Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T18:52:56.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of sire with feeding regime interaction in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

N. D. Cameron ,
M. K. Curran  and
R. Thompson
N. D. Cameron
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Edinburgh Research Station, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
M. K. Curran
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London, Wye, Kent TN25 5AH
R. Thompson
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Edinburgh Research Station, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

The interaction of sire with feeding regime (ad libitum and restricted) was assessed in the first stage of a selection experiment. There were 79 sires (59 Large White (Edinburgh) and 20 British Landrace (Wye)) with 1549 progeny (745 at Edinburgh and 804 at Wye) in the study. Progeny within each litter were allocated at random to each feeding regime. Pigs started test at 30 (± 3) kg and finished test at 85 (± 5) kg for ad libitum fed pigs or after 84 days on test for restricted fed pigs. All pigs were individually penned. At the end of test, food intake, weight off test and ultrasonic backfat depths were recorded. Variance components were estimated using restricted maximum likelihood and a weighted analysis took account of the different residual variances between feeding regimes, within each breed.

There were differences in some genetic parameters due to feeding regime within breeds. No evidence of a sire with feeding regime interaction for average daily gain or food conversion ratio was detected in Large White pigs (genetic correlations between ad libitum and restricted feeding were 1·21 (s.e. 0·17) and 0·89 (s.e. 0·19) respectively). Similar conclusions could not be made for the sample of British Landrace pigs due to the large standard errors of the genetic correlation estimates. For ultrasonic backfat depths, the negative estimates of sire variances under restricted feeding prevent calculation of the genetic correlations and conclusions to be made about the sire with feeding regime interaction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , February 1988 , pp. 87 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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

REFERENCES

Brascamp, E. W., Merks, J. W. M. and Wilmink, J. B. M. 1985. Genotype environment interaction in pig breeding programmes: methods of estimation and relevance of the estimates. Livestock Production Science 13: 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, M., Smith, W. C., Henderson, R., Whittemore, C. T. and Laird, R. 1983. Comparative performance and body composition of control and selection line Large White pigs. 2. Feeding to appetite for a fixed time. Animal Production 36: 407–413.Google Scholar
Evans, D. G. and Kempster, A. J. 1982. A multivariate study of pig carcass growth and composition. 1. Production and grading characteristics. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99: 499–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernando, R. L., Knight, S. W. and Gianola, D. 1984. On a method of estimating the genetic correlation between characters measured in different experimental units. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 67: 175–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, C. R. 1953. Estimation of variance and covariance component. Biometrics 9: 226–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. 1974. Genotype × environment interactions in pigs. Proceedings of the 1st World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, Vol. 1, pp. 873–884.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
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
Merks, J. W. M. 1986. Genotype × environment interactions in pig breeding programmes. 1. Central test. Livestock Production Science 14: 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, D. J. and Curran, M. K. 1981. A comparison of ‘on-farm’ and station testing in pigs. Animal Production 33: 291–297.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15: 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. and Fowler, V. R. 1978. The importance of selection criteria and feeding regimes in the selection and improvement of pigs. Livestock Production Science 5: 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., King, J. W. B. and Gilbert, N. 1962. Genetic parameters of British Large White bacon pigs. Animal Production 4: 128–143.Google Scholar
Smith, C. and Ross, G. J. S. 1965. Genetic parameters of British Landrace bacon pigs. Animal Production 7: 291–301.Google Scholar
Southwood, O. L.Curran, M. K., Simpson, S. P. and Webb, A. J. 1986. Estimated halothane gene frequency in eight British pig breeding companies. Animal Production 42: 440–441 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Siandal, N. 1977. Studies on breeding and selection schemes in pigs. 6. Correlation between breeding values estimated from station test and on-farm test data. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 27: 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standal, N. and Vangen, O. 1985. Genetic variation and covariation in voluntary feed intake in pig selection programmes. Livestock Production Science 12: 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talus, G. M. 1959. Sampling errors of genetic correlation coefficients calculated from the analysis of variance and covariance. Australian Journal of Statistics 1: 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. 1982. Methods of estimation of genetic parameters. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, Vol. 5, pp. 95–103.Google Scholar
Webb, A. J. 1980. The incidence of halothane sensitivity in British pigs. Animal Production 31: 101–105.Google 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
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
Yamada, Y. 1962. Genotype by environment interaction and genetic correlation of the same trait under different environments. Japanese Journal of Genetics 37: 498–509.Google Scholar