Reduced stocking density mitigates the negative effects of regrouping in dairy cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In freestall systems, cows are frequently moved among pens and regrouped. This practice involves mixing unfamiliar cows, and can result in changes in stocking density after regrouping. Both regrouping and changes in stocking density can affect cow welfare, but no study to date has assessed the combined effects. The aim of this study was to test if reductions in stocking density can mitigate the responses to regrouping. By manipulating group size (6 vs. 12 cows) and pen size (12 vs. 24 stalls), 3 different stocking densities were created (25, 50, and 100%). Four groups of Holstein cows were regrouped weekly for 4 wk and the stocking density changed at regrouping. The change in density varied as follows: a decrease by a factor of 4 (100 to 25%), a decrease by a factor of 2 (100 to 50% or 50 to 25%), no change (50 to 50%), an increase by a factor of 2 (25 to 50% or 50 to 100%), and an increase by a factor of 4 (25 to 100%). Displacements at the feeding area, feeding time, and lying time were scored. The daily means for each group were used to calculate the differences in responses from 1d before to 1d after each regrouping. The number of displacements at the feed bunk decreased and lying time increased when stocking density decreased at regrouping. In conclusion, increases in competitive behavior and the associated decrease in lying times can be mitigated by reducing stocking density when regrouping 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".