ArticlePloS one2018
How do Brazilian citizens perceive animal welfare conditions in poultry, beef, and dairy supply chains?
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consumers' Attitudes towards Animal Suffering: A Systematic Review on Awareness, Willingness and Dietary Change.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Chilean public attitudes towards beef production systems.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- How Epigenetics Can Enhance Pig Welfare?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
- Meat Consumers' Opinion Regarding Unhealthy Pigs: Should They Be Treated with Antibiotics or Euthanized on Farm?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to understand the perceptions of Brazilian citizens about the general conditions of animal welfare in the poultry, beef, and dairy supply chains. To reach this aim, an online survey was conducted. The analysis was based on descriptive statistics and three logistic regression models. Results of descriptive statistics showed that citizens in Brazil had mostly negative perceptions about the conditions of animal welfare in the poultry, beef, and dairy supply chains. Results of the logistic regression models showed that citizens with a background in agricultural/veterinary sciences, and citizens who reported a higher level of knowledge about poultry and dairy supply chains were more likely to perceive the general conditions of animal welfare in these two supply chains as being bad. Citizens who reported previous contact with poultry farms were also more likely to perceive the general conditions of animal welfare in the poultry supply chain as being bad. In addition, the perception that farmers are mainly focused on the economic aspect of farming and less on animal welfare, the perception that animals do not have a good quality of life while housed on farms, and the perception that animals are not adequately transported and slaughtered, negatively impact on perceptions about the general conditions of animal welfare in the poultry, beef, and dairy supply chains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.