0076 Effect of social feeding environment on the feeding behavior of dairy cows and their willingness to consume a novel feed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social contact may improve the willingness of dairy cattle to consume a novel feed. To test the impact of social contact while feeding and the reaction of mature cows toward a novel feed, we compared (1) animals fed individually (Single) and (2) cows fed in side-by-side in social pairs (Pairs). It was hypothesized that animals feeding beside each other would show similar behavioral patterns to each other, and a greater willingness to consume a novel feed product compared with those fed individually. Twelve Holstein cows (parity = 3.3 ± 1.3; mean ± SD) were assigned to four groups of three animals (each with two cows fed beside each other in adjacent feed bins and 1 fed alone on her own feed bin). Two feed types were offered separately: a familiar food made up of a total mixed ration (TMR) and an unfamiliar 5 kg of chopped carrots topped with 6 kg of TMR (as-fed). Each group was observed for 10 d, each consisting of 3 periods: (1) 4 d of adaptation (only TMR); (2) d 5 to 7 the carrots were introduced to the Single cow and to 1 of the 2 cows eating in Pairs; and (3) from d 8 to 10, all three cows were fed carrots and TMR. Dry matter intake (DMI), feeding behavior, rumination time, and sorting activity were monitored for each animal. Cow behavior was observed for an hour after each feed delivery. Data were summarized by cow and period and analyzed in a repeated measures general linear mixed model. No differences in DMI of TMR (27.1 kg/d) or carrots (0.09 kg/d) and feeding time (193.9 min/d) were found between any animal eating as a Single or in Pairs. However, the DMI of carrots increased from Period 2 to Period 3 (0.04 to 0.12 kg/d; P = 0.03). In Period 2, Paired animals (typically heifers or younger animals feeding socially) ate faster than the other cows (0.19 vs. 0.13 and 0.12 kg DM/min; P = 0.05). In period 2, Paired cows tended to select more for medium particles (106 vs. 102% of predicted intake; P = 0.08) and sorted to a greater extent against short (97 vs. 99%; P = 0.02) and fine fractions (89 vs. 97 and 96%; P = 0.05). Overall, the intake of carrots was very low in all treatments; however, animals consumed more carrots in the third period. These results suggest that the acceptance of novel food might increase with the length of exposure. It is also concluded that animals showed similar feeding behavioral patterns regardless of feeding situation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".