The stall-design paradox: Neck rails increase lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Housing conditions for dairy cows are thought to affect lameness, but almost no experimental work has addressed this link. The aim was to assess the effect of one feature of free-stall design, the position of the neck rail, testing the prediction that cows will be more likely to become lame if using pens with the neck rail positioned such that it prevents standing fully inside the stall. Cows (n = 32) were housed in 8 pens. Treatments were tested using a crossover design; treatments were allocated alternately to pens at the beginning of the experiment and switched halfway through the 10-wk experiment. Cows spent 27 +/- 3 min/d standing with all 4 feet in stalls with less restrictive neck rails. In contrast, cows averaged just 1 +/- 3 min/d when the neck rail was positioned restrictively. Cows spent less time standing with only the front 2 feet in the stall with less restrictive neck rails (33 vs. 49 +/- 6 min/d). Gait scores improved when cows were kept in the less restrictive stalls and worsened when cows were kept in pens with the restrictive neck rail (median score 2.5 vs. 3.5 after 5 wk on treatment). Of 13 new cases of lameness, 11 occurred in pens with the restrictive neck-rail position. Similarly, of the 16 new cases of sole lesions, 15 occurred during the period when cows were housed in pens with a restrictive neck rail. Stalls with the neck rail positioned less restrictively had higher contamination scores than stalls with the restrictive neck rails (3.7 vs. 0.4 +/- 0.2), and cows using those stalls had dirtier udders and longer teat-cleaning times (8.3 vs. 7.0 +/- 0.2 min for 12 cows). This study provides the first experimental evidence that aspects of stall design can reduce the risk of lameness and hoof disease. The results illustrated that changes in design that resulted in improvements in cow comfort and hoof health came at the expense of cow and stall cleanliness.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".