An alternative approach to modeling genetic merit of feed efficiency in dairy cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic improvement of feed efficiency (FE) in dairy cattle requires greater attention given increasingly important resource constraint issues. A widely accepted yet occasionally contested measure of FE in dairy cattle is residual feed intake (RFI). The use of RFI is limiting for several reasons, including interpretation, differences in recording frequencies between the various component traits that define RFI, and potential differences in genetic versus nongenetic relationships between dry matter intake (DMI) and FE component traits. Hence, analyses focusing on DMI as the response are often preferred. We propose an alternative multiple-trait (MT) modeling strategy that exploits the Cholesky decomposition to provide a potentially more robust measure of FE. We demonstrate that our proposed FE measure is identical to RFI provided that genetic and nongenetic relationships between DMI and component traits of FE are identical. We assessed both approaches (MT and RFI) by simulation as well as by application to 26,383 weekly records from 50 to 200 d in milk on 2,470 cows from a dairy FE consortium study involving 7 institutions. Although the proposed MT model fared better than the RFI model when simulated genetic and nongenetic associations between DMI and FE component traits were substantially different from each other, no meaningful differences were found in predictive performance between the 2 models when applied to the consortium data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".