MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000406279 · doi:10.3168/jds.2019-17206

Effects of milk replacer feeding rates on growth performance of Holstein dairy calves to 4 months of age, evaluated via a meta-analytical approach

2020· review· en· W3000406279 on OpenAlexaff
W. Hu, T.M. Hill, T.S. Dennis, F.X. Suárez-Mena, K.M. Aragona, J.D. Quigley, R.L. Schlotterbeck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsCargill (Canada)
FundersCargill
KeywordsStarterDry matterAnimal scienceDairy cattleHayBiologyHolstein CattleForageDigestion (alchemy)Food scienceChemistryAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our objective was to evaluate effects of feeding milk replacer (MR) at 2 feeding rates on digestion, intake, and growth of young dairy calves, via a meta-analytical approach using individual data. A database was developed from 10 published studies from the Nurture Research Center (Provimi; Brookville, OH), in which 26 dietary treatments and 491 calves from 0 to 8 wk of age in 13 nursery trials, and 22 dietary treatments and 485 calves from 8 to 16 wk of age in 13 grower trials occurred. Male Holstein calves (n = 491; initial body weight 42.8 ± 4.9 kg) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments: (1) moderate (MOD), 0.64 to 0.66 kg of dry matter (DM)/d for the first 35 to 39 d, followed by half the allotment per d for 3 to 7 d, fed at the a.m. feeding only; (2) high (HI), 0.92 to 1.07 kg of DM/d for the first 35 to 44 d, followed by half the allotment per d for 5 to 7 d, fed at the a.m. feeding only. Calves were weaned at 6 to 7 wk of age. Milk replacer ranged from 24.8 to 28.6% crude protein (CP) and 17.6 to 20.2% fat; starter ranged from 17.3 to 22.2% CP and 3.0 to 4.3% fat on a DM basis. On d 56 calves (n = 485) moved into pens (4 calves/pen) by treatments and were fed starter (19.4 to 22.3% CP and 3.4 to 4.6% fat, DM basis) blended with 5% hay until d 112. In all nursery trials (d 0 to 56), calves fed MOD had lower average daily gain (ADG; 0.634 vs. 0.545 kg/d), gain/DMI (0.488 vs. 0.466 kg/kg), and hip width change (0.069 vs. 0.064 cm/d), but greater starter intake (0.473 vs. 0.696 kg/d) compared with calves fed HI. Apparent total-tract digestibility of DM (73.3 vs. 78.4%), organic matter (OM; 74.1 vs. 79.0%), CP (74.8 vs. 78.9%), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF; 40.8 vs. 53.9%) were greater for calves fed MOD vs. HI when estimated during wk 8. In all grower trials (d 56 to 112), ADG (1.015 vs. 0.976 kg/d), gain/DMI (0.375 vs. 0.349 kg/kg), and hip width change (0.089 vs. 0.081 cm/d) were greater, but dry feed intake per kg of BW 0.75 did not differ (87.8 vs. 88.2 g/d) for calves previously fed MOD vs. HI. Apparent digestibility of DM (78.7 vs. 76.0%), OM (79.8 vs. 77.0%), CP (80.5 vs. 78.4%), and NDF (54.8 vs. 45.8%) were greater for calves fed MOD vs. HI when estimated between wk 11 to 13. Over the entire 112-d period, calves fed MOD had lower ADG (0.805 vs. 0.784 kg/d) but tended to have greater hip width change (8.415 vs. 8.589 cm) compared with calves fed HI. Under the conditions of this study, feeding higher MR rates caused calves to partially lose growth advantage during the weaning transition and further decreased BW gain and structural growth in the grower period (d 56 to 112), which could be due to reductions in nutrient digestibility as a result of feeding more MR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.015
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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