Efficiency of Different Selection Criteria for Persistency and Lactation Milk Yield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A conversion formula was developed to convert the genetic covariance matrices of daily yields and of random regression coefficients between 305-d and 335-d production periods under a random regression test day model. Five selection criteria were compared in terms of genetic improvement in persistency and lactation milk: 1) lactation estimated breeding value (EBVL), 2) P6 = 279Sigma(i=65) (D280 - Di), 3) ratio of daily estimated breeding value (EBV)(r280/65 = D280/D65), 4) ratio of partial lactation EBV (P280/65 = D66 approximately 28/D5 approximately 65), and 5) differential daily EBV (d65-280 = D65 - D280), where Di refers to EBV at days in milk (DIM) i. Fundamental differences among these 5 selection criteria were interpreted conceptually with a graph. Persistency, defined as k = (delta G65 - delta G280)/215, was the average daily rate of decline in selection gain from DIM 65 to 280, which is free from the effect of lactation milk on the rate of decline. Parameter k provides an objective measure of persistency, which increases when k < 0 and decreases when k > 0. Of the 5 selection criteria compared, d65-280 and P6 achieved greater persistency at the expense of genetic gain in lactation milk, whereas selection based on EBVL achieved the highest response in lactation milk, but was coupled with greatest decline in persistency. Selection on P280/65 or r280/65 improved both lactation milk and persistency and, thus, is recommended for simultaneous improvement of these 2 economically important traits. Further study of the relative economic values of persistency and lactation milk in order to combine both traits into an index for selection decision is warranted.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".