Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30689895›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2019

Effect of milk feeding strategy and lactic acid probiotics on growth and behavior of dairy calves fed using an automated feeding system1.

Melissa C Cantor, Amy L Stanton, David K Combs, Joao H C Costa

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Parenteral Antimicrobial Treatment Diminishes FecalFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa C CantorDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Amy L StantonNext Generation Dairy Consulting, Ilderton, Ontario, Canada.
David K CombsDepartment of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Joao H C CostaDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
University of Kentucky · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automated milk feeders offer flexibility to feed calves high milk allowances, to change the daily quantity of milk offered, and also to dispense additives like probiotics on an individual basis. Our objectives were to test the effects of 2 milk feeding protocols and a lactic acid bacterium probiotic on performance and behavior in calves. Heifer dairy calves (n = 96) were enrolled at birth in a 2 × 2 factorial study design comparing feeding (1) 2 milk feeding protocols and (2) a lactic acid bacterium-based probiotic program, or a placebo, using automated milk feeders. The early milk feeding strategy (EM) offered a maximum of 11 L/d on day 1 and a peak maximum allowance of 15 L/d on day 21. The late milk feeding strategy (LM) offered a maximum of 7 L/d on day 1 and increased slowly to its peak at 13 L/d on day 28. Both feeding strategies gradually weaned the calves after peak milk allowance until complete weaning at day 53, offering a total of 543 liters of milk. Probiotics or placebo were fed orally in a gel once after colostrum, and twice daily in the milk until weaning. Water and calf starter were provided ad libitum. The experimental period was divided into 3 periods: from day 1 on the automated feeder to day 28 (Period 1), from day 29 to day 53 (Period 2), and the week post-weaning (Period 3). For Period 1, the average daily gain (ADG) of the probiotic group was greater than that of the placebo group (0.84 ± 0.10 kg/d vs. 0.74 ± 0.10 kg/d, respectively), but was not different between milk feeding strategies. For Period 2, ADG was not affected by probiotic or milk feeding strategies. For Period 3, ADG was greater for EM compared to LM (1.27 ± 0.10 kg/d vs. 1.02 ± 0.10 kg/d, respectively), but not between probiotic and placebo groups. During the whole experimental period, LM calves consumed significantly more milk than the EM calves (431.84 ± 33.0 liters vs. 378.64 ± 34.2 liters, respectively). During Period 3, probiotics affected the frequency of visits to the calf starter feed bunk (37.72 ± 2.8 vs. 23.27 ± 2.8 visits per day for probiotic and placebo groups, respectively), but did not affect total time spent at the feed bunk. The supplementation of a lactic acid-based probiotic improved ADG during early life and altered some aspects of the feeding behavior of dairy calves. Calves receiving an early accelerated milk allowance had improved growth during post-weaning and consumed less milk in total, which may indicate better use of solid feed.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsFeeding BehaviorAnimalsBody WeightCattleColostrumDietFemaleLactic AcidMilkPregnancyProbioticsWeaningWeight GainLactic Acidaccelerated feeding programanimal welfaregroup-housing nutritionprobiotic

Identifiers

PMID30689895
PMCPMC6396247
OpenAlexW2913624226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.