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


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carabaño, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Díaz, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carabaño, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Díaz, C.
J. Anim. Sci. 2004. 82:3447-3457
© 2004 American Society of Animal Science


ANIMAL GENETICS

Comparing alternative definitions of the contemporary group effect in Avileña Negra Ibérica beef cattle using classical and Bayesian criteria1

M. J. Carabaño*,2, A. Moreno*, P. López-Romero{dagger} and C. Díaz*

* Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal, INIA, Madrid, Spain; and and {dagger} Unidad de Bioinformática, CBMSO-CSIC, Madrid, Spain

2 Correspondence: Ctra. de la Coruña Km. 7.5; 28040 Madrid (phone: +34-91-3476742; fax: +34-91-3572293; e-mail: mjc{at}inia.es).

Data on weaning weight from 12,740 animals were used to compare different definitions of contemporary groups (CG) for the genetic evaluation of the Avileña Negra Ibérica beef cattle breed. Six alternative definitions for the CG effect were considered: herd-year-season of calving (HYS), with seasons defined according to the four natural seasons; herd-year-month of calving (HYM); herd clusters of 30 d (HC30-30) or 90 d (HC90-90); and adaptive herd clusters with two time limits, 30 and 90 d (HC30-90), and 30 and 180 d (HC30-180). A minimum of five observations in each CG class was required. This rendered substantial differences in loss of information, ranging from 0.7% of the total number of records for HC30-180 to 14% for HYM. Several classical statistics and Bayesian criteria for statistical model comparison were used. The use of classical criteria, such as the between- and within-CG variation and the accuracy of prediction, can be controversial because of their dependency on the unknown variance components. Residual variance decreased with the decrease in time span associated with the definition of CG. This was expected in this population because environmental conditions are highly variable throughout the year. However, estimates of the additive genetic variance for direct effects, which should not be affected by the definition of CG, were substantially larger for definitions involving larger time periods (HYS, HC90-90). When parameters used in the current evaluation procedure were used with all data sets, CG involving 30 d (HYM and HC30-30) were optimal in terms of providing the lowest/largest within-/between-CG variation. On the other hand, CG involving 90 d (HYS and HC90-90) yielded the poorest within-/between CG variation, with only a slight improvement of accuracy of prediction of direct genetic values over the other definitions. Bayes factors and cross-validation predictive densities allowed for improved discrimination among models. Models including CG spanning 30 d were more plausible and showed better predicting ability than models spanning 90 d. Adaptive CG showed intermediate results. Overall, it seems that average time span rendered by the different definitions had a major effect on the ranking of models. However, from the breeder’s point of view, the loss of information associated with definitions involving shorter periods of time, such as HYM or HC30-30, might be unacceptable.

Key Words: Bayesian Analysis • Beef Cattle • Clusters • Contemporary Groups • Genetic Evaluation




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J DAIRY SCIHome page
J. Vasconcelos, F. Santos, A. Bagnato, and J. Carvalheira
Effects of Clustering Herds with Small-Sized Contemporary Groups in Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluations
J Dairy Sci, January 1, 2008; 91(1): 377 - 384.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J ANIM SCIHome page
R. J. C. Cantet, A. N. Birchmeier, A. W. C. Cayo, and C. Fioretti
Semiparametric animal models via penalized splines as alternatives to models with contemporary groups
J Anim Sci, November 1, 2005; 83(11): 2482 - 2494.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Society of Animal Science.