ArticleTranslational animal science2021
Effects of management decisions on genetic evaluation of simulated calving records using random regression.
Article in Translational animal science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of various data structures on the genetic evaluation for the binary phenotype of reproductive success. The data were simulated based on an existing pedigree and an underlying fertility phenotype with a heritability of 0.10. A data set of complete observations was generated for all cows. This data set was then modified mimicking the culling of cows when they first failed to reproduce, cows having a missing observation at either their second or fifth opportunity to reproduce as if they had been selected as donors for embryo transfer, and censoring records following the sixth opportunity to reproduce as in a cull-for-age strategy. The data were analyzed using a third-order polynomial random regression model. The EBV of interest for each animal was the sum of the age-specific EBV over the first 10 observations (reproductive success at ages 2-11). Thus, the EBV might be interpreted as the genetic expectation of number of calves produced when a female is given 10 opportunities to calve. Culling open cows resulted in the EBV for 3-yr-old cows being reduced from 8.27 ± 0.03 when open cows were retained to 7.60 ± 0.02 when they were culled. The magnitude of this effect decreased as cows grew older when they first failed to reproduce and were subsequently culled. Cows that did not fail over the 11 yr of simulated data had an EBV of 9.43 ± 0.01 and 9.35 ± 0.01 based on analyses of the complete data and the data in which cows that failed to reproduce were culled, respectively. Cows that had a missing observation for their second record had a significantly reduced EBV, but the corresponding effect at the fifth record was negligible. The current study illustrates that culling and management decisions, and particularly those that affect the beginning of the trajectory of sustained reproductive success, can influence both the magnitude and accuracy of resulting EBV.
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.