Effect of post-weaning residual feed intake classification on grazed grass intake and performance in pregnant beef heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manafiazar, G., Basarab, J. A., Baron, V. S., McKeown, L., Doce, R. R., Swift, M., Undi, M., Wittenberg, K. and Ominski, K. 2015. Effect of post-weaning residual feed intake classification on grazed grass intake and performance in pregnant beef heifers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 369–381. There is limited knowledge of how cattle tested for feed efficiency under drylot conditions perform when they graze on summer pasture. Residual feed intake adjusted for end of test backfat thickness (RFI fat ) was determined on 171 beef crossbred heifers under drylot conditions over 2 yr using an automated system. Upon completion of the test, the 10 lowest and 10 highest RFI fat (–0.54±0.17 vs. 0.58±0.15 kg DM d −1 ) heifers in 2012, and the 14 lowest and 14 highest RFI fat (−0.47±0.16 vs. 0.53±0.19 kg DM d −1 ) heifers in 2013 were selected and placed on meadow bromegrass pasture to investigate the effect of RFI fat ranking on their grass intake and performance on the pasture. The pasture adaptation period (8 d in 2012 and 19 d in 2013) was followed by a pasture feed intake experiment during which heifers were dosed twice daily (0815 and 1415) with 500 g of C 32 -labeled feed pellet for 13 d (day 0 to 12) and fecal sampled twice daily (0815 and 1415) from day 8 to 12. Forage DM intake on pasture for each heifer was determined using the double alkane (C 31 /C 32 ) methodology. High and low RFI fat heifers were similar in body weight (BW), backfat and rump fat thickness, and average daily gain (ADG) during the grazing trial period, except backfat thickness at the end of test period. However, low RFI fat heifers consumed 5.3% less forage when expressed as kg DM d −1 (8.20±0.08 vs. 8.66±0.09, P<0.001) and 5.1% less when expressed as a percentage of body weight (1.86±0.02 vs. 1.96±0.02% of BW, P<0.001) compared with high RFI fat heifers. RFI fat measured under drylot conditions in growing heifers was positively correlated to grazed RFI fat determined in pregnant heifers (r p =0.30, P=0.04). These results suggest that beef heifers classified as low RFI fat during the post-weaning drylot period had lower dry matter intake as heifers in their first pregnancy grazing tame pasture, with no negative impact on their body weight, back-fat thickness, and ADG compared with their high RFI fat herdmates.
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".