MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2171748949 · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6625

Growing dairy heifers prefer supplementary long straw when fed a nutrient-dense ration in a limited amount

2013· article· en· W2171748949 on OpenAlexafffund
A.M. Greter, M.K. Prinsen, T.F. Duffield, B.W. McBride, Tina M. Widowski, T.J. DeVries

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsStrawAnimal scienceTotal mixed rationRumenDry matterNutrientBiologyAgronomyFood scienceLactationIce calvingFermentationPregnancyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine whether limit-fed heifers will choose to consume long particles, rather than short, of a low-nutritive feedstuff to ameliorate rumen function and meet foraging needs. Ten Holstein heifers 261.6 ± 39.2 (mean ± SD) d of age were exposed to each of 2 dietary treatments, in a random order, over 2 successive 7-d treatment periods (4-d adaptation period and a 3-d data collection period) using a crossover design. The treatments were (1) a provision of long particle oat straw (85% of particles>8mm; LS) and (2) provision of short particle oat straw (45% of particles >8mm; SS). Both treatments were offered following consumption of a limit-fed, nutrient-dense total mixed ration fed at 2.05% of body weight. Following each 7-d period, heifers were given access to both types of straw during an additional 2-d preference period; individual intakes were recorded daily. Feeding and lying behavior were recorded during the last 3d of each treatment period. Ruminal temperature was recorded during the last 3d of each treatment period using a telemetric acquisition system and rumen boluses. Dry matter intake of both the total mixed ration (6.3 kg/d) and straw (0.36 kg/d) was similar between treatments. Heifers fed LS spent more time feeding (197.7 vs. 175.2 min/d) throughout the day than heifers fed SS due to the increase in time required to consume long particles in the LS (59.8 vs. 34.2 min/d). Daily lying time (974.7 min/d) and time spent standing without eating (278.9 min/d) was similar between treatments. The preference period showed a strong preference ratio for LS rather than SS (preference ratio=0.83), with heifers consuming 0.43 ± 0.2 kg/d of LS and 0.07 ± 0.1 kg/d of SS (mean ± SD). Heifers maintained similar mean (38.3°C), minimum (35.1°C), and maximum (38.9°C) rumen temperature across treatments. The amount of time that rumen temperature was elevated over 38.6°C, 39.0°C, and 39.4°C was similar between treatments. In conclusion, heifers will consume similar amounts of supplementary long or short straw if provided to them alongside of a limit-fed TMR. Limit-fed heifers do, however, show a clear preference for LS when offered the choice, suggesting that they find LS to be more satisfactory for achieving rumen fill or meeting their behavioral foraging needs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→