ReviewVeterinary and animal science2026
Review: Compliance standards for dairy cattle welfare in European countries.
Review in Veterinary and animal science, 2026. 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
Over the last half century, animal welfare in livestock farming, particularly dairy cattle farming, has received increasing attention. Animal welfare legislation, as well as private and state-regulated standards and frameworks concerning animal welfare in dairy farming, has flourished globally, particularly in Europe. This study uses a modified systematic review approach to provide an overview of the various compliance frameworks (CFs) relating to dairy cattle welfare across Europe. These are classified according to the type of approach in: qualitative, or those that require only the achievement of a certain level of welfare; progressive, or those that encourage the constant improvement of welfare; disruptive, or those that propose a breakthrough in the management system, geared towards promoting welfare; and health monitoring programmes, considered separately. A qualitative assessment is conducted on nine selected CFs concerning the welfare of dairy cattle in five Alpine countries (France, Italy, Germany, Austria and Switzerland). Their different characteristics (organisation type and approach, interface with other relevant databases, covered subjects, and other qualitative features) are compared and presented in tabular form. This analysis reveals further differences between the CFs that transcend the type of approach adopted. Each country employs a personalised strategy. One distinction between the CFs is the presence of regulatory possibilities to integrate or compensate for shortcomings in certain areas, such as the absence of elements that promote welfare as regulated by the standard, with other virtuous practices. Furthermore, the comparison shows that health monitoring programmes are provided for in all states, thus underlining their continuing relevance.
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.