Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:29:56.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of Piétrain sire on the performance of the progeny of two commercial dam breeds: a pig intervention study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2019

C. De Cuyper Open the ORCID record for C. De Cuyper [Opens in a new window] ,
S. Tanghe ,
S. Janssens ,
A. Van den Broeke ,
J. Van Meensel ,
M. Aluwé ,
B. Ampe ,
N. Buys  and
S. Millet
C. De Cuyper
Affiliation:
ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
S. Tanghe
Affiliation:
ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
S. Janssens
Affiliation:
Livestock Genetics, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
A. Van den Broeke
Affiliation:
ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
J. Van Meensel
Affiliation:
ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
M. Aluwé
Affiliation:
ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
B. Ampe
Affiliation:
ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
N. Buys
Affiliation:
Livestock Genetics, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
S. Millet*
Affiliation:
ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
*
†E-mail: sam.millet@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
Get access

Abstract

Genetic evaluation of Piétrain sires in Flanders occurs under standardized conditions, on test stations with fixed dam breeds, standardized diets and uniform management practices. As environmental conditions vary on commercial farms and differ from the test stations, this study aimed at understanding to what extent the sire, the dam breed and the interaction between both affects the translation of breeding values to practice. Dams of two commercial breeds were inseminated with semen from one of five different sires selected for contrasting breeding values (daily gain, feed conversion ratio and carcass quality). For each sire by dam breed combination, six pen replicates (with three gilts and three barrows per pen) were evaluated for growth performance from 9 weeks of age (20 kg) to slaughter (110 kg), and for carcass and meat quality. In our experimental setup, both sire and dam breed affected growth, carcass and meat quality traits. No significant sire×dam breed interactions on performance could be detected. Though a tendency for interaction on average daily feed intake between 20 and 110 kg (P=0.087), and on pork colour (lightness) (P=0.093) was present. In general, offspring of all tested sires behaved similarly in both dam breeds, indicating that estimated breeding values for Piétrain sires determined in one dam breed are representative in other dam breeds as well.

Keywords

breeding value estimationgrowthcarcass and meat qualitygenotype by environment interactionswine
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 10 , October 2019 , pp. 2125 - 2132
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Nutrition Sciences N.V., Booiebos 5, 9031 Drongen, Belgium.

References

Bereskin, B, Davey, RJ and Peters, WH 1976. Genetic, sex and diet effects on pig growth and feed use. Journal of Animal Science 43, 977–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidanel, JP and Ducos, A 1996. Genetic correlations between test station and on-farm performance traits in Large White and French Landrace pig breeds. Livestock Production Science 45, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bligh, EG and Dyer, WJ 1959. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology 37, 911–917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boccard, R, Buchter, L, Casteels, E, Cosentino, E, Dransfield, E, Hood, DE, Joseph, RL, MacDougall, DB, Rhodes, DN, Schön, I, Tinbergen, BJ and Touraille, C 1981. Procedures for measuring meat quality characteristics in beef production experiments. Report of a working group in the commission of the European communities’ (CEC) beef production research programme. Livestock Production Science 8, 385–397.Google Scholar
Brandt, H, Werner, DN, Baulain, U, Brade, W and Weissmann, F 2009. Genotype–environment interactions for growth and carcass traits in different pig breeds kept under conventional and organic production systems. Animal 4, 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department Agriculture and Fisheries 2016. Spermacentra varkens – Jaarrapport 2016. Flemish Government, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Gonyou, HW and Stricklin, WR 1998. Effects of floor area allowance and group size on the productivity of growing/finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1326–1330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, CR 1973. Sire evaluation and genetic trends. Journal of Animal Science 1973, 10–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honikel, KO 1987. How to measure the water-holding capacity of meat? Recommendation of standardized methods. In Evaluation and control of meat quality in pigs (ed. PV Tarrant, G Eikelenboom and G Monin), pp. 129–142. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchens, LK, Hintz, RL and Johnson, RK 1982. Breed comparisons for age and weight at puberty in gilts. Journal of Animal Science 55, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, PW and Su, G 2008. Genotype by environment interaction for litter size in pigs as quantified by reaction norms analysis. Animal 2, 1742–1747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labroue, F, Guéblez, R, Meunier-Salaün, M-C and Sellier, P 1999. Feed intake behaviour of group-housed Piétrain and Large White growing pigs. Annales de Zootechnie 48, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lean, IJ, Curran, MK, Duckworth, JE and Holmes, W 1972. Studies on Belgian Pietrain pigs 1. A comparison of Pietrain, Landrace and Pietrain Landrace crosses in growth, carcass characteristics and meat quality. Animal Science 15, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, RM, Rempel, WE, Cornelius, SG and Allen, CE 1984a. Differences in carcass traits of three breeds of swine and crosses at five stages of development. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, RM, Rempel, WE, Cornelius, SG and Allen, CE 1984b. Visceral characteristics of three breeds of swine and their corsses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, DG, Buchanan, DS and Johnson, RK 1987a. Growth performance for four breeds of swine: crossbred females and purebred and crossbred boars. Journal of Animal Science 64, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaren, DG, Buchanan, DS and Johnson, RK 1987b. Individual heterosis and breed effects for postweaning performance and carcass traits in four breeds of swine. Journal of Animal Science 64, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merks, JWM 1989. Genotype×environment interactions in pig breeding programmes. VI. Genetic relations between performances in central test, on-farm test and commercial fattening. Livestock Production Science 22, 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millet, S and Aluwe, M 2014. Compensatory growth response and carcass quality after a period of lysine restriction in lean meat type barrows. Archives of Animal Nutrition 68, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliver, MA, Gou, P, Gispert, M, Diestre, A, Arnau, J, Noguera, JL and Blasco, A 1994. Comparison of five types of pig crosses. II. Fresh meat quality and sensory characteristics of dry cured ham. Livestock Production Science 40, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patience, JF, Rossoni-Serão, MC and Gutiérrez, NA 2015. A review of feed efficiency in swine: biology and application. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 6, 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Street, BR and Gonyou, HW 2008. Effects of housing finishing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables 1. Journal of Animal Science 86, 982–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susenbeth, A and Keitel, K 1988. Partition of whole body protein in different body fractions and some constants in body composition in pigs. Livestock Production Science 20, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanghe, S, Millet, S, Hellebuyck, S, Van Meensel, J, Buys, N, De Smet, S and Janssens, S 2015. Effect of sex and sire on lean meat percentage and weight of primal cuts of pork using Autofom data. In Proceedings of the 66th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, 31 August to 4 September 2015, Warsaw, Poland, 166 pp.Google Scholar
Van Diepen, TA and Kennedy, BW 1989. Genetic correlations between test station and on-farm performance for growth rate and backfat in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 67, 1425–1431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Milgen, J and Dourmad, J-Y 2015. Concept and application of ideal protein for pigs. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 6, 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallenbeck, A, Rydhmer, L and Lundeheim, N 2009. GxE interactions for growth and carcass leanness: re-ranking of boars in organic and conventional pig production. Livestock Science 123, 154–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, JD, Nute, GR, Richardson, RI, Whittington, FM, Southwood, O, Plastow, G, Mansbridge, R, da Costa, N and Chang, KC 2004. Effects of breed, diet and muscle on fat deposition and eating quality in pigs. Meat Science 67, 651–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, X, Beltranena, E and Zijlstra, RT 2016. Effect of feeding wheat- or barley-based diets with low or and high nutrient density on nutrient digestibility and growth performance in weaned pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 218, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

De Cuyper et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S5

Download De Cuyper et al. supplementary material(File)
File 34.9 KB