Neck-rail position in the free stall affects standing behavior and udder and stall cleanliness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the effect of neck-rail position on stall usage and udder and stall cleanliness. Thirty Holstein lactating cows were tested in groups of 6. Each group was tested with each of 5 neck-rail positions (130, 145, 160, 175, and 190 cm from the rear curb, at a constant height of 125 cm above the bedded surface) for 1 wk, with the order of testing allocated in a 5 x 5 Latin square. When the neck rail was positioned further from the rear curb, cows spent less time standing with their front 2 hooves in the stall (2.2 +/- 0.26 h/d at 130 cm vs. 1.7 +/- 0.27 h/d at 190 cm, mean +/- SE) and more time standing with all 4 hooves in the stall (0.0 +/- 0.02 h/d at 130 cm vs. 0.6 +/- 0.07 h/d at 190 cm). These effects of neck-rail position tended to be more marked for smaller cows, perhaps because the standing behavior of larger cows was restricted even in the 190-cm treatment. Cows were more likely to defecate and urinate in the stalls when the neck rail was positioned further from the rear curb. Cows using these stalls tended to have dirtier udders and these stalls required more cleaning time (0.4 +/- 0.16 min/d at the 130-cm position vs. 1.6 +/- 0.35 min/d at the 190-cm position). In summary, positioning the neck rail further from the curb increased the time that cows spent standing fully in the stall. This change in standing behavior is likely beneficial for hoof health, but reduced udder 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".