Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38791616›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Perceptions of Animal Welfare on Livestock: Evidence from College Agronomy Students in Costa Rica.

Anthony Valverde, José Andrés González-Miranda, Francisco Sevilla, Sara Mora, Eduardo R S Roldan, Celso Vargas, Rodolfo González

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Anthony ValverdeLaboratory of Animal Reproduction, Center for Research and Development in Sustainable Agriculture in the Humid Tropics, School of Agronomy, Costa Rica Institute of Technology (ITCR), San Carlos Campus, Alajuela 223-21002, Costa Rica.ORCID 0000-0002-3191-6965
José Andrés González-MirandaProsecutor's Department, College of Psychologists of Costa Rica, San José 8238-1000, Costa Rica.
Francisco SevillaDoctorate in Natural Sciences for Development (DOCINADE), Costa Rica Institute of Technology (ITCR), San Carlos Campus, Alajuela 223-21002, Costa Rica.ORCID 0000-0003-1480-4141
Sara MoraFaculty of Philosophy and Letters, School of Philosophy, National University (UNA), Omar Dengo Campus, Heredia 86-3000, Costa Rica.ORCID 0000-0002-3051-4139
Eduardo R S RoldanDepartment of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), 28006 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7545-4248
Celso VargasSchool of Social Sciences, Costa Rica Institute of Technology (ITCR), Cartago Campus, Cartago 159-7050, Costa Rica.ORCID 0000-0002-1701-6186
Rodolfo GonzálezSchool of Languages and Social Sciences, Costa Rica Institute of Technology (ITCR), San Carlos Campus, Alajuela 223-21002, Costa Rica.

Funding

Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica Nº022-21-MInstituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica VIE-5402-2151-1019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethical considerations regarding our treatment of animals have gained strength, leading to legislation and a societal focus across various disciplines. This is a subject of study within curricula related to agri-food sciences. The aim was to determine the perceptions of agronomy university students concerning animal welfare in livestock production systems. A survey was conducted to encompass various aspects, from participants' sociodemographic attributes to their attitudes and behaviors regarding animal welfare and the consumption of animal products. Statistical analysis, performed using R software, delved into the associations between participants' characteristics and their perspectives on the ethical, bioethical, and legal dimensions of animal welfare. Associations between demographic factors and ethical viewpoints among students were identified. Gender differences emerged in animal treatment perceptions, while rural and urban environments impacted perspectives on various animals. Bioethical considerations revealed distinctive disparities based on gender and education in concerns regarding animal welfare, value perceptions, evaluations of animal behaviors, and opinions on animal research. It is crucial to distinguish between animal welfare and the ethical considerations arising from coexisting with sentient beings capable of experiencing suffering. Ethical theories provide a lens through which we perceive our obligations toward animals. The responsibility to ensure animal welfare is firmly rooted in recognizing that animals, like humans, experience pain and physical suffering. Consequently, actions causing unjustified suffering or mistreatment, particularly for entertainment purposes, are considered morally unacceptable.

Indexed as

animal ethicsanimal sciencesbioethicsbio lawundergraduate students

Identifiers

PMID38791616
PMCPMC11117388

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.