Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:14:48.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs 4. Genetic and phenotypic parameter estimates and correlated responses in performance test traits with ad-libitum feeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

N. D. Cameron  and
M. K. Curran
N. D. Cameron
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
M. K. Curran
Affiliation:
Why College, University of London, Wye, Kent TN25 5AH
Get access

Abstract

Genetic and phenotypic parameters and correlated responses in performance test traits were estimated for populations of Large White (LW) and British Landrace (LR) pigs tested in Edinburgh and Wye respectively, to four generations of divergent selection for lean growth rate (LGA), lean food conversion (LFC) and daily food intake (DFI) with ad-libitum feeding.

There were differences between the two populations in genetic parameters, as LW heritabilities for growth rate, daily food intake and backfat depths were higher and the correlation between growth rate and backfat was positive for LW, but negative for LR. However, heritabilities, genetic and phenotypic correlations were generally comparable between selection groups, within each population. Genetic and phenotypic correlations indicated that animals with high daily food intakes were faster growing, had positive residual food intakes (RFI), were fatter with higher food conversion ratios. RFI was highly correlated with daily food intake and food conversion ratio, but phenotypically independent of growth rate and backfat, as expected.

Selection for LGA, in LW and LR populations, increased growth rate (54 and 101 g/day), but reduced backfat (−3·9 and −2·0 mm), food conversion ratio (−0·23 and −0·25) and total food intake (−11·8 and −12·6 kg). There was no change in daily food intake in LW pigs (−19 g/day), but daily food intake increased in the LR pigs (69 g/day). With selection for LFC in LW and LR populations, there was no response in groivth rate (9 and 9 g/day), but backfat (−4·1 and −2·1 mm), total (−6·6 and −11·8 kg) and daily food intake (−90 and −172 g) were reduced, as animals had lower food conversion ratios (−0·13 and −0·22). LW and LR pigs selected for DFI ate more food in total (6·8 and 5·9 kg) and on a daily basis (314 and 230 g), grew faster (94 and 51 g/day) and had higher food conversion ratios (0·12 and 0·13). Backfat was increased in LW pigs (3·7 mm), but not in the LR population.

In general, efficiency of lean growth was improved by increasing groivth rate, with little change in daily food intake from selection for LGA, but was primarily due to reduced daily food intake with selection on LFC.

Keywords

food intakegenetic parameterslean growthpigsselection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , October 1994 , pp. 281 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Bereskin, B. 1986. A genetic analysis of feed conversion efficiency and associated traits in swine. Journal of Animal Science 62: 910–917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernard, C. and Fahmy, M. H. 1970. Effects of selection on feed utilization and carcass score in swine. Canadian journal of Animal Science 50: 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. D. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 1. Selection pressure applied and direct responses in a Large White herd. Animal Production 59:251–262.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Curran, M. K. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 2. Selection pressure applied and direct responses in a Landrace herd. Animal Production 59: 263–269.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Pearson, M., Richardson, B. and Brade, M. 1990. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for performance traits in pigs with ad-libitum and restricted reeding. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 15, pp. 473–476.Google Scholar
Cleveland, E. R., Cunningham, P. J. and Peo, E. R. 1982. Selection for lean growth in swine. Journal of Animal Science 54:719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, E. R., Johnson, R. K., Mandigo, R. W. and Peo, E. R. 1983. Index selection and feed intake restriction in swine. 2. Effect on energy utilization. Journal of Animal Science 56: 570–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, M., Chadwick, J. P., Smith, W. C. and Laird, R. 1988. Index selection for improved growth and carcass characteristics in a population of Large White pigs. Animal Production 46: 265–275.Google Scholar
Foster, W. H., Kilpatrick, D. J. and Heaney, I. H. 1983. Genetic variation in the efficiency of energy utilization by the fattening pig. Animal Production 37: 387–393.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R., Bichard, M. and Pease, A. 1976. Objectives in pig breeding. Animal Production 23: 365–387.Google Scholar
Fowler, S. H. and Ensminger, M. E. 1960. Interactions between genotype and plane of nutrition in selection for rate of gain in swine. Journal of Animal Science 19: 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graser, H. U., Smith, S. P. and Tier, B. 1987. A derivative-free approach for estimating variance components in animal models by restricted maximum likelihood. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1362–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haer, L. C. M. de, Luiting, P. and Aarts, H. L. M. 1993. Relations among individual (residual) feed intake, growth performance and feed intake pattern of growing pigs in group housing. Livestock Production Science 36: 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungst, S. B., Christian, L. L. and Kuhlers, D. L. 1981. Response to selection for feed efficiency in individually fed Yorkshire boars. Journal of Animal Science 53: 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katie, J. and Kolstad, N. 1991. Selection for efficiency of food utilization in laying hens: direct response in residual food consumption and correlated responses in weight gain, egg production and body weight. British Poultry Science 32: 939–953.Google Scholar
Kennedy, B. W., Johansson, K. and Hudson, G. F. S. 1985. Heritabilities and genetic correlations for backfat and age at 90 kg in performance-tested pigs. Journal of Animal Science 61: 78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, B. W., Werf, J. H. J. van der and Meuwissen, T. H. E. 1993. Genetic and statistical properties of residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 71: 3239–3250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1990. Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein concentrations. Animal Production 51:189–199.Google Scholar
Luiting, P., Meidertsma, S. and Urff, E. M. 1991. Genetic trends (animal model — REML) in a selection experiment for residual feed consumption. Proceedings of the forty-second meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, vol. 1, p. 233.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. P. 1981. Selection for efficient lean growth in a pig herd. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 32: 681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhee, C. P., Brennan, P. J. and Duncalfe, F. 1979. Genetic and phenotypic parameters of Australian Large White and Landrace boars performance-tested when offered food ad libitum. Animal Production 28: 79–85.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. P., Rathmell, G. A., Daniels, L. J. and Cameron, N. D. 1988. Selection in pigs for increased lean growth rate on a time-based feeding scale. Animal Production 47: 149–156.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. 1989. Restricted maximum likelihood to estimate variance components for animal models with several random effects using a derivative-free algorithm. Genetique, Selection et Evolution 21: 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrode, R. A. and Kennedy, B. W. 1993. Genetic variation in measures of food efficiency in pigs and their genetic relationships with growth rate and backfat. Animal Production 56: 225–232.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15: 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sather, A. P. and Fredeen, H. T. 1978. Effect of selection for lean growth rate upon feed utilization by the market hog. Canadian journal of Animal Science 58: 285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. P. and Graser, H. U. 1986. Estimating variance components in a class of mixed models by restricted maximum likelihood. Journal of Dairy Science 69: 1156–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, E. J. van, Kanis, E. and Steen, H. A. M. van der. 1990. Genetic parameters of fattening performance and exterior traits of boars tested in central stations. Livestock Production Science 24: 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. and Hill, W. G. 1990. Univariate REML analyses for multivariate data with the animal model. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 13, pp. 484–487.Google Scholar
Tier, B. and Smith, S. P. 1989. Use of sparse matrix absorption in animal breeding. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 21: 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangen, O. 1979. Studies on a two trait selection experiment in pigs. 2. Genetic changes and realised genetic parameters in the traits under selection. Ada Agriculturae Scandiuavica 29: 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangen, O. 1980. Studies on a two trait selection experiment in pigs. 3. Correlated responses in daily feed intake, feed conversion and carcass traits. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 30: 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, A. J. and Curran, M. K. 1986. Selection regime by production system interaction in pig improvement: a review of possible causes and solutions. Livestock Production Science 14: 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, A. J. and King, J. W. B. 1983. Selection for improved food conversion ratio on ad libitum group feeding in pigs. Animal Production 37: 375–385.Google Scholar
Webster, J. F. 1977. Selection for leanness and the energetic efficiency of growth in meat animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36: 53–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyllie, D., Morton, J. R. and Owen, J. B. 1979. Genetic aspects of voluntary food intake in the pig and their association with gain and food conversion efficiency. Animal Production 28: 381–390.Google Scholar