Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39877187›Full record

ArticleJDS communications2025

How dairy heifers initially respond to freestalls: The effect of neck-rail placement.

Marek Gaworski, Kathryn McLellan, Marina A G von Keyserlingk, Daniel M Weary

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JDS communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marek GaworskiAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z6.
Kathryn McLellanAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z6.
Marina A G von KeyserlingkAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z6.
Daniel M WearyAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z6.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dairy heifers are often kept on open packs early in life and later transitioned to freestalls. The neck rail in freestalls acts as a barrier intended to prevent animals from entering too far in the stall, with the aim of improving stall cleanliness. Unfortunately, this barrier can hinder stall use and may be a hazard to animals due to physical contact, perhaps especially when animals first learn to use the stall. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of 2 different neck-rail positions on frequency of stall use (for lying and standing) and misuse (standing or lying backward in the stall and lying down outside of the stall) by dairy heifers when first introduced to freestall housing. A secondary aim was to measure, via the use of an instrumented neck rail, the maximum force (N) with which heifers contacted this part of the stall. Holstein heifers (n = 8 per treatment) were randomly assigned to one of 2 neck-rail positions: 110 and 130 cm (as measured diagonally from the inside of the rear curb to the bottom of the instrumented neck rail, 0.7 m above the bedded stall surface). Animals were tested individually and responses were measured for 6 h following introduction to the freestalls. On average (median, minimum, maximum), heifers lay down 3.5 (0, 6) times in the freestall when the neck rail was positioned at 130 cm versus 0 (0, 4) times at 110 cm. Heifers also were more likely to stand fully in the stall when the neck rail was positioned at 130 cm versus 110 cm (3.5, 0, 9 vs. 1, 0, 3), and were also more likely to stand backward in the stall (3, 0, 5 vs. 0, 0, 1). In contrast, heifers tested at the 130 cm position were rarely observed lying down outside of the stall (1, 0, 4), whereas this behavior was more common at the 110 cm treatment (4, 0, 7). Contrary to our expectation, the force with which heifers contacted the neck rail was higher in the 130 cm versus 110 cm treatment (337, 6, 548 vs. 78, 26, 403 N). We conclude that neck-rail position acts as a barrier for naïve heifers, such that a more restrictive position reduces the likelihood that heifers use the stall correctly.

Identifiers

PMID39877187
PMCPMC11770307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.