MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415015591 · doi:10.3168/jds.2025-26877

Facilities and housing, husbandry, and health management practices on Quebec dairy farms: A retrospective descriptive study

2025· article· en· W4415015591 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heidi Jim, E.S. Ribeiro, B. Mion, T.F. Duffield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEffects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's HospitalUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerdMilkingHoofDescriptive statisticsDescriptive researchMastitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this retrospective descriptive study was to characterize housing and herd management practices of Quebec dairy farms. Pre-existent survey data (housing, husbandry, and herd health; 36 questions) collected in person by Lactanet technicians (n = 116; March 2020 to February 2021) from 1,965 herds were used. Results were segregated by facility type (freestall [FS] vs. tiestall herds [TS]) and summarized using descriptive statistics. The average herd size was 76 ± 56 cows, with 65 ± 47 milking cows, peaking at 40 ± 5 kg/d, with most herds housed their milking cows in TS facilities (80%). Of the FS herds (20%), 36% transitioned from TS after 2016. Based on the Canadian Code of Practice and peer-reviewed literature, management strengths included frequent bedding in TS, feed reduction before dry-off (>59% FS; >75% TS), routine hoof trimming (≥2×/yr in >80%), and adequate lighting (>85% maintained >200 lx for 14-17 h/d). Areas needed improvement included the adoption of secondary ventilation systems (observed in <45% FS and <20% TS), implementation of targeted dry-off protocols (>80% of herds applied a single dry-off protocol, regardless of milk yield) and greater adoption of teat sealant use (45% reported using intramammary antibiotics without teat sealants). Deep-bedded lying surfaces were uncommon (30% of far-off and lactating groups in FS; <20% of dry and lactating groups in TS). In FS herds, horizontal bars were most frequent in lactating groups (40%). In TS herds, 58% of herds calved cows in tiestalls and >80% lacked pasture or exercise pens access. Regarding hoof health, footbaths and sprays were largely absent in TS herds (90%), whereas FS herds more often used footbaths, especially for lactating cows (70%). These findings establish benchmarks for Quebec dairy herds, highlighting well-adopted practices and identifying opportunities to increase the uptake of specific management practices across the province to further enhance herd health and welfare.

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)0.001
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicEffects of Environmental Stressors on LivestockFrench-language works237,207