Effects of Continuous Versus Periodic Milk Availability on Behavior and Performance of Dairy Calves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dairy calves fed milk ad libitum engage in feeding activity throughout the day and night. However, providing calves with continuous access to milk can present practical problems with milk quality, particularly during warm weather. One way to maintain milk quality in ad libitum feeding regimens is to limit the time that milk is available, but no research to date has addressed how this might affect calves. The objectives of this study were to quantify the effects of continuous access to milk (24 h/d) vs. access during only part of the day on milk feeding behavior and performance. Twenty-eight female Holstein calves were randomly assigned to treatments at 5 +/- 3 d of age and monitored for 28 d. All calves had milk delivered through a teat. Treatments were 1) access to milk for 24 h/d; 2) access to milk for 2 feedings per day (each of 2 h), with water available through the teat the remainder of the day (4-h wet treatment); and, 3) access to milk for 2 feedings per day (each of 2 h), but with no water available through the teat (4-h dry treatment). Calves given 24-h access to milk consumed 11.2 +/- 0.5 kg/d on average. Milk intake tended to be lower for the 4-h wet and 4-h dry treatments, averaging 10.0 +/- 0.3 kg/d, with no difference between these 2 treatments in this or any other variable. Average daily gain over the course of the experiment did not vary with treatment and averaged 1.1 +/- 0.04 kg/d. Calves in the 24-h treatment spent more time on the teat than those calves on the 4-h treatments, but during the 4 h/d when milk was available to all calves, calves in the 4-h treatments spent more time on the teat. These results show that individually housed calves fed milk ad libitum for only 4 h/d compensate by changing their milk feeding behavior and are able to achieve similar weight gains to animals fed milk continuously.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".