Effect of Feeding Space on the Inter-Cow Distance, Aggression, and Feeding Behavior of Free-Stall Housed Lactating Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine whether doubling the amount of feeding space from 0.5 to 1.0 m per cow leads to increased spacing between cows at the feeder, fewer aggressive social interactions among cows, and ultimately increased feeding activity. Twenty-four lactating Holstein cows were provided with 0.5 and 1.0 m of feeding space per cow in a 2 x 2 crossover design replicated over time. Time-lapse video was used to quantify the inter-cow distance and incidence of aggressive displacements at the feed alley. An electronic feed alley monitoring system was used to monitor the feeding behavior of the cows. When animals had access to 1.0 m per cow, there was at least 60% more space between animals and 57% fewer aggressive interactions while feeding than with access to 0.5 m of feeding space. These changes in spacing and aggressive behavior in turn allowed cows to increase feeding activity throughout the day, especially during the 90 min after providing fresh feed (an increase of 24%). This increase in feeding activity was particularly evident for subordinate cows. These results indicate that increasing space allowance at the feeder increases feeding activity and reduces competition among lactating 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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".