MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150957755 · doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8224

An assessment tool to help producers improve cow comfort on their farms

2014· article· en· W2150957755 on OpenAlexafffundabout
E. Vasseur, Jenny Gibbons, J. Rushen, D. Pellerin, Edmond A. Pajor, D. Lefebvre, A.M. de Passillé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversité LavalValacta (Canada)Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDairy Farmers of CanadaUniversité Laval
KeywordsLamenessCode of practiceMilkingBusinessOperations managementAgricultural scienceAnimal welfareBest practiceAllowance (engineering)Dairy cattleMedicineAnimal scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective management and an appropriate environment are essential for dairy cattle health and welfare. Codes of practice provide dairy producers with best practice guidance for the care and handling of their cattle. New Canadian recommendations have been established for the dairy industry. The objectives of this study were to develop an on-farm assessment tool that helps producers assess how well they are meeting their code of practice and that identifies management and environment modifications that could improve dairy cow comfort on their farms. The assessment tool addressed critical areas of dairy cow comfort, including accommodation and housing (stall design, space allowance, stall management, pen management, milking parlor, and transfer alleys), feed and water (body condition scoring, nutrition), and health and welfare (lameness, claw health, and hoof-trimming). Targets of good practices were identified from the requirements and recommendations of the code of practice. Each farm received a score for each target, ranging from 0 (target not reached) to 100 (target reached). One hundred tiestall and 110 freestall farms were surveyed in 3 provinces of Canada (Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta). The duration of the assessment, in 2 visits lasting, on average, 8 and 9h (range between freestall and tiestall farms) and 4 and 4.1h, was beyond the targeted 3 to 4h due mainly to the animal-based measures; strategies to reduce the duration of the assessment were discussed. Standard operating procedures were developed to ensure consistency in measuring and recording data. Periodical checks were conducted by trainers to ensure all 15 assessors remained above target agreement of weighted kappa ≥0.6. Average scores for all critical areas ranged from 25 to 89% for freestall farms and from 48 to 95% for tiestall farms. These scores need to be considered with caution when comparing farms because scores could not always be calculated the same way between housing systems. An evaluation report was provided and discussed with each producer, identifying strengths and areas for improvement that could benefit dairy cow comfort on their farms. The producers were convinced of the effectiveness of our tool for assessing cow comfort (freestall: 86%; tiestall: 95%) and in assisting them to make decisions for improvements (freestall: 83%; tiestall: 93%). Our cow comfort assessment tool served as background material for the Dairy Farmers of Canada animal care assessment program.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.376
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 teacher head, 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

Citations67
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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