ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Comparing the use of different environmental enrichment items by Hereford-Holstein cattle in a high containment facility.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh containment facilities provide limited environmental stimuli for cattle. Adding environmental enrichment can reduce frustration and stereotyping, improving overall animal welfare and benefitting scientific output. Current research into environmental enrichment for indoor housed cattle is lacking despite such facilities facing unique challenges to maintain high welfare standards. This study compared four different environmental enrichment items in the aim to help inform high containment facilities on the most effective enrichment items for cattle. Five pens holding four 18-month-old Hereford-Holstein cattle were equipped with control enrichment (broom head and salt lick) and one trial enrichment item. The test items were a hay net filled with hay, rope, empty chemical drum, and ball. Items were rotated weekly over a three week period. Interactions between the cattle and enrichment were recorded daily via CCTV, data collected using continuous all-occurrence sampling with three point samples per day, and analysed using negative binomial regression models.
resultsThe hay net elicited the highest interactive frequency and duration. It was also the least affected by habituation, possibly due to the nutritional incentive and novelty created when refilled. A similar level of interaction was seen between the ball and drum and both items were interacted with more than control items. The rope was interacted with less frequently than control items.
conclusionAlthough the hay net appeared most engaging, all items declined in popularity over time indicating that several different items rotated sporadically may maximise the benefit of enrichment by maintaining the cattle's interest.
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.