Influences on Perceived Feasibility of Animal-Based Measures in a Producer-Driven Welfare Benchmarking System.

Hannah Salvin, Jessica E Monk, Linda M Cafe, Steven Harden, Caroline Lee

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Farmers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward animal welfare across different beef cattle farming systems in Phayao Province, Thailand.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2025
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

5 authors.

Hannah SalvinNSW Department of Primary Industries, Livestock Industries Centre, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6851-1849

Jessica E MonkCSIRO Agriculture and Food, FD McMaster Laboratory, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4571-2285

Linda M CafeNSW Department of Primary Industries, Livestock Industries Centre, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9110-0119

Steven HardenNSW Department of Primary Industries, Tamworth Agricultural Institute, Calala, NSW 2340, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0632-2452

Caroline LeeCSIRO Agriculture and Food, FD McMaster Laboratory, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1900-635X

Funding

CSIRO P.PSH.0807Meat and Livestock Australia Donor Company P.PSH.0807NSW Department of Primary Industries P.PSH.0807

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A voluntary, producer-driven welfare benchmarking system has been explored as a way of incentivising welfare improvement in pasture-based beef cattle and providing transparency and accountability to the industry. This study aimed to determine the acceptability and feasibility of measures for inclusion in a welfare benchmarking system and how this is influenced by respondents' attitudes and beliefs. A survey was disseminated online to Australian producers in July 2020. Producers were asked to indicate the welfare measures (

Indexed as

animal handlingattitudesbehaviourfarmerfeasibilityquality of lifestockpeoplewelfare measures

Identifiers

PMID39335256

DOI10.3390/ani14182666

PMCPMC11429234

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.