Genetic analysis of superovulatory response of Holstein cows in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superovulation of dairy cattle is frequently used in Canada. The cost of this protocol is high, and so is the variability of the outcome. Knowing the superovulatory potential of a donor cow could influence the breeder's decision to superovulate it or not. The main objective of this study was to perform a genetic analysis for superovulatory response of Holstein cows in Canada using data recorded by Holstein Canada, and to investigate if these data could be used for genetic evaluation. Data contained the total number of embryos and the number of viable embryos from every successful flushing performed across Canada. After editing, 137,446 records of superovulation performed between 1992 and 2014 were analyzed. A univariate repeatability animal model analysis was performed for both total number of embryos and number of viable embryos. Because both data and residuals did not follow a normal distribution, records were subject to either logarithmic or Anscombe transformation. Using logarithmic transformation, heritability estimates (SE) of 0.15 (0.01) and 0.14 (0.01) were found for total number of embryos and number of viable embryos, respectively. Using Anscombe transformation, heritability estimates (SE) of 0.17 (0.01) and 0.14 (0.01) were found for total number of embryos and number of viable embryos, respectively. The genetic correlation between the 2 traits was estimated at 0.97 using logarithmic transformation and 0.95 using Anscombe transformation. Breeding values were estimated for 54,463 cows, and 3,513 sires. Only estimated breeding values of sires having a reliability higher than 40% were considered for estimated breeding values correlations with other routinely evaluated traits. The results showed that selection for a higher response to superovulation would lead to a slight decrease in milk production, but an improvement for functional traits, including all reproduction traits. In all cases, the estimated correlations are either low or modest. We conclude that genetic selection for increased superovulatory response in donors is possible; daughters of sires with high estimated breeding values for superovulatory response will tend to yield more embryos, whereas the additive effect of service sire seems not to contribute to the variability of the 2 superovulation traits and was not significantly correlated with the additive effect of the donor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".