MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342226912 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2015-0125

Effect of milk fat to protein ratio on genetic variance for milk yield in Thai tropical Holstein cattle

2016· article· en· W2342226912 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Puangdee, Monchai Duangjinda, Wuttigrai Boonkum, Sayan Buaban, Suporn Katawatin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKhon Kaen UniversityHigher Education Research Promotion
KeywordsHeritabilityGibbs samplingAnimal scienceStatisticsTraitBiologyMathematicsBayesian probabilityGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research was to investigate the optimum fat to protein ratio (FPR) in Thai tropical Holstein dairy cattle. First parity data consisting of 20 492 milk yields (MY) records for 24 891 cows for the period 2001 and 2011, were used in the analysis. The analysis used a random regression test-day animal model of third-order Legendre polynomials through the creation of a covariance function based on different FPRs. Variance components were estimated using the Bayesian method via the Gibbs sampling. The estimated heritability of MY in relation to FPR ranged from 0.19 to 0.27 with the pattern being similar to the genetic variances. Genetic correlations of MY at different FPRs were high at consecutive FPRs and then declined to negative in response to greater differences in FPR. Based on the results, it is concluded that the optimum FPR is in the range of 0.9 to 1.9, corresponding to the genetically controlled energy balance for MY in tropical Holsteins.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207