MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018350463 · doi:10.2527/jas.2013-7225

Effect of beef heifer development system on average daily gain, reproduction, and adaptation to corn residue during first pregnancy1

2014· article· en· W2018350463 on OpenAlexaff
Adam F. Summers, Stetson P. Weber, H.A. Lardner, R. N. Funston

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceGrazingResidue (chemistry)BiologyBeef cattleArtificial inseminationAgronomyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postweaning heifer development systems were evaluated at 2 locations in a 4-yr study for their effect on performance and subsequent adaptation to grazing corn residue as a pregnant heifer. In Exp. 1, heifers were blocked by BW and randomly assigned to graze winter range (WR) or graze winter range and corn residue (CR). In Exp. 2, heifers were assigned to graze winter range and corn residue (CR) or graze winter range and placed in a drylot (DL). Artificial insemination and natural mating were used at breeding on the basis of location. In Exp. 1, heifers developed on corn residue tended (P = 0.11) to have reduced ADG compared with WR heifers. Subsequently, BW at the end of the 82-d corn residue grazing period tended (P = 0.09) to be lower for CR compared with WR heifers. However, the proportion of heifers attaining puberty before the breeding season and pregnancy rates were similar (P ≥ 0.29) for CR and WR heifers. Developing heifers on winter range tended (P = 0.09) to reduce heifer development costs $36/pregnant heifer compared with CR heifers. In Exp. 2, DL heifers had greater (P < 0.01) overall ADG during development compared with CR heifers, resulting in greater (P < 0.01) prebreeding BW for DL heifers compared with CR heifers (355 vs. 322 ± 9 kg). At pregnancy diagnosis BW remained greater (P = 0.02) for DL compared with CR heifers (423 vs. 406 ± 7 kg). Corn-residue-developed heifers had increased (P = 0.03) AI conception rates compared with DL heifers (78% vs. 67% ± 6%). However, there was no difference (P ≥ 0.21) in percent pubertal before the breeding season or final pregnancy rates for CR and DL heifers. Developing heifers on corn residue reduced (P = 0.02) heifer development costs $38/pregnant heifer compared with DL-developed heifers. A subset of pregnant heifers from both experiments grazed corn residue fields in late gestation. As pregnant heifers grazing corn residue, WR heifers (Exp. 1) tended to have reduced ADG compared with CR heifers (0.34 vs. 0.43 ± 0.08 kg/d, P = 0.07). Furthermore, in Exp. 2 CR heifers had greater (0.41 vs. 0.30 ± 0.22 kg/d) ADG grazing corn residue as pregnant heifers compared with DL-developed heifers. Calving date, dystocia score, and calf birth BW were similar (P ≥ 0.15) between development systems in both experiments. There appears to be a potential learned grazing behavior for heifers developed on corn residue allowing them to better adapt to grazing corn residue as pregnant heifers compared with WR and DL heifers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207