Impacts of residual feed intake and pre-natal diet on reproductive potential of bulls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to determine effects of genetic potential for residual feed intake (RFI) and pre-natal diet on post-natal growth and reproductive development of bulls. Twenty-five bull calves with a divergent potential for RFI were produced by mating purebred Angus heifers (60) categorised as high or low RFI and inseminated with semen from high or low RFI bulls. From 30 to 150 days of gestation, half the heifers (balanced for RFI across treatments) in each RFI category were fed to gain 0.7 or 0.5 kg/day (~100% and 75% of recommended feed intake; designated normal- and low-diet, respectively). Birthweights of bull calves (n = 25) did not differ significantly among treatment groups (P = 0.1). However, there was a tendency (P < 0.1) for a maternal diet * time interaction for bull weights, with bulls from low pre-natal diet fed heifers growing faster between 10 and 16 months of age than bulls from normal pre-natal diet fed heifers. Furthermore, high-RFI bulls had a larger scrotal circumference (P < 0.01) and attained puberty (P < 0.05) earlier than low-RFI bulls. Other testes measures, including paired testes volume, epididymal sperm reserves, daily sperm production and total sperm production, were not significantly different among treatment groups (P = 0.1). High RFI bulls tended (P < 0.1) to have better average sperm motility than low RFI bulls. However, sperm morphology, viability and chromatin damage were not different (P = 0.1). In summary, young beef bulls with low RFI had smaller testis, delayed onset of puberty (~1.7 months) and tended to exhibit lower progressive motility compared with high RFI bulls. Pre-natal diet had no direct influence on male reproductive development, nor did it interact with RFI of bulls.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".