MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414590867 · doi:10.3168/jds.2025-26939

Describing the decision-making process of Ontario dairy farmers when managing down dairy cattle: A qualitative focus group study

2025· article· en· W4414590867 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John E Brindle, Michael W. Brunt, D.L. Renaud, Derek B. Haley, T.F. Duffield, Charlotte B. Winder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceDairy Farmers of Ontario
KeywordsFocus groupThematic analysisProcess (computing)Animal welfareQualitative researchWelfareBest practiceBalance (ability)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to investigate Ontario dairy farmers' attitudes and perceptions toward down dairy cows, and the barriers and motivators influencing the use of best management practices. Four focus groups were conducted in southwestern Ontario in 2024, with a total of 21 dairy producers participating. Producers were asked about current practices, thoughts on best management practices, challenges to adopting best practices, and facilities and equipment for down cow care. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using applied thematic analysis. Five themes were identified from the data: adaptive and flexible management strategies; farm resources and facilities; veterinary relationships and communication; producer experience and emotional impact; and animal-centered decision making. Producers emphasized a balance between proactive, long-term strategies, such as prevention, record-keeping, and research-driven improvements, and the need for flexible, real-time decision making to address the unpredictable nature of down cows. Facility design, labor availability, financial constraints, and veterinary collaboration played important roles in the care they provided to down cows. Further, producers highlighted the emotional burden of making euthanasia decisions and discussed the balance of animal welfare and economic sustainability. Producers also expressed a need for more research, better diagnostic tools, and practical on-farm solutions to improve down cow management. Addressing these challenges requires coordinated efforts that integrate practical tools, infrastructure improvements, producer education, and veterinary support systems. The interplay of these factors underscores the need for a holistic approach to support producers in navigating the multifaceted challenges they face in their daily work. This study contributes to understanding the multidimensional factors influencing dairy producers' management practices in caring for down dairy cows.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy Science→Same topicAgriculture and Rural Development Research→French-language works237,207→