Effects of Incorporating Dry Matter Intake and Residual Feed Intake into a Selection Index for Dairy Cattle Using Deterministic Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inclusion of feed efficiency in the breeding goal for dairy cattle has been discussed for many years. The effects of incorporating feed efficiency into a selection index were assessed by indirect selection (dry matter intake) and direct selection (residual feed intake) using deterministic modeling. Both traits were investigated in three ways: (1) restricting the trait genetic gain to zero, (2) applying negative selection pressure, and (3) applying positive selection pressure. Changes in response to selection from economic and genetic gain perspectives were used to evaluate the impact of including feed efficiency with direct or indirect selection in an index. Improving feed efficiency through direct selection on residual feed intake was the best scenario analyzed, with the highest overall economic response including favorable responses to selection for production and feed efficiency. Over time, the response to selection is cumulative, with the potential for animals to reduce consumption by 0.16 kg to 2.7 kg of dry matter per day while maintaining production. As the selection pressure increased on residual feed intake, the response to selection for production, health, and fertility traits and body condition score became increasingly less favorable. This work provides insight into the potential long-term effects of selecting for feed efficiency as residual feed intake.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".