Stocking density at feeders and drinkers and temporal feed restriction affects dairy cows' drinking behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water is an essential resource for dairy cows, and its consumption is closely linked to feed intake. Social competition can lead to changes in drinking behavior, especially for subordinate cows. We studied how changes in stocking density at the feeder (1 or 2 cows per feeder), and drinker (6 or 12 cows per drinker) and a temporal feed restriction (14- or 24-h access) affects drinking in 4 groups of 6 cows each, following a Latin square design. We recorded drinking behavior within each group of 6 focal cows, and 2 were identified as most dominant, 2 as most subordinate, and the 2 others as intermediate, based on success in agonistic interactions at the drinker. Cows drank less water when feed availability was restricted (on average 5.3 ± 3.4 [SE] L/d less; 4.5% average difference). Subordinate cows also spent less time drinking when overstocked (9.3 ± 6.7 min/d less; 24.3% difference). During treatments with more competition, cows were more likely to be observed drinking in the hours after the peak in drinking observed for the control treatment. A high level of competition among group-housed animals is considered a welfare problem and can lead to injuries and reduced production. Our findings provide evidence that feed restriction and higher stocking density of cows at the drinker and feeders changes the drinking behavior of cows, with subordinate animals experiencing more pronounced effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".