Estimation of the Dominance Variance for Postweaning Gain in the U.S. Limousin Population

Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 76, Issue 10, 1998, Pages 2515-2520

  Gengler, N ^a,b   Misztal, I ^a   Bertrand, J K ^a   Culbertson, M S ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

^c Cotswold USA ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Dominance; Genetic Parameters; Limousin; Postweaning Interval

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BREEDING; CATTLE; DOMINANT GENE; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HETEROZYGOTE; INBREEDING; MALE; WEANING; WEIGHT GAIN;

ANIMALS; BREEDING; CATTLE; FEMALE; GENES, DOMINANT; HETEROZYGOTE; INBREEDING; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; VARIATION (GENETICS); WEANING; WEIGHT GAIN;

EID: 0032176693     PISSN: 00218812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2527/1998.76102515x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Culbertson, M. S., J. W. Mabry, I. Misztal, N. Gengler, J. K. Bertrand, and L. Varona. 1998. Estimation of dominance variance in purebred Yorkshire swine. J. Anim. Sci. 76:448-451.
2. Elzo, M. A., and T. R. Famula. 1985. Multibreed sire evaluation procedures within a country. J. Anim. Sci. 60:942-952.
3. Gengler, N., L. D. Van Vleck, M. D. MacNeil, I. Misztal, and F. A. Pariacote. 1997. Influence of dominance relationships on the estimation of dominance variance with sire-dam subclass effects. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2885-2891.
4. Gregory, K. E., L. V. Cundiff, R. M. Koch, M. E. Dikeman, and M. Koohmaraie. 1994. Breed effects and retained heterosis for growth, carcass, and meat traits in advanced generations of composite populations of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 72:833-850.
5. Henderson, C. R. 1989. Prediction of merits of potential matings from sire-maternal grandsire models with nonadditive genetic effects. J. Dairy Sci. 72:2592-2605.
6. Hoeschele, I., and P. M. VanRaden. 1991. Rapid inversion of dominance relationship matrices for noninbred populations by including sire by dam subclass effects. J. Dairy Sci. 74:557-569.
7. Lo, L. L., R. L. Fernando, and M. Grossman. 1997. Genetic evaluation by BLUP in two-breed terminal crossbreeding systems under dominance. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2877-2884.
8. Misztal, I. 1997. Estimation of variance components with large-scale dominance models. J. Dairy Sci. 80:965-974.
9. Misztal, I., T. J. Lawlor, and R. L. Fernando. 1997a. Studies on dominance models by Method ℛ for stature of Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 80:975-978.
10. Misztal, I., T. J. Lawlor, and N. Gengler. 1997b. Relationships among estimates of inbreeding depression, dominance and additive variance for linear traits in Holsteins. Genet. Sel. Evol. 29:319-326.
11. Reverter, A., B. L. Golden, R. M. Bourdon, and J. S. Brinks. 1994. Method ℛ variance components procedure: Application on the simple breeding value model. J. Anim. Sci. 72:2247-2253.
12. Rodríguez-Almeida, F. A., L. D. Van Vleck, R. L. Willham, and S. L. Northcutt. 1995. Estimation of non-additive genetic variances in three synthetic lines of beef cattle using an animal model. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1002-1011.
13. Sölkner, J., and J. W. James. 1990. Optimum design of crossbreeding experiment, 2: Optimum relationship structures of animals within and between genetic groups. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 107: 411-420.
14. VanRaden, P. M. 1992. Accounting for inbreeding and crossbreeding in genetic evaluation of large populations. J. Dairy Sci. 75: 3136-3144.