ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023
Slaughtering of Water Buffalo (
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Pilot study: impacts of cannabinoids from industrial hemp and repeated transportation events on cattle health and immune status.Translational animal science · 2025Article
- Movements after Captive Bolt Stunning in Cattle and Possible Animal- and Process-Related Impact Factors-A Field Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Anatolian Water Buffalo Carcass Weights Based on a Slaughterhouse Data Collection.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Human animal relationships inFrontiers in veterinary science · 2024Review
- Stunning Compliance in Halal Slaughter: A Review of Current Scientific Knowledge.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The slaughter process in livestock is considered a stressor where the transport and handling of animals, as well as the selected stunning and bleeding methods, can cause acute pain, distress, and suffering. In water buffaloes, although stunning is known to be performed before bleeding to induce unconsciousness, no emphasis is made on the nociceptive events during this process. Particularly, current mechanical stunning methods applied to cattle are unsuitable for water buffaloes due to anatomical differences in the skull from other large ruminants. Furthermore, although very high-pressure pneumatic (200-220 psi) may be effective in the frontal position for lighter-weight water buffalos, for heavier animals, it is less likely to be effective. The present review aims: (1) to analyze the anatomical particularities of water buffaloes to discuss the importance of selecting a stunning method suitable for buffaloes, and (2) to revise the potential pain-related consequences, such as hyperalgesia and sensitization, and the signs to assess the stun quality and death to comprehend the relevance of a proper technique according to the species.
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.