2014
DOI: 10.4238/2014.september.26.13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Finishing precocity visual score and genetic associations with growth traits in Angus beef cattle

Abstract: ABSTRACT. Finishing precocity visual score selection was adopted to estimate the time from birth to reach slaughter age. This study estimated (co)variance components and genetic correlations for the finishing precocity score at weaning (WP) and yearling (YP) stages by using daily weight gain (BWG = from birth to weaning; WYG = from weaning to yearling) and speed of weight gain (BWR = from birth to weaning; WYR = from weaning to yearling) as support for a genetic evaluation program for Angus beef cattle. Geneti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As reported by Ribeiro et al (2001) and Araujo et al (2014), moderate to high heritability estimates for weaning weight and low maternal heritability for weaning weight indicate less reliance on descendants to get higher weights due to the contribution of their mothers, which shows that the most significant part of total variability is due to genetic additive action. This explains partially the low covariance, and further, the negative covariance between direct and maternal genetic effects (σ a,m ) recorded with different adjusted models (Tables 4 and 5).…”
Section:    mentioning
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As reported by Ribeiro et al (2001) and Araujo et al (2014), moderate to high heritability estimates for weaning weight and low maternal heritability for weaning weight indicate less reliance on descendants to get higher weights due to the contribution of their mothers, which shows that the most significant part of total variability is due to genetic additive action. This explains partially the low covariance, and further, the negative covariance between direct and maternal genetic effects (σ a,m ) recorded with different adjusted models (Tables 4 and 5).…”
Section:    mentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Some difficulties can be verified in obtaining Gibbs chain convergence in animal models because the algorithm used is characterized as an iterative process (Faria et al, 2008). Nevertheless, Bayesian inference is recommended to obtain genetic correlations between categorical (survival and visual scores) and continuous traits (weights) through multi-trait analysis (Everling et al, 2014). In this study, the Bayesian approach was performed using the GIBBS3F90 program (Misztal et al, 2015) (assuming linear distribution of data) and THRIGIBBS3F90 program (Misztal et al, 2015) program (assuming threshold distribution of data).…”
Section: Methods Of Restricted Estimated Maximum Likelihood (Reml)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some difficulties can be verified in obtaining Gibbs chain convergence in animal models because the algorithm used is characterized as an iterative process (Faria et al, 2008). Nevertheless, Bayesian inference is recommended to obtain genetic correlations between categorical (survival and visual scores) and continuous traits (weights) through multi-trait analysis (Everling et al, 2014). In this study, the Bayesian approach was performed using the GIBBS3F90 (Misztal et al, 2015) program (assuming linear distribution of data) and THRIGIBBS3F90 (Misztal et al, 2015) program (assuming threshold distribution of data).…”
Section: Estimation Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, the genetic covariance matrix G can be calculated as G = G0 ⊗ I. In the mixed model used, β is considered the vector of solutions for the systemic effects; however, from the Bayesian point of view, it is a vector of random effects in which the initial distribution values have uninformative priors; thus, they do not provide much information about the parameter and, therefore, have a uniform probability distribution (Everling, et al, 2014). This type of probability distribution indicates the same probability of occurrence of each of the possible variable values.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%