Determination of breeding strategies for beef cattle bull breeders selling bulls into two competing markets on a non-linear price grid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer simulation was used to suggest potential selection strategies for beef cattle breeders with different mixes of clients between two potential markets. The “traditional” market paid on the basis of carcass weight (CWT), while a “new” market considered marbling grade in addition to CWT as a basis for payment. Both markets instituted discounts for CWT in excess of 340 kg and light carcasses below 300 kg. Herds were simulated for each price category on the carcass weight grid for the new market. This enabled the establishment of phenotypic relationships among the traits examined [CWT, percent intramuscular fat (IMF), carcass value in the traditional market, carcass value in the new market, and the expected proportion of progeny in elite price cells in the new market pricing grid]. The appropriateness of breeding goals was assessed on the basis of client satisfaction. Satisfaction was determined by the equitable distribution of available stock between markets combined with the assessment of the utility of the animal within the market to which it was assigned. The best goal for breeders with predominantly traditional clients was a CWT in excess of 330 kg, while that for breeders with predominantly new market clients was a CWT of between 310 and 329 kg and with a marbling grade of AAA in the Ontario carcass pricing system. For breeders who wished to satisfy both new and traditional clients, the optimal CWT was 310–329 kg and the optimal marbling grade was AA–AAA. This combination resulted in satisfaction levels of greater than 75% among clients, regardless of the distribution of the clients between the traditional and new marketplaces. Key words: Beef cattle, carcass, marbling grade, breeding, breeding objectives, breeding goals
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".