MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284802946 · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10414

Cow- and farm-level risk factors for lameness on dairy farms with automated milking systems

2016· article· en· W2284802946 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rebecka Westin, Alison Vaughan, A.M. de Passillé, T.J. DeVries, Edmond A. Pajor, D. Pellerin, Janice M. Siegford, Ali A. Witaifi, E. Vasseur, J. Rushen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of GuelphMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgriculture and Horticulture Development Board DairyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaMichigan State UniversityAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyCanadian Dairy CommissionDairy Farmers of CanadaUniversité Laval
KeywordsMilkingLamenessDairy cattleAnimal scienceAutomatic milkingAgricultural scienceBusinessBiologyLactationMedicineIce calvingPregnancySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lameness is a major concern to animal health and welfare within the dairy industry. Our objectives were to describe the prevalence of lameness in high-producing cows on farms with automated milking systems (AMS) and to identify the main risk factors for lameness at the animal and farm level. We visited 36 AMS farms across Canada and Michigan. Farm-level factors related to stall design, bedding use, flooring, and stocking rates were recorded by trained observers. Cows were scored for lameness, leg injuries, body condition (BCS), and body size (hip width and rump height; n=1,378; 25-40 cows/farm). Mean herd prevalence of clinical lameness was 15% (range=2.5-46%). Stall width relative to cow size and parity was found to be the most important factor associated with lameness. Not fitting the average stall width increased the odds of being lame 3.7 times in primiparous cows. A narrow feed alley [<430cm; odds ratio (OR)=1.9], obstructed lunge space (OR=1.7), a low BCS (OR=2.1 for BCS ≤2.25 compared with BCS 2.75-3.0), and presence of hock lesions (OR=1.6) were also identified as important risk factors for lameness. Only 1 of 36 farms had stalls of adequate width and length for the cows on their farm. For lameness prevention, it can be concluded that more emphasis needs be placed on either building stalls of appropriate width or selecting for smaller-framed cows that fit the existing stalls.

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 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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207