Genetic and phenotypic parameters for body weights, harvest length, and growth curve parameters in American mink
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the genetics underlying growth curve is important for selection of animals with better growth potential, but little is known about the genetics of growth curve parameters in mink. This study estimated the genetic parameters for body weights (BWs), harvest length (HL), and growth parameters derived from the Richards model. For this purpose, individual BW of 1,088 mink measured seven times in 3-wk intervals (weeks 13 to 31 of life) were used for growth curve modeling using the Richards model. The BW traits included BW at week 13 (BW13), 16 (BW16), 19 (BW19), 22 (BW22), 25 (BW25), 28 (BW28), and 31 (BW31). Univariate analyses indicated that sex and birth-year had significant effects (P < 0.05) on BW, HL, asymptotic weight (α), growth rate at mature (k), shape parameter (m), weight at the inflection point (WIP), and age at the inflection point (AIP). In contrast, the color type had only significant effect (P < 0.05) on BW31 and HL. Estimated heritabilities (±SE) were ranged from 0.36 ± 0.13 (BW13) to 0.46 ± 0.10 (BW22) for BW and were 0.51 ± 0.09, 0.29 ± 0.09, 0.30 ± 0.09, 0.33 ± 0.1, 0.44 ± 0.10, and 0.47 ± 0.10 for HL, α, k, m, WIP, and AIP, respectively. The parameter α had non-significant (P > 0.05) genetic correlations (±SE) with k (-0.21 ± 0.23) and m (-0.10 ± 0.22), suggesting that changing shape parameters (k and m) will not influence asymptotic weight (α). Strong significant (P < 0.05) phenotypic (from 0.46 ± 0.03 to 0.60 ± 0.03) and genetic (0.70±0.13 to 0.88±0.09) correlations were observed between HL and different BW measures. The α, AIP, and WIP parameters had significant (P < 0.05) genetic correlations with HL indicated that selection for higher α, AIP, and WIP values would increase HL. Parameters k and m had nonsignificant (P > 0.05) genetic correlations with HL, indicating the change of the curve shape could not influence HL. Overall, the results suggest that growth curve parameters are heritable and can respond to genetic or genomic selection for optimizing the performance in mink.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".