A survey of dairy calf management practices among farms using manual and automated milk feeding systems in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dairy calves in North America traditionally are housed individually and fed by manual milk feeding (MMF) systems with buckets or bottles. Automated milk feeders (AMF) allow for more natural milk feeding frequencies and volumes, and calves are usually housed in groups. The objectives of this study were to (1) determine the prevalence of various milk-fed calf management and feeding practices and (2) compare these practices between dairy farms using MMF and AMF systems. A national online survey was performed from January to May 2015 to quantify management practices for the care of milk-fed dairy calves in Canada. A total of 670 responses were received (6% of all dairy farms in Canada). Among respondents, 16% used AMF and 84% used MMF. Seventy percent of the farms using AMF had freestall barns compared with only 48% of those using MMF. A greater proportion of AMF farms (30%) also had automatic milking systems (AMS) compared with MMF farms (8%). Among tiestall farms, a herd size of >80 milking cows was associated with having an AMF [odds ratio (OR) = 3.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-11.4]. For freestall or bedded-pack farms, a herd size of >80 milking cows (OR = 3.5; CI: 1.8-6.6), having an AMS (OR = 3.1; CI: 1.6-5.7), and use of cow brushes (OR = 3.1; CI: 1.3-6.9) were associated with having an AMF. Calves fed with AMS typically were housed in groups of 10 to 15, whereas almost 76% of the farms with MMF housed calves individually. Although both AMF and MMF farms fed similar amounts of milk in the first week of life (median = 6 L/d), the cumulative volume fed in the first 4 wk differed significantly, with a median of 231 versus 182 L for AMF and MMF, respectively. Median peak milk allowance was higher for AMF than for MMF (10 vs. 8 L/d, respectively). In summary, farms using AMF were larger, provided more milk to calves, and used more automation in general (i.e., in other areas of their operation). These data provide insights into calf-rearing practices across Canada and into how the use of AMF is affecting calf feeding and management on dairy farms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".