211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33934864)
1. Competitive gene flow does not necessarily maximize the genetic gain of genomic breeding programs in the presence of genotype-by-environment interaction.
Cao L; Mulder HA; Liu H; Nielsen HM; S Rensen AC
J Dairy Sci; 2021 Jul; 104(7):8122-8134. PubMed ID: 33934864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Investigating the benefits and perils of importing genetic material in small cattle breeding programs via simulation.
Obšteter J; Jenko J; Pocrnic I; Gorjanc G
J Dairy Sci; 2023 Aug; 106(8):5593-5605. PubMed ID: 37474361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Genomic selection improves the possibility of applying multiple breeding programs in different environments.
Slagboom M; Kargo M; Sørensen AC; Thomasen JR; Mulder HA
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Sep; 102(9):8197-8209. PubMed ID: 31326182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Genomic selection in dairy cattle simulated populations.
Seno LO; Guidolin DGF; Aspilcueta-Borquis RR; Nascimento GBD; Silva TBRD; Oliveira HN; Munari DP
J Dairy Res; 2018 May; 85(2):125-132. PubMed ID: 29785919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Genomic Breeding Programs Realize Larger Benefits by Cooperation in the Presence of Genotype × Environment Interaction Than Conventional Breeding Programs.
Cao L; Liu H; Mulder HA; Henryon M; Thomasen JR; Kargo M; Sørensen AC
Front Genet; 2020; 11():251. PubMed ID: 32373152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Ignoring genotype by environment interaction in the genetic evaluation of dairy cattle reduces accuracy but may increase selection intensity.
Slagboom M; Sørensen AC; Thomasen JR; Liu H; Kargo M; Hjortø L
J Dairy Sci; 2021 Dec; 104(12):12756-12764. PubMed ID: 34600706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Efficient use of genomic information for sustainable genetic improvement in small cattle populations.
Obšteter J; Jenko J; Hickey JM; Gorjanc G
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Nov; 102(11):9971-9982. PubMed ID: 31477287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Genotyping more cows increases genetic gain and reduces rate of true inbreeding in a dairy cattle breeding scheme using female reproductive technologies.
Thomasen JR; Liu H; Sørensen AC
J Dairy Sci; 2020 Jan; 103(1):597-606. PubMed ID: 31733861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Genomic selection strategies in a small dairy cattle population evaluated for genetic gain and profit.
Thomasen JR; Egger-Danner C; Willam A; Guldbrandtsen B; Lund MS; Sørensen AC
J Dairy Sci; 2014; 97(1):458-70. PubMed ID: 24239076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessing the impact of natural service bulls and genotype by environment interactions on genetic gain and inbreeding in organic dairy cattle genomic breeding programs.
Yin T; Wensch-Dorendorf M; Simianer H; Swalve HH; König S
Animal; 2014 Jun; 8(6):877-86. PubMed ID: 24703184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. New cycle, same old mistakes? Overlapping vs. discrete generations in long-term recurrent selection.
Labroo MR; Rutkoski JE
BMC Genomics; 2022 Oct; 23(1):736. PubMed ID: 36316650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Long-term selection strategies for complex traits using high-density genetic markers.
Kemper KE; Bowman PJ; Pryce JE; Hayes BJ; Goddard ME
J Dairy Sci; 2012 Aug; 95(8):4646-56. PubMed ID: 22818479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A mating advice system in dairy cattle incorporating genomic information.
Carthy TR; McCarthy J; Berry DP
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Sep; 102(9):8210-8220. PubMed ID: 31229287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of genomic selection on genetic improvement, inbreeding, and merit of young versus proven bulls.
de Roos AP; Schrooten C; Veerkamp RF; van Arendonk JA
J Dairy Sci; 2011 Mar; 94(3):1559-67. PubMed ID: 21338821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Benefits of cooperation between breeding programs in the presence of genotype by environment interaction.
Mulder HA; Bijma P
J Dairy Sci; 2006 May; 89(5):1727-39. PubMed ID: 16606744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Pre-selection against a lethal recessive allele in breeding schemes with optimum-contribution selection or truncation selection.
Hjortø L; Henryon M; Liu H; Berg P; Thomasen JR; Sørensen AC
Genet Sel Evol; 2021 Sep; 53(1):75. PubMed ID: 34551728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of breeding strategies for polledness in dairy cattle using a newly developed simulation framework for quantitative and Mendelian traits.
Scheper C; Wensch-Dorendorf M; Yin T; Dressel H; Swalve H; König S
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jun; 48(1):50. PubMed ID: 27357942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Optimised parent selection and minimum inbreeding mating in small aquaculture breeding schemes: a simulation study.
Hely FS; Amer PR; Walker SP; Symonds JE
Animal; 2013 Jan; 7(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 23031385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Optimum contribution selection using traditional best linear unbiased prediction and genomic breeding values in aquaculture breeding schemes.
Nielsen HM; Sonesson AK; Meuwissen TH
J Anim Sci; 2011 Mar; 89(3):630-8. PubMed ID: 21036937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Genomic mating as sustainable breeding for Chinese indigenous Ningxiang pigs.
He J; Wu XL; Zeng Q; Li H; Ma H; Jiang J; Rosa GJM; Gianola D; Tait RG; Bauck S
PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0236629. PubMed ID: 32797113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
