Association between time budget of primiparous cows and their adaptation to an automatic milking system following parturition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to identify the differences in the transition period time budget of first-lactation cows that adapt quickly to a free-traffic automatic milking system (AMS) versus those that require more chronic fetching during the adaptation period following calving. A total of 22 primiparous Holstein cows were observed from ∼21 d before calving to 23 DIM, following their adaptation to an AMS. During the prepartum period, heifer time budgets were monitored for rumination, feeding activities, lying behavior, and standing behavior. These same behaviors were monitored in the postpartum period, in addition to various milking metrics, standing at the AMS, and quantification of fetching behavior. Using frequency of individual fetching to the AMS, cows were retrospectively designated as either high fetch (HF; n = 11) or low fetch (LF; n = 11). These categorizations were used to assess differences in the time budget between cows that adapted quickly to the AMS and those that required chronic fetching. A tendency was detected for HF cows to have a slower feeding rate in both the pre- and postpartum periods, and fewer feed bin visits postpartum, which was associated with differences observed in feeding time. A tendency was observed across the transition period for HF cows to ruminate for less time than LF cows, despite similar DMI. An interaction between fetch categorization and DIM was present for milkings and visits to the AMS, where on certain days HF cows had fewer milkings and visits than LF cows. High-fetch cows had lesser milk yield. Overall, the results indicate differences in transition period time budget characteristics between cows who adapt quickly to the AMS and those who require chronic fetching during the adaptation period. Specifically, there may be features of a cow's prepartum time budget that relate to their subsequent ease of adaptation to the AMS, and that in the postpartum period both HF and LF cows adapt their time budget to account for added time inputs of fetch pen time and additional visits to the AMS, respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".