Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38487462›Full record

ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2023

How might the public contribute to the discussion on cattle welfare? Perspectives of veterinarians and animal scientists.

Beth Ventura, Daniel M Weary, Marina Ag von Keyserlingk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Swine industry perspectives on the future of pig farming.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2024
    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

3 authors.

Beth VenturaAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, 2357 Main Mall, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9476-6901
Daniel M WearyAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, 2357 Main Mall, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0917-3982
Marina Ag von KeyserlingkAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, 2357 Main Mall, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1427-3152

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Veterinarians and animal scientists can provide leadership on issues relevant to farm animal welfare, but perceptions of these stakeholders regarding societal expectations for welfare are underexplored. This study involved five focus groups of veterinarians and animal scientists (n = 50 in total), recruited at a European meeting focused on cattle welfare. Participants were invited to discuss topics related to cattle welfare and were prompted with questions to elicit their perspectives of public concerns and how the participants felt public input should be included when developing solutions. Discussions were moderated by trained facilitators, audio-recorded and transcribed, and transcripts analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Ultimately, four primary themes were developed: (1) The public as concerned; (2) The public as ignorant; (3) The public as needing education; and (4) The public as helper or hindrance. Groups identified specific farming practices viewed as concerning to the public, including lack of pasture access, behavioural restriction, and painful procedures. Discussions about these concerns and the role of the public were often framed around the assumption that the public was ignorant about farming, and that this ignorance needed to be rectified through education. Participants were generally ambivalent in their beliefs regarding public contributions to solutions for farm animal welfare but suggested that consumers should pay more for products to help shoulder any costs of welfare improvements.

Indexed as

animal welfarebeef cattledairy cattlefocus grouppublic communicationsocial sustainability

Identifiers

PMID38487462
PMCPMC10936297

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.