Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T14:34:18.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inbreeding and family index selection for prolificacy in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. A. Toro ,
L. Silio ,
J. Rodrigañez  and
M. Teresa Dobao
M. A. Toro
Affiliation:
Departamento de Genetica Cuantitativa y Mejora Animal, INIA Carretera de La Coruna Km 7, 28040 Madrid, Spain
L. Silio
Affiliation:
Departamento de Genetica Cuantitativa y Mejora Animal, INIA Carretera de La Coruna Km 7, 28040 Madrid, Spain
J. Rodrigañez
Affiliation:
Departamento de Genetica Cuantitativa y Mejora Animal, INIA Carretera de La Coruna Km 7, 28040 Madrid, Spain
M. Teresa Dobao
Affiliation:
Departamento de Genetica Cuantitativa y Mejora Animal, INIA Carretera de La Coruna Km 7, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Get access

Abstract

The use of family selection indices has been proposed as a promising selection method for increasing prolificacy in pigs. Responses of up to 0-50 pigs per litter per generation are predicted from selection programmes using information from the dam and from relatives (full and half-sibs) of the dam and sire. In order to test this method in populations of finite size, the rates of selection response and the accumulation of inbreeding have been studied by simulation along 10 generations in a selected herd of 10 sires and 100 dams using five different family selection indices (Id, Ifd, Ihd, Ifs, Ihs). Two undesirable features were evident: (a) the standard deviations of indices were lower than those expected; and (b) the increase of inbreeding was up to three times that expected without selection. Both effects increased with the complexity of the family index reducing the rates of selection responses per generation, when a genetic model with dominance was assumed, to values close to 0·20 piglets, similar to those obtained with the basic index (Id). Some results of inbreeding effects on reproductive traits in three strains of an old closed herd of Iberian pigs are also presented. Multiple regression analysis of data from 4657 litters indicated a decrease in the number of live born ranging from 0·14 to 0·35 piglets per 10% increase in dam or litter inbreeding coefficient.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , February 1988 , pp. 79 - 85
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

Avalos, E. 1985. Estimation of genetic parameters and responses in selection for litter size in pigs. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Avalos, E. and Smith, C. 1987. Genetic improvement of litter size in pigs. Animal Production 44: 153–163.Google Scholar
Bereskin, B., Shelby, C. E., Rowe, K. E., Rempel, W. E., Dettmers, A. E. and Norton, H. W. 1970. Inbreeding and swine productivity in Minnesota experimental herds. Journal of Animal Science 31: 278–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, G. E., Chapman, A. B. and Grummer, R. H. 1958. Effects of inbreeding, selection. linecrossing and topcrossing in swine. I. Inbreeding and selection. Journal of Animal Science 17: 426–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, P. M. 1984. Inbreeding unde r selection from unrelated families. Biometrics 40: 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, P. J., England, M. E., Young, L. D. and Zimmerman, D. R. 1979. Selection for ovulation rate in swine. Correlated response in litter size and weight. Journal of Animal Science 48: 509–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haley, C. S., Avalos, E. and Smith, C. 1986. A review of selection for reproductive performance in the pig. 37th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Budapest.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. 1976. Order statistics of correlated variables and implications in genetic selection programmes. Biometrics 32: 889–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. 1979. A note on effective population size with overlapping generations. Genetics 92: 317–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. and Webb, A. J. 1982. Genetics of reproduction in the pig. In Control of Pig Reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. Ai and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 541–564. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGloughlin, P. 1980. The relationship between heterozygosity and heterosis in reproductive traits in mice. Animal Production 30: 69–77.Google Scholar
Mikami, H., Fredeen, H. T. and Sather, A. P. 1977. Mass selection in a pig population. 2. The effects of inbreeding within the selected populations. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 57: 627–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odriozola, M. 1976. Investigation sobre los datos acumulados en dos piaras experimentales. IRYDA, Madrid.Google Scholar
Ollivier, L. and Bolet, G. 1981. [Selection for litter size in the pig: results of a 10 generation selection experiment.] Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 13: 261–267.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1961. Inbreeding in artificial selection programmes. Genetical Research 2: 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schinckel, A., Johnson, R. K.Pumfrey, R. A. and Zimmerman, D. R. 1983. Testicular growth in boars of different genetic lines and its relationship to reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 56: 1065–1076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toelle, V. D., Johnson, B. H. and Robison, O. W. 1984. Genetic parameters for testes traits in swine. Journal of Animal Science 59: 967–973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toro, M. A., Dobao, M. T., Rodriganez, J. and Silio, L. 1986. Heritability of a canalized trait: teat number in Iberian pigs. Genetique Selection Evolution 18: 173–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed