Survey of feeding practices on dairy farms in Ontario and western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To establish a baseline understanding of feeding practices on Canadian dairies, a survey was distributed online to dairy producers. Responses were split into three categories as follows: western provinces (WP; Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan; n = 84), Ontario freestall farms (n = 75), and Ontario tiestall (OT) farms (n = 71). Regional differences were observed for many feed ingredients; for example, corn and soybean meal were more commonly used in Ontario, whereas barley, wheat products, and grass hays were more commonly used in the WP (P ≤ 0.01), consistent with local production of those crops. Producers ranked the most important factors in balancing rations in the following order: production (lactating cattle or heifers) or health (dry cows), cost, simplicity, and nutrient management; however, nutrient management was more important in the west for all types of diets (P < 0.01). Most farms frequently tested for ration dry matter and nutrient composition, although OT farms tested less often than other groups (P = 0.09). Overall, feeds aligned with common crops grown within region. Canadian farmers have a stated interest for improving production and health and place less emphasis on other factors such as cost, simplicity, and nutrient management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".