Table 2.
Trait1 | Model2 | LogL3 | Compared4 | LRT5 | df6 | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yorkshire | ||||||
BW | Model 1 | 7,223.8 | 1 vs. 4 | 1,985.8 | 2 | <0.0001 |
Model 2 | 7,674.8 | 2 vs. 4 | 1,083.8 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 3 | 8,130.2 | 3 vs. 4 | 173.0 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 4 | 8,216.7 | |||||
WW | Model 1 | −10,911.0 | 1 vs. 4 | 1,632.0 | 2 | <0.0001 |
Model 2 | −10,571.2 | 2 vs. 4 | 952.4 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 3 | −10,155.9 | 3 vs. 4 | 121.8 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 4 | −10,095.0 | |||||
PW | Model 1 | −5,239.3 | 1 vs. 4 | 446.2 | 2 | <0.0001 |
Model 2 | −5,172.2 | 2 vs. 4 | 312.0 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 3 | −5,032.4 | 3 vs. 4 | 32.4 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 4 | −5,016.2 | |||||
Landrace | ||||||
BW | Model 1 | 8,343.2 | 1 vs. 4 | 2,379.0 | 2 | <0.0001 |
Model 2 | 9,028.7 | 2 vs. 4 | 1,008.0 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 3 | 9,331.4 | 3 vs. 4 | 402.6 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 4 | 9,532.7 | |||||
WW | Model 1 | −10,300.2 | 1 vs. 4 | 1,691.2 | 2 | <0.0001 |
Model 2 | −9,997.3 | 2 vs. 4 | 1,085.4 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 3 | −9,531.2 | 3 vs. 4 | 153.2 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 4 | −9,454.6 | |||||
PW | Model 1 | −5,823.0 | 1 vs. 4 | 607.6 | 2 | <0.0001 |
Model 2 | −5,709.3 | 2 vs. 4 | 380.2 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 3 | −5,552.7 | 3 vs. 4 | 67.0 | 1 | <0.0001 | |
Model 4 | −5,519.2 |
1BW = birth weight; WW = weaning weight; PW = probe weight.
21. Direct additive genetic effect; 2. Direct additive genetic effect and maternal genetic effect; 3. Direct additive genetic effect and common litter effect; 4. Direct additive genetic, maternal genetic and common litter effect.
3LogL= Log likelihood.
4Compared reduced model (Models 1, 2, and 3) vs. full model (Model 4).
5LRT: test statistic for the likelihood ratio test = −2 (LogLreduced model – LogLfull model).
6Degrees of freedom for the test statistic.