MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296920014 · doi:10.2527/jas.2014-8863

The effect of restricted milk feeding through conventional or step-down methods with or without forage provision in starter feed on performance of Holstein bull calves1

2015· article· en· W2296920014 on OpenAlexaff
D. Daneshvar, M. Khorvash, E. Ghasemi, Amir Hossein Mahdavi, Behzad Moshiri, M. Mirzaei, Adel Pezeshki, Morteza Hosseini Ghaffari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersIsfahan University of Technology
KeywordsStarterForageAnimal scienceFood scienceBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the current study was to examine whether step-down (STP) milk feeding method together with forage provision would improve performance, rumen fermentation, nutrient digestibility, blood metabolites, and structural growth of calves. Holstein bull calves ( = 40) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments in a completely randomized design with a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement. Treatments were 1) conventional (COV) milk feeding without forage provision (COV-NF), 2) COV milk feeding with forage provision, 3) STP milk feeding without forage provision, and 4) STP milk feeding with forage provision. Calves in the COV method ( = 20) received 5.5 L/d milk until d 56 of age followed by 2 L/d milk from d 56 to 59 of age. Calves in the STP method ( = 20) received 7 L/d milk until d 35, 4 L/d milk from d 35 to 48, and 2 L/d milk from d 50 to 59 of age. All the calves received the starter ration from d 3 of the study until d 74 of age. Forage-supplemented calves ( = 10/milk feeding method) received 15% alfalfa hay mixed with finely ground starter as a total mixed ration. All calves were weaned on d 60 of age and remained in the study until d 74. Regardless of the milk feeding method, the final BW (92.54 vs. 83.14 kg/d), starter intake (0.90 vs. 0.65 kg/d), total DMI (1.43 vs. 1.17 kg/d), and ADG (0.73 vs. 0.60 kg/d) were greater ( < 0.01) in forage-supplemented calves than those that received no forage during the preweaning, postweaning, and overall periods. Milk feeding method had no effect on ruminal pH, total VFA, acetate, or acetate:propionate ratio as well as body measurements. Ruminal pH and the molar proportions of acetate were greater ( < 0.05) in the forage-supplemented calves than those that received no forage during the pre- and postweaning periods. Regardless of forage provision, STP methods increased ( < 0.05) the postweaning numbers of monocytes and lymphocytes. Overall, there was no interaction between milk feeding methods and forage provision with respect to BW, DMI, G:F, apparent nutrient digestibility (DM, OM, and CP), and body measurements. The interaction of milk feeding method and forage provision was significant for the rumen concentration of butyrate ( < 0.05), with the highest concentration for the COV-NF treatment on d 35 of the study. In conclusion, independent of the milk feeding method, inclusion of 15% alfalfa hay in starter diets enhances the performance of dairy calves.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations50
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207