Association between residual feed intake and enteric methane emissions in Hereford steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to quantify the emissions of enteric CH4 from growing Hereford steers raised under feedlot conditions based on contrasting levels of residual feed intake (RFI). A repeated measurements experiment was conducted over 20 d to determine CH4 production from two groups of nine Hereford steers, with contrasting RFI values (mean ± SD): low RFI (LRFI group; −0.78 ± 0.22 kg DMI/d) vs. high RFI (HRFI group; 0.83 ± 0.34 kg DMI/d). Steers were selected from a larger contemporary population in which the RFI was evaluated. Steers were maintained under confined conditions with ad libitum access to water and feed, comprising a total mixed ration of 55% sorghum silage, 21% barley silage, 21% corn grain, and 3% protein–mineral–vitamin–premix, provided twice a day. Before the beginning of CH4 measurements, the live weight of both groups of animals was determined, which on average (±SEM) was 357.0 ± 5.11 and 334.0 ± 10.17 kg in the LRFI and HRFI groups, respectively. Methane emission (g/d) was measured on each animal with the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique, during two consecutive periods of 5 d. Individual daily intake and feeding behavior characteristics were measured using a GrowSafe automated feeding system (Model 6000, GrowSafe Systems Ltd, Airdrie, Alberta, Canada). Methanogens in the ruminal content were quantified using quantitative polymerase chain reaction with primers targeting the mcrA gene. Methane emission was near 27% lower in animals with LRFI when expressed in absolute terms (g/d; 26.8%; P = 0.009), by unit of dry matter intake (g CH4/kg; 27.9%, P = 0.021), or as % of gross energy intake (26.7%; P = 0.027). These differences could not be explained by differences in amount of total of methanogens (average = 9.82 log10 units; P = 0.857). However, there were some differences in animal feeding behavior that could explain these differences (e.g., LRFI animals tended to spend less time in feeders). Our results suggest that, in Hereford steers, the selection by RFI values is a promising mitigation strategy for the reduction of the emission of enteric CH4.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".