Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:22:11.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Osteochondrosis in pigs diagnosed with computed tomography: heritabilities and genetic correlations to weight gain in specific age intervals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2013

T. Aasmundstad ,
J. Kongsro ,
M. Wetten ,
N. I. Dolvik  and
O. Vangen
T. Aasmundstad*
Affiliation:
Department of Breeding, Norsvin, PO Box 504, 2304 Hamar, Norway Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway
J. Kongsro
Affiliation:
Department of Breeding, Norsvin, PO Box 504, 2304 Hamar, Norway
M. Wetten
Affiliation:
Department of Breeding, Norsvin, PO Box 504, 2304 Hamar, Norway
N. I. Dolvik
Affiliation:
Department of Companion Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, PO Box 8146 Dep, 0033 Oslo, Norway
O. Vangen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway
*
†E-mail: torunn.aasmundstad@norsvin.no
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop a method for scoring osteochondrosis (OC) by using information from computed tomography (CT), as well as to estimate the heritability for OC scored by means of CT (OCwCT) of the medial and lateral condyles at the distal end of the humerus or the femur of the right and left leg and the sum of these scores (OCT). In addition, we were aiming at revealing the genetic relationship between OCwCT traits and growth in different periods (days from birth to 30 kg (D30), days from 30 to 50 kg (D30_50), days from 50 to 70 kg (D50_70), days from 70 to 90 kg (D70_90), days from 90 to 100 kg (D90_100) and days from birth to 100 kg (D100)). The OCwCT was assessed for 1449 boars, and growth data were collected for these 1449 boars and additional 3779 boars tested in the same time period. All boars were tested as part of the Norsvin Landrace boar test and in the same test station. Heritabilities for OCwCT on anatomical locations varied from 0.21 (s.e. = 0.08) on the medial condyle of the right humerus to 0.06 (s.e. = 0.06) on the lateral condyle of the left femur, whereas OCT exhibited the highest heritability (h2 = 0.31, s.e. = 0.09). Genetic correlations between OCT and OCwCT for the anatomical locations ranged from 0.94 (s.e. = 0.07) for OCT and OCwCT score for the medial condyle of the humerus right side to 0.26 (s.e. = 0.39) for OCT and the lateral condyle of the femur left side. Genetic correlations between D30 and OCT were medium high and unfavourable (rg = −0.74). As the boar gain weight, the relationship between growth rate – expressed as number of days spent growing from one interval to the next – and OCT decreased to 0.12 (s.e. = 0.19, i.e. not significantly different from zero) for the trait D90_100 kg. These changes of genetic correlation coefficients coincide with the maturing of the joint cartilage and skeletal structures. In this study, we demonstrate that CT could be used for selection against OC in breeding programmes in pigs and that the genetic correlations between growth periods and OC are decreasing over time.

Keywords

computed tomographyosteochondrosisweight gaingenetic parameters
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 10 , October 2013 , pp. 1576 - 1582
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Animal welfare Act 2009-06-19-97 (in Norwegian) 2009. Lov om dyrevelferd. Retrieved October 20, 2012, from http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-20090619-097.htmlGoogle Scholar
Busch, ME, Wachmann, H 2011. Osteochondrosis of the elbow joint in finishing pigs from three herds: associations among different types of joint changes and between osteochondrosis and growth rate. The Veterinary Journal 188, 197–203.Google Scholar
Empel, W, Sehested, E 1986. Qualitative, semiquantitative and quantitative diagnosis of osteochondrosis in pigs by computed tomography (CT). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 36, 186–194.Google Scholar
Gjerlaug-Enger, E, Kongsro, J, Ødegård, J, Aass, L, Vangen, O 2012. Genetic parameters between slaughter pig efficiency and growth rate of different body tissues estimated by computed tomography in live boars of Landrace and Duroc. Animal 6, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, LW 2007. Principles of CT and CT Technology. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology 35, 115–128.Google Scholar
Grøndalen, T 1974. Osteochondrosis and arthrosis in pigs. I. Incidence in animals up to 120 kg live weight. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 15, 1–25.Google Scholar
Hounsfield, GN 1973. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): part I. Description of system. British Journal of Radiology 46, 1016–1022.Google Scholar
Hounsfield, GN 1976. Picture quality of computed tomography. American Journal of Roentgenology 127, 3–9.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, B, Andersen, S 2000. Genetic parameters for osteochondrosis in Danish Landrace and Yorkshire boars and correlations with leg weakness and production traits. Animal Science 71, 427–434.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, B, Arnbjerg, J, Aaslyng, M 1995. Pathological and radiological investigations on osteochondrosis in pigs, associated with leg weakness. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A 42, 489–504.Google Scholar
Kadarmideen, HN, Schwörer, D, Ilahi, M, Hofer, A 2004. Genetics of osteochondral disease and its relationship with meat quality and quantity, growth, and feed conversion traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3118–3127.Google Scholar
Madsen, P, Jensen, J 2008. A user's guide to DMU. A package for analysing multivariate mixed models. Version 6, release 4.7. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (DIAS), Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Research Center Foulum. Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Mote, BE, Mabry, JW, Stalder, KJ, Rothschild, MF 2009. Evaluation of current reasons for removal of sows from commercial farms. The Professional Animal Scientist 25, 1–7.Google Scholar
Nakano, T, Brennan, JJ, Aherne, FX 1987. Leg weakness and osteochondrosis in swine: a review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67, 883–901.Google Scholar
Norsvin 2012. In-Gris annual statistics 2011 (in Norwegian). Retrieved October 20, 2013, from http://www.norsvin.no/norsvin.no/Fag/Ingris/AArsstatistikkGoogle Scholar
Ødegård, J, Olesen, I, Gjerde, B, Klemetsdal, G 2007. Evaluation of statistical models for genetic analysis of challenge-test data on ISA resistance in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): prediction of progeny survival. Aquaculture 266, 70–76.Google Scholar
Ohlerth, S, Scharf, G 2007. Computed tomography in small animals – basic principles and state of the art applications. The Veterinary Journal 173, 254–271.Google Scholar
Olsson, SE, Reiland, S 1978. The nature of osteochondrosis in animals: summary and conclusions with comparative aspects on osteochondritis dissecans in man. Acta Radiologica Supplementum 358, 299–306.Google Scholar
Olstad, K, Ytrehus, B, Ekman, S, Carlson, CS, Dolvik, NI 2011. Early lesions in the distal femur of foals. Veterinary Pathology 48, 1165–1175.Google Scholar
Regulation for the keeping of pigs in Norway 2003-02-18-175 (in Norwegian) 2003. FOR 2003-02-18 nr 175: Forskrift om hold av svin. Retrieved October 20, 2012, from http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/ldles?doc=/sf/sf/sf-20030218-0175.htmlGoogle Scholar
Reiland, S 1978. Pathology of so-called leg weakness in the pig. Acta Radiologica Supplementum 358, 23–44.Google Scholar
Rosset, A, Spadola, L, Ratib, O 2004. OsiriX: an open-source software for navigating in multidimensional DICOM images. Journal of Digital Imaging 17, 205–216.Google Scholar
Segura-Correa, JC, Ek-Mex, E, Alzina-López, A, Segura-Correa, VM 2011. Frequency of removal reasons of sows in Southeastern Mexico. Tropical Animal Health Production 43, 1583–1588.Google Scholar
Thomasen, E 1939. Calvé-Perthes-like changes in the head of the humerus in swine. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 10, 331.Google Scholar
van Grevenhof, EM, Ott, S, Hazeleger, W, van Weeren, PR, Bijma, P, Kemp, B 2011. The effects of housing system and feeding strategy on the joint-specific prevalence of osteochondrosis in fattening pigs. Livestock Science 135, 53–61.Google Scholar
Weiler, U, Salloum, BA, Claus, R 2006. Influence of short-term confinement and exercise on tibia development in growing pigs. Journal of Veterinary Medicine A 53, 450–455.Google Scholar
Wetten, M, Ødegård, J, Vangen, O, Meuwissen, THE 2012. Simultaneous estimation of daily weight and feed intake curves for growing pigs by random regression. Animal 6, 433–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yazdi, MH, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L, Ringmar-Cederberg, E, Johansson, K 2000. Survival of Swedish Landrace and Yorkshire sows in relation to osteochondrosis: a genetic study. Animal Science 71, 1–9.Google Scholar
Ytrehus, B, Carlson, CS, Ekman, S 2007. Etiology and pathogenesis of osteochondrosis. Veterinary Pathology 44, 429–448.Google Scholar
Ytrehus, B, Grindflek, E, Teige, J, Stubsjøen, E, Grøndalen, T, Carlson, CS, Ekman, S 2004a. The effect of parentage on the prevalence, severity and location of lesions of osteochondrosis in swine. Journal of Veterinary Medicine A 51, 188–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ytrehus, B, Carlson, CS, Lundheim, N, Mathisen, L, Reinholt, FP, Teige, J, Ekman, S 2004b. Vascularisation and osteochondrosis of the epiphyseal growth cartilage of the distal femur in pigs – development with age, growth rate, weight and joint shape. Bone 34, 454–465.Google Scholar
Ytrehus, B, Haga, A, Mellum, CN, Mathisen, L, Carlson, CS, Ekman, S, Teige, J, Reinholt, FP 2004c. Experimental ischemia of porcine growth cartilage produces lesions of osteochondrosis. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 22, 1201–1209.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Image

Aasmundstad Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Aasmundstad Supplementary Material(Image)
Image 424.5 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Aasmundstad Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Aasmundstad Supplementary Material(Image)
Image 498.9 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Aasmundstad Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Aasmundstad Supplementary Material(Image)
Image 90.6 KB