Rumination and its relationship to feeding and lying behavior in Holstein dairy cows
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to describe the relationship between rumination and feeding and lying behavior in dairy cows. Rumination time was monitored electronically using HR-Tags (SCR Engineers Ltd., Netanya, Israel). Feeding time and dry matter intake (DMI) were monitored using Insentec feed bins (Insentec BV, Marknesse, the Netherlands). All measures were collected in 2-h periods for 42 mature Holstein cows for a minimum of 9 d in the early dry period. Pearson correlation was used to describe associations, among 2-h periods within cow, first examining the relationship within a single period, and then modeling how this relationship changes when a lag of 2, 4, or 6h was imposed. Periods when cows spent more time ruminating were associated with lower feeding times and lower DMI (r = -0.71 and r = -0.72, respectively), likely because cows were unable to feed and ruminate simultaneously. The correlations with rumination time changed from negative to positive when lags of 2, 4, and 6h were modeled (r = -0.09, 0.24, and 0.15, and r = -0.16, 0.23, and 0.17 for feeding time and DMI at lags of 2, 4, and 6h, respectively). These results indicate that following periods of high feeding times and intakes, cows spent more time ruminating. This relationship peaks at approximately 4h after feeding. Periods of rumination were also associated with time spent lying down. Cows that spent more time ruminating per day, spent less time feeding (r = -0.34) and rumination times did not relate to DMI (r = 0.11). These data indicate that rumination time can be used to estimate within-cow variation in feeding behavior and intake, but daily summaries of rumination behavior are a poor indicator of DMI.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it