Methods used by Canadian dairy farmers for on-farm euthanasia and the emotions associated with the decision and the practice of euthanasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On-farm euthanasia is complicated in that farmers have to make the decision to end the life of an animal they are caring for. Studies have shown that some culling decisions are made too late, which results in animal welfare issues. However, information about on-farm euthanasia methods and the decision process leading to the euthanasia of an animal is limited. Additionally, emotions and feelings are involved in the decision and the act of euthanasia. The objectives of this study were to describe current practices related to on-farm euthanasia performed by Canadian dairy farmers and to assess the emotions and complex feelings surrounding the act. A cross-sectional study design was used to gather this information through an online questionnaire completed exclusively by Canadian dairy farmers. Data were analyzed descriptively using frequencies, and associations between the participants' characteristics and their practices and emotions regarding on-farm euthanasia were assessed using logistic regression models. A total of 479 dairy farmers from 5 provinces answered the survey. The most commonly used primary method of on-farm euthanasia was a firearm (>70%). Unacceptable euthanasia methods, such as standard 0.22-caliber long rifle for adult cows or no adjunct method following the use of captive bolt, were used by 25%, 18%, and 58% of the participants for calves, replacement animals, and dairy cows, respectively. Ninety-four percent of the participants reported that the farm owner was the person who always or often made the euthanasia decisions. In addition, 32% of the participants reported that the veterinarian always examined the animal before performing euthanasia, 51% reported at least one person received training to perform euthanasia, and 16% reported having a decision tree for euthanasia. Some participants (17%) were troubled with the responsibility for ending the life of their animals, and 19% perceived other people on the farm to be uncomfortable with performing euthanasia. Half of the participants reported that people performing euthanasia on the farm felt at least one related painful emotion or complex feeling, and half reported they had at least one reason to feel anxiety or unease concerning euthanasia. The results of this study showed gaps such as the limited use of acceptable euthanasia methods and decision trees by Canadian dairy farmers, low availability of on-farm training for euthanasia, and variable involvement of veterinarians.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".