ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Assessment of Animal Welfare at an Exotic Animal Fair in Poland: A Focus on the Quality of Exhibition Containers for Reptiles and Amphibians.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Species-specific variations in corticosterone concentrations in captive snake shed skins: implications for housing systems and welfare.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Pinchy Business: Poland's Ornamental Crayfish Trade in 2024.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the growing number of events involving exotic animals, it is crucial to prioritize the well-being of the animals involved. This study aims to evaluate the quality of animal presentation at a selected fair in Poland and assess the level of animal welfare evident in the exhibition boxes, contributing to the ongoing dialogue on this important issue. The evaluators used a five-point Likert scale and a Yes/No system to analyze the living conditions during the fair, including the size of containers, presence of substrate, and environmental enrichment. They also assessed the occurrence of visual abnormal postures and behaviors to gauge the overall level of welfare. To ensure the reliability and consistency of the data and minimize potential bias, each evaluator repeated the rating process three times, with a three-week interval between each session. An average value was then calculated for each aspect. A total of 818 animals were present at the fair, with 688 being reptiles (84.11%) and 130 being amphibians (15.89%). This study revealed that the provision of substrate scored higher for reptiles compared to amphibians, while the size of containers for amphibians received higher ratings than those for reptiles. Visual abnormalities in posture and behavior were more common in reptiles than in amphibians. Display containers for snakes received the lowest ratings and showed more visual abnormalities in posture and behavior, raising concerns about their welfare. Despite the presence of environmental enrichment, the overall level of animal welfare was assessed as being medium/low. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicated good reliability among the evaluators during the assessment process, with most assessments showing values > 0.8. Despite existing regulations for exhibitors, neglect remains prevalent. These findings highlight the potential negative impact of animal exposure at fairs on animal welfare. Display containers were often inadequately sized for the animals, particularly for snakes, chameleons, monitor lizards, and salamanders.
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.