MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787543324 · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13934

Feed intake and behavior of dairy goats when offered an elevated feed bunk

2018· article· en· W2787543324 on OpenAlexaff
Heather W. Neave, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, Daniel M. Weary, Gosia Zobel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceSilageForagingFeeding behaviorBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Goats are browsers and select vegetation at various heights when foraging. On commercial farms, dairy goats are typically fed from low-level feed bunks. The objective of this study was to determine how feed intake and feeding behavior vary when goats are offered feed at variable heights, with the potential of evaluating the benefits of offering an elevated feeder to dairy goats. Thirteen Saanen X dairy goats were housed in a home pen with a lying area of wood shavings, where they were pre-exposed for 24 d to 3 feeder heights designed to result in differences in head height while feeding: floor level (head lowered relative to body), head level (head level relative to body), and elevated level (head and neck angled upward). Nine groups of 3 goats each were randomly selected and housed for 24 h in a test pen identical to the home pen except that it contained 1 of each of the 3 feeder heights. Each feeder contained ad libitum chopped alfalfa silage and a top-dressed corn-based supplement, refreshed twice daily. Refusals from inside and under each feeder were weighed to calculate intake. Feed intake increased with increasing feeder height (mean ± SE; 0.18, 0.29, and 0.34 ± 0.04 kg of DM/goat for floor-level, head-level, and elevated-level feeders, respectively). Total feeding time did not vary with feeder height, but feeding rate tended to be faster at the elevated-level feeder (14.5 ± 2.1 g of DM/min) compared with head-level (9.2 ± 2.3 g of DM/min) and floor-level (8.9 ± 2.1 g of DM/min) feeders. Goats visited the floor-level feeder (36.4 ± 8.4 visits/goat) less than the head-level (79.4 ± 8.4 visits/goat) and elevated-level (74.8 ± 8.4 visits/goat) feeders. The number of displacements per minute of feeding time (physical removal of another goat from the feeding place) was greater at the elevated-level feeder (0.46 ± 0.06 displacements/min) compared with the floor-level feeder (0.23 ± 0.06 displacements/min) and tended to differ from the head-level feeder (0.27 ± 0.06 displacements/min). We conclude that goats eat more from an elevated feeder and compete more to access this feeder.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207