MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Feed Stalls Affect the Social and Feeding Behavior of Lactating Dairy Cows

2006· article· en· W2163024559 on OpenAlexafffund
T.J. DeVries, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsAnimal scienceLatin squareFeeding behaviorDairy cattleMathematicsBiologyChemistryFood scienceRumen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first objective of this study was to study the effects of increased bunk space on the frequency of aggressive behavior at the feed bunk and on feed access. The second objective was to determine whether the addition of partitions (feed stalls) between adjacent cows would provide additional protection while feeding, particularly for subordinate cows. Twenty-four lactating Holstein cows were subjected to each of 3 treatments in 3 successive 10-d treatment periods using a 3 x 3 Latin square design. The treatments tested were: 1) 0.64 m of feed bunk space/cow, 2) 0.92 m of feed bunk space/cow, and 3) feed stalls (0.87 m of feed bunk space/cow with feed stall partitions separating adjacent cows). Time-lapse video was used to quantify the feeding and standing behavior, as well as the aggressive behavior (displacements) displayed by the cows at the feed bunk. To meet our first and second objectives, we compared data from the 0.64 m/cow treatment with that from the 0.92 m/cow treatment, and data from the 0.92 m/cow treatment with that from the feed-stall treatment, respectively. Total daily feeding time increased when feed bunk space was increased from 0.64 to 0.92 m/cow. Further, the time spent standing in the feeding area while not feeding and the frequency of aggressive interactions at the feed bunk decreased when more bunk space was provided. The addition of feed stalls resulted in more pronounced effects compared with when cows had 0.92 m/cow of bunk space. The feed stalls also forced cows to change the strategy by which they displaced others from the feed bunk, forcing them to also initiate contact at the rear of the animal they were displacing rather than only from the front and side, as in the other 2 treatments. Further, when the cows were provided with additional feeding space, particularly when combined with feed stalls, those cows with lower social status at the feed bunk experienced the greatest decreases in the number of times they were displaced per day. The results indicated that providing increased feed bunk space, particularly when combined with feed stalls, will improve access to the feed and reduce competition at the feed bunk, particularly for subordinate cows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations110
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207