Comparison of selected animal observations and management practices used to assess welfare of calves and adult dairy cows on organic and conventional dairy farms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in adoption of selected practices used in welfare assessment and audit programs were contrasted among organic (ORG; n=192) herds and similarly sized conventional grazing herds (CON-GR; n=36), and conventional nongrazing herds (CON-NG; n=64). Criteria from 3 programs were assessed: American Humane Association Animal Welfare Standards for Dairy Cattle, Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM), and the Canadian Codes of Practice (CCP). Data were collected by trained study personnel during a herd visit and included information about neonatal care, dehorning, pain relief, calf nutrition, weaning, record keeping, use of veterinarians, and animal observations. Associations of management type (ORG, CON-GR, or CON-NG) with adoption of selected practice were assessed. Almost all farms (97%) met criteria suggested for age at weaning but fewer CON-NG farmers weaned calves at ≥5 wk of age compared with ORG and CON-GR farmers. Only 23% of farms met program requirements for use of pain relief during dehorning, and fewer CON-NG farmers used pain relief for calves after dehorning compared with ORG and CON-GR farmers. Calves on ORG farms were fed a greater volume of milk and were weaned at an older age than calves on CON-GR and CON-NG farms. Calves on CON-GR farms were dehorned at a younger age compared with calves on ORG and CON-NG farms. The calving area was shared with lactating cows for a larger proportion of ORG herds compared with conventional herds. About 30% of herds met welfare program criteria for body condition score but only about 20% met criteria for animal hygiene scores. The least proportion of cows with hock lesions was observed on ORG farms. Regular use of veterinarians was infrequent for ORG herds. Results of this study indicate that most of the organic and conventional farms enrolled in this study would have been unlikely to achieve many criteria of audit and assessment programs currently used in the US dairy industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".