THE RESULTS OF PUREBRED AND CROSSBRED BEEF CATTLE BREEDING’S IMITATION MODELING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В структуре производства крупного рогатого скота на мясные цели доля продукции от разведения чистопородного и помесного скота составляет около 20%. Цель исследования — определить особенности разведения чистопородного и помесного мясного скота, установить эффективность использования резервов при его разведении на мясные цели с применением инновационных технологий кормления и содержания. Модель воспроизводства стада — 284 (продолжительность стельности — постоянная величина) и 90 (сервис–период — изменяемая величина) — показала, что наиболее близкими к эффективному воспроизводству скота для мясных целей оказались животные мясного направления продуктивности с сезонными отелами. Вопрос влияния других различных элементов технологии выращивания на эффективность разведения чистопородных и помесных животных на откорме изучен недостаточно полно и требует уточнения. Результаты исследований, отражающие различия в технологии выращивания мясного скота, показали, что для определения эффективности разведения крупного рогатого скота различных конституциональных типов был разработан методический подход с математическим и логическим выражением регрессии признаков: f1/f2+m1/m2+g1/g2+(n∑y…u), где переменные g, m, f — математические, а остальные — логические признаки: при использовании резервов выращивания до 18-месячного возраста живая масса бычков черно-пестрой породы достигает 395,4 кг, помесных бычков — 431,5 кг, а абердин ангусских — 600—650 кг. In the cattle production for meat purposes’ structure , the share of products from both purebred and mixed cattle breeding reaches about 20%: for comparison, this figure in the USA and Canada reaches 70-75%, in Australia — 85%, in EU countries — 40—50%. The purpose of the study was the purebred and mixed beef cattle breeding features to determine, and in breeding effectiveness reserves for cattle for meat purposes with innovative technologies using for young animals’ feeding and keeping to establish. The herd reproduction model, which takes the form is: 284 (pregnancy duration — constant value) + 90 (service period — variable value) showed that the animals of the meat production with seasonal calving were the closest to the effective reproduction of livestock for meat purposes. At the same time, the issue of the influence of other various elements of the raising technology of purebred and crossbred animals breeding for fattening’s efficiency has not been studied fully enough and requires clarification. To determine the effectiveness of breeding various types of livestock, a methodological approach was developed, with a mathematical and logical expression of regression features: f1/f2 + m1/m2 +g1/g2 +(n∑y...u), where the variables g, m, f are mathematical, and the rest logical.The research results reflecting differences in the beef cattle raising technology, showed that reserves using for growing up to 18 months of age, black-and-white bulls reach a live weight of 395.4 kg, crossbred bulls — 431.5 kg, and Aberdeen-Angus bulls — 600—650 kg.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".