The Entrepreneurs: Dairy farmer perspectives on finding an industry solution for the surplus calf issue—A participatory case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current systems for managing surplus dairy calves are wrought with ethical and animal welfare concerns. Resolving complex problems in the dairy industry requires engagement from dairy farmers and other stakeholders. The main objective of this case study was to pilot a novel methodology to deepen our understanding of how dairy producers envision the future of surplus calves in Atlantic Canada, including identifying who they felt were important to speak to as they discussed this topic. A second objective was to understand the perspectives of a key group the producers requested to speak to, representing a variety of dairy industry partners, including veterinarians, genetics companies, and animal welfare scientists amongst others (referred to as the allied industry) on the future of surplus calves. To reach these objectives, we used an inclusive participatory approach that, to our knowledge, has not yet been applied to the surplus calf issue. This approach included a series of five participatory group discussions with volunteer dairy farmers from Atlantic Canada; the allied industry group was invited to two group discussions. Participants discussed the feasibility of creating a dairy beef system as a potential solution to the surplus dairy calf issue. During the discussions, participants were encouraged to make requests to speak to individuals that would help them design a dairy beef system. Audio-recorded transcripts were subjected to inductive qualitative content analysis where short descriptors were assigned to pieces of the discussion relevant to study objectives. Four key themes from the discussions included: (1) challenges with surplus calf production on the dairy farm, such as a lack of knowledge about what type of calf would be desired by the marketplace, (2) the role of leadership and partnership in the creation of a dairy beef system, including the need to overcome communication barriers between different stakeholders, (3) post-farm gate aspects of surplus calf production, including the desire to cater to a local market, and (4) ensuring that the proposed system is economically and socially viable. Knowledge gained from this type of participatory engagement can help stakeholders align their goals to resolve complex issues such as surplus calf management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".