ArticleJournal of animal science2019
Evaluation of a genomic-enhanced sorting system for feeder cattle1.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A primer on sequencing and genotype imputation in cattle.Journal of animal science · 2025Review
- Genetics and nutrition impacts on herd productivity in the Northern Australian beef cattle production cycle.Veterinary and animal science · 2022Review
- Genetic architecture of quantitative traits in beef cattle revealed by genome wide association studies of imputed whole genome sequence variants: II: carcass merit traits.BMC genomics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the use of molecular breeding values (MBVs) for carcass traits to sort steers into quality grid and lean meat yield (LMY) groups. A discovery set of 2,609 animals with genotypes and carcass phenotypes was used to predict MBVs for LMY and marbling score (MBS) for 299 Angus, 181 Charolais, and 638 Kinsella Composite steers using genomic best linear unbiased prediction. Steers were sorted in silico into four MBV groups namely Quality (with MBVs greater than the mean for LMY and MBS), Lean (with MBVs greater than the mean for LMY but less than or equal to the mean for MBS), Marbling (with MBVs greater than the mean for MBS but less than or equal to the mean for LMY), and Other (with MBVs lower than the mean for LMY and MBS). Carcass phenotypes on the steers were then collected at slaughter and evaluated for consistency with the assigned MBV groups using descriptive statistics and least square analysis. Accuracy of MBV predictions was assessed by Pearson's correlation between predicted MBV and adjusted phenotype divided by the square root of trait heritability. Genomic breed compositions were predicted for all steers to correct for possible population stratification and breed effects in the test model. The number of steers that met the expected carcass outcome was counted to produce actual percentages for each MBV group. Results showed that on average, Quality and Marbling groups had greater back-fat and more marbling across the three populations while Lean group had leaner carcasses. Carcass weights were similar across MBV groups. Within MBV groups, decreases in variability were observed for most traits suggesting improvement in carcass uniformity. Greater than 70% of the steers in Quality, Lean, and Marbling groups met the Quality Grid and Y1-LMY target for Angus and Charolais but not for Kinsella composite. The accuracy of MBV prediction ranged from 0.43 to 0.59 indicating that up to 35% of the observed carcass trait variability can be predicted, which suggests utility of MBV as a marker-assisted management tool to sort feeder cattle into uniform carcass endpoint groups under similar environmental and management conditions. Further investigation is warranted to evaluate the performance of feeder cattle sorted based on MBV and managed for different carcass endpoints as well as the cost-benefit implications for feedlot operations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.