Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:07:10.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs 3. Responses to selection with a restricted feeding regime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

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

Abstract

Responses to four generations of divergent selection in pigs for lean growth rate (LGS) with restricted feeding were studied. The selection criterion was designed to obtain equal correlated responses in growth rate and carcass lean content, measured in phenotypic s.d. Animals were to be performance tested in individual pens with a mean starting weight of 30 kg for a period of 84 days. Daily food intake was equal to 0·75 gig of the daily food intake for pigs offered food ad-libitum. In the high, low and control lines, there ivere 1250 Large White-Edinburgh (LW) pigs and 875 British Landrace-Wye (LR) pigs. Each selection line consisted of 10 sires and 20 dams, with a generation interval ofl year.

After four generations of selection, cumulative selection differentials were 5·9 and 4·8 phenotypic s.d. for LW and LR populations, with similar responses, 1·8 (s.e. 0·17) phenotypic s.d. Mean weight at the end of test, growth rate and backfat depths at the shoulder, mid back and loin were 89 kg, 712 g/day, 26,13 and 13 mm for LW and for LR pigs were 87 kg, 683 g/day, 28,10 and 10 mm. High line pigs were heavier at the end of test (4·3 (s.e.d. 1·4) kg and 4·0 (s.e.d. 1·6) kg) for LW and LR populations, with corresponding responses in growth rate (54 (s.e.d. 16) g/day and 47 (s.e.d. 18) g/day). Responses in the three backfat depths were −4·1 (s.e.d. 1·2) mm, −2·6 (s.e.d. 0·7) mm and −2·9 (s.e.d. 0·7) mm for LW and −2·2 (s.e.d. 0·05) mm, −2·2 (s.e.d. 0·4) mm and −2·4 (s.e.d. 0·5) mm for LR populations. Responses in weight off test and backfat depths were symmetric about the control lines.

Heritabilities for LGS were 0·34 and 0·28 (s.e.d. 0·5) for the LW and LR populations, when estimated by residual maximum likelihood. Common environmental effects for LGS were 0·11 (s.e. 0·03) for LW and 0·17 (s.e. 0·04) for LR. Heritabilities for growth rate and average backfat depth were similar for LW and LR populations (0·17 and 0·29, s.e. 0·05), as were common environmental effects (0·10 s.e. 0·04). Average phenotypic and genetic correlations between growth rate and backfat, for LW and LR populations, were small (0·15 (s.e. 0·03) and −0·06 (s.e. 0·16), respectively).

Responses to selection and genetic parameter estimates demonstrate that there is substantial genetic variation in growth and fat deposition when pigs are performance tested on restricted feeding.

Keywords

genetic parameterslean grozvthpigsrestricted feedingselection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , October 1994 , pp. 271 - 279
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

Cameron, N. D. 1994. Selection for components of efficient lean growth rate in pigs. 1. Selection pressure applied and direct responses in 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 Landrace herd. Animal Production 59: 263–269.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Curran, M. K., Thompson, R. 1988. Estimation of sire with feeding regime interaction in pigs. Animal Production 46: 87–95.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
Crump, R. E. 1992. Quantitative genetic analysis of a commercial pig population undergoing selection. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google 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
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
Gu, Y., Haley, C. S. and Thompson, R. 1989. Estimates of genetic and phenotypic parameters of growth and carcass traits from closed lines of pigs on restricted feeding. Animal Production 49: 467–475.Google 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.Google Scholar
Kanis, E. 1990. Effect of food intake capacity on production traits in growing pigs wth restricted feeding. Animal Production 50:333–341.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., 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.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15: 469–485.Google Scholar
Sather, A. P. and Fredeen, H. T. 1978. Effect of selection for lean growth rate upon feed utilisation by the market hog. Canadian journal of Animal Science 58: 285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. and Fowler, V. R. 1978. The importance of selection criteria and feeding regimes in the selection and improvement in pigs. Livestock Production Science 5: 415–423.Google 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.Google Scholar
Southwood, O. I., Simpson, S. P., Curran, M. K. and Webb, A. J. 1988. Frequency of the halothane gene in British Landrace and Large White pigs. Animal Production 46:97–102.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. and Hill, W. G. 1990. Univariate REML analyses for multivariate data with the animal model. Proceedings of fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 13, pp. 484–487.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. and Juga, J. 1989. Cumulative selection differentials and realized heritabilities. Animal Production 49: 203–208.Google Scholar
Tier, B. and Smith, S. P. 1989. Use of sparse matrix absorption in animal breeding. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 21: 457–466.Google 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. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 29: 305–319.Google Scholar
Vangen, O. 1980. Studies on a two trait selection experiment in pigs. 4. Estimated maintenance requirements from feeding experiments. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 30: 142–148.Google Scholar
Van Vleck, D. 1988. Notes on the theory and applications of selection principles for the genetic improvement of animals. Cornell University, Ithaca.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
Webster, A. J. F. 1977. Selection for leanness and the energetic efficiency of growth in meat animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36: 53–59.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Kerr, J. C. and Cameron, N. D. 1994. Prediction of feed intake in growing pigs. Agricultural Systems In press.Google Scholar