Effects of sawdust bedding dry matter on lying behavior of dairy cows: A dose-dependent response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to determine the effect of sawdust bedding dry matter on the lying behavior of Holstein cows. Dry matter (DM) was varied systematically over 5 treatment levels to test how cows respond to damp bedding. This experiment was repeated during summer and winter to test if the effects of damp bedding varied with season. The 5 bedding treatments averaged (+/-SD) 89.8+/-3.7, 74.2+/-6.4, 62.2+/-6.3, 43.9+/-4.0, and 34.7+/-3.8% DM. Over the course of the trial, minimum and maximum temperatures in the barn were 2.6+/-2.0 and 6.8+/-2.2 degrees C in the winter and 13.3+/-2.5 and 22.6+/-4.1 degrees C in the summer. In both seasons, 5 groups of 3 nonlactating cows were housed in free stalls bedded with sawdust. Following a 5-d acclimation period on dry bedding, groups were exposed to the 5 bedding treatments in a 5 x 5 Latin square. Each treatment lasted 4 d, followed by 1 d when the cows were provided with dry bedding. Stall usage was assessed by 24-h video scanned at 5-min intervals. Responses were analyzed within group (n=5) as the observational unit. Bedding DM affected lying time, averaging 10.4+/-0.4 h/d on the wettest treatment and increasing to 11.5+/-0.4 h/d on the driest bedding. Lying time varied with season, averaging 12.1+/-0.4 h/d across treatments during the winter and 9.9+/-0.6 h/d during the summer, but season and bedding DM did not interact. These results indicate that access to dry bedding is important for dairy cows.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".