Effects of Pasture on Lameness in Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested whether providing cows a 4-wk period on pasture would improve gait and change lying behavior. Eighteen groups, each of 4 lactating Holstein cows initially housed in a freestall barn, were assigned to either continued housing in the same freestall barn, or moved to pasture to provide changes in both physical environment and diet. To assess lameness, gait scores (1 to 5) were recorded weekly for 4 wk. Gait improved by an average of 0.22 units/wk for those cows kept on pasture. We also recorded 4 specific gait attributes (head bob, back arch, tracking up, and reluctance to bear weight evenly on all 4 hooves), and found that the latter 2 attributes also improved during the pasture period. Improved gait for cows on pasture was not because of increased lying times. Cows on pasture actually spent less time lying down than cows kept indoors (10.9 vs. 12.3 h/d), although this lying time was spread over a larger number of bouts (15.3 vs. 12.2 bouts). Cows housed on pasture also lost more weight and produced less milk relative to cows in freestalls, likely because of reduced nutrient intake. These results indicate that a period on pasture can be used to help lame cattle recover probably because pasture provides a more comfortable surface upon which cows stand, helping them to recover from hoof and leg injuries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".