Table 3.
The proportion of overlapped top 1% heifersa when using prop-EG and mTHL-EG as environmental gradients (EGs) in reaction norm models (RNM) with the H matrix in Holstein cattle
| EGb | AFCc | IFL | CR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prop-EG | mTHI-EG | S1d | S2 | S1 | S2 | S1 | S2 |
| 0.2 | 43.03 | 76.47% | 82.69% | 72.92% | 64.37% | 29.63% | 36.63% |
| 0.4 | 48.29 | 84.57% | 87.35% | 81.24% | 77.69% | 59.60% | 51.50% |
| 0.6 | 52.34 | 88.24% | 82.02% | 85.68% | 78.91% | 65.82% | 60.93% |
| 0.8 | 55.54 | 83.02% | 75.47% | 80.69% | 75.47% | 65.70% | 62.93% |
| 1 | 67.02 | 82.24% | 76.03% | 79.69% | 74.92% | 64.04% | 60.27% |
a Heifers were selected based on gEBV and accuracy of estimation (> 0.4)
b prop-EG using the number of days that exceeding the threshold temperature humidity index in the period as EG, mTHI-EG using the minimum temperature humidity index of a day of the critical period as EG
c AFC Age at first calving, IFL Interval from the first to last service, CR Conception rate of first service
d S1 reference period, S2 periods selected based on the Akaike’s information criterion