MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406107744 · doi:10.3168/jds.2024-25561

Milk feeding and calf housing practices on British Columbia dairy farms

2025· article· en· W4406107744 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth R. Russell, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, Daniel M. Weary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilkingWeaningChristian ministryHerdBreedAnimal scienceAllowance (engineering)AgricultureAgricultural scienceBiologyOperations managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decades of research have helped inform practices on how to care for calves, but little is known about how well these practices are adopted on commercial dairy farms. The primary aim of this study was to describe rearing practices of dairy calves in British Columbia, Canada. Measures of calf growth are sometimes used to assess success in calf rearing, so a secondary aim was to describe methods used to assess calf growth on these farms. All 437 dairy farms in the province were invited to participate in a survey distributed via email from the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food from June to December 2023. A total of 63 completed responses were received (i.e., 14.4% of those invited). Milking herd size averaged (± SD) 167 ± 172 cows, and the primary breed was Holstein for 84.1% of respondents. Most (63.5%) farms housed calves individually before weaning; the remainder used either just social housing (groups of 2 or more; 25.4% of farms) or a combination of individual and social housing (11.1% of farms). Maximum milk allowance averaged 9.5 ± 2.7 L/d, with 86.4% of respondents offering >8 L/d. Teat feeding was used on 71.6% of farms, and 13.1% of farms used automated milk feeders. Two participants reported feeding calves via the dam or nurse cows. Weaning age averaged 75.8 ± 16.3 d, with calf age being the primary criterion for weaning. About half (52.4%) of farms reported monitoring calf growth, and 31.7% of farms reported having a target growth rate. Our results suggest that rearing practices are changing, in that calves are now often fed higher milk rations via a teat, and many farms use social housing. However, individual housing remains prevalent, suggesting research is needed to understand the barriers to adopting social housing on farms. Our findings also suggest the opportunity to improve methods for monitoring calf growth; improved measures may facilitate evidence-based evaluations of calf rearing and weaning protocols on farms.

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)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207