Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:16:26.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variance and covariance components for liability of piglet survival during different periods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

G. Su ,
D. Sorensen  and
M. S. Lund
G. Su*
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus, DK-8830, Tjele, Denmark
D. Sorensen
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus, DK-8830, Tjele, Denmark
M. S. Lund
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus, DK-8830, Tjele, Denmark
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Variance and covariance components for piglet survival in different periods were estimated from individual records of 133 004 Danish Landrace piglets and 89 928 Danish Yorkshire piglets, using a liability threshold model including both direct and maternal additive genetic effects. At the individual piglet level, the estimates of direct heritability in Landrace were 0.035, 0.057 and 0.027, and in Yorkshire the estimates were 0.012, 0.030 and 0.025 for liability of survival at farrowing (SVB), from birth to day 5 (SV5) and from day 6 to weaning (SVW), respectively. The estimates of maternal heritability for SVB, SV5 and SVW were, respectively, 0.057, 0.040 and 0.030 in Landrace, and 0.050, 0.038 and 0.019 in Yorkshire. Both direct and maternal genetic correlations between the three survival traits were low and not significantly different from zero, except for a moderate direct genetic correlation between SVB and SV5 and between SV5 and SVW in Landrace. Direct and maternal genetic correlations between piglet birth weight (BW) and SV5 were moderately high, but the correlations between BW and SVB and between BW and SVW were low and most of them were not significantly different from zero. These results suggest that effective genetic improvement in piglet survival before weaning by selection should be based on both direct and maternal additive genetic effects and treat survival in different periods as different traits.

Keywords

direct heritabilitygenetic correlationmaternal heritabilitypiglet survival
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , February 2008 , pp. 184 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Arango, J, Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Culbertson, M, Herring, W 2005. Threshold-linear estimation of genetic parameters for farrowing mortality, litter size, and test performance of Large White sows. Journal of Animal Science 83, 499–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arango, J, Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Culbertson, M, Holl, JW, Herring, W 2006. Genetic study of individual preweaning mortality and birth weight in Large White piglets using threshold – linear models. Livestock Science 101, 208–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damgaard, LH, Rydhmer, L, Lovendahl, P, Grandinson, K 2003. Genetic parameters for within-litter variation in piglet birth weight and change in within-litter variation during suckling. Journal of Animal Science 81, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, SA 2002. Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glastonbury, JR 1977. Preweaning mortality in the pig. The prevalence of various causes of preweaning mortality and the importance of some contributory factors. Australian Veterinary Journal 53, 315–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandinson, K, Lund, MS, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E 2002. Genetic parameters for the piglet mortality traits crushing, stillbirth and total mortality, and their relation to birth weight. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A 52, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herpin, P, Dividich, JL, Hulin, JC, Fillaut, M, De Marco, F, Bertin, R 1996. Effects of level of asphyxia during delivery on viability at birth and early postnatal viability of newborn pigs. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2067–2075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, RK, Nielsen, MK, Casey, DS 1999. Responses in ovulation rate. Embryonal survival and litter traits in swine to 14 generations of selection to increase litter size. Journal of Animal Science 77, 541–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerr, JC, Cameron, ND 1995. Reproductive performance of pigs selected for components of efficient lean growth. Animal Science 60, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knol, EF, Ducro, BJ, Van Arendonk, JAM, Van der Lende, T 2002a. Direct, maternal and nurse sow genetic effects on farrowing-, pre-weaning- and total piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 73, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knol, EF, Leenhouwers, JI, Van der Lende, T 2002b. Genetic aspects of piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 78, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Dividich, J 2002. Peri- and post-natal mortality in the pig. Livestock Production Science 78, 1.Google Scholar
Lund, MS, Puonti, M, Rydhmer, L, Jensen, J 2002. Relationship between litter size and perinatal and pre-weaning survival in pigs. Animal Science 74, 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission 2000. Pig yearbook. MLC, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Strabel T, Auvray B, Druet T and Lee DH 2002. BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). Proceedings of Seventh World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Montpellier, France. Communication no. 28-07.Google Scholar
Roehe, R, Kalm, E 2000. Estimation of genetic and environmental risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality in piglets using generalized linear mixed models. Animal Science 70, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, MF, Bidanel, JP 1998. Biology and genetics of reproduction. In The genetics of the pig (ed. MF Rothschild and A Ruvinskty), pp. 313–343. CAB International, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Serenius, T, Sevon-Aimonen, ML, Kause, A, Mäntysaari, EA, Mäki-Tanila, A 2004. Selection potential of different prolificacy traits in the Finnish Landrace and Large White populations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A 54, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, G, Sorensen, D, Lund, MS 2007. Selection for litter size at day five to improve litter size at weaning and piglet survival rate. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1385–1392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Arendonk, JAM, Van Rosmeulen, C, Janss, LLG, Knol, EF 1996. Estimation of direct and maternal genetic (co)variances for survival within litters of piglets. Livestock Production Science 46, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willham, RL 1972. The role of maternal effects in animal breeding: III – biometrical aspects of maternal effects in animals. Journal of Animal Science 35, 1288–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaleski, HM, Hacker, RR 1993. Variables related to the progress of parturition and probability of stillbirth in swine. Canadian Veterinary Journal 34, 109–113.Google Scholar