MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961822409 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2018-0004

Survey of management practices used by Brazilian dairy farmers and recommendations provided by 43 dairy cattle nutritionists

2019· article· en· W2961822409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diego P. Silva, Alexandre Mendonça Pedroso, M. C. Pereira, Gustavo Perina Bertoldi, Daniel Hideki Mariano Watanabe, A. C. B. Melo, D. D. Millen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationSilageMastitisDairy cattleAnimal scienceBiotechnologyMedicineBiologyVeterinary medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work aimed to survey management practices used by dairy farmers and to report nutritional recommendations adopted by 43 dairy cattle nutritionists in Brazil. The web-based survey consisted of 80 questions. Almost 50% of the participants had clients that produce <1000 kg of milk daily and 48.8% had clients who own fewer than 100 dairy cows. Corn was the primary source of grain (97.4%), and 43.9% of the nutritionists included from 41% to 50% concentrate in lactation diets. The mean roughage inclusion in lactation diets was 50.5% and 79% of the nutritionists reported corn silage as the primary roughage source. Average crude protein and rumen-degradable protein concentrations recommended by the nutritionists for lactation diets were 15.7% and 9%, respectively. Average Ca and P concentrations recommended for lactation diets were 0.70% and 0.41%, respectively. The major health problem reported by 83.9% of the nutritionists was mastitis. The present survey provides an overview of management practices adopted by dairy farmers and nutritional recommendations currently applied by dairy cattle nutritionists in Brazil. The most critical points identified were low milk yield, mastitis as the major health problem, lack of proper mixing and delivery of rations, and destination of male calves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207