Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 4

Evaluation of animal models for genetic analysis of growth performance in Landlly pigs

Pages
910–918
Publication Date
2022-11-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Total heritability estimates for the body weights were low to moderate across best models.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Selection of the most appropriate animal model for the estimation of genetic parameters for body weight was carried out using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) procedure at birth and thereafter at 3, 6, and 8 weeks of age in Landlly pigs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Records on 1968 piglets, born in 4 parities of 131 gilts/sows, sired by 68 boars during a period of 5 years from 2014 to 2018 were used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Total heritability estimates for the body weights were low to moderate across best models.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Selection of the most appropriate animal model for the estimation of genetic parameters for body weight was carried out using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) procedure at birth and thereafter at 3, 6, and 8 weeks of age in Landlly pigs. Six different models were fitted for each trait; by inclusion or exclusion of maternal additive genetic effect, maternal permanent environmental effect, and covariance between direct and maternal additive genetic effects. Records on 1968 piglets, born in 4 parities of 131 gilts/sows, sired by 68 boars during a period of 5 years from 2014 to 2018 were used. In order to determine the most appropriate model, Log likelihood values, log the likelihood ratio test and Akaike’s information criterion were used. A model including direct additive genetic and maternal permanent environmental effects fitted best to data for birth weight. The best model explaining W3, W6, and W8 included direct additive genetic, maternal genetic and maternal permanent environmental effect with direct and maternal genetic covariance. Total heritability estimates for the body weights were low to moderate across best models.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAHOO, N. R., PANDA, S., RAMACHANDRAPPA, P. D., GAUR, G. K., AHMAD, S. F., BHARTI, P. K. (2022). Evaluation of animal models for genetic analysis of growth performance in Landlly pigs. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 4, 910–918. https://ajindex.com/articles/614791

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Rydhmer L. Genetics of sow reproduction, including puberty, oestrus, pregnancy, farrowing and lactation. Livestock Production Science 2000; 66: 1-12
  2. Solanes FX, Grandinson K, Rydhmer L, Stern S, Andersson K et al. Direct and maternal influences on the early growth, fattening performance, and carcass traits of pigs. Livestock Production Science 2004; 88 (3): 199-212
  3. Grandinson K, Lund MS, Rydhmer L, Strandberg E. Genetic parameters for the piglet mortality traits crushing, stillbirth and total mortality, and their relation to birth weight. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 2002; 52 (4): 167-173
  4. Chimonyo M, Dzama K, Bhebhe E. Genetic determination of mothering ability and piglet growth in indigenous Mukota sows of Zimbabwe. Livestock Science 2008; 113 (1): 74-80
  5. Tomiyama M, Kanetani T, Tatsukawa Y, Mori H, Oikawa T. Genetic parameters for preweaning and early growth traits in Berkshire pigs when creep feeding is used. Journal of Animal Science 2010; 88 (3): 879-884
  6. Dufrasne M, Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Holl J, Gray K A et al. Estimation of genetic parameters for birth weight, preweaning mortality, and hot carcass weight of crossbred pigs. Journal of Animal Science 2013; 91 (12): 5565-5571
  7. Alves K, Schenkel FS, Brito LF, Robinson A. Estimation of direct and maternal genetic parameters for individual birth weight, weaning weight, and probe weight in Yorkshire and Landrace pigs. Journal of Animal Science 2018; 96 (7): 2567- 2578
  8. Oksbjerg N, Nissen P M, Therkildsen M, Møller H S, Larsen LB et al. Meat science and muscle biology symposium: in utero nutrition related to fetal development, postnatal performance, and meat quality of pork. Journal of Animal Science 2013; 91 (3): 1443-1453
  9. Andersen IL, Nævdal E, Bøe KE. Maternal investment, sibling competition, and offspring survival with increasing litter size and parity in pigs (Sus scrofa). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2011; 65 (6): 1159-1167
  10. Muns R, Manzanilla EG, Sol C, Manteca X, Gasa J. Piglet behavior as a measure of vitality and its influence on piglet survival and growth during lactation. Journal of Animal Science 2013; 91 (4): 1838-1843
  11. Kaufmann D, Hofer A, Bidanel JP, Künzi N. Genetic parameters for individual birth and weaning weight and for litter size of Large White pigs. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 2000; 117 (2): 121-128
  12. Roehe R. Genetic determination of individual birth weight and its association with sow productivity traits using Bayesian