Effects of Milking on Dairy Cow Gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied cows with (n = 6) and without (n = 26) sole ulcers before and after milking to explore how milking influences dairy cattle gait and how this differs for cows with hoof injuries. Video recordings of cows were digitized using motion-analysis software to calculate stride variables for each hoof. Gait was scored using a 1-to-5 numerical rating system (1 = sound, 5 = severely lame) and a continuous 100-unit visual analog scale of gait attributes (back arch, head bob, tracking-up, and reluctance to bear weight). For cows with and without sole ulcers, differences in gait before and after milking were evident; after milking, all cows had significantly longer strides (123.3 vs. 133.5 +/- 2.0 cm, respectively), higher stride height (8.3 vs. 8.9 +/- 0.1 cm), shorter stride durations (1.49 vs. 1.41 +/- 0.03 s), walked faster (0.85 vs. 0.97 +/- 0.03 m/s), and had shorter periods of triple support (3 legs in ground contact; 80.0 vs. 71.7 +/- 2.0%). Tracking-up and reluctance to bear weight improved after milking (20 vs. 16 +/- 2; 20 vs. 15 +/- 1, respectively), but numerical rating scores and back arch did not. Cows with sole ulcers walked differently than cows without for all measures, except swing duration, both before and after milking. Interactions between hoof health and milking were found for swing duration and head bob but when tested separately, the only effect was that cows without sole ulcers had longer swing durations before milking (0.45 vs. 0.44 +/- 0.01 s, respectively). Gait differences were probably due to udder distention and motivation to return to the home pen. Our results suggest that the most suitable time to assess lameness is after milking when differences between cows with and without ulcers are most evident.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".