Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:26:36.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of genetic associations between reproduction and production traits based on a sire and dam line with common ancestry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2009

D. N. R. G. Kapell ,
C. J. Ashworth ,
G. A. Walling ,
A. B. Lawrence ,
S. A. Edwards  and
R. Roehe
D. N. R. G. Kapell
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
C. J. Ashworth
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK The Roslin Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
G. A. Walling
Affiliation:
JSR Genetics Ltd, Southburn, Driffield, East Yorkshire, YO25 9ED, UK
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Agriculture Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
R. Roehe*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
†E-mail: Rainer.Roehe@sac.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Genetic parameters for survival, reproduction and production traits were estimated for a sire and dam line, originating from one Large White breed separated more than 25 years ago. The change in parameters due to different selection pressure on reproduction and production traits in both lines was also examined. Data collected between 1990 and 2007 were available for the analysis of reproduction traits in 4713 litters (sire line) and 14836 litters (dam line) and for the production traits in 58329 pigs (sire line) and 108912 pigs (dam line). Genetic parameters were estimated using a Bayesian approach. Average phenotypic differences between lines were substantial with 1.5 more piglets born in the dam line and 1.7 mm less backfat thickness (BF) in the sire line. Based on a multiple trait analysis which included both reproduction and production traits, heritabilities for survival and litter size traits in the sire (or dam) line were estimated at 0.03 ± 0.01 (0.06 ± 0.01) for percentage of stillborn piglets (SB), 0.10 ± 0.03 (0.11 ± 0.01) for total number of piglets born (NBT) and 0.09 ± 0.03 (0.09 ± 0.01) for number of piglets born alive. Heritabilities for production traits were estimated at 0.29 ± 0.01 (0.29 ± 0.01) for average daily gain, 0.50 ± 0.01 (0.42 ± 0.01) for BF and 0.41 ± 0.01 for muscle depth. Selection pressure on litter size in the dam line resulted in a slightly unfavourable correlation for SB–NBT (0.21 ± 0.11), which was only marginally unfavourable in the sire line (0.06 ± 0.24). Selection pressure on BF in the sire line may have resulted in the moderately undesirable correlation with SB (−0.46 ± 0.15), which was not significant in the dam line (−0.08 ± 0.06). Changing the base population in the dam line to animals born since the year 2000 indicated that selection pressure on different traits has altered the heritabilities and correlations of the traits within the line. The undesirable correlations between survival at birth and reproduction traits or production traits were low so that simultaneous improvement of all traits can be achieved. Heritabilities for survival at birth and reproduction traits were low, but genetic variation was substantial and extensive pedigree information can be used to improve the accuracy of breeding values, so that genetic improvement is expected to be efficient.

Keywords

breedsgenetic correlationspigsselectionsurvival
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 10 , October 2009 , pp. 1354 - 1362
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Alonso-Spilsbury, M, Ramírez-Necoechea, R, González-Lozano, M, Mota-Rojas, D, Trujillo-Ortega, ME 2007. Piglet survival in early lactation: a review. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 6, 76–86.Google Scholar
Bouquet, A, Canario, L, Ligonesche, B, Bidanel, JP 2006. Genetic parameters of litter size, piglet preweaning mortality and growth in French Landrace pigs. 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, Contribution 06-09.Google Scholar
BPEX 2008. Pig yearbook 2008. BPEX, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
Chimonyo, M, Dzama, K, Bhebhe, E 2006. Genetic determination of individual birth weight, litter weight and litter size in Mukota pigs. Livestock Science 105, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 2002. Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, A, Rodrigáñez, J, Zuzúarregui, J, Rodríguez, MC, Silió, L 2008. Genetic parameters for litter size and weight at different parities in Iberian pigs. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 6, 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraz, JB, Johnson, RK 1993. Animal model estimation of genetic parameters and response to selection for litter size and weight, growth, and backfat in closed seedstock populations of large white and Landrace swine. Journal of Animal Science 71, 850–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geweke, J 1992. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments. In Bayesian statistics 4 (ed. JM Bernardo, J Berger, AP Dawid and AFM Smith), pp. 169–193. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandinson, K, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E, Solanes, FX 2005. Genetic analysis of body condition in the sow during lactation, and its relation to piglet survival and growth. Animal Science 80, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanenberg, EHAT, Knol, EF, Merks, JWM 2001. Estimates of genetic parameters for reproduction traits at different parities in Dutch Landrace pigs. Livestock Production Science 69, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S, Luxford, BG, Graser, H-U 2000a. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs: 2. Genetic relationships between production, carcase and meat quality traits. Livestock Production Science 65, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S, Luxford, BG, Graser, H-U 2000b. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs: 1. Description of traits and heritability estimates. Livestock Production Science 65, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S, Luxford, BG, Graser, H-U 2000c. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs: 3. Genetic parameters for reproduction traits and genetic correlations with production, carcass and meat quality traits. Livestock Production Science 65, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knol, EF 2001. Genetic aspects of piglet survival. PhD, Wageningen University and Research Centre.Google Scholar
Knol, EF, Ducro, BJ, Van Arendonk, JAM, Van der Lende, T 2002. Direct, maternal and nurse sow genetic effects on farrowing-, pre-weaning- and total piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 73, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenhouwers, JI, Knol, EF, Van der Lende, T 2002. Differences in late prenatal development as an explanation for genetic differences in piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 78, 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Strabel, T, Auvray, B, Druet, T, Lee, DH 2002. BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France, Contribution 28-07.Google Scholar
Raftery, AE, Lewis, S 1992. How many iterations in the Gibbs sampler? In Bayesian statistics 4 (ed. JM Bernardo, J Berger, AP Dawid and AFM Smith), pp. 763–773. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehe, R, Kennedy, BW 1995. Estimation of genetic parameters for litter size in Canadian Yorkshire and Landrace swine with each parity of farrowing treated as a different trait. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2959–2970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roehe, R, Shrestha, NP, Mekkawy, W, Baxter, EM, Knap, PW, Smurthwaite, KM, Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, Edwards, SA 2009. Genetic analyses of piglet survival and individual birth weight on first generation data of a selection experiment for piglet survival under outdoor conditions. Livestock Science 121, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosendo, A, Canario, L, Druet, T, Gogue, J, Bidanel, JP 2007a. Correlated responses of pre- and postweaning growth and backfat thickness to six generations of selection for ovulation rate or prenatal survival in French Large White pigs. Journal of Animal Science 85, 3209–3217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosendo, A, Druet, T, Gogue, J, Canario, L, Bidanel, JP 2007b. Correlated responses for litter traits to six generations of selection for ovulation rate or prenatal survival in French Large White pigs. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1615–1624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rydhmer, L, Lundeheim, N, Canario, L 2008. Genetic correlations between gestation length, piglet survival and early growth. Livestock Science 115, 287–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 2002. SAS software, Version 9.1.3 of the SAS System for Windows. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
See, MT, Mabry, JW, Bertrand, JK 1993. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of variance components from field data for number of pigs born alive. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2905–2909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serenius, T, Stalder, KJ 2004. Genetics of length of productive life and lifetime prolificacy in the Finnish Landrace and Large White pig populations. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3111–3117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serenius, T, Sevón-Aimonen, M-L, Kause, A, Mäntysaari, EA, Maki-Tanila, A 2004a. Genetic associations of prolificacy with performance, carcass, meat quality, and leg conformation traits in the Finnish Landrace and Large White pig populations. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2301–2306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serenius, T, Sevón-Aimonen, M-L, Kause, A, Mäntysaari, EA, Mäki-Tanila, A 2004b. Selection potential of different prolificacy traits in the finnish landrace and large white populations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, A 54, 36–43.Google Scholar
Serenius, T, Sevón-Aimonen, M-L, Mäntysaari, EA 2003. Effect of service sire and validity of repeatability model in litter size and farrowing interval of Finnish Landrace and Large White populations. Livestock Production Science 81, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandén, I, Vuori, K 2006. Relax2: pedigree analysis program. 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, Contribution 27-30.Google Scholar
Su, G, Lund, MS, Sorensen, D 2007. Selection for litter size at day five to improve litter size at weaning and piglet survival rate. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1385–1392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, G, Sorensen, D, Lund, MS 2008. Variance and covariance components for liability of piglet survival during different periods. Animal 2, 184–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zumbach, B, Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Holl, J, Herring, W, Long, T 2007. Genetic correlations between two strains of Durocs and crossbreds from differing production environments for slaughter traits. Journal of Animal Science 85, 901–908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed