Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T09:10:55.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combined analysis of group recorded feed intake and individually recorded body weight and litter size in mink

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2020

M. D. Madsen Open the ORCID record for M. D. Madsen [Opens in a new window] ,
T. M. Villumsen ,
B. K. Hansen ,
S. H. Møller ,
J. Jensen  and
M. Shirali
M. D. Madsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830Tjele, Denmark
T. M. Villumsen
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830Tjele, Denmark
B. K. Hansen
Affiliation:
KopenhagenFur Consulting, Agro Foodpark 15, 8200Aarhus, Denmark
S. H. Møller
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, 8830Tjele, Denmark
J. Jensen
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830Tjele, Denmark
M. Shirali
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In the mink industry, feed costs are the largest variable expense and breeding for feed efficient animals is warranted. Implementation of selection for feed efficiency must consider the relationships between feed efficiency and the current selection traits BW and litter size. Often, feed intake (FI) is recorded on a cage with a male and a female and there is sexual dimorphism that needs to be accounted for. Study aims were to (1) model group recorded FI accounting for sexual dimorphism, (2) derive genetic residual feed intake (RFI) as a measure of feed efficiency, (3) examine the relationship between feed efficiency and BW in males (BWM) and females (BWF) and litter size at day 21 after whelping (LS21) in Danish brown mink and (4) investigate direct and correlated response to selection on each trait of interest. Feed intake records from 9574 cages, BW records on 16 782 males and 16 875 females and LS21 records on 6446 yearling females were used for analysis. Genetic parameters for FI, BWM, BWF and LS21 were obtained using a multivariate animal model, yielding sex-specific additive genetic variances for FI and BW to account for sexual dimorphism. The analysis was performed in a Bayesian setting using Gibbs sampling, and genetic RFI was obtained from the conditional distribution of FI given BW using genetic regression coefficients. Responses to single trait selection were defined as the posterior distribution of genetic superiority of the top 10% of animals after conditioning on the genetic trends. The heritabilities ranged from 0.13 for RFI in females and LS21 to 0.59 for BWF. Genetic correlations between BW in both sexes and LS21 and FI in both sexes were unfavorable, and single trait selection on BW in either sex showed increased FI in both sexes and reduced litter size. Due to the definition of RFI and high genetic correlation between BWM and BWF, selection on RFI did not significantly alter BW. In addition, selection on RFI in either sex did not affect LS21. Genetic correlation between sexes for FI and BW was high but significantly lower than unity. The high correlations across sex allowed for selection on standardized averages of animals’ breeding values (BVs) for RFI, FI and BW, which yielded selection responses approximately equal to the responses obtained using the sex-specific BVs. The results illustrate the possibility of selecting against RFI in mink with no negative effects on BW and litter size.

Keywords

feed efficiencylitter sizeselectiongenetic parametersmink
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 9 , September 2020 , pp. 1793 - 1801
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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

Berg, P and Lohi, O 1992. Feed consumption and efficiency in paternal progeny groups in mink. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 42, 27–33.10.1080/09064709209410105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biscarini, F, Bovenhuis, H and van Arendonk, JAM 2008. Estimation of variance components and prediction of breeding values using pooled data. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2845–2852.10.2527/jas.2007-0757CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, DS and Mackay, TFC 1996. Selection: I. The response and its prediction. In Introduction to quantitative genetics, pp. 184–207. Pearson Education Limited, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Hansen, BK, Su, G and Berg, P 2010. Genetic variation in litter size and kit survival of mink (Neovison vison). Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 127, 442–451.10.1111/j.1439-0388.2010.00872.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, K, Sargolzaei, M, Plastow, GS, Wang, Z and Miar, Y 2018. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for litter size, survival rate, gestation length, and litter weight traits in American mink. Journal of Animal Science 96, 2596–2606.10.1093/jas/sky178CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempe, R, Koskinen, N, Mäntysaari, E and Strandén, I 2010. The genetics of body condition and leg weakness in the blue fox (Alopex lagopus). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 60, 141–150.10.1080/09064702.2010.515241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, BW, van der Werf, JH and Meuwissen, TH 1993. Genetic and statistical properties of residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3239–3250.10.2527/1993.71123239xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koivula, M, Mäntysaari, EA and Strandén, I 2011. New breeding value evaluation of fertility traits in Finnish mink. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 61, 1–6.10.1080/09064702.2010.538715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivula, M, Strandén, I and Mäntysaari, EA 2009. Genetic and phenotypic parameters of age at first mating, litter size and animal size in Finnish mink. Animal 4, 183–188.10.1017/S1751731109991170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, G 1997. Economic profit from increased litter size, body weight and pelt quality in mink (Mustela vison). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 47, 57–63.10.1080/09064709709362370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, G, Johansson, K and Lundeheim, N 1994a. Selection for litter size, body weight, and pelt quality in mink (Mustela vison): correlated responses. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1126–1137.10.2527/1994.7251126xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lagerkvist, G, Johansson, K and Lundeheim, N 1994b. Selection for litter size, body weight, and pelt quality in mink (Mustela vison): experimental design and direct response of each trait. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3261–3272.10.2527/1993.71123261xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, MD, Madsen, P, Nielsen, B, Kristensen, TN, Jensen, J and Shirali, M 2018. Macro-environmental sensitivity for growth rate in Danish Duroc pigs is under genetic control. Journal of Animal Science 96, 4967–4977.10.1093/jas/sky376CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, P and Jensen, J 2013. A user’s guide to DMU Ver. 6, rel. 5.2. Retrieved on 20 February 2020 from https://dmu.ghpc.au.dk/DMU/Doc/Current/Google Scholar
Nielsen, HM, Ask, B and Madsen, P 2018. Social genetic effects for growth in pigs differ between boars and gilts. Genetics Selection Evolution 50, 10.10.1186/s12711-018-0375-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, VH, Møller, SH, Hansen, BK and Berg, P 2011. Response to selection and genotype–environment interaction in mink (Neovison vison) selected on adlibitum and restricted feeding. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 91, 231–237.10.4141/cjas10046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, VH, Møller, SH, Hansen, BK and Berg, P 2012. Genetic parameters and effect of selection for body weight in lines of mink (Neovison vison) on adlibitum and restricted feeding. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 62, 24–28.10.1080/09064702.2012.676062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, KM, Garrick, DJ and Enns, RM 2006. Predicting breeding values and accuracies from group in comparison to individual observations. Journal of Animal Science 84, 88–92.10.2527/2006.84188xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedersen, V, Jeppesen, LL and Jeppesen, N 2004. Effects of group housing systems on behaviour and production performance in farmed juvenile mink (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 89–100.10.1016/j.applanim.2004.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piles, M and Sánchez, JP 2019. Use of group records of feed intake to select for feed efficiency in rabbit. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 136, 474–483.10.1111/jbg.12395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, T and Schluter, D 1991. On the low heritability of life-history traits. Evolution 45, 853–861.10.1111/j.1558-5646.1991.tb04354.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team 2019. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Shirali, M, Nielsen, VH, Møller, SH and Jensen, J 2015. Longitudinal analysis of residual feed intake and BW in mink using random regression with heterogeneous residual variance. Animal 9, 1597–1604.10.1017/S1751731115000956CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shirali, M, Varley, PF and Jensen, J 2018. Bayesian estimation of direct and correlated responses to selection on linear or ratio expressions of feed efficiency in pigs. Genetics Selection Evolution 50, 33.10.1186/s12711-018-0403-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, B 2007. boa: an R package for MCMC output convergence assessment and posterior inference. Journal of Statistical Software 21, 1–37.10.18637/jss.v021.i11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, DA, Wang, CS, Jensen, J and Gianola, D 1994. Bayesian analysis of genetic change due to selection using Gibbs sampling. Genetics Selection Evolution 26, 333–360.10.1186/1297-9686-26-4-333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, G, Madsen, P, Nielsen, B, Ostersen, T, Shirali, M, Jensen, J and Christensen, OF 2018. Estimation of variance components and prediction of breeding values based on group records from varying group sizes. Genetics Selection Evolution 50, 42.10.1186/s12711-018-0413-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thirstrup, JP, Larsen, PF, Pertoldi, C and Jensen, J 2014. Heterosis and genetic variation in the litter size of purebred and crossbred mink. Journal of Animal Science 92, 5406–5416.10.2527/jas.2014-7781CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed