MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3206291286 · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-20012

Individual and environmental factors associated with defecation while lying down in dairy cows

2021· article· en· W3206291286 on OpenAlexafffund
Borbala Foris, Lívia Galiano Mangilli, Jennifer M.C. Van Os, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, J. A. Fregonesi, Daniel M. Weary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsLamenessFecesAnimal scienceLyingDefecationDairy cattleMedicineBiologyEcologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cows typically defecate while standing. Freestalls are designed to position standing cows such that their feces fall into the alley. Cows sometimes defecate while lying down, increasing the risk that feces contaminate the stall surface. We conducted 2 studies investigating cow-level and environmental factors associated with defecating while recumbent. In experiment 1, we hypothesized that conditions making it more difficult for cows to stand up (including greater age, high body weight, pregnancy, and lameness) would increase the risk of this behavior. We followed 92 cows for 12 d, scanning stalls 5 times/d using live observation. Almost half (48%) of all cows defecated while recumbent at least once; cows that spent more time lying down and that were earlier in gestation were at highest risk. Weight, parity, age, and lameness were not associated with this behavior. In experiment 2, we tested how overstocking influenced the occurrence of defecating while recumbent. We predicted overstocking would increase the occurrence of this behavior, especially when cows were in stalls at more preferred locations. We recorded stall occupancy, displacement attempts, and defecating while recumbent in 4 groups of 36 cows tested at both 100% and 150% lying stall stocking densities for 2 nights each using a crossover design. Overstocking resulted in higher stall use and more displacements, but less lying and fewer perching events. We did not detect any relationship between use of specific stalls or competition and defecating while recumbent. Most recorded displacements were associated with perching. Increased time perching increased the likelihood of defecating while recumbent, perhaps because perching cows were less dominant or more reluctant to stand up once lying down in the stall. Overstocking did not increase defecating while recumbent, likely because cows spent less time lying down. Together, these results indicate that defecating while recumbent can be common, and points to some of the cow-level factors associated with this behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy Science→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→