Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:34:34.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and phenotypic parameters of age at first mating, litter size and animal size in Finnish mink

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

M. Koivula ,
I. Strandén  and
E. A. Mäntysaari
M. Koivula*
Affiliation:
Biotechnology and Food Research, Biometrical Genetics, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
I. Strandén
Affiliation:
Biotechnology and Food Research, Biometrical Genetics, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
E. A. Mäntysaari
Affiliation:
Biotechnology and Food Research, Biometrical Genetics, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
*
†E-mail: minna.koivula@mtt.fi
Get access

Abstract

Mink skin size in Finland, as well as in other countries, has increased considerably during last decade. However, there are signs that selection for large body size has a negative impact on litter size (LS) and also for survival of kits. Therefore, it is important to study the genetic relationships among fertility traits and animal size (AS). The variance components for age at first mating (AFM) and first three parity LS and AS were estimated using multi-trait restricted maximum likelihood animal model. Data included 82 945 animals born during 1990 to 2004, originating from nine farms. Heritability estimates for the fertility traits were from 0.10 to 0.15. For AS, heritability was estimated to be 0.18. Genetic correlation between AS and all fertility traits was estimated to be negative (varying from −0.004 to −0.38). It is important to recognize this antagonistic relationship and include the reproductive traits into breeding goals to maintain good reproductive performance when selecting for increased body size and hence larger pelts in fur animals. Genetic correlations between the traits should be accounted in breeding value evaluations by using a multi-trait model. Including AFM into breeding value estimation would also improve the accuracy of breeding value estimation for fertility, because females missing the first LS still have record on AFM.

Keywords

fertility, genetic parameters, mink, litter size, animal size
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , February 2010 , pp. 183 - 188
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

Berg, P 1993. Present knowledge about heritability of different traits in mink. NJF Utredning/Rapport, 90. Workshop, Viborg, Denmark, 10pp.Google Scholar
Elofson, L, Lagerkvist, G, Gustafsson, H, Einarsson, S 1989. Mating systems and reproduction in mink. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 39, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, SH, Larivière, S 2002. Can comparing life histories help conserve carnivores? Animal Conservation 5, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredberg, M, Berg, P, Hansen, BK 2006. Timing of reproduction in mink respond mainly to maternal genetic effects. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil, CD-ROM communication no. 11-08.Google Scholar
Fredberg, M, Rasmussen, U, Berg, P, Sandbøl, P 2001. Heritability for birth date and effect of mating date in mink (Mustela vison). In NJF Utredning/Rapport, 331. Seminar, Snekkersten, Denmark, 8pp.Google 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
Hansen, BK 2009. Litter size and kit survival. Scientifur 33, 19–21.Google Scholar
Hansen, BK, Berg, P 2007. Low kit survival – consequences of selection for high body weight. Scientifur 31, 104.Google Scholar
Hansen, BK, Berg, P 2008. Reduced litter size and percent kits alive is a consequence of selecting for high body weight. Scientifur 32, 15.Google Scholar
Kause, A, Ritola, O, Paananen, T, Mäntysaari, E, Eskelinen, U 2003. Selection against early maturity in large rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss: the quantitative genetics of sexual dimorphism and genotype-by-environment interactions. Aquaculture 228, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenttämies, H 1996. Genetics and environmental factors affecting fertility traits in foxes. Animal Production Review Applied Science 27, 63–66.Google Scholar
Kenttämies, H, Vilva, V 1988. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for body size and fur characteristics in mink. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 38, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivula, M, Strandén, I, Mäntysaari, EA 2008. Genetic parameters for litter size and grading traits in Finnish mink population. Scientifur 32, 53–58.Google Scholar
Lagerkvist, G, Johansson, K, Lundeheim, N 1993. Selection for litter size, body weight and pelt quality in mink (Mustela vison): experimental design and direct response of each trait. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3261–3272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lagerkvist, G, Johansson, K, Lundeheim, N 1994. Selection for litter size, body weight and pelt quality in mink (Mustela vison): correlated responses. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1126–1137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larivière, S 1999. Mustela vison. Mammalian species 608, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohi, O 2002. Genetics of furs and special fibres. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France, CD-ROM communication no. 12-07.Google Scholar
Lopes, FL, Desmarais, JA, Murphy, BD 2004. Embryonic diapause and its regulation. Reproduction 128, 669–678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, P, Jensen, J 2000. A user’s quide to DMU, a package for analyzing multivariate mixed models. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (DIAS). Tjele, Denmark. Mimeo, 22pp.Google Scholar
Muir, BL, Fatehi, J, Schaeffer, LR 2004. Genetic relationships between persistency and reproductive performance in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 3029–3037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muir, WM, Schinckel, A 2002. Incorporation of competitive effects in breeding programs to improve productivity and animal well being. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France, CD-ROM communication no. 14-07.Google Scholar
Peura, J, Strandén, I, Mäntysaari, EA 2005. Genetic parameters in Finnish blue fox population: pelt character and live animal grading traits. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 55, 137–144.Google Scholar
Peura, J, Strandén, I, Mäntysaari, EA 2007. Genetic parameters for Finnish blue fox population: litter size, age at first insemination and pelt size. Agricultural and Food Science 16, 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peura, J, Strandén, I, Smeds, K 2004. Genetics of litter size, age at first insemination and animal size in blue fox (Alopex lagopus). Scientifur 28, 206–210.Google Scholar
Rozempolska-Rucińska, I 2004. Genetic background of performance and functional traits in mink. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities, Animal Husbandry, http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume7/issue2/animal/art-03.html.Google Scholar
SAS 2004. Statistical Analysis System. Release 9.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Ślaska, B 2002. Genetic and environmental factors of raccoon dog reproduction traits. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities, Animal Husbandry, http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume5/issue2/animal/art-06.html.Google Scholar
Socha, S 2004. Genetic parameters of size and fur quality in a mink population (Mustela vison Sch.). Scientifur 28, 251–253.Google Scholar
Socha, S, Markiewicz, D 2002. Effect of mating and whelping dates on the number of pups in mink. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities, Animal Husbandry, http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume5/issue2/animal/art-02.html.Google Scholar
Strandén, I, Lidauer, M 1999. Solving large mixed linear models using preconditioned conjugate gradient iteration. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2779–2787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strandén, I, Vuori, K 2006. RelaX2: pedigree analysis program. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Gentics Applied to Livestock Production, August 13–18, 2006, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil, CD-ROM communication no. 27-30.Google Scholar
Wierzbicki, H 2004. Breeding value evaluation in Polish fur animals: Estimates of direct heritability and portion of litter variation of fur coat and reproduction traits. Czech Journal of Animal Science 49, 474–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicki, H, Jagusiak, W 2006. Breeding value evaluation in Polish fur animals: Estimates of (co)variances due to direct and litter effects for fur coat and reproduction traits. Czech Journal of Animal Science 51, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar