153 Phenotypic Selection of Efficient Beef Cows and Differences in Digestive Physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated beef cows identified as having high or low efficiency when managed in extensive systems and whether they differ in terms of digestive physiology. Nine high (HE) and low efficiency (LE) cows were selected from a group of 86 Angus cows using 2 years of selection data. Yearly ranks were assessed based on three weighted criteria: cow rump fat at calving; calving interval; and calf weaning weight. The 18 cows were then ruminally cannulated and used to evaluate their response to high (HQ; 41.0±0.78% NDF), medium-high (MHQ; 56.9±1.17% NDF), moderate (MQ; 62.5±3.40% NDF), and low-quality forage (LQ; 64.3±1.40% NDF) diets using four consecutive 26-d periods where diet quality progressively decreased by period for all cows. There was no phenotype′diet interactions. Start and end BW were 48 and 45 kg less (P< 0.01) and rump fat was thicker for HE than LE cows (P=0.02). Although total DMI did not differ (13.0 kg/d; P=0.93), DMI (%BW) was greater for HE (2.12%) than LE (1.97%, P< 0.01). Ruminal pH, short-chain fatty acid concentration, and the molar proportion of acetate, butyrate, and propionate did not differ. Ruminal digesta weight was 4 kg greater (P=0.04) and the pool sizes of DM (P=0.01), NDF (P=0.03) and undigested NDF (P< 0.01) were greater for LE than HE. Ruminal NDF passage rate was greater for HE than LE cows (3.11 vs. 2.89%/h, P=0.05), but there were no differences for the rate of NDF digestion. Ruminal contraction amplitude (P=0.01) and peak area (P< 0.01) were higher for LE than HE cows. Apparent total tract nutrient digestibility did not differ (P≥0.23). Cows identified as being efficient under an extensive management system have greater DMI as a proportion of BW, less ruminal digesta weight, and greater NDF passage rate but did not differ for total tract digestibility.
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) | 0.001 | 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".