Table 5

Increment in accuracy of selection for low elbow score using EBV versus phenotype
Animals with phenotype Animals with parental phenotype Proportion with r > √½ h
h mean r n incr √½ h mean r n incr EBV pheno incr
BMD 0.51 0.66 46 1.28 0.36 0.52 385 1.43 0.889 0.722 1.23
GR 0.55 0.64 136 1.17 0.39 0.48 959 1.23 0.385 0.149 2.59
GSD 0.42 0.51 197 1.21 0.30 0.38 535 1.26 0.272 0.071 3.85
LAB 0.43 0.59 579 1.37 0.31 0.45 3411 1.45 0.600 0.104 5.76
ROTT 0.37 0.56 28 1.52 0.26 0.45 95 1.71 0.795 0.061 13.09
Mean 1.23 1.34 3.14

(Left panel) The mean accuracy (r) of EBV of phenotyped animals born in 2010 compared to accuracy of phenotypic selection (h), with the sample size (n) and increment in accuracy (incr). (Middle panel) The mean accuracy of EBV of unphenotyped animals born in 2011, but with parental phenotypes, compared to the accuracy of selection on parental phenotypes (√(½).h). (Right panel) The proportion of unphenotyped animals born in 2011 with EBV accuracy exceeding √(½).h (EBV) compared to the proportion of 2011 born animals with parental phenotypes available (pheno). Increments calculated prior to rounding. Breed abbreviations: Bernese Mountain Dog [BMD], Golden Retriever [GR], German Shepherd Dog [GSD], Labrador Retriever [LAB], Rottweiler [ROTT].

Lewis et al.

Lewis et al. BMC Genetics 2013 14:16   doi:10.1186/1471-2156-14-16

Open Data