Modeling differences in feed intake and efficiency: Growing and finishing beef cattle

IF 1.4 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Applied Animal Science Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.15232/aas.2023-02443
Carl A. Old , Ian J. Lean , Heidi A. Rossow , Daniel W. Shike
{"title":"Modeling differences in feed intake and efficiency: Growing and finishing beef cattle","authors":"Carl A. Old ,&nbsp;Ian J. Lean ,&nbsp;Heidi A. Rossow ,&nbsp;Daniel W. Shike","doi":"10.15232/aas.2023-02443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Our objective was to evaluate model structure choice on estimates of efficiency, based on residual feed intake, and thereby cattle profitability.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>Efficiencies were compared for 2 models using data from 7 studies (509 cattle). Model 1 DMI were estimated using ordinary least squares as <em>f</em>(ADG and BW<sup>0.750</sup>). Model 2 was a multivariable Bayesian model; DMI was <em>f</em>(ADG, BW<sup>0.750</sup> and BW). For model 2, DMI, BW, and ADG were ranked by model 1 residuals categorized in quintile to evaluate whether information found in residuals related to composition of gain or maintenance.</p></div><div><h3>Results and Discussion</h3><p>Efficiency rankings lacked concordance and predictive value between models, suggesting that ordinary least squares, Bayesian, or both frameworks lack utility to predict efficiency. With the exception of 1 data set, DMI was better predicted in the Bayesian framework. Estimated recovered energy (Mcal/d) in model 2 was less for cattle in quintile 1 than in quintile 5 for 4 of 7 data sets and numerically less for 6 of 7 data sets. Estimated maintenance in model 2 was less (quintiles 1 vs. 5) for 5 of 7 data sets. Substantial information existed in model 1 residuals regarding differences in composition of gain and maintenance not found in model 2 residuals.</p></div><div><h3>Implications and Applications</h3><p>Differing efficiencies between models indicate that residuals are properties of models, not cattle. Selection of cattle with less empty body fat may not be desirable from an economic standpoint.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8519,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590286524000041/pdf?md5=f272ab46254dac779289d028f016091d&pid=1-s2.0-S2590286524000041-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590286524000041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate model structure choice on estimates of efficiency, based on residual feed intake, and thereby cattle profitability.

Materials and Methods

Efficiencies were compared for 2 models using data from 7 studies (509 cattle). Model 1 DMI were estimated using ordinary least squares as f(ADG and BW0.750). Model 2 was a multivariable Bayesian model; DMI was f(ADG, BW0.750 and BW). For model 2, DMI, BW, and ADG were ranked by model 1 residuals categorized in quintile to evaluate whether information found in residuals related to composition of gain or maintenance.

Results and Discussion

Efficiency rankings lacked concordance and predictive value between models, suggesting that ordinary least squares, Bayesian, or both frameworks lack utility to predict efficiency. With the exception of 1 data set, DMI was better predicted in the Bayesian framework. Estimated recovered energy (Mcal/d) in model 2 was less for cattle in quintile 1 than in quintile 5 for 4 of 7 data sets and numerically less for 6 of 7 data sets. Estimated maintenance in model 2 was less (quintiles 1 vs. 5) for 5 of 7 data sets. Substantial information existed in model 1 residuals regarding differences in composition of gain and maintenance not found in model 2 residuals.

Implications and Applications

Differing efficiencies between models indicate that residuals are properties of models, not cattle. Selection of cattle with less empty body fat may not be desirable from an economic standpoint.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
采食量和效率差异模型:生长和育成肉牛
材料与方法利用 7 项研究(509 头牛)的数据,比较了 2 个模型的效率。模型 1 采用普通最小二乘法估算 DMI,即 f(ADG 和 BW0.750)。模型 2 是一个多变量贝叶斯模型;DMI 为 f(ADG、BW0.750 和 BW)。对于模型 2,DMI、BW 和 ADG 根据模型 1 的残差按五分位数分类进行排序,以评估残差中发现的信息是否与增重或维持组成有关。除一个数据集外,贝叶斯框架能更好地预测 DMI。在模型 2 中,7 个数据集中有 4 个数据集中五分位 1 的牛的估计回收能量(Mcal/d)低于五分位 5 的牛,7 个数据集中有 6 个数据集中五分位 1 的牛的估计回收能量(Mcal/d)低于五分位 5 的牛。7 组数据中有 5 组在模型 2 中的估计维持量较少(五分位 1 与五分位 5)。在模型 1 的残差中,存在着模型 2 残差中没有的有关增重和维持量组成差异的大量信息。从经济角度来看,选择空体脂肪较少的牛可能并不可取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Animal Science
Applied Animal Science AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
68
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Editorial Board Call for Submissions Fabrication yields and allometric growth coefficients of carcass components of serially slaughtered implanted or non-implanted beef steers Comparison of a single extended-release implant and a re-implant strategy on performance and carcass characteristics of beef finishing heifers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1