↓ Skip to main content

Feeders of Free-Roaming Cats: Personal Characteristics, Feeding Practices, and Data on Cat Health and Welfare in an Urban Setting of Israel

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Feeders of Free-Roaming Cats: Personal Characteristics, Feeding Practices, and Data on Cat Health and Welfare in an Urban Setting of Israel
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2016.00021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Idit Gunther, Tal Raz, Yehonatan Even Zor, Yuval Bachowski, Eyal Klement

Abstract

Cat feeders serve as an important source of available food for free-roaming cats (FRCs) and can play a central role in providing data on FRC distribution, welfare, and health. Data on cat feeder personalities as well as a better understanding of their feeding practices offer relevance for decision making concerning FRC population control strategies. The current study surveyed 222 FRC feeders who responded to a municipal trap-neuter-return (TNR) campaign in an Israeli central urban setting. The aim of the study was to describe their personal characteristics, feeding practices, and the FRC populations they feed. Feeders were divided into four groups according to the number of cats they claimed to feed per day (group 1: fed up to 5 cats, group 2: fed 6-10 cats, group 3: fed 11-20 cats, and group 4: fed ≥21 cats). Most feeders were women (81%), with a median age of 58 years (range 18-81). The feeders reported an overall feeding of 3337 cats in 342 different feeding locations. Feeders of group 4 comprised 15.31% (n = 34) of all feeders but fed 56% (n = 1869) of the FRC in 37.42% (n = 128) of the feeding locations. "Heavy" feeders (groups 3 and 4) reported that they traveled significantly longer distances in order to feed the cats. Commercial dry food consisted of 90% of the food they provided, with 66% of them feeding once a day, with less food per cat per day than the other feeder groups. Interestingly, "heavy" feeders were usually singles, had on average fewer siblings, a clear preference for owning cats as pets, and lived in lower income neighborhoods. According to the feeders' reports on the FRC populations they fed, 69.7% (2325/3337) cats were neutered and 11.8% (395/3337) were kittens. In addition, they reported that 1.6% (54/3337) of the cats were limping, 2% (67/3337) suffered from a systemic disease, 4% (135/3337) had skin lesions, and 3.9% (130/3337) were suffering from a chronic disability. Abundance of kittens and morbidity rate were significantly and negatively associated with neutering rate. These findings are in accordance with the suggestion that neutering may potentially improve cat welfare by reducing morbidity. Collaboration by the authorities with these heavy feeders, who represent a small number of FRC feeders and feed substantial FRC numbers, may be significant for the control and monitoring of FRC populations and their resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
India 1 1%
Unknown 90 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 24 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Computer Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 29 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#6,281,925
of 25,516,314 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,052
of 8,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,458
of 313,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#8
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,516,314 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 313,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.