Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31216326›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Evaluating the welfare of extensively managed sheep.

Carolina A Munoz, Angus J D Campbell, Paul H Hemsworth, Rebecca E Doyle

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Comprehensive evaluation of dairy ewe welfare in Algerian intensive farms using the BIENE protocol.Veterinary research forum : an international quarterly journal · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. The Effect of Environment and Husbandry Practices on Sheep Welfare.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Prevention and Control of HumanInternational journal of food science · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Animal-Based Indicators for On-Farm Welfare Assessment in Sheep.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Carolina A MunozAnimal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne, North Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5489-1417
Angus J D CampbellFaculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Science, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, VIC, Australia.
Paul H HemsworthAnimal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne, North Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Rebecca E DoyleAnimal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne, North Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify the main on-farm welfare issues likely to be encountered in extensive sheep farming systems. Thirty-two commercial sheep farms in Victoria, Australia were involved in this study. Of the 32 farms involved, 30 were visited twice (at mid-pregnancy and weaning), and 2 farms only once (both at weaning). In total, 62 visits were conducted and 6,200 ewes (aged 2-5 years) were examined using six animal-based indicators: body condition score (BCS), fleece condition, skin lesions, tail length, dag score and lameness. In addition, the number of ewes that needed further care (such as sick or injured sheep) was recorded and reported to the farmers. Generalised linear mixed models were conducted to investigate associations between welfare outcomes and visit, ewe breed and location, with all three, and their interactions, as fixed factors. In all instances, farm was set as a random factor to account for specific variation between farms. Overall, the welfare of the ewe flocks, based on the six indicators measured, was considered good. A total of 86.9% of the ewes were in adequate BCS (2.5-3.5), 91% had good fleece condition, 69.2% had no skin lesions, 97.1% had low dag scores, and overall lameness was 4.7%. An important and prevalent risk to welfare identified across farms was short tail length; with 85.7% of ewes having tails docked shorter than the third palpable joint. While the welfare of the flock was good, ewes in need of further care were identified at all farms. There were 185 (3.0%) cases needing further care, and the extent of welfare compromise of these animals was considered significant. Main reasons for further care were moderate/severe lameness or foot-related issues, BCS ≤ 2 and active dermatophilosis or broken wool. To our knowledge, this study constitutes the largest assessment of ewes conducted in Australia, and the findings provide valuable insight into the main welfare issues likely to be encountered in extensive sheep farming enterprises. Future studies should develop practical technologies that can assist in the detection of the welfare issues identified in this study. In addition, the thresholds identified here could be used for future comparison and sheep welfare benchmarking programs to assess farm performance and measure continuous improvements.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimalsAnimal WelfareAustraliaSheepSheep Diseases

Identifiers

PMID31216326
PMCPMC6583969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.