ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
A Purr-Suasive Case for Sterilization: How Sterilizing Working Cats Supports Dairy Farmers' Wellbeing, Improves Animal Welfare, and Benefits the Environment.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. 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.
- The Cat Is Already Out of the Bag: Humane and Pragmatic Solutions for Cats on Dairy Farms. Reply to Calver et al. It's Premature to Encourage Working Cats for Rodent Control on Australian Dairy Farms.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- It's Premature to Encourage Working Cats for Rodent Control on Australian Dairy Farms.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Protist community sites and structure under two barn management systems at a commercial dairy.Frontiers in microbiomes · 2026Article
- Feline Farmhands: The Value of Working Cats to Australian Dairy Farmers-A Case for Tax Deductibility.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Domestic cat management in the UK: learnings from a global perspective.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rodents on farms are a substantial issue due to the damage they cause to produce and infrastructure, and the risk they pose to food safety. As a result, farmers need to control rodent populations around farms. In a previous study, farmers indicated a preference for working cats, stating that they are a more efficient, safer, and cheaper alternative to rodenticide baits, and they provide companionship. However, farmers' options for managing cat populations are often limited to lethal methods because of time and financial constraints. Through semi-structured interviews, this study explored the impacts of lethal cat management methods on farmers, their experience with a free cat sterilization program, and their views on a Barn Cat Program, whereby healthy stray cats would be vaccinated, sterilized, and made available to farmers. Our results indicated that farmers had a relationship with the cats on their farms and that using lethal methods to manage these cats had a negative impact on farmers' wellbeing. Farmers supported the free cat sterilization program, as it reduced the cat population and their impact on wildlife, improved cat behavior and welfare, and benefited farmers. Farmers also generally supported a Barn Cat Program and gave suggestions on how best to promote it to other farmers. Funding should be provided for cat sterilization programs, as they support farmers, who value cats for rodent control and companionship, improve cat behavior and welfare, and reduce working cat populations and their impact on wildlife.
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.