Genetic parameters for individual birth and weaning weight and for litter size of Large White pigs

Genetics of piglet growth in association with sow's early growth and body composition were estimated in the Tai Zumu line. Piglet and sow's litter growth traits were calculated from individual weights collected at birth and at 3 weeks of age. Sow's litter traits included the number of piglets born alive (NBA), the mean piglet weight (MW) and the standard deviation of weights within the litter (SDW). Sow's early growth was measured by the age at 100 kg (A100), and body composition included backfat thickness (BF100). A main objective of this study was to estimate separately the direct genetic effect (d) and the maternal genetic effect (m) on piglet weight and daily weight gain during lactation. Variance components were estimated using the restricted maximum likelihood methodology based on animal models. The heritability estimates were 0.19 for NBA, 0.15 and 0.26 for SDW and MW at 3 weeks and 0.42 and 0.70 for A100 and BF100. The NBA was almost independent from SDW. Conversely, the A100 and BF100 were correlated unfavourably with SDW (rg <-0.24, SE<0.12). A stronger selection for litter size should have little effect on litter homogeneity in weights. Selection for lean growth rate tends to favour heterogeneity in weights. The direct effect on piglet weight at birth and daily weight gain accounted for 12% (h(²) (d) = 0.02) and 50% (h(²) (d) = 0.11) of the genetic variance, respectively. The association between d and m for piglet weight was not different from zero at birth (rg = 0.19, SE = 0.27), but a strong antagonism between d and m for daily weight gain from birth to 3 weeks was found (rg = -0.41, SE = 0.17). Substantial direct and maternal genetic effects influenced piglet growth until weaning in opposite way.

show abstract

“…Kaufmann et al . () found similar results for piglet weight at 4 weeks of age (

{h^{2}}_{d}

= 0.08), but in their case, maternal genetic effects were higher than in the present study (

{h^{2}}_{m}

= 0.16). Rosendo et al .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…We detected a lower heritability for direct effects than for maternal effects on TZ piglet birth weight, in the range of estimates found in previous studies (

{h^{2}}_{d}

= 0.02–0.09;

{h^{2}}_{m}

= 0.16–0.22; Kaufmann et al . ; Solanes et al . ; Grandinson et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic parameters for litter size, piglet growth and sow's early growth and body composition in the Chinese–European line Tai Zumu

Banville

Riquet

Bahon³

et al. 2014

J Animal Breeding Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The heritability estimates for PREG and WHELP on the observed binary scale were 0.045 and 0.050, respectively. The estimated effects of a common litter environment for PREG and WHELP, including non‐genetic components such as uterine nutrition, uterus capacity and nutrition during the suckling period, as well as partly maternal additive genetic and non‐additive genetic effects, such as dominance (Kaufmann, Hofer, Bidanel, & Kunzi, ), were lower than their estimated heritabilities, representing only 1.7%–2.5% of the total variance. LS1 had a heritability of 0.13, whereas the corresponding estimates for LS2 and LS3 were slightly higher: 0.19 and 0.17, respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Joint breeding value evaluation for fertility in Finnish and Norwegian blue foxes

Kempe

Strandén

2018

J Animal Breeding Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We developed a multiple‐trait animal model for blue fox fertility evaluation and estimated genetic parameters simultaneously for seven traits: first three litter sizes (LS), pregnancy rate (PREG), whelping success (WHELP), grading size (gSI) and fur quality (gQU). Grading size and quality were included into the new multiple‐trait model as correlated traits. Litter size of the first parity had the highest unfavourable genetic correlations with gSI (−0.57) and gQU (−0.56). Thus, selection for higher gSI and gQU slows down the genetic gain in fertility traits. WHELP had moderate to fairly high negative genetic correlations with gSI and gQU (−0.44 and −0.36, respectively), indicating that larger animals are more likely to lose their pups during pregnancy or immediately after birth. Our new model corrected the slight overestimation of estimated breeding values (EBVs) especially for first litter size. The accuracy of LS, PREG and WHELP estimation is likely to benefit from the new multiple‐trait animal model. PREG and WHELP improved steadily from 1998 to 2014, and LS traits have shown a moderate genetic trend since 2007, whereas the positive genetic trend for gSI has levelled down, at least temporarily. The fairly high effective population size (150) allows to increase selection intensity, and the new fertility evaluation enables further improvement of fertility traits.

show abstract

“…/jas2012-6027 2003. Those effects indicate the nongenetic effect of a sow on performance of her offspring (e.g., Kaufmann et al, 2000). Causal meehanisms underlying those effects are largely unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of gestating sow body condition, feed refusals, and group housing on growth and feed intake in grower–finishing pigs1

Sell‐Kubiak

Waaij

Bijma

2013

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main focus of this study was to identify sow gestation features that affect growth rate (GR) and feed intake (FI) of their offspring during grower-finishing stage. Because the sow provides a specific environment to her offspring during gestation, certain features (e.g., BW of the sow), feed refusals or gestation group, may affect her ability to deliver and feed a healthy litter. Data on 17,743 grower-finishing pigs, coming from 604 sires and 681 crossbred sows, were obtained from the Institute for Pigs Genetics. Sow gestation features were collected during multiple gestations and divided into 3 clusters describing i) sow body condition (i.e., BW, backfat, and gestation length), ii) sow feed refusals (FR), the difference between offered and eaten feed during 3 periods of gestation: 1 to 28, 25 to 50, 45 to 80 d, and iii) sow group features (i.e., number of sows, and average parity). Sow gestation features were added to the base model 1 at a time to study their effect on GR and FI. Significant gestation features (P < 0.1) were fitted simultaneously in animal model to investigate whether they could explain common litter and permanent sow effects. Gestation length had effect on GR [1.4 (g/d)/d; P = 0.04] and FI [6.8 (g/d)/d; P = 0.007]. Body weights of the sow at insemination [0.07 (g/d)/kg; P = 0.08], at farrowing [0.14 (g/d)/kg; P < 0.0001], and after lactation [0.1 (g/d)/kg; P = 0.003] had effect on GR. Sow parturition-lactation loss in backfat thickness and weight were not significant for GR and FI. Days with FR during 25 to 50 and 45 to 80 d of gestation and average FR during 45 to 80 d of gestation had negative effect on GR and when substantially increased had also a positive effect on FI. Sow FR from 1 to 28 d of gestation were not significant. Number of sows in gestation group had effect on FI [-9 (g/d)/group member; P = 0.04] and day sow entered group had an effect on GR [-0.9 (g/d)/day; P = 0.04]. Sow gestation features explained 1 to 3% of the total variance in grower-finishing pigs. Gestation features did explain phenotypic variance due to permanent sow and part of phenotypic variance due to common litter effects for FI but not for GR.

show abstract

Genetic parameters for individual birth and weaning weight and for litter size of Large White pigs

Cited by 39 publications

References 10 publications

Genetic parameters for litter size, piglet growth and sow's early growth and body composition in the Chinese–European line Tai Zumu

Genetic parameters for litter size, piglet growth and sow's early growth and body composition in the Chinese–European line Tai Zumu

Joint breeding value evaluation for fertility in Finnish and Norwegian blue foxes

Effect of gestating sow body condition, feed refusals, and group housing on growth and feed intake in grower–finishing pigs1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About