Joint evaluation of purebreds and crossbreds in swine
- PMID: 12350003
- DOI: 10.2527/2002.8092263x
Joint evaluation of purebreds and crossbreds in swine
Abstract
Data from two purebred swine lines A (n = 6,022) and B (n = 24,170), and their reciprocal, cross C (n = 6,135), were used to examine gains in reliability of combined purebred and crossbred evaluation over conventional within-line evaluations using crossbred and pureline models. Random effects in the pureline model included additive, parental dominance, and litter. In the crossbred model, effects were as in the pureline model except traits of each line were treated as separate traits and two additive effects were present. The approximate model was the same as the pureline except it was used for all lines disregarding breed differences. The traits in the evaluation were lifetime daily gain (LDG) and backfat. When separate line evaluations were replaced by evaluations with crossbreds, mean reliabilities of predicted breeding values increased by 2 to 9% for purebreds and by 21 to 72% for crossbreds. Rank correlations between these breeding values were > 0.99 for purebreds but 0.85 to 0.87 for crossbreds. Rank correlations between predicted breeding values obtained from crossbred and approximate models were 0.98 to 0.99 for purebreds and 0.96 to 0.98 for crossbreds. When the number of crossbreds was small in comparison to purebreds, the increase in reliability by using the crossbred data and the crossbred model as opposed to purebred models was small for purebreds but large for crossbreds. The approximate model provided very similar rankings to the crossbred model for purebreds but rankings were less consistent for crossbreds.
Similar articles
-
Genetic parameter estimates from joint evaluation of purebreds and crossbreds in swine using the crossbred model.J Anim Sci. 2001 Dec;79(12):3002-7. doi: 10.2527/2001.79123002x. J Anim Sci. 2001. PMID: 11811453
-
Dissecting total genetic variance into additive and dominance components of purebred and crossbred pig traits.Animal. 2019 Nov;13(11):2429-2439. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119001046. Epub 2019 May 23. Animal. 2019. PMID: 31120005
-
Performance of selected and control lines of Duroc and Yorkshire pigs and their reciprocal crossbred progeny.J Anim Sci. 1983 Oct;57(4):867-78. doi: 10.2527/jas1983.574867x. J Anim Sci. 1983. PMID: 6643303
-
Genomic evaluation with multibreed and crossbred data.JDS Commun. 2022 Jan 10;3(2):156-159. doi: 10.3168/jdsc.2021-0177. eCollection 2022 Mar. JDS Commun. 2022. PMID: 36339739 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Is crossbreeding the answer to questions of dairy breed utilization?J Dairy Sci. 2002 Sep;85(9):2352-7. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74315-4. J Dairy Sci. 2002. PMID: 12362468 Review.
Cited by
-
Pedigree and genomic evaluation of pigs using a terminal-cross model.Genet Sel Evol. 2016 Apr 7;48:32. doi: 10.1186/s12711-016-0211-3. Genet Sel Evol. 2016. PMID: 27056443 Free PMC article.
-
Genomic BLUP including additive and dominant variation in purebreds and F1 crossbreds, with an application in pigs.Genet Sel Evol. 2016 Jan 29;48:6. doi: 10.1186/s12711-016-0185-1. Genet Sel Evol. 2016. PMID: 26825279 Free PMC article.
-
Leveraging low-density crossbred genotypes to offset crossbred phenotypes and their impact on purebred predictions.J Anim Sci. 2022 Dec 1;100(12):skac359. doi: 10.1093/jas/skac359. J Anim Sci. 2022. PMID: 36309902 Free PMC article.
-
Genomic evaluation of both purebred and crossbred performances.Genet Sel Evol. 2014 Mar 25;46(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-46-23. Genet Sel Evol. 2014. PMID: 24666469 Free PMC article.
-
Comparing Alternative Single-Step GBLUP Approaches and Training Population Designs for Genomic Evaluation of Crossbred Animals.Front Genet. 2020 Apr 9;11:263. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00263. eCollection 2020. Front Genet. 2020. PMID: 32328083 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources