Herd Management Factors That Affect Duration and Variation of Adherence of an External Teat Sealant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During 1998 and 1999, a purposive sample of Ontario dairy herds was enrolled in a study to examine management factors associated with adherence of an external teat sealant. A total of 74 herds were recruited that had previously complied with a provincial Sentinel Herd mastitis study. All herds were sent a management survey and a commercially available external teat sealant product. The sealant was applied to all cows in first lactation or greater that were scheduled to go dry. Adherence of the teat sealant was scored on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = sealant completely removed) for the first 12 d following dry off. Complete data were analyzed from 806 cows in 48 herds (mean of 17 cows/herd). Mean duration of adherence of the teat sealant was 4 d (range 1 to 7 d). Of the management factors recorded, only changing the feed to reduce milk production prior to drying off was significantly associated with 0.78-d prolonged adherence. No factors related to dry cow housing, bedding material, or floor surface were associated with the duration of adherence. The variance around the duration of adherence was examined. The median variance of adherence was 3.0 d(2), which was equivalent to a standard deviation of 2.6 d. Herds in which dry cows were housed in tie-stall barns, and the herds that used a penicillin and novobiocin combination dry cow antibiotic had the greatest variation. We concluded that modifying the ration to reduce milk production enhanced adherence of an external teat sealant. Teat-end preparation prior to application of the teat sealant is an important factor to consider when choosing to adopt this dry period mastitis prevention strategy. This study demonstrates that beyond cow- and quarter-level factors, herd management factors can influence the duration and variation of sealant adherence experienced among different 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".