Attitudes towards cattle handling among Western Canadian cow-calf handlers: The role of handling training and perspectives on beef cattle welfare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western Canadian cow-calf handlers ( n = 118) were surveyed to determine: (1) attitudes towards beef cattle and handling; (2) influence of handling training on handling attitudes; (3) cattle welfare assessment strategies and improvement prioritization areas, and (4) involvement in and perspectives about handling training. Respondents agreed with statements related to positive attitudes, including the importance of proper handling practices, knowledge, and patience for effective cattle handling. They also agreed with statements favouring cattle cognitive abilities and the importance of good handling facilities, while disagreed with statements indicating little knowledge is required to handle cattle and the use of prods, hitting cattle, and yelling. Key welfare assessment indicators that participants reported using were general health and body condition scores, and they prioritized improving nutrition, herd health programs, and pain management. Economic returns and a sense of responsibility were major motivations for improving cattle welfare. Most respondents had attended cattle handling training, including in-person with hands-on demonstrations (33.7 %), in-person without hands-on demonstrations (10.9 %), hybrid formats combining online modules with hands-on demonstrations (19.6 %), and fully online training (35.9 %). Safety and desire to learn were major motivations for participating in handling training. Respondents acknowledged the benefits of handling training on improving handling skills and strongly agreed that handling training should focus on teaching patience strategies. Although training influenced attitudes, impacts of training modalities were inconsistent. The effectiveness of various training approaches may vary depending on the individual or context, indicating a need for further research to determine which methods yield the most positive outcomes for both handlers and cattle. • Participants have positive attitudes towards cattle and handling. • Handling training influenced attitudes, but different modalities' effects were inconsistent. • Health, productivity, and body condition scores are key beef cattle welfare assessment indicators. • Economic returns and a sense of responsibility motivate welfare practices improvement. • Safety and desire to learn are major motivations to attend cattle handling training.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".