MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120090398 · doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0452

Effects of Sand and Straw Bedding on the Lying Behavior, Cleanliness, and Hoof and Hock Injuries of Dairy Cows

2008· article· en· W2120090398 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrawHoofAnimal scienceBeddingPreference testHockVeterinary medicinePet therapyMedicineBiologyAnimal welfareAgronomyEcologyMathematicsAnatomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This experiment compared the effects of sand and straw bedding in free stalls on resting time, cleanliness, hock injuries, and hoof health of dairy cows and tested whether cow preferences for a bedding material depended on the familiarity with the material. A total of 52 dairy cows were kept either on straw bedded concrete stalls or sand stalls for at least 21 wk. The lying behavior was observed, and hock lesions, hoof health, and cleanliness of the cows and stalls were measured. A 5-d preference test between sand and straw stalls was conducted at the end of the experiment. The total daily duration of lying was longer for cows on straw bedding than on sand bedding (straw 749 +/- 16 vs. sand 678 +/- 19 min). During the preference test, cows that had been kept on straw bedding preferred lying in straw stalls [straw 218.7 (133.4 to 239.7) vs. sand 9.0 min (2.8 to 44.8)]; however, cows that had been kept on sand showed no preference [straw 101.3 (51.7 to 205.9) vs. sand 94.3 min (54.1 to 156.1, median and interquartile range)]. Although there were no differences in the dirtiness of stalls, the cows using straw stalls were dirtier than cows using sand stalls [straw 6.04 (5.39 to 6.28) vs. sand 4.19 (3.62 to 5.16)]. At the end of experiment the severity of hock lesions was lower for cows on sand than for cows on straw [sand 0.5 (0.0 to 1.0) vs. straw 1.0 (1.0 to 2.0)]. The improvement in overall hoof health over the observation period was greater for cows kept on sand compared with cows kept on straw [sand -2.00 (-3.75 to -0.25) vs. straw 0.00 (-2.00 to 2.00)]. Straw bedding increased the time that cows spend lying, and cows preferred straw stalls to sand stalls. However, previous experience with sand reduces avoidance of sand stalls. Sand stalls were advantageous for cow cleanliness and health; hock lesions and claw diseases healed more quickly for cows using sand stalls compared with straw.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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