Table 6.

Increase in population accuracy¹ of moving from partial evaluation (p) to whole evaluation (w)² for all animals included in the international evaluations (All) and domestic animals³

Effect	Scenario4		Country5
All	Evaluation p	Evaluation w	CZE	DFS	ESP	GBR	IRL	FRA	DEU	CHE
Direct	NONE	CUR	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1
	NONE	REF	1	1	1	1	0	0	2	2
Maternal	NONE	CUR	2	1	3	2	1	4	1	3
	NONE	REF	3	2	3	2	2	8	3	3
Domestic3	Evaluation p	Evaluation w
Direct	NAT	CUR	59	6	19	4	35	0	9	21
	NAT	REF	63	7	20	4	38	0	10	23
Maternal	NAT	CUR	101	7	20	12	45	1	10	21
	NAT	REF	106	7	21	13	50	0	10	23

¹Expressed as the relative % increase of evaluation p, i.e., $(1/{\widehat{\rho }}_{p,w}-1)\cdot 100$.

²Partial: national evaluations (scenario NAT) where recorded phenotypes are available only at the country level.

³Whole: international evaluations (scenario CUR and REF) providing new information from other countries. Similarly, NONE is a partial evaluation relative to scenarios CUR and REF.

³Domestic: animals retained in the national evaluations for scenario NAT.

⁴Scenario: NAT = national single-trait evaluations, NONE = both r_{dm_WC} and r_{dm_BC} set to 0, CUR = r_{dm_WC} used in the evaluation, and r_{dm_BC} set to 0, REF = both r_{dm_WC} and r_{dm_BC} used in the evaluation. With r_{dm_WC} = within-country direct-maternal genetic correlations, and r_{dm_BC} = between-country direct-maternal genetic correlations.

⁵Country: CZE, Czech Republic, DFS, Denmark, Finland and Sweden, ESP, Spain, GBR, Great Britain, IRL, Ireland, FRA, France, DEU, Germany, CHE, Switzerland.