Engagement involves students' investment in learning activities, as well as interrelated affective (emotive responses), behavioral (active responses), and cognitive (mental effort) components. This study assessed undergraduate student and instructor perceptions of the interrelated components of engagement during and after the rapid online transition of teaching in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifteen courses-including laboratory, discussion-based, large lecture, tutorial, and problem-based learning-within a multidisciplinary faculty at a large researchintensive Canadian university were surveyed to: (a) assess student and instructor perceptions of students' levels of engagement during and after the rapid transition to online teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) describe which aspects of engagement were enhanced or diminished due to the rapid online transition; and (c) identify which learning activities students would find most engaging in an online setting so as to assist in developing student-centered online pedagogical techniques. Student engagement was lower after the rapid online transition. Students who engaged by connecting with peers and instructors through in-class discussion (affective engagement) had diminished engagement, whereas students who engaged by listening to lectures, reading course materials, and reviewing slides (cognitive engagement) had enhanced engagement. Overall, students found synchronous activities more engaging. Students experienced positive and negative outcomes related to classroom engagement when transitioning rapidly to online learning during a global pandemic.

On-farm emergency slaughter (OFES), whereby inspection, stunning, and bleeding occur on the farm before the carcass is transported to a slaughterhouse, is permitted in some jurisdictions as a means to avoid inhumane transportation while salvaging meat from injured animals. However, OFES is controversial and its use for dairy cows has been little studied. Inspection documents for 812 dairy cows were examined to identify how OFES was used for dairy cows in British Columbia, Canada, over 16.5 mo. Producers used OFES for dairy cows aged 1 to 13 yr (median of 4 yr). Leg, hip, nerve, spinal, foot, and hind-end injuries or conditions (in that order) were the most common reasons for OFES, and some cases may have been a consequence of calving. Foot conditions were disproportionately common among cows 5 yr and older, and hind-end conditions were disproportionately common among cows 6 yr and older. Producers used OFES promptly after traumatic injury (within 1 d) for some cows, but OFES was delayed for others, sometimes until cows had been nonambulatory for 2 to 6 d. In some cases, OFES was used for nontraumatic chronic conditions, such as lameness and hind-end weakness, rather than traumatic injuries such as fractures and dislocated hips. Use of OFES appears to conform to the purpose of the program when used promptly after traumatic injuries, but clear guidelines are needed to avoid inappropriate use and delays that may prolong animal suffering.

Some jurisdictions permit on-farm emergency slaughter (OFES) as one end-of-life option for dairy cows and other animals that cannot be transported humanely but are deemed fit for human consumption. Anecdotal reports suggest that OFES is controversial among dairy industry professionals, but to date their perceptions of OFES have not been studied systematically. Twentyfive individual interviews and 3 focus groups with 40 dairy producers, veterinarians, and other professionals in British Columbia, Canada, revealed positive and negative perceptions of OFES influenced by (1) individual values, (2) the perceived operational legitimacy of OFES, and (3) concern over social responsibility and public perception of the dairy industry. Study participants valued cow welfare but were divided on whether OFES quickened or delayed death for injured animals. Views on the operational legitimacy of OFES varied because of different perceptions and concerns regarding regulatory, veterinary, and meat inspector oversight, a possible conflict of interest for veterinarians, and concerns over carcass hygiene and transport. Whereas many appreciated that OFES prevented transport of compromised cows, others saw OFES as merely a stopgap measure. Seven recommended actions could address concerns while retaining the benefits of OFES: (1) specifying precise timing parameters for OFES, (2) clarification of allowable cow conditions for OFES, (3) consultation with dairy industry professionals if OFES is to be expanded, (4) more proactive culling and the development of euthanasia protocols on farms, (5) the designation of veterinarians as the first point of contact in the OFES process, (6) veterinarian training on animal inspection and allowable conditions for OFES, and (7) the use of proper procedures and equipment during the OFES process to ensure food safety.

Standard operating procedures (SOP) are increasingly required on farms participating in animal welfare assurance programs, such as the Dairy Farmers of Canada's proAction initiative and the National Dairy FARM Program in the United States. However, little is known about the use of SOP on farms and who is involved in their development. Literature from other industries shows the importance of including advisors when developing SOP. Despite veterinarians being viewed by many farmers as trusted sources of information, little is known about their involvement in SOP development. The aim of this study was to better understand: (1) what advice from researchers and veterinarians is considered when developing an SOP and (2) what factors affect advice adherence. Participants in this study were farmers (n = 9) from 6 dairy farms in the Fraser Valley region of British Columbia, Canada and their herd veterinarians (n = 5). Structured and semi-structured interviews and participant observation were undertaken from April to December 2018, and the resulting data were analyzed using thematic analysis. In relation to the first aim, we identified 3 main themes: (1) the purpose of the SOP, (2) developing an SOP, and (3) accountability and tracking of procedures. For the second aim, 5 themes emerged: (1) feasibility of the advice, (2) resources required, (3) priority of the advice, (4) other actors involved, and (5) the importance of data. Collectively, these findings suggest that a farm-specific SOP that actively tracks procedures is most beneficial, and that advice adherence is context dependent.

A diverse research literature now exists on the animals, staff and organisations involved in animal sheltering. We reviewed this research through the lens of institutional ethnography, a method of inquiry that focuses on the actual work that people do within institutions. The main topics, identified through a larger ethnographic study of animal sheltering, were: (i) research about shelter staff and officers; (ii) the relinquishment of animals to shelters; and (iii) animals’ length of stay in shelters. After reviewing the literature, we held focus groups with shelter personnel to explore how their work experiences are or are not represented in the research. The review showed that stress caused by performing euthanasia has attracted much research, but the decision-making that leads to euthanasia, which may involve multiple staff and potential conflict, has received little attention. Research on ‘compassion fatigue’ has also tended to focus on euthanasia but a granular description about the practical and emotional work that personnel undertake that generates such fatigue is missing. Published research on both relinquishment and length of stay is dominated by metrics (questionnaires) and often relies upon shelter records, despite their limitations. Less research has examined the actual work processes involved in managing relinquishment as well as monitoring and reducing animals’ length of stay. Institutional ethnography’s focus on people’s work activities can provide a different and more nuanced understanding of what is happening in animal sheltering and how it might better serve the needs of the animals and staff.