MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912881932 · doi:10.3168/jds.2018-15349

Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors on dairy farms in the Maritime Provinces of Canada

2019· article· en· W2912881932 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M.T. Jewell, M. Cameron, Jonathan Spears, Shawn McKenna, M.S. Cockram, Javier Sánchez, Greg Keefe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersAtlantic Veterinary CollegeCanadian Dairy CommissionDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsLamenessHerdDairy cattleAnimal welfareAnimal scienceLogistic regressionVeterinary medicineMedicineBiologySurgeryEcologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lameness in dairy cattle is a major issue for the industry due to the effects on the welfare of the animal, the economic impact, and consumer perception. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of lameness and explore potential risk factors in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Cows were scored for lameness and potential risk factors and were assessed in 46 freestall herds and 33 tiestall herds in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. In freestall herds, lameness was assessed using the most common method, locomotion scoring. A cow with a gait score of ≥3 out of 5 was considered to be lame. In tiestall herds, lameness was assessed using an alternative method known as stall lameness scoring. This assessment consisted of observation of the cow for 4 behavioral changes: standing on the edge of the stall, shifting weight, resting a limb, and uneven weight bearing when moved side to side. A cow displaying 2 or more of these behaviors was considered to be lame. At the time of the assessment, other animal-, environmental-, and management-based measurements were collected. These measurements were used in multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine risk factors that were associated with lameness for both freestalls and tiestalls independently. The prevalence of lameness was 21% for freestall-housed cattle and 15% for tiestall-housed cattle. Of the 1,488 tiestall-housed cows that were assessed, 68% showed no behavioral changes, whereas 15, 15, 2, and <1% showed 1, 2, 3, or 4 changes, respectively. In freestalls, higher odds of lameness were seen when cows spent ≥3 h/d in the holding area for milking compared with those that spent <3 h/d. In tiestall herds, higher odds of lameness were seen when bedding material was wet compared with when it was dry. For both lactating cow facility types, housing the dry cows and heifers on a deep bedded pack compared with tiestalls or freestalls was associated with a decreased odds of lameness. There were also many cow-level variables associated with lameness, including parity, daily milk production, stage of production, body condition, and width at the tuber coxae (hook bones). If producers become aware of the risk factors associated with lameness, they can make informed decisions on where to implement changes to help reduce the level of lameness in their herd.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations45
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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