Short communication: Use of a mechanical brush by Holstein dairy cattle around parturition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grooming is a normal behavior that may contribute to relief of stress. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of access to a mechanical brush on auto-grooming behavior in parturient cows. The hypothesis was that cows would increase the total time spent scratching using the brush if they had access to a brush around the time of calving, whereas auto-grooming would be lower for the brush group compared with the no-brush group. The use of a mechanical brush was analyzed both in a group-housed pen (72 to 48 h before calving) and in an individual maternity pen (6h before to 6h after calving) in 16 multiparous Holstein cows. In the maternity pen, cows were randomly assigned to have access to the brush or not. The provision of a mechanical brush in the individual maternity pen did not change the amount of time spent auto-grooming but cows did use the brush before calving and after the calf was removed. Despite being housed in pens containing a brush, cows failed to use it when the calf was present. However, cows with access to a brush spent more time licking their calves in the first hour postcalving (β=8.7 min; 95% confidence interval: 1.5, 15.8) than cows that did not have access to a brush. Regardless of treatment, cows increased the time spent auto-grooming and scratching following separation of their newborn calf (β=1.4 min; 95% confidence interval: 0.46, 2.3 and β=0.07 min; 95% confidence interval: 0.02, 0.12, respectively). Further research is warranted to investigate possible benefits of mechanical brush devices at the time of calving, particularly for cows that experience difficult calving and require manual or mechanical assistance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".