Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39678077›Full record

ArticleAgriculture and human values2024

Animal health and welfare as a public good: what do the public think?

B Clark, A Proctor, A Boaitey, N Mahon, N Hanley, L Holloway

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Agriculture and human values, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

B ClarkCentre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9828-6806
A ProctorCentre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU UK.
A BoaiteyCentre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU UK.
N MahonThe James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH Scotland, UK.
N HanleySchool of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ Scotland.
L HollowaySchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents a novel perspective on an evolving policy area. The UK's withdrawal from the EU has led to the creation of a new Agriculture Act and proposals for significant changes to the way farming subsidies are structured in England. Underpinned by a 'public money for public goods' approach, where public goods are those outputs from the farm system which are not rewarded by markets, yet which provide benefits to many members of society. New schemes include the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway, where certain aspects of farm animal health and welfare (FAHW) will be subsidised through government support, raising a much-debated issue in the literature regarding the representation of FAHW as a public good. For policy to be responsive to societal demands and accountable to citizens, understanding public attitudes and preferences towards FAHW as a public good, and how the public might prioritise this in relation to a wider suite of environmental public goods from farming, is important. An online survey of 521 members of the UK public was conducted and analysed with descriptive statistics and ordered logistic regression. Findings reveal low awareness of the changing agricultural policy context, but strong support for public money being used to provide public goods, particularly for FAHW. Findings also indicate a need for more effective public communication of farming and FAHW issues from farming stakeholders to ensure public policy in this domain is responsive and accountable to its citizens. Further work is needed to inform future debates and engagement surrounding FAHW, including through which combination of funding mechanisms (public or private) it is provided.

Indexed as

Animal healthAnimal welfarePublic goodsPublic perceptions

Identifiers

PMID39678077
PMCPMC11645323

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.