Animal Molecular Breeding, 2013, Vol.3, No.2, 4
-
15
http://amb.sophiapublisher.com
8
Model 8 had not shown any trend. At weaning weight,
sire had maximum variation under model 8.
Table 6 Observed between and within sire variance (expressed as percentage of phenotypic variation) under model 2 and modle 8
Observed family
components
Statistical
model used
Traits
BWT
Percentage
(%)
WWT Percentage
(%)
6
WT
Percentage
(%)
GFYI
Percentage
(%)
σ
2
s (PHS)
Model 2
0.008
3.43
0.352
5.94
0.554
6.11
0.009
10.36
σ
2
w (PHS)
Model 2
0.217
96.6
5.576
94.1
8.507
93.9
0.074
89.6
σ
2
s (PHS)
Model 8
0.008
3.70
0.275
4.63
0.366
4.04
0.003
3.62
σ
2
w (PHS)
Model 8
0.216
96.3
5.659
95.4
8.697
96.0
0.078
96.6
Note: σ
2
s between sire component of variance, σ
2
w within sire component of variance, and PHS (Paternal half sibs).
The coefficients of multiple determination (R
2
)
obtained
under model 8, were 13.32%, 30.80%, 33.52% and
26.11%
respectively for BWT, WWT, 6 WT and GFYI.
For growth traits, as the age of the animal advanced
the R
2
increased. Higher variation at 6 WT indicates
the need for applying intense selection pressure at the
age of 6 months.
The spectacular improvement in the production capacity
could be achieved from selection of rams. This is
because with the use of rams at large scale very high
intensity of selection could be practiced in males.
With the increase in the intensity of selection the
importance of accuracy also increases. Therefore,
selection of rams based on their accurately predicted
breeding value is of paramount importance. Prediction
of breeding value depends upon the method of sire
evaluation used. There is a constant thrust to get
BLUP evaluations by using an animal model under
single or multiple trait models depending upon the
goal. As per the objectives, the sires have been ranked
on the basis of solution obtained through univariate
and multivariate REML using animal model and
BLUP value for sire effects under Model 8. The
sire/animal effect and list of ten tops ranking sires are
presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5,
Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10. Rank
correlation (Table 11) between these values worked
out to evaluate the efficiency of sire evaluation.
Table 7 Range of solutions (LSC) for sire effect under model 8
Trait
Best sire
Worst sire
Percentage of sire with (%)
Sire
LSC
Sire
LSC
Sire
LSC
Sire
LSC
BWT
0.1224
4.31
CS 75
-0.1190
-4.19
CS 367
49.1
50.9
WWT
0.6686
5.74
CS 28
-0.7076
-6.07
C 1677
41.8
58.2
6
WT
0.8365
5.14
CC 15
-0.7304
-4.49
PHY 2
41.8
58.2
GFY
1
0.0851
8.96
CO 170
-0.0575
-6.05
CS 328
48.2
51.8
Table8 Sire effects of ten top ranking sires for BWT, WWT, 6WT and GFY1 under model 8
Rank
BWT
WWT
6
WT
GFY
1
Sire
LSC
Sire
LSC
Sire
LSC
Sire
LSC
1
CS 75
0.1224
CS 28
0.6686
CC 15
0.8365
CO 170
0.0851
2
CS 16
0.1098
CS 1549
0.5804
CO 170
0.8357
CO 541
0.0650
3
CS 327
0.899
CS 541
0.5354
CS 327
0.6714
CS 54
0.0599
4
CS 485
0.0899
CS 162
0.5317
CS 28
0.6365
CS 28
0.0563
5
CS 162
0.0850
CS 170
0.5295
CS 483
0.6325
CS 873
0.0518
6
CS 619
0.0740
CS 327
0.4948
C 90
0.5896
C 2108
0.0488
7
CS 541
0.0739
CS 90
0.4829
CO 629
0.5478
C 1549
0.0432
8
CS 28
0.0719
CS 784
0.4584
C 1820
0.5473
CO 269
0.0391
9
CS 863
0.0716
CS 75
0.4576
C 1549
0.4902
C 1662
0.0384
10
CS 784
0.0702
CS 50
0.3802
CO 541
0.4703
CS 486
0.0381