Short communication: Limit feeding affects behavior patterns and feeding motivation of dairy heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study objective was to assess the effects of limit feeding dairy heifers on behavior patterns and feeding motivation. Ten Holstein heifers (291.6±39.2d of age, weighing 324.2±61.2kg; mean ± SD) were exposed to each of 2 dietary treatments, in a random order, over 2 successive 26-d treatment periods (14-d adaptation period and a 12-d data collection period) using a crossover design: (1) a high-forage total mixed ration (TMR), provided ad libitum (CON) and (2) a low-forage TMR, limit-fed at 2.05% body weight (LF). Heifers were fed daily at 1100h and motivation to access a low-nutritive feedstuff (straw) was assessed using a push-door apparatus at 2 time points: 3h after feed delivery (1400h) and 21h after feed delivery (0800h). The amount of weight pushed, weight pushed as percentage of body weight, and latency to access the push door were recorded on 3 different days for each heifer at each time point on each treatment. When fed CON, heifers had greater dry matter intake (12.9 vs. 7.2kg/d), greater feeding time (209.3 vs. 82.4min/d), greater ruminating time (452.2 vs. 318.3min/d), and slower rates of intake (0.06 vs. 0.09kg of dry matter/min) than when fed LF. Heifers fed LF pushed more weight as a percentage of body weight at 3h (4.5 vs. 1.9%) and 21h (9.3 vs. 2.8%) after feed delivery. At both 3 and 21h after feed delivery, latency to access the door was shorter for the LF heifers compared with the CON heifers (65 vs. 145 s). These results indicate that, in addition to decreasing feeding time, limit feeding increases motivation of heifers to access a low-nutritive feedstuff, possibly due to lack of satiety resulting from lack of physical fill or insufficient time spent foraging.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".