MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2979783825 · doi:10.1093/jas/skz314

Development of optimal genetic evaluations for teat and udder structure in Canadian Angus cattle

2019· article· en· W2979783825 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kajal Devani, Tiago S. Valente, John J. Crowley, Karin Orsel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyAlberta Agriculture and Forestry
KeywordsUdderHeritabilityBreedHerdAnimal scienceBiologyVeterinary medicineBeef cattleParity (physics)MastitisMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite their heritability and influence on female productivity, there are currently no genetic evaluations for teat and udder structure in Canadian Angus cattle. The objective of this study was to develop optimal genetic evaluations for these traits in the Canadian Angus population. Guidelines recommended by Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) were used to score teat and udder structure in 1,735 Canadian Angus cows from 10 representative herds. Cows scored ranged in parity from 1 to 13; however, >70% of cows were parity ≤4. Scores ranged from 1 (large, bottle shaped) to 9 (very small) for teats and from 1 (very pendulous) to 9 (very tight) for udders. Consistent with parity distribution, >70% of teat and udder scores were ≥6. Teat and udder scores (TS9 and US9, respectively) were modeled using a multiple trait animal model with random effects of contemporary group (herd-year-season) and additive genetic effect, and fixed effects of breed, parity group, and days between calving and scoring. To test good versus poor structure, a binary classification of 1 or 2 (TS2, US2) [comprised of scores 1 to 5 = 1 (poor structure) and scores 6 to 9 = 2 (good structure)] was created. Further, to assess the impact of grouping less frequently observed poor scores, a 1 to 7 scale (TS7, US7) was created by combining teat and udder scores 1 to 3. Analyses for teat and udder scores on scales TS9, US9, TS7, US7, and TS2, US2 were compared. In addition, both threshold and linear animal models were used to estimate variance components for the traits. Data treatment and models were evaluated based on correlation of resulting estimated breeding value (EBV) with corrected phenotypes, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, average EBV accuracies (r), and deviance information criteria (DIC). TS9, US9 scales for teat and udder scores and linear models performed best. Estimates of heritability (SE) for teat and udder score were 0.32 (0.06) and 0.15 (0.04), respectively, indicating these traits were moderately heritable and that genetic improvement for teat and udder scores was possible. Estimates of phenotypic and genotypic correlations for teat and udder score were 0.46 (0.02) and 0.71 (0.09), respectively. Estimates of genotypic correlations with birth weight (BW), weaning weight (WW), and yearling weight (YW), ranged from -0.04 (0.10) to -0.20 (0.12), verifying the importance of selecting for improved teat and udder score as individual traits, alongside performance traits.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→