MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213019182 · doi:10.3168/jds.2018-14818

Associations between on-farm cow welfare indicators and productivity and profitability on Canadian dairies: II. On tiestall farms

2019· article· en· W4213019182 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Villettaz Robichaud, J. Rushen, A.M. de Passillé, E. Vasseur, Derek B. Haley, D. Pellerin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesCanadian Dairy CommissionDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsWelfareProfitability indexProductivityHerdAgricultural scienceAnimal welfareGross marginBusinessProduction (economics)Animal scienceEconomicsBiologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of tiestall housing for dairy cows is often criticized due to the reduced freedom of movement it offers for the animals. Maximizing comfort is especially important in tiestall farms to ensure an acceptable level of cow welfare. Motivating dairy producers to make financial investments directly aimed toward the improvement of their animals' welfare can be challenging, especially when financial returns are uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the existence of associations between on-farm animal welfare and indicators of farm productivity and profitability in tiestall farms. The prevalence of animal-, resource-, and management-based welfare indicators was collected on 100 Canadian tiestall farms during a cow comfort study. Records from the dairy herd improvement agency were retrieved and used to calculate the farms' productivity and profitability measures. Univariable and multivariable linear regressions were used to assess the associations between welfare indicators and milk production, milk quality, cow longevity, and economic margins calculated over replacement costs. Increased yearly average corrected milk production was associated with longer average lying time [β = 272; 95% confidence interval (CI): 94, 450] and a higher proportion of cows fitting the tie-rail height (β = 6; 95% CI: 1, 11). Lower yearly average somatic cell count was associated with lower percentages of stalls mostly soiled with manure (β = -3.7; 95% CI: -1.9, -5.4) and a lower proportion of cows with body condition score ≤2 (β = -5.1; 95% CI: -2.3, -8.3). The average margin per cow over replacement costs was positively associated with average lying time (β = 147; 95% CI: 27, 267), percent of stall not soiled with manure (β = 7.2; 95% CI: 3.0, 11.3), and the frequency of scheduled hoof trimming per year. Some of the relationships found included interactions between animal- and management-based welfare measures. For example, the relationship between lameness prevalence and average milk production was modified through the milk production genetic index. Overall, the results show that improved cow comfort and welfare on tiestall farms is associated with increased productivity, cow longevity, and profitability when estimated through margins calculated over the replacement costs. Producers should aim to optimize all aspects of stall comfort to enhance their cows' productivity.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207