Genetic evaluation of carcass yield using ultrasound measures on young replacement beef cattle1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Live weight and ultrasound measures of fat thickness and longissimus muscle area were available on 404 yearling bulls and 514 heifers, and carcass measures of weight, longissimus muscle area, and fat thickness were available on 235 steers. Breeding values were initially estimated for carcass weight, longissimus muscle area, and fat thickness using only steer carcass data. Breeding values were also estimated for weight and ultrasound muscle area and fat thickness using live animal data from bulls and heifers, with traits considered sex-specific. The combination of live animal and carcass data were also used to estimate breeding values in a full animal model. Breeding values from the carcass model were less accurate and distributed more closely around zero than those from the live data model, which could at least partially be explained by differences in relative amounts of data and in phenotypic mean and heritability. Adding live animal data to evaluation models increased the average accuracy of carcass trait breeding values 91, 75, and 51% for carcass weight, longissimus muscle area, and fat thickness, respectively. Rank correlations between breeding values estimated with carcass vs live animal data were low to moderate, ranging from 0.16 to 0.43. Significant rank changes were noted when breeding values for similar traits were estimated exclusively with live animal vs carcass data. Carcass trait breeding values estimated with both live animal and carcass data were most accurate, and rank correlations reflected the relative contribution of carcass data and their live animal indicators. The addition of live animal data to genetic evaluation of carcass traits resulted in the most significant carcass trait breeding value accuracy increases for young replacements that had not yet produced progeny with carcass data.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".