Effects of raising lambs in a cold or a warm environment on animal performance and carcass traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 2 x 2 x 2 factorial arrangement was conducted over two consecutive winters to compare growth and carcass traits of ram and ewe lambs in a cold or warm environment (noninsulated, unheated vs. an insulated and heated barn with minimum inside temperature (T) between 5 and 10°C). Each winter, 14 pairs of lambs of each sex were randomly allocated to either a cold or warm environment (average weight of 23.8 kg ± 0.6 and 22.4 kg ± 2.0 in 2003 and 2004, respectively). They were fed hay and concentrate ad libitum until they reached 42 to 48 kg body weight (BW) when they were slaughtered. Carcass traits were then evaluated. The average temperature in the cold environment was -7.49 and -4.74°C in 2003 and 2004, respectively, vs. +6.25 and +10.50°C, respectively, in the warm environment. There were no differences (P > 0.05) in growth performance and carcass traits between lambs raised in a cold or a warm environment. However, there was a tendency for lambs raised in a cold environment to have higher average daily gain (ADG) (P = 0.06) and to take less time to market (P = 0.09). Results suggest that it is possible to raise lambs in a cold environment without having any detrimental effect on performance and carcass quality. Key words: Lamb, environment, cold, performance, growth, carcass
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".