| Title |
Farm Animal Welfare and Human Health
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Environmental Health Reports, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40572-016-0097-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alan M. Goldberg |
| Abstract |
The paper examines the relationship between farm animal welfare, industrial farm animal production, and human health consequences. The data suggest that when the animal welfare of land-based farm animals is compromised, there are resulting significant negative human health consequences due to environmental degradation, the use of non-therapeutic levels of antibiotics for growth promotion, and the consequences of intensification. This paper accepts that even if meat and fish consumption is reduced, meat and fish will be part of the diet of the future. Industrial production modified from the current intensified systems will still be required to feed the world in 2050 and beyond. This paper identifies the concept of sustainable intensification and suggests that if farm animal welfare is improved, many of the human health consequences of intensified industrial production can be eliminated or reduced. In water-based farm animal production, many new systems are resulting in a product that actually protects the environment and can be done at industrial levels without the use of antibiotics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 32 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 21% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 13 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 34 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,700,423
of 25,516,314 outputs
Outputs from Current Environmental Health Reports
#80
of 354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,610
of 368,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Environmental Health Reports
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,516,314 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.