Impact of recycled manure solids bedding on hygiene and odds of hock lesions in dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of recycled manure solids (RMS) as bedding for dairy cows has become more popular over the last decade. Once producers own the RMS producing equipment, they are not restricted in the amount of bedding they can use in stalls, due to its large availability and low production costs. Thus, they are usually able to provide a soft lying area for their cows. Nevertheless, the potential positive impact of RMS on cows' hygiene and odds of hock lesions is not clearly demonstrated. Objectives of this research were, therefore, to compare RMS-bedded cows' hygiene level and odds of hock lesions to straw-bedded cows (comparative group). To achieve this, an observational cross-sectional study was conducted in 27 RMS- and 61 straw-bedded herds. During the farm visit, 30 cows per herd were scored for hygiene of three body regions (udder, lower legs and flank/upper legs) using a score ranging from 1 to 4 (1 being the cleanest and 4 the dirtiest). In addition, both hocks were scored (0 to 3) to evaluate the presence of lesions (0 when there was no lesion and 3 when a swelling protrusion > 2.5 cm was present). Continuation-ratio models were used to compute the odds of having a given score to the odds of having a lower score. Recycled manure solids usage was associated with lower odds of having an udder hygiene score ≥3 [odds ratio (OR): 0.43; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.95] and of having a score of 4 (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.93). It was also associated, compared to straw, with cleaner lower legs. We observed lower odds of having a score ≥2 (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.98), ≥3 (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.66), or a score of 4 (OR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.40) in RMS-bedded herds. No statistically significant association could be highlighted between RMS usage and flank/upper legs hygiene. Furthermore, we did not observe any statistically significant associations between bedding type (RMS vs. straw) and odds of hock lesions. In conclusion, cows bedded with RMS had generally cleaner udders and cleaner lower legs than straw-bedded ones. No association was found between bedding type and odds of hock lesions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".