Dairy cow feeding space requirements assessed in a Y-maze choice test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of proximity to a dominant cow on a low-ranking cow's willingness to feed was assessed using choice tests. The main aim of the experiment was to determine the feeding space allowance at which the majority of subordinate cows would choose to feed on high-palatability food (HPF) next to a dominant cow rather than feeding alone on low-palatability food (LPF). Thirty Holstein-Friesian cows were used in the study. Half of the cows were trained to make an association between a black bin and HPF and a white bin and LPF, and the other half were trained with the opposite combination. Observations of pair-wise aggressive interactions were observed during feeding to determine the relative social status of each cow. From this, dominant and subordinate cows were allocated to experimental pairs. When cows had achieved an HPF preference with an 80% success rate in training, they were presented with choices using a Y-maze test apparatus, in which cows were offered choices between feeding on HPF with a dominant cow and feeding on LPF alone. Four different space allowances were tested at the HPF feeder: 0.3, 0.45, 0.6, and 0.75 m. At the 2 smaller space allowances, cows preferred to feed alone (choices between feeding alone or not for 0.3- and 0.45-m tests were significantly different). For the 2 larger space allowances, cows had no significant preferences (number of choices for feeding alone or with a dominant). Given that low-status cows are willing to sacrifice food quality to avoid close contact with a dominant animal, we suggest that the feeding space allowance should be at least 0.6m per cow whenever possible. However, even when space allowances are large, it is clear that some subordinate cows will still prefer to avoid proximity to dominant individuals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".