Evidence of residual feed intake reranking in crossbred replacement heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study was to examine whether residual feed intake (RFI) reranking exists between 2 consecutive periods in replacement heifers fed the same diet. The study collected feed intake and BW data from 190 crossbred heifers over a 3-yr period (61 in 2007, 68 in 2008, and 61 in 2009) during the winter-spring season. The heifers were fed a roughage-based diet (90% barley silage and 10% rolled barley grain) throughout the feeding trial, which was broken down into 2 feeding periods with ADG of 0.94 and 0.90 kg•d(-1) in the first and second periods, respectively. The RFI was calculated for the entire period using different models, which included ADG, mid-metabolic BW, body composition, and feeding activity. Gain:feed ratio and Kleiber ratio were also calculated. Rank correlations among the RFI calculated from different models were obtained, as well as rank correlations between the 2 feeding periods for the feed efficiency measures. Including body composition and feeding activity only improved the R(2) by 1 to 5%. The rank correlations among the different models were high (90 to 95%) for RFI calculated for the entire feeding period. However, the RFI calculated within the second feeding period had greater rank correlation than the RFI calculated from the entire feeding period. Compared with G:F and Kleiber ratio, RFI gave lesser reranking between periods 1 and 2. About 49% of the heifers maintained their RFI class, whereas 51% of the heifers had a different RFI class in period 2. Furthermore, 41% of the heifers changed their RFI in period 2 by <0.5 SD, whereas the rest of the heifers changed by ≥0.5 SD. These results indicate that reranking exists in heifers despite receiving the same diet in the 2 feeding periods and that the reranking may be more serious in heifers (28%) with extreme RFI performances in each period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".