English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Estimated breeding value (EBV) was calculated based on either individual phenotype (SP), an index of individual phenotype and full- and half-sib family averages (SI) or Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP). Calculations were done with correct data or data with 5, 10, 15 or 20% of the records per generation containing pedigree errors. Traits considered were litter size (LS), backfat (BF) and average daily gain (ADG). When data were correct, BLUP resulted in an advantage in expected genetic gain over SP of 22, 7.2 or 30.8% for LS, BF and ADG, respectively, and over SI of 9.6, 3.8 or 21.4%. When sire and dam pedigrees were incorrect for 20% of the pigs each generation, genetic gain using SI was reduced by 7, 2.5 or 6.5% and genetic gain using BLUP was reduced by 9.3, 3.2 or 12.4% for LS, BF and ADG, respectively. With 20% of the pedigrees in error, the advantages in genetic gain of using BLUP over SP, the method unaffected by errors in pedigree, were 10.5, 3.8 and 14.6% for LS, BF and ADG, respectively. These results suggest that, although BLUP is affected to a greater degree by pedigree errors than SP or SI, selection of swine using BLUP still would improve response to selection over the use of SP or SI.

Effects of errors in pedigree on three methods of estimating breeding value for litter size, backfat and average daily gain in swine