MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557911978 · doi:10.2527/jam2016-0116

0116 Associations of hygiene and lying behavior with the risk of elevated somatic cell count and lameness

2016· article· en· W2557911978 on OpenAlexaffabout
I. Robles, D.F. Kelton, Herman W. Barkema, G.P. Keefe, Jean‐Philippe Roy, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, T.J. DeVries

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversité de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamenessSomatic cell countHerdAnimal scienceMastitisHygieneMedicineBulk tankDairy cattleDairy industryVeterinary medicineTotal mixed rationUrineFecesIce calvingBiologyInternal medicineLactationSurgeryFood sciencePregnancyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to identify how cow-level factors and housing management affect the risk of elevated SCC (eSCC) and lameness in lactating dairy cows. Cows from six commercial free-stall dairy herds in Ontario, Canada, were enrolled in a longitudinal study. Ten Holstein cows/herd were randomly selected based on days in milk (DIM; <120 d), absence of mastitis treatment in the last 3 mo, and somatic cell count (SCC < 100,000 cells/mL). Data on SCC were collected through DHI testing (∼5 wk intervals). The study began within 7 d after a DHI-milk test, continued until three tests were completed (∼105d), for a total of three observation periods/cow. Elevated SCC was used to indicate subclinical mastitis. An incident of eSCC was defined as a cow having a SCC > 200,000 cells/mL at the end of a period when SCC was <100,000 cells/mL at the beginning of that period. Lying behavior was recorded for 6 d after each milk sampling using data loggers. On d 1 of each recording period, a trained observer scored cows for lameness (5-point numerical rating scale, NRS ≥ 3 = lame). Hygiene scoring (four-point scale), also done by a trained observer, occurred on each visit. Cows were categorized as clean (1, 2) or dirty (3, 4). Stall cleanliness was assessed with a 1 m2 metal grid, containing 88 squares, centered between stall partitions of every 10th stall, and then counting the squares containing visible urine and/or fecal matter. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression models. Cows averaged (mean ± SD) 627 ± 107.7min/d lying, 9 ± 2.8 lying bouts/d, and 72 ± 19.9 min/bout. Over the study period, 13 eSCC were detected, resulting in an incidence rate of 0.73 eSCC/cow-year at risk. The risk of experiencing an eSCC increased 1.4× (P < 0.01) with every 20,000 cells/mL SCC increment at the beginning of the study. Mean proportion of soiled squares/stall was 27%. Each SD (18.8%) increment in proportion of dirty squares/stall was associated with lameness (NRS ≥ 3; OR = 1.5; P = 0.05) and increased the odds of having a dirty udder (DU; OR = 2.4; P = 0.02). Each SD (108min/d) increment in lying time/d increased the risk of having dirty upper legs and flank (DULF; OR = 2.1; P < 0.01), and tended to increase the risk of having a DU (OR = 1.44; P < 0.08). For each 9.6% increase above mean (100%) cow/stall stocking density, the risk of having DULF increased by 1.7× (P = 0.03). These results indicate that lower stocking density and management practices that improved stall hygiene and should be encouraged to reduce the risk of poor hygiene and clinical lameness in dairy cows housed in free-stall barns.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207