MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066462225 · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7023

Short communication: Rumination and feeding behavior before and after calving in dairy cows

2013· article· en· W2066462225 on OpenAlexafffund
K. Schirmann, N. Chapinal, Daniel M. Weary, Lori Vickers, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEffects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaDairy Farmers of CanadaFreie Universität BerlinPfizer
KeywordsRuminatingRuminationIce calvingAnimal scienceDry matterBiologyLactationPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of the current study were to describe changes in rumination and feeding behavior around calving. Rumination time, feeding time, and dry matter intake were monitored in 11 freestall-housed cows from 96 h before to 48 h after calving. Data were summarized in 2-h and 24-h periods, adjusting for calving time. Differences between baseline (96 to 24h before calving) and subsequent 24-h periods were evaluated. Compared with baseline, cows spent, on average, 63 ± 30 min/24h less time ruminating and 66 ± 16 min/24h less time feeding in the 24-h period before calving. These behaviors continued to decline during the 24-h period after calving when, compared with baseline, time spent ruminating decreased on average by 133 ± 35 min/24h and time spent feeding decreased by 82 ± 18 min/24h. Dry matter intake tended to decrease by 3.8 ± 1.9 kg in the 24-h period before calving but returned to baseline values in the 24-h following calving. Rumination time and time spent feeding started to decline approximately 4 and 8h before calving, respectively, and increased in the 4 to 6h following calving. Rumination time and time spent feeding show promise as tools to identify cows close to calving.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations132
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicEffects of Environmental Stressors on LivestockFrench-language works237,207