**Background:** Animal welfare science has a relatively modern history, with the formation of policy and legislation being largely a 20th-century phenomenon. While early animal protection laws existed in Ireland (1635) and the Massachusetts Colony (1641), the modern catalyst was Ruth Harrison's book 'Animal Machines' (1964) and the subsequent UK Brambell Report, which contained the embryonic text of the Five Freedoms. The field grew within Europe, with the UK's entry into the EU in 1973 making animal welfare an EU-level issue, leading to funding for research and advisory bodies like the European Food Safety Authority. The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) began incorporating animal welfare into its Terrestrial Animal Health Code in 2004, meaning 182 member countries have approved the concept. However, the authors caution that the historical spread of 'Western' farming methods has been described as 'animal colonialism,' and as animal welfare science expands globally, it must retain relevance to local cultural issues and avoid neocolonialism.
**Methods:** This is an editorial introducing a Research Topic of collected papers. The authors conducted a cursory Web of Science Core Collection search for the term 'animal welfare,' yielding just under 25,000 papers. They analyzed the geographic distribution of authorship: approximately 1,800 papers had authors based in Latin America, 1,400 in Asia (excluding Japan), and 500 in Africa. They also examined collaboration patterns, finding that about 65% of papers from Latin America and Asia have within-region coauthors only, dropping to 40% for papers from Africa. For papers specifically addressing animal welfare within these regions, under 10% of papers concerning Latin America and Asia have no authors from those regions, but this rises to nearly 25% for animal welfare within Africa.
**Key Results:** The editorial summarizes the diverse papers in the collection. On indigenous breeds, two papers on Nigerian indigenous chickens (Oyeniran et al.; Iyasere et al.) investigated maternal care and fear responses, helping identify behavioral traits that might improve survival in extensive systems with predation risk. Ojelade et al. found that environmental enrichment for African catfish under laboratory conditions improved growth rates and reduced aggression. On welfare assessment, Romero et al. used a standardized protocol with animal-based measures to assess welfare of horses and mules in Colombia; Racciatti et al. developed a welfare assessment protocol for multiple zoo species (mammals, birds, reptiles); and Resasco and Diaz surveyed laboratory mice breeding facilities in Argentina, providing the first welfare knowledge for such facilities. On human perceptions, Lemma et al. used a Community Conversations methodology in rural Ethiopian households to identify livestock management challenges, while Alemayehu et al. used a Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) survey of Ethiopian livestock-owning households. A survey of egg producers from 6 Asian countries (de Luna et al.) found widespread perception that caged systems have cost advantages but cage-free systems are perceived as higher welfare, with nearly three-quarters of producers saying more support is needed for cage-free transition. Supanta et al. examined COVID-19 impacts on elephant camp management in Thailand, finding reduced income led to unemployment of carers, increased time chained, and decreased nutrition. Finally, Gallo et al. examined trends in Latin American farm animal welfare publications over 30 years, identifying nearly 700 papers, with 95% published in the last 15 years, nearly 70% produced by Brazilian and Mexican researchers, and over 40% on cattle.
**Clinical Implications:** While not a clinical study, the editorial has significant implications for veterinary practice and animal welfare policy. It demonstrates that animal welfare science is growing rapidly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, with increasing quantity and quality of research. The findings highlight the need for investment in local expertise and infrastructure rather than imposing external frameworks. The papers collectively show that welfare assessment protocols can be adapted for local species and contexts, that understanding local perceptions is critical for effective welfare improvement, and that animal welfare must be regarded as a key factor within sustainability and development frameworks. The editorial emphasizes that the notion that animal welfare is important only to more developed countries is false.