ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021
Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Animal welfare and farming systems synergistically influence beef cattle health: Evidence from Northern Thailand.Veterinary world · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper aims to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for assessing beef farms in various beef cow-calf production systems in Namibia. Forty measures, combined from a New Zealand-based protocol plus Namibia-specific measures, are applied to 55 beef farms (17 commercial farms, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal village farms) during pregnancy testing, and a questionnaire guided interview. The categorised measures on a 3-point welfare score (0: good, 1: marginal, and 2: poor/unacceptable welfare) are subsequently compared with the derivation of thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of herds for each measure. The overall combined thresholds of continuous measures across the three farm types show 10/22 measures that posed welfare compromise across Namibia, whereas commercial farms have 4/22 measures, and semi-commercial and communal village farms have 12/22 and 11/22, respectively, with high thresholds. Most measures-imposed thresholds are retained because of significant importance to the welfare of animals and preventiveness of the traits, while leniency was given to adjust good feeding and mortality measures to signify periods of drought. Handling measures (fearful, falling/lying) and abrasions thresholds are adjusted to reflect the temporary stress caused by infrequent cattle handling, and faulty yard designs/design and possible cattle breed influence on handling. Hence, Namibia needs prioritised investigation of underlying contributing factors and remediation to reduce the high thresholds.
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.