MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174684673 · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-0082

Performance perception of Canadian dairy producers when transitioning to an automatic milking system

2021· article· en· W3174684673 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Duplessis, E. Vasseur, Julie Ferland, Edmond A. Pajor, T.J. DeVries, D. Pellerin

Bibliographic record

VenueJDS Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of CalgaryUniversité LavalMcGill UniversityCégep de Sherbrooke
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Dairy CommissionUniversity of GuelphUniversity of CalgaryUniversité Laval
KeywordsHerdMilkingAnimal scienceCullingSomatic cell countAutomatic milkingIce calvingMathematicsBiologyLactation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adoption of automated milking systems (AMS) has increased exponentially around the world in recent years. The objective of this observational study was to evaluate how producer perception of changes in cow-average milk yield and somatic cell count (SCC) compared with the actual changes in their herds after the introduction of AMS in Canadian commercial dairy herds. Data were collected (in 2014 and 2015) through a survey of 97 Canadian dairy herds that shifted to AMS from 2000 to 2014. Producers were asked their perception about milk yield and SCC changes (increase, decrease, or no change) after AMS introduction. Actual herd performance data were obtained from dairy herd improvement organizations. Differences between the 12-mo rolling herd-average milk yield (kg/cow per year) and SCC (cells/mL) at the closest test 2 yr after transitioning to AMS and at the last test before the transition were calculated and compared with the producer perception answers. After AMS adoption, milking herd size, milk yield, SCC, and number of AMS units per herd averaged (± standard deviation) 99.8 ± 54.4 cows, 9,619 ± 1,354 kg/cow per year, 248,825 ± 97,286 cells/mL, and 1.9 ± 1.1 units, respectively. On average, after AMS introduction, herd size, milk yield, and culling rate increased by 11.3 cows, 441 kg/cow per year, and 1.3%, respectively, and calving interval decreased by 7 d. For producers who perceived an increase, actual milk yield and SCC increases averaged (mean ± standard deviation) +534 ± 1,003 kg/cow per year and +56,679 ± 66,662 cells/mL, respectively. Alternatively, for producers who perceived a decrease, actual milk yield and SCC decreases averaged -984 ± 658 kg/cow per year and -26,976 ± 94,099 cells/mL, respectively. An actual milk yield change of +83.1 ± 1,113.3 kg/cow per year and an SCC change of +6,135 ± 72,609 cells/mL were observed in the herds in which the dairy producers perceived no change with the AMS introduction. Hence, dairy producers were, on average, able to discern their actual milk yield and SCC changes after AMS adoption. However, the proportions of dairy producers who accurately perceived their actual milk yield and SCC changes after AMS introduction were 39.4% for milk yield (increase: 36.3%; decrease: 100.0%; and no change: 45.5%) and 46.7% for SCC (increase: 50.0%; decrease: 39.0%; and no change: 54.1%). From these results, we concluded that several dairy producers distorted their actual milk yield and SCC changes or were not fully aware of those changes.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJDS CommunicationsSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207