Effects of Twice-Daily Nursing on Milk Ejection and Milk Yield During Nursing and Milking in Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Milk production and hormonal responses to milking in Holstein cows that were milked twice daily, and that either also nursed calves twice daily 2 h after milking for 9 wk after calving (n = 10) or that served as nonnursing controls (n = 8) were examined to assess how nursing affected responses to machine milking. Milk yield at milking during the 9 wk of nursing was lower in nursing cows compared with control cows (26.1 +/- 1.0 vs. 35.5 +/- 1.1 kg) that were only machine milked. During nursing, the amount drunk by calves increased from 6.5 +/- 0.7 kg/d on wk 1 to 12.5 +/- 1.4 kg/d on wk 9. When this was added to the amount of milk obtained at milking, nursing cows did not differ from control cows in total milk produced (35.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 35.5 +/- 1.0 kg). Residual milk yield, after i.v. injection of oxytocin after milking, was higher in nursing cows than in control cows (8.7 +/- 0.8 vs. 3.2 +/- 0.8 kg). During the 6 wk after weaning, milk production was the same for the nursing and control cows (34.0 +/- 1.35 vs. 34.7 +/- 1.42 kg). Plasma oxytocin levels during milking were greater for control cows than for nursing cows (31.7 +/- 5.4 vs. 18.0 +/- 2.8 pg/mL), but were equivalent to concentrations in nursing cows during nursing (35.5 +/- 7.5 pg/mL). Plasma concentrations of prolactin and cortisol increased after both milking (control vs. nursing: prolactin: 40.2 +/- 6.8 vs. 32.9 +/- 6.1 ng/mL; cortisol: 6.4 +/- 1.23 vs. 7.4 +/- 1.10 ng/mL) and nursing (control vs. nursing: prolactin: 18.6 +/- 7.3 vs. 38.9 +/- 6.6 ng/mL; cortisol: 2.34 +/- 1.15 vs. 7.37 +/- 1.04 ng/mL). In contrast to previous studies, there was no obvious advantage for milk production by keeping a calf with the cow. This appears to result from the reduced oxytocin secretion during milking for the nursing cows.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".