Different Types of Milk Flow Curves and Factors Affecting Milkability in Buffalo Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buffaloes are characterized by longer teats and teat canals and stronger muscular resistance of the teat wall than cattle; it is necessary to have a high vacuum level to open the teat canal and begin milk ejection. In buffalo milking management, milk yield, and flow profiles are essential parameters to record and evaluate. The milking machine is a critical point, and the characteristics of the milking vacuum and the pulsation rate are closely related to milk flow observations. In Italy, the most used vacuum levels are 44-46 kPa (range 40-53 kPa). The data on the milkability traits of the Mediterranean Italian breed made it possible to classify eight different types of milk flow curves due to anatomical, physiological, and management differences. This study aims to evaluate the main factors influencing milkability in dairy buffaloes. The results suggest the detachment of the milking cluster to reduce the decreasing and blind phases with the following advantages: reduction of the total milking time and consequently of the worker's time, improvement of the farmer's profitability and milk quality through decreasing the incidence of mastitis. Milk ability is influenced by physiological, sanitary, management, and genetic factors. In Mediterranean Italian buffaloes milked with the Automatic Milking System (AMS), a considerable variation in milk ejection and, consequently, in the milk flow curve was found compared to the conventional one, with better pre-stimulation, independent milk ejection for each teat, optimal milking of all quarters. In conclusion, continuous milkability monitoring will help optimize milking practices by reducing labor time and increasing farmers’ income through better milk quality. In addition, the identification of buffaloes with desirable types of milk flow curves could be helpful for buffalo breeders’ associations to address farmer management and to define potential new breeding objectives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".