Nutrition‐associated problems facing elite level three‐day eventing horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: The main goal of feeding elite 3-day event horses is to deliver nutrients in optimal amounts to allow the horse to maximize its health and performance. However, improper nutritional management and/or physiological stressors related to intense training and competition may increase the risk of nutrition-associated disorders in these horses. An understanding of the nutrition-associated problems contributing to poor performance is critical to the health and welfare of the horse. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the nutrition-associated problems affecting top level 3-day event horses during 2008. METHODS: Contact information for riders competing in the 2 highest levels of 3-day eventing in 2008 was obtained from the United States Eventing Association. A survey containing 10 questions pertaining to participant demographics and nutrition-associated problems experienced by their horses was mailed and e-mailed to the 81 individuals fitting our criteria of living in USA and Canada. Data was collected in April and May 2009. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 81 riders completed the survey (35.8%). Respondents rode a total of 45 horses in top level 3-day events in 2008. The top 5 nutrition-associated problems that horses faced at a significantly higher level than the other problems (P < 0.0001) were gastric ulcers (42.2%), joint problems (37.7%), decreased appetite (31.1%), weight loss (31.1%) and hyperexcitability (22.2%). There was no significant difference in frequency of problems between home and competition (P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Horses competing at a high level of 3-day eventing in 2008 were at risk of reduced performance given the significant rate of gastric ulcers, decreased appetite and weight loss. Research addressing specific causes of and/or feeding management changes that would reduce the incidence of these problems in these horses is needed to ensure optimal health and performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".