MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W21558075 · doi:10.2527/2002.80102574x

Does nutritive and non-nutritive sucking reduce other oral behaviors and stimulate rest in calves?

2002· article· en· W21558075 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Veissier, A.M. de Passillé, Gérard Desprès, J. Rushen, I. Charpentier, Antonio Rafael Ramírez de la Fe, Philippe Pradel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMealLickingAnimal scienceRuminationNasal dischargeMedicineBiologyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After a milk meal, bucket-fed calves show non-nutritive oral activities, including cross-sucking, and this can discourage producers from rearing them in groups. Sucking is known to induce a quiet state in humans and rats. We examined if nutritive sucking affects non-nutritive oral activities in calves, if it reduces arousal (assessed through behavior and cardiac activity), and if sucking a dry teat can compensate for the lack of nutritive sucking. In Exp. 1, the behavior and the cardiac activity of individually housed calves fed milk from a bucket were compared to those of calves fed milk through a teat. During the meal, the heart rate of bucket-fed calves was higher than that of teat-fed calves (P < 0.0001). After the meal, only bucket-fed calves displayed bar sucking. Compared to the teat-fed calves, they spent more time licking their pen or their neighbor (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05), their heart rate was less variable (P < 0.01), and they lay down with the head unsupported by the neck less quickly (latency to lie down: 51 min vs 42 min, P < 0.05). In Exp. 2, individually-housed bucket-fed and teat-fed calves were observed with or without access to a non-nutritive teat after the meal. Bucket-fed calves sucked the dry teat for longer than teat-fed calves (P < 0.001). In bucket-fed calves, access to the dry teat reduced the time spent nibbling (P < 0.01) and tended to shorten the latency to lie down (P < 0.10). In Exp. 3, group-housed bucket-fed calves were compared with group-housed calves fed with an automatic teat feeder system. Bucket-fed calves spent more time nibbling at 1 mo, but at 3 mo they spent less time nibbling and cross-sucking; they drank more milk and put on more weight. We conclude that, for calves housed individually, teat-feeding reduces non-nutritive oral activities after the meal and induces a calmer state than bucket-feeding. Providing calves with a dry teat partly compensates for the lack of nutritive sucking. For calves housed in groups, the use of an automatic teat feeder may not reduce calves' motivation for sucking. No improvement of growth was observed with teat-feeding either with a teat-bucket or with an automatic feeder.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations55
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207