Effects of Sand and Straw Bedding on the Lying Behavior, Cleanliness, and Hoof and Hock Injuries of Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment compared the effects of sand and straw bedding in free stalls on resting time, cleanliness, hock injuries, and hoof health of dairy cows and tested whether cow preferences for a bedding material depended on the familiarity with the material. A total of 52 dairy cows were kept either on straw bedded concrete stalls or sand stalls for at least 21 wk. The lying behavior was observed, and hock lesions, hoof health, and cleanliness of the cows and stalls were measured. A 5-d preference test between sand and straw stalls was conducted at the end of the experiment. The total daily duration of lying was longer for cows on straw bedding than on sand bedding (straw 749 +/- 16 vs. sand 678 +/- 19 min). During the preference test, cows that had been kept on straw bedding preferred lying in straw stalls [straw 218.7 (133.4 to 239.7) vs. sand 9.0 min (2.8 to 44.8)]; however, cows that had been kept on sand showed no preference [straw 101.3 (51.7 to 205.9) vs. sand 94.3 min (54.1 to 156.1, median and interquartile range)]. Although there were no differences in the dirtiness of stalls, the cows using straw stalls were dirtier than cows using sand stalls [straw 6.04 (5.39 to 6.28) vs. sand 4.19 (3.62 to 5.16)]. At the end of experiment the severity of hock lesions was lower for cows on sand than for cows on straw [sand 0.5 (0.0 to 1.0) vs. straw 1.0 (1.0 to 2.0)]. The improvement in overall hoof health over the observation period was greater for cows kept on sand compared with cows kept on straw [sand -2.00 (-3.75 to -0.25) vs. straw 0.00 (-2.00 to 2.00)]. Straw bedding increased the time that cows spend lying, and cows preferred straw stalls to sand stalls. However, previous experience with sand reduces avoidance of sand stalls. Sand stalls were advantageous for cow cleanliness and health; hock lesions and claw diseases healed more quickly for cows using sand stalls compared with straw.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".