Flooring in Front of the Feed Bunk Affects Feeding Behavior and Use of Freestalls by Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2 experiments we assessed how preferences, time budgets, and feeding behavior of dairy cows change in response to flooring surfaces in front of the feed bunk. In Experiment 1, 12 nonlactating dairy cattle were individually housed with access to 2 standing platforms filled with either concrete or sawdust. In Experiment 2, 24 nonlactating dairy cattle were given access to either concrete or Animat rubber flooring in front of the feed bunk. In Experiment 1, cows preferred the sawdust to the concrete flooring. In both experiments, cows provided with a softer floor in front of the feed bunk spent more time standing near the feed bunk without eating (Experiment 1: 67 vs. 40 min/d on sawdust vs. concrete, respectively, SEM = 5.6 min/d; Experiment 2: 176 vs. 115 min/d on Animat vs. concrete, respectively, SEM = 20.5 min/d) compared with when they were kept on concrete. The increased time spent at the feed bunk was due to a combination of more frequent eating and standing bouts, indicating that cows were more willing to move on nonconcrete flooring. Total time spent eating was significantly greater on the softer floor in Experiment 2, but not in Experiment 1 (Exp. 1: 289 vs. 275 min/d on sawdust and concrete, respectively, SEM = 7.3 min/d; Exp. 2: 330 vs. 289 min/d on Animat and concrete, respectively, SEM = 15.4), although feed intake was increased on the sawdust treatment in Experiment 1. Cows spent significantly more time lying in the feed alley when the flooring was rubber (219 vs. 53 min/d on Animat and concrete, SEM = 53.6 min/d), perhaps because the lying area in Experiment 2 was inadequate. In conclusion, cows prefer to stand on softer flooring in front of the feed bunk, and are more willing to move on and spend more time standing in front of the feed bunk when provided with softer flooring. These results indicate that cows find softer flooring surfaces more comfortable to stand on than concrete, and highlight the importance of evaluating the comfort of the entire facility.
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 | 0.000 | 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".