Follicular Dynamics in Heifers during Pre‐pubertal and Pubertal Period Kept under Two Levels of Dietary Energy Intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to characterize follicular dynamics in pre-pubertal, pubertal and post-pubertal periods, as well as the effect of high-energy intake on follicular development and age at puberty in heifers. Thirty-one Nelore (Bos indicus) heifers, 6 months old, were randomly assigned to receive two different diets: one of low (GI) and other of high dietary energy intake (GII). Animals were evaluated in relation to body weight gain by being weighed every 21 days. Heifers were evaluated every other day by real-time linear ultrasonography to characterize ovarian structures development from weaning to post-pubertal period. Blood samples were collected to determine plasmatic concentrations of progesterone by RIA method. The ovulation was determined when progesterone concentrations were >1 ng/mL in three consecutive samples, and by ultrasound images of corpus luteum; and oestrous behaviour in some animals. Age at puberty differed among heifers of GII (17.00 +/- 0.46 months) compared with heifers of GI (19.87 +/- 0.47 months; p < or = 0.05). Maximum size of the dominant follicles at pre-pubertal period was greater in GII heifers than in GI (10.52 +/- 0.33 and 9.76 +/- 0.15 mm, respectively; p < or = 0.05). As heifers approached first ovulation time, size of dominant follicle increased (11.75 +/- 0.37 mm for GI and 12.52 +/- 0.91 mm for GII; p < or = 0.05). Body weight at puberty was not different in both groups (302.33 +/- 27.31 kg for GI and 326.19 +/- 27.78 kg for GII heifers; p > 0.05). We conclude that animals receiving high dietary energy intake attained the puberty earlier and the development of follicles were different than in low dietary energy intake.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".