J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 1972. 34:726-736.
© 1972 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bereskin, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bereskin, B.

Monte Carlo Studies of Selection and Inbreeding in Swine. IV. Selection Response1

Ben Bereskin2

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland 20705

Abstract

A computer simulation study of selection and inbreeding processes in swine and other polytocous species was carried for 10 generations of selection. One-, two- and four-sire closed lines, with 10 mates per sire, were replicated 16, eight and four times, respectively. Each individual had 64 independent loci with two possible kinds of alleles at each locus. Different genetic models, ranging from additive to overdominance, controlled different sections of the genome. Selection was based on an index of phenotypic values for trait 1, controlling litter size, and trait 2, simulating growth rate.

In generation 1, about 2.5% of males and 25% of females were selected to be parents in lines of each size. By generation 10, these mean portions selected rose to 2.8% from males in one- and two-sire lines, but dropped to 2.4% in four-sire lines. Also in generation 10, the mean portion of females saved was close to 30% in one-sire lines and near 26% in two- and four-sire lines.

Footnotes

1 The author acknowledges with appreciation the contributions of the following: Dr. L. N. Hazel, Iowa State University, Ames, for suggesting this phase of the study and possible procedures; Dr. C. E. Shelby, A.S.R.D., A.R.S., U.S.D.A., Frankfort, Kentucky, for encouraging and fully supporting the study; G. L. Ghai and Drs. Ed. Pollak and Dave Jowell, Iowa State University, for certain computational suggestions; Drs. H. O. Hetzer, A.S.R.D., A.R.S., U.S.D.A., Beltsville, Maryland, J. L. Lush, Iowa State University and W. T. Magee, Michigan State University, East Lansing, for useful criticisms; and the Section Editor for pertinent suggestions to improve the manuscript.

2 Animal Science Research Division, A.R.S.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1972 by the American Society of Animal Science.