Effect of Parity on Productive Performance and Calving Interval in Water Buffaloes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the parity on productive performance (lactation length, total milk yield and milk yield by day of calving interval) and calving interval in water buffaloes. For this purpose, records of 663 lactations from 248 buffaloes were evaluated. Total milk yield was 1344.91 liters, lactation length was 291.20 days, calving interval was 453.55 days and milk by day of calving was 2.77 liters. Parity did not significantly affect total milk yield, but had a significant effect on lactation length, calving interval and milk by day of calving interval. First calving buffaloes had a longer lactation, a longer calving interval and in consequence lower productivity than buffaloes with two and three or more calving. Second calving buffaloes had intermediate and significantly different values than buffaloes with three or more calving. Calving interval was positively correlated with total milk yield (r = 0.34983, p <0.0001) and length of lactation (r = 0.67408, p = <0.0001); and negatively with milk by day of calving (r = -0.41263, p<0.0001). In conclusion, parity affected the productive performance and calving interval, with buffaloes of one and two calving being less productive due to a longer calving interval. An increase of milk yield is related with a longer calving interval, therefore, buffaloes of one and two calving, must be provided with optimal management conditions, which allow them to support milk yield and not to compromise the reproductive performance
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".