MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011080425 · doi:10.2527/jas.2009-2514

Feed efficiency differences and reranking in beef steers fed grower and finisher diets1

2010· article· en· W2011080425 on OpenAlexaff
Obioha N Durunna, Fidalis D. N. Mujibi, L. A. Goonewardene, E. K. Okine, J. A. Basarab, Z. Wang, S. S. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeedlotAnimal scienceResidual feed intakeFeed conversion ratioBiologyBeef cattleTotal mixed rationAnimal feedBody weightLactation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This 3-yr study used 490 steers to determine whether feedlot steers changed their feed efficiency (FE) ranking when fed a grower diet, then a finisher diet. The steers were crossbreds and were between 5 to 7 mo of age. There were 2 feeding periods each year. Within each year, approximately 90 steers had their diet switched from a grower to a finisher diet (feed-swap group), whereas another 90 steers were fed either the grower (grower-fed group) or the finisher (finisher-fed group) diet throughout the feeding trial. Each feeding test lasted for a minimum of 10 wk, and all steers were fed ad libitum. Individual animal feed intakes were collected using the GrowSafe feeding system, and BW were measured every 2 wk. Residual feed intake (RFI), G:F, and Kleiber ratio (KR) were computed at the end of each feeding period. For each measure of efficiency, animals were classified as low, medium, or high based on 0.5 SD from the mean. The majority of steers did not maintain the previous efficiency class in the second period. Approximately 58, 51, and 51% of steers in the feed-swap group, finisher-fed group, and the grower-fed group, respectively, changed their RFI measure by 0.5 SD. A low rank correlation occurred in all test groups but was less in the feed-swap group. Spearman rank correlations between the 2 feeding periods in the feed-swap group were 0.33, 0.20, and 0.31 for RFI, G:F, and KR, respectively. Classifications based on G:F and KR showed that a greater number of steers (P < 0.05) in the feed-swap group did not maintain their FE class from 1 feeding regimen to the other, whereas classification based on RFI did not show any difference (P > 0.05) between the proportions of individuals that changed or maintained their FE class. In the groups without a feed-swap, there was no difference (P > 0.05) in the proportion of steers that changed or maintained the same FE class for all FE measures. Our results suggest that diet type and feeding period affect the FE ranking in beef steers. A feedlot diet is ideal for evaluating the FE potential of steers for feedlot profitability; however, we suggest that tests involving less dense diets should be examined in an effort to understand the relationships between FE and feeder profitability.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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

Citations144
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207