MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209100685 · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21018

Effect of a milk byproduct–based calf starter feed on dairy calf nutrient consumption, rumen development, and performance when fed different milk levels

2021· article· en· W3209100685 on OpenAlexafffund
S.D. Parsons, M.A. Steele, K.E. Leslie, D.L. Renaud, Cassandra N. Reedman, Charlotte B. Winder, T.J. DeVries

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsStarterRumenFood scienceNutrientAnimal scienceDairy cattleConsumption (sociology)BiologyChemistryBiotechnologyFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of a milk byproduct-based starter pellet, high in lactose, on feed intakes, growth, and rumen development when calves were fed either a high or low level of milk. This was done by using a 2 × 2 factorial design, with 120 Holstein heifer calves randomly assigned to 1 of 2 milk treatments and 1 of 2 feed treatments upon enrollment at birth. Calves were either assigned to a low (LM) or high (HM) level of milk replacer by an automated milk-feeding system for individually-housed calves. The LM treatment calves were offered 6 L/d (150 g/L; 1.2 L, 5×/d), whereas HM treatment calves were offered 15 L/d (150 g/L; 3 L, 5×/d) of milk replacer. Calves were also assigned to a milk byproduct- (whey) based starter feed treatment (WF), or a grain-based starter ration (95% concentrate starter pellet, 5% chopped wheat straw) feed treatment (GF). All calves were offered their treatment feed starting on d 5, with water offered ad libitum from d 0. The WF treatment calves were offered 150 g/d of the milk byproduct-based pellet until they consumed the entirety for 2 out of 3 consecutive days. At this point, WF treatment calves received 150 g of the milk byproduct-based pellet top dressed onto the grain-based ration to allow for ad libitum feed consumption until weaned, when they only received the grain-based ration postweaning (d 64-77). Calves on the GF feed treatment received only the grain-based ration. All calves were gradually weaned from d 43 to 63. By design, calves on the HM treatment consumed greater levels of milk than LM treatment calves for the majority of the days in the preweaning phase (8.9 ± 0.11 vs. 5.5 ± 0.11 L/d; SE). Calves on the GF and WF treatments consumed similar amounts of milk in the preweaning phase (7.2 ± 0.11 vs. 7.2 ± 0.11 L/d); however, there was a milk and feed treatment interaction detected for milk consumption in the weaning phase, with HM-GF calves drinking more milk than the other treatments and HM-WF calves drinking more milk than both LM-GF and LM-WF calves. The WF treatment calves had greater solid feed intake during the preweaning phase than GF treatment calves, with no feed intake differences in the weaning or postweaning phases. The WF calves drank more water in the preweaning phase than GF calves. Average daily gain was similar throughout the study between the GF and WF treatment calves. Rumen physiological measures were all similar by the end of the trial (d 77) regardless of feed or milk treatment, suggesting similar rumen development postweaning. Overall, regardless of the level of milk fed, offering the milk byproduct-based starter pellet may increase preweaning feed intake, along with water consumption. However, both feed and milk treatments had similar performance and rumen development measures by the end of the trial.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207