Effects of alternative deep bedding options on dairy cow preference, lying behavior, cleanliness, and teat end contamination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cows spend more time lying down when stalls are soft and dry, and bedding plays a key role in the comfort of the lying surface. The first objective of this study (experiment 1) was to compare cow preference for 2 types of alternative deep-bedding materials, switchgrass and switchgrass-lime, using wheat straw on a rubber mat as a control. Nine Holstein lactating cows were submitted in trios to a 3-choice preference test over 14 d (2 d of adaptation, 3 d of restriction to each stall, and 3 d of free access to all 3 stalls). Cows were housed individually in pens containing 3 stalls with different lying surfaces: (1) rubber mat with chopped wheat straw (WS); (2) deep-bedded switchgrass (SG); and (3) deep-bedded switchgrass, water, and lime mixture (SGL). The second objective (experiment 2) was to test, in freestall housing, the effects of these 3 types of bedding on lying behavior, cow cleanliness, and teat end bacterial contamination. Bedding treatments were compared in a 3 × 3 Latin square design using 24 cows split into groups of 8, with bedding materials being switched every 4 wk. Lying behavior was measured with data loggers in both studies. During experiment 1, cows chose to spend more time lying and had more frequent lying bouts on SG (9.4 h/d; 8.2 bouts/d) than on SGL (1.0 h/d; 0.9 bouts/d). They also spent more time standing and stood more frequently in stalls with SG (2.0 h/d; 10.1 bouts/d) than in those with SGL (0.6 h/d; 2.6 bouts/d), and stood longer in stalls with SG than with WS (0.6 h/d). In experiment 2, the total lying time, frequency of lying bouts, and mean lying bout duration were, on average, 9.7 ± 1.03 h/d, 8.2 ± 0.93 bouts/d, and 1.2 ± 0.06 h/bout, respectively, and did not differ between treatments. No treatment effects were found for cow cleanliness scores. Bedding dry matter was highest for SG (74.1%), lowest for SGL (63.5%), and intermediate for WS (68.6%) [standard error of the mean (SEM) = 1.57%]. This may explain the higher teat end count of coliforms for cows on SGL (0.92 log10 cfu/g) compared with WS (0.13 log10 cfu/g) (SEM = 0.144 log10 cfu/g). In conclusion, cows preferred the deep-bedded switchgrass surface over the other 2 surfaces, and deep-bedded switchgrass appears to be a suitable bedding alternative for dairy 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 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 | 0.001 | 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".