Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37889695›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Animal Welfare Science: Why and for Whom?

Alessandra Akemi Hashimoto Fragoso, Karynn Capilé, Cesar Augusto Taconeli, Gabrielle Cristine de Almeida, Paula Pimpão de Freitas, Carla Forte Maiolino Molento

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Alessandra Akemi Hashimoto FragosoAnimal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, Curitiba 80035-050, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2976-9185
Karynn CapiléAnimal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, Curitiba 80035-050, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5925-1491
Cesar Augusto TaconeliDepartment of Statistics, Federal University of Paraná, Rua Cel. Francisco Heráclito dos Santos, 100, Curitiba 81531-980, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3485-400X
Gabrielle Cristine de AlmeidaAnimal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, Curitiba 80035-050, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1590-0912
Paula Pimpão de FreitasAnimal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, Curitiba 80035-050, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0001-4193-0904
Carla Forte Maiolino MolentoAnimal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, Curitiba 80035-050, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-1408-7891

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are, in the literature, distinct ways to approach animal welfare. The objective of this work was to study the value attributed to farm animals in the scientific papers published in animal welfare and animal production journals at three different points in time, separated by a decade each. The first ten papers mentioning "animal welfare" or "animal well-being" in their objectives or hypotheses from each journal and each focus year were selected. The 180 papers were blindly scored by five assessors between 1 and 10, according to the degree of intrinsic value attributed to animals. The overall mean score and standard deviation were 5.60 ± 2.49, with 6.46 ± 2.29 and 4.74 ± 2.40 for AW and AP journals, respectively, and 5.37 ± 2.44, 5.68 ± 2.52 and 5.75 ± 2.41 for the focus years of 2000, 2010 and 2020, respectively. There was an interaction between focus year and publication area: papers from AW journals scored better over time, in contrast with papers from AP journals, for which scores remained similar over decades. The inter-assessor agreement is moderate, which may reflect the subject complexity, as the language used in the papers studied was ambiguous in relation to why and for whom it is performed. The low overall mean score evidenced that the animal welfare scientific publications are, on average, not prioritizing the interests of the animals. Thus, our results evidenced the presence of animal welfarism in animal welfare science, a problem that seems not to be intrinsic to animal welfare science itself, but rather to the way research is frequently conceived, conducted, interpreted, summarized and applied. Therefore, it seems urgent to further study the motivation for animal welfare research. The statement of the main justification for animal welfare papers, with an explicit declaration of the motivational priorities that constitute each scientific animal welfare study, may be an interesting recommendation for the improvement of animal welfare science.

Indexed as

animal ethicsfarm animalmotivationsentiencewelfarism

Identifiers

PMID37889695
PMCPMC10252133

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.