- Email: [email protected]
Corrigendum to “A survey of dairy calf management practices among farms using manual and automated milk feeding systems in Canada” (J. Dairy Sci. 100:6872–6884)
J. Dairy Sci. 100:9477–9477 https://doi.org/10.6138/jds.2017-100-11-9477 © American Dairy Science Association®, 2017.
Corrigendum to “A survey of dairy calf management practices among farms using manual and automated milk feeding systems in Canada” (J. Dairy Sci. 100:6872–6884) Catalina Medrano-Galarza, Stephen J. LeBlanc, Trevor J. DeVries, Andria Jones-Bitton, Jeffrey Rushen, Anne Marie de Passillé, and Derek B. Haley
The coefficients and standard errors reported in Table 4 (page 6877) are incorrect. Odds ratios and confidence intervals are correct as reported originally. Results, discussion, and inferences are correct as reported originally. Therefore, there are no major implications regarding this mistake. The corrected version of Table 4 is given below. The authors regret the errors. REFERENCES Medrano-Galarza, C., S. J. LeBlanc, T. J. DeVries, A. Jones-Bitton, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. B. Haley. 2017. A survey of dairy calf management practices among farms using manual and automated milk feeding systems in Canada. J. Dairy Sci. 100(8):6872–6884. https:// doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12273. Table 4. Final logistic regression models evaluating factors associated with having an automated milk feeder for raising milk-fed dairy calves with geographic region as fixed effect to adjust for region effects1 95% CI3 Model and variable
Coefficient 4
Model 1: tiestall farms Intercept Farm size ≤80 milking cows >80 milking cows Age of producer, yr >54 <25 25–34 35–44 45–54 Geographic region Western5 Quebec and Atlantic6 Ontario Model 2: loose-housing farms7 Intercept Farm size ≤80 milking cows >80 milking cows Automatic milking system No Yes Cow brushes No Yes Geographic region Western5 Quebec and Atlantic6 Ontario
−3.77 Referent 1.34 Referent 1.68 1.82 2.18 0.04 Referent −0.43 −0.03 −3.82 Referent 1.24 Referent 1.12 Referent 1.13 Referent 1.29 0.58
SE
1
1.34 0 0.56 0 1.22 1.10 1.09 1.25 — 0.86 0.88 0.51 0 0.32 0 0.31 0 0.41 — 0.42 0.32
OR2 — — 3.81 — 5.38 6.18 8.91 1.04 — 0.65 0.97 — — 3.47 — 3.07 — 3.08 — 3.65 1.79
LCL
— — 1.26 — 0.49 0.71 1.04 0.12 — 0.12 0.17 — — 1.82 — 1.65 — 1.37 — 1.58 0.94
UCL
— — 11.48 — 59.11 53.98 76.25 12.09 — 3.52 5.49 — — 6.62 — 5.72 — 6.93 — 8.42 3.39
P-value
— 0.02 0.04 0.65 — <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.01
Separate models were constructed for tiestall farms (n = 308) and loose-housing farms (n = 354). Odds ratio for having an automated milk feeder. 3 Confidence interval for the odds ratio, lower confidence limit (LCL), and upper confidence limit (UCL). 4 Pearson goodness of fit test: χ2 = 20.4, P = 0.25. 5 British Colombia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. 6 New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. 7 Pearson goodness of fit test: χ2 = 20.2, P = 0.12. 2
9477
Corrigendum to “A survey of dairy calf management practices among farms using manual and automated milk feeding systems in Canada” (J. Dairy Sci. 100:6872–6884) Catalina Medrano-Galarza, Stephen J. LeBlanc, Trevor J. DeVries, Andria Jones-Bitton, Jeffrey Rushen, Anne Marie de Passillé, and Derek B. Haley
The coefficients and standard errors reported in Table 4 (page 6877) are incorrect. Odds ratios and confidence intervals are correct as reported originally. Results, discussion, and inferences are correct as reported originally. Therefore, there are no major implications regarding this mistake. The corrected version of Table 4 is given below. The authors regret the errors. REFERENCES Medrano-Galarza, C., S. J. LeBlanc, T. J. DeVries, A. Jones-Bitton, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. B. Haley. 2017. A survey of dairy calf management practices among farms using manual and automated milk feeding systems in Canada. J. Dairy Sci. 100(8):6872–6884. https:// doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12273. Table 4. Final logistic regression models evaluating factors associated with having an automated milk feeder for raising milk-fed dairy calves with geographic region as fixed effect to adjust for region effects1 95% CI3 Model and variable
Coefficient 4
Model 1: tiestall farms Intercept Farm size ≤80 milking cows >80 milking cows Age of producer, yr >54 <25 25–34 35–44 45–54 Geographic region Western5 Quebec and Atlantic6 Ontario Model 2: loose-housing farms7 Intercept Farm size ≤80 milking cows >80 milking cows Automatic milking system No Yes Cow brushes No Yes Geographic region Western5 Quebec and Atlantic6 Ontario
−3.77 Referent 1.34 Referent 1.68 1.82 2.18 0.04 Referent −0.43 −0.03 −3.82 Referent 1.24 Referent 1.12 Referent 1.13 Referent 1.29 0.58
SE
1
1.34 0 0.56 0 1.22 1.10 1.09 1.25 — 0.86 0.88 0.51 0 0.32 0 0.31 0 0.41 — 0.42 0.32
OR2 — — 3.81 — 5.38 6.18 8.91 1.04 — 0.65 0.97 — — 3.47 — 3.07 — 3.08 — 3.65 1.79
LCL
— — 1.26 — 0.49 0.71 1.04 0.12 — 0.12 0.17 — — 1.82 — 1.65 — 1.37 — 1.58 0.94
UCL
— — 11.48 — 59.11 53.98 76.25 12.09 — 3.52 5.49 — — 6.62 — 5.72 — 6.93 — 8.42 3.39
P-value
— 0.02 0.04 0.65 — <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.01
Separate models were constructed for tiestall farms (n = 308) and loose-housing farms (n = 354). Odds ratio for having an automated milk feeder. 3 Confidence interval for the odds ratio, lower confidence limit (LCL), and upper confidence limit (UCL). 4 Pearson goodness of fit test: χ2 = 20.4, P = 0.25. 5 British Colombia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. 6 New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. 7 Pearson goodness of fit test: χ2 = 20.2, P = 0.12. 2
9477