Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:33:41.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sire × testing regime interactions in growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

L. C. M. de Haer
L. C. M. de Haer
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production‘Schoonoord’ PO Box 501, 3700 AM Zeist, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

Central test data of two pig breeding companies were analysed to estimate sire × testing regime (S × T) interaction for ultrasonic backfat thickness (BT), life-time growth rate (GL) and growth rate during test (GT). Testing regime consisted of a combination of sex, test period and housing system (individual v. group housing). Data were analysed within five lines, with 5417, 8331, 3427, 2413 and 1263 records of progeny of 97, 162, 64, 69 and 33 sires, respectively. The data were collected from May 1983 until May 1987 (lines 1, 2 and 3) and from June 1985 until May 1987 (lines 4 and 5). Testing regime had a significant effect on BT (in three lines) and on GL and GT (in five lines). S × T interaction was significant only for BT in three lines and for GT in one line. Genetic correlations between identical traits, measured under the two testing regimes, varied from 0·64 to 1·00 for BT, from 0·65 to 1·00 for GL and from 0·62 to 1·00 for GT. Conclusively, within central test S × T interactions were relatively unimportant for BT, GT and GL.

Keywords

interactionspigsprogeny testing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , October 1990 , pp. 357 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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

Beilharz, R. G. and Cox, D. F. 1967. Social dominance in swine. Animal Behaviour 15: 117–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanchard, P. J., Everett, R. W. and Searle, S. R. 1983. Estimation of genetic trends and correlations for Jersey cattle. Journal of Diary Science 66: 1947–1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Taverner, M. R. and Curic, D. M. 1985. Effects of sex and energy intake between 48 and 90 kg live weight on protein deposition in growing pigs. Animal Production 40: 497–503.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. G., Taverner, M. R. and Curic, D. M. 1988. The effects of sex and live weight on the growing pigs response to dietary protein. Animal Production 46: 123–130.Google Scholar
Claus, H., Claus, J. and Kalm, E. 1984. Vergleich zwischen Zuchtwertschätzergebnissen von Jungebern mit deren Nachkommenleistungen in Produktionsbetrieben. Proceedings 35th Annual Meeting European Association of Animal Production. The Hague.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1962. Implications of geneticenvironmental interaction in animal breeding. Animal Production 4: 47–63.Google Scholar
Fernando, R. L., Knights, S. W. and Gianola, D. 1984. On a method of estimating the genetic correlation between characters measured in different experimental units. Theorical and Applied Genetics 67: 175–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, W. R. 1977. User's guide for LSML76 mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood computer program, Ohio State University, Columbus (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Ketelaars, E. H. 1979. De vererving van onder praktijkomstandigheden geregistreerde kenmerken bij varkens. Verslag Landbouwkundig Onderzoek, 883. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
McBride, G., James, J. W. and Hodgens, N. 1964. Social behaviour of domestic animals. IV. Growing pigs. Animal Production 6: 129–139.Google Scholar
Merks, J. W. M. 1987. Genotype × environment interactions in pig breeding programmes. II. Environmental effects and genetic parameters in central test. Livestock Production Science 16: 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merks, J. W. M. 1988. Genotype × environment interactions in pig breeding programmes. IV. Sire × herd interaction in on-farm test results. Livestock Production Science 20: 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merks, J. W. M. 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
Merks, J. W. M. and Van kemenade, P. G. M. 1989. Genotype × environment interactions in pig breeding programmes. V. Genetic parameters and sire × herd interaction in commercial fattening. Livestock Production Science 22: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. 1987. Restricted Maximum Likelihood to estimate variance components for mixed models with two random factors. Génétique Sélection Evolution 19: 49–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minkema, D. 1982. Een Onderzoek naar interactie tussen erfelijke aanleg en voederniveau bij Nederlandse Landvarkens. Report, Institute for Animal Production, Zeist, B-196.Google Scholar
Ollivier, L. 1983. [A ten-year experiment in individual selection of boars used in artificial insemination. II. Estimated genetic parameters.] Genetique Selection Evolution 15: 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. C. 1985. A note on the effect of individual penning on the performance of fattening pigs. Animal Production 40: 185–188.Google Scholar
Smith, C. and Ross, G. J. S. 1965. Genetic parameters of British Landrace bacon pigs. Animal Production 7: 291–301.Google Scholar
Standal, N. 1977. Studies on breeding and selection schemes in pigs. VI. Correlation between breeding values estimated from station test and on-farm-test data. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 27: 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standal, N. and Vangen, O. 1983. Genetic variation in voluntary feed intake, correlation with other traits. Proceedings 34th Annual Meeting European Association of Animal Production, Madrid.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