354 Effect of Finishing System on Growth, Efficiency, and Carcass Quality of Dairy × Beef Hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our objective was to determine how calf-fed or yearling finishing systems affect the performance and efficiency of dairy-beef crossbred steers. Dairy-beef hybrid steers were acquired from Land O’ Lakes Calf Milk Research Facility at Grey Summit, Missouri at 12-wk (BW /SD) of age and transported to Willard Sparks Beef Research Center (WSBRC). Upon arrival at WSBRC, steers were weighed, vaccinated, treated for parasites, and implanted with 36 mg of zeranol (Ralgro). Alternating groups of steers were placed either directly on finishing diets (FIN) or on high-quality pasture and supplementation for 5 to 6 mo before returning to WSBRC for finishing (GRW/FIN). Steers in FIN were grown on successively higher energy growing diets through d 112, stepping up to a 20% roughage growing diet from d 28 to 112. On d 112, FIN steers were transitioned to a 12% roughage finishing diet. A final 8% roughage finishing was fed to FIN steers from d 224 to slaughter. Steers in FIN were reimplanted with Ralgro on d 56, Component TE-IS (80 mg trenbolone acetate, 16 mg estradiol, and 29 mg tylosin tartrate; Elanco US, Greenfield, IN) on d 112, and Component TE-S (200 mg progesterone, 20 mg estradiol benzoate, 29 mg tylosin tartrate; Elanco) on d 224. Steers in GRW/FIN were returned to WSBRC, weighed, and processed when they reached 312 ± 7.0 kg. Steers in GRW/FIN were implanted with Component TE-IS at the start of finishing, and Component TE-S on d 120. Steers in GRW/FIN were stepped up to the finishing diet when they reached 407 ± 6.0 kg. Finishing diets for the final 28 d for FIN and GRW/FIN included ractopamine hydrochloride at a rate of 300 mg·steer-1·d-1. At WSBRC, steers within each finishing system were sorted by BW into 4 to 5 head pens. Initial and terminal BW were greater (P < 0.01) in steers in the GRW/FIN finishing system. Body weight at reimplant was greater (P < 0.01) for FIN. Steers in the GRW/FIN system were on feed for fewer (P < 0.01) days compared with FIN steers. Average daily gain (ADG) and DMI (kg·steer-1·d-1) were greater (P < 0.01) for GRW/FIN. Steers in GRW/FIN had a greater (P < 0.02) feed:gain ratio than those placed directly into a finishing system. There were no differences (P < 0.10) in USDA Yield Grade, marbling, ribeye area (REA), or back-fat thickness (BFT) between finishing systems. Steers in FIN had a greater (P < 0.01) dressing percentage (DP) and lighter (P < 0.01) hot carcass weight than those for GRW/FIN. Finishing system has an impact on performance and efficiency of dairy-beef hybrid steers, but minimal impact on carcass quality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".