Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T13:16:02.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electronics in animal breeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

G Simm  and
N R Wray
G Simm
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
N R Wray
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Extract

Two of the major steps in animal breeding programmes are (i) estimation of breeding values for a defined selection objective (such as milk production or carcass lean content), and (ii) design of optimum breeding programmes, including proportion of animals selected as parents, population size etc. Advances in electronics, and particularly in computer technology, have had a major Impact on these procedures in a number of ways. In this paper we aim to highlight four of these.

The preferred method of estimating breeding values is universally recognised to be BLUP (Best Linear Unbiased Prediction). BLUP is superior to classical procedures, such as contemporary comparison, for several reasons. The most important is that it is more accurate in separating differences between animals which are attributable to genetic rather than environmental factors. BLUP was first proposed by Henderson in 1949 but the first BLUP evaluation was not implemented until 1970 (Henderson, 1987). This delay is almost entirely attributable to inadequate computing facilities and technology at that time, since a BLUP evaluation system requires a large number of equations to be stored and solved.

Type
Electronics in Animal Production
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1990 , March 1990 , pp. 107
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1990

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

Ducrocq, V., Bichard, D Bonaiti, B., Barbat, A. and Briend, M. 1990. Submitted to Journal of Dairy Science.Google Scholar
De Roo, G. 1987. Agricultural Systems 25: 1–25.Google Scholar
Henderson, C.R. 1976. Biometrics 32:69–83.Google Scholar
Henderson, C.R. 1987. In ‘Advances In Statistical Methods for Genetic Improvement of Livestock’. Eds. Gianola, D and Hammond, K. Ch. 1.2–15.Google Scholar
Mcclelland, T.H., Bonaiti, B. and Taylor, St. C.S. 1976. Animal Production 23: 281–293.Google Scholar
Mitzal, and Gianola, , 1988. Journal of Dairy Science, 71, Supplement 2, 99–106 Google Scholar
Quaas, R.L 1976. Biometrics. 32:949–953.Google Scholar
Quaas, R.L and Pollak, E.J. 1981. Journal of Animal Science. 51:1277–1287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, L and Kennedy, B.W. 1986. 3rd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. XII: 382–393. Google Scholar
Simm, G. 1987. In ‘New Techniques in Sheep Production’, ed. Marai, I F M and Owen, J B (Butterworths). pp. 125–143.Google Scholar
Simm, G. and Dingwall, W.S. 1989. Livestock Production Science. 21: 223–233.Google Scholar
Steane, G.E., Simm, G. and Guy, D.R. 1988. Proceedings of 3rd World Congress on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeding, Paris. Vol. 1. pp. 211–213.Google Scholar
Wray, N.R. and Hill, W.G. 1989. Animal Production 49: 217–227 Google Scholar
Wray, N.R. and Thompson, R. 1990. Genetical Research (in Press)Google Scholar