An Evaluation of Two Indirect Methods of Estimating Body Weight in Holstein Calves and Heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring the growth of replacement heifers is a useful management tool to assist producers in achieving a reasonable goal for age at first calving. Standard growth curves have been established, and heart girth tapes are widely available to estimate body weight (BW). Probably the easiest, and undoubtedly the most accurate, means of determining the actual BW of heifers is by using a calibrated electronic scale. However, if an electronic scale is not available, indirect methods of BW estimation are required. The hipometer is a new indirect tool that uses the external width between the greater trochanters of the left and right femurs to estimate BW. The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate the hipometer and the heart girth tape to estimate the BW of Holstein heifers, as compared with their actual weight recorded by an electronic scale. A total of 311 Holstein heifers in 4 research herds, ranging in age from 1 wk old to immediately prior to calving (24 mo), were used in this comparison. The mean BW of all heifers was 261 +/- 124 kg. The Pearson values of the correlation between the scale and hipometer weights, and the scale and tape weights were 0.92 and 0.94, respectively. The concordance correlations of scale weight with hipometer and tape weights were 0.98 and 0.99, respectively. The agreement among the 3 methods, as assessed by the kappa statistic, was substantial for heifers aged 3 to 15 mo. However, poor to no agreement was observed in heifers younger than 3 mo, as well as at 15 mo of age or greater (kappa 0 to 0.18). This is of particular concern because these groups represent the age when dairy heifers would be weaned (< 3 mo) and the age when breeding would normally commence (> 15 mo). We concluded that the hipometer is an easy and useful alternative method of estimating the BW of Holstein heifers, particularly in heifers aged 3 to 15 mo.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".