Cow preference and usage of free stalls compared with an open pack area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free-stall housing systems are designed to provide a comfortable and hygienic lying area, but some aspects of stall design may restrict usage by cows. The aim of this study was to compare free-stall housing with a comparable lying area (open pack) without stall partitions. We predicted that cows would spend more time lying down and standing in the bedded area when provided access to an open pack than when in free stalls. We also predicted that cows would spend less time standing outside of the lying area and less time perching with the front 2 hooves in the lying area when using the open pack. Groups (n = 8) of 12 cows each were provided access to either the open pack or stalls. After a 7-d adaptation period, each group was tested sequentially in the 2 treatments for 3 d each. This no-choice phase was followed by an 8-d choice phase during which cows had simultaneous access to both treatments. During the no-choice phase, cows spent more time lying down (13.03 +/- 0.24 vs. 12.48 +/- 0.24 h/d) and standing with all 4 hooves in the bedded area (0.96 +/- 0.12 vs. 0.41 +/- 0.12 h/d) of the open pack than in the stalls. During the choice phase, cows spent more time lying down (7.20 +/- 0.29 vs. 5.86 +/- 0.29 h/d) and standing with all 4 hooves in the bedded area (0.58 +/- 0.07 vs. 0.12 +/- 0.07 h/d) of the open pack than in the stalls. In both the no-choice (1.66 +/- 0.24 vs. 0.55 +/- 0.24 h/d) and choice (0.55 +/- 0.07 vs. 0.29 +/- 0.07 h/d) phases, cows spent more time standing with just 2 hooves in the stalls than in the open pack. In conclusion, cows spent more time lying and standing with all 4 hooves in the bedded open pack than in the stalls. Additionally, cows spent more time standing in the alley and standing with just the front 2 hooves on the bedding in the stalls than in the bedded open pack; increased standing time on wet concrete is a known risk factor for lameness.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".