"sic transit gloria mundi"

Also worth reading the reviews of the original article. Obviously these reflect past versions of the article. It would be interesting to read the first submission to see how extreme a position the first submission took.

static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10...

As part of a conference on the topic I wrote a commentary on why I was quite pessimistic about this approach, echoing some of the concerns lifted here. The proceedings are online: www.nibjournal.ed.ac.uk/article/view...

One reason is that reviewers and editor for journals do a good job. I've seen quite a few preprints (including mine) improve *a lot* and remove mistakes after revision. The same process can catch fraud.

quand en France on arretera de penser que la science est fait *que* par des "Pasteur"

in one paper we compared "per farm" weights with average weights and genetic gains were nearly identical: doi: 10.1017/S1751731107657814

agreed. What one can try is to show that very crude weights are much better than just improving milk or milk+repro or desired gains or whatever

you may think in Pythagoras theorem, if you select only for milk you gain 1, if you select only for repro you gain 1, if you select both you gain 0.71 in each of them (or something like that) but 1.41 overall

"too many traits" is true in the sense that if you improve 2 traits simultaneously you may have smaller gains in both than improving them alone. But that will make you loose money.