Residual feed intake adjusted for backfat thickness and feeding frequency is independent of fertility in beef heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basarab, J. A., Colazo, M. G., Ambrose, D. J., Novak, S., McCartney, D. and Baron, V. S. 2011. Residual feed intake adjusted for backfat thickness and feeding frequency is independent of fertility in beef heifers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 573–584. This study examined the effects of residual feed intake (RFI), RFI adjusted for off-test backfat thickness (RFI fat ) and RFI adjusted for off-test backfat thickness and feeding event frequency (RFI fat & activity ) on heifer fertility and productivity. Beef heifers (n=190) were monitored for individual daily feed intake and feeding event activity over 108–112 d using the GrowSafe System® and assessed for age at puberty based on plasma progesterone concentration. Individual animal daily feed intake, feeding event activity and off-test backfat thickness were then used to calculate RFI, RFI fat and RFI fat & activity and group heifers as either negative ([−], RFI<0.0) or positive ([+], RFI≥0.0) for RFI. Heifers averaged 298 kg (SD=34) in body weight, were 276 days of age (SD=19) at the start of test, grew at 0.90 kg d −1 (SD=0.21), consumed 7.62 kg DM head −1 d −1 (SD=0.84) and had a feed conversion ratio of 8.93 (SD=2.43). Age (351 d, SD=43) and weight (367.3 kg, SD=45.0) at puberty were similar between [−] and [+] RFI heifers, but age at puberty was delayed in [−] RFI fat (P=0.04) and RFI fat & activity (P=0.08) heifers compared with [+] RFI fat and RFI fat & activity heifers. Efficient or [−] RFI heifer exhibited a lower pregnancy (76.84 vs. 86.32%, P=0.09) and calving rate (72.63 vs. 84.21%, P=0.05) compared with [+] RFI heifers. These differences were partially removed in [−] RFI fat and completely removed in [−] RFI fat & activity compared with their [+] RFI counterparts (pregnancy rate, 80.85 vs. 82.29%, P=0.80; calving rate, 75.53 vs. 81.25%, P=0.34). No differences were observed between efficient and inefficient heifers in calving difficulty, average calving date, age at first calving, calf birth weight, calf pre-weaning ADG, calf weaning weight and heifer productivity. However, [+] RFI heifers exhibited a 1.9-fold higher calf death loss compared with [−] RFI heifers (11.11% vs. 5.71%, P=0.24). This difference was more pronounced in [+] RFI fat and [+] RFI fat & activity heifers, which exhibited 2.2-fold (11.84% vs. 5.33%, P=0.15) and 3.0-fold (12.66% vs. 4.17%, P=0.06) higher calf death loss compared with [−] RFI heifers. There was no relationship of RFI adjusted for backfat thickness and feeding activity on fertility traits indicating that backfat thickness and feeding activity may be associated with feed intake and should be considered when selecting heifers for improved feed 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".