Behavioral effects of two diets used for the management of severe equine asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical signs of severe equine asthma can be controlled by feeding diets with fewer inhalable particles than conventional dry hay, such as steamed hay or pellets. We hypothesized that asthmatic horses would spend more time eating, less time resting, and would have fewer gastric ulcers when they are fed steamed hay compared to pellets. Nine asthmatic horses were housed indoors and fed dry hay to induce clinical exacerbation (baseline). They were then fed either alfalfa pellets or steamed hay for 4 weeks, in a crossover design. Horses were filmed in their stalls 18 to 22 h over a 24 h period during exacerbation, and the 1 st and 4 th weeks of each diet. Partial ethograms (time-budget and position) were recorded through the ZooMonitor application (Tracks software) using focal instantaneous sampling. Gastroscopies were performed before and after each diet. When horses were fed pellets, their time spent eating decreased by 33.8% during the 1 st week (P < 0.001). Time spent eating did not change with steamed hay (48.1, 47.8, and 47.9%, P > 0.8, on exacerbation, 1 st and 4 th weeks). There was no association between diets and squamous gastric ulcers. Asthmatic horses spend more time eating when offered steamed hay. This suggests that steamed hay could allow a more physiological time-budget, an important welfare parameter that should be considered in managing horses with severe asthma, despite the equivocal improvement of lung function reported previously.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".