NSIF-FS7
Performance Records on Relatives
Authors: Ken Stalder, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Terry Stewart,
Purdue University; Robert Kemp, Lethbridge Research Center, Ag and
Agro-Food, Canada,
Reviewers: Matt Culbertson, Cotswold, USA; Hal
Sellers, Des Moines, IA; Ken Kephart, Pennsylvania State University, State
College
Estimating the genetic merit of all individuals in
a herd is required before a comprehensive selection and genetic
improvement program can be successful. Performance records need to be
collected on as many animals as pos-sible, ideally on every animal in the
herd. Since animals have relatives and progeny in the herd, the records on
these relatives or groups of relatives can be used to improve the
estimation of the genetic merit of an individual animal. Animals are
related when they receive some identical genes from a common ancestor.
When they have genes in com-mon, the performance of one individual for a
given trait can be used to help estimate genetic merit for other related
individuals.
Genetic evaluations conducted by the majority of
breed organizations and breeding stock companies use the animal model and
best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) procedures. This technology is
used to determine expected progeny differences (EPDs) for the animals
evaluated. An EPD is the predicted average performance difference of the
offspring from a breeding animal compared to the average performance of
the offspring from other animals in the same population. The animal model
not only uses the individual's performance record, but also utilizes
information from all related animals (full-sibs, half sibs, sire, dam,
grand sire, grand dams, etc.) when estimating an individual's EPD. Because
information is available on relatives, this system of genetic evaluation
adjusts the EPD of a superior performing individual from a poor-
performing family downward in comparison to the performance of the
individual itself. Likewise, the EPD of a relatively poor performing
animal from a superior performing family adjusts upward, but is still
below the family average. That is, compared to their phenotypic values,
breeding values tend to regress toward the population mean. Fact Sheet No.
5, "Estimating Genetic Merit," of the National Swine Improvement
Federation Swine Genetics Handbook provides a more detailed explanation of
breeding value estimation.
Connectedness
Information on relatives is important to provide
links between contemporary groups on a within herd basis and links to
other herds so that across-herd analyses can be conducted. These links
provide genetic ties or connections for different contemporary groups
within a herd and to other herds within the same population to provide the
basis for unbiased prediction of an animal's genetic worth. A complete
explanation of contemporary groups can be found in Fact Sheet No. 5,
"Performace Records for Selection Programs," in the National Swine
Improvement Federation Swine Genetics Handbook. Without genetic ties or
connectedness to other herds, EPDs from different herds within a breed can
not be accurately compared. Exchanges of genetic material through live
breeding animals and more so with artificial insemination, improves the
genetic ties across herds and allows for more accurate comparisons of EPDs
across herds. Data that is well connected more accurately identifies
sup-erior performing breeding animals and results in faster genetic
progress. Examples of disconnected and connected herds and sires are shown
in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

In the example in Figure 1, herds 1 and 2 are
connected because they have used sires A and B. Likewise, sires C and D
are connected through their use in the same herd (3). Sires A and B are
completely disconnected from sires C and D because they were not used in
the same herds. Herds 1 and 3 are not con-nected because they have not
used a common sire. The same can be said for Herds 2 and 3. Thus,
comparison of EPDs for animals across Herds 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 are not
valid, because the herds do not have related progeny. Across-herd
comparisons are valid between Herds 1 and 2 because related offspring
exist through the use of common sires. Disconnected data have to be
analyzed on a within-set basis.

In the example from Figure 2, all herds and sires are connected. Herd 1
is connected to Herd 3 through Herd 2's use of sires B (also used in Herd
1) and C (also used in Herd 3). The use of common sires among the three
herds results in offspring that are related. Similarly, sire D is
connected to sire A because Herd 2 used sire B and C and Herd 1 used sire
A and B, while Herd 3 used sires C and D. Connectedness between herds and
between contemporary groups within herds provides the basis for unbiased
predictions of an animal's genetic worth.
Accuracy of Estimates
A very important concept in estimation of breeding
value is the accuracy of the estimate. Accuracy is defined as the
relationship or correlation between the estimate of breeding value and the
animal's true breeding value. The true breeding value of an animal is not
known because we cannot look directly at the thousands of genes or
identify each gene that an animal possesses. Therefore, we must estimate
the true breeding value using the animal's and its relatives' performance.
The accuracy of the estimate of the breeding value is generally dependent
upon the heritability of the trait and the number of records from the
individual and/or its relatives used in the evaluation procedure.
Accuracy can range from 0, when there is no
information on the breeding value, to 1.00, when the breeding value is
known exactly. Records on close relatives affect the accuracy more than on
those on distant relatives because close relatives have more genes in com-
mon with the animal being evaluated. For example: On average, twice as
many genes are alike between a parent and its progeny than between an
animal and its grandparent.
Accuracy is a measure of precision associated with
estimated breeding values or expected progeny differences. Higher
accuracy values for a given trait can be used to gauge the level of
confi-dence that predicted values are near the true genetic value. Low
accuracy values indicated that predicted values may vary as more
information (performance records on relatives) becomes available.
Breeding values or expected progeny differences having relatively high
accuracy values do not vary as greatly compared to breeding values with a
lower accuracy when more information becomes made available.
Accuracy is very important in selection programs
because the accuracy of the estimated genetic merit affects the response
to the selection program. The heritability of a specific trait is
considered fairly constant, but the heritability values of different
traits can vary considerably. Most heritability estimates for economically
important traits can vary considerably and range from .1 to .7 on a
possible scale of 0 to 1.00. As noted before, heritability affects the
accuracy since the proportion of the performance owing to genetic merit is
larger with larger heritability values. In general, it then follows that
traits with high-heritability values can be predicted more accurately than
traits with low-heritability values.
Individual Performance Record(s)
If only the animal's own record is used to
estimate genetic merit, the accuracy of the estimate is given by the
square root of the heritability of the trait. Therefore, the accuracy is
the same for all animals with only one record for the same trait. But the
accuracy is different for different traits with one record on the
individual. The following are examples of accuracy values for different
heritability values assuming one record per individual:
Heritability |
Accuracy |
.10 |
.32 |
.25 |
.50 |
.50 |
.71 |
.75 |
.87 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
Most heritability values range from .1 to .70 for
traits of economic interest, thus the accuracy values range from .32 to
.84, assuming one record on the individual being evaluated.
Increasing the number of records on an individual
increases the accuracy. However, for each additional record added, the
increase in accuracy is marginally less. So moving from one to three
records increases accuracy more than increasing from 10 to 12 records.
Remember though, 10 or 12 records will provide more accuracy than three
records.
The concept of repeatability enters into accuracy
calculations when more than one record is available on an in-dividual.
Repeatability measures the degree of association between records on the
same animal for traits expressed more than once in an individual's life.
Traits that may be measured more than once include number born, litter
weight, and number weaned. By definition, repeatability must be greater
than or equal to heritability for a given trait. Repeatability includes
all the genetic effects plus the permanent environmental effects, such as
damaged teats or any effects of nutrition on mammary development that
would affect all sub-sequent lactations. Permanent environmental effects
do not affect the genetic merit of an individual but do influence the
performance and, therefore, all records on an individual. For repeatable
traits, observing the performance of an individual several times increases
the accuracy of the estimated breeding value compared to an estimate based
on a single observation. Table 1 contains examples of accuracy values for
different levels of heritability, repeatability, and number of records.
If more than one record is collected, the accuracy
is influenced by the number of records, heritability and repeatability.
The increase in accuracy depends upon the ratio of repeatability to
heritability, but the increase in relative accuracy is greater for lowly
heritable traits than for highly heritable traits.
The reason that accuracy increases less when
repeatability is higher is that the higher repeatability means that the
similarity between observations is due to nontransmittable effects,
permanent environment, and nonadditive genetic factors.
Performance Records of Sibs and Other Relatives
Performance records on full-sibs and half-sibs
(full-and half-brothers and sisters) are very useful to evaluate traits
that cannot be measured on potential breeding animals. The most common
examples include the carcass traits, such as loin eye area, carcass
length, and muscling score as well as on and maternal traits for males,
such as litter size. Testing of sibs is used at some central test stations
where two or three full- or half-sib barrows may enter the test at the
same time as the boar. The barrows are grown to slaughter weight and then
carcass information is collected on them and used to estimate breeding
values for carcass traits on the remaining related animals in the
population.
The additive genetic relationship or the percent
of genes in common between full-sibs is one-half or 50% and for half-sibs
is one-quarter or 25%. The accuracy of estimates from sib data depends
upon the heritability of the trait, the number of sibs, the additive
genetic relationship between the sibs, and the animal being evaluated and
an environmental correlation effect. Table 2 contains accuracy values with
varying numbers of records on half-sibs or full-sibs and different
heritabilities but with no environmental correlation.
The general trend is for accuracy to increase as
the number of sibs increases and as the heritability of the trait
increases. Full-sib records produce larger accuracies than half-sib
records within heritability values because full-sibs are more closely
related to the animal being evaluated.
Note, it would take large numbers of half-sibs to
get an accuracy value close to one. Records on parents or progeny of an
animal increases accuracies by a value similar to full-sibs since the
de-gree of relationship is the same. Records on more distant relatives
(cousins, grandparents, etc.) do not improve the accuracy greatly. As with
full-versus half-sibs, the further the relative is removed (smaller
genetic relationship) from the individual being evaluated, the less their
records improve the accuracy of estimation.
The environmental correlation (c2) represents a
nongenetic likeness be-tween sibs caused by the sibs sharing a common
environment. For example: All littermates have a common mother whose
milking ability and mothering ability contributes to all of her progeny in
that litter. If the sow is above average for milk production, probably all
the pigs will have above average 21-day weights owing in part to the
common effect of the good milking sow. This is clearly not an additive
genetic effect, but does influence performance of the pigs in the litter.
The environmental correlation is probably different for full-sibs than for
half-sibs and may even be different for different groups of half-sibs
raised under different environments.
The effect of the environmental likeness is to
reduce the accuracy of the estimate of breeding value. The effect of an
environmental correlation (Table 3) is demonstrated using records from
full-sibs and an environmental correlation (c2)of .10, which is common in
swine data. The common environmental effects cause a reduction in the
accuracy regardless of the number of full-sibs or the heritability of the
trait, because some of the similarity between records is due to nongenetic
factors.
Progeny Performance Records
Traits that are not necessarily expressed in both
sexes (sex-limited) or for which data cannot be collected on breeding
animals are good candidates for genetic evaluation using progeny records.
Examples of such traits are number born, litter weight and milking ability
on males and carcass traits on breeding animals. Progeny tests are
commonly used to estimate breeding values of male animals because males
leave more progeny in a shorter period of time than females. Generally,
full-sib and paternal half- sib progeny are used to estimate breeding
values. Paternal half-sib progeny are progeny from the same sire but
different dams. Accuracy is dependent on the heritability and the number
of full- and half-sib progeny. The relationship among the number of
half-sib progeny, heritability, and the accuracy level is illustrated in
Figure 3. Within a given heritability, an increase in the number of
progeny increases the accuracy of the estimate. However, the amount of
increase in accuracy depends upon how many progeny are already available.
For instance, moving from one to five progeny will increase ac-curacy much
more than going from 60 to 64 progeny. As in other cases, the higher the
heritability the more accurate the estimate of breeding value.
Combinations of Individual, Sib, and Progeny Records
Different combinations of information can be used
to improve the accuracy of the estimated breeding values while keeping the
response to selection at an acceptable level. Swine performance records
are generally collected on the individual, its full- and half-sibs, and if
it is kept as a breeding animal then information is available on its full-
and half-sib pregeny. Table 4 contains accuracy values using combinations
of performance records from different sources with varying heritability
values.
Records on the individual produce a relatively
high accuracy of prediction for traits with large heritability. Adding
progeny or parent records to an individual's record on traits with high
heritability increases the accuracy only slightly unless there are large
numbers of progeny available. Adding sib and/or progeny records to traits
of low heritability can result in marked improvement in accuracy. Compare
the accuracy values in Table 4 for individual, individual plus 10
half-sibs, and individual plus 10 half-sib progeny at .10 heritability.
The accuracy increases from .32 to .34 to .52, respectively; a substantial
improvement.
However, waiting for large numbers of progeny to
be born and tested in-creases the testing costs and time, lengthen the
generation interval, and possibly lowers the selection intensity. All of
these factors have to be balanced against the need for the extra
improvement in accuracy received by adding more progeny. In general,
getting as much progeny information as possible, plus records on the
individual being evaluated, is a good practice for lowly heritable traits
(less than .20). Traits with high heritability don't require as many
progeny or relative records, if records on the individual are available,
to attain an acceptable level of accuracy.
Remember that all genetic improvement programs
begin with a good record-keeping program. Collect per-formance records on
as many animals in the herd as possible because this allows you to use
many combinations of records to evaluate animals without reducing the
progress from your selection program. Of course, even the best record
system doesn't result in herd improvement until the records are used to
make selection decisions.
Improving accuracy is not strictly dependent on
increasing the number of records used to estimate an animal's breeding
value. Whether or not the individual has a performance record for a given
trait is a large determinant of the accuracy associated with the EPD,
particularly for highly heritable traits. Improving accuracy is also
dependent on a number of other factors including: 1) relatives in
different herds, 2) con-temporary groups and their size (groups of fewer
than 20 animals are of little value), 3) sires used in each contemporary
group (single sire contemporary groups contribute little or no
information, a minimum of two sires should be used and the use of five are
better), etc. Thus, it is common for an EPD for an animal having fewer
relatives with records that are spread out over a number of herds and
contemporary groups to have a higher accuracy associated with its EPD
compared to an animal having more records from relatives but those records
are from fewer herds and contemporary groups.
EPDs, Accuracy, and Risk Management
The difference between the predicted breeding
value and true breeding value is known as the error of prediction. The
error of prediction has an equal chance of being above or below the
current predicted breeding value. The possible changes associated with
different accuracy levels for a given trait are shown in Table 5.
Accuracy can be used to manage risk. When making
mating decisions, a breeder should select animals having EPDs that improve
the trait of interest most. If a breeder selects an individual animal
having a high EPD and an associated high accuracy, he/she should be
confident that the average performance of its offspring is extremely close
to the predicted value. If a breeder selects an individual with a high
EPD with a low associated accuracy, the performance from the progeny is
likely to be more variable and may exceed or fail to meet predicted
performance. However, as more information becomes available, the EPD moves
closer to the true value and accuracy improves.
Because it is just as likely for the EPD to be
under predicted as over predicted, using individuals having an EPD with
low accuracy can result in offspring with outstanding performance.
Producers should remember that this same individual (high EPD, low
accuracy) may produce offspring that are poor performing.
Breeders in a position to take risk might consider
using several individuals that have high EPDs, but low accuracy values.
On average he/she will have the same number of individuals exceeding
performance expectations as those which perform poorly. The "outstanding"
sire will be identified from among the young sires. Breeders that do not
wish to take risk should rely heavily on individuals that have desirable
EPDs for a given trait and high accuracy associated with them. If your
breeding herd is large enough, a breeder may consider using a combination
of high EPD, high accuracy and high EPD, low accuracy breeding animals in
order to balance risk.
10/99 (2M)
It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service,
David C. Petritz, Director, that all persons shall have equal opportunity
and access to its programs and facilities without regard to race, color,
sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability. Purdue University is
an Affirmative Action employer.
This material may be available in alternative formats.
1-888-EXT-INFO
http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/menu.htm