Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:43:31.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive performance of pigs selected for components of efficient lean growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. C. Kerr  and
N. D. Cameron
J. C. Kerr
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute(Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
N. D. Cameron
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute(Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
Get access

Abstract

Correlated responses in reproductive performance to five generations of divergent selection for daily food intake (DFI), lean food conversion (LFC), lean growth rate on ad–libitum feeding (LGA), and lean growth rate on scale feeding (LGS) were studied. Litter traits were measured on 1220 Large White gilts. Mean litter weights at birth and weaning were 12·9 kg and 63·5 kg, with average litter sizes of 10·3 and 7·9. Responses to selection in the high and low lines for litter size in the DFI and LFC selection groups were 1·9 and –1·5 (s.e.d. VI) at birth and 0·9 and –1·8 (s.e.d. 1·2) at weaning. Responses in litter birth weights were respectively positive and negative for DFI and LFC (3·0 and –2·8 (s.e.d. 1·4) kg) and the response in LGS (3 kg) was greater than in LGA (–0·1 kg). Selection line differences in litter weaning weight followed a similar pattern to birth weight for DFI and LFC (17·5 and –17·3 (s.e.d. 10·1) kg). Responses in litter weights were a result of selection line differences in both litter sizes and piglet weights. The relationships between litter size, litter weights and piglet weights at birth and weaning were essentially linear. An extra piglet at birth and weaning corresponded to an increase of 1·0 (s.e. 0·02) kg and 6·9 (s.e. 0·1) kg in litter weights. Piglet birth and weaning weights were decreased by 0·03 (s.e. 0·003) kg and 0·19 (s.e. 0·02) kg. A uterine constraint on piglet growth was implied, but there was no evidence for a limit to uterine capacity. Heritabilities for litter size, weight and piglet weight at birth of 0·06, 0·11 (s.e. 0·04) and 0·16 (s.e. 0·02) respectively were similar to those at weaning. Common environmental effects on piglet weights at birth and weaning were substantially higher than the heritabilities (0·38 and 0·45, s.e. 0·01). The study indicated that selection for lean growth on either an ad–libitum or restricted feeding regime did not significantly affect reproductive performance, but the high lean food conversion ratio and low daily food intake selection lines had impaired reproductive performance.

Keywords

geneticslean growthpigsreproductionselection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 281 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Bennett, G. L. and Leymaster, K. A. 1989. Integration of ovulation rate, potential embryonic viability and uterine capacity into a model of litter size in swine. Journal of Animal Science 67: 1230–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breslow, N. E. and Clayton, D. G. 1993. Approximate inference in GLMM. Journal of American Statistics Association 85: 9–25.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 1. Selection pressure applied and direct responses in a Large White herd. Animal Production 59: 251–262.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Curran, M. K. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 4. Genetic and phenotypic parameter estimates and correlated responses in performance test traits with ad-libitum feeding. Animal Production 59: 281–291.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Curran, M. K. and Kerr, J. C. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 3. Responses to selection with a restricted feeding regime. Animal Production 59: 271–279.Google Scholar
Christenson, R. K., Leymaster, K. A. and Young, L. D. 1987. Justification of unilateral hysterectomy-ovariectomy as a model to evaluate uterine capacity in swine. Journal of Animal Science 65: 738–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, E. R., Cunningham, P. J. and Peo, E. R. 1982. Selection for lean growth in swine. Journal of Animal Science 54: 719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, E. R., Johnson, R. K. and Cunningham, P. R. 1988. Correlated responses of carcass and reproductive raits to selection for rate of lean growth in swine. Journal of Animal Science. 66: 1371–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crump, R. E. 1992. Quantitative genetic analysis of a commercial pig population under going selection. Ph.D. hesis, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
Eliasson, L., Rydhmer, L., Einarsson, S. and Andersson, K. 1991. Relationships between puberty and production traits in the gilt. 1. Age at puberty. Animal Reproduction Science 25: 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1965. Maternal effects and selection response. Proceedings of the eleventh international congress of genetics, pp. 763–774.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T. and Mikami, H. 1986a. Mass selection in a pig population: experimental design and responses to direct selection for rapid growth and minimum fat. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1492–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredeen, H. T. and Mikami, H. 1986b. Mass selection in a pig population: realized heritabilities. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1509–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredeen, H. T. and Mikami, H. 1986c. Mass selection in a pig population: correlated responses in reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1523–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat 5.3 Committee. 1993. Genstat 5.3 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Graser, H. U., Smith, S. P. and Tier, B. 1987. A derivative-free approach for estimating variance components in animal models by restricted maximum likelihood. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1362–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, C. S., Avalos, E. and Smith, C. 1988. Selection for litter size in pigs. Animal Breeding Abstracts 56: 317–331.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S. and Lee, G. J. 1992. Genetic factors contributing to genetic variation in litter size in British Large White gilts. Livestock Production Science 30: 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, K. and Kennedy, B. W. 1983. Estimation of genetic parameters for reproduction traits in pigs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 35: 421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungst, S. B., Christian, L. I. and Kuhlers, D. L. 1981. Response to selection for feed efficiency in individually fed Yorkshire boars. Journal of Animal Science 53: 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, B. W. 1990. Use of mixed model methodology in analysis of designed experiments. In Advances in statistical methods for genetic improvement of livestock (ed. Gianola, D. and Hammond, K.), pp. 77–97. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, R. N. and Aherne, F. X. 1985. Energy intake, body composition and reproductive performance of gilts. Journal of Animal Science 60: 1518–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlers, D. L. and Jungst, S. B. 1991a. Mass selection for increased 200-day weight in a closed line of Duroc pigs. Journal of Animal Science 69: 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlers, D. L. and Jungst, S. B. 1991b. Mass selection for increased 200-day weight in a closed line of Landrace pigs. Journal of Animal Science 69: 977–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlers, D. L. and Jungst, S. B. 1992. Correlated responses in reproductive and carcass traits to selection for 70-day weight in Landrace swine. Journal of Animal Science 70: 372–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKay, R. M. 1993. Preweaning losses of piglets as a result of index selection for reduced backfat thickness and increased growth rate. Canadian journal of Animal Science 73: 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhee, C. P., Rathmell, G. A., Daniels, L. J. and Cameron, N. D. 1988. Selection in pigs for increased lean growth rate on a time based feeding scale. Animal Production 47: 149–156.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1994. Pig herd year book. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Mersmann, H. J., Pond, W. G., Stone, R. T., Yen, J. T. and Lindvall, R. N. 1984. Factors affecting growth and survival of neonatal genetically obese and lean swine: cross fostering experiments. Growth 48: 209–220.Google ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K. 1985. Maximum likelihood estimation of variance components for a multivariate mixed model with equal design matrices. Biometrics 41: 153–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K. 1989. Restricted maximum likelihood to estimate variance components for animal models with several random effects using a derivative-free algorithm. Genetique Selection et Evolution 21: 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. and Thompson, R. 1984. Bias in variance and covariance component estimators due to selection on a correlated trait. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 101: 33–50.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biornetrika 58: 545–554.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15: 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutledge, J. J. 1980. Fraternity size and swine reproduction. 2. Genetical consequences. Journal of Animal Science 51: 871–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydhmer, L., Johansson, K., Stern, S. and Eliasson-Selling, L. 1992. A genetic study of pubertal age, litter traits, weight loss during lactation and relations to growth and leanness in gilts. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 42: 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. P. and Graser, H. U. 1986. Estimating variance components in a class of mixed models by restricted maximum likelihood. Journal of Animal Science 69: 1156–1165.Google Scholar
Sorensen, D. A. and Johansson, K. 1992. Estimation of direct and correlated responses to selection using univariate animal models. Journal of Animal Science 70: 2038–2044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorensen, D. A. and Kennedy, B. W. 1984. Estimation of genetic variances from unselected and selected populations. Journal of Animal Science 59: 1213–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, D. A. and Kennedy, B. W. 1986. Analysis of selection experiments using mixed model methodology. Journal of Animal Science 63: 245–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Southwood, O. I. and Kennedy, B. W. 1990. Estimation of direct and maternal genetic variance for litter size in Canadian, Yorkshire and Landrace swine using an animal model. Journal of Animal Science 68: 1841–1847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R. and Hill, W. G. 1990. Univariate REML analyses for multivariate data with the animal model. Proceeding of the fourth world congress in genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 13, pp. 484–487.Google Scholar
Van der Steen, H. A. M. 1985. The implication of maternal effects for genetic improvement of litter size in pigs. Livestock Production Science 13: 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangen, O. 1972. Mortality in two lines of pigs selected for rate of gain and backfat thickness. Act a Agricultural Scandinavica 22: 238–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangen, O. 1980a. Studies on a two trait selection experiment in pigs. 5. Correlated responses in reproductive traits. Acta Agricultural Scandinavica 30: 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangen, O. 1980b. Studies on a two trait selection experiment in pigs. 6. Heritability estimates of reproductive traits and influence of maternal effects. Acta Agriculturea Scandinavica 30: 320–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, D., Welham, S. J., Gilmour, A. R. and Thompson, R. 1994. Comparison of some GLMM estimators for a simple binomial model. GUNSTAT Newsletter. 30: 13–24.Google Scholar
Welham, S. J. 1993. The GLMM procedure. Glnhtat 5, procedure library manual release 3 (1), pp. 187–192.Google Scholar
Williams, D. A. 1982. Extra-binomial variation in logistic linear models. Applied Statistics 31: 144–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar