MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205814472 · doi:10.3168/jdsc.2021-0150

Evaluation of updated Feed Saved breeding values developed in Australian Holstein dairy cattle

2022· article· en· W4205814472 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJDS Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidual feed intakeGenomic selectionAnimal scienceDairy cattleGenetic gainBiologyHolstein CattleFeed conversion ratioHeritabilityPopulationSelection (genetic algorithm)UnivariateBiotechnologyAnimal breedingMultivariate statisticsBody weightStatisticsMathematicsGenetic variationGeneticsDemographyGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although selection for increased milk production traits has led to a genetic increase in body weight (BW), the genetic gain in milk production has exceeded the gain in BW, so gross feed efficiency has improved. Nonetheless, greater gains may be possible by directly selecting for a measure of feed efficiency. Australia first introduced Feed Saved (FS) estimated breeding value (EBV) in 2015. Feed Saved combines residual feed intake (RFI) genomic EBV and maintenance requirements calculated from mature BW EBV. The FS EBV was designed to enable the selection of cows for reduced energy requirements with similar milk production. In this study, we used a reference population of 3,711 animals in a multivariate analysis including Australian heifers (AUSh), Australian cows (AUSc), and overseas cows (OVEc) to update the Australian EBV for lifetime RFI (i.e., a breeding value that incorporated RFI in growing and lactating cows) and to recalculate the FS EBV in Australian Holstein bulls (AUSb). The estimates of genomic heritabilities using univariate (only AUSc or AUSh) to trivariate (including the OVEc) analyses were similar. Genomic heritabilities for RFI were estimated as 0.18 for AUSc, 0.27 for OVEc, and 0.36 for AUSh. The genomic correlation for RFI between AUSc and AUSh was 0.47 and that between AUSc and OVEc was 0.94, but these estimates were associated with large standard errors (range: 0.18-0.28). The reliability of lifetime RFI (a component of FS) in the trivariate analysis (i.e., including OVEc) increased from 11% to 20% compared with the 2015 model and was greater, by 12%, than in a bivariate analysis in which the reference population included only AUSc and AUSh. By applying the prediction equation of the 2020 model, the average reliability of the FS EBV in 20,816 AUSb that were born between 2010 and 2020 improved from 33% to 43%. Previous selection strategies-that is, using the predecessor of the Balanced Performance Index (Australian Profit Ranking index) that did not include FS-have resulted in an unfavorable genetic trend in FS. However, this unfavorable trend has stabilized since 2015, when FS was included in the Balanced Performance Index, and is expected to move in a favorable direction with selection on Balanced Performance Index or the Health Weighted Index. Doubling the reference population, particularly by incorporating international data for feed efficiency, has improved the reliability of the FS EBV. This could lead to increased genetic gain for feed efficiency in the Australian industry.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.250 · 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