Effect of age of introduction to an automated milk feeder on calf learning and performance and labor requirements
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Group housing of dairy calves with automated milk feeders (AMF) is increasingly being used, but the effect of introducing calves to the AMF at a very young age (<24 h) on calf performance, health, and welfare, as well as farm personnel labor requirements are unknown. The objective of this controlled trial was to investigate whether early (<24 h after birth) introduction of calves affects the time to learn how to drink from the AMF, labor requirements for feeding milk during the learning phase, and average daily gain during the milk-feeding period compared with calves conventionally introduced at 5 d of age. Sixty Holstein calves (heifers and bulls) were assigned at birth to either early introduction (<24 h after birth) or conventional introduction (at 5 d of age) to the group pen with AMF. After birth, calves were housed in individual pens and then introduced, based on assigned treatment, to the group pen with an AMF and a continuous flow stocking approach. Calves were fed milk replacer and gradually weaned from d 47 to 60 of age. Calves had access to starter from 5 d of age, and to water and straw right after colostrum feeding. We measured the time between first training to use the AMF and first unassisted visit to the AMF with milk intake, the number of assisted visits until the calf was independent in its use of the AMF (successful learning), and the total time required for milk feeding (labor) until successful learning. Calves were weighed at birth, 30, 46, and 61 d of age, and were monitored daily for signs of disease. Daily milk and starter intake per calf were automatically recorded. Early-introduced calves took longer to successfully learn to use the AMF {64.9 h [95% confidence interval (CI) = 59.1 to 77.9] vs. 31.4 h (95% CI = 22.8 to 47.9)} and tended to require more assisted visits [7.8 visits (95% CI = 6.2 to 9.7) vs. 5.9 visits (95% CI = 4.8 to 7.5)] compared with conventionally introduced calves. Labor for milk feeding was greater for conventionally introduced calves relative to early-introduced calves [145.6 min (95% CI = 125.1 to 169.4) vs. 39.9 min (95% CI= 33.5 to 47.6)]. Disease risk was similar between treatments but the risk of severe versus mild diarrhea was greater for early- compared with conventionally introduced calves (odds ratio = 4.7; 95% CI 1.01 to 31.1). Early-introduced calves consumed less milk during the first days of life compared with conventionally introduced calves (d 2 = 5.5 vs. 6.4 L; d 3 = 7.0 vs. 8.2 L; d 4 = 7.0 vs. 8.4 L; d 6 = 6.4 vs. 7.9 L; d 7 = 6.0 vs. 7.0 L, respectively), with no differences after 8 d. We found no effect of treatment on average daily gain. Although introducing calves <24 h after birth required more assistance to use the AMF, farm labor for milk feeding tasks was less for early-introduced calves. Thus, with early introduction to AMF, a trade-off may exist between reduced labor per calf, with no effect on weight gain, but potentially a higher risk of severe diarrhea (vs. mild).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».