Phenotypic and genetic relationships among feeding behavior traits, feed intake, and residual feed intake in steers fed grower and finisher diets1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from a 3-yr feeding trial of crossbred steers (n = 331) were used to examine the relationship between feeding behavior traits and feed efficiency in steers fed grower and finisher diets, successively. There were 2 feeding periods each year whereby the steers were fed a grower diet in the first feeding period (P1) and a finisher diet in the second feeding period (P2). Each feeding period lasted for a minimum of 10 wk, ad libitum. In addition to feed intake, records on 3 measures of feeding behavior [feeding duration (FD), head-down time (HDT), and feeding frequency (FF)] were collected using the GrowSafe feeding system. Residual feed intake (RFI) was calculated by regression, after which the steers were classified as low (<0.5 SD), medium (±0.5 SD), or high (>0.5 SD) from the mean. The steers had greater (P < 0.001) FD, HDT, and FF when the grower diet was fed but greater feeding rate (FR) when the finisher diet was fed. Including the measures of feeding behavior as covariates to the feed intake prediction model containing ADG, metabolic midweight, and ultrasound backfat accounted for more variation in DMI than models that did not contain these additional parameters. The FD and HDT were significantly different (P < 0.05) among the RFI classes regardless of the feeding period, whereas no differences (P > 0.90) were found for FR among the RFI classes. For the growing period and finishing period, respectively, FD had phenotypic correlations with HDT (0.79, 0.83), FF (0.14, 0.55), DMI (0.38, 0.34), and FR (-0.34, -0.21). Heritability estimates in P1 and P2 for FD, HDT, and FF were 0.25 ± 0.16, 0.14 ± 0.11; 0.14 ± 0.15, 0.09 ± 0.10; and 0.56 ± 0.19, 0.59 ± 0.18, respectively. Genetic correlations between P1 and P2 were 0.91 ± 0.26, 0.93 ± 0.37, and 0.94 ± 0.11 for FD, HDT, and FF, respectively. The results suggest that it may be appropriate to include feeding behavior traits as covariates to indicate measure(s) of animal activity in the calculation of RFI. Feeding behavior phenotypes were greater during the grower-fed period than the finisher-fed period. During these feeding periods, efficient steers exhibited fewer FF, shorter FD, and shorter HDT than inefficient steers.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".