ArticleJournal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie2026
Comparative Analysis of Recursive and Alternative Modelling Approaches Considering Body Condition Score for Genetic Evaluation of Mature Cow Weight.
Article in Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disentangling mature cow weight and body condition score: a comparative single-step GWAS of phenotypic pre-adjustment vs. recursive modeling.Journal of animal science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mature cow size, often defined by mature cow weight (MWT), height (MHT) and body condition score (BCS), is crucial to cow-calf profitability, maintenance efficiency and reproductive performance. Although MWT and MHT are often included in national cattle evaluations by many breed organisations, BCS adjustments are applied less consistently. This study investigated the impact of different modelling approaches on the estimation of breeding values for MWT, with a focus on how BCS is accounted for across models. The dataset provided by American Angus Association comprised 382,156 MWT and BCS records from 209,491 cows. Four modelling approaches were evaluated: Model 1 does not consider BCS; Model 2 treated BCS as a categorical fixed effect; Model 3 used pre-adjusted records standardised for BCS and age; and Model 4 used a recursive model to assess MWT as a genetically independent trait from BCS. Spearman correlations between breeding values predicted across models ranged from 0.79 (between Models 1 and 4) to 0.95 (between Models 1 and 2), indicating that 5%-21% of bulls could have different rankings depending on the model used. Concordance in sire selection was assessed between the top 10% of sires in each model, and model-pair comparison revealed differences ranging from 19% (between Models 1 and 2) to 40% (between Models 3 and 4). These differences highlight the potential for model choice to influence the selection outcomes. Model selection can significantly affect the sire rankings, highlighting the importance of carefully selecting the model that best aligns with the selection objectives and the underlying biology of the traits being evaluated. Although Model 4 offers theoretical advantages, this study does not allow for a definitive conclusion on its overall effectiveness, as no simulations were performed. Additional research is needed to confirm its advantages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.