Hoof overgrowth affects lying behaviour of dairy goats near parturition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hoof overgrowth in ruminants has been linked to lameness, a known welfare challenge. Little is known about the effect of hoof overgrowth on daily activities of does, particularly in the time around parturition. In this study we evaluated the impact of hoof overgrowth on the lying behaviour of commercially housed dairy does in the days surrounding kidding. The lying behaviour of does on 8 commercial farms in Ontario, Canada were monitored using leg-based data loggers. Lying time, bout frequency and duration for each doe were calculated for the day before (d-1), the day of (d0) and the day after (d+1) kidding. The front left and rear right hoof was scored (4-point scale assessing toe overgrowth and curling) on each doe during a metabolic health check 9 ± 4 days after kidding. Only does determined to be metabolically healthy via blood BHBA and which were carrying singles or twins, were included (n = 16 ± 7 does/farm). An average hoof score was calculated for each doe and simplified into a binary scale (0 = no or minimal toe overgrowth with no curling, n = 78 does; 1 = presence of toe overgrowth and curling, n = 55 does). The effect of hoof overgrowth on lying behaviours was assessed using mixed models. Results are presented as mean ± SED. Kidding (d0) resulted in a dramatic decrease (3.0 ± 0.3 h/d) in lying time compared to d-1, but the decrease was dependent on hoof score. Does with hoof overgrowth lay longer on d0 (10.4 vs. 8.9 ± 0.7 h/d) and tended to lie down longer on d1 as well (11.9 vs. 10.6 ± 0.7 h/d) compared to does with no or minimal overgrowth. The number of daily lying bouts did not differ over the 3-day period; however, goats with hoof overgrowth lay down longer during each bout compared to goats with no or minimal hoof overgrowth (45 vs. 34 ± 3.7 min/bout). In summary, goats lay down less on the day of kidding and hoof overgrowth reduced the magnitude of this behavioural change. Hoof overgrowth restricted movement; this reduced activity is a concern during a period when freedom to move, both to isolate from penmates and to have adequate access to feed and water, is crucial to maintain good health. This work demonstrates the importance of good hoof care for late gestation does.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".