MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995599229 · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3767

Effect of the provision of a low-nutritive feedstuff on the behavior of dairy heifers limit fed a high-concentrate ration

2011· article· en· W1995599229 on OpenAlexafffund
B.L. Kitts, I.J.H. Duncan, B.W. McBride, T.J. DeVries

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of GuelphPfizer
KeywordsTotal mixed rationSilageAnimal scienceDry matterStrawLatin squareBody weightRuminationChemistryBiologyAgronomyFood scienceRumenIce calvingLactationFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to examine the behavioral and growth responses of dairy heifers when a low-nutritive feedstuff was provided with (either within or alongside) a limit-fed ration. Twenty-four Holstein dairy heifers (187 ± 11.3 d of age, 231.1 ± 12.0kg), divided in groups of 4, were exposed to each of 3 treatments in a replicated Latin square design with 28-d periods. The treatment rations were (1) total mixed ration (TMR) in a limited amount (TMR-L), (2) TMR in a limited amount with straw (1.8 kg of DM/d per heifer) offered as a choice (TMR-SC), and (3) TMR in a limited amount with straw (1.8 kg of DM/d per heifer) mixed in (TMR-SM). The TMR was fed, once daily, at a restricted level (2.02% of body weight) and contained (on a DM basis) 19.0% alfalfa/grass haylage, 21% corn silage, 45% high moisture corn, and 15% protein supplement. Feeding behavior and unrewarded time at the feed bunk were recorded for the last 14 d of each period. Standing time was recorded for the last 7 d of each period. Rumination behavior was recorded twice weekly (during the fifth hour after feed delivery) in the last 14 d of each period. Body weight was recorded weekly and group DMI was recorded daily. Dry matter intake was lowest for the TMR treatment compared with the treatments with straw (5.7 vs. 7.3 kg/d). Heifer average daily gain tended to be lower on the TMR-SM treatment compared with the TMR-L and TMR-SC treatments (0.78 vs. 0.94 kg/d). Feed efficiency (DMI/ADG) was improved on the TMR-L (6.3) compared with TMR-SC (7.8) and TMR-SM (9.9) treatments. Daily feeding time differed between the TMR-L (76.1 min/d), TMR-SC (206.9 min/d), and TMR-SM (279.2 min/d) treatments. Unrewarded feeding time at the feed bunk differed between the TMR-L (38 min/d) compared with the TMR-SC (10.9 min/d) and TMR-SM (1.7 min/d) treatments. Inactive standing time differed among treatments, with TMR-L being the highest compared with TMR-SC and TMR-SM (556.4 vs. 409.9 vs. 340.1 min/d). There tended to be fewer heifers ruminating on the TMR-L compared with TMR-SM (14.0 vs. 21.9%). The results suggest that provision of straw as a choice alongside a limit-fed ration will allow heifer growth rates to be met, as well as provide a suitable foraging source that heifers can use to satisfy their natural feeding behavior patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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