Evaluation of a semi-intensive husbandry system for balancing production performance and livestock welfare

  • Sangle Y. Randa 
    Universitas Papua
    Indonesia

Abstract

This study explicitly aims to evaluate the effects of implementing a semi-intensive husbandry system on the balance between livestock productivity and animal welfare outcomes. The research employed a descriptive-analytical approach, collecting quantitative data on production performance (including growth trends and feed-use efficiency) and animal welfare indicators through field observations and structured interviews, along with secondary data obtained from relevant literature and technical reports. The parameters analyzed included livestock production performance, feeding management, housing environment conditions, animal health status, and animal welfare indicators. The results indicate that a semi-intensive husbandry system can improve production efficiency without neglecting livestock welfare, as reflected in stable average production performance values, controlled feeding efficiency, and a high proportion of livestock classified in good health and welfare conditions. Improvements were particularly associated with the regulation of housing duration, access to feed and water, and the provision of more adequate space for movement. However, the effectiveness of this system is strongly influenced by the quality of husbandry management and the consistent application of animal welfare standards. This study is limited by its descriptive design and site-specific scope, which may restrict the generalization of the findings. In conclusion, a semi-intensive husbandry system has the potential to serve as a sustainable husbandry model when supported by sound management practices and continuous monitoring of livestock welfare.

Keywords
  • semi-intensive husbandry system
  • livestock productivity
  • animal welfare
  • Behavioral welfare,
  • Feed efficiency,
  • Stocking density
Lisensing Information
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References
  1. Amawi, A., AlKasasbeh, W., Jaradat, M., Almasri, A., Alobaidi, S., Hammad, A. A., Bishtawi, T., Fataftah, B., Turk, N., & Saoud, H. Al. (2024). Athletes’ nutritional demands: a narrative review of nutritional requirements. Frontiers in Nutrition, 10, 1331854.
  2. Broom, D. M. (2021). Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare 6th Edition. CABI.
  3. Chand, S. P. (2025). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(1), 303–317.
  4. Costantino, A., Fabrizio, E., & Calvet, S. (2021). The role of climate control in monogastric animal farming: The effects on animal welfare, air emissions, productivity, health, and energy use. Applied Sciences, 11(20), 9549.
  5. da Costa Freitas, J., & Barbosa, M. J. B. (2025). Effective Strategies in Modern Livestock Management to Increase Productivity and Profitability. The Journal of Academic Science, 2(5), 1488–1495.
  6. Dawkins, M. S. (2017). Animal welfare and efficient farming: is conflict inevitable? Animal Production Science, 57(2), 201–208.
  7. de Graaf, S., Ampe, B., Buijs, S., Andreasen, S. N., Des Roches, A. D. B., Van Eerdenburg, F., Haskell, M. J., Kirchner, M. K., Mounier, L., & Radeski, M. (2018). Sensitivity of the integrated Welfare Quality® scores to changing values of individual dairy cattle welfare measures. Animal Welfare, 27(2), 157–166.
  8. Dugatkin, L. A. (2020). Principles of animal behavior. University of Chicago Press.
  9. Ekesbo, I., & Gunnarsson, S. (2018). Farm animal behaviour: characteristics for assessment of health and welfare. CABI.
  10. Fraser, D. (2023). Understanding animal welfare: The science in its cultural context. John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia. (2020). Pedoman Teknis Kesejahteraan Hewan. Jakarta: Kementan RI.
  12. Khanal, P., Dhakal, R., Khanal, T., Pandey, D., Devkota, N. R., & Nielsen, M. O. (2022). Sustainable livestock production in Nepal: A focus on animal nutrition strategies. In Agriculture (Vol. 12, Issue 5). MDPI.
  13. Kuantitatif, P. P. (2016). Metode Penelitian Kunatitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Alfabeta, Bandung.
  14. Li, B., Wang, Y., Rong, L., & Zheng, W. (2023). Research progress on animal environment and welfare. Animal Research and One Health, 1(1), 78–91.
  15. Lima, L. C. de. (2025). Sustainable Intensification in Pasture-Based Livestock Systems: Evidence from Dairy and Beef Farms.
  16. Louhaichi, M. (2024). Balancing livestock production and natural resource use.
  17. Magnusson, U., Boqvist, S., Doyle, R., & Robinson, T. (2022). Animal health and welfare for sustainable livestock systems.
  18. Mellor, D. J. (2016). Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “a Life Worth Living.” Animals, 6(3), 21.
  19. Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N. J., Littlewood, K. E., McLean, A. N., McGreevy, P. D., Jones, B., & Wilkins, C. (2020). The 2020 five domains model: Including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals, 10(10), 1870.
  20. Mench, J. A. (2023). Advances in Agricultural Animal Welfare: Science and Practice Edited by JA Mench (2018). Published by Woodhead Publishing, The Officers’ Mess, Business Centre, Royston Road, Duxford CB22 4QH, UK. 269 pages Hardback (ISBN: 978-0-08-101215-4). Price £160.00. Animal Welfare, 28, 383–384. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600011155
  21. Moorby, J. M., & Fraser, M. D. (2021). New feeds and new feeding systems in intensive and semi-intensive forage-fed ruminant livestock systems. Animal, 15, 100297.
  22. Ocak Yetisgin, S., Önder, H., Şen, U., Piwczyński, D., Kolenda, M., Sitkowska, B., & Yucel, C. (2022). Farmers’ risk perception on climate change: Transhumance vs. semi-intensive sheep production systems in Türkiye. Animals, 12(15), 1992.
  23. OIE. (2019). Terrestrial Animal Health Code: Animal Welfare. Paris: World Organisation for Animal Health.
  24. Olsen, A. W. (2001). Behaviour of growing pigs kept in pens with outdoor runs: I. Effect of access to roughage and shelter on oral activities. Livestock Production Science, 69(3), 255–264.
  25. Orihuela, A. (2021). Management of livestock behavior to improve welfare and production. Animal, 15, 100290.
  26. Pugliese, M., Biondi, V., Passantino, A., Licitra, F., Alibrandi, A., Zanghi, A., Conte, F., & Marino, G. (2021). Welfare assessment in intensive and semi‐intensive dairy cattle management system in Sicily. Animal Science Journal, 92(1), e13546.
  27. van der Linden, A., de Olde, E. M., Mostert, P. F., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2020). A review of European models to assess the sustainability performance of livestock production systems. Agricultural Systems, 182, 102842.
  28. Watters, J. V, Krebs, B. L., & Eschmann, C. L. (2021). Assessing animal welfare with behavior: Onward with caution. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens, 2(1), 75–87.
  29. WOAH. (2021). Terrestrial Animal Health Code. World Organisation for Animal Health. https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2021/en_sommaire.htm
  30. World Bank. (2017). Livestock Development and Sustainability. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 63 times
PDF
: 34 times