Lying times of lactating cows on dairy farms with automatic milking systems and the relation to lameness, leg lesions, and body condition score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lying down and resting are important for optimal cow health, welfare, and production. In comparison with free stall farms with a milking parlor, farms with automated milking systems (AMS) may place less constraint on how long cows can lie down. However, few studies report lying times on AMS farms. The aims of this study were to describe the variation in lying times of dairy cows in AMS farms and to understand how much of the variation in individual lying times is related to cow-level factors, including lameness, the presence of hock and knee lesions, and body condition score (BCS). We visited 36 farms in Canada (Quebec: n = 10; Ontario: n = 10; British Columbia: n = 4; and Alberta: n = 5), and the United States (Michigan: n = 7). Gait scores, presence of hock and knee lesions, and BCS were recorded for 40 Holstein cows from each herd. Parity and days in milk were retrieved from farm records. Lying time was recorded across 4d using accelerometers (n = 1,377). Multivariable analysis was performed. Of scored cows, 15.1% were lame (i.e., obviously limping; 203 of 1,348 cows). Knee lesions were found in 27.1% (340 of 1,256 cows) and hock lesions were found in 30.8% (421 of 1,366 cows) of the animals. Daily lying time varied among cows. Cows spent a median duration of 11.4 h/d lying down (25th-75th percentile = 9.7-12.9 h), with a lying bout frequency of 9.5 bouts/d (25th-75th percentile = 7.5-12 bouts/d) and a median bout duration of 71 min (25th-75th percentile = 58-87 min/bout). Lameness was associated with cows lying down for 0.6 h/d longer in fewer, longer bouts. Increased lying time was also associated with increased parity, later stage of lactation and higher BCS. Older cows (parity ≥ 3) spent about 0.5 h/d more lying down compared with parity 1 cows, and cows with BCS ≥ 3.5 lay down on average 1 h/d longer than cows with BCS ≤ 2.25. Hock lesions were associated with shorter lying times in univariable models, but no associations were found in the multivariable models. We concluded that only a small proportion of the variation between cows in lying time is explained by lameness, leg lesions, and BCS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".