MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407868834 · doi:10.1080/1059924x.2025.2470967

“The Hill in Front of You”: A Qualitative Study of the Mental Health Impact of Livestock Diseases and Depopulation on Farmers

2025· article· en· W4407868834 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca J. Purc‐Stephenson, Jason N. Doctor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agromedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockEnvironmental healthSafeguardingOutbreakMental healthAnimal welfareWelfareSocioeconomicsAnimal husbandryOccupational safety and healthAnimal healthAgricultureMedicineGeographyBusinessVeterinary medicinePolitical sciencePsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Livestock disease outbreaks are challenging to control and often lead to animal deaths, sometimes necessitating the mass euthanasia of an entire herd or flock, a process known as depopulation. Depopulation is essential for safeguarding animal welfare, human health, and economic stability, as well as preventing the further spread of disease. While significant advancements have been made in the surveillance, detection, and disposal of affected farm animals, less attention has been given to the impact of livestock diseases and depopulation on farmers' mental health. This study explored the mental health effects of these events on farmers and identified strategies to enhance their resilience in coping with such stress. METHODS: Using a qualitative study, 20 farmers, veterinarians, and industry experts were recruited to describe the experience of livestock diseases and depopulation in Alberta, Canada through semi-structured, one-on-one interviews. All had experience with livestock diseases, and 18 had direct depopulation experience. To capture a broad spectrum of the impact on farmers, we gathered feedback from those raising cattle, swine, poultry, deer and elk, sheep, goats, and bees. The interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach to identify common themes. RESULTS: Five themes and five sub-themes emerged from the analysis: emotional distress (with sub-themes of shock and helplessness, anxiety and hypervigilance, despondency and waning motivation, fear of judgment and stigma, and contextual variables), threats to identity, economic burden, distrust and frustration with authorities, resilience and adaptation. Using our findings, we adapted the Emergency Management Framework to show what activities could be integrated to support farmers' mental health needs before, during, and after a depopulation event. CONCLUSION: Farm animal diseases threaten the livelihoods and well-being of farmers as well as pose a significant threat to Canada's food security and national economy. Our findings indicate farmers who experience livestock diseases and depopulation may be at risk for poor mental health. Implications for education and training, as well as changes to policy to support the mental health and well-being of farmers is discussed.

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)0.007
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AgromedicineSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207