Business analysis of IRT, Visual observation, and Ovsynch as breeding strategies in Alberta dairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dairy industry is searching for new technologies to address low (<50%) estrus detection. However, the lack of information on the potential economic benefits regarding new technology implementation has led some dairy producers to continue using conventional estrus detection methods (e.g. visual observation of standing to be mounted). The objective of this study was to compare the costs of infrared thermography (IRT), visual observation (VO) and ovulation synchronization (Ovsynch: OVS) as breeding strategies at different accuracy levels (Sensitivity [Se], Specificity [Sp]) and pregnancy rates (PR). The costs associated with Breeding, Feeding, Operation Costs, Return to Equity and Culling Risk per estrus detection rate (ER; 30-100%, conception rate for OVS; 30-100%), PR [PR per Parity group; 1-2 (50%), 3-4 (43%), and >4 (41%)], and ER accuracy determined the potential financial benefit of each breeding method for a representative farm. Breeding Cost results (Canadian dollars per cow; CAD/cow) showed a higher cost of OVS (138.99) as compared to VO (115.78) and IRT (127.69). Pregnancy Costs were affected by Breeding Cost; however, ER had a significant effect on PR expense for each method, IRT (ER; 30%: 210.38; 100%: 132.19), VO (ER; 30%: 205.93; 100%: 129.39), and OVS (ER; 30%: 247.21; 100%: 155.33). The minimum Se level with a positive Financial Effect for IRT and VO was 60% with a Sp of 100%, and for the OVS was Se 65% and Sp 100%. However, when the Se was 100% a positive Financial Effect was observed with a minimum Sp of 85% for IRT and 75% for VO. Culling Risk was reduced if ER increases differently depending on the parity group. Implementing of IRT as an estrus detection method yields a competitive breeding cost compared to VO and OVS. Further, breeding methods must accomplish at least ∼60% accuracy to have a positive net return.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".