MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937777479 · doi:10.3168/jds.2018-15830

Automatic weaning based on individual solid feed intake: Effects on behavior and performance of dairy calves

2019· article· en· W2937777479 on OpenAlexaff
Juliana Bernardes Benetton, Heather W. Neave, J.H.C. Costa, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, Daniel M. Weary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersZoetis
KeywordsStarterWeaningAnimal scienceWhole milkBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calves are typically weaned from milk to solids once they reach a predetermined age or when they are consuming a predetermined intake of solids. The first aim of this study was to compare feeding behavior and performance of calves weaned based on age versus starter intake. The latter method can result in considerable variation in the age at which calves are weaned, so a secondary aim was to compare calves that weaned early or late when weaned based on starter intake. In experiment 1, dairy calves were randomly assigned to be either (1) weaned by age at d 70 (n = 16), or (2) weaned by intake, where calves were weaned based on starter intake (n = 16). All calves were fed using an automatic milk feeder and offered 12 L/d of milk until 30 d of age. On d 31, all calves had their milk rations reduced. Calves weaned by age were reduced to 6 L/d of milk over 5 d and received 6 L/d milk from d 35 until d 63, when milk was reduced over 7 d until complete weaning at d 70. For calves weaned by intake, the milk ration was reduced on d 31 to 75% of that calf's previous milk intake (3-d average) and further reduced by 25% when the calf met each of 3 targets for starter intake: 225, 675, and 1,300 g/d. Calves that failed to reach the final target by d 63 (failed-intake group; n = 6) were weaned over 7 d to complete weaning at d 70. Ten calves met all 3 starter intake targets (successful-intake group). In experiment 2, all calves were assigned to the weaned-by-intake treatment (n = 48). The weaning strategy was identical to that described for experiment 1, but calves were permitted up to d 84 to reach the final starter intake target. Forty-three calves met all 3 targets and were retrospectively divided into early-weaning (weaned before d 63; n = 31) and late-weaning (weaned on or after d 63; n = 12) categories. In both experiments, the weaning period was considered from the time of initial milk reduction at d 31 until complete weaning at d 70 (weaned by age) or when consuming 1,300 g/d (weaned by intake). Postweaning growth was monitored from weaning until final weight in the calf-rearing period at d 98 (experiment 1) and d 105 (experiment 2). Final weight in the grower period was measured at d 134 (experiment 1) and d 145 (experiment 2). In experiment 1, successful-intake calves (vs. calves weaned by age) consumed 125.3 ± 16.4 L less milk and 41.3 ± 9.3 kg more starter over the experimental period, engaged in more unrewarded visits to the milk feeder during weaning (11.1 ± 1.5 vs. 5.0 ± 1.3 visits/d), and achieved similar weights at the end of the grower period (188.2 ± 6.6 vs. 195.2 ± 5.7 kg). In experiment 2, calves that weaned by intake early (vs. late) consumed 93.3 ± 26.0 L less milk and 57.2 ± 12.2 kg more starter, engaged in a similar number of unrewarded visits during weaning (7.0 ± 0.6 vs. 7.6 ± 1.0 visits/d), had greater average daily gain during weaning (1.08 ± 0.02 vs. 0.94 ± 0.03 kg/d), and achieved greater final weights at the end of the grower period (203.2 ± 2.9 vs. 192.6 ± 4.2 kg). These results indicate that calves weaned based on starter intake can achieve similar weights to those weaned by age, despite consuming less milk. However, some calves will fail to meet starter intake targets unless given sufficient time to do so. Variation in preweaning feed intake provides an opportunity for individualized management of 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations48
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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