MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210526596 · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21383

Effect of dry-off management on milking behavior, milk yield, and somatic cell count of dairy cows milked in automated milking systems

2022· article· en· W4210526596 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ariane France, Simon Dufour, D.F. Kelton, Herman W. Barkema, Daryna Kurban, T.J. DeVries

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint HyacintheUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsMilkingAutomatic milkingAnimal scienceSomatic cell countMilk productionDairy cattlePelletLactationChemistryBiologyIce calvingPregnancyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Milk production may be reduced before dry-off to decrease the risk of cows developing intramammary infections during the dry period. Such reductions in milk may be possible in automated milking systems (AMS) where milking frequency and feed allocation at the AMS can be controlled at the cow level. This study investigated the effect of dry-off management of cows milked in AMS on milk yield, milking behavior, and somatic cell count (SCC). Using a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments, applied from d 14 to 1 before dry-off, 445 cows from 5 commercial dairy farms in Quebec, Canada, were assigned within farm to either (1) reduced feed [RF; allowed a maximum of 0.75 kg/d of AMS pellet for the first week (14 to 8 d before dry-off) of treatment, and 0.50 kg/d for the second week (7 to 1 d before dry-off) of treatment], or (2) nonreduced feed (NF; allowed up to 2 kg/d of AMS pellet), and either (1) reduced milking (RM; reduced to 2 milkings/d or as many times as required to yield 17 kg/milking), or (2) nonreduced milking (NM; allowed up to 6 AMS milkings/d) and no maximum production. Feed and milking behavior data, as well as milk yield and SCC were collected from the AMS software. The RF cows had lower AMS feed delivered during the treatment period, as per the experimental design. Across the treatment period, the NF-NM cows had the highest milking frequency (2.7 times/d), followed by the RF-NM cows (2.4 times/d), and then both of the RM groups (1.8 times/d), which did not differ from each other. All cows, except the NF-NM cows, were gradually milked less frequently as dry-off approached. Across the entire 2-wk treatment period before dry-off, cows with RM allowance experienced a higher reduction in milk yield compared with the cows with no milking allowance restrictions (-4.8 vs. -3.6 kg). Similarly, cows with a RF allocation tended to have a higher reduction in milk yield than cows with NF (-4.6 vs. -3.7 kg). As result, those cows with both reduced milking permissions and feed allocation at the AMS experienced the greatest drop in milk production before dry-off. There were no differences between treatments for milking frequency or yield in the next lactation. Somatic cell score (calculated from SCC) was not different between treatments in the 2-wk or day before dry-off, nor in the first month after calving. Overall, these data suggest that reducing both milking frequency and feed quantity in the AMS is the most efficient method to decrease milk yield before dry-off, without negatively influencing milking frequency or yield in the next lactation, as well as without affecting milk quality.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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