ArticlePloS one2026
From theory to practice: A case study on estimating the costs of improving animal welfare on Simmental alpine dairy farms.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This case study estimates the economic implications of enhancing animal welfare (AW) in Alpine dairy farming, specifically focusing on Simmental cattle in both conventional (CON) and organic (ORG) farms. Given the increasing demand for higher welfare standards from consumers and policymakers, it is important to assess the economic feasibility of implementing these practices. The primary aim of this study is to develop a proof of concept for estimating the costs involved in meeting specific AW standards. Data were collected from 30 dairy farms (15 CON and 15 ORG), and AW scores were evaluated using both resource-based and animal-based indicators (total score of 90 points). Additionally, AW costs were assessed by calculating the cumulative additional costs, offset by potential benefits. Results show ORG farms achieve higher AW scores (73.99) compared to CON farms (70.28) but incur significantly higher production costs (€1.263/kg ECM for ORG vs. €0.977/kg ECM for CON), primarily due to the dilution effect caused by lower milk production on ORG farms. A nonlinear relationship between AW scores and AW costs was also observed, indicating that higher AW scores in initial farm conditions could, in some cases, lead to cost savings, particularly in larger and more efficient farms. The study emphasizes the need for clearly defined AW standards and a corresponding scoring system that reflects both the welfare impacts on animals and the economic feasibility for farmers. Further, we argue that the aggregation of AW scores should not merely categorize welfare on a simple best-to-worst continuum. Rather, it should account for the specific targets and conditions that policymakers and consumers are willing to support financially.
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.