MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008256735 · doi:10.3168/jds.2019-17595

Short communication: Describing mortality and euthanasia practices on Canadian dairy farms

2020· article· en· W3008256735 on OpenAlexafffundabout
S.M. Roche, R. Genore, D.L. Renaud, D.A. Shock, C.A. Bauman, S. Croyle, Herman W. Barkema, J. Dubuc, Greg Keefe, D.F. Kelton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversité de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsAnimal scienceDairy cattleBluntVeterinary medicineMedicineBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to describe mortality rates and euthanasia practices used for cows, heifer calves, and male dairy calves on Canadian dairy farms. An internet survey was administered to Canadian dairy producers between March and April 2015 to collect information on current management practices. Approximately 81% (867/1,076) and 63% (673/1,065) of respondents reported that at least one animal died unassisted and at least one animal was euthanized on the farm in the preceding 12-mo period, respectively. Overall, mean mortality was 8% for cows, and 6 and 2% for preweaning and weaned heifers, respectively. On average, 48, 76, and 89% of all reported mortality events in cows, weaned heifers, and preweaning heifers were recorded as unassisted deaths. Cows that died without assistance were necropsied more often than preweaning heifers dying without assistance; these cows were also necropsied more than cows that were euthanized. Conversely, preweaning heifers that were euthanized were necropsied more frequently than those that died without assistance. Choosing not to perform necropsies on animals that die of unknown causes could represent a missed opportunity to identify cause of death and inform changes to prevent future deaths. The use of a firearm was the most common method for euthanizing cows and heifers (54%) and male dairy calves (51%). Approximately 7% of respondents reported using blunt force to euthanize animals. The use of this method was much higher for euthanasia of male dairy calves (34%) than for heifer calves (7%). Québec respondents euthanized their animals using blunt force more often than farmers from other regions. Further, 53% of respondents using blunt force indicated it was their primary method of calf euthanasia; these results are extremely concerning. Approximately 31% of respondents who reported that they do not use blunt force to euthanize heifers and cows did report using blunt force to euthanize male dairy calves. These results can be used to inform veterinarian-client communication, broader extension tools and programs, and industry policies to improve dairy cattle health and welfare, a goal that is becoming of increasing importance from a consumer assurance perspective.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207