MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795716078 · doi:10.1093/jas/sky105

Live growth performance, carcass grading characteristics, and harvest yields of beef steers supplemented zilpaterol hydrochloride and offered ad libitum or maintenance energy intake

2018· article· en· W2795716078 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lee-Anne J Walter, A.N. Schmitz, W. T. Nichols, J. P. Hutcheson, T.E. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPharmacological Effects and Assays
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMerck Animal Health
KeywordsAnimal scienceRandomized block designBeef cattleCarcass weightMarbled meatBiologyBody weightAgronomyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A trial was conducted to examine live growth efficiency, harvest yields, and carcass grading performance of steers fed at maintenance (M) or at ad libitum (A) level of intake during zilpaterol hydrochloride (Z) supplementation. Single-sired, beef steers (n = 56; start of trial BW 590 ± 36 kg) blocked (n = 2) by weight and terminal implant were sorted into pairs (n = 14 per block) by weight. Pairs of steers were initially assigned to 0, 28, or 56 d of feeding. Within 28 or 56 d, pairs were assigned to M or A intake. Steers within a pair assigned to 56 d of feeding were randomly assigned to either 20 d of Z supplementation (90 mg/d per steer) with a 4 d withdrawal period prior to slaughter or to no ZH supplementation (C). Steers were housed and fed in individual pens. Weights of all non-carcass and carcass components were recorded at slaughter; carcasses were graded 24-h postmortem. Data were analyzed via a mixed model; the fixed effect was treatment combination with random effects of block and pair. Live growth data used harvest day as the repeated measure and animal as the subject. Single df contrasts were constructed for day 0 vs. day 28, day 0 vs. day 56, day 28 vs. day 56, M vs. A, and C vs. Z. Treatment impacted (P ≤ 0.05) live ADG; contrasts indicated A (1.33) was greater than M (0.14 kg), and Z (1.12) was greater than C (0.82 kg). Similarly, carcass ADG differences (P < 0.01) indicated A (1.04) was greater than M (0.36 kg), and Z (1.35) was greater than C (0.71 kg). Intake level altered BW and empty body weight (EBW); M cattle had reduced BW and EBW (P < 0.01, 585 and 540 kg) than A cattle (647 and 597 kg). Cattle fed at M had less carcass and internal cavity mass (P < 0.01, 359 and 79.4 kg) than A cattle (394 and 93.5 kg). Liver mass was reduced by M feeding (P < 0.01; M-5.03, A-6.69 kg) and Z treatment (P < 0.01; Z-5.64, C-6.06 kg). Moreover, mass of total splanchnic tissue was less (P < 0.01) for M cattle than A cattle (59.8 vs. 72.5 kg). Dressed carcass yield was greater (P < 0.01) for Z than C cattle (63.5 vs. 61.6%). Cattle fed at M had less 12th rib s.c. fat, lower numerical U.S. yield grades (P < 0.01; M-1.71 cm and 3.3, A-2.46 cm and 4.3) and lower numerical Canadian yield grades (P < 0.01; 51.9 vs. 53.9% for M and A, respectively) than A cattle. Results indicate that energy intake level and Z supplementation influence live and carcass growth, carcass transfer, kill yields, and carcass characteristics across time.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicPharmacological Effects and AssaysFrench-language works237,207