MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3133288048 · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-18944

Potential effects of hormonal synchronized breeding on genetic evaluations of fertility traits in dairy cattle: A simulation study

2021· article· en· W3133288048 on OpenAlexafffundabout
G.A. Oliveira, L.R. Schaeffer, Flávio S. Schenkel, Francesco Tiezzi, Christine F. Baes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Dairy CommissionDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsBiologyTraitArtificial inseminationFertilityDairy cattleHerdIce calvingGenetic correlationStatisticsInseminationAnimal scienceOvulationHormoneBiotechnologyGeneticsDemographyLactationMathematicsGenetic variationEndocrinologyGenePregnancyComputer sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About 30% of producers use hormone protocols to synchronize ovulation and perform timed artificial insemination (AI) in Canada. Days from calving to first service (CTFS) and first service to conception (FSTC) become masked phenotypes leading to biased genetic evaluations of cows for these fertility traits. The objectives of this study were to (1) demonstrate and quantify the potential amount of bias in genetic evaluations, and (2) find a procedure that could remove the bias. Simulation was used for both objectives. The proposed solution was to identify cows that have been treated by hormone protocols, make their CTFS and FSTC missing, and perform a multiple trait analysis including traits that have high genetic correlations with CTFS and FSTC, and which are not affected by the hormone protocols themselves. A total of 12 scenarios (S1-S12) were tested, changing the percentage of herds and cows that were randomly selected to be under timed AI. Cows that were given hormone protocols had CTFS of 86 d and FSTC of 0, which were used in genetic evaluation. Four criteria were used to indirectly measure the presence of bias: (1) the correlation between true (TBV) and estimated (EBV) breeding values (accuracy); (2) the differences in the mean EBV of top 25, 50, and 75 sires; (3) changes in correlation between TBV and EBV rankings; and (4) the changes in mean EBV over the simulated generations. All criteria changed unfavorably and proportionally to the increased use of timed AI. The accuracy within each class of animals (cows, dams, or sires) decreased proportionally with increased use of timed AI, varying from 0.32 (S12) to 0.52 (S1) for bull EBV for CTFS. The average EBV of the top sires (best 25, 50, 75, or 100 sires) approached population average EBV values when increasing the number of treated animals. The sire rank correlation between EBV and TBV within simulated scenarios was smaller for scenarios with more synchronized animals, going from 0.38 (S12) to 0.67 (S1). The long-term use of hormonal synchronized cows clearly decreased the mean EBV over generations in the population for CTFS and FSTC. The inclusion of genetically correlated traits in a multiple trait model was effective in removing the bias due to the presence of hormonal synchronized cows. However, given the constraints within the simulation, it is important that further investigation with real data is conducted to determine the true effect of including timed AI records within genetic evaluations of fertility traits in dairy cattle.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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