Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T01:54:12.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developments in methods for breeding value and parameter estimation in livestock

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

William G. Hill  and
Karin Meyer
William G. Hill
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JN
Karin Meyer
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JN
Get access

Extract

In an effective animal breeding programme the objectives are appropriate, the population structure is good, suitable records are collected, and these records are used in an optimal way so that animals likely to have the best offspring are chosen.

Estimates of genetic parameters such as heritabilities and correlations influence the design of the programme: for example, the optimal number of daughters to progeny test per dairy sire or, more fundamentally, whether to adopt performance or progeny testing, whether to record food conversion efficiency or simply growth rate, and whether or not to collect records on some indicator trait such as blood urea nitrogen level. The estimates of parameters also influence the weightings given to different traits and to individuals and relatives' performance in breeding value estimation and selection. Methods for estimating parameters have become much more sophisticated as a result of advances in theory, particularly, restricted maximum likelihood (REML), in computer power, and in development of special computer programs.

Type
Breeding Technology
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 12: Animal Breeding Opportunities , 1988 , pp. 81 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Benyshek, L.L., Johnson, M.H., Little, D.E., Bertrand, J.K. and Kriese, L.A. 1988. Applications of an animal model in the United States beef cattle industry. Journal of Dairy Science 71 Suppl. 2: 35–53.Google Scholar
Brotherstone, S. and Hill, W.G. 1986. Heterogeneity of variance amongst herds for milk production. Animal Production 42: 297–303.Google Scholar
Falconer, D.S.. 1981. An Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 2nd Ed., Longman, London.Google Scholar
Graser, H.-U., Smith, S.P. and Tier, B. 1987. A derivative-free approach for estimating variance components in animal models by Restricted Maximum Likelihood. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1362–1370.Google Scholar
Graser, H.-U. and Tier, B. 1988. Genetic evaluation of beef cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 17:: 97–100.Google Scholar
Harvey, W.R. 1960. Least squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. USDA, ARS 20-28.Google Scholar
Harvey, W.R. 1977. Mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood computer program. USDA, ARS.Google Scholar
Henderson, C.R. 1953. Estimation of variance and covariance components. Biometrics 9: 226–252.Google Scholar
Henderson, C.R. 1973. Sire evaluation and genetic trends. Proceedings of Animal Breeding and Genetics Symposium in Honor of Dr. J.L. Lush, ADSA and ASAS, p. 10–41.Google Scholar
Henderson, C.R. 1976. A simple method of computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in prediction of breeding values. Biometrics, 32: 69–83.Google Scholar
Hill, W.G., Edwards, M.R., Ahmed, M.-K.A. and Thompson, R. 1983. Heritability of milk yield and composition at different levels and variability of production. Animal Production 36: 59–68.Google Scholar
Hudson, G.F.S. and Kennedy, B.W. 1985. Genetic evaluation of swine for growth rate and backfat thickness. Journal of Animal Science. 61: 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, B.W., Schaeffer, L.R. and Sorensen, D.A. 1988. Genetic properties of animal models. Journal of Dairy Science 71, Suppl. 2: 17–26.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. 1985. Maxmimum likelihood estimation of variance components for a multivariate mixed model with equal design matrices. Biometrics 41: 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. 1988a. Estimation of variance components for Individual Animal Models. I. Univariate analyses. Génétique, Sélection, Évolution (submitted).Google Scholar
Meyer, K. 1988b. Estimation of variance components for Individual Animal Models. II. Multivariate analyses. Génétique, Sélection, Évolution (submitted).Google Scholar
Patterson, H.D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quaas, R.L. and Pollak, E.J. 1980. Mixed model methodology for farm and ranch beef cattle testing programs. Journal of Animal Science 51: 1277–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J.A.B. and Chesnais, J.P. 1988. Application of the Animal Model on a national basis to the evaluation of Canadian livestock. Journal of Dairy Science 71, Suppl. 2: 70–78.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, L.R. and Kennedy, B.W. 1986. Computing strategy for solving mixed model equations. Journal of Dairy Science 65: 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S.P. and Graser, H.-U. 1986. Estimating variance components in a class of mixed models by Restricted Maximum Likelihood. Journal of Dairy Science 69 1156–1165.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. and Meyer, K. 1986. Estimation of variance components: What is missing in the EM algorithm? Journal of Statistics & Computer Simulation 24: 215–230.Google Scholar
Webb, A.J. and Bampton, P.R. 1988. Impact of the new technology on pig improvement. (This volume).Google Scholar
Wiggans, G.R., Misztal, I. and Van Vleck, L.D. 1988. Implementation of an Animal Model for genetic evaluation of dairy cattle in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 71 Suppl. 2: 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, N.R. 1988. Breeding value estimation for pigs in closed nucleus herds. Proceedings of British Society of Animal Production, Winter Meeting 1988 (Mimeo).Google Scholar