MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975151638 · doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2586

An advisory tool to improve management practices affecting calf and heifer welfare on dairy farms

2010· article· en· W1975151638 on OpenAlexafffundabout
E. Vasseur, J. Rushen, A.M. de Passillé, D. Lefebvre, D. Pellerin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalValacta (Canada)Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersDairy Farmers of CanadaNovalaitUniversité Laval
KeywordsColostrumIce calvingAgricultural scienceWelfareDebriefingBusinessAnimal welfareOperations managementAnimal husbandryAnimal scienceEnvironmental resource managementMedicineEngineeringBiologyPregnancyAgricultureEnvironmental scienceLactationEconomicsMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed an advisory tool addressing 10 critical areas of calf and heifer management, including calving management, care to newborn calves and painful procedures, colostrum management, cow-calf separation, calf feeding, weaning, calf housing, heifer feeding, heifer housing, and general monitoring. Targets and indicators for each critical area were validated by a panel of experts and maximum scores were assigned based on experts' opinions and reviews of scientific literature. The tool was tested on 28 Quebec dairy farms for feasibility and repeatability between 2 observers. Farmers were asked to test colostrum quality, measure blood IgG concentrations, and record health events. The on-farm evaluation included an interview on management practices and an evaluation of conditions in the barn. Scorings and recommendations were discussed with producers. The usefulness of our on-farm welfare tool was evaluated by the producers themselves during a final debriefing. We reached the main goals of a successful advisory tool of calf and heifer management to improve welfare on dairy farms. We respected the targeted time limit of a 3-h visit covering all aspects of our tool including data collection on management and environment, scoring, practical demonstration with producers, and debriefing. We had no problems collecting management- and environment-based data and had high repeatability of qualitative environment-based measures (kappa value>0.6). Our tool helped to detect problems and to discuss these problems with the producers; producers scored below 50% for some targets in calving management, care to newborn calves and painful procedures, colostrum management, and calf feeding. The targets were realistic so producers were not discouraged. All producers were convinced of the usefulness of our tool for identifying areas of calf and heifer management in need of improvement. They were also convinced of the usefulness of our tool as an advisory tool for technical advisors and veterinarians. Six months after the on-farm visit, recommended practices were implemented in many of these areas. Voluntary improvements in animal welfare can be facilitated by using appropriate tools to educate producers and help them change their attitudes toward calf management and animal welfare.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations52
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207