“Should we just stop fighting the beast?”: Tackling the wicked problem of surplus dairy calf management using a participatory framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early life killing of male and female dairy calves not needed as replacements for the lactating herd poses a threat to the social sustainability of the dairy industry. However, implementing sustainable alternatives to this common practice is a complex challenge exhibiting many characteristics of a 'wicked problem'. Addressing these problems requires understanding the needs of a wide range of actors including farmers, their advisors, beef and dairy value chain stakeholders, the public, and the animals. The aim of this study was to describe how Australian dairy farmers and advisors understand the factors affecting surplus calf management and examine how this understanding changed following interventions where participants were exposed to community and value chain stakeholder perspectives. To achieve this, we utilized a participatory framework that included longitudinal focus groups, where the same groups were reconvened multiple times, periodically revisiting the same issue, as a practical method for achieving deliberative engagement. We analyzed participants' responses before and after the interventions were applied using thematic analysis. Responses were organized into two themes: (1) economic and practical aspects of surplus calf management; and (2) social aspects of surplus calf management. We conclude that farmers and their advisors see surplus calf management as complex and without simple solutions. Farmers are faced with numerous challenges when it comes to breeding, rearing, and marketing calves for economically viable beef markets and are often impacted at a personal level by this burden. Participants often positioned the public as naïve to the plight of the farmer, requiring education to understand and accept farming practices. However, exposing participants to community views, particularly those which included some common ground with which participants could identify, resulted in some suggesting that preserving public trust may instead require adapting farming practices to align production systems with public values. In contrast, sharing value chain perspectives had less impact. Our findings indicate that participatory processes offer a promising approach for working toward sustainable management of surplus dairy calves in a local and global context.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".