Public attitude toward and perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in cow-calf management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early cow-calf separation followed by individual housing of calves is standard practice on dairy farms. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that as awareness grows the public will oppose these practices, which could compromise the dairy industry's social license. Despite disagreement among different stakeholders over weighting and evaluations of effects of early separation (e.g., distress response, disease risk), recent systematic reviews indicate that there is little scientific evidence supporting this practice. The acceptability of alternative cow-calf management systems is unknown. We used a mixed methods survey with a convenience sample of 307 Canadians plus a representative sample of 1,487 Americans to investigate perceptions of these systems, examining the effects of providing social or foster cow contact following early separation or not separating cow-calf pairs. Attitudes and perceptions of animal welfare were more positive (on a 7-point scale where 1 is most negative, 7 is most positive, and 4 is a neutral midpoint) toward the system where calves were not separated from the cow (mean ± SE; 5.8 ± 0.07; 5.7 ± 0.07), compared with systems in which the calf was separated and individually housed (3.6 ± 0.07; 3.4 ± 0.07), separated and group housed (3.7 ± 0.07; 3.4 ± 0.07), or separated and kept with a foster cow (3.8 ± 0.07; 3.6 ± 0.07). Participants were consistent in their attitudes toward and perceptions of animal welfare within the system, suggesting that participants took a holistic and value-oriented approach to cow-calf management regarding separation. These results, in combination with many participants' concern for the importance of the mother cow-calf relationship and perceptions that severing of this bond was a breach of standard of care, suggest that there may be low acceptance of any cow-calf management system involving early separation as such systems are unlikely to resonate with underlying values.
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) | 0.000 | 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".