MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214770633 · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21237

Western Canadian dairy farmers' perspectives on the provision of outdoor access for dairy cows and on the perceptions of other stakeholders

2022· article· en· W4214770633 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anne-Marieke C. Smid, Saskia de Jong, Pauline H.J. Inberg, Shane Sinclair, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, Daniel M. Weary, Herman W. Barkema

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
FundersDairy Farmers of ManitobaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaDairy Farmers of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsPastureDairy cattleBusinessDairy industryDairy farmingAgricultural scienceFree accessFocus groupGeographyMilk productionAnimal scienceMarketingEnvironmental scienceBiologyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provision of pasture and outdoor access for dairy cattle differs around the globe. For example, in Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia, dairy farms are largely pasture based, whereas dairy farms in the United States and Canada are largely confinement based. There is a high level of public support for pasture and outdoor access for dairy cows, and the available evidence shows that dairy cattle are highly motivated to access pasture, especially at night. The decision as to whether to provide outdoor access is typically made by farmers, but little is known about dairy farmers' perspectives on this topic. We investigated perspectives of Western Canadian dairy farmers on outdoor access, as well as how they believe different stakeholders (i.e., the dairy industry, the dairy cows, and the general public) regard outdoor access for dairy cows. Data were collected via (1) 11 focus group discussions with a total of 50 Western Canadian dairy farmers, and (2) semi-structured individual interviews with an additional 6 dairy farmers of Hutterite colonies. Data were analyzed using template analysis. Although most participants in this study did not provide outdoor access on their farms, or only provided outdoor access to certain cow groups, participants generally mentioned that they enjoyed seeing cows on pasture or outdoors. However, participants shared that the Canadian supply management system (including processors) required a consistent flow of production, which was thought to be easier and more economically realized with indoor housing of lactating cows. Participants believed that pasture or outdoor access for dairy cows was desired by the public. Some participants believed that dairy cows prefer to spend time outside under favorable weather conditions, but others felt that cows preferred to stay indoors in modern, ventilated freestall barns. The results of this study describe the perspectives of dairy farmers regarding the views of dairy industry stakeholders as they relate to outdoor access, helping to inform conversations around the provision of outdoor access for dairy cattle.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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