The effect of feed efficiency classification on visceral organ mass in finishing steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual feed intake of crossbred beef steers (one contemporary group/year, 2 years) was recorded during finishing to investigate visceral organ mass in steers divergent for feed efficiency. Based on residual feed intake (RFI), the 20% most efficient (HE, n = 8/year) and 20% least efficient (LE; n = 8/year) steers with 12th rib fat ≥1.02 cm were slaughtered. High efficiency steers had less DM intake ( P < 0.001), greater G:F ( P < 0.001), and similar ADG and hot carcass weight (HCW). High efficiency steers tended to have less ( P ≤ 0.10) small intestinal mass (actual and relative to BW and HCW) in year 1. In year 2, HE steers tended to have greater ( P ≤ 0.10) large intestinal actual and relative masses. Low efficiency steers tended to have greater ( P = 0.06) actual omasum mass and had greater ( P ≤ 0.03) relative omasum masses compared with HE. Stomach complex, total gastrointestinal tract, liver, and kidney masses tended to be greater ( P ≤ 0.10) relative to BW, and were greater ( P ≤ 0.05) relative to HCW, in LE. Data suggest that visceral organ mass, especially of the gastrointestinal tract, plays a role in overall metabolic efficiency of finishing steers.
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 | 0.001 | 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".