Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T04:27:56.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of using the wrong genetic model to predict the merit of crossbred genotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. P. Kinghorn  and
P. E. Vercoe
B. P. Kinghorn
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
P. E. Vercoe
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
Get access

Abstract

This paper evaluates the consequences of using the wrong genetic model when predicting the merit of previously untested crossbred genotypes. Eight models are considered, seven including different biological interpretations of two-locus epistatic interaction, plus one excluding epistatic effects. Published results from 13 genotypes generated from Hereford and Angus parental breeds were analysed, and predictions of a further seven genotypes made using different models. Under a dominance model, the predicted superiority in pregnancy rate (%) of a ¾ Hereford: ¼ Angus composite over a two-breed rotation was +1·2%, yet under all other models this was a negative value ranging from –1·9% to –3·7%. However, few such cases were found in which significant decision errors could conceivably be made. It is concluded that decisions on the choice of crossbred genotypes are generally quite robust to differences in the genetic model of the type studied here

Type
Papers
Information
Animal Production , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , October 1989 , pp. 209 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cunningham, E. P. 1982. The genetic base of heterosis. 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, Vol. VI, pp. 190–205. Editorial Garsi.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1969. Experimental approaches in utilising breed resources. Animal Breeding Abstracts 37: 191–202.Google Scholar
Hayman, B. I. and Mather, K. 1955. The description of genie interactions in continuous variation. Biometrics 11: 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P. 1980. The expression of ‘recombination loss’ in quantitative traits. Zeitschrift für Tierzüchtung und Züchtungsbiologie 97: 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P. 1983. Genetic effects in crossbreeding. III. Epistatic loss in crossbred mice. Zeitschrift für Tierzüchtung und Züchtungsbiologie 100: 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P. 1986. Mating plans for selection across breeds. Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Nebraska, Vol. XII, pp. 233–244.Google Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P. 1987. The nature of 2-locus epistatic interactions in animals: evidence from Sewall Wright's guinea pig data. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 73: 595–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, R. M., Dickerson, G. E., Cundiff, L. V. and Gregory, K. E. 1985. Heterosis retained in advanced generations of crosses among Angus and Hereford cattle. Journal of Animal Science 60: 1117–1132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Notter, D. R., Sanders, J. O., Dickerson, G. E., Smith, G. M. and Cartwright, T. C. 1979. Simulated efficiency of beef production for a midwestern cow-calffeedlot management system. III. Crossbreeding systems. Journal of Animal Science 49: 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar