MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404327893 · doi:10.1111/asj.70010

Estimation of genetic and non‐genetic effects on productive life of Iranian Holstein dairy cows

2024· article· en· W4404327893 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Reisi‐Vanani, Saeid Ansari Mahyari, A. Pakdel, R.I. Cue

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Science Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCullingSireIce calvingHerdAnimal scienceBiologyHeritabilityRandom effects modelLactationMedicinePregnancyInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the factors that influence the lifespan of dairy cows is crucial for enhancing their productive life (PL). This study aimed to investigate the impact of genetic and environmental effects on the PL of Holstein cows. Data included 82,505 cows from 1952 sires that calved for the first time between 2001 and 2016. PL was defined from first calving to culling. Proportional hazard models, assuming a piecewise Weibull distribution of the baseline hazard function, were utilized to account for time-dependent effects, such as herd size variations, year-season, milk yield, fat and protein contents, and the time-independent fixed effect of age at first calving. Herd-year and sire effects were considered as random effects. All effects showed significant associations with PL (p < 0.001). The relative risk of culling was higher in heifers that calved at an older age and cows that calved during the cold season. Moreover, cows with lower production had a significantly shorter PL compared with high-producing cows. The effective heritability in the absence of censored data was estimated at 0.15. These findings suggest that greater attention should be paid to regular and accurate breeding programs, which are essential for enhancing profitability and the PL of Iranian dairy cows.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Science JournalSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207