Mean scores and error bars showing the 95% CI at 6 different inspections (expressed as days relative to calving) for (a) sole and white line area
haemorrhages, (b) white line disease, (c) heel horn erosion and (d) digital dermatitis (median, interquartile range) for Holstein–Friesian cows on different
production systems [PASTURE (–●–, n=23) vs. HOUSED(– – □ – –, n=23)]. ⁎ (Pb0.05), ⁎⁎ (Pb0.01), ⁎⁎⁎ (Pb0.001) indicates significant differences at specific
inspections between treatment groups (PASTURE vs. HOUSED). Scores for all 4 claws were added so that for each disorder cows had a single total score at each
inspection. The maximum score for any cow at any inspection was =120 for haemorrhages, 60 for white line disease, 20 for heel horn erosion and 30 for digital
dermatitis. Notice that the ‘y’ axis has been scaled according this maximum scores; thus scale differs among graphs.
Mean scores and error bars showing the 95% CI at 6 different inspections (expressed as days relative to calving) for (a) sole and white line areahaemorrhages, (b) white line disease, (c) heel horn erosion and (d) digital dermatitis (median, interquartile range) for Holstein–Friesian cows on differentproduction systems [PASTURE (–●–, n=23) vs. HOUSED(– – □ – –, n=23)]. ⁎ (Pb0.05), ⁎⁎ (Pb0.01), ⁎⁎⁎ (Pb0.001) indicates significant differences at specificinspections between treatment groups (PASTURE vs. HOUSED). Scores for all 4 claws were added so that for each disorder cows had a single total score at eachinspection. The maximum score for any cow at any inspection was =120 for haemorrhages, 60 for white line disease, 20 for heel horn erosion and 30 for digitaldermatitis. Notice that the ‘y’ axis has been scaled according this maximum scores; thus scale differs among graphs.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..