Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficiency of Feed Use in Beef Cattle

Koch, Robert M., Swiger, L. A., Chambers, Doyle, Gregory, K. E.·1963·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

Feed efficiency measured as a function of gain in body weight and feed consumed was studied for 1,324 bull and heifer calves at three experiment stations. Three measures were computed: (1) feed consumption adjusted for differences in gain; (2) gain adjusted for differences in feed consumption; and (3) the ratio of gain to feed consumed. In all three measures, mid-weight was considered simultaneously in an attempt to remove differences in maintenance requirements. Efficiency expressed as gain adjusted for differences in feed consumption (i.e., ±deviation from the regression of gain on consumption) was considered the most accurate mathematical description of the cause and effect relationships and resulted in the highest heritability of the three measures studied. No trends in the heritabilities calculated for each experiment station were noted. The combined heritabilities were 0.65 for gain on test, 0.64 for feed consumed, 0.62 for gain adjusted for differences in feed consumption, 0.28 for feed consumption adjusted for differences in gain, and 0.36 for the ratio of gain to feed consumed. A path analysis of feed efficiency (gain adjusted for feed consumption), feed consumption and gain was made. The analysis indicated that 38% of the variation in gain could be attributed directly to genetic differences in feed efficiency. Genetic differences in feed consumption accounted for 25% of the variation in gain. The remaining 37% of the variation in gain was accounted for by variations in environmental influences. The genetic correlation between feed efficiency and gain was 0.79, between feed consumption and gain was 0.64, and between feed efficiency and feed consumption was 0.04. These results indicate that selecting for gain should be effective and lead to both increased feed efficiency and increased feed consumption. Selecting for feed efficiency would increase feed efficiency and result in increased daily gain, but feed consumption would not be affected. Selection for feed consumption would increase feed consumption and daily gain, but would lead to no improvement in feed efficiency other than that attributable to a smaller portion of the intake being used for body maintenance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/jas1963.222486x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 1,298

Metadata

Authors
Koch, R. M., Swiger, L. A., Chambers, D., & Gregory, K. E.
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
1963-05-01
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
486-494
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W71047797
Cited by
1,298
References
5
FWCI
3.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficiency of Feed Use in Beef Cattle. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/jas1963.222486x
The paper
Koch, R. M., Swiger, L. A., Chambers, D., & Gregory, K. E. (1963). Efficiency of Feed Use in Beef Cattle. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1963.222486x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.