Different selection practices affect the environmental sensitivity of beef cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different selection practices on the environmental sensitivity of reproductive and growth traits in males and females of three Nellore selection lines [control (NeC), selection (NeS), and traditional (NeT) lines]. Moreover, genetic trends for the intercept and slope were estimated for each line, and the possible reranking of sires was examined. A total of 8,757 records of selection weight (SW), 3,331 records of scrotal circumference (SC), and 2,311 records of days to first calving (DFC) from Nellore cattle born between 1981 and 2017 were analyzed. (Co)variance components and genetic parameters of all traits were estimated using a reaction norm model with Gibbs sampler. In all cattle lines, the mean heritability of the studied traits ranged from 0.39 to 0.75 for SW in both males and females, from 0.46 to 0.68 for SC, and from 0.06 to 0.57 for DFC along with the environmental descriptor. In all cattle lines, the genetic correlation coefficients between the intercept and slope ranged from 0.03 to 0.81 for SW, from -0.14 to 0.39 for SC, and from -0.87 to -0.42 for DFC. Genetic trends for the slope and proportion of plastic genotypes indicated that the NeS line was more responsive to environmental changes, whereas the NeC and NeT lines tended to respond more modestly. Reranking of sires was observed for all traits, specifically in the NeC and NeT lines, because of the weak correlation between the opposite extreme environments. In the NeS line, reranking of sires was observed for DFC alone. Our results indicate that the effects of genotype-environment interaction are important and should be considered in genetic evaluations of Nellore cattle. Moreover, different selection practices affected the environmental sensitivity of the Nellore selection lines tested in this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".