Crossbreeding Results in Canadian Dairy Cattle for Production, Reproduction and Conformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progeny of Holstein females mated to sires of different breeds were genetically evaluated along with their purebred Holstein contemporaries born in the same herds using multiple trait animal models. The resulting estimated breeding values (EBV) of cows were averaged within breed of sire and compared relative to progeny of purebred Holstein sires for various economic traits. All progeny were born since 2005, and only animals from herds with crossbreds were included in the genetic evaluation models. Crossbred cows were significantly below Holstein sired cows for 305-d EBV for milk yield, but were above Holsteins for fat and protein yields. There were no significant differences between crossbreds and purebreds for somatic cell scores. Crossbred cows and heifers became pregnant sooner after each calving, had higher non-return rates, fewer services, and shorter gestation lengths than purebred Holsteins. Crossbred heifers and cows had lower stillbirth rates due to having smaller calves, and slightly better calving ease. Objectively measured conformation traits (seven) and milking speed and milking temperament were analyzed by multiple trait models. Differences for conformation favoured Holsteins over crossbreds. There were no significant differences for milking speed or temperament between crossbreds and purebreds.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".