Effect of Rubber Flooring in Front of the Feed Bunk on the Time Budgets of Dairy Cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this experiment was to study the effect of rubber flooring in front of the feed bunk on the immediate behavioral response of dairy cattle. Four groups of 12 dairy cattle were alternately housed in sections of a free-stall barn with either 1.85 m of rubber flooring or grooved concrete in the area in front of the feed bunk. Rubber flooring did not affect time spent eating. However, animals showed a slight, but detectable, increase in time standing without eating on the rubber surface (5.5%) compared with concrete (4.8%). For reasons that are unclear, this increase in time spent standing was not limited to the area in front of the feed bunk; animals spent 11.0% of the available time standing elsewhere in the pen (outside of the free stall but not in front of the feed bunk) when they had access to the rubber flooring, compared with 9.0% when housed with access to only concrete floors. In addition, animals spent slightly less time lying in the free stall when they had access to rubber in front of the feed bunk (52.5 vs. 54.3%). Time spent engaged in behaviors such as standing elsewhere in the pen and eating were variable over time. For example, time spent eating declined from 23.1 to 17.4% over the 6-wk trial. In conclusion, dairy cattle with access to rubber flooring in front of the feeder showed small differences in where and how much time they spent standing, although the biological implications of these small changes are unclear.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".