MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586546247 · doi:10.2527/jas.2016.0949

Management practices associated with pain in cattle on western Canadian cow–calf operations: A mixed methods study1

2017· article· en· W2586546247 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. A. Moggy, Edmond A. Pajor, Wilfreda E. Thurston, Sarah Parker, A.M. Greter, K. S. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, John Campbell, M. Claire Windeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCow-calfThematic analysisPain managementBusinessBest practiceMedicineQualitative researchPhysical therapyVeterinary medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Handling, weaning, and euthanasia are some of the most stressful practices performed on cow-calf operations. Although strategies to minimize stress exist, their use on western Canadian cow-calf operations is unknown. The objectives were to describe current stress-associated practices on western Canadian cow-calf operations, describe producer and operation demographics associated with the use of nonabrupt weaning methods, and explore producer perceptions toward these practices. A questionnaire focusing on stressful management practices was delivered to 109 cow-calf producers in western Canada. Fifteen respondents were purposively selected for individual interviews. The majority of producers reported calves less than 1 wk of age were handled by manual restraint (87%) and those older than 1 wk of age were handled using a cattle squeeze or table. Most producers performed abrupt weaning (70%). Interviewees often mentioned that cost and logistics were major factors in deciding on a weaning strategy. Pasture availability and facilities were viewed as constraints toward the adoption of a nonabrupt weaning method. Animal stress was considered, as producers expressed concern that nonabrupt weaning methods may cause increased stress because of the additional handling required. Producers conveyed that animal age was a major factor that impacted weaning stress and that improved animal performance might motivate them to adopt a nonabrupt weaning strategy. Producers also expressed reluctance to change previously successful traditional approaches. Of respondents, 13% did not euthanize cattle on farm and 8% did not confirm death. Producers interviewed reported that the decision to euthanize cattle on farm was difficult and that veterinary advice was often considered. Factors that influenced their decision to euthanize included the animal's likelihood of recovery and degree of pain and distress. Finally, producers explained that they considered whether the animal was salvageable and able to be transported. Identification of common methods of handling provides focus for future research to determine optimal handling strategies. Identified barriers to nonabrupt weaning may be addressed through research, extension, or policy to encourage the adoption of weaning methods that could improve animal welfare. Confirmation of death after euthanasia was identified as an area that needs to be addressed by producer education to minimize animal stress during on-farm euthanasia.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207