MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402042106 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae236

Behavioral activity patterns but not hair cortisol concentrations explain steers’ transition-related stress in the first 6 wk in the feedlot

2024· article· en· W4402042106 on OpenAlexafffund
Sanjaya Mijar, Frank van der Meer, Abigail Hodder, Ed Pajor, Karin Orsel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of CalgaryBeef Cattle Research Council
KeywordsFeedlotAnimal scienceEndocrinologyBiologyInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress during the transition of beef steers from ranch to feedlot may depend on steer source and preconditioning. The interplay between physiological and behavioral patterns of preconditioned (PC) and auction-derived (AD) steers, particularly after commingling, is poorly understood. Our objective was to evaluate whether hair cortisol (HC) concentrations were related to the health and performance of PC and AD steers and study behavioral activities after commingling over 6 wk in a feedlot. Steers, sourced either from ranch (PC, n = 250) or local auction (AD, n = 250), were assigned into 1 of 5 pens, 100% PC (100PC); 75% PC 25% AD (75PC); 50% PC 50% AD (50PC); 25% PC 75% AD (25PC), and 100% AD (0PC), each pen containing 100 steers. Pen was the experimental unit and individual steers were the observational unit where physiological and behavioral changes were measured. The study subsampled 225 steers (PC = 113 and AD = 112) which were equipped with CowManager ear tags to record behaviors. On day 40, hair samples from each steer were collected by clipping hair close to the skin. Data were analyzed using multiple linear, logistic regression, or multilevel negative binomial regression models depending on the outcomes. There was no difference in HC concentrations (day 40) between PC and AD steers (P = 0.66), and no association with Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD)-related morbidity (P = 0.08) or average daily gain (ADG) (P = 0.44). After adjusting for source and commingling effects, HC concentrations did not affect time spent eating (P = 0.83), ruminating (P = 0.20), active (P = 0.89), or non-active (P = 0.32). PC steers spent more time eating and ruminating over weeks 1 to 4 (P < 0.01) and weeks 1 to 3, respectively (P < 0.05), and more time being active over weeks 1 and 2 compared to AD steers (P < 0.001), but less time being non-active than AD steers on weeks 1 to 3 (P < 0.001). Steers in 100PC and 50PC pens spent more time eating than steers in 0PC (P < 0.001), whereas steers in 25PC spent less time eating than steers in 0PC (P < 0.001). Steers in 0PC spent the most time being not active (P < 0.01). In conclusion, preconditioned steers spent more time eating, ruminating, and being active and less time being not active over the first 3 wk in the feedlot, regardless of commingling. The HC concentrations did not identify potentially lower stress related to ranch transfer and were neither associated with BRD-related morbidity nor ADG.

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207