Genetic parameters among growth and carcass traits of Canadian Charolais cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic parameters for three growth and five carcass traits were estimated for Charolais using a combination of carcass progeny test, purebred field performance and pedigree data. Heritabilities and genetic and residual correlations were derived from variance components for birth weight (BWT, n = 54 221), 205-d weaning weight (WT205, n = 31 384), postweaning gain (PWG, n = 19 403), hot carcass weight (HCW, n = 6958), average subcutaneous fat thickness (FAT, n = 6866), longissimus muscle area (REA, n = 6863), marbling score (MAR, n = 6903) and estimated carcass lean yield percentage (PLY, n = 6852) with an animal model (n = 78 728) and restricted maximum likelihood. Breed of dam and contemporary group appropriate to each trait were included as fixed effects in the model, whereas random effects included direct genetic for all traits, maternal genetic for BWT and WT205, and maternal permanent environmental for WT205. Carcass traits were adjusted to a constant harvest age of 425 d. Heritability estimates of 0.53, 0.22, and 0.21 were obtained for direct components of BWT, WT205, and PWG, respectively, and maternal heritabilities were 0.16 and 0.10 for BWT and WT205, respectively. Direct × maternal genetic correlations for BWT (-0.49) and WT205 (-0.35) were negative. Heritabilities for HCW, FAT, REA, MAR, and PLY were 0.33, 0.39, 0.43, 0.34, and 0.46, respectively. Genetic correlations among direct effects for growth traits were moderately positive and generally uncorrelated with maternal effects across traits. Lean and fat deposition in the carcass generally had negative, unfavorable genetic correlations, although improvement in lean yield and marbling score may not be strongly antagonistic. Genetic correlations of direct and maternal components of growth traits with carcass traits suggested that selection for increased growth rate would not be antagonistic to improvement in carcass yield or meat quality. Key words: Carcass, Charolais, correlation, genetic parameters, growth
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".