MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047390401 · doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1886

Feeding behavior of calves fed small or large amounts of milk

2009· article· en· W2047390401 on OpenAlexafffund
T.F. Borderas, A.M.B. de Passillé, J. Rushen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnimal scienceFood scienceMilk productionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about feeding behavior in group-housed calves fed with an automated feeding system. To examine the influence of milk feeding level on feeding behavior in such a system, we fed calves either 4 L of milk replacer per d (LIM) or allowed ad libitum (AL) intake (n = 25 per treatment). In a second experiment another set of calves was fed 4 L (low milk volume, LM) or 12 L (high milk volume, HM) of whole milk (n = 14 per treatment). Results were analyzed separately using a mixed model including calf, treatment, and time as factors, and feeding behavior as variables. Milk intake by AL or HM calves increased during the first 2 wk, reaching a maximum intake that reached a plateau during the next 4 wk. Concentrate intake was negligible during the first 14 d, with LIM and LM calves increasing their consumption from d 22. Concentrate intake by AL and HM calves remained low until weaning in experiment 1 and the end of trial in experiment 2 (d 43 for both). The frequency of visits was higher in LIM and LM calves than in AL and HM calves during the first 42 d, with most visits being unrewarded (approximately 90%). This resulted in higher occupancy time of the feeder by LIM and LM calves. During weaning in experiment 1 (d 44 to 48), there was no difference in occupancy time between treatments. Calves in the AL and HM groups distributed their visits throughout the day, whereas LIM and LM calves made most visits just before the time when the next allowance of milk became available. In experiment 1, AL calves showed a greater weight gain during the first 21 d but LIM calves had greater gains between d 22 and 50. However, the overall average daily weight gain was higher for AL calves. In experiment 2, HM calves had a greater gain than LM calves for the first 4 wk of trial but there was no difference between treatments during the last 2 wk. There were no differences between treatments in the incidence of disease in either experiment. The duration of time spent lying down in experiment 2 was higher for HM calves but only when they were older (4 to 5 wk). No differences were found between treatments at 2 wk of age. In conclusion, feeding high levels of milk or replacer improved weight gain and reduced unrewarded visits to the milk feeder, improving the efficiency of use of the milk feeders. However, it reduced concentrate intake and the advantages were less obvious after 3 wk of age. No increased incidence of disease was found for high-fed calves (AL and HM groups). Lying time was also higher for high-fed calves but only at an older age (4 to 5 wk).

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations134
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207