Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:32:51.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on increasing the limit of selection through selection within families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Leo Dempfle
Leo Dempfle
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 14850†
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It is shown that, in a finite population, by ensuring an equal contribution of offspring from each family we achieve a higher selection limit than by using mass selection, given that the correlation between selection criterion and additive genetic value is sufficiently high. The difference between the selection limits of the two schemes increases with more intense selection. The theoretical results were verified by Monte Carlo Simulation, and the influences of several factors were investigated. It is shown that such a breeding scheme might be useful in dairy cattle.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , October 1974 , pp. 127 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

References

REFERENCES

Bulmer, M. G. (1971). The effect of selection on genetic variability. The American Naturalist 105, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1918). The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52, 399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nei, M. & Murata, M. (1966). Effective population size when fertility is inherited. Genetical Research 8, 257–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, A. (1960). A theory of limits in artificial selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 153, 234–249.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. (1961). Inbreeding in artificial selection programmes. Genetical Research 2, 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar