ArticleJournal of animal science2024
Adding gastrointestinal parasite resistance to the breeding objective in hair sheep: initial steps.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Epidemiological landscape and genetic prospects for marker-assisted selection in Kazakh sheep.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The U.S. Maternal Hair Index was designed by the National Sheep Improvement Program (NSIP) to increase total weight of lamb weaned per ewe lambing (TW). Producers are interested in adding gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) resistance to this breeding objective since parasitism causes substantial economic losses. The NSIP provides producers with estimated breeding values (EBV) for postweaning fecal egg count (PFEC), an indicator of GIN resistance. Our objective was to gauge the effects of including PFEC as another selection criterion and goal trait. Selection index theory was used to construct 11 indexes. First was a benchmark index with TW as the goal. Weaning weight, and number of lambs born and weaned, were selection criteria. An index was then designed with PFEC added as a selection criterion. In 9 more indices, PFEC was also included as a goal trait, where the economic value of TW was scaled relative to that of PFEC. PFEC received a scaled economic value of -1 with that of TW increasing from +1 to +5 at +0.5 increments. Selection criteria were modeled as EBV or phenotypes. Annual genetic responses in goal traits were predicted. The top 3% of males and 26% of females were selected. Breeding values and phenotypes were simulated for 200 lambs by Cholesky decomposition and used to generate index scores, with 100 replicates run. Concordances with the animals selected in the benchmark scenario were determined. Using EBV as the selection criteria, TW increased by 1.46 kg/yr in the benchmark scenario. However, unfavorably, PFEC increased by 2.24%/yr. When using phenotypic criteria, TW increased by 0.52 kg/yr and PFEC by 0.28%/yr. Once added as a goal trait, PFEC decreased regardless of the scaled economic value of TW. However, responses in TW were also reduced, although less so as its scaled economic value increased. A scaled economic value of +3 for TW appeared reasonable over other choices with 79% of the emphasis placed on TW in the breeding objective. With EBV as selection criteria, PFEC declined by 7.96%/yr with 98% of the response in TW retained. Also, on average, 64% of males and 80% of females were chosen in common with the benchmark. With phenotypic selection criteria, PFEC declined by 5.13%/yr and 94% of the response in TW was retained; 61% of males and 80% of females were chosen in common with the benchmark. Implementing an index with scaled economic values of +3 for TW and -1 for PFEC would balance gains in TW with reductions in PFEC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.