MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775992911 · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13733

Associations between management practices and within-pen prevalence of calf diarrhea and respiratory disease on dairy farms using automated milk feeders

2017· article· en· W2775992911 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Catalina Medrano-Galarza, S.J. LeBlanc, Andria Jones‐Bitton, T.J. DeVries, J. Rushen, A.M. de Passillé, M.I. Endres, Derek B. Haley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Guelph
FundersDairy Farmers of CanadaUniversidade Federal de Santa CatarinaDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)University of MinnesotaUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsBovine respiratory diseaseInterquartile rangeDiarrheaMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineAnimal husbandryCross-sectional studyBiologyInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data on management practices used with automated milk feeders (AMF) are needed to identify factors associated with calf health in these systems. The objectives of this observational, longitudinal, cross-sectional study were to estimate the prevalence of calf diarrhea (CD) and bovine respiratory disease (BRD), and to identify factors associated with prevalence of these diseases at the pen level on dairy farms feeding milk to group-housed calves with AMF. Seventeen dairy farms with AMF in Ontario, Canada, were visited 4 times, seasonally, over 1 yr. The clinical health of all calves (n = 1,488) in pens (n = 35) with AMF was scored to identify the number of calves with CD and BRD. Data on calf, feeder, and pen management practices were analyzed using generalized linear mixed regression models for each disease. Overall calf-level prevalence of CD and BRD were 23 and 17%, respectively. Median (interquartile range, IQR) within-pen prevalence of CD and BRD were 17% (7 to 37%) and 11% (0 to 28%), respectively. Median age (IQR) for diarrheic calves was 25 d (16 to 42 d), and for calves with BRD was 43 d (29 to 60 d). Factors associated with lower within-pen prevalence of CD were the administration of vitamin E and selenium at birth [odds ratio (OR) = 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32 to 0.99], feeding of probiotics (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.93), and adding fresh bedding every 2 to 3 d (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.76) compared with every 7 or more days. In contrast, sharing air with older cattle (>9 mo old) was associated with increased within-pen prevalence of CD (OR = 4.54, 95% CI: 1.88 to 10.52). Additionally, total bacteria counts ≥100,000 cfu/mL in milk samples taken from the AMF mixing jar were associated with increased within-pen prevalence of CD during the summer visit (OR = 3.34; 95% CI: 1.31 to 8.54). Increased total solids in milk or milk replacer (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.85) and feeding whole milk versus milk replacer (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.75) were associated with lower within-pen prevalence of BRD. Factors associated with greater within-pen prevalence of BRD were sharing air with weaned cattle up to 8 mo old (OR = 3.21, 95% CI: 1.26 to 8.16), and greater depth of the wet bedding pack. The use of maternity pens for reasons other than just calving was associated with increased prevalence of both CD and BRD (OR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.33; OR = 2.61, 95% CI: 1.21 to 5.58, respectively). These results suggest that isolation from older animals and frequent cleaning of the feeder and pen may help to reduce disease prevalence in group-housed calves fed with an AMF.

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)0.003
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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations91
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207