Reducing Feed Efficiency Test Length of Beef Cattle and Sheep to Improve Industry Adoption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Feed-efficient animals are vital for livestock producers, as feed costs account for over two-thirds of beef and sheep operation production expenses. Traditional methods like Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) provide group averages, limiting genetic selection potential. In contrast, Residual Feed Intake (RFI) offers an accurate evaluation of individual animal efficiency by measuring the difference between actual and expected feed consumption based on body weight and average daily gain. This study analysed historical feed efficiency data from 245 sheep, and 4842 beef cattle across 3 and 85 contemporary groups, respectively to determine optimal test durations. Results indicated testing periods for sheep could be reduced from 53 to 38 days in ram lambs and from 65 to 42 days in ewe lambs. In beef cattle, test duration could be shortened from 50 to 42 days. Shortened durations could significantly lower costs, enhance equipment utilization, and promote industry adoption of feed efficiency profiling. Key considerations for effective testing include contemporary grouping, animal type, feeding behaviours, and biosecurity protocols. The study demonstrated that more frequent body weight measurements and reduced dry matter intake (DMI) test periods can support accurate RFI calculations, ultimately enabling livestock producers to select genetically efficient animals and improve overall herd performance. Information © The Authors 2025
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".