Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2013 | 31 | 4 |
Tytuł artykułu

Selection for reproduction traits in Hungarian pig breeding in a two-way cross

Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
The authors analysed reproduction traits in the Hungarian Large White (HLW) and Hungarian Landrace (HL) breeds and their reciprocal crosses (F1) based on the data collected within a field test between 2001 and 2010. The traits were number of piglets born alive (NBA), gestation length (GL),farrowing interval (FI) and age at first insemination (AFI). Genetic parameters were estimated separately for purebreds and crossbreds by the REML method applying two-trait repeatability models for NBA, GL, FI, and two-trait single measurement model for AFI. Records of purebred and crossbred pigs were considered separate traits. The numbers of sows for NBA and GL were 56743-167865, for FI 38541-112059, and for AFI 16083-46143. Total number of animals in the pedigree amounted to 126340. AFI was of moderate heritability with large difference between purebreds and crossbreds: 0.28 for HLW, 0.26 for HL vs. 0.40 for the HLW/HLWxHL, and 0.41 for the HL/HLWxHL crosses. Heritability estimates for GL, both in purebreds and crossbreds were moderate:0.30 for HLW, 0.22 for HL, 0.25 for the HLW/HLWxHL cross, and 0.25 for the HL/HLWxHL cross.Heritability coefficients of NBA were low at 0.09, 0.06, 0.07, 0.06, and of FI at 0.06 for all HWL, HL,and their crosses, respectively. Magnitudes of the permanent environment effects ranged between 0.04-0.07 for GL and NBA and were null for FI. Genetic correlation estimates between purebred and crossbred performances were 0.28 and 0.39 for AFI, 0.96 and 0.82 for GL, 0.82 and 0.93 for NBA,as well as 0.65 and 0.33 for FI. Selection of purebred pigs for AFI and FI crossbred performances can be based on the crossbred breeding value whereas selection for NBA and GL can use either breeding value.
Opis fizyczny
  • University of Kaposvar, 40 Guba S.Str., H-7400 Kaposvar, Hungary
  • University of Kaposvar, 40 Guba S.Str., H-7400 Kaposvar, Hungary
  • University of Kaposvar, 40 Guba S.Str., H-7400 Kaposvar, Hungary
  • University of Kaposvar, 40 Guba S.Str., H-7400 Kaposvar, Hungary
  • Boesch M., Roehe R., Looft H., Kalm E., 2000 – Estimation of the genetic association between purebred and crossbred performance for litter size in pigs. Archiv für Tierzucht 43 (3),249-262.
  • Ehlers M.J., Mabry J.W., Bertrand J.K., Stalder K.J., 2005 – Variance components and heritabilities for sow productivity traits estimated from purebred versus crossbred sows. Journal of Animal Breeding Genetics 122, 318-324.
  • Farkas J., Curik I., Csató L., Csörnyei Z., Baumung R., Nagy I., 2007 – Bayesian inference of inbreeding effects on litter size and gestation length in Hungarian Landrace and Hungarian Large White pigs. Livestock Science 112, 109-114.
  • Fischer R., Spilke J., von Lengerken G., 1999 – Einbeziehung von Fruchtbarkeitsleistungen in die Zuchtwertschätzung bei Schwein. Züchtungskunde 71 (3), 209-218.
  • Groeneveld E., Kovac M., Mielenz N., 2008 – VCE User’s Guide and Reference Manual.Version 6.0. Institute of Farm Animal Genetics, Neustadt, Germany. 1-125.
  • Hanenberg E.H.A. T., Knol E.F., Merks J.W.M., 2001 – Estimates of genetic parameters for reproduction traits at different parities in Dutch Landrace pigs. Livestock Production Science 69, 179-186.
  • Henderson C.R., 1975 – Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.Biometrics 31, 423-447.
  • Holm B., Bakken M., Vangen O., Rekaya R., 2005 – Genetic analysis of age at first service, return rate, litter size and weaning-to-first service interval of gilts and sows. Journal of Animal Science 83, 41-48.
  • Kumari B.P., Rao S.D., 2010 – Effect of non-genetic factors on the reproductive traits in crossbred pigs. Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 6 (1), 1-4.
  • Lutaaya E., Misztal I., Mabry J. W., Short T., Timm H. H., Holzbauer R., 2001 – Genetic parameter estimates from joint evaluation of purebreds and crossbreds in swine using the crossbred model. Journal of Animal Science 79, 3002-3007.
  • Nakavisut S., Crump R., Suarez M., Graser H.-U., 2005 – Genetic correlation between the performance of purebred and crossbred pigs. Animal Breeding and Genetics 16, 99-102.
  • Neto A.C., Lui J.F., Sarmento J.L., Ribeiro M.N., Monteiro J.M.C., Fonseca C.,Tonhati H., 2009 – Estimation Models of Variance Components for Farrowing Interval in Swine.Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 52, 69-76.
  • Oh S.H., Lee D.H., See M.T., 2006 – Estimation of Genetic Parameters for Reproductive Traits between First and Later Parities in Pig. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science 19, 7-12.
  • Serenius T., Sevón-Aimonen M.-L., Mäntysaari E.A., 2003 – Effect of service sire and validity of repeatability model in litter size and farrowing interval of Finnish Landrace and Large White populations. Livestock Production Science 81, 213-222.
  • Täubert H., Brandt H., 2000 – Varianz- und Kovarianzkomponentenschätzung für die Wurfleistung von Reinzucht- und Kreuzungssauen. Züchtungskunde 72, (1) 43-58.
  • Tholen E., Bunter K.L., Hermesch S., Graser H.-U., 1996 – The genetic foundation of fitness and reproduction traits in australian pig populations. 2. Relationships between weaning to conception interval, farrowing interval, stayability, and other common reproduction and production traits. Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 1275-90.
  • Wei M., van der Werf J.H.J., 1994 – Maximizing genetic response in crossbreds using both purebred and crossbred information. Animal Production 59, 401-413.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.