MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1548396909 · doi:10.2527/2004.8282451x

Different measures of energetic efficiency and their phenotypic relationships with growth, feed intake, and ultrasound and carcass merit in hybrid cattle1

2004· article· en· W1548396909 on OpenAlexaff
J. D. Nkrumah, J. A. Basarab, M. A. Price, E. K. Okine, Ayman Ammoura, S. Guercio, C. Hansen, C. Li, B. Benkel, Brenda M. Murdoch, S. S. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeed conversion ratioAnimal scienceBiologyBiotechnologyBody weightEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residual feed intake (RFI) has been proposed as an index for determining beef cattle energetic efficiency. Although the relationship of RFI with feed conversion ratio (FCR) is well established, little is known about how RFI compares to other measures of efficiency. This study examined the phenotypic relationships among different measures of energetic efficiency with growth, feed intake, and ultrasound and carcass merit of hybrid cattle (n = 150). Dry matter intake, ME intake (MEI), ADG, metabolic weight (MWT), and FCR during the test averaged 10.29 kg/d (SD = 1.62), 1,185.45 kJ/(kg0.75 x d) (SD = 114.69), 1.42 kg/d (SD = 0.25), 86.67 kg0.75 (SD = 10.21), and 7.27 kg of DM/kg of gain (SD = 1.00), respectively. Residual feed intake averaged 0.00 kg/d and ranged from -2.25 kg/d (most efficient) to 2.61 kg/d (least efficient). Dry matter intake (r = 0.75), MEI (r = 0.83), and FCR (r = 0.62) were correlated with RFI (P < 0.001) and were higher for animals with high (>0.5 SD) RFI vs. those with medium (+/-0.5 SD) or low (<0.5 SD) RFI (P < 0.001). Partial efficiency of growth (PEG; energetic efficiency for ADG) was correlated with RFI (r = -0.89, P < 0.001) and was lower (P < 0.001) for high- vs. medium- or low-RFI animals. However, RFI was not related to ADG (r = -0.03), MWT (r = -0.02), relative growth rate (RGR; growth relative to instantaneous body size; r = -0.04), or Kleiber ratio (KR; ADG per unit of MWT; r = -0.004). Also, DMI was correlated (P < 0.01) with ADG (r = 0.66), MWT (r = 0.49), FCR (r = 0.49), PEG (r = -0.52), RGR (r = 0.18), and KR (r = 0.36). Additionally, FCR was correlated (P < 0.001) with ADG (r = -0.63), PEG (r = -0.83), RGR (r = -0.75), and KR (r = -0.73), but not with MWT (r = 0.07). Correlations of measures of efficiency with ultrasound or carcass traits generally were not different from zero except for correlations of RFI, FCR, and PEG, respectively, with backfat gain (r = 0.30, 0.20, and -0.30), ultrasound backfat (r = 0.19, 0.21, and -0.25), grade fat (r = 0.25, 0.19, and -0.27), lean meat yield (r = -0.22, -0.18, and 0.24), and yield grade (r = 0.28, 0.24, and -0.25). These phenotypic relationships indicate that, compared with other measures of energetic efficiency, RFI should have a greater potential to improve overall production efficiency and PEG above maintenance, and lead to minimal correlated changes in carcass merit without altering the growth and body size of different animals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations213
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207