Estimation of genetic parameters for feed efficiency traits using random regression models in dairy cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feed efficiency has become an increasingly important research topic in recent years. As feed costs rise and the environmental impacts of agriculture become more apparent, improving the efficiency with which dairy cows convert feed to milk is increasingly important. However, feed intake is expensive to measure accurately on large populations, making the inclusion of this trait in breeding programs difficult. Understanding how the genetic parameters of feed efficiency and traits related to feed efficiency vary throughout the lactation period is valuable to gain understanding into the genetic nature of feed efficiency. This study used 121,226 dry matter intake (DMI) records, 120,500 energy-corrected milk (ECM) records, and 98,975 metabolic body weight (MBW) records, collected on 7,440 first-lactation Holstein cows from 6 countries (Canada, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States), from January 2003 to February 2022. Genetic parameters were estimated using a multiple-trait random regression model with a fourth-order Legendre polynomial for all traits. Weekly phenotypes for DMI were re-parameterized using linear regressions of DMI on ECM and MBW, creating a measure of feed efficiency that was genetically corrected for ECM and MBW, referred to as genomic residual feed intake (gRFI). Heritability (SE) estimates varied from 0.15 (0.03) to 0.29 (0.02) for DMI, 0.24 (0.01) to 0.29 (0.03) for ECM, 0.55 (0.03) to 0.83 (0.05) for MBW, and 0.12 (0.03) to 0.22 (0.06) for gRFI. In general, heritability estimates were lower in the first stage of lactation compared with the later stages of lactation. Additive genetic correlations between weeks of lactation varied, with stronger correlations between weeks of lactation that were close together. The results of this study contribute to a better understanding of the change in genetic parameters across the first lactation, providing insight into potential selection strategies to include feed efficiency in breeding programs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".