Perception of lameness management, education, and effects on animal welfare of feedlot cattle by consulting nutritionists, veterinarians, and feedlot managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consulting nutritionists (n=37), consulting veterinarians (n=47), and feedlot managers (n=63) from the United States and Canada participated in a feedlot cattle lameness survey. The majority of participants either manage or consult open-air, dirt-floor feedyard facilities (98.4%). Participants were directed to an online survey to answer questions pertaining to the incidence, management, perception, and economics of feedlot lameness. The median response of estimated lameness incidence in the feedyard was 2%, with a mode of 1% and a mean of 3.8%. Of survey participants, 81% estimated the contribution of lameness to total feedyard mortality as less than 10%. Similarly, 64% of participants estimated the contribution of lameness to the overall chronic and realizer loss in the feedyard to be less 10%. Forty-one percent of participants believed that 50% or more of cattle suffering from lameness require treatment. Participants indicated that footrot (42% of participants), injury (35% of participants), and toe abscesses (10% of participants) were the most common causes of lameness. The major contributing factors associated with non-infectious causes of lameness, such as upper limb injuries, toe abscesses or ulcers, and lacerations include cattle handling before and after arrival, pen surface and condition, and cattle temperament. Important contributing factors for infectious causes of lameness, such as footrot, were identified as pen surface and condition, cattle handling prior to arrival, and weather. Lameness was considered an animal welfare concern by 58% of participants. This survey provides insight into the perception of lameness and potential management factors which contribute to lameness through the perspective of multiple participants in feedlot cattle production systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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".