Genomic prediction and genetic correlations estimated for milk production and fatty acid traits in Walloon Holstein cattle using random regression models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aims of this study were to: (1) estimate genetic correlation for milk production traits (milk, fat and protein yields and fat and protein contents) and fatty acids (FA: C16:0, C18:1 cis -9, LCFA, SFA, and UFA) over days in milk, (2) investigate the performance of genomic predictions using single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) based on random regression models (RRM), and (3) identify the optimal scaling and weighting factors to be used in the construction of the H matrix. A total of 302 684 test-day records of 63.875 first lactation Walloon Holstein cows were used. Positive genetic correlations were found between milk yield and fat and protein yield ( r g from 0.46 to 0.85) and between fat yield and milk FA ( r g from 0.17 to 0.47). On the other hand, negative correlations were estimated between fat and protein contents ( r g from −0.22 to −0.59), between milk yield and milk FA ( r g from −0.22 to −0.62), and between protein yield and milk FA ( r g from −0.11 to −0.19). The selection for high fat content increases milk FA throughout lactation ( r g from 0.61 to 0.98). The test-day ssGBLUP approach showed considerably higher prediction reliability than the parent average for all milk production and FA traits, even when no scaling and weighting factors were used in the H matrix. The highest validation reliabilities ( r 2 from 0.09 to 0.38) and less biased predictions ( b 1 from 0.76 to 0.92) were obtained using the optimal parameters (i.e., ω = 0.7 and α = 0.6) for the genomic evaluation of milk production traits. For milk FA, the optimal parameters were ω = 0.6 and α = 0.6. However, biased predictions were still observed ( b 1 from 0.32 to 0.81). The findings suggest that using ssGBLUP based on RRM is feasible for the genomic prediction of daily milk production and FA traits in Walloon Holstein 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".