Performance by feedlot steers and heifers: Daily gain, mature body weight, dry matter intake, and dietary energetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance, DMI, diet composition, and slaughter data from 9,683 pens of steers and 5,009 pens of heifers that were fed high-concentrate diets for 90 d or more were obtained from 15 feedlots from the western United States and Canada. The data set included pen means for more than 3.1 million cattle fed between 1998 and 2004. Performance measurements assessed included ADG, DMI, dietary NE, shrunk initial weight (SIW), and shrunk final weight. Mature final weight (MFW) for cattle in each pen was estimated based on regression of slaughter weight against SIW and ADG across all pens. Equations were developed to standardize performance projections (ADG, MFW, and break-even values) and analyze feedlot cattle close-outs. Generally, as diet NE concentration increased, DMI was decreased but G:F, dressing percentage, and yield grade all increased. Pens of cattle with greater SIW had greater ADG, DMI, and shrunk final weight but a lower G:F and dressing percentage. Dressing percentage and yield grade were correlated positively. Equations of the NRC relating gain to NE intake explained 85 and 80% of the variation in DMI of steers and heifers, respectively, with mean ratios of predicted to observed DMI (DMIratio) at 1.000 +/- 0.0506 and 0.974 +/- 0.0490. However, a significant (P < 0.001) bias in the NRC estimate of DMI was detected (r(2) = 0.10 and 0.05, for steers and heifers) between the DMIratio and ADG in which DMIratio increased as ADG increased. This was due to inherent confounding of ADG and MFW in the original NE equation of Lofgreen and Garrett. Based on iterative optimization to minimize the difference between expected and observed DMI, revised equations for retained energy (RE, Mcal/kg) were developed for steers and for heifers: RE(steer) = 0.0606 x (LW x 478/MFW(steer))(0.75)ADG(0.905); RE(heifer) = 0.0618 x (LW x 478/MFW(heifer))(0.75)ADG(0.905), where LW = mean shrunk live weight. The revised equations decreased the SD of the DMIratio by 5.4% (from 0.0496 to 0.0469) and eliminated the bias in DMIratio that was related to ADG (r(2) = 0.0006). The similarity between the 2 equations derived for steers and for heifers for estimation of RE from ADG supports the concept that scaling by MFW accounts for energy utilization differences between sexes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".