Does a calf's motivation to ingest colostrum depend on time since birth, calf vigor, or provision of heat?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dairy producers often complain that calves have difficulty consuming the recommended amount of colostrum. A better understanding of factors affecting calves' motivation to ingest colostrum could help develop better management. Thirty-six Holstein calves were tested to evaluate effects of time since birth (2 vs. 6 h) and provision of a heat lamp on motivation to ingest colostrum in a 2 x 2 factorial model. Calves were randomly assigned to treatments balancing for birth weight and sex. Calves were provided colostrum (>68 g of Ig/L) ad libitum from a teat-bottle. We tested the calf's suckling reflex by examining the response to orofacial stimulation and assessed the calf's vigor from the duration of time spent standing or attempting to stand in the hour after birth and standing during colostrum feeding. During the first meal, 42% of calves consumed 4 L or more of colostrum, 25% consumed 3 to 4 L, 11% consumed 2 to 3 L, and 22% consumed <2 L. There were no significant effects of heat supply or time since birth on consumption. The quantity of colostrum ingested was best predicted (r(2) = 0.61) by a combination of birth weight, vigor during colostrum feeding, and vigor during the first hour of life, whereas meal duration was predicted (r(2) = 0.34) jointly by room temperature and having suckled the dam. Colostrum intake was lower for small calves and calves with a low degree of vigor. Differences among calves in the strength of the sucking reflex were not related to colostrum intake.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".