MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2550144227 · doi:10.2527/jam2016-0733

0733 Associations between preventive hoof trimming, activity, and resting behaviors

2016· article· en· W2550144227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Stoddard, G. Cramer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamenessMilkingHoofAnimal scienceTrimmingLactationMedicineBiologySurgeryPregnancyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hoof trimming is a commonly recommend practice to prevent lameness, one of the dairy industry's biggest animal well-being and economic issues. Unfortunately, limited scientific data exists to support our current hoof trimming (HT) practices and what affects HT has on cow behavior. The objective of this research is to determine the association between HT of nonlame cows and activity and resting behaviors. A convenience sample of farms from the United Kingdom and Canada were recruited to participate. Selection criteria required that farms used free-stall housing, have a regular hoof trimming schedule, and use either Afi PedoPlus or AfiACT2 (Afimilk, Ltd.) pedometers. Activity, milk yield, resting time, and resting bout information was collected daily at the time of milking. Hoof trimming data was collected from on farm records. The association between activity, resting behaviors, and HT was evaluated by comparing the averages of the behavior parameter at different time points before and after HT. Time periods evaluated included 1 to 10 d before HT; day of HT; and 2 to 3, 4 to 7, and 8 to 10 d after HT. Models were created using linear regression with behavior as the outcome variable and including the fixed effects of farm, lactation number, milk yield, and days in milk. Time period was forced into each model and a robust SE was used to account for repeated measures. A total of 1,393 cows were used in the analysis with average days in milk, lactation, and milk yield being 182, 1.9, and 33.6 kg/d, respectively. Activity and resting bouts were associated with every time period except for on the day after HT. Resting time was positively associated with all time periods after HT. Resting time increased from 21 to 27 min/d between 1 and 10 d after HT. Activity between 2 and 10 d after HT decreased by a minimum of 20 steps/h and reached a maximum decrease of 27 steps/h. Resting bouts increased from 0.2 to 0.4 bouts between 2 and 10 d after HT. These results show that the HT process is associated with changes in activity, resting time, and resting bouts of the cow during the 10 d following HT. This indicates that there is an adjustment phase either due to the actual HT or due to the disruption of the cow's daily routine during the HT process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→