MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212645353 · doi:10.1016/j.animal.2021.100388

A survey on management and housing of peri-parturient dairy cows and their calves

2021· article· en· W3212645353 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Margit Bak Jensen, Rikke Bundgaard Tolstrup

Bibliographic record

Venueanimal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEffects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UK GovernmentMiljø- og FødevareministerietUniversity of Prince Edward IslandAarhus Universitet
KeywordsPeriAnimal scienceDairy cattleBusinessVeterinary medicineBiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Housing and management around the time of calving impact dairy cow behaviour, health and welfare, but little is known about current practice. The aim was to provide an overview of current calving practice and the study describes the main calving housing and management based on replies to an online questionnaire by 42 dairy cattle experts in 28 countries, or regions, in Europe, Canada and USA. The survey suggests that in the majority of countries and regions included in this study, dairy cows typically calve in indoor calving facilities; either individual pens, group pens or a system where the cow is moved from a group pen into an adjacent individual pen before calving. Regarding individual calving pens, the survey suggests that in the majority of countries and regions included in this study, most pens have open sides and offer cows no opportunity to isolate, although research shows that a secluded corner of an individual pen creates a preferred calving site. Further, the survey suggests that when cows calve in individual calving pens or tie-stalls, they are often moved there with signs of imminent calving, although research shows that this practice increases the duration of calving and it is recommended to move cows before their expected calving time. Regarding group pens, none of the 42 respondents replied that group pens typically offer cows the opportunity to isolate at calving. Recent research suggests that when cows calve in a secluded area of a group calving pen, this reduces the risk of failure of passive transfer of immunity. Regarding calving facilities where group pens are combined with adjacent individual pens, this was reported to be the most typical in 10 of the 24 countries and regions with indoor calving sections covered by the survey. The same concerns regarding when the cow is moved from the group pen to an individual pen apply, as outlined above. Irrespective of pen type, the most frequently reported surface was deep bedded straw and the most frequent type of separation between pens was open sides. Cow-calf separation within 12 hours of birth, and thereafter individual housing of calves combined with milk feeding via a teat bucket or bar was indicated the most frequent management. The survey presents experts' evaluations of current practice of housing and management of peri-parturient dairy cows and their calves, and suggests that there is a discrepancy between current calving management and housing and recommendations based on recent research.

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)0.000
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 score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.214
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 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueanimalSame topicEffects of Environmental Stressors on LivestockFrench-language works237,207