Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:13:48.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Additive and heterotic breed effects in the genetic evaluation of pig sire breeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. Wolf ,
D. Peškovičová ,
E. Žáková  and
E. Groeneveld
J. Wolf*
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Animal Production, PO Box 1, CZ 10401 Praha 114-Uhříněves, Czech Republic
D. Peškovičová
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding, Slovak Agricultural Research Authority, Hlohovská 2, SK 94992 Nitra, Slovak Republic
E. Žáková
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Animal Production, PO Box 1, CZ 10401 Praha 114-Uhříněves, Czech Republic
E. Groeneveld
Affiliation:
Department of Breeding and Genetic Resources, Institute for Animal Science Mariensee, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), DE 31535 Neustadt, Germany
*
† E-mail: wolf@tzv.fal.de
Get access

Abstract

The data sets consisted of field performance data from 54 848 purebred and 16 175 crossbred animals (Czech data set, CZ) and 16 610 purebred and 9 228 crossbred animals (Slovak data set, SK). Animals from the following breeds were included: Duroc, Hampshire, Piétrain, sire line of Large White (CZ) or Yorkshire (SK), Czech Meat pig (CZ) or Slovak Meat pig (SK), Belgian Landrace (SK). Two-trait animal models were calculated for average daily gain from birth to the end of the field test (ADG) and lean meat content (LM, only in CZ) or backfat thickness (BF, only in SK). The models included additive breed and breed heterotic effects. Piétrain was the breed with the highest LM and the lowest BF. The additive genetic breed effect was about 1·5% LM (CZ) in comparison with Large White or −0·4 mm BF (SK) in comparison to Yorkshire. The sire line of Large White (CZ) or the Yorkshire breed (SK) clearly exceeded all the remaining sire breeds in ADG (on average by 30 to 50 g/day). There was a clear tendency to negative heterosis in LM in all crossbred combinations (CZ). In BF, heterotic effects between −0·2 mm and +0·3 mm were estimated, mostly not being significant (SK). The estimates of the heterotic effects for ADG were positive throughout. Higher values up to 40 g/day (7%) were observed in the Czech data set. Though heterotic breed effects are of some importance especially for ADG, their inclusion in the equations for breeding value estimation will have only a minor impact on the predicted breeding values.

Keywords

animal modelsheterosispigsproductionsire evaluation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 455 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baas, T. J., Christian, L. L. and Rothschild, M. F. 1992. Heterosis and recombination effects in Hampshire and Landrace swine: II. Performance and carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 70: 99–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijma, P. and van Arendonk, J. A. M. 1998. Maximizing genetic gain for the sire line of a crossbreeding scheme utilizing both purebred and crossbred information. Animal Science 66: 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittante, G., Gallo, L. and Montobbio, P. 1993. Estimated breed additive effects and direct heterosis for growth and carcass traits of heavy pigs. Livestock Production Science 34: 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, H. 1994. [Relation between production traits of purebred and crossbred pigs and consequences for optimizing the selection.] Habilitation. Culliver Verlag Göttingen 1996, Universität Göttingen .Google Scholar
Brandt, H. and Täubert, H. 1998. Parameter estimates for purebred and crossbred performances in pigs. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 115: 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, D. S. 1987. The crossbred sire: experimental results for swine. Journal of Animal Science 65: 117–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassady, J. P., Young, L. D. and Leymaster, K. A. 2002. Heterosis and recombination effects on pig growth and carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 80: 2286–2302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, R. 1998. [Estimation of genetic parameters for purebred and crossbred performance in pig.] Ph.D. thesis, Martin-Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg.Google Scholar
García Casco, J. M. and Silio, L. 1991. [Heterosis on growth traits in Iberian pigs.] ITEA 87A: 218–226.Google Scholar
Glodek, P. 1996. [The choice of sire line determines the quality of final products in pigs.]. Züchtungskunde 68: 483–492.Google Scholar
Groeneveld, E. and García Cortés, A. 1998. VCE 4.0, a (co) variance components package for frequentists and bayesians. Proceeding of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale vol.27, pp.455–456.Google Scholar
Groeneveld, E., Kovac, M. and Wang, T. 1990. PEST, a general purpose BLUP package for multivariate prediction and estimation. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol.13, pp.488–491.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G. 1970. Rank correlation methods, fourth edition. Griffin, London.Google Scholar
Lutaaya, E., Misztal, I., Mabry, J. W., Short, T., Timm, H. H. and Holzbauer, R. 2001. Genetic parameter estimates from joint evaluation of purebreds and crossbreds in swine using the crossbred model. Journal of Animal Science 79: 3002–3007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lutaaya, E., Misztal, I., Mabry, J. W., Short, T., Timm, H. H. and Holzbauer, R. 2002. Joint evaluation of purebreds and crossbreds in swine. Journal of Animal Science 80: 2263–2266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaren, D. G., Buchanan, D. S. and Johnson, R. K. 1987. Growth performance for four breeds of swine: crossbred females and purebred and crossbred boars. Journal of Animal Science 64: 99–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merks, J. W. M. and Hanenberg, E. H. A. T. 1998. Optimal selection strategy for crossbred performance in commercial pig breeding programmes. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol.23, pp. 575–578.Google Scholar
Neely, J. D. and Robison, O. W. 1983. Estimates of heterosis for sexual activity in boars. Journal of Animal Science 56: 1033–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumaier, A. and Groeneveld, E. 1998. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of covariances in sparse linear models. Genetics Selection Evolution 30: 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M. and Bidanel, J. P. 1998. Biology and genetics of reproduction. The genetics of the pig (ed. Rothschild, M.Ruvinsky, A.), pp. 313–343, CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Serenius, T., Sevón-Aimonen, M.-L. and Mäntysaari, E. A. 2002. Modelling crossbred information in genetic evaluation of litter size in Finnish pig populations Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Montpellier vol. 30, 83–86.Google Scholar
Smital, J., DeSousa, L. L. and Mohsen, A. 2004. Differences among breeds and manifestation of heterosis in AI boar sperm output. Animal Reproduction Science 80: 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, J., Horáčková, Š., Groeneveld, E. and Peškovičová, D. 2000. Estimation of genetic parameters for sire pig breeds using purebred and crossbred information. Czech Journal of Animal Science 45: 525–532.Google Scholar
Wolf, J., Peškovičová, D., Wolfová, M. and Groeneveld, E. 2002. Impact of genetic groups and crossbred information on the prediction of breeding values in pig sire breeds. Czech Journal of Animal Science 47: 219–229.Google Scholar