Effect of frequency of feed delivery on the feeding behaviour, growth, and rumen temperature of limit-fed dairy heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greter, A. M., AlZahal, O., Duffield, T. F., McBride, W. B., Widowski, T. M. and DeVries, T. J. 2014. Effect of frequency of feed delivery on the feeding behaviour, growth, and rumen temperature of limit-fed dairy heifers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 11–20. The objective of this experiment was to determine the effect that frequency of provision of feed, provided in a restricted amount, had on feeding and lying behaviour, growth, and rumen temperature of growing dairy heifers. Twenty-four Holstein heifers (178.2±9.3 d of age; mean±SD), divided into six groups of four, were assigned to each of three treatments using a 3×3 Latin square design with 28-d periods (21-d adaptation, 7-d data collection). Treatments were delivery of daily allotment of total mixed ration (fed at 2.0% of body weight): (1) once per day (1×; 0800), (2) twice per day (2×; 0800 and 1600), and (3) four times per day (4×; 0800, 1200, 1600, and 2000). Average daily gain (ADG) was similar across treatments (0.8 kg d−1). There was a tendency for within-pen variation of ADG (average, per pen, of the absolute difference between individual heifer ADG and pen mean ADG) to be greater with 4× (0.3 kg d−1) and 2× (0.3 kg d−1) compared with 1× (0.2 kg d−1). Both feeding (63.1 vs. 44.2 vs. 51.5 min d−1) and unrewarded (presence at the feed bunk when no feed was present; 49.5 vs. 27.7 vs. 33.1 min d−1) time at the feed bunk decreased with increasing frequency of feed delivery (1×, 2×, and 4×, respectively). Frequency of displacements (3.1 displacements d−1) and number of displacements per unit of feeding time (0.06 displacements min−1) were similar between treatments. Lying time was similar between treatments (802.5 min d−1), while there was an increase in the amount of time spent standing without eating as frequency of feed delivery increased (558.9 vs. 590.0 vs. 604.7 min d−1for 1×, 2×, and 4×, respectively). Thus, feeding 1× d−1may prove beneficial for limit-fed heifers as it increases the time spent feeding, and decreases time spent standing without eating and within-pen variation in ADG.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".