MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977004682 · doi:10.2527/jas.2006-767

Genetic and phenotypic relationships of feed intake and measures of efficiency with growth and carcass merit of beef cattle1

2007· article· en· W1977004682 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2007
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
KeywordsResidual feed intakeSireBiologyBeef cattleAnimal scienceFeed conversion ratioBiotechnologyBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feed intake and efficiency of growth are economically important traits of beef cattle. This study determined the relationships of daily DMI, feed:gain ratio [F:G, which is the reciprocal of the efficiency of gain (G:F) and therefore increases as the efficiency of gain decreases and vice versa, residual feed intake (RFI), and partial efficiency of growth (efficiency of ADG, PEG) with growth and carcass merit of beef cattle. Residual feed intake was calculated from phenotypic regression (RFIp) or genetic regression (RFIg) of ADG and metabolic BW on DMI. An F1 half-sib pedigree file containing 28 sires, 321 dams, and 464 progeny produced from crosses between Alberta Hybrid cows and Angus, Charolais, or Alberta Hybrid bulls was used. Families averaged 20 progeny per sire (range = 3 to 56). Performance, ultrasound, and DMI data was available on all progeny, of which 381 had carcass data. Phenotypic and genetic parameters were obtained using SAS and ASREML software, respectively. Differences in RFIp and RFIg, respectively, between the most and least efficient steers (i.e., steers with the lowest PEG) were 5.59 and 6.84 kg of DM/d. Heritabilities for DMI, F:G, PEG, RFIp, and RFIg were 0.54 +/- 0.15, 0.41 +/- 0.15, 0.56 +/- 0.16, 0.21 +/- 0.12, and 0.42 +/- 0.15, respectively. The genetic (r = 0.92) and phenotypic (r = 0.97) correlations between RFIp and RFIg indicated that the 2 indices are very similar. Both indices of RFI were favorably correlated phenotypically (P < 0.001) and genetically with DMI, F:G, and PEG. Residual feed intake was tendentiously genetically correlated with ADG (r = 0.46 +/- 0.45) and metabolic BW (r = 0.27 +/- 0.33), albeit with high SE. Genetically, RFIg was independent of ADG and BW but showed a phenotypic correlation with ADG (r = -0.21; P < 0.05). Daily DMI was correlated genetically (r = 0.28) and phenotypically (r = 0.30) with F:G. Both DMI and F:G were strongly correlated with ADG (r > 0.50), but only DMI had strong genetic (r = 0.87 +/- 0.10) and phenotypic (r = 0.65) correlations with metabolic BW. Generally, the phenotypic and genetic correlations of RFI with carcass merit were not different from zero, except genetic correlations of RFI with ultrasound and carcass LM area and carcass lean yield and phenotypic correlations of RFI with backfat thickness (P < 0.01). Daily DMI had moderate to high phenotypic (P < 0.01) and genetic correlations with all the ultrasound and carcass traits. Depending on how RFI technology is applied, adjustment for body composition in addition to growth may be required to minimize the potential for correlated responses to selection in cattle.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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