Observational study evaluating the association of hoof trimming with dairy cattle behavior and milk yield in Canada and the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this observational study was to describe the associations between preventive hoof trimming (HT) of cows with no lesions and several behavior- and productivity-outcome measures including activity, lying behavior, and milk yield. A convenience sample of 4 freestall farms in the United Kingdom (n = 2) and Canada (n = 2) were recruited for the study. Inclusion criteria for herds included having a regular trim schedule and use of a specific pedometer system. Cows were trimmed as per their farm's regular protocol and schedule and all HT events were recorded. Only cows with no lesions present on the first recorded HT event were used in the analysis. Activity (steps/d), resting time (min/d), and resting bouts (bouts/d) were recorded daily by pedometers and total daily milk yield (kg/d) was recorded by the farm's milk recording system. Cow-level data such as DIM, breed, and parity were collected from the farm's herd management software. A generalized linear mixed repeated measures model with an exchangeable correlation structure was built to compare the outcome for 7 d following HT to baseline measures for each outcome of interest. For each outcome the average from the 5 d before HT was used as a baseline. All models included the baseline status, lactation number, season, farm, and DIM as covariates. Days from HT and its interaction with farm were included in all models. A total of 1,573 cows with no lesion recorded in their first HT were included in the analysis. Activity and resting time were inversely related on the day of HT, with activity increasing on 3 out of 4 farms (+59 to +84 steps/d) and resting time decreasing (-28 to -52 min/d). Following the day of HT, activity decreased to levels lower than those reported at baseline and resting time increased compared with baseline on most farms. There was a reduction in milk yield on the day of HT on 3 out of 4 farms and a reduction in average yield across the 7 d following trimming for all farms (range: 0.6 to 1.3 kg/d). Results were found to be farm dependent. The impact of the degree of change from baseline in behaviors and milk yield reported in this study on welfare of the cow is unclear, but the results suggest that alterations in the outcomes evaluated can persist beyond the day of trimming compared with baseline, necessitating further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".