FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2154967939> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2154967939 abstract "Replacing pedigree-based BLUP evaluations by genomic evaluations in pig breeding schemes can result in greater selection accuracy and genetic gains, especially for traits with limited phenotypes. However, this methodological change would generate additional costs. The objective of this study was to determine whether additional expenditures would be more profitably devoted to implementing genomic evaluations or to increasing phenotyping capacity while retaining traditional evaluations. Stochastic simulation was used to simulate a population with 1050 breeding females and 50 boars that was selected for 10 years for a breeding goal with two uncorrelated traits with heritabilities of 0.4. The reference breeding scheme was based on phenotyping 13 770 candidates per year for trait 1 and 270 sibs of candidates per year for trait 2, with selection based on pedigree-based BLUP estimated breeding values. Increased expenditures were allocated to either increasing the phenotyping capacity for trait 2 while maintaining traditional evaluations, or to implementing genomic selection. The genomic scheme was based on two training populations: one for trait 2, consisting of phenotyped sibs of the candidates whose number increased from 1000 to 3430 over time, and one for trait 1, consisting of the selection candidates. Several genomic scenarios were tested, where the size of the training population for trait 1, and the number of genotyped candidates pre-selected based on their parental estimated breeding value, varied. Both approaches resulted in higher genetic trends for the population breeding goal and lower rates of inbreeding compared to the reference scheme. However, even a very marked increase in phenotyping capacity for trait 2 could not match improvements achieved with genomic selection when the number of genotyped candidates was large. Genotyping just a limited number of pre-selected candidates significantly reduced the extra costs, while preserving most of the benefits in terms of genetic trends and inbreeding. Implementing genomic evaluations was the most efficient approach when major expenditure was possible, whereas increasing phenotypes was preferable when limited resources were available. Economic decisions on implementing genomic evaluations in a pig nucleus population must take account of population characteristics, phenotyping and genotyping costs, and available funds." @default.
• W2154967939 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2154967939 creator A5025409400 @default.
• W2154967939 creator A5055026384 @default.
• W2154967939 creator A5086703820 @default.
• W2154967939 date "2013-10-15" @default.
• W2154967939 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2154967939 title "Economic aspects of implementing genomic evaluations in a pig sire line breeding scheme" @default.
• W2154967939 cites W1562470511 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W1928998639 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W1985229835 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W1991985037 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2008933956 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2021711188 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2023673366 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2039318109 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2041000916 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2047977934 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2056189231 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2068716600 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2074043148 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2099209235 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2102087753 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2103277984 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2108583185 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2119372134 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2125063430 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2125362952 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2142220815 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2145647386 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2149594592 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2154670965 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2154869931 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2157313957 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2157628892 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2160228159 @default.
• W2154967939 cites W2171214867 @default.
• W2154967939 doi "https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-45-40" @default.
• W2154967939 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3840607" @default.
• W2154967939 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24127883" @default.
• W2154967939 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2154967939 type Work @default.
• W2154967939 sameAs 2154967939 @default.
• W2154967939 citedByCount "18" @default.
• W2154967939 countsByYear W21549679392014 @default.
• W2154967939 countsByYear W21549679392015 @default.
• W2154967939 countsByYear W21549679392016 @default.
• W2154967939 countsByYear W21549679392017 @default.
• W2154967939 countsByYear W21549679392018 @default.
• W2154967939 countsByYear W21549679392019 @default.
• W2154967939 countsByYear W21549679392020 @default.
• W2154967939 countsByYear W21549679392021 @default.
• W2154967939 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2154967939 hasAuthorship W2154967939A5025409400 @default.
• W2154967939 hasAuthorship W2154967939A5055026384 @default.
• W2154967939 hasAuthorship W2154967939A5086703820 @default.
• W2154967939 hasBestOaLocation W21549679391 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C103545067 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C106934330 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C135763542 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C140793950 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C150903083 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C153209595 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C161890455 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C2016182 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C2777782036 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C2778890363 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C2780284631 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C2992444039 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C68873052 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C103545067 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C104317684 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C105795698 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C106934330 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C119857082 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C135763542 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C140793950 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C144024400 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C149923435 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C150903083 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C153209595 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C161890455 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C199360897 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C2016182 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C2777782036 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C2778890363 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C2780284631 @default.
• W2154967939 hasConceptScore W2154967939C2908647359 @default.

• next