MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7072623406

Where is the potential with hoggets?

2016· article· en· W7072623406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPasture and Agricultural Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic sheep reproductionPastureWeaningSheep farmingGrazingLactation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The FarmIQ programme provided a great opportunity to explore new technologies and opportunities. At the Landcorp Stuart Farm in the Te Anau basin, Luke wright and his team chose to explore the opportunity to improve the performance of their lambing hoggets. Paul McGill, as the Landcorp FarmIQ director, as able to provide some analysis of the figures, and track the on-going performance of the hoggets as they went on to enter the ewe flock. We used the opportunity to see if we could use lucerne during lactation to make sure we had better lamb weaning weights, and that the hogget went on to be a good 2TH.\n\nThe first thing that we saw over the 2 year project was that hoggets on lucerne were able to gain weight, even while rearing a lamb, and a lot of this extra weight gain was during early lactation. Another property that emerged from this work was that when we could take the pressure off the lambing hogget on standard pasture (by putting some of the hoggets on lucerne) then we could get good live weights from them as well. Our hoggets were at 2TH mating weights by the time we weaned their lamb.\n\nInterestingly, the lambs on lucerne grew about the same rate as lambs on pasture. There were a couple of important points to note here. In both years, the lambs on lucerne were heavier than their pasture counterparts at docking, probably due to the intake of the hogget, producing more milk. The management of the lucerne when the lambs started eating was really important. In the first year when the growth was rapid and quite ‘soft’ (with a short rotation) then the lambs did not do quite so well and developed photosensitivity symptoms. In the second year, when we made the rotation length longer and ‘hardened the feed off’, we saw much better lamb weaning weights. So we need to make sure that the rotation lengths are kept reasonably long (30-35 days) rather than short (20-24 days).\n\nThe stocking rate on the lucerne was 2.3 hoggets higher than it was on pasture (at about 9.4), and was more consistent between years. However, the lamb losses were higher on the lucerne, for reasons we don’t fully understand. However, the result was consistent in both years. Overall, the productivity from the lucerne was much greater than from the pasture.\n\nFinally, when we followed the hoggets on into their 2TH year, we found that, although there wasn’t a great difference in tupping live weight (66 vs 64kg), the hoggets that were on lucerne (204%) did scan better than those that had been on pasture (187%) during lactation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.1050.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.168 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPasture and Agricultural SystemsFrench-language works237,207