ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Who cares for happy cows? Exploring views of dairy stakeholders around an imaginary automated animal-based welfare assessment tool.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) provides additional opportunities beyond focusing solely on production and health-related traits, including the evaluation of animal welfare. This study examines the complexities of adopting an imaginary automated welfare assessment tool in Swedish dairy farming. Materials and methods: Through an iterative qualitative design, we engaged dairy farmers ( Results: A reflexive thematic analysis exposes strains between farmers' perceptions and other stakeholders' meanings and practices. Despite other stakeholders' assumptions of 'farm blindness,' farmers demonstrate awareness and interest in comfort-related welfare indicators. However, they experience difficulties implementing changes due to limited agency and infrastructural capacities. Other stakeholders often interpreted the lack of farmers' actions as indifference, overlooking farmers' nuanced prioritisation strategies. Equally, conversations underscore farmers' doubts about the commitment and backing of supervising bodies as they hesitate regarding data sharing among interested stakeholders. Crucially, this highlights a lack of shared understanding and motivation for the welfare assessment, and a lack of long-term advisory support that aligns with farmers' capabilities and constraints. Conclusion: Our study underlines the importance of bridging the gap between scientific knowledge and on-farm practices, particularly in defining actionable guidelines for addressing welfare concerns. Regardless of the concretion of our imaginary automated tool, we conclude that stakeholders could readily foster greater engagement with animal welfare issues by recognising farmers' agency capabilities and providing tailored, contextually relevant support that signals the industry's support to farmers, not only a self-need to retain a delicate license to operate thus truly facilitating meaningful gains in animal welfare.
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.