ArticleTranslational animal science2025
Quantitative analysis of participant perspectives on use of different calf handling and restraint methods for spring processing of beef calves in western Canada.
Article in Translational animal science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Calf handling for spring processing represents one of the few times calves are handled in extensive production systems for the purpose of welfare and productivity interventions. The objective of this study was to identify the perspectives and preferences for common beef calf handling methods from those with experience in beef production. This study is the quantitative analysis of an online survey of 863 participants in calf handling events in western Canada. The survey used video clips to highlight three common handling practices of roping and wresting (RW), roping and Nord forks (NF), and tilt tables (TT). Participants were asked to rate how acceptable it was to use a method on a 5-point Likert scale, as well as rank which method they would most prefer and least prefer to use. Additional questions included demographics, scoring empathy towards animals, factors important to animal welfare, their experience with different methods, performance of tasks within spring processing events, and factors influencing decision to use a method. The acceptability of a method had weak (TT: ρ = 0.21,
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.