Relationship among performance, carcass, and feed efficiency characteristics, and their ability to predict economic value in the feedlot1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 4-yr study was conducted using 736 steers of known Angus, Simmental, or Simmental × Angus genetics to determine performance, carcass, and feed efficiency factors that explained variation in economic performance. Steers were pen fed and individual DMI was recorded using a GrowSafe automated feeding system (GrowSafe Systems Ltd., Airdrie, Alberta, Canada). Steers consumed a similar diet and received similar management each year. The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine current economic value of feed efficiency and 2) identify performance, carcass, and feed efficiency characteristics that predict: carcass value, profit, cost of gain, and feed costs. Economic data used were from 2011 values. Feed efficiency values investigated were: feed conversion ratio (FCR; feed to gain), residual feed intake (RFI), residual BW gain (RG), and residual intake and BW gain (RIG). Dependent variables were carcass value ($/steer), profit ($/steer), feed costs ($/steer • d(-1)), and cost of gain ($/kg). Independent variables were year, DMI, ADG, HCW, LM area, marbling, yield grade, dam breed, and sire breed. A 10% improvement in RG (P < 0.05) yielded the lowest cost of gain at $0.09/kg and highest carcass value at $17.92/steer. Carcass value increased (P < 0.05) as feed efficiency improved for FCR, RG, and RIG. Profit increased with a 10% improvement in feed efficiency (P < 0.05) with FCR at $34.65/steer, RG at $31.21/steer, RIG at $21.66/steer, and RFI at $11.47/steer. The carcass value prediction model explained 96% of the variation among carcasses and included HCW, marbling score, and yield grade. Average daily gain, marbling score, yield grade, DMI, HCW, and year born constituted 81% of the variation for prediction of profit. Eighty-five percent of the variation in cost of gain was explained by ADG, DMI, HCW, and year. Prediction equations were developed that excluded ADG and DMI, and included feed efficiency values. Using these equations, cost of gain was explained primarily by FCR (R(2) = 0.71). Seventy-three percent of profitability was explained, with 55% being accounted for by RG and marbling. These prediction equations represent the relative importance of factors contributing to economic success in feedlot cattle based on current prices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".