Comparing caustic paste vs caustic stick vs hot- iron+lidocaine disbudding in young dairy calves: behavioral response following disbudding and healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the behavior of calves following different disbudding methods, and evaluated the scarring between these methods in the weeks that followed. Dairy calves (1 to 15 days of age) were subjected to 1 of 3 methods: caustic paste (CP n = 123), caustic stick (CS n = 123), and hot-iron+lidocaine (HI n = 130). The calf’s latency to approach a person was recorded 1 day and 7 days after disbudding. Calves in the caustic paste group were more likely to approach after 1 sec compared to the other methods. Hot- iron+lidocaine disbudding produced smaller scars (0.47 ± 0.26 in (1.2 ± 0.67 cm) mean diameter ± SD vs CS = 1.5 ± 0.47 in (3.8 ± 1.2 cm) and CP = 1.2 ± 0.35 in (3.1 ± 0.90 cm)), but had greater odds of redness (OR = 6.6), purulent discharge (OR = 13.6), and crust (OR = 48.9) 3 weeks after disbudding compared to the caustic methods. Weight gain at 6 weeks was similar between treatment groups. Horn regrowth at 6 weeks and 6 months after disbudding was not different between the methods used, and thus caustic chemicals were as effective as the hot-iron+lidocaine method to disbud dairy calves.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".