Estimation of genetic parameters for average daily gain using models with competition effects

C. Y. Chen, S. D. Kachman, R. K. Johnson, S. Newman, L. D. Van Vleck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Components of variance for ADG with models including competition effects were estimated from data provided by the Pig Improvement Company on 11,235 pigs from 4 selected lines of swine. Fifteen pigs with average age of 71 d were randomly assigned to a pen by line and sex and taken off test after approximately 89 d (off-test BW ranged from 61 to 158 kg). Models included fixed effects of line, sex, and contemporary group and initial test age as a covariate, with random direct genetic, competition (genetic and environmental), pen, litter, and residual effects. With the full model, variances attributable to direct, direct-competition, genetic competition, and litter (co)variance components could be partitioned; genetic competition variance was small but statistically significantly different from zero. Variances attributable to environmental competition, pen, and residual effects could not be partitioned, but combinations of these environmental variances were estimable. Variances could be partitioned with either pen effects or environmental competition effects in the model. Environmental competition effects seemed to be the source of variance associated with pens. With pen as a fixed effect and without environmental competition effects in the model, genetic components of variance could not be partitioned, but combinations of genetic (co)variances were estimable. With both pen and environmental competition effects ignored, estimates of direct-competition and genetic competition (co)variance components were greatly inflated. With competition (genetic and environmental) effects ignored, the estimate of pen variance increased by 39%, with little change in estimates of direct genetic or residual variance. When both pen and competition (genetic and environmental) effects were dropped from the model, variance attributable to direct genetic effects was inflated. Estimates of variance attributable to competition effects were small in this study. Including environmental competition effects as permanent environmental effects in the model did not change estimates of genetic (co)variances. We concluded that including either pen effects or environmental competition effects as random effects in the model avoids bias in estimates of genetic variances but that including pen effects is much easier.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2525-2530
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of animal science
Volume86
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2008

Fingerprint

average daily gain
Swine
Genetic Models
swine
residual effects
gender
testing
genetic variance

Keywords

  • Competition
  • Genetic parameter
  • Swine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Food Science
  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Genetics

Cite this

Estimation of genetic parameters for average daily gain using models with competition effects. / Chen, C. Y.; Kachman, S. D.; Johnson, R. K.; Newman, S.; Van Vleck, L. D.

In: Journal of animal science, Vol. 86, No. 10, 01.10.2008, p. 2525-2530.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chen, C. Y. ; Kachman, S. D. ; Johnson, R. K. ; Newman, S. ; Van Vleck, L. D. / Estimation of genetic parameters for average daily gain using models with competition effects. In: Journal of animal science. 2008 ; Vol. 86, No. 10. pp. 2525-2530.
@article{45ca130649694fe99bc4512d959f6a9c,
title = "Estimation of genetic parameters for average daily gain using models with competition effects",
abstract = "Components of variance for ADG with models including competition effects were estimated from data provided by the Pig Improvement Company on 11,235 pigs from 4 selected lines of swine. Fifteen pigs with average age of 71 d were randomly assigned to a pen by line and sex and taken off test after approximately 89 d (off-test BW ranged from 61 to 158 kg). Models included fixed effects of line, sex, and contemporary group and initial test age as a covariate, with random direct genetic, competition (genetic and environmental), pen, litter, and residual effects. With the full model, variances attributable to direct, direct-competition, genetic competition, and litter (co)variance components could be partitioned; genetic competition variance was small but statistically significantly different from zero. Variances attributable to environmental competition, pen, and residual effects could not be partitioned, but combinations of these environmental variances were estimable. Variances could be partitioned with either pen effects or environmental competition effects in the model. Environmental competition effects seemed to be the source of variance associated with pens. With pen as a fixed effect and without environmental competition effects in the model, genetic components of variance could not be partitioned, but combinations of genetic (co)variances were estimable. With both pen and environmental competition effects ignored, estimates of direct-competition and genetic competition (co)variance components were greatly inflated. With competition (genetic and environmental) effects ignored, the estimate of pen variance increased by 39{\%}, with little change in estimates of direct genetic or residual variance. When both pen and competition (genetic and environmental) effects were dropped from the model, variance attributable to direct genetic effects was inflated. Estimates of variance attributable to competition effects were small in this study. Including environmental competition effects as permanent environmental effects in the model did not change estimates of genetic (co)variances. We concluded that including either pen effects or environmental competition effects as random effects in the model avoids bias in estimates of genetic variances but that including pen effects is much easier.",
keywords = "Competition, Genetic parameter, Swine",
author = "Chen, {C. Y.} and Kachman, {S. D.} and Johnson, {R. K.} and S. Newman and {Van Vleck}, {L. D.}",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2527/jas.2007-0660",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "86",
pages = "2525--2530",
journal = "Journal of Animal Science",
issn = "0021-8812",
publisher = "American Society of Animal Science",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Estimation of genetic parameters for average daily gain using models with competition effects

AU - Chen, C. Y.

AU - Kachman, S. D.

AU - Johnson, R. K.

AU - Newman, S.

AU - Van Vleck, L. D.

PY - 2008/10/1

Y1 - 2008/10/1

N2 - Components of variance for ADG with models including competition effects were estimated from data provided by the Pig Improvement Company on 11,235 pigs from 4 selected lines of swine. Fifteen pigs with average age of 71 d were randomly assigned to a pen by line and sex and taken off test after approximately 89 d (off-test BW ranged from 61 to 158 kg). Models included fixed effects of line, sex, and contemporary group and initial test age as a covariate, with random direct genetic, competition (genetic and environmental), pen, litter, and residual effects. With the full model, variances attributable to direct, direct-competition, genetic competition, and litter (co)variance components could be partitioned; genetic competition variance was small but statistically significantly different from zero. Variances attributable to environmental competition, pen, and residual effects could not be partitioned, but combinations of these environmental variances were estimable. Variances could be partitioned with either pen effects or environmental competition effects in the model. Environmental competition effects seemed to be the source of variance associated with pens. With pen as a fixed effect and without environmental competition effects in the model, genetic components of variance could not be partitioned, but combinations of genetic (co)variances were estimable. With both pen and environmental competition effects ignored, estimates of direct-competition and genetic competition (co)variance components were greatly inflated. With competition (genetic and environmental) effects ignored, the estimate of pen variance increased by 39%, with little change in estimates of direct genetic or residual variance. When both pen and competition (genetic and environmental) effects were dropped from the model, variance attributable to direct genetic effects was inflated. Estimates of variance attributable to competition effects were small in this study. Including environmental competition effects as permanent environmental effects in the model did not change estimates of genetic (co)variances. We concluded that including either pen effects or environmental competition effects as random effects in the model avoids bias in estimates of genetic variances but that including pen effects is much easier.

AB - Components of variance for ADG with models including competition effects were estimated from data provided by the Pig Improvement Company on 11,235 pigs from 4 selected lines of swine. Fifteen pigs with average age of 71 d were randomly assigned to a pen by line and sex and taken off test after approximately 89 d (off-test BW ranged from 61 to 158 kg). Models included fixed effects of line, sex, and contemporary group and initial test age as a covariate, with random direct genetic, competition (genetic and environmental), pen, litter, and residual effects. With the full model, variances attributable to direct, direct-competition, genetic competition, and litter (co)variance components could be partitioned; genetic competition variance was small but statistically significantly different from zero. Variances attributable to environmental competition, pen, and residual effects could not be partitioned, but combinations of these environmental variances were estimable. Variances could be partitioned with either pen effects or environmental competition effects in the model. Environmental competition effects seemed to be the source of variance associated with pens. With pen as a fixed effect and without environmental competition effects in the model, genetic components of variance could not be partitioned, but combinations of genetic (co)variances were estimable. With both pen and environmental competition effects ignored, estimates of direct-competition and genetic competition (co)variance components were greatly inflated. With competition (genetic and environmental) effects ignored, the estimate of pen variance increased by 39%, with little change in estimates of direct genetic or residual variance. When both pen and competition (genetic and environmental) effects were dropped from the model, variance attributable to direct genetic effects was inflated. Estimates of variance attributable to competition effects were small in this study. Including environmental competition effects as permanent environmental effects in the model did not change estimates of genetic (co)variances. We concluded that including either pen effects or environmental competition effects as random effects in the model avoids bias in estimates of genetic variances but that including pen effects is much easier.

KW - Competition

KW - Genetic parameter

KW - Swine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=54449084239&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=54449084239&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2527/jas.2007-0660

DO - 10.2527/jas.2007-0660

M3 - Article

C2 - 18539840

AN - SCOPUS:54449084239

VL - 86

SP - 2525

EP - 2530

JO - Journal of Animal Science

JF - Journal of Animal Science

SN - 0021-8812

IS - 10

ER -