ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Movements after Captive Bolt Stunning in Cattle and Possible Animal- and Process-Related Impact Factors-A Field Study.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use of Diathermic Syncope® for stunning cattle.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
- Indicators of loss of consciousness in slaughter without stunning: a neuroanatomical reappraisal.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of electrical stunning and bleeding in finishing pigs: a case study from procedures to practice at two modern Colombian abattoirs.Tropical animal health and production · 2025Article
- Pathophysiology of penetrating captive-bolt stunning of horses.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025Article
- Commentary: A Comparison of the Methods of the Pre-Slaughter Stunning of Cattle in Australia-Mechanical, Electrical, and Diathermic Syncope.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Movements in cattle after captive bolt stunning cause problems in the slaughter process and lead to uncertainties in assessing stunning effectiveness. The objective of this study was to categorize and quantify these movements and determine animal- and process-related impact factors, as well as connections to stunning effectiveness and shooting position. In total 2911 cows, heifers, and bulls (dairy, beef, and crossbreeds) were examined (mean age 3.02 years). Movements from landing until at least four minutes after sticking were recorded by action cams (Apeman
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.