Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39453044›Full record

ArticleVeterinary sciences2024

Discourses on Positive Animal Welfare by Sheep Farmers and Industry Actors: Implications for Science and Communication.

Mukhtar Muhammad, Jessica Elizabeth Stokes, Louise Manning, Iona Yuelu Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary sciences, 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.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Mukhtar MuhammadDepartment of Agriculture, Science and Practice, Royal Agricultural University, Cirencester GL7 6JS, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8725-5150
Jessica Elizabeth StokesDepartment of Agriculture, Science and Practice, Royal Agricultural University, Cirencester GL7 6JS, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8933-2981
Louise ManningLincoln Institute for Agri-Food Technology, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9900-7303
Iona Yuelu HuangHarper Adams Business School, Harper Adams University, Newport TF10 8NB, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0559-3952

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research examines how sheep farmers and industry actors in the United Kingdom (UK) understand and conceptualize what animal welfare scientists term 'positive animal welfare'. It explores their awareness of the concept, and how they interpret it using a qualitative approach. Participants were recruited using a snowballing, purposive sample approach, resulting in 25 sheep farmers and 11 industry actors (veterinarians, farming organizations, advisors, and supply chain) being interviewed. To collect data, a combined approach involving semi-structured interviews and a facilitated workshop were used between April 2021 and March 2022. Data were then thematically analyzed using a hybrid of inductive and deductive coding process. The findings suggested that the perceptions of farmers and industry actors in the study regarding positive welfare differ from contemporary academic discourses. Overall, around 7 of the farmers equated positive welfare with "positive stockmanship", while six of them expressed "good animal welfare" definitions associated with the Five Freedoms. In contrast, most industry actors (6) expressed interpretations associated with high welfare standards (going above minimum recommended practices) and positive mental experiences (3). Emerging discourses revealed the link between self-identity, social identity and what positive welfare is, the importance of knowledge exchange, and the need for practical indicators through language rephrasing. There is a clear need to enhance and improve knowledge dissemination strategies, particularly in the UK, where much research is being conducted on positive animal welfare.

Indexed as

anthropomorphismawarenessinterpretationknowledge disseminationlanguagepositive animal welfarequalitative researchself-identitysocial identity

Identifiers

PMID39453044
PMCPMC11511421

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.