EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,517,315
Abstracts:
29,339,501
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Genetic analysis of within-litter variation in piglets' birth weight using genomic or pedigree relationship matrices



Genetic analysis of within-litter variation in piglets' birth weight using genomic or pedigree relationship matrices



Journal of Animal Science 93(4): 1471-1480



The objective of this study was to estimate the genetic variance for within-litter variation of birth weight (BW0) using genomic (GRM) or pedigree relationship matrices (PRM) and to compare the accuracy of estimated breeding values (EBV) for within-litter variation of BW0 using GRM and PRM. The BW0 and residual variance of BW0 were modeled by the double hierarchical generalized linear model using GRM or PRM. Data came from 2 dam lines: Landrace and Large White. After editing, the data set in Landrace consisted of 748 sows with 1,938 litters and 29,430 piglets and in Large White of 989 sows with 3,320 litters and 51,818 piglets. To construct GRM, 46,466 (Landrace) and 44,826 (Large White) single nucleotide polymorphisms were used, whereas to construct PRM, 5 generations of pedigree were used. The accuracy of EBV with GRM was estimated with 8-fold cross-validation and compared to PRM. Estimated variance components were highly similar for GRM and PRM. The maternal genetic variance in residual variance of BW0 in Landrace was 0.05 with GRM and 0.06 with PRM. In Large White these were 0.04 with GRM and 0.05 with PRM. The genetic coefficient of variation (GCV SDe) was about 0.10 in both dam lines. This indicates a change of 10% in residual SD of BW0 when achieving a genetic response of 1 genetic standard deviation. The genetic correlation between birth weight and its residual variance was about 0.6 in both dam lines. The accuracies of selection for within-litter variation of birth weight were 0.35 with GRM and 0.23 with PRM in Landrace and 0.29 with GRM and 0.34 with PRM in Large White. In this case, using GRM did not significantly increase accuracies of selection. Results, however, show good opportunities to select for reduced within-litter variation of BW0. Genomic selection can increase accuracy of selection when reference populations contain at least 2,000 sows.

(PDF same-day service: $19.90)

Accession: 057928774

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26020168

DOI: 10.2527/jas.2014-8674



Related references

Genetic determinism for within-litter birth weight variation and its relationship with litter weight and litter size in the Ripollesa ewe breed. Animal 1(5): 637-644, 2007

Variation of the activity of some blood enzymes in Russian Large White sows, and its relationship with litter size and birth weight of piglets. Zhivotnov"dni Nauki 13(5): 71-76, 1976

Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 43(): 1-1, 2011

Within-litter variation of birth weight in hyperprolific Czech Large White sows and its relation to litter size traits, stillborn piglets and losses until weaning. Livestock Science 115(2-3): 195-205, 2008

Genetic parameters for within-litter variation in piglet birth weight and change in within-litter variation during suckling. Journal of Animal Science 81(3): 604-610, 2003

Sources of variation in the litter size and weight at birth of Duroc piglets. Fontes de variacao de numero e peso de leitoes Duroc ao nascimento: 72, 1975

Relationship between mortality of piglets and litter size or birth weight. Sbornik Vysoke Skoly Zemedelske v Praze, Fakulta Agronomicka, B Zivocisna Vyroba: 149-161, 1970

Estimates of genetic variance and variance of predicted genetic merits using pedigree or genomic relationship matrices in six Brown Swiss cattle populations for different traits. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 132(5): 376-385, 2016

Genetic and phenotypic relationship between gestation length, litter size and litter birth weight in Yankasa sheep. Animal Reproduction Science 34(2): 111-118, 1993

Effects of within-litter birth weight variation of piglets on performance at 3 weeks of age and at weaning in a Large White×Landrace sow herd. Livestock Science 155(2): 348-354, 2013

Genetic parameters for canalisation analysis of litter size and litter weight traits at birth in mice. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 38(5): 445-462, 2006

Genetic and environmental sources of variation upon size and weight litter traits and birth in pigs. Veterinaria - Mexico 21(4): 389-392, 1990

Genetic and environmental sources of variation affecting litter size and weight at birth in pigs. Veterinaria Mexico 21(4): 389-392, 1990

Sources of variation in litter size and weight at birth and 21 days of age in Duroc, Landrace and Large White pigs. 4. Piglet and litter weight gains. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia 10(4): 706-719, 1981

Causes of variation in the birth weight of piglets, and the blood and body composition of under-weight piglets. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 83(10): 438-448, 1976