Development of a novel stall design for dairy cattle: Part II. The effect of minimal stall partitioning on lying behavior, rumination, stall cleanliness, and preference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free-stalls for dairy cows promote cleanliness, provide cows with a defined space to lie down, and decrease labor and bedding required for maintenance. However, current stall features can restrict behavior and reduce stall use. The objective of this study was to assess the short-term effect of a novel free-stall design (flexible single-bar partition, no neck rail, increased slope) on stall cleanliness and the lying behavior, rumination, milk production, and preferences of dairy cows in comparison to standard free-stalls (metal loop partitions, neck rail). In the first experiment, 60 Holstein cows were randomly divided into two groups and switched between standard and novel stalls in a replicated crossover design with four 7-day periods. Lying behavior and rumination were recorded continuously. Milk yields were recorded 2x/day, and stall cleanliness scores were collected on the last four days of weeks 3 and 4. The second experiment was a 6-day preference test where 14 cows from experiment 1 were given free access to 16 standard and 16 novel stalls. Lying behavior was recorded continuously. On day 6, standing, perching, and intention, lying, and rising movements were recorded. In experiment 1, cows spent 12 min less time lying down (14.1 vs 14.3 ± 0.48 h/d), had one fewer lying bouts (8.8 vs 9.8 ± 0.23 bouts/d), and had longer lying bouts by 6 min (1.4 vs 1.5 ± 0.05 h/bout) in novel stalls. Rumination time (547.3 vs 548.9 ± 4.66 min/d) and milk yield (35.0 vs 35.2 ± 0.51 kg/d) did not differ between stall types. However, novel stalls were more than twice as soiled as standard stalls (32.8 vs 14.2 ± 1.38% of rear half soiled). In experiment 2, the cows most recently housed in the novel stalls showed a clear preference for lying down in those stalls, whereas cows most recently housed in standard stalls showed no preference. Intention and lying down movements were longer in standard stalls when other cows were present in diagonally opposite stalls, but were similar between stall types when not occupied. All cows preferred standing in novel stalls. Novel stalls may have improved stall use compared to standard free-stalls, and the design requires further development to address cleanliness concerns. Future work is required to provide comfortable stalls without sacrificing cleanliness.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".