Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32012933›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Importance of Basic Research on the Causes of Feather Pecking in Relation to Welfare.

Lisa B Fijn, F Josef van der Staay, Vivian C Goerlich-Jansson, Saskia S Arndt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Impact of ProbioticAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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.

Lisa B FijnDivision Animals in Science and Society, Animal Behaviour, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Utrecht, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands.
F Josef van der StaayDivision of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Behavior & Welfare Group (Formerly Emotion & Cognition Group), University Utrecht, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Vivian C Goerlich-JanssonDivision Animals in Science and Society, Animal Behaviour, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Utrecht, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Saskia S ArndtDivision Animals in Science and Society, Animal Behaviour, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Utrecht, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feather pecking is a prominent issue in the commercial egg industry, associated with economic losses and welfare problems. A non-systematic literature search suggests that studies on feather pecking are predominantly concerned with applied research goals. That is to say, they aim to solve or diminish the effects of this problematic behavior by orienting towards practical approaches. The strong emphasis on this research approach has skewed our knowledge of the causes of feather pecking in relation to welfare. While the need for such research is high, there is an equivalent need for basic research that has not received corresponding effort. Also, current research predominantly focuses on the negative effects on the birds being pecked, whereas too little attention is given to the possible welfare problems of the peckers. We argue that more basic research is needed for obtaining comprehensive science-based knowledge of behavioral needs and abilities of hens, in particular with respect to behavioral problems that threaten their welfare.

Indexed as

animal welfareapplied researchbasic researchfeather peckingindustrial farming

Identifiers

PMID32012933
PMCPMC7070775

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.