MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076584538 · doi:10.3168/jds.2011-5176

Sampling cows to assess lying time for on-farm animal welfare assessment

2012· article· en· W2076584538 on OpenAlexafffund
E. Vasseur, J. Rushen, Derek B. Haley, A.M. de Passillé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaDairy Farmers of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsLactationLyingParity (physics)Animal scienceCoefficient of variationBiologyMathematicsMedicineStatisticsPregnancyPhysicsAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The time that dairy cows spend lying down is an important measure of their welfare, and data loggers can be used to automatically monitor lying time on commercial farms. To determine how the number of days of sampling, parity, stage of lactation, and production level affect lying time, electronic data loggers were used to record lying time for 10 d consecutively, at 3 stages of lactation [early: when cows were at 10-40 d in milk (DIM), mid: 100-140 DIM, late: 200-240 DIM] of 96 Holstein cows in tiestalls (TS) and 127 in freestalls (FS). We calculated daily duration of lying, bout frequency, and mean bout duration. We observed complex interactions between parity and stage of lactation, which differed somewhat between tiestalls and freestalls. First-parity cows had higher bout frequency and shorter lying bouts than older cows but bout frequency decreased and mean bout duration increased as DIM increased. We found that individual cows were not consistent in time spent lying between early and mid lactation (Pearson coefficient, TS: r = 0.1, FS: r = 0.2), whereas cows seemed to be more consistent in time spent lying between mid and late lactation (TS: r = 0.7, FS: r = 0.3). For both TS and FS cows, daily milk production was significantly, but slightly negatively, correlated with lying time across the lactation (range, r: -0.2 to -0.4), whereas parity was slightly to moderately positively correlated with mean bout duration across the lactation (r: +0.2 to +0.6) and negatively with bout frequency (r: -0.2 to -0.5). To estimate how the duration of the time sample affected the estimates of lying time subsets of data subsets consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 d per cow were created, and the relationship between the overall mean (based on 10 d) and the mean of each subset was tested by regression. For both TS and FS, lying time based on 4 d of sampling provided good estimates of the average 10-d estimate (90% of accuracy). Automated monitoring of lying time has potential as a measure of dairy cow welfare on commercial farms but cows differ greatly in lying time. To obtain a representative measure for the herd, it is necessary to sample cows based on their parity and stage of lactation but probably not milk production level.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations102
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207