MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205225302 · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-20558

Single-step genomic evaluation of milk production traits in Canadian Alpine and Saanen dairy goats

2022· article· en· W4205225302 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Erin Massender, Luiz F. Brito, Laurence Maignel, Hinayah Rojas de Oliveira, Mohsen Jafarikia, Christine F. Baes, Brian Sullivan, Flávio S. Schenkel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceTrent UniversityOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Georgia
KeywordsBest linear unbiased predictionBreedContext (archaeology)TraitBiologyGenomic selectionAnimal scienceMilk productionLivestockCross-validationDairy cattleStatisticsSelection (genetic algorithm)MathematicsEcologyGeneticsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic evaluations are routine in most plant and livestock breeding programs but are used infrequently in dairy goat breeding schemes. In this context, the purpose of this study was to investigate the use of the single-step genomic BLUP method for predicting genomic breeding values for milk production traits (milk, protein, and fat yields; protein and fat percentages) in Canadian Alpine and Saanen dairy goats. There were 6,409 and 12,236 Alpine records and 3,434 and 5,008 Saanen records for each trait in first and later lactations, respectively, and a total of 1,707 genotyped animals (833 Alpine and 874 Saanen). Two validation approaches were used, forward validation (i.e., animals born after 2013 with an average estimated breeding value accuracy from the full data set ≥0.50) and forward cross-validation (i.e., subsets of all animals included in the forward validation were used in successive replications). The forward cross-validation approach resulted in similar validation accuracies (0.55 to 0.66 versus 0.54 to 0.61) and biases (-0.01 to -0.07 versus -0.03 to 0.11) to the forward validation when averaged across traits. Additionally, both single and multiple-breed analyses were compared, and similar average accuracies and biases were observed across traits. However, there was a small gain in accuracy from the use of multiple-breed models for the Saanen breed. A small gain in validation accuracy for genomically enhanced estimated breeding values (GEBV) relative to pedigree-based estimated breeding values (EBV) was observed across traits for the Alpine breed, but not for the Saanen breed, possibly due to limitations in the validation design, heritability of the traits evaluated, and size of the training populations. Trait-specific gains in theoretical accuracy of GEBV relative to EBV for the validation animals ranged from 17 to 31% in Alpine and 35 to 55% in Saanen, using the cross-validation approach. The GEBV predicted from the full data set were 12 to 16% more accurate than EBV for genotyped animals, but no gains were observed for nongenotyped animals. The largest gains were found for does without lactation records (35-41%) and bucks without daughter records (46-54%), and consequently, the implementation of genomic selection in the Canadian dairy goat population would be expected to increase selection accuracy for young breeding candidates. Overall, this study represents the first step toward implementation of genomic selection in Canadian dairy goat populations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207