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


     


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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Golden, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by Snelling, W. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Golden, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by Snelling, W. M.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 72, Issue 10 2559-2567, Copyright © 1994 by American Society of Animal Science


JOURNAL ARTICLE

Additive genetic groups for animals evaluated in more than one breed association national cattle evaluation

B. L. Golden, R. M. Bourdon and W. M. Snelling
Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523.

Additive genetic groups were included in the 1993 Red Angus Association of America national cattle evaluation for phantom parents of individuals who were registered with the American Angus Association (AAA). Genetic groups were formed for each component in two multiple-trait evaluations in which all animal effects were fit. Additive direct effects were included for birth weight, weaning weight (WW), and milk (MILK). In a second analysis the additive direct effect of 160-d postweaning gain was analyzed with WW and MILK. Of the 387,665 animals, 50,838 had at least one phantom parent assigned to one of five genetic groups fit as fixed effects for each additive component. Of these 50,838 animals, 1,324 were identified as registered with the AAA. An average of 906 animals per component had an AAA EPD available. Animals with a known AAA EPD were designated into one of three groups of equal numbers based on AAA EPD for each component (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high). Animals in the fourth genetic group were those registered with the AAA but with no EPD available for the component. The fifth genetic group included all other animals with phantom parents. Grouping on AAA EPD allowed for EPD on animals out of parent(s) registered with the AAA to be more closely aligned to the AAA EPD because they were regressed from the group solution instead of zero. Grouping based on EPD from another NCE should be considered in the production of multibreed EPD.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Society of Animal Science.