Investigating the impact of 1 hour of daily outdoor access on the gait and hoof health of nonclinically lame cows housed in a movement-restricted environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tiestalls, known for restrictive housing, can reduce cows' locomotor skills over time. While outdoor access benefits clinically lame cows, its effect on nonclinically lame cows is less known. This study evaluated 1 h daily outdoor access on gait and hoof health of nonclinically lame Holstein cows in tiestalls. Thirty cows, blocked by parity and DIM, were assigned to exercise (1 h outdoor access 5 d/wk for 5 wk) or nonexercise groups. Visual scoring assessed 6 gait attributes and overall gait (on scales of 0-5 and 1-5, respectively) at pre-trial, post-trial, and 8-wk follow-up stages. A total of 15 cows (9 exercise, 6 nonexercise) underwent visual gait scoring, with logistical challenges and exclusion criteria leading to this selection. Hoof health for all 30 cows was evaluated during pre-trial and follow-up hoof trims, documenting claw lesions. Hoof thermography captured dorsal coronary band views in wk 1 and 5. No significant gait score changes were observed, but exercise cows showed a 1-point improvement in overall gait score and 3 gait attributes after 5 wk of outdoor access, which persisted at follow-up. Sole hemorrhages were the only claw lesions observed, and their prevalence and severity remained consistent between pre-trial and follow-up for both groups. Thermography showed consistent coronary band temperature metrics across groups and over time. In conclusion, brief outdoor sessions resulted in noticeable, albeit not statistically significant, improvements in the gait of nonclinically lame cows in restrictive housing settings without adverse hoof health effects. Further studies should evaluate different outdoor access benefits and use precise gait and hoof health analysis technologies for a more accurate detection of subtle changes.
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 | 0.001 | 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".