MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281991055 · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21349

Graduate Student Literature Review: Role of pain mitigation on the welfare of dairy calves undergoing disbudding

2022· review· en· W4281991055 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cassandra N. Reedman, T.F. Duffield, T.J. DeVries, K. Lissemore, Charlotte B. Winder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal welfareMedicineNonsteroidalWelfarePain and sufferingAnesthesiaBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review synthesizes research findings on the pain and welfare of dairy calves undergoing disbudding procedures. We describe disbudding practices in North America as well as the use and perceptions of pain control for these procedures. Governing bodies across Canada and the United States, including each country's veterinary medical association and nationwide initiatives such as proAction and Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM), recommend or require the use of a local anesthetic, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), and a sedative for disbudding procedures. Although the use of pain relief for disbudding has increased over the past decade or so, some in the dairy industry still do not believe that pain control for disbudding is necessary. As a painful procedure, disbudding has numerous welfare impacts on the calf both during and following the procedure that can be categorized under all 3 principles of animal welfare: natural living, biological functioning, and affective state. The use of pain control for disbudding; namely, a local anesthetic and NSAID, can improve welfare outcomes such as procedure-induced pain behavior, cortisol concentrations, mechanical nociceptive threshold, emotional states, and so on, compared with no pain control for the procedure. Although extensive research exists on pain control practices for disbudding, this review identified further gaps in knowledge and areas for future research. Mechanical nociceptive threshold can be evaluated around the disbudding wounds and is a reliable test in older calves; however, this outcome in very young calves after caustic paste disbudding has been reported to be inconclusive compared with that in older calves. As well, research evaluating xylazine sedation for disbudding has reported both potentially positive and negative results that are difficult to interpret or base suggestions on for the use of this drug. Finally, wounds caused by disbudding take a long time to heal (up to 13 wk) and have increased sensitivity for the entire healing process. Therefore, future research should aim to (1) determine accurate behavioral tests for calves under 1 wk of age undergoing disbudding to better understand their experience, (2) further attempt to understand the effects of xylazine sedation for disbudding and potential impacts of providing this medication, and (3) determine more ways to reduce the healing time and pain experienced by the calf after disbudding procedures.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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