Behavioural indicators of cow comfort: activity and resting behaviour of dairy cows in two types of housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored which aspects of dairy cow behaviour provide measures of cow comfort and how housing affects resting time. Following a crossover design, we observed the behaviour of eight lactating Holstein cows kept for three weeks in stalls believed to represent a contrast in comfort. Cows individually housed in large pens with a mattress flooring lay down 4.2 h d −1 longer than cows housed in tie-stalls on a concrete floor, while cows in tie-stalls stood idle (without eating) for longer. Cows stood up and lay down more often in the large pens and the duration of individual standing bouts was longer in tie-stalls. We found no differences in eating time and few differences in body, head or leg positions cows assumed while lying. There was little evidence of diurnal rhythm in activity. A lower frequency of standing and lying and an increase in the duration of lying bouts suggests that in tie-stalls cows are more reluctant to change position from lying to standing. The type of pen or stall in which cows are housed can have a substantial impact on resting time. The duration and frequency of lying behaviour and the time spent standing without eating appear to be probable behavioural indicators of cow comfort. Key words: Behaviour, cow comfort, housing, lying, resting
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".