MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402541058 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.180

509 Growth and health of Holstein and Holstein x Angus calves from birth to the end of the grower phase

2024· article· en· W4402541058 on OpenAlexaff
Titouan Chapelain, Hannah McCarthy, Melinda Kovács, David Innes, Katharine M Wood, Márcio de Souza Duarte, D.L. Renaud, M.A. Steele

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceBiologyVeterinary medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Feedlot growth performance and carcass traits often differ between Holstein and dairy-beef crossbred calves. However, little is known about their performance and health during the growing phase when reared under similar conditions. This study aimed to compare purebred Holstein (n = 20) and Holstein x Angus crossbred (n = 20) steers from birth until the end of the grower phase. Male calves sourced from one commercial farm arrived at a calf rearing facility at 4.7 ± 1.94 d of age. Calves were fed milk replacer (24 % CP, 20% fat) twice daily at 12 % of birth body weight (BW) for the first 2 wk after arrival and 15 % BW thereafter until wk 6. Calves were gradually weaned from wk 7 to 9. Calves were offered starter (21 % CP, 28% starch) ad libitum until wk 12, and were fed a grower diet (15 % CP, 56 % starch) until wk 32. Milk intake was recorded daily and starter intake on a weekly basis. Once on the growing diet, feed intake was recorded daily using automated feed bins (Roughage Intake Control system, Hokofarm Group). Until wk 12, fecal and respiratory scores were recorded twice daily to estimate the incidence of disease, BW was measured weekly and frame measurements (hip and wither heights, and heart and chest girth) were recorded on wk 4, 7 and 12. From wk 12 to 32, BW and frame measurements were recorded monthly. Data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX (SAS 9.4), with breed as fixed, and calf and time as random effects. There were no differences between breeds in initial BW (P = 0.69), proportion of days with diarrhea (P = 0.21) or respiratory disease (P = 0.11), intake of milk (P = 0.45), starter (P = 0.83) or grower diet (P = 0.28). Crossbred calves tended to have greater average daily gain during the rearing phase (P = 0.07) and were growing 250 g/d faster than Holstein calves throughout the growing phase (P < 0.01). Thus, at the end of the growing phase, crossbred calves were 33.5 kg heavier than Holstein calves and had a better feed conversion rate (P < 0.01). During the growing phase, crossbred calves had larger heart and chest girths (P < 0.01) than Holstein calves, whereas hip and wither heights were higher (P < 0.01) for Holstein calves throughout the study. Overall, crossbred calves had greater average daily gain and improved feed conversion rate than Holstein calves during the growing phase, but it remains unknown if these differences will affect their feedlot performance.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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