MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385892268 · doi:10.3390/grasses2030014

Beef Cattle Grazing Native Grasslands May Follow Three Different Supplement Response Patterns

2023· article· en· W4385892268 on OpenAlexaff
Fiorella Cazzuli, Martí­n Durante, Andrés Hirigoyen, Javier Sánchez, Pablo Rovira, Virginia Beretta, Álvaro Simeone, Martín Jaurena, Jean Víctor Savian, D. P. Poppi, F. Montossi, Ximena Lagomarsino, Santiago Luzardo, G. Brito, J. Velazco, Fernando Alfredo Lattanzi, Carolina Bremm

Bibliographic record

VenueGrasses · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersInstituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria, UruguayUniversidad de la República UruguayInstituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria
KeywordsGrazingDry matterAnimal scienceForageBeef cattleBiologyMathematicsAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies on winter supplementation of growing cattle grazing stockpiled native Campos grasslands suggest that forage allowance (FA), herbage mass, and weather conditions before and during the supplementation period could all affect supplement feed efficiency (SFE)—that is, the difference or change in average daily gain (ADG) between supplemented (S) and control (C) animals (ADGchng, kg) per unit (kg) of supplement dry matter (DM) intake. In this study, we analyse data from fifteen collated winter supplementation trials carried out in Uruguay between 2004 and 2018. The working hypotheses of this research paper were: (i) that average substitution rates are positive, and (ii) that ADGchng is not constant throughout the supplementation period and that its variation may be attributed to sward, animal or weather variables. There were two main objectives: (i) to estimate the average supplement substitution rate (sSbR, kg forage, f, dry matter, DM intake reduction: kg supplement DM intake) and potential herbage intake substitution rate (hSbR, kg fDM intake reduction: kg fDM intake of control animals), and its association with SFE, and, (ii) to assess the existence of different phases and supplementation response patterns and its association with other relevant variables. Estimated substitution rates were always positive (sSbR = 0.3–1.1 kg/kg; hSbR = 0.1–0.3 kg/kg) and were negatively and moderately associated with SFE. Supplementation proved to be a dynamic process where three possible supplementation responses over the supplementation period were identified (linear, quadratic and Weibull). While linear patterns did not appear distinctly associated with any particular set of variables, quadratic models were mostly associated with herbage biomass and substitution rates, whereas Weibull models were the clearest in their association with frosts. Regardless of the response pattern, at the beginning of the trials it was the animals’ body weight and supplement quality that most influenced supplement response, whereas towards the end, supplementation intake, supplemented animals’ ADG and forage quality played a more relevant role. The estimated parameters and response patterns are expected to be used as inputs in decision support systems for livestock farmers in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGrasses→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→