MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564353110 · doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4273

Short communication: Effect of calf starter on rumen pH of Holstein dairy calves at weaning

2011· article· en· W1564353110 on OpenAlexaff
A.H. Laarman, M. Oba

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarterRumenHayWeaningAnimal scienceRuminantAlfalfa hayAcidosisFood scienceBiologyRandomized block designChemistryFermentationAgronomyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of feeding calf starter on rumen pH of dairy calves during weaning transition. Twenty Holstein bull calves were paired into 10 blocks by starting date of the study and body weight, and fed either milk replacer and hay (MR) or MR, hay, and a commercial texturized calf starter (MR+S) in a randomized complete block design. All calves were fed 750 g/d of milk replacer as the basal diet. Calves on MR+S treatment were also fed a calf starter ad libitum to maintain similar energy intake between calves within blocks, and MR calves were fed additional milk replacer that was equivalent to energy from calf starter intake. When MR+S calves consumed a calf starter at 680 g/d for 3 consecutive d, rumen pH of a MR+S calf and his MR counterpart was measured continuously for 3 d using a small ruminant rumen pH measurement system. Treatment did not affect minimum pH, mean pH, maximum pH, standard deviation of mean pH, and duration or area under pH 5.8, indicating that calf starter consumption did not appear to affect rumen pH. However, hay intake was negatively correlated to area under pH 5.8, with a breakpoint at 0.080 kg/d intake, suggesting hay intake might play an important role in mitigating ruminal acidosis in dairy calves during weaning transition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207