AN EMPIRICAL COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF SIRE SELECTION: A BREEDING VALUE APPROACH 2916
dc.contributor.advisor | Dr. D. V. Patel | |
dc.contributor.author | Patel Vedangi A. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-03T06:35:54Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-06-03T06:35:54Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019-08 | |
dc.description.abstract | A total of 323 daughters of 44 sires maintained for first lactation records and 833 daughters of 44 sires maintained for all lactation records at Cattle Breeding Farm, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh from 1988-2017 were analysed to compare various sire evaluation methods for 300-DMY, LL and CI. Sire evaluation was done using conventional indices (viz. Modified Simple Daughter Average index, Equiparent index, Norton index, Rice index, Tomar index, Corrected Daughter Average index, Contemporary Comparison method and Corrected Contemporary Comparison method), Least Squares method (LS), Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) and Average Information Restricted Maximum Likelihood Method (AIREML). BLUP and AIREML models were constructed using univariate models, repeatability models, multivariate models using three traits in all possible combination for first lactation records as well as all lactation records. Criteria for comparison of all the models involved error variance to measure the efficiency of models, additionally, coefficient of determination (%) (R 2 values) and coefficient of variation (CV%) were used to measure the accuracy and stability of models respectively for LS, BLUP and AIREML. The results indicated that the I-1 model and LS models were found to be quite satisfactory looking % relative efficiency (99.25), error variance (2566.31 kg2 ), range (420.13 kg) and % proportion of sires having equal or more breeding values than average for 300-DMY. For LL, AF-23 model was found satisfactory looking to ABSTRACT% relative efficiency (100%), error variance (752.44 days2 ), range (293.24 days) and % proportion of sires having equal or more breeding values than average (52.27%) followed by models AF-123 and I-1 & LS with nearby result with AF-23. For CI, AF 23 model was found satisfactory looking to % relative efficiency (100), error variance (463.76 days2 ), range (251.77 days) and % proportion of sires having equal or more breeding values than average(68.18). The next best models were BF-123 with 98.25% and I-1 & LS with 89.40% relative efficiency. The rank correlation among all conventional indices and Least Square were found positive and highly significant for 300-DMY and CI under study except the rank correlation of I-1 for LL. For 300-DMY, AF-12 was inferred as the most efficient model of sire evaluation with the least variance, while LS and I-1 were found next best models with 2566.31kg2 error variance. LS with relative accuracy 97.87% was observed as next best accurate models after BF-13 (100%). LS model had their lower CV% as compared to other models. LS had highest stability for 300-DMY. The sires having Id 5, 24, 27 and 37 out of top ten sires were commonly selected by the most efficient, accurate & stable models AF-12, BF-13 and LS, respectively. For LL, AF-23 model was found the most efficient model with least within sire variance (752.44 days2 ) while, LS and I-1 had 98.27% relative efficiency. BF-12 was more accurate with 83.2% R2 value and was considered as the most accurate method, followed by LS and I-1. AF-12 had highest stability in LL with lowest CV%. The sires having Id 24, 29 & 35 out of top ten sires were commonly selected by the most efficient, accurate and stable models AF-23, BF-12 and LS, respectively. For CI, AF-23 showed least error variance and thus was inferred as the most efficient method, while, LS had 89.40% relative efficiency. BF-23 had the highest accuracy with R2 (92.45%) among all the models. The next best accurate model was BF-123. Looking to the stability criteria, LS had lower CV% among all models showing. Thus, LS was inferred as most stable model. None of the sires out of top ten were commonly selected by the most efficient, accurate and stable models AF-23, BF-23 and LS, respectively, but sire Id 29 and 36 were selected as common by AF-23 and BF-23 models. It is clear that all first lactation models (F-models) had lower R2 values, had higher CV% and error variance values than their corresponding all lactation models (A-models). Thus use of all lactation records leads to increase in accuracy, stability and efficiency of predicting breeding values for 300-DMY, LL and CI. For 300-DMY AF-12, BF-13 and LS proved to be most efficient, most accurate and most stable model, respectively, while. AF-23, BF-12 and AF-12 proved to be most efficient, most accurate and most stable model, respectively for LL. For CI AF-23, BF-23 and LS proved to be most efficient, most accurate and most stable model, respectively. Use of models incorporating all lactation records instead of those incorporating first lactation records for sire evaluation provided more accuracy, stability and efficiency for all traits. Hence, sire evaluation must be done considering all the available lactation records of the animal | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/5810169516 | |
dc.language.iso | English | en_US |
dc.publisher | JAU, JUNAGADH | en_US |
dc.sub | Statistics | en_US |
dc.theme | AN EMPIRICAL COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF SIRE SELECTION: A BREEDING VALUE APPROACH 2916 | en_US |
dc.these.type | M.Sc | en_US |
dc.title | AN EMPIRICAL COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF SIRE SELECTION: A BREEDING VALUE APPROACH 2916 | en_US |
dc.type | Thesis | en_US |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 9 of 23
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- 1. Title Page.pdf
- Size:
- 83.85 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
- AN EMPIRICAL COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF SIRE SELECTION: A BREEDING VALUE APPROACH 2916
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- 2. Inner Page.pdf
- Size:
- 32.26 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- 3. Dedicated.pdf
- Size:
- 85.53 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- 4. ABSTRACT.pdf
- Size:
- 110.91 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- 5. CERTIFICATE 1.pdf
- Size:
- 170.83 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- 6. VED ACKNWOLEDGEMENT.pdf
- Size:
- 29.63 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- 8. LIST OF ABBREVIATION.pdf
- Size:
- 88.36 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- 9.CHAPTER 1.pdf
- Size:
- 99.11 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- 10.CHAPTER 2.pdf
- Size:
- 174.97 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
License bundle
1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- license.txt
- Size:
- 1.71 KB
- Format:
- Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
- Description: