ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Welfare assessment of dromedary camels kept under pastoralism in Pakistan.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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.
- Camel calf morbidity and mortality in low-income settings: Critical risk factors revealed by a cohort investigation in eastern Ethiopia.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Article
- The Challenges of the Camel Welfare in Western Countries.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Adapting camel husbandry to climate extremes: health and economic consequences in El Oued, Algeria.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- The impact of bacterial and viral diseases on dromedary camel (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- The impact of parasitic diseases on dromedary camel (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standardized welfare assessment protocols are crucial to enhance animal welfare; up to date, there is no data on the level of welfare of camels kept under pastoralism. A tailored protocol for measuring welfare in dromedary camels kept under nomadic pastoralist conditions was recently developed, drawing from the currently available welfare protocol for dromedary camels kept in intensive systems. This study, therefore, aimed to apply the newly developed tailored protocol and assess the welfare of dromedary camels kept under pastoralism in the Southern Punjab Province of Pakistan. A total of 44 welfare indicators (animal-, resource, and management-based measures) aligning with animal welfare principles ("Good Feeding", "Good Housing", "Good Health", and "Appropriate Behavior") were gathered into two assessment levels: "Caretaker-Herd level" and "Animal level". Data were collected in 2023 in the Cholistan desert in the southern Punjab province. Fifty-four herds were evaluated for a total population of 1,186 camels, of which 510 (495 females and 15 males; average age: 5-6 years old) were assessed at the animal level. The indicators were scored and aggregated to obtain Principle Aggregated Indexes (PAIs) and a total Welfare Index (TWI). Using the PAIs classification, 4 herds were categorized as excellent, 42 satisfactory, and 8 unsatisfactory. Total Welfare Index (TWI) varied from 55.7 to 82.2, and the thresholds for classification into tertiles were 65.4 and 70.6. Good feeding and Good housing were the most problematic PAIs, with Good feeding as the most influential variable for classification into welfare categories. As expected, camels kept under pastoralism had a higher level of welfare than those reported in the literature for intensive systems, especially concerning the Appropriate Behavior principle. Our findings are a first step in proposing welfare standards for dromedary in Pakistan and worldwide.
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.