Comparison of DX613 copper sulfate acidifier footbath to a 5% copper sulfate footbath for prevention of digital dermatitis lesions in dairy cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare a 2.2% copper sulfate footbath with 325.31 mL of DX613 Acidifier (treatment; GEA Farm Technologies, Naperville, IL) to a 5% copper sulfate footbath (positive control) on the frequency and severity of DD in Holstein (n = 59) cows. The study was conducted at the University of Kentucky Coldstream Dairy from November 11, 2015 to January 20, 2016. Footbaths were delivered via a split footbath (Intra Care Foot Bath, Diamond Hoof Care LTD Alberta, Canada). The left side of the bath served as the positive control and the right side served as the treatment, cows were exposed to the solutions, five times per week. The DD lesions were scored biweekly using a M0 to M4 scoring system. A M0 score indicated no lesion (non-active lesions); M1 indicated small lesions (active lesions); M2 indicated large and potentially severe lesions (active lesions); M3 represented healing lesions (non-active lesions); and M4 represented chronic lesions (non-active lesions). The DD lesions were further separated into active lesions or non-active lesions for statistical analysis. A Chi-Square test calculated using the FREQUENCY procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) indicated no-significant difference between the two concentrates (chi-square = 1.18, P = 0.56). A McNemar’s test indicated significant differences in the prevalence of lesions from the beginning to end of the study (treatment: P < 0.01, positive control: P < 0.01). The DX613 Acidifier may be a viable alternative for dairy producers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".