Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:19:58.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of extent and amount of heterogeneous variance for milk yield in Uruguayan Holsteins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. I. Urioste ,
D. Gianola ,
R. Rekaya ,
W. F. Fikse  and
K. A. Weigel
J. I. Urioste
Affiliation:
Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad de la Republica, 12900 Montevideo, Uruguay
D. Gianola
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53 706, USA
R. Rekaya
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53 706, USA
W. F. Fikse
Affiliation:
INTERBULL Centre, SLU, Box 7023, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
K. A. Weigel
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53 706, USA
Get access

Abstract

The extent and amount of heterogeneous phenotypic variance for milk yield in the Uruguayan Holstein population were evaluated and a simple method of accounting for heterogeneity was developed. Lactation records (159 169) collected between 1989 and 1998 by two recording schemes were used to form 8955 herd-year-season-parity-lactation length contemporary groups. A log-linear model was used to identify factors affecting heterogeneity of phenotypic variance. The model included effects of production level, contemporary group size, recording scheme, herd, season of calving, parity number, calving year period and length of lactation and accounted for 50% of the variation in log variances. Estimates from this model were used in a Bayesian manner, to obtain posterior mean estimates of within-contemporary-group variances, which were then used to standardize records to a baseline variance. Effects of the adjustment were assessed by comparing coefficients of variation before and after correction, by correlation and regression between mean and standard deviations, and by using Gini coefficients and Lorenz curves. The adjustment procedure reduced heteroscedasticity primarily by decreasing the frequency of low-variance contemporary groups. Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients indicated that the largest impact of the standardization procedure was related to the size of the contemporary group. Some differences in the effect of the correction were found between recording schemes. The method for adjusting records is simple and easy to adapt to current genetic evaluation procedures.

Keywords

Gini coefficientheterogeneityHolstein (Uruguayan)milk yieldvariance.
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 259 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguilar-Gutierrez, X. 2000. Desigualdad y pobreza en México, son inevitables? Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A. B. 1975. The economics of inequality. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Brotherstone, S. and Hill, W. G. 1986. Heterogeneity of variance amongst herds for milk production. Animal Production 42: 297–303.Google Scholar
Dodenhoff, J. and Swalve, H. H. 1998. Heterogeneity of variances across regions of northern Germany and adjustment in genetic evaluation. Livestock Production Science 53: 225–236.Google Scholar
Foulley, J. L., Gianola, D., San Cristobal, M. and Im, S. 1990. A method for assessing extent and sources of heterogeneity of residual variances in mixed linear models. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 1612–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulley, J. L., San Cristobal, M., Gianola, D. and Im, S. l992. Marginal likelihood and Bayesian approaches to the analysis of heterogeneous residual variances in mixed linear Gaussian models. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 13: 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastwirth, J. L. 1971. A general definition of the Lorenz curve. Econometrica 39: 1037–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastwirth, J. L. 1972. The estimation of the Lorenz curve and Gini index. The Review of Economics and Statistics 54: 306–316.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S. and Rubin, D. B. 1995. Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Gianola, D., Foulley, J. L., Fernando, R. L., Henderson, C. R. and Weigel, K. A. 1992. Estimation of heterogeneous variances using empirical Bayes methods: theoretical considerations. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 2805–2823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, C. R. 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31: 423–447.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. 1984. On selection among groups with heterogeneous variance. Animal Production 39: 473–477.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G., Edwards, M. R., Ahmed, M.-K. A. and Thompson, R. 1983. Heritability of milk yield and composition at different levels and variability of production. Animal Production 36: 59–68.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, M. A., Carabaño, M. J. and Alenda, R. 1999. Identification of sources of heterogeneous residual and genetic variances in milk yield data from the Spanish Holstein-Friesian population and impact on genetic evaluation. Livestock Production Science 59: 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibáñez, M. A., Carabaño, M. J., Foulley, J. L. and Alenda, R. 1996. Heterogeneity of herd-period phenotypic variances in the Spanish Holstein-Friesian cattle: sources of heterogeneity and genetic evaluation. Livestock Production Science 45: 137–147.Google Scholar
INTERBULL. 2000. National genetic evaluation programmes for dairy production traits practiced in INTERBULL member countries 1999-2000. Bulletin no. 24, Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. L., Kotz, S. and Balakrishnan, N. 1994. Continuous univariate distributions, volume 1. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T. H. E., Jong, G. de and Engel, B. 1996. Joint estimation of breeding values and heterogeneous variances of large data files. Journal of Dairy Science 79: 310–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, T. H. E. and Werf, J. H. J. van der. 1993. Impact of heterogeneous within herd variances on dairy cattle breeding schemes: a simulation study. Livestock Production Science 33: 31–41.Google Scholar
Robert-Granié, C., Bonaïti, B., Boichard, D. and Barbat, A. 1999. Accounting for variance heterogeneity in French dairy cattle genetic evaluation. Livestock Production Science 60: 343–357.Google Scholar
San Cristobal, M., Foulley, J. L. and Manfredi, E. 1993. Inference about multiplicative heteroskedastic components of variance in a mixed linear Gaussian model with an application to beef cattle breeding. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 25: 3–30.Google Scholar
Weigel, K. A. and Gianola, D. 1993. A computationally simple Bayesian method for estimation of heterogeneous within-herd phenotypic variances. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 1455–1465.Google Scholar
Weigel, K. A., Gianola, D., Yandell, B. S. and Keown, J. F. 1993. Identification of factors causing heterogeneous within-herd variance components using a structural model for variances. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 1466–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggans, G. R. and Van Raden, P. M. 1991. Method and effect of adjustment for heterogeneous variance. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 4350–4357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed