Effect of feed delivery method on the behavior and growth of dairy heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the effects of feed delivery method on growth, feeding competition, feeding, and sorting behavior of dairy heifers. Thirty-two Holstein heifers (146.2+/-21.9 d of age) were divided into 8 groups of 4 and exposed to 1 of 2 feed delivery treatments for 13 wk. The treatment rations contained 65% grass/alfalfa haylage and 35% textured concentrate (on a dry matter basis) fed as a 1) total mixed ration (TMR) or 2) top-dressed ration (TDR). Group dry matter intakes were recorded daily throughout the experiment. Feeding behavior, recorded using time-lapse video, and sorting behavior were measured for 7 d during each of wk 1, 5, 9, and 13. Sorting activity was determined through particle size analysis of the fresh feed and orts. The particle size separator separated feed into 4 fractions (long, medium, short, and fine). Sorting of each fraction was calculated as actual intake expressed as a percentage of predicted intake. Heifers were fecal scored for consistency of stool twice weekly using a scale from 1 (liquid) to 4 (solid); heifers were weighed every 2 wk. Neither dry matter intake (7.3 kg/d) nor average daily gain (1.3 kg/d) differed between treatments. Heifers fed the TDR tended to consume less neutral detergent fiber than heifers fed the TMR (4.77 vs. 4.91 kg/d). Heifers fed the TDR sorted against long particles (98.9 vs. 96.0%) and consumed short particles (100.3 vs. 101.1%) to a greater extent than did heifers fed the TMR. Daily feeding time did not differ between treatments (201.0 min/d), but heifers on the TDR did spend more time at the bunk in the 2h following feed delivery (50.1 vs. 32.0 min/d). Heifers fed the TDR were displaced from the feed bunk more frequently than heifers fed the TMR (17.6 vs. 8.6 times/d), particularly during the 2-h period following feed delivery. Fecal scores were lower for heifers on the TDR (2.7 vs. 3.4). These results suggest that feeding a TMR to replacement dairy heifers may promote a more even diurnal feeding pattern, minimize feed sorting and feed bunk competition, and promote more solid fecal consistency.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".