Comparison of three methods for estimating breeding values of Mecheri rams for body weights

DOI: 10.5958/0976-0555.2015.00037.0    | Article Id: B-2596 | Page : 161-164
Citation :- Comparison of three methods for estimating breeding values of Mecheri rams for body weights.Indian Journal Of Animal Research.2015.(49):161-164
V. Jeichitra*, R. Rajendran, K. Karunanithi and P.S. Rahumathulla vjeichitra@gmail.com
Address : Department of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Madras Veterinary College, Chennai – 600 007, Tamil Nadu, India.

Abstract

Estimates of breeding values were obtained for weights at birth, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of age in Mecheri sheep maintained at Mecheri Sheep Research Station, Pottaneri, Tamil Nadu, India, over a period of 16 years (1991 to 2006). Records of 1763 lambs born out of 74 sires were used for the study. Analyses were carried out by least-squares (LS), best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) and derivative free restricted maximum likelihood (DFREML) methods. Error variance for LS, BLUP and DFREML estimates were 0.153, 0.155 and 0.053; 3.573, 3.589 and 2.082; 6.529, 6.576 and 3.888; 8.697, 8.734 and 4.337 and, 8.324, 8.391 and 4.435 respectively for birth, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months weights. The coefficient of determination (R2) for LS, BLUP and DFREML methods were 24.7, 19.6 and 71.2; 32.6, 28.7 and 48.1; 37.0, 32.6 and 48.1; 39.0, 34.2 and 58.7 and, 46.9, 40.2 and 57.6 for birth, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months weights respectively. Spearman’s rank correlation for DFREML with BLUP and LS estimates were highly significant (P

Keywords

BLUP; Body weights Breeding value; DFREML; Mecheri; Sheep.

References

  1. Banik, S. and Gandhi, R.S. (2007). Effectiveness of DFREML versus conventional methods of Sahiwal sire evaluation. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 77: 1143-1147.
  2. Gandhi, R.S. and Gurnani, M. (1991). Accuracy of different methods of sire evaluation in Sahiwal cattle. Indian vet. J., 68: 659-662.
  3. Harvey, W.R., (1990). Mixed Model Least-squares and Maximum Likelihood Computer Programme. PC-2 version. Ohio State University, Columbus.
  4. Henderson, C.R., (1973). Sire evaluation and genetic trends. Proceedings of Animal Breeding and Genetics symposium in Honour of Dr. Jay L. Lush. American Society of Animal Sciences and American Dairy Science Association. Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. pp. 10-14.
  5. Mason, I.L. and Buvanendran, V., (1982). Breeding Plans for Ruminant Livestock in the Tropics. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 34. FAO, Rome.
  6. Meyer, K. (1998). DFREML User Notes. University of New England, Armidale, Australia.
  7. Robertson, A. and Rendel, J.M., (1954). The performance of heifers got by artificial insemination. J. Agri. Sci., 44: 184-192.
  8. Snedcor, S.W. and Cochran, W.G., (1989). Statistical Methods. Eight Edition, Iowa State University Press, USA. pp. 193-195.

Global Footprints