Selection for feed efficiency using the social effects animal model in growing Duroc pigs: evaluation by simulation

Table 6 Posterior mean (posterior SD) of the responses to selection for five indexes when data were generated with the animal model

W_ADG–W_BF, %^a	0–100	25–75	50–50	75–25	100–0
ADG, kg	− 0.01 (0.01)	− 0.01 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)*	0.03 (0.01)*	0.03 (0.01)*
BF, mm	− 2.11 (0.56)*	− 2.04 (0.55)*	− 1.15 (0.52)*	0.44 (0.94)	0.95 (0.87)
FCR, kg/kg	− 0.05 (0.02)*	− 0.05 (0.02)*	− 0.02 (0.03)	0.01 (0.04)	0.02 (0.04)
B1, €	0.92 (0.60)*	0.96 (0.61)*	0.70 (0.74)*	0.03 (0.89)	− 0.22 (0.85)
B2, €	3.04 (0.75)*	3.05 (0.77)*	2.09 (1.11)*	− 0.56 (1.89)	− 1.48 (1.79)
B3, €	0.53 (0.57)	0.61 (0.60)	0.74 (0.71)*	− 0.42 (1.34)	− 1.03 (1.42)
\( \rho (I,\widehat{I}) \)	0.67 (0.07)	0.69 (0.07)	0.61 (0.11)	0.58 (0.08)	0.58 (0.07)

Data were simulated using variance component samples from the marginal posterior distribution of the classical animal model and the responses were obtained in five generations of selection evaluating candidates using also the classical animal model
^aADG: average daily gain, BF: backfat thickness, FCR: feed conversion ratio, \( W_{ADG} - W_{BF} \): proportion of economic weight assigned to ADG and BF in the selection index, B1: economic benefit in a non-BF-constrained market, B2: economic benefit with BF penalty out of the range 6 to 10 mm, B3: economic benefit with BF penalty out of the range 10 to 20 mm, \( \rho (I,\widehat{I}) \): correlation between predicted \( \left( {\widehat{I}} \right) \) and true value (\( I \)) of the index
*Probability of being higher than 0 was higher than 0.95 or lower than 0.05

ISSN: 1297-9686