Genetic and phenotypic correlations among feed efficiency, production and selected conformation traits in dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The difficulties and costs of measuring individual feed intake in dairy cattle are the primary factors limiting the genetic study of feed intake and utilisation, and hence the potential of their subsequent industry-wide applications. However, indirect selection based on heritable, easily measurable, and genetically correlated traits, such as conformation traits, may be an alternative approach to improve feed efficiency. The aim of this study was to estimate genetic and phenotypic correlations among feed intake, production, and feed efficiency traits (particularly residual feed intake; RFI) with routinely recorded conformation traits. A total of 496 repeated records from 260 Holstein dairy cows in different lactations (260, 159 and 77 from first, second and third lactation, respectively) were considered in this study. Individual daily feed intake and monthly BW and body condition scores of these animals were recorded from 5 to 305 days in milk within each lactation from June 2007 to July 2013. Milk yield and composition data of all animals within each lactation were retrieved, and the first lactation conformation traits for primiparous animals were extracted from databases. Individual RFI over 301 days was estimated using linear regression of total 301 days actual energy intake on a total of 301 days estimated traits of metabolic BW, milk production energy requirement, and empty BW change. Pair-wise bivariate animal models were used to estimate genetic and phenotypic parameters among the studied traits. Estimated heritabilities of total intake and production traits ranged from 0.27±0.07 for lactation actual energy intake to 0.45±0.08 for average body condition score over 301 days of the lactation period. RFI showed a moderate heritability estimate (0.20±0.03) and non-significant phenotypic and genetic correlations with lactation 3.5 % fat-corrected milk and average BW over lactation. Among the conformation traits, dairy strength, stature, rear attachment width, chest width and pin width had significant (P<0.05) moderate to strong genetic correlations with RFI. Combinations of these conformation traits could be used as RFI indicators in the dairy genetic improvement programmes to increase the accuracy of the genetic evaluation of feed intake and utilisation included in the index.
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 | 0.000 | 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".