Genetic analysis of return over feed in Canadian Holsteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate genetic merit of return over feed (ROF), which is a herd profit index defined by CanWest Dairy Herd Improvement as a difference between milk income and feed cost. A multiple-trait (MT) model and random regression model (RRM) were used. The traits analyzed in MT were rearing cost and ROF of the first three lactations. In RRM, a cumulative ROF was fitted as function of age and rearing cost was treated as a correlated trait. Variance components were estimated within a Bayesian framework by Gibbs sampling using a subsample of data. Breeding values were then estimated for 3 041 078 animals using records of 1 951 893 cows. Estimates of heritability for rearing cost from MT and RRM were 0.23 and 0.22, respectively. ROF per lactation and cumulative ROF were negatively correlated with rearing cost. Estimates of heritability of ROF through the first, second and third lactation from MT were 0.27, 0.10 and 0.08, respectively. Estimates of heritability of ROF from RRM increased with age and ranged from 0.08 through 0.31. Estimated breeding values (EBVs) for ROF from MT and RRM were moderately correlated with official EBV for production traits and the Canadian selection index (Lifetime Profit Index). Herd life EBV had -0.07 and 0.19 correlations with EBVs for ROF from MT and RRM, respectively. From both MT and RRM, small favorable correlations were reported between EBVs for ROF and for bone quality and angularity, whereas low unfavorable correlations were reported with EBV for udder depth, front end and chest width. Majority of correlations between EBVs for ROF and for reproduction traits were near 0, with the exception of EBV for gestation length, calf size and calving ease, where small favorable correlations were reported. The ROF is a good indicator of cow profitability despite the fact that it is a simplified profit index that does not account for animal-specific health and reproductive cost. However, because ROF does not account for differences in heritabilities between components of profit, ROF is not recommended to be used for direct selection for profit.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".