Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40718745›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2025

Welfare of beef cattle.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Anette Boklund, Sabine Dippel, Fernanda Dorea, Jordi Figuerola, Mette S Herskin, Virginie Michel, Miguel Angel Miranda Chueca and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Welfare of beef cattle.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Julio Alvarez
Anette Boklund
Sabine Dippel
Fernanda Dorea
Jordi Figuerola
Mette S Herskin
Virginie Michel
Miguel Angel Miranda Chueca
Eleonora Nannoni
Romolo Nonno
Anja B Riber
Karl Stahl
Jan Arend Stegeman
Hans-Hermann Thulke
Frank Tuyttens
Giulio Cozzi
Ute Knierim
Sònia Martí
Siobhan Mullan
Sean Ashe
Giulia Cecchinato
Eliana Lima
Olaf Mosbach-Schulz
Marika Vitali
Martina Benedetta Zanna
Christoph Winckler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Scientific Opinion provides an assessment of beef cattle welfare focusing on risks related to flooring, water access, nutrition and feeding, high environmental temperatures, lack of environmental enrichment, lack of outdoor access, minimum space allowance and mixing practices. In addition, risks related to pasture and feedlots, weaning of suckler calves, mutilations (castration, disbudding, dehorning and tail docking), and to breeding practices (hypermuscularity, dystocia and caesarean sections, polledness, maternal ability and temperament) are assessed. Decision-making criteria for the euthanasia of cull cows are also addressed. A selection of animal-based measures (ABMs) suitable for collection at slaughterhouses is proposed to monitor on-farm welfare of fattening cattle. Recommendations to improve the welfare of housed fattening cattle include increasing space allowance and feeding more roughage in relation to current practice, and promoting the use of well-managed bedded solid floors. Provision of enrichment such as brushes and roughage and an outdoor loafing area for housed cattle are recommended. Cattle kept outdoors should have access to a dry lying area and sufficient shade. Water should be provided

Indexed as

animal‐based measuresbeef cattleindoormutilationswelfare

Identifiers

PMID40718745
PMCPMC12290492

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.