Dairy farmers’ considerations for antimicrobial treatment of clinical mastitis in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical mastitis (CM) treatment decision-making is a multifaceted process that remains relatively understudied, despite CM being one of the most prevalent diseases on dairy farms worldwide, contributing greatly to the use of antimicrobials in the dairy industry. This study aimed to gain insights into decision-making mechanisms employed by dairy farmers in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, when dealing with CM. Methods: Interviews were held with 15 dairy farmers in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to develop both the decision-pathway and overarching themes influencing the CM decisions by farmers in this region. Results and discussion: The analysis generated a decision-making process that begins with identification and classification of CM, guided by visual characteristics of milk and the udder, available milk production and quality data, presence of systemic signs, and additional diagnostics. Subsequently, CM cases are assessed based on the likelihood of cure, value of the cow, and herd goals to decide whether antimicrobial treatment is desired. Next, a treatment choice is made by evaluating severity and urgency of the case, availability of drugs and timing of the case. Finally, definition of treatment success and progression over time following the treatment decision guides the termination of treatment. Three overarching themes were generated that shape the decision-making process: 'Personal attributes', including personal approach and experiential knowledge; 'Inter-actor dynamics', such as shared decision-making and dynamics among producers, veterinarians, and milkers; and 'Moving beyond protocols', which highlights the dynamic nature of mastitis decision-making. These insights have the potential to inform the development of effective interventions to improve CM antimicrobial use that align with the reality of farming operations within Western Canada, and potentially beyond.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".