Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39918268›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2025

Stocking density in intensive housing and the implications for beef cattle behavior, stress physiology, and liveweight.

Bonnie T Mayes, Sharon G Dundon, Frances C Cowley, Lee-Emma K Norman, John M Morton, L Amy Tait

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Welfare of beef cattle.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 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

6 authors.

Bonnie T MayesSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5604-231X
Sharon G DundonMeat & Livestock Australia, Animal Wellbeing, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
Frances C CowleySchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351Australia.
Lee-Emma K NormanSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351Australia.
John M MortonJemora, East Geelong, VIC 3219, Australia.
L Amy TaitSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stocking density can potentially impact cattle welfare during livestock export voyages. The aim of this study was to assess selected measures that reflect the welfare of cattle housed at 3 allometric stocking densities (k = 0.027, 0.030, 0.047). Bos indicus cross Bos taurus steers were housed in 12 pens, each with 5 steers, for 10 d. Scan sampling of standing and lying behaviors were conducted on days 2, 5, 7, and 9, at hourly intervals. Continuous observations were conducted on the same days between 1030 and 1130 h, to count aggressive interactions. Liveweights were recorded at the start of the study, and on days 6 and 10. For a subset of focal steers (3 per pen), white blood cell counts, and fecal glucocorticoid metabolite (FGCM) concentrations were assessed on days 0, 6, and 10. More pen space led to a small increase in the number of steers lying, as well as a small increase in lying synchronicity. Results also indicated that the number of cattle lying in isolation from conspecifics is higher when more space is available. More pen space also resulted in more steers lying with outstretched legs on days 2 and 5, but there was no evidence of this after day 5. Stocking density had no important effect on day 6 or 10 liveweights or FGCM concentrations. Only small decreases in total white blood cell and lymphocyte counts between days 6 and 10 were observed, as well as small increases in neutrophil counts and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, but all mean counts still fell within reference intervals for healthy cattle. The lack of important effects on stress physiology and liveweight suggests that the cost of attempting to adapt to pen space restriction was relatively low, leading to behavioral responses only. Results for lying behaviors also suggest that additional pen space may facilitate adaptation upon introduction to a new housing environment and is beneficial in facilitating the expression of some lying behaviors. While designed to emulate stocking densities applicable to Australian cattle export voyages, other environmental factors that may induce stress during these voyages were not present, and so the conclusions must be interpreted in the context of the controlled experimental conditions.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryBehavior, AnimalBody WeightHousing, AnimalStress, PhysiologicalAnimalsAnimal WelfareCattleFecesGlucocorticoidsLeukocyte CountMalePopulation DensityGlucocorticoidsallometrycattle welfarelive export

Identifiers

PMID39918268
PMCPMC11926537

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.