Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T08:17:42.758Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossbreeding effects on pig growth and carcass traits from two Iberian strains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2014

N. Ibáñez-Escriche ,
L. Varona ,
E. Magallón  and
J. L. Noguera
N. Ibáñez-Escriche*
Affiliation:
Genètica i Millora Animal, IRTA, Av. Alcalde Rovira Roure 191, 25198 Lleida, Spain
L. Varona
Affiliation:
Unidad de Genética y Mejora Animal, Universidad de Zaragoza, C./ Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
E. Magallón
Affiliation:
INGA FOOD S.A. C./ Baleares SN, Casetas, 50620 Zaragoza, Spain
J. L. Noguera
Affiliation:
Genètica i Millora Animal, IRTA, Av. Alcalde Rovira Roure 191, 25198 Lleida, Spain
*
† E-mail: Noelia.ibanez@irta.es
Get access

Abstract

An experiment of a 2×2 full diallelic cross between two contemporary Iberian pig strains (Retinto: RR, and Torbiscal: TT) was conducted to estimate the crossbreeding effects for growth and carcass traits. Phenotypic records were obtained under intensive management and consisted of two different data sets. The first set comprised growth traits until weaning and was collected at two different farms (6236 and 1208 records, respectively). Specific data included individual piglet weight at birth and at weaning at 28 days and average daily gain from birth to weaning at 28 days (ADG28) for both RR and TT and their reciprocal crosses. The second set comprised growth data from birth to slaughter (~340 days and ~160 kg) and carcass traits from 349 individuals (randomly) sampled at weaning from the first dataset. Data were analyzed through a Bayesian analysis by using a reparameterization of Dickerson’s model that allowed estimation of the posterior distributions of the following crossbreeding effects: average maternal breed effect (gM), average paternal breed effect (gP) and individual heterosis (hI). Results showed that the relative magnitude of crossbreeding effects depends on the trait analyzed. Crosses where Torbiscal strain was used as mother (RT and TT) achieved the greatest performance for all growth traits at weaning, leading to remarkable gM effects. The most outstanding example is the case of ADG28 where the probability of relevance was one. In contrast, TR cross showed the greatest differences from RR cross for all growth at slaughter and carcass traits. These differences were mainly due to hI and gP crossbreeding parameters. In particular, the posterior mean of hI was more noticeable for live weight at slaughter, average daily gain at slaughter and carcass length, while gP was more relevant for hams (kg) and loins (kg) representing from 3% to10% of average performance of traits. Hence, growth traits at weaning did not reveal any notable advantage of the crossbreeding scheme because of the superiority of the Torbiscal strain with respect to its mothering ability and the small hI. However, results from growth and carcass traits at slaughter would support the implementation of a TR crossbred system. It would allow exploitation of both the gP of the Torbiscal strain and the hI between these two Iberian pig strains. Additionally, gP estimates and phenotypic differences between reciprocal crosses might suggest signs of the presence of paternal genetic imprinting in primal cuts traits.

Keywords

diallelic crosscrossbreedingIberian piggrowth performanceimprinting
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 10 , October 2014 , pp. 1569 - 1576
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Benito, J, Vazquez, C, Menaya, C, Ferrera, JL, Garcıa-Casco, JM, Silio, L, Rodrigañez, J and Rodrıguez, MC 1998. Evaluation of the productive parameters in different strains of Iberian pig. 4th International Symposium on Mediterranean Pig, November 26 to 28, Evora, Portugal, pp. 113–121.Google Scholar
Bidanel, JP, Caritez, JC and Legault, C 1990. Estimation of crossbreeding parameters between Large White and Meishan porcine breeds. II. Growth before weaning and growth of females during the growing and reproductive periods. Genetics Selection Evolution 22, 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasco, A 2005. The use of Bayesian statistics in meat quality analyses: a review. Meat Science 69, 115–122.Google Scholar
Carrodeguas, JA, Burgos, C, Moreno, C, Sanchez, AC, Ventanas, S, Tarrafeta, L, Barcelona, JA, Lopez, MO, Oria, R and Lopez-Buesa, P 2005. Incidence in diverse pig populations of an IGF2 mutation with potential influence on meat quality and quantity: an assay based on real time PCR (RT-PCR). Meat Science 71, 577–582.Google Scholar
Cassady, JP, Young, LD and Keymaster, KA 2002. Heterosis and recombination effects on pig growth and carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2286–2302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christie, BR and Shattuck, VI 1992. The diallelic cross: design, analysis, and use for plant breeders. Plant Breeding Reviews 9, 9–36.Google Scholar
de Koning, DJ, Rattink, AP, Harlizius, B, van Arendonk, JA, Brascamp, EW and Groenen, MA 2000. Genome-wide scan for body composition in pigs reveals important role of imprinting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97, 7947–7950.Google Scholar
de Vries, AG, Kerr, R, Tier, B, Long, T and Meuwissen, THE 1994. Gametic imprinting effects on rate and composition of pig growth. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 88, 1037–1042.Google Scholar
Dickerson, GE 1969. Experimental approaches in utilising breed resources. Animal Breeding Abstracts 37, 191–202.Google Scholar
Eisen, EJ, Hörstgen-Schwark, G, Saxton, AM and Bandy, TR 1983. Genetic interpretation and analysis of diallelic crosses with animals. Theoretical and Apply Genetics 65, 17–23.Google Scholar
Estelle, J, Mercade, A, Noguera, JL, Perez-Enciso, M, Ovilo, C, Sanchez, A and Folch, JM 2005. Effect of the porcine IGF2-intron3-G3072A substitution in an outbred Large White population and in an Iberian×Landrace cross. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2723–2728.Google Scholar
Fabuel, E, Barragán, C, Silió, L, Rodríguez, MC and Toro, M 2004. Analysis of genetic diversity and conservation priorities in Iberian pigs based on microsatellite markers. Heredity 93, 104–113.Google Scholar
Feil, R and Khosla, S 1999. Genomic imprinting in mammals: an interplay between chromatin and DNA methylation. Trends in Genetics 15, 431–435.Google Scholar
Fernández, A, Rodríguez, MC, Rodrigáñez, J, Silió, L and Toro, MA 2002. Use of Bayesian analysis of growth function to estimate crossbreeding parameters in Iberian pigs. Livestock Production Science 73, 213–223.Google Scholar
Fernández, A, de Pedro, E, Núñez, N, Silió, L, García-Casco, J and Rodríguez, C 2003. Genetic parameters for meat and fat quality and carcass composition traits in Iberian pigs. Meat Science 65, 405–410.Google Scholar
García-Casco, JM, Fernández, A, Rodríguez, MC and Silió, L 2012. Heterosis for litter size and growth in crosses of four strains of Iberian pig. Livestock Science 147, 1–8.Google Scholar
Geman, S and Geman, D 1984. Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 6, 721–741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geweke, J 1992. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to calculating posterior moments. In Bayesian Statistics 4 (ed. JM Bernardo, JO Berger, AP Dawid and AFM Smith), pp. 169–193. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Geyer, CJ 1992. Practical Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Statistical Science 7, 473–483.Google Scholar
Hernandez, P, Guerrero, L, Ramirez, J, Mekkawy, W, Pla, M, Ariño, B, Ibáñez, N and Blasco, A 2005. A Bayesian approach to the effect of selection for growth rate on sensory meat quality of rabbit. Meat Science 69, 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, RK 1981. Crossbreeding in swine: experimental results. Journal of Animal Science 52, 906–923.Google Scholar
Legarra, A, Varona, L and López de Maturana, E 2008. TM Threshold Model. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://snp.toulouse.inra.fr~alegarra/manualtm.pdf Google Scholar
López-Bote, C 1998. Sustained utilization of the Iberian pig breed. Meat Science 49, 17–27.Google Scholar
McLaren, DG, Buchanan, DS and Johnson, RK 1987. Individual heterosis and breed effects performance and carcass traits in four breeds of swine. Journal of Animal Science 64, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojeda, A, Huang, LS, Ren, J, Angiolillo, A, Cho, IC, Soto, H, Lemús-Flores, C, Makuza, SM, Folch, JM and Pérez-Enciso, M 2008. Selection in the making: a worldwide survey of haplotypic diversity around a causative mutation in porcine IGF2. Genetics 178, 1639–1652.Google Scholar
Raftery, AE and Lewis, SM 1992. How many iterations in the Gibbs sampler? In Bayesian statistics vol. 4 (ed. JM Bernardo, JO Berger, AP Dawid and AFM Smith), pp. 763–773. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Robison, OW 1972. The role of maternal effects in animal breeding: V. Maternal effects in swine. Journal of Animal Science 35, 1303–1315.Google Scholar
Silió, L 2000. Iberian pig breeding program. In Developing breeding strategies for lower input animal production environments (ed. S Galal, J Boyazoglou and K Hammond), pp. 511–519. ICAR, Rome.Google Scholar
Silió, L, Rodríguez, MC, Toro, MA and Rodrigáñez, J 1994. Maternal and individual genetic effects on piglet weight, 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 7–12, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, pp. 355–358.Google Scholar
Van Laere, AS, Nguyen, M, Braunschweig, M, Nezer, C, Collette, C, Moreau, L, Archibald, AL, Haley, CS, Buys, N, Tally, M, Andersson, G, Georges, M and Andersson, L 2003. A regulatory mutation in IGF2 causes a major QTL effect on muscle growth in the pig. Nature 425, 832–836.Google Scholar
Visser, P, Pong-Wong, R, Whittemore, C and Haley, C 2000. Impact of biotechnology on (cross) breeding programmes in pigs. Livestock Production Science 65, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, J, Nitter, G, Fewson, D, Jakubec, V and Soukupová, Z 1991. Crossbreeding in farm animals. IV. Analysis of partial diallels with two sets of parental populations. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 108, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar