Review: Behaviour and its role in the nutritional management of the growing dairy heifer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has recently been a significant increase in the amount of scientific research relating dairy cattle behaviour to nutritional management, particularly with respect to the interaction with health. Much of this research has been focused on using information on the natural behavioural patterns of dairy cattle to improve management practices. As with calves and mature dairy cattle, the behaviour of growing replacement dairy heifers interacts with various nutritional management practices. For replacement dairy heifers, much of the research in this area has been focused on how these interactions relate to different feed delivery methods, the amount of feed provided, and stocking density at the feed bunk. This review describes empirical work focused on understanding how nutritional management practices affect heifer behaviour, and how these practices may affect the health, productivity, and welfare of these animals. In particular, evidence will be provided for those practices (such as total mixed ration feeding, feeding for ad libitum intake, and reducing feed bunk competition) that promote feeding behaviour patterns related to more consistent nutrient intake and improved rumen health. Even though the behavioural effects of these nutritional practices are known, additional research is still needed to further demonstrate the possible physiological consequences (e.g., rumen pH, growth rate) of these changes in behaviour. This information is needed so that further recommendations can be made on these practices so these animals may be raised for maximum production potential, while maintaining their behavioural needs, health and overall welfare.Key words: Behaviour, nutritional management, replacement dairy heifer
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".