Behaviour and Welfare of Dairy Buffaloes: Pasture or Confinement?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review seeks to integrate recent scientific findings on the behaviour of buffalo cows in different production systems. These issues are discussed in relation to the level of welfare that buffalo cows experience under different production systems. In extensive conditions, the level of welfare is high because the animals are free to express natural behaviours related to feeding (grazing, ruminating) and rest. In contrast, intensified livestock-raising methods and techniques (machine-milking, artificial breeding etc.), first developed for dairy cattle are increasingly being used with water buffaloes in order to increase milk production. Greater knowledge of the biology of dairy buffaloes in aspects linked to physiology, behaviour, and health, together with needed adjustments to their production systems, will indicate options for improving the levels of comfort and welfare of these animals and contribute to increasing the efficiency of this type of dairy production. It is necessary to appreciate the importance of welfare within the entire chain of animal production since each of the scientific aspects considered in this manuscript reflects that animal welfare is not an absolute term, but multidisciplinary, with direct consequences on productivity. The welfare of animals in the production systems must be considered with the aim of ensuring an adequate nutritional, clinical, sanitary and behavioural status of the animals. When these aspects are achieved, production can be maximized and, for this reason, it is essential to maintain a balance between welfare and productivity.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it