Complete-lactation milk and component yields following a short (35-d) or a conventional (60-d) dry period management strategy in commercial Holstein herds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 850 cows distributed among 13 commercial Holstein herds were involved in this study to compare the effects of 2 different dry period (DP) management strategies on milk and component yields as well as body condition score (BCS) over complete lactations. Within each herd and every 2 mo, cows were assigned to a short (35 d dry; SDP) or conventional (60 d dry; CDP) DP management based on previous lactation 305-d milk yield, predicted calving interval, and parity: primiparous (n=414) and multiparous (n=436). Cows assigned to CDP were fed a far-off dry cow ration from dry-off until 21 d prepartum, and were then switched to a precalving ration. Cows assigned to SDP were fed the precalving ration throughout their DP. Rations were different across herds, but the late-lactation, precalving, and early lactation rations were identical for both treatment groups within each herd. Additional milk was obtained at the end of lactation from cows assigned to SDP due to the extended lactation. Average daily milk yield in the following lactation was not different between treatments for third- or greater-lactation cows, but was significantly decreased in second-lactation SDP cows. However, when expressed as energy-corrected milk, this difference was not significant. Although lower for primiparous than multiparous cows, body weight and BCS were not affected by DP management strategy. Milk production and BCS responses to treatments varied among herds. Results from the present study suggest that a short DP management strategy could be more appropriate for today's dairy cows, although not suitable for all cows or all herds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".