Animal Molecular Breeding, 2013, Vol.3, No.2, 4
-
15
http://amb.sophiapublisher.com
9
Table 9 Range of solutions for sire effect under univariate animal model
Trait
Best sire
Worst sire
Percentage of sire with (%)
Sire
LSC
Sire
LSC
Sire
LSC
Sire
LSC
BWT
0.5262
18.53
CS 863
-0.3109
-10.95
CC 22
66.4
33.6
WWT
2.2562
19.37
CS 784
-1.2493
-10.72
CO 47
71.8
28.2
6
WT
2.9024
17.36
CS784
-1.8118
-10.84
CO 106
69.1
30.9
GFY
1
0.1429
15.04
CS 170
-0.1036
-10.91
CO 106
60.9
39.1
Table 10 Sire effects of ten top ranking sires for BWT, WWT, 6WT and GFY1 under univariate animal model
Rank
BWT
WWT
6
WT
GFY
1
Sire
Sol
n
Sire
Sol
n
Sire
Sol
n
Sire
Sol
n
1
CS 863
0.5262
CS 785
2.2562
CS 784
2.9024
CO 170
0.1429
2
CS 784
0.4511
CS 863
1.8399
C 1752
2.8231
CS 863
0.1039
3
CS 619
0.4492
C 1752
1.6252
CO 170
2.6980
C 1752
0.0975
4
CS 327
0.4361
C 1549
1.5039
CS 327
2.6513
CS 162
0.0949
5
C 16
0.4210
CO 170
1.4760
C 1820
2.3141
CS 784
0.0866
6
CS 335
0.4205
CS 335
1.4654
CC 15
2.2931
CS 873
0.0851
7
CS 1785
0.3702
CS 408
1.4433
CS 408
2.1902
C 1783
0.0850
8
CS 442
0.3353
CS 162
1.3474
CC 50
2.1734
CS 18
0.0842
9
CS 162
0.3208
CS 327
1.3204
CS 483
2.1314
C 1662
0.0808
10
CS 485
0.2985
C 1820
1.2801
C 1783
2.0222
CS 38
0.0781
Table 11 Range of solutions for sire effect under multivariate animal mode
Trait
Best sire
Worst sire
Percentage of sire with (%)
Value
Percentage of
mean (%)
Sire
code
Value
Percentage of
mean (%)
Sire code
+ve sire effect -ve sire effect
BWT
0.5028
17.70
CS863
-0.3108
-10.94
CC 16
64.6
35.4
WWT
2.4870
21.35
CS784
-1.3714
-11.77
CO 411
74.6
25.4
6
WT
2.9949
17.91
CS50
-1.7834
-10.67
CO 411
68.2
31.8
GFY
1
0.1279
13.46
CS170
-0.1002
-10.55
CC 50
63.6
36.4
Three solutions for sire evaluation were used: Best
Liner Unbiased Prediction (BLUP
1
)
values of Model 8,
and univariate (BLUP
2
)
and multivariate (BLUP
3
)
solutions of REML. All the methods were based on
progeny testing; the BLUP
2
and BLUP
3
were based on
an animal model, which utilized information from all
the known relationships. Under univariate and multivariate
animal model no sire effect was fitted. The sire
solution was sorted out from the solution of all the
animals and used for comparison with BLUP values
obtained under model 8.
The raw means estimated by the different methods were
same, therefore, the sire effects taken as deviation of
the sire ‘s value from the raw mean and have been
presented and discussed for the purpose of sire evaluation
and comparison under different methods. The sires were
evaluated for BWT, WWT, and 6WT and GFY1 traits.
A total of 110 sires were evaluated. The information
on sire evaluation viz. percent of sires with negative or
positive sire effects, sire effect for the top ranking and
bottom ranking sires, and percent superiority/inferiority of
top/bottom ranking sires under various methods are
presented in Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table
11,
Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16.
Table13 Range of solutions for animal effects under univariate animal model
Trait
Best animal
Worst sire
Percentage of sire with (%)
Value
Percentage of
mean (%)
Animal
code
Value
Percentage of
mean (%)
Animal
code
+ve sire effect
-
ve sire effect
BWT
0.6334
22.30
CS 647
-0.5084
-17.90
CS 339
61.7
38.3
WWT 2.2562
19.37
CS 784
-1.3831
-11.87
CO 349
64.5
35.5
6
WT
3.4837
20.84
C 1549
-1.9756
-11.82
CO 419
66.0
34.0
GFY
1
0.1730
18.21
C 1549
-0.1036
-10.91
CO 106
59.3
40.7