MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112652661 · doi:10.3168/jds.2019-17834

Herd-level associations between somatic cell counts and economic performance indicators in Brazilian dairy herds

2020· article· en· W3112652661 on OpenAlexaff
Juliano Leonel Gonçalves, R.I. Cue, Expedito P. Lima Netto, Augusto Hauber Gameiro, Marcos Veiga dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversidade de São PauloFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsHerdSomatic cell countSomatic cellAnimal scienceDairy cattleDairy industryBiologyVeterinary medicineLactationFood scienceMedicineIce calvingPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The aims of the present study were to provide a portrait of the techno-economic status of dairy herds in Minas Gerais, Brazil, particularly with respect to bulk-tank somatic cell count (BTSCC) data, and to examine the herd-level associations of BTSCC with various economic performance indicators (EPI). Data from 543 herds, 1,052 herd-year records in total, spread over 3 years (2015–2017), from the South and Southwest mesoregions of Minas Gerais State were provided by the Brazilian Support Agency to Micro and Small Companies Division Minas Gerais (SEBRAE). Herds had an average of 82 lactating cows per herd, milk yield of 17 L/cow per day, and availability of financial information via routine monthly economic surveys. The EPI data (revenue, gross margin, GM; net margin, NM; profit; break-even point; and operational profitability) of each herd was measured monthly by SEBRAE personnel, and herd-year averages of all variables were computed. Bulk-tank data (SCC, total bacterial count, content of crude protein and fat) taken by producers or dairy processors were recorded by SEBRAE personal; and corresponding herd-year averages were calculated and included in the SEBRAE database. There were 209 selected herds, which passed all edit checks, and which had data for all 3 years. The EPI (all expressed on a per-cow basis, $/cow per year) were analyzed, including the effects of region, year, log (ln) BTSCC, production level, and herd size, together with the random effect of herd nested within region. A high proportion of herds (94.6%) presented data records (herd-years) with an average BTSCC > 200 × 103 cells/mL: 37.8% of herd-year records had BTSCC between >200 and ≤400, 14.5% with BTSCC between >400 and ≤500, 25% with BTSCC between >500 and ≤750, and 17.3% with BTSCC >750. For each unit increase in ln BTSCC, revenue declined by $228.5/cow per year, GM by $155.6/cow per year, and profit by $138.6/cow per year. Herds with cows of lower production (<14 kg/d) presented lower GM ($286.8/cow per year) compared with herds containing cows producing ≥14 kg/d (≥14 and <19 kg/d = $446.5, and ≥19 kg/d = $601.9). The small-scale milk producers (<39 lactating cows) presented lower revenue ($1,914.9/cow per year) and GM ($274.5/cow per year) and consequently a negative profit (−$224.1/cow per year) compared with other herd size categories (≥39 lactating cows). The reduction in milk yield was 641 L/cow per lactation for each unit increase in ln BTSCC; this represented 9.4% of the milk yield per lactation, assuming an average milk production of 6,843.3 L/cow per lactation of cows from herds that had BTSCC ≤ 200 × 103 cells/mL. Consequently, we found a negative association of BTSCC with profit; profit declining from $227.0 to −53.1/cow per year when the BTSCC increased from 100 to 750 × 103 cell/mL. In short, the lower the BTSCC, the greater the revenue, GM and NM, profit, and operational profitability of the herds. The reduction of milk yield was the main factor associated with higher BTSCC.

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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207