Thermoregulatory behavior of dairy goats at low temperatures and the use of outdoor yards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bøe, K. E. and Ehrlenbruch, R. 2013. Thermoregulatory behavior of dairy goats at low temperatures and the use of outdoor yards. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 93: 35–41. The aim of this experiment was to investigate the effect of roof cover and location of feed on thermoregulatory behavior and the goat's use of an outdoor yard under different weather conditions. A total of four groups of five pregnant dairy goats (20 goats in total) were allocated to a 4×4 Latin square experiment with four groups, four treatments and four experimental periods. Each treatment period lasted for 7 d. The goats were exposed to the following treatments: roof covering of outdoor yard (yes or no) and location of feed (indoors or in yard). The goats were video recorded for two 24-h periods at the end of each experimental period (totally 32, 24-h periods). When the air temperature dropped and when there was rain or snow, the goats spent less time in the outdoor yard (P<0.0001), but total lying time (P=0.47) and time spent feeding (P=0.77) were not affected by weather conditions. Lying in the outdoor yard was reduced as the air temperature decreased (P<0.001) and time spent standing/walking inside increased (P<0.001). Irrespective of weather conditions, the goats spent significantly more time in the outdoor yard in pens when the outdoor yards were covered with a roof (P <0.01), but time spent lying was not affected by roof cover (P=0.12) or feed location (P=0.40). We conclude that even if the outdoor yard was less used at decreasing temperatures, the time spent lying and feeding was not affected by inclement weather. Hence, a housing system with an inside resting area and an outside activity area provides adequate environmental protection for the goats even at low temperatures. A roof covering the outdoor yard had only a limited positive effect.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".