ArticleVeterinary world2025
Animal welfare and farming systems synergistically influence beef cattle health: Evidence from Northern Thailand.
Article in Veterinary world, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Beef cattle production in Thailand is vital for food security and rural livelihoods, yet differences in farming systems raise concerns about animal welfare and health. This study aimed to evaluate the interactive effects of animal welfare and farming systems on cattle health outcomes, providing insights for sustainable smallholder production. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 60 farms in Phayao Province, categorized as extensive, semi-intensive, or intensive. Animal welfare was assessed using an adapted Welfare Quality protocol with 41 indicators across five domains. Health outcomes were obtained from farm records and direct observations. Statistical analyses included Kruskal-Wallis tests, Dunn's Results: Welfare scores differed significantly across systems, with intensive farms achieving the highest scores and extensive farms the lowest (p < 0.001). High-welfare farms showed reduced mortality, diarrhea, respiratory distress, bloating, parasitic infestation, and injuries compared with low-welfare farms (p < 0.05). Body condition score was strongly associated with welfare level (ρ = 0.68, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed significant effects of welfare level (R Conclusion: Animal welfare and farming systems interact to shape cattle health outcomes in Northern Thailand. Moderate welfare levels in semi-intensive systems offered balanced and consistent improvements, highlighting a scalable model for smallholders. The findings emphasize the need for context-specific welfare interventions, policy integration, and capacity-building initiatives to enhance both cattle health and farm sustainability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.