Effect of Ignoring Random Sire and Dam Effects on Estimates and Standard Errors of Breed Comparisons

Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 76, Issue 9, 1998, Pages 2279-2286

  Barkhouse, K L ^a   Van Vleck, L D ^b   Cundiff, L V ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b U S MEAT ANIMAL RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Beef Cattle; Breeding Value; Breeds; Growth

Indexed keywords

BOS TAURUS;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BODY WEIGHT; BREEDING; CATTLE; FEMALE; GENETICS; HETEROSIS; MALE; PHENOTYPE;

ANIMALS; BODY WEIGHT; BREEDING; CATTLE; FEMALE; HYBRID VIGOR; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE;

EID: 0032152191     PISSN: 00218812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2527/1998.7692279x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Barkhouse, K. L., L. D. Van Vleck, and L. V. Cundiff. 1994. Breed comparisons for growth and maternal traits adjusted to a 1992 base. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation Annu. Mtg. West Des Moines, IA. pp 197-209.
2. Boldman, K. G., L. A. Kriese, L. D. Van Vleck, and S. D. Kachman. 1993. A manual for use of MTDFREML: A set of programs to obtain estimates of variances and covariances. p 120. USDA Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE.
3. Cundiff, L. V. 1993. Breed comparisons adjusted to a 1991 basis using current EPD. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation Annu. Mtg., Asheville, NC. pp 114-123.
4. Gill, J. L. 1991. Biases in balanced experiments with uncontrolled random factors. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 108:69-85.
5. Gregory, K. E., L. V. Cundiff, R. M. Koch, D. B. Laster, and G. M. Smith. 1978. Heterosis and breed maternal and transmitted effects in beef cattle. I. Preweaning traits. J. Anim. Sci. 47: 1031-1041.
6. Gregory, K. E., D. B. Laster, L. V. Cundiff, G. M. Smith, and R. M. Koch. 1979. Characterization of biological types of cattle-Cycle III: II. Growth rate and puberty in females. J. Anim. Sci. 49: 461-471.
7. Komender, P., and I. Hoeschele. 1989. Use of mixed-model methodology to improve estimation of crossbreeding parameters. Livest. Prod. Sci. 21:101-113.
8. Long, C. R. 1980. Crossbreeding for beef production: Experimental results. J. Anim. Sci. 51:1197-1223.
9. Notter, D. R., and L. V. Cundiff. 1991. Across-breed expected progeny differences: Use of within-breed expected progeny differences to adjust breed evaluations for sire sampling and genetic trend. J. Anim. Sci. 69:4763-4776.
10. Notter, D. R., L. V. Cundiff, G. M. Smith, D. B. Laster, and K. E. Gregory. 1978. Characterization of biological types of cattle. VII. Milk production in young cows and transmitted and maternal effects on preweaning growth of progeny. J. Anim. Sci. 46: 908-921.
11. Núñez-Dominguez, R., L. D. Van Vleck, and L. V. Cundiff. 1993. Breed comparisons for growth traits adjusted for within-breed genetic trend using expected progeny differences. J. Anim. Sci. 71:1419-1428.
12. Smith, G. M., D. B. Laster, and K. E. Gregory. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. I. Dystocia and preweaning growth. J. Anim. Sci. 43:27-36.
13. Souza, J. C. 1993. Effects of weather and breed on the performance of crossbred beef cattle. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln. p 108.
14. Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 1994. Prediction error variances for interbreed genetic evaluations. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1971-1977.