Performance and behavior of dairy calves fed diets containing milk and citric flavor agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While young ruminants prefer milk aroma and researches about this theme are being developed, the use of citric aroma, very appetized for older ruminants, are low utilized to young animals. This work aims to compare the influence of milk and citric flavor agents on the diets of nursing dairy calves. In this trial, 12 animals of Holstein breed were distributed in a randomized block design with four treatments (concentrate without flavor agent, concentrate with milk flavor or citrus flavor, and concentrate with milk plus citrus flavor agent) and three repetitions. The parameters evaluated were: concentrate dry matter intake (CDMI), hay dry matter (HDMI), milk dry matter intake (MDMI) and total dry matter intake (TDMI), average weight gain (ADWG), feed conversion (FC), initial (IBW) and final body weight (FBW), initial thoracic perimeter (ITP) and final thoracic perimeter (FTP), initial abdominal perimeter (IAP) and final abdominal perimeter (FAP), initial withers height (IWH) and final withers height (FWH) and animal behavior. The CDMI, HDMI and TDMI, as well as IBW, FBW, ITP, FTP, IAP, FAP, IWH and FWH did not show differences (P>0.05). The averages daily gain and feed conversion showed no differences, with means of 0.55 kg/animal and 2.09, respectively. The diets did not affect animal behavior parameters (P>0.05).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".