MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563520597 · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11983

Feed sorting in dairy cattle: Causes, consequences, and management

2016· review· en· W2563520597 on OpenAlexafffund
E.K. Miller-Cushon, T.J. DeVries

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsForageSortingBiologyDry matterAnimal scienceDairy cattleWeaningAgronomyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dairy cattle commonly sort total mixed rations, a behavior that influences individual nutrient intake and reduces the nutritive value of the ration left in the bunk across the day. Typical patterns of feed sorting in lactating dairy cows, against longer forage particles, result in greater intake of highly-fermentable carbohydrates and lesser intake of effective fiber than intended, and are associated with reduced rumen pH and altered milk composition. To understand the reason for this behavior and reduce it on-farm, numerous studies have explored the influences of ration characteristics, feeding strategies, and management factors on the expression of feed sorting. In mature cows and young calves, feed sorting is influenced by forage inclusion rate, particle size, and dry matter content. Feeding strategies that increase the time available to manipulate feed-including decreased feeding frequency and increased feeding level-may result in increased feed sorting. The extent of feed sorting is also influenced by a variety of herd-level factors, but variability between individuals in the extent of feed sorting suggests that this behavior may be subject to additional factors, including previous experience and internal state. The development of feed sorting in young calves has been explored in several recent studies, suggesting that early opportunities to sort feed, as provided by access to mixed diets, may encourage the early onset of this behavior and help it persist beyond weaning. Evidence also supports the role of feedback mechanisms that influence this behavior at the individual level. In calves and adult cows, selective consumption of higher-energy ration components may be linked to energy demands, as influenced by the availability of supplemental feed or changing metabolic status. Further, considerable evidence suggests that cattle will adjust patterns of feed sorting in favor of physically effective fiber to attenuate low rumen pH, providing evidence for the role of postingestive feedback in feed sorting. In general, as long as cattle are provided with mixed diets that satisfy the average nutrient requirements of the group, feed sorting needs to be reduced, either through direct management or by discouraging the early development of the behavior. However, feed sorting may be functional in some scenarios, and continued research is needed to understand the feedback mechanisms that influence feed selection and sorting in young calves, replacement heifers, and mature cows.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations150
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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