MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095231833 · doi:10.4141/cjas07026

Relationships between progeny residual feed intake and dam productivity traits

2007· article· en· W2095231833 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidual feed intakeAnimal scienceBiologyIce calvingWeaningFeed conversion ratioProductivityBody weightLactationPregnancyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two hundred and twenty-two yearling calves and their dams were used to examine the phenotypic (r p ) relationships between progeny residual feed intake (RFI) and maternal productivity across 10 production cycles. Progeny RFI ranged from -3.95 to +2.72 kg as fed d -1 (SD = 0.94), while RFI adjusted for off-test backfat thickness (RFI adj ), ranged from -2.48 to +1.53 kg as fed d -1 (SD = 0.88). Progeny RFI and RFI adj were unrelated to on-test age, body weight, growth rate, and ultrasound longissimus thoracis area and positively related to feed intake (r p = 0.51 to 0.53; P < 0.001), feed to gain ratio (r p = 0.44 to 0.46; P < 0.001), feeding behaviour traits (r p = 0.29 to 0.36; P < 0.001) and cow RFI (r p = 0.30, P < 0.05). Progeny RFI was positively related to measures of body fat (r p = 0.21 to 0.27; P < 0.05), but these relationships disappeared when RFI was adjusted for off-test backfat thickness. Cows that had produced LOW (≤ 0.5 SD), MEDIUM (± 0.5 SD) or HIGH (≥ 0.5 SD) RFI adj progeny were similar in pregnancy (95.6 vs. 95.3 vs. 96.0%, P = 0.90), calving (84.9 vs. 83.4 vs. 86.3%, P = 0.62) and weaning (81.5 vs. 80.2 vs. 82.3%, P = 0.79) rates. However, cows that produced HIGH RFI adj progeny had a higher twinning rate (3.77 vs. 0.35 vs. 0.00%, P < 0.001) and an increased calf death loss (8.06 vs. 4.24 vs. 4.02%, P = 0.10) compared with cows that produced MEDIUM or LOW RFI adj progeny. Cow body weight over 10 production cycles was similar at weaning, pre-calving and pre-breeding for dams that had produced LOW, MEDIUM and HIGH RFI adj progeny, and dams that produced LOW RFI adj progeny consistently averaged 2–3 mm more back fat thickness than dams that produced HIGH RFI adj progeny. Calf birth weight, pre-weaning ADG and 200-d weight, and cow production efficiency and calving interval were similar among dams that produced LOW, MEDIUM and HIGH RFI adj progeny. In addition, dams that produced LOW RFI adj progeny consumed less feed during their second trimester of pregnancy (10.9 vs. 11.6 vs. 12.2 kg DM d -1 , P < 0.05), had lower RFI values (-0.05 vs. 0.44 vs. 1.88 kg as fed d -1 , P = 0.018) and calved later in the year (96 vs. 90 vs. 91 d Julian, P < 0.001) than dams that produced MEDIUM and HIGH RFI adj progeny. These results showed that efficient RFI progeny and dams consumed less feed, had improved feed to gain ratio and spent less time in feed activity than inefficient cows and calves. In addition, cows that produced efficient calves were fatter, had fewer twins, less calf death loss and produced the same weight of calf weaned per cow exposed to breeding compared with cows that produced inefficient progeny. However, cows that produced efficient or low RFI progeny calved 5–6 d later in the year than cows that produced inefficient or high RFI progeny, indicating a need to monitor reproductive fitness in low RFI replacement heifers and breeding bulls. Key words: Residual feed intake, cow reproduction, lifetime production efficiency

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.227 · 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