A survey of male and female dairy calf care practices and opportunities for change
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The primary objective of this study was to compare male and female dairy calf management practices and evaluate risk factors associated with differences in care. Secondary objectives were to understand surplus calf transportation and marketing practices and investigate incentives to motivate calf care improvements. An online survey was distributed to all dairy producers in Ontario (n = 3,367) from November 2020 to March 2021 and Atlantic Canada (n = 557) from April to June 2021. Dairy producers were identified through provincial dairy associations and contacted via e-mail and social media. Descriptive statistics were computed, and a logistic regression model was created to evaluate factors associated with using discrepant feeding practices (i.e., fed less colostrum, fed colostrum later, or fed raw, unsalable milk) for male calves compared with females. The survey had a 7.4% response rate (n = 289/3,924) and was primarily filled out by farm owners (76%). Although colostrum and milk feeding practices were similar between male and female calves, male calves received less milk while still on the dairy farm of origin compared with females. Male calves were also more likely to be fed a higher proportion of raw, unsalable milk. Female producers and those that kept their male calves beyond 10 d of age had lower odds of using poorer feeding practices for male calves. Male calves were mostly sold between 1 and 10 d (64%), primarily through direct sales to a calf-rearing facility (45%), with auctions being the next most common method (35%). A small but notable proportion of producers (18%) agreed that euthanizing male calves is a reasonable alternative when their sale price is very low; however, few producers (13%) reported that financial costs limited their male calf care. The largest proportion (43%) of producers reported that a price premium for more vigorous calves would motivate them to take better care of their male calves. Conversely, only 28% of producers reported that a price discount for calves in poor condition would be motivating. Producers placed importance on the opinion of their calf buyer, their herd veterinarian, and the Canadian Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle when considering their calf care practices, and they highly valued practices that promote calf health. Respondents to this survey reported a lower proportion of tiestall barn use and higher milk productivity compared with typical dairy herds in the region, suggesting selection bias for more progressive dairy producers. Nevertheless, our results suggest that dairy producers provide similar care between male and female calves, but some male calves experience challenges due to milk feeding and marketing practices. Feedback from calf buyers along with continued support and guidance from herd veterinarians and the Code of Practice may motivate dairy producers to improve male calf care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».