MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125465979 · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7816

The effect of palatability of protein source on dietary selection in dairy calves

2014· article· en· W2125465979 on OpenAlexafffund
E.K. Miller-Cushon, M. Terré, T.J. DeVries, À. Bach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPalatabilityAnimal scienceDry matterMealCanolaBiologyStarterSoybean mealPelletFood scienceDairy cattleTotal mixed rationIce calvingLactation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence has shown that soybean meal is perceived as more palatable than canola meal by dairy calves in short-term preference tests. This study evaluated the effect of protein source on longer-term dietary selection of dairy calves. In experiment 1, 40 Holstein bull calves (11.4 ± 4.3 d of age) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 choice diets for 6 wk: base starter pellet (S; 12% crude protein; CP) and high-protein pellet (40% CP) containing either (1) soybean meal (SB) or (2) canola meal (CM). In wk 7 to 8, all calves were offered a single pelleted diet containing the protein source to which they were previously exposed. In experiment 2, 22 Holstein bull calves (9.9 ± 4.6d of age) were offered, for 6 wk, a choice of 2 mixed pelleted diets: (1) 70% S and 30% SB (SB mix), or (2) 70% S and 30% CM (CM mix). In wk 7 to 8, calves were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 choice diets, as in experiment 1: (1) SB + S, or (2) CM + S. All feeds were provided ad libitum. Calves received 6 L/d of milk replacer [0.75 kg/d of dry matter (DM)] for the duration of both experiments. Feed intake was recorded daily and calves were weighed every 14 d. Feeds were sampled weekly to analyze DM and nutrient intake. Mixed diets in experiment 2 were analyzed for CP in wk 4 and 6 to assess feed sorting (calculated as actual CP intake as a percentage of predicted intake). In experiment 1, calves offered SB + S in wk 1 to 6 consumed more high-protein pellet than calves offered CM + S [73 vs. 42% of DM intake (DMI)] and, consequently, more CP (168 vs. 117 g/d). Solid feed DMI and average daily gain were similar between treatments. When offered a single diet in wk 7 to 8, calves offered starter containing soybean meal increased intake to a greater extent than calves offered the starter containing canola meal. In experiment 2, calves preferred the SB mix to CM mix (preference ratio: 0.7). Calves consumed more CP than predicted from SB mix in wk 4 and 6 (108 ± 2.0%), indicating that they were sorting in favor of SB. In contrast, calves consumed less CP than predicted from CM mix in wk 4 (81.48 ± 4.1%), indicating that they were sorting against CM. When assigned to choice treatments in wk 7 to 8 of experiment 2, calves offered SB + S consumed more protein pellet than calves offered CM + S (81 vs. 31% DMI) and consumed more CP (378 vs. 196 g/d). Average daily gain was greater for calves offered SB + S but DMI was similar. Overall, these results suggest that dietary selection was influenced by innate feed preferences, and milk-fed calves may not be sensitive to protein imbalances in their diet.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207