MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096071413 · doi:10.4141/a03-071

Multi-trait selection for body weight, egg production and total fat in the Chinese and Synthetic strains of geese

2004· article· en· W2096071413 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
J.N.B. Shrestha, A.A. GRUNDER, J. W. Dickie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAnimal scienceBody weightAbdominal fatEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Chinese and Synthetic (assembled from Pilgrim, Chinese and Hungarian) strains raised at the Greenbelt farm of the Centre for Food and Animal Research (formerly Animal Research Centre, and Animal Research Institute) located in Ottawa, Canada, had been subjected to 12 yr of random mating. From 1982 onwards, these two strains were selected for five generations in order to increase egg production over a 24- wk laying period and body weight at 16 wk of age, and to simultaneously decrease total fat (abdominal and intestinal). At the same time, Randombred Chinese and Synthetic strains were maintained during the course of selection to monitor year-to-year trends in the production traits. In both the Randombred strains, body weights at 9 and 16 wk of age remained stable (P > 0.05) during the course of the study. In the Selected Chinese strain, five generations of selection increased male and female body weight at 1 6 wk of age by 0.181 ± 0.024 and 0.165 ± 0.009 kg/generation, respectively, (P < 0.05), while egg production increased by 1.3 ± 0.73 eggs/generation (P > 0.05). Concurrently, in the Selected Synthetic strain, male and female body weight at 16 wk of age increased by 0.085 ± 0.028 (P < 0.10) and 0.084 ± 0.024 kg/generation (P < 0.05), respectively, while egg production increased by 1.1 ± 0.87 eggs/generation (P > 0.05). In Generation 6, measures of the abdominal, intestinal and total fat increased significantly in the Selected Chinese strain when compared to the Randombred Chinese strain, whereas the Selected and Randombred Synthetic strains were similar (P > 0.05). Correlated responses to selection were observed for body weight at slaughter, eviscerated carcass weight, dressing percentage, weights of the liver and neck, as well as fertility and hatchability traits. In the Selected Chinese strain, the genetic response to selection estimated as a deviation from the Randombred Chinese strain from Generation 2 to 6 for male and female body weight at 16 wk of age were 0.17 ± 0.03 and 0.13 ± 0.02 kg/generation, respectively (P < 0.05). Corresponding estimates of genetic response in the Selected Synthetic strain as a deviation from the Randombred Synthetic strain were 0.04 ± 0.01 and 0.05 ± 0.01 kg/generation, respectively (P < 0.05). In light of the variable results on fatness in the two Selected strains assessed, there is a need for further studies on response to selection for reduced abdominal and intestinal fat. Therefore, selection studies based on a larger number of geese are warranted to sustain goose breeding. Nevertheless, it is evident that multi-trait selection for egg production and body weight offers one of the most practical means for rapid and permanent improvement of economically important production traits in commercial goose breeding. Key words: Chinese strain, Synthetic strain, selection, body weight, egg production, abdominal and intestinal fat

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207