Lying behaviour and IgG-levels of newborn calves after feeding colostrum via tube and nipple bottle feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oesophageal tube feeding colostrum is used to ensure sufficient colostrum intake in newborn calves but the impact of tube feeding on animal behaviour is unclear. Therefore the objective of this study was to compare lying behaviour of tube-fed or bottle-fed dairy calves. Calves (n = 37) in 3 groups were offered 3·5 l colostrum 2 h after birth. Calves of the bottle group were fed with a nipple bottle. Calves of the placebo tubing group were tubed for 4 min but no colostrum was given and they were then fed with a nipple bottle. Calves of the tubing group received 3·5 l colostrum via tube feeding. Consumed amount of bottle and placebo tubing calves was recorded. If they refused some of the offered 3·5 l the rest was offered in a second feeding 2 h later. Lying behaviour was measured by data loggers fitted to right hind leg for 3 d. Blood samples were taken 24 h after birth for determination of IgG concentration. The voluntary colostrum intake differed significantly between bottle-fed and placebo tubed calves at first feeding. Considering both colostrum feedings, bottle-fed calves consumed 3·44 ± 0·14 l and placebo tubed calves consumed 3·20 ± 0·38 l colostrum. ImmunoglobulinG intake (255·6 ± 77·5 g IgG), serum IgG concentration 24 h after birth (22·8 ± 6·7 g/l) and total serum protein concentration (6·1 ± 0·6 g/dl) did not differ between groups. None of the calves had a failure of passive transfer. There was no effect of tubing on lying behaviour.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".