Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T14:18:18.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developments in genetic evaluation: from test days to genomics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

T. H. E. Meuwissen
T. H. E. Meuwissen*
Affiliation:
Institute of animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access

Extract

Genetic evaluations have come a long way during the past decades, where the development and implementation of Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) was undoubtedly the most notable achievement. The most important advances during the past 10 years were probably the direct use of test-day data in the BLUP model, ie. test-day models, the correction for heterogeneous within herd variances, multiple across country genetic evaluations (MACE), and the inclusion of more and more functional, and often difficult, traits in the evaluations. This paper will review the developments in test-day models, and the future of the genetic evaluations field, namely the inclusion of genomic information in the evaluations.

Type
Invited Papers
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2005 , 2005 , pp. 237
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2005

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Fernando, R. L. and Grossman, M. 1989. Gen. Sel. Evol. 21: 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffrezic, F. and Pletcher, S. D. 2000. Genetics 156: 913.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T. H. E., Hayes, B. J. and Goddard, M. E. 2001. Genetics 157: 1819.Google Scholar
Pool, M. H. and Meuwissen, T. H. E. 2000, Liv. Prod. Sci 64: 133.Google Scholar
Ptak, E. and Schaeffer, L. R. 1993. Liv. Prod. Sci. 34: 23.Google Scholar
White, I. M. S. and Brotherstone, S. 1997. Interbull Bulletin 16: 80.Google Scholar