Genetic Improvement of Total Milk Yield and Total Lactation Persistency of the First Three Lactations in Dairy Cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare 6 selection criteria in terms of 3-parity total milk yield and 9 selection criteria in terms of total net merit (H) comprising 3-parity total milk yield and total lactation persistency. The 6 selection criteria compared were as follows: first-parity milk estimated breeding value (EBV; M1), first 2-parity milk EBV (M2), first 3-parity milk EBV (M3), first-parity eigen index (EI(1)), first 2-parity eigen index (EI(2)), and first 3-parity eigen index (EI(3)). The 9 selection criteria compared in terms of H were M1, M2, M3, EI(1), EI(2), EI(3), and first-parity, first 2-parity, and first 3-parity selection indices (I(1), I(2), and I(3), respectively). In terms of total milk yield, selection on M3 or EI(3) achieved the greatest genetic response, whereas selection on EI(1) produced the largest genetic progress per day. In terms of total net merit, selection on I(3) brought the largest response, whereas selection EI(1) yielded the greatest genetic progress per day. A multiple-lactation random regression test-day model simultaneously yields the EBV of the 3 lactations for all animals included in the analysis even though the younger animals do not have the opportunity to complete the first 3 lactations. It is important to use the first 3 lactation EBV for selection decision rather than only the first lactation EBV in spite of the fact that the first-parity selection criteria achieved a faster genetic progress per day than the 3-parity selection criteria. Under a multiple-lactation random regression animal model analysis, the use of the first 3 lactation EBV for selection decision does not prolong the generation interval as compared with the use of only the first lactation EBV. Thus, it is justified to compare genetic response on a lifetime basis rather than on a per-day basis. The results suggest the use of M3 or EI(3) for genetic improvement of total milk yield and the use of I(3) for genetic improvement of total net merit H. Although this study deals with selection for 3-parity milk production, the same principle applies to selection for lifetime milk production.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".