepair was more serious than “messiness.” Instead, the deterioration may reflect other factors, such as stress, lack of help, declining capacity due to age, financial strain or mental health rather than intent to neglect especially in contexts where “good farmer” identity is strongly tied to maintaining tidy, orderly and functional farm environments (Burton Reference Burton2012).
Another finding centred on observable indicators of farmer distress. Farmers who appeared stressed or emotionally overwhelmed, had difficulty processing information or answering questions, and displayed observable signs of anxiety, frustration, and hopelessness. These indicators often co-occurred with isolation, loss of a partner, physical decline due to age or illness, avoidance of authorities, and, in some cases, substance use. Poor self-care often mirrored deteriorating property conditions and compromised animal care, which suggests a broader pattern of declining capacity. These observations align with a growing body of research showing that farmers face high levels of chronic stressors, social isolation, and low rates of help-seeking, all of which negatively impact their health and well-being (Wheeler et al. Reference Wheeler, Lobley, McCann and Phillimore2023; Purc-Stephenson et al. Reference Purc-Stephenson, Dedrick and Hood2024; Garner et al. Reference Garner, McFeeters, Guy, Hopley and Galbraith2025).
Despite elevated levels of stress, farmers remain among the lowest help-seeking occupational groups (Brew et al. Reference Brew, Inder, Allen, Thomas and Kelly2016; Hagen et al. Reference Hagen, Sawatzky, Harper, O’Sullivan and Jones-Bitton2022). This reluctance is often reinforced by rural norms that value stoicism, self-reliance, and perseverance. For example, Firnhaber et al. (Reference Firnhaber, Malone, O’Hagan, O’Keefe, McNamara and O’Connor2024) identified resilience, pride in being a “good farmer,” and help-seeking stigma as central barriers to support among Irish farmers. Our findings align with research on the “good farmer” ideal, in which competence and worth are symbolically demonstrated by being productive, having tidy landscapes, and being independent (Burton Reference Burton2004; Burton et al. Reference Burton, Forney, Stock and Sutherland2020). When distress, ageing, or declining capacity make it difficult to uphold these ideals, farmers may withdraw rather than seek help, particularly in cultural contexts like farming where retirement and open vulnerability are discouraged (Firnhaber et al. Reference Firnhaber, Malone, O’Hagan, O’Keefe, McNamara and O’Connor2024). Within this framework, animal protection officers may be among the first points of contact for farmers whose difficulties have already escalated, often arriving after isolation, distress, and declining capacity have affected multiple areas of farm life.
Similar to previous research on animal welfare risk assessments (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Hemsworth, Chaplin, Shephard and Fisher2024a; Hendriks et al. Reference Hendriks, Saunders, DeWitt, Timmer-Arends and Jago2025), officers in our study described animals that were injured or ill, housed in unsafe or confined spaces, and lacked adequate feed, water, or shelter. Officers emphasised that animal condition alone rarely captured a complete picture of welfare concerns. As a result, our tool intentionally extends beyond animal-focused assessments to include observable indicators related to the property and farmer. The tool is intended to support officers’ judgment during investigations, rather than function as a checklist to be completed at every visit. We recommend training before its use so officers can understand how stress, isolation, and declining capacity may affect animal welfare and interpret observable signs without assuming their cause.
Building on this, overaccumulation of animals and objects emerged as a particularly salient indicator of elevated welfare risk. Farmers often maintained numbers of animals beyond their capacity to provide adequate care, and had an extensive accumulation of equipment, debris, or household items. These patterns reflect research on animal hoarding that characterises the behaviour as involving strong emotional attachment to animals, social isolation, psychological distress, and impaired insight into declining care conditions (Joffe et al. Reference Joffe, O’Shannessy, Dhand, Westman and Fawcett2014; Elliot et al. Reference Elliot, Snowdon, Halliday, Hunt and Coleman2019; Sacchettino et al. Reference Sacchettino, Gatta, Giuliano, Bellini, Liverini, Ciani and Napolitano2023). Although most hoarding research has focused on companion animals in urban settings, our findings suggest that similar patterns operate in agricultural contexts, where large animal numbers may be normalised and therefore less likely to be recognised as problematic. Consistent with Patronek’s (Reference Patronek1999) conceptualisation of animal hoarding as a sentinel for underlying mental health or cognitive challenges, officers’ accounts suggest that farm-based hoarding represents a clear One Welfare concern, with animal welfare compromised, human distress, and environmental degradation unfolding together. Importantly, this literature also shows that enforcement-focused responses alone are insufficient, as removal of animals without addressing underlying psychological and social factors is associated with high rates of recurrence (Elliot et al. Reference Elliot, Snowdon, Halliday, Hunt and Coleman2019), highlighting the need for integrated, multi-disciplinary approaches.
Study strengths and limitations
The study has important strengths. Participants represented a range of professional experience, from early-career to highly experienced Peace Officers, and the consistency of findings across this range strengthened confidence that the identified indicators reflected shared field observations. The assessment tool also underwent an iterative development process, including review by mental health professionals, farmers, and a separate group of Peace Officers, before being piloted with two Peace Officers during on-site inspections to assess its initial feasibility and usability.
Despite these strengths, several limitations should be considered when interpreting our findings. First, the data were drawn only from Peace Officers’ observations when conducting animal welfare investigations. As a result, broader contextual information, such as farmers’ personal histories, financial circumstances, or access to support, was not always known. However, this approach is consistent with previous research developing animal welfare assessment tools that similarly relied on field-based observations to identify practical, observable indicators (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Hemsworth, Chaplin, Shephard and Fisher2024a; Hendriks et al. Reference Hendriks, Saunders, DeWitt, Timmer-Arends and Jago2025). Second, the findings are based on data from a single province. This may limit generalisability to other jurisdictions with different regulatory frameworks, agricultural systems, or support structures. While our findings are consistent with previous research, future studies should validate the tool in other contexts.
Animal welfare implications
Animal welfare concerns may develop alongside changes in the farm environment and a farmer’s capacity to provide care. The assessment tool brings observable animal, property, and farmer indicators together to help officers recognise situations in which animals may be at risk. Considering these indicators together may support earlier assessment of animals’ needs and more timely action to address welfare concerns before conditions deteriorate. The tool requires field evaluation to determine whether it reliably identifies animal welfare risks and helps guide effective responses.
Future research
The assessment tool also provides a foundation for future implementation and refinement. Future research should evaluate whether a smaller set of indicators could achieve similar utility while improving efficiency in field settings. Additional work is also needed to assess the reliability, usability, and predictive value of the scoring system across different contexts. If validated, the tool could complement existing animal welfare assessment approaches and inform future guidance, training, or audit frameworks by encouraging a more integrated One Welfare perspective that considers animal, human, and environmental indicators together.
Also, research needs to explore how officer training could be strengthened by incorporating mental health-informed approaches, communication strategies for engaging distressed or isolated farmers, and guidance on recognising and responding to hoarding-related behaviours. Such training may support earlier intervention, reduce escalation, and promote more sustainable outcomes through cross-sector collaboration with agricultural, veterinary, and mental health services. Importantly, these supports may also benefit Peace Officers themselves, who often function as de facto first responders in complex situations.
Future research should incorporate farmer perspectives to better understand how decisions about animal care are made, what barriers delay responses to emerging welfare concerns, and how farmers recognise changes in their animals’ needs. Animal hoarding, particularly farm-animal overaccumulation, remains understudied relative to companion animal hoarding and warrants further investigation. Existing research has examined factors such as ageing, being female, social isolation, emotional attachment, and loneliness, with animals providing emotional comfort in the absence of social connection (Elliot et al. Reference Elliot, Snowdon, Halliday, Hunt and Coleman2019; Wilkinson et al. Reference Wilkinson, Schoultz, King, Neave and Bailey2022). Research in agricultural settings should examine how these factors may contribute to keeping more animals than can be adequately cared for, and which animal welfare concerns arise as a result.
Conclusion
This study contributes to a growing One Welfare literature by identifying observable human, animal, and property indicators that Peace Officers reported were commonly associated with farm animal investigations. Building on these findings, we developed a practical assessment tool that integrates indicators across human, animal, and environmental domains to support more structured and holistic field-based assessments. Rather than relying solely on animal-based observations, the tool encourages consideration of the broader circumstances surrounding animal welfare concerns, including observable signs of farmer distress and declining property conditions. While future research is needed to evaluate the tool’s implementation and predictive value across different contexts, these findings support more integrated, human-centred approaches to animal welfare practice and provide a foundation for more structured identification of concerns and potentially more coordinated responses across agricultural, veterinary, and mental health sectors.
Data availability statement
The qualitative data supporting this study are not publicly available to protect participant confidentiality. Requests for access to anonymised data can be directed to the corresponding author and will be considered subject to institutional ethics requirements.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded in part by the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta under the Sustainable Canadian Agriculture Partnership, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative (grant number RES0071470).
Competing interests
None.
Open access
