MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Calving Interval on Milk Yield in Italian Buffalo Population

2016· article· en· W2321678434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E. Parlato, L. Zicarelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Buffalo Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerdLactationIce calvingLinear regressionBreedAnimal sciencePopulationDemographyRandom effects modelParity (physics)Regression analysisLinear modelStatisticsBiologyMathematicsMedicineInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of the previous calving intervals (CI) on milk yield (MY) in the current lactation for the Italian buffalo breed population. Data for 86,585 lactation records from the Italian Buffalo Breeders Association database, were analyzed. MY BLUP-estimates were obtained by including in the Animal Model the fixed effects of age-parity, previous CI, and herd-contemporary-group. The MY solutions for the months of CI were analyzed with the linear regression model where CI in months was the explanatory variable. 59.66% of the lactation records had CI between 11 and 14 months. 37.91 % of the lactation records were distributed between 15 and 24 months. The smaller percentage of records showed CI greater than 24 months. This CI distribution may be, in part, the result of herd management strategies. Dairy producers try to shorten the CI of their herd in order to get the most profit from early conceptions of the buffalo. The regression model and its parameters were statistically significant. The coefficient of determination was equal to 0.58. The intercept was equal to 72.42 kg; and the linear coefficient (b) was equal to -3.43. The negative value of b denotes a negative effect of CI on MY. This result indicates that there is a negative linear relationship between previous CI and MY in the current lactation. Therefore, shorten the CI may increase the profits of the farm through higher MY, because it has less of a negative effect on MY than longer CI.

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)0.007
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Buffalo ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207