ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Perceptions of swine euthanasia among Brazilian caretakers from non-integrated swine farms.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and evaluation of an interactive case-based training tool for timely on-farm euthanasia decision-making in swine.Porcine health management · 2026Article
- Swine welfare perceptions among future animal professionals in Latin America.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- A qualitative study exploring concepts and attitudes of guinea pig producers in rural parishes of Pichincha, Ecuador: The need for a one health-one welfare approach to enhance production practices.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 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
Timely and humane euthanasia is crucial for animal welfare on swine farms, yet challenges persist in its implementation, particularly in Brazil, where the responsibility often falls to caretakers lacking training. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of swine caretakers regarding euthanasia across non-integrated farms (ranging from 1,000 to 3,500 housed sows) and different experience levels (from less than a month to 40 years working with pigs). A total of 117 people directly working with pigs participated in a survey designed to evaluate their decision-making skills, euthanasia competencies, and understanding of Brazilian guidelines for euthanasia methods. Using Cluster analysis, we identified two distinct groups of caretakers: (1) Empathetic, self-sufficient, apathetic about euthanasia; and (2) Empathetic, knowledge seeker, uncomfortable with euthanasia. Both Clusters exhibited high empathy toward pigs and confidence in identifying sick animals but differed in their attitudes toward euthanasia. The risk factor analysis showed a tendency for younger respondents (under 36 years old) and those from smaller farms (less than 2,000 sows) were more likely to belong to Cluster 2, while older caretakers (over 36 years) and those working on larger farms (more than 2,000 housed sows) tended to belong to Cluster 1. Furthermore, a significant proportion of caretakers lacked knowledge of the euthanasia Brazilian guidelines, as evidenced by incorrect responses regarding acceptable euthanasia methods, such as performing cardiac perforation or using non-penetrating captive bolt guns on growing-finishing pigs. This study highlights the variability in caretaker experience and attitudes toward euthanasia, suggesting a critical need for targeted training programs and euthanasia protocols that address both emotional and practical aspects. Improved understanding of caretaker attitudes can enhance both human and animal welfare on farms.
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.