Genetic correlations between the performance of purebred and crossbred pigs Sansak Nakavisut Dr.Ron Crump Matias Suarez Dr.Hans Graser.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Livestock Improvement through Selection

Advertisements

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science U.S – 2012 Pork Industry Productivity Analysis C. E. Abell 1, C. Hostetler 2, and K. J. Stalder.

Where next for Terminal Sire Recording? Samuel Boon, Signet Manager and EBLEX Breeding Specialist.

Animal Breeding Systems

Breeds of Swine Created by: Tracey Hoffman Topic #3021

Utilizing Performance Data for Livestock Selection Developed by: Celina Johnson University of Florida.

TEMPLATE DESIGN © John B. Cole 1,*, Kristen L. Parker Gaddis 2, Francesco Tiezzi 2, John S. Clay 3, and Christian Maltecca.

West Virginia University Extension Service Genetics in Beef Cattle Wayne R. Wagner.

Seminar July 2012 – Waldo Pigs

Mongastric Production Swine Section Breeding and Selection of Swine.

Sow Longevity – Its Improvement and Economic Importance Ken Stalder Department of Animal Science Iowa State University.

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science U.S – 2012 Pork Industry Productivity Analysis C. E. Abell 1, C. Hostetler 2, and K. J. Stalder.

Animal Breeding & Genomics Centre Breeding a better pig in a changing global market Dr Jan ten Napel 18 th March, 2015.

Lecture 3-22 Exam 3 Breeds FineMediumCoarse Most important breeds? Why so many in US?

2002 Paul M. VanRaden and Ashley H. Sanders Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Production management that delivers results Rafael Kummer, Phd. Master Company - Brazil.

CRC Perspectives on constraints, opportunities and priorities Colin Kay Pork Producer, Director NZPIB November 2005.

Colorado Agriscience Curriculum Unit 4 – Reproduction and Genetics Lesson 15 – Mating Systems.

FOOD AND FIBER FROM ANIMALS. INTEREST APPROACH Make a list of 20 foods that you eat regularly. Which foods are good sources of protein?

Development of the sow caliper

Dr. John W. Mabry Iowa Pork Industry Center Iowa State University

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science U.S – 2013 Pork Industry Productivity Analysis J. Stock 1, C. E. Abell 1, C. Hostetler 2, and.

Extension of Bayesian procedures to integrate and to blend multiple external information into genetic evaluations J. Vandenplas 1,2, N. Gengler 1 1 University.

Swine Production. Swine Production in the US THE UNITED STATES is the world's third- largest pork producer after China and the EU. It is a major player.

Animal Genetics. The body is made up of millions of tiny cells The contents of the cell is called protoplasm. Animal cells are the smallest living things.

Principles of Selecting and Mating Farm Animals (Chapter 9) Genetic improvement of farm animals –Involves selection (choosing the best to be parents) –Involves.

M. Dufrasne 1,2, V. Jaspart 3, J. Wavreille 4 et N. Gengler 1 1 University of Liège, Gembloux Agro Bio-Tech, Animal Science Unit - Gembloux 2 F.R.I.A.

Genetic evaluation of beef cattle in the Czech Republic J. Přibyl 1, J. Přibylová 1, P. Šafus 1, Z. Veselá 1, L. Vostrý 1, J. Kopecký 2, K. Malát 2, K.

Selection for Lifetime Production

Pigs in the World. Pig Population No. pigs Pig Population.

EBLEX Better Returns Programme Material produced for EBLEX Beef BRP by Signet Breeding Services Genetic Improvement of Beef Cattle in the UK.

Estimation of genetic parameters between single-record and multiple-record traits using ASREML Sansak Nakavisut Principle supervisor: Dr Ron Crump Co-supervisor:

Comparison of Holstein service-sire fertility for heifer and cow breedings with conventional and sexed semen H. D. Norman*, J. L. Hutchison, and P. M.

2002 ADSA 2002 (HDN-1) H.D. NORMAN* ( ), R.H. MILLER, P.M. V AN RADEN, and J.R. WRIGHT Animal Improvement Programs.

REGRESSION MODEL y ijklm = BD i + b j A j + HYS k + b dstate D l + b sstate S l + b sd (S×SD m ) + b dherd F m + b sherd G m + e ijklm, y = ME milk yield,

Livestock Terminology

2002 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD USDA Dairy Goat.

Genetic correlations between first and later parity calving ease in a sire-maternal grandsire model G. R. Wiggans*, C. P. Van Tassell, J. B. Cole, and.

Genetic Evaluation of Lactation Persistency Estimated by Best Prediction for Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Guernsey, and Milking Shorthorn Dairy Cattle J. B.

Introduction to Pork Production. Definitions Female after giving birth: Sow Young female: Gilt Having piglets: Farrowing Male: Boar Castrated Male: Barrow.

2007 Melvin Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA

The Swine Industry. Objectives Understand importance of the swine industry Overview of the structure of the swine industry Become familiar with terms.

Synchronization Effects on Parameters for Days Open M. T. Kuhn, J. L. Hutchison, and R. H. Miller* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural.

Correlations Between Characters In “Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative traits” by Lynch, M. and Walsh, B. Presented Sansak Nakavisut.

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Terminal Traits.

 Objective 7.03: Apply the Use of Production Records.

Nuts and Bolts of Genetic Improvement Genetic Model Predicting Genetic Levels Increase Commercial Profitability Lauren Hyde Jackie Atkins Wade Shafer Fall.

Peri-natal survival of piglets understanding and genetics Lauren Christian Endowed Lecture Egbert F. Knol.

Genetic and environmental factors that affect gestation length H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, M. T. Kuhn, S. M. Hubbard,* and J. B. Cole Animal Improvement.

Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding April 27, 2010 Interpretation of genomic breeding values from a unified, one-step national evaluation Research project.

Multi-trait, multi-breed conception rate evaluations P. M. VanRaden 1, J. R. Wright 1 *, C. Sun 2, J. L. Hutchison 1 and M. E. Tooker 1 1 Animal Genomics.

2005 Paul VanRaden and Mel Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic.

2006 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Predicting Genetic.

2004 P.M. VanRaden, M.E. Tooker*, and J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

Estimation an d d ecomposition of g enetic trends in a two way cross using Hungarian pig breeds Nagy, F arka s, Kövér, Czakó and Gorjanc ASD, 20 th Int.

2001 ADSA Indianapolis 2001 (1) Heterosis and Breed Differences for Yield and Somatic Cell Scores of US Dairy Cattle in the 1990’s. PAUL VANRADEN Animal.

C.P. Van Tassell 1, * G.R. Wiggans 1, J.C. Philpot 1, and I. Misztal Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA,

Multibreed Genomic Evaluations in Purebred Dairy Cattle K. M. Olson 1 and P. M. VanRaden 2 1 National Association of Animal Breeders 2 AIPL, ARS, USDA.

MARTIN-LUTHER-UNIVERSITY HALLE-WITTENBERG Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Group Animal Breeding Genetic evaluations for birth weight:

Principles of Agricultural Science – Animal 1. 2 Expected Progeny Differences Principles of Agricultural Science – Animal Unit 7 – Lesson 7.2 Predicting.

 Genes- located on chromosomes, control characteristics that are inherited from parents.  Allele- an alternative form of a gene (one member.

Genetic gain in selected herds of Khari goats over generations in Nepal Rupak Khadka European Master in Animal Breeding and Genetics Swedish University.

 Livestock Terminology Basic Animal Industry AFNR-BAS-9: Define major components of the animal industry and outline the development of the resulting products,

Gene350 Animal Genetics Lecture September 2009.

David L. Thomas Department of Animal Sciences University of Wisconsin-Madison Basics of Sheep Breeding for Commercial Flocks.

Breeding Systems

Cross-Breeding What is X-Breeding?.

Use of a threshold animal model to estimate calving ease and stillbirth (co)variance components for US Holsteins.

Abstr. M4 Merit of obtaining genetic evaluations of milk yield for each parity on Holstein bulls H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright,* R.L. Powell, and P.M. VanRaden.

Genetic Evaluation of Milking Speed for Brown Swiss Dairy Cattle

Presentation transcript:

Genetic correlations between the performance of purebred and crossbred pigs Sansak Nakavisut Dr.Ron Crump Matias Suarez Dr.Hans Graser

Introduction Nucleus herds test & select purebreds But the end products are crossbreds (multipliers and commercial herds) This assumes r g between purebreds and crossbreds of “1” If not “1”, testing and genetic evaluation procedure may need some changes

In general Estimation of r g between purebreds and crossbreds NOT possible or NOT reliable Performance test records on crossbreds not available Crossbred records may be available BUT from different environments (nucleus VS multiplier herds)

Thai government pig breeding farms Crossbreds were performance tested Purebreds and crossbreds were produced in the same conditions (environments, herds, management, feeding..) Litter records available from both crossbred and purebred sows Allows reliable estimation of r g between pure- and crossbreds

Objectives To estimate genetic correlations (r g ) between the performance of purebreds and crossbreds To validate the conventional genetic evaluation procedure (whether r g = 1)

Breeding diagram DULRLW LRxLW LWxLR DUx(LRxLW) DUx(LWxLR) GGP GP PS

Performance test records by breeds BreedNo. records DU1431 LW (84%)purebreds LR3523 LRXLW (11%) 2-way LWXLR498 DUX(LRLW) ( 5%) 3-way DUX(LWLR)250 Total 9075

Litter records by breeds Breed of sows Litter records No. of sows DU LW (89%)1376 LR LRXLW (11%) 238 LWXLR Total

Traits to be analysed PRODUCTION 1.TDG 2.ADG 3.FCR 4.BF 5.Body Length REPRODUCTION 1.NPB 2.NBA 3.LS3W 4.LWB 5.LW3W 6.GEST

Statistical model for test records assumption

Statistical model for litter records assumption

Fixed effect model for test records BreedSextHYSAgeInFiWt TDG  ADG  FCR  BF  BL 

Fixed effect model for litter records Br i breed fHYS j farrowing herd-year-season AgeC k age class of the farrowing sow Par l parity of litter LitBr m (Br i ) nested litter-breed within breed of sow The same fixed effects were fitted for all litter traits

Results : r g (pure&cross)

Discussion (production traits) r g (pure&cross) high enough => testing and selecting of purebreds in the nucleus can genetically improve the production traits of crossbreds in multiplier and commercial herds To reduce cost of unnecessary test of crossbreds Conventional testing of purebreds is validated

Discussion (reproduction traits) r g (pure&cross) NOT “1” (although positive) => selecting on purebred litter records can genetically improve the reproduction of crossbred sows BUT not as efficient as incorporating crossbred records in the genetic evaluation procedure. Crossbred records readily available in most multipliers with no extra cost => combine them with purebred records to produce EBVs for litter traits

Conclusion Genetic correlations between pure- and crossbreds for production traits are high Therefore, conventional testing and selecting of purebreds is validated by this study

Conclusion Genetic correlations between pure- and crossbreds for reproduction traits are low to moderate Therefore, we must include crossbred information into the genetic evaluation procedure to improve reproduction traits of crossbred sows

Thanks Dept. Livestock Development (DLD) Thailand UNERS / IPRS AGBU UNE

Genetic links b/w c ross & p urebreds 51 common grandparents (21 grandsires & 30 grandams) 544 Purebred litters (5%) (Total = 10558) 481 Crossbred litters (38%) (Total = 1265) Litter records

Methods and Models Treat pure- and crossbred records as different traits eg. ADGp and ADGc Bivariate analysis of the two separate traits using ASReml; animal model Estimate additive genetic covariances and genetic correlations between the two traits

Material and methods DU, LW, LR & their crosses 11-year ( ) 9075 performance test records litter records (from 3908 sows)

Number of breeds per contemporary group (HYS) Test recordsLitter records Breeds/CG (tHYS) Breeds/CG (fHYS) Frequency (%)

Genetic links b/w c ross & p urebreds 80 common parents (39 sires & 41 dams) 415 Purebred records (5%) (Total = 7666) 429 Crossbred records (30%) (Total = 1409) Performance test records