ArticleJournal of animal science2025
Predictive ability of a commercial mixed-breed genomic test for feedlot performance and carcass traits of beef × Holstein steers.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2025. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic tests are marketed as a method to appraise cattle value prior to feedlot entry. We aimed to evaluate the use of a commercial, multi-breed genomic test to predict terminal production characteristics of beef × Holstein steers. Phenotypes of feedlot performance and carcass characteristics were evaluated in beef × Holstein steers (n = 259) sired by 8 beef breeds. Steers were genotyped with Igenity Beef (Neogen Corporation, Lansing, MI), which ranks cattle for individual traits and by selection indexes on a scale of 1 to 10. Trait rankings were converted to molecular breeding values (MBV) derived from genotype. Expected progeny differences (EPD) of each steer's sire were accessed from their respective breed associations. U.S. Meat Animal Research Center across-breed adjustments for beef cattle were applied to growth and carcass sire EPD for all cattle except for the 11 Wagyu-sired steers (n = 248 steers with sire EPD). Breed-adjusted sire EPD and MBV of traits were correlated with associated phenotypes of beef × Holstein steers and phenotypes were regressed on sire EPD and MBV. Sire EPD and MBV of yearling weight (YW) and hot carcass weight (HCW) were positively associated with initial and final feedlot body weight, respectively. The MBV of average daily gain (ADG) was not associated with phenotypic ADG, though greater derived sire EPD of ADG was associated with greater ADG and dry matter intake (DMI). The MBV of residual feed intake (RFI) was associated with DMI (P = 0.02) but not RFI or gain-to-feed ratio. Each kg of RFI predicted by MBV resulted in 0.31 kg greater ADG (P < 0.01), suggesting that MBV of RFI in beef × Holstein steers are not independent of the rate of gain. For each kg of HCW predicted by MBV and sire EPD carcasses were 0.52 and 0.80 kg heavier (P < 0.01). Neither sire EPD nor MBV of ribeye area and backfat thickness were related to the corresponding phenotypes of beef × Holstein carcasses (P > 0.05). Both MBV and sire EPD of marbling score were strong predictors of marbling score and intramuscular fat content (P < 0.05). Tenderness MBV accurately predicted tenderness of the longissimus muscle of beef × Holstein progeny (P < 0.01). Igenity Beef Terminal Index ranking was associated with greater feedlot profitability (P = 0.03), but marbling MBV and sire EPD were more strongly associated with feedlot net profit (P < 0.01). Breed-adjusted sire EPD performed similarly to Igenity Beef MBV in predicting growth performance, carcass characteristics, and net profit of beef × Holstein steers.
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.