MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414831264 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf300.155

190 Impact of post-weaning feeding management during the growing phase on growth performance of Holstein steers, and beef × Holstein steers and heifers.

2025· article· en· W4414831264 on OpenAlexaff
Erika E Cornand, Gabriel O Ribeiro, Murray Jelinski, Ó. López-Campos, Stephanie A. Terry, G.B. Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEffects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDry matterBody weightRandomized block designFactorial experimentBeef cattleStarch

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Feed intake, growth, carcass characteristics, and time to finish are expected to differ between Holstein and beef × Holstein cattle. However, the effects of dietary strategy on these outcomes are not well established. This study compared the effects of dietary energy density during the growing phase (until body weight [BW] = 350 kg) on dry matter intake [DMI] and efficiency, growth, average daily gain [ADG], hip height, body length, and days on feed [DOF] of Holstein steers, beef × Holstein (B×H) steers, and B×H heifers. One hundred and nineteen individually housed calves (n = 40 Holstein steers, 40 B×H steers, 39 B×H heifers) were used in a randomized complete block design with a 3 × 2 factorial structure. After a 15-d receiving phase, calves were paired by initial BW (205 ± 23 kg) and randomly assigned to either a rapid growth (RG; 1.9 kg/d) or moderate growth (MG: 1.2 kg/d) program. To target RG, calves received a diet containing 48% starch and 15% crude protein [CP], while MG calves received a diet containing 28% starch and 15% CP. Feed intake was recorded weekly through collection of orts and adjusted for dry matter, while BW, hip height, and body length were measured every 28-d. Data were analyzed using the mixed model procedure of SAS with the fixed effects of program, breed/sex, and the 2-way interaction, with initial BW as a covariate. The total DOF until 70% of each treatment reached 350 kg BW was 78-d, 91-d, 104-d, 91-d, 113-d, and 113-d for RG B×H steers, RG B×H heifers, RG Holstein steers, MG B×H steers, MG B×H heifers, and MG Holstein steers, respectively. A breed/sex × program interaction was observed for DMI, such that the average DMI (10.2 kg/d) for the MG B×H steers during the growth phase was 23 to 30% greater than all other treatments (P < 0.01). However, the increased DMI did not result in improved ADG; rather, RG B×H steers grew 15 to 24% faster than all other treatments (Breed/sex × program, P = 0.03). The RG B×H steers had the greatest gain to feed ratio (G:F; 0.233 kg/kg), while MG B×H steers had the lowest (0.165 kg/kg). During the growing phase, hip heights were higher (P < 0.01) for Holstein and B×H steers compared to B×H heifers regardless of feeding program; while body lengths were shortest for RG B×H steers and longest for RG Holstein steers (Breed/sex × program, P < 0.01). Overall, feeding a high-energy diet (RG program) reduced DOF during the growth phase; however, further evaluation of performance in the finishing period is required. Crossbred steers had greater feed efficiency than Holstein steers, while crossbred heifers were similar to both groups of steers.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicEffects of Environmental Stressors on LivestockFrench-language works237,207