MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403117713 · doi:10.3168/jds.2023-24549

Factors associated with Ontario dairy producers' management and care of down dairy cattle

2024· article· en· W4403117713 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John E Brindle, D.L. Renaud, Derek B. Haley, T.F. Duffield, Charlotte B. Winder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersDairy Farmers of OntarioOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsDairy cattleBusinessDairy industryAgricultural scienceAnimal scienceEnvironmental scienceFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to better understand current management practices for down cows in Ontario, Canada, and to identify factors associated with the adoption of acceptable practices. An online survey was distributed to all dairy producers in Ontario, Canada (n = 3,367) and was available from November 2020 to March 2021, inclusive. Dairy producers were identified through their provincial dairy organization and contacted via email, and the survey was also promoted via social media. The survey was comprised of 134 questions, 31 of which were related to down-cow management. Descriptive statistics were evaluated, and 2 logistic regression models were generated using Stata 17, exploring factors associated with (1) relocating down cows with hip lifters and (2) assisting cows to stand within 1 h after discovering a down-cow. A total of 226 producers responded (7.4%). Participants were predominantly male (68%), farm owners (78%), and 30 to 39 yr old (29%). Producers reported relocating down cows with a boat or sled (32.6%), front-end loader bucket (31.4%), hip lifters (28.0%), or "other" (with a text box to further describe; 8.0%). The median time to relocating a down-cow after identifying her was 1 h (range 0-17 h). Farms that relocated a down-cow sooner after identifying her as down, were more likely to use appropriate methods to move the cow. However, we also found that farms that provided feed and water sooner to down cows, were more likely to use an inappropriate method (hip lifters) to move her. Farms that used hip lifters to move cows had higher odds of assisting a cow to stand within 1 h following the discovery of recumbency. Additionally, producers who waited longer to relocate a down-cow were less likely to assist the cow to stand within 1 h of finding them down. Research has identified effective management practices for down cows, yet there remains a gap in understanding the implementation and the decision-making process of producers. Data from this study will be helpful in designing future research that further explores the barriers and motivations of producers when implementing evidence-based management plans to care for down dairy cows and may help inform current industry extension efforts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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