MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097552239 · doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6389

Herd-level risk factors for hock injuries in freestall-housed dairy cows in the northeastern United States and California

2013· article· en· W2097552239 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNovus InternationalZoetisDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsHockAnimal scienceHerdMedicineConfidence intervalDry matterBeddingOdds ratioVeterinary medicineBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the associations between management and facility design factors and the prevalence of hock injuries in high-producing dairy cows in 76 freestall herds in the northeastern United States (NE-US; Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania) and California (CA). One group of high-production multiparous cows was monitored on each farm, and data on management, facility and stall design, and the conditions of the hocks were collected. Focal cows [n=38 ± 3 (mean ± standard deviation)] were evaluated for hock injuries using a 3-point scale (where 1=healthy and 3=evidently swollen or severe injury). Measures associated with the proportion (logit-transformed) of cows having injuries (score ≥ 2) or severe injuries (score=3) at the univariable level were submitted to multivariable general linear models. In NE-US, overall hock injuries increased with the percentage of stalls with fecal contamination [odds ratio (OR)=1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.02-1.54, for a 10% increase], and with the use of sawdust as bedding (OR=3.47; CI=1.14-10.62), and decreased with deep bedding (i.e., at least 10 cm depth of any type of bedding; OR=0.05; CI=0.02-0.14), use of sand as bedding (OR=0.06; CI=0.02-0.15), bedding dry matter (DM) ≥ 83.9% (OR=0.08; CI=0.03-0.20), and access to pasture during the dry period (OR=0.17; CI=0.05-0.53). When these variables were submitted to a multivariable model, the presence of deep bedding was the only factor that remained significant, explaining 54% of the variation in overall injuries. Severe hock injuries increased with the use of automatic scrapers (OR=2.29; CI=1.11-4.71) and the percentage of stalls with fecal contamination (OR=1.14; CI=1.00-1.31, for a 10% increase), and decreased with sand bedding (OR=0.22; CI=0.10-0.49), deep bedding (OR=0.24; CI=0.11-0.52), bedding DM ≥ 83.9% (OR=0.28; CI=0.14-0.58), and access to pasture during the dry period (OR=0.42; CI=0.18-0.97). The final multivariable model, which explained 36% of the variation in severe hock injuries, included the use of automatic scrapers and deep bedding. In CA, stall stocking density (OR=1.41; CI=1.00-2.01, for a 10% increase) and poor bedding maintenance (OR=1.08; CI=1.01-1.16, for a 2.5-cm decrease in depth of deep-bedded stalls) were associated with an increase of overall and severe hock injuries, respectively. Deep-bedded and well-maintained stalls reduce the risk of hock injuries. Regional variation in risk factors for these injuries should be considered when formulating on-farm recommendations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.207 · 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