Introducing heifers to freestall housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little work to date has assessed how dairy cattle respond when first introduced to freestall housing. In this study we carried out 2 experiments. The aim of experiment 1 was to assess the behavioral responses of naïve heifers to pens fitted with freestalls. Holstein heifers (n=7 groups, each containing 3 heifers, 3 mo of age), with no previous experience with freestalls, were initially housed on a sawdust bedded pack and fed through a fixed feed barrier for at least 6 wk and then moved to a freestall pen fitted with a head-locking feed barrier. When kept on the bedded pack, the heifers' lying time averaged 14.2 h/d. On the day heifers were moved to the freestall pen, lying times declined by 2.9 h, but recovered on the following days. The time spent lying down on the barn floor (i.e., outside the lying area) increased by 2.5 h on the day heifers were introduced to freestalls and remained higher during subsequent days. Heifers spent 46 min/d less time feeding on the day they were switched to the head-locking barrier, but recovered on the following days. In experiment 2 we assessed the behavioral responses of naïve heifers introduced to pens fitted with freestalls with or without a neck rail. Holstein heifers (n=12 groups, each containing 2 heifers, 3 mo of age), with no previous experience with freestalls, were initially housed on a sawdust bedded pack and then moved to a freestall pen with or without neck rails. Heifers spent 4.2 h/d less time lying down in the 24 h following introduction into the freestall pen; the neck rail treatment had no effect on lying time but heifers spent more time standing with just their front 2 hooves in the stall when a neck rail was in the stall. In summary, lying and feeding behavior of naïve heifers is altered following introduction to new housing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".