MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402533610 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.621

PSIV-8 Effects of feeder lamb receiving protocols on lamb performance, feed efficiency and carcass characteristics as part of a lamb-value discovery program

2024· article· en· W4402533610 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joe B Mills, Dylan M Laverell, Aaron J Kersh, Elisabeth F Dooley, John Derek Scasta, Hannah C Cunningham-Hollinger, Cody Gifford, Whit C Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Animal scienceMathematicsBiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Minimizing interruptions in feed intake during the highly stressful receiving period is critical for lamb performance and animal welfare for lambs arriving from extensively managed operations. The objectives of the study were to evaluate feeder lamb receiving protocols, specifically the effectiveness of hay processing and respiratory vaccine on feed intake, growth performance, feed efficiency and carcass traits on a 107-d feeding trial. Feeder lambs [n = 63; body weight (BW) = 47.6 ± 7.9 kg; wethers n = 46; ewes n = 17; Western white-faced n = 34; black-faced; n = 4; crossbred; n = 25) sourced from 15 WY and CO producers participated in the “Lamb-A-Year” program at the University of Wyoming- Laramie Research and Extension Center. Lambs were randomly sorted into two groups and fed an 8% CP, 61% NDF hay that was either unprocessed or processed (8 cm). One-half of the lambs in each hay processing group were then vaccinated or not vaccinated with a Mannheimia haemolytica Types 1 & 2 and Pasteurella multocida vaccine. Lambs were adapted to electronic feeders (Vytelle, Calgary, AB, CA) for 7 d (7 to 8 lambs/feeder) to record individual daily feed intake for 50 d. During the initial receiving period (d 0 to 14) lambs had ad libitum access to their respective hay treatment. A textured finishing diet was administered from d 15 to 50 (75% corn, 15% soyhulls, 10% lamb grower pellet). From d 51 to 107, lambs were group fed ad libitum the textured finishing diet until slaughter at a commercial abattoir. Hot carcass weight (HCW), 12th rib back fat (RFT), body wall thickness (BWT), and loin muscle area (LMA) carcass data were collected at the abattoir. Data were analyzed as a mixed model with fixed effects of hay treatment, vaccination status, and their interaction with random effects of ranch source and individual animal. The hay treatment x vaccine status interaction was significant (P ≤ 0.03) for RFI. While the ranking changed for RFI when comparing vaccination status, no statistical difference between treatment groups were observed after a Tukey adjustment. Interestingly, the hay treatment x vaccine status interaction was significant (P ≤ 0.01) for BWT. Again, ranking did change; however, no statistical differences were observed after a Tukey adjustment. Under current study conditions, there were no clear effects on dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), HCW, RFT, or LMA (Table 1). The effects of hay processing type and vaccine administration had minimal disruptions on DMI and ADG. Lamb performance may not be influenced by management interventions at the receiving phase. Further research should evaluate producer management prior to weaning and genetic factors that influence overall performance during the backgrounding and feeding phases.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207