Calf aversion to hot-iron disbudding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dairy calves are routinely disbudded by cauterization with a hot iron. To mitigate the intra-operative and initial post-operative pain associated with this procedure some farmers provide calves general and local anesthetics, but it is unknown if the procedure remains aversive. We used a place-conditioning paradigm to assess aversion caused by hot-iron cautery with a local anesthetic compared to a sham procedure. A test area was divided into three equally sized pens: two 'treatment' pens with distinct visual cues were connected by a central 'neutral' pen. Each calf went through the disbudding procedure and a 6-h recovery period in one treatment pen and the control procedure in the other treatment pen. In three tests (48, 72 and 96 h after the second treatment), calves could freely roam among the pens until they chose to lie down, ending the session. Calves spent less time in either of the treatment pens compared to the central pen. When only comparing the two treatment pen, calves spent less time in the disbudding pen, especially during the first test. Calves were also less likely to lie down in the pen associated with the disbudding procedure. We conclude that even with the use of a local anesthetic, hot-iron disbudding is salient and aversive for calves, indicating the need to refine or avoid the procedure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".