MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768033790 · doi:10.2527/tas2017.0052

Economic impacts of lameness in feedlot cattle1

2017· article· en· W2768033790 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Calgary
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsFeedlotLamenessFeeder cattleAnimal scienceBeef cattleCattle DiseasesMedicineVeterinary medicineLivestockAnimal healthBiologySurgeryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lameness is an important health issue in feedlot cattle; however, there is a paucity of information regarding its economic impact. Decision tree models are excellent tools for assessing costs of disease such as the net return (net return = benefit – cost). Models were developed using expert opinion, literature and retrospective feedlot data provided by Vet-Agri Health Services (VAHS, Airdrie, Alberta, Canada) collected from 2005 to 2015 on individually treated cattle (n = 30,940) from 28 feedlots. The objective was to estimate net return of various lameness diagnoses and impacts of cattle type, season of treatment, and extreme high and low cattle prices. Cattle were diagnosed as lame according to the following categories: foot rot, foot rot in heavy cattle (BW > 363 kg at treatment), injury, lame with no visible swelling, and joint infection. Records consisted of arrival and treatment weight, cost of treatment, and cattle deaths. Records included cattle types classified as: fall calves (heifer and steer), winter calves (heifer and steer) and yearling cattle (heifer and steer). Lastly, variables ADG, days on feed (DOF), and Season (spring, summer, fall, and winter) were created. Models estimated net return using cattle slaughter prices for healthy cattle that reached a slaughter weight of 635 kg and for three possible outcomes for each diagnosis after final treatment: cattle that recovered after treatment and reached a slaughter weight of 635 kg; cattle that were removed before they reached slaughter weight; or cattle that died. Compared to undiagnosed cattle with 1.36 kg/d ADG, cattle diagnosed with foot rot and foot rot heavy cattle had the highest ADG until first treatment (1.14 and 1.57 kg/d, respectively) and differed significantly (P < 0.05) compared to cattle diagnosed with injuries (0.87 kg/d), lame with no visible swelling (0.64 kg/d), and joint infections (0.53 kg/d). Yearling steers had the most positive returns compared to all other cattle types. Cattle with lighter arrival weight had lower ADG and increased economic losses after treatment compared to heavier weighted cattle on arrival. Based on average slaughter prices over a 10-yr period for healthy cattle, return was $690. Return after final treatment for cattle with foot rot was $568, foot rot in heavy cattle was $695, and injury was $259. However, joint infections and lame with no visible swelling had negative returns of –$286 and –$701, respectively.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.253 · 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