Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T17:05:05.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic parameter estimates for fecal egg counts and their relationship with growth in Avikalin and Malpura sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2019

G. R. Gowane Open the ORCID record for G. R. Gowane [Opens in a new window] ,
C. P. Swarnkar ,
S. S. Misra ,
R. Kumar ,
A. Kumar  and
L. L. L. Prince Open the ORCID record for L. L. L. Prince [Opens in a new window]
G. R. Gowane*
Affiliation:
Animal Genetics and Breeding Division, ICAR-Central Sheep & Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, Rajasthan 304501, India
C. P. Swarnkar
Affiliation:
Animal Health Division, ICAR-Central Sheep & Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, Rajasthan 304501, India
S. S. Misra
Affiliation:
Animal Genetics and Breeding Division, ICAR-Central Sheep & Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, Rajasthan 304501, India
R. Kumar
Affiliation:
Animal Genetics and Breeding Division, ICAR-Central Sheep & Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, Rajasthan 304501, India
A. Kumar
Affiliation:
Animal Genetics and Breeding Division, ICAR-Central Sheep & Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, Rajasthan 304501, India
L. L. L. Prince
Affiliation:
ICAR-Directorate of Poultry Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500030, India
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Breeding for resistance against nematodes has become the need of the hour due to emergence of anthelmintic resistant strains of major pathogenic nematodes of economic importance and rising demand for chemical residue free food by consumers. ICAR-Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute Avikanagar (Rajasthan) has developed Haemonchus contortus resistant lines of sheep in Avikalin and Malpura breeds by harvesting benefits of over-dispersion in fecal egg counts (FEC) through executing a breeding program since year 2004. Aim of the present study was to assess the genetic parameters for nematode resistance in these lines and also to develop suitable criteria for selection targeting resistance as well as growth improvement in these two lines. The data on 1240 Avikalin and 2172 Malpura sheep generated over 13 years (2004–16) for FEC along with deep pedigree and growth records for live weight at 6 (6WT) and 12 month were used for study. Data were analyzed using Average Information Restricted Maximum Likelihood (AIREML) approach. Results revealed moderate heritability (h2) for pre-drench log transformed fecal egg count (LFEC) in Avikalin (0.21±0.06) and Malpura (0.18±0.04) sheep. The post-drench h2 for LFEC was low in Avikalin (0.04±0.03) and Malpura (0.11±0.03) sheep. Effective selection program can be carried out for further improving the resistance against H. contortus in both the breeds using pre-drench LFEC estimates. The genetic correlation between the pre-drench LFEC and growth traits was not in the desired direction. Existence of substantial genotype × environment (G×E) interaction was seen in Malpura sheep, where major shift in ranks of sheep based on pre-drench LFEC as that of post-drench LFEC was observed owing to genetic correlation of 0.65±0.15. The G×E was absent in Avikalin sheep. Unreliable genetic correlation between growth and LFEC does not warrant a multi trait selection index development and its utilization in breeding program. The independent selection for LFEC followed by corrected 6WT can precisely help in achieving the goal of improving growth in nematode resistant sheep.

Keywords

body weightsbreeding goalgenotype by environment interactiongenetic correlationshaemonchus contortus
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 9 , September 2019 , pp. 1788 - 1796
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Abuargob, O, Stear, M, Mitchell, S and Benothman, M 2015. The influence of lamb gender on faecal egg count exposed to natural gastrointestinal nematode parasite infection. International Journal for Agro Veterinary and Medical Sciences 9, 13–17.Google Scholar
Aguerre, S, Jacquiet, P, Brodier, H, Bournazel, JP, Grisez, C, Prévot, F, Michot, L, Fidelle, F, Astruc, JM and Moreno, CR 2018. Resistance to gastrointestinal nematodes in dairy sheep: genetic variability and relevance of artificial infection of nucleus rams to select for resistant ewes on farms. Veterinary Parasitology 256, 16–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Assenza, F, Elsen, JM, Legarra, A, Carré, C, Sallé, G, Robert-Granié, C and Moreno, CR 2014. Genetic parameters for growth and faecal worm egg count following Haemonchus contortus experimental infestations using pedigree and molecular information. Genetics Selection Evolution 46, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beraldi, D, McRae, AF, Gratten, J, Pilkington, JG, Slate, J, Visscher, PM and Pemberton, JM 2007. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping of resistance to strongyles and coccidia in the free-living Soay sheep (Ovis aries). International Journal of Parasitology 37, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, SC and Stear, MJ 2001. Inheritance of faecal egg counts during early lactation in Scottish Blackface ewes facing mixed, natural nematode infections. Animal Science 73, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, DJ and Fogarty, NM 2017. Genetic relationships between internal parasite resistance and production traits in Merino sheep. Animal Production Science 57, 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, DJ and Swan, AA 2016. Genetic parameters for liveweight, wool and worm resistance traits in multi-breed Australian meat sheep. 2. Genetic relationships between traits. Animal Production Science 56, 1449–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciappesoni, G, Goldberg, V and Gimeno, D 2013. Estimates of genetic parameters for worm resistance, wool and growth traits in Merino sheep of Uruguay. Livestock Science 157, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloete, SWP, Olivier, JJ, du Toit, E and Dreyer, FH 2017. Genetic analysis of faecal worm egg count in South African Merinos under natural challenge. South African Journal of Animal Science 37, 237–247.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS and Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edition. Longmans Green, Harlow, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Gauly, M, Kraus, M, Vervelde, L, Van Leeuwen, MAW and Erhardt, G 2002. Estimating genetic differences in natural resistance in Rhön and Merino land sheep following experimental Haemonchus contortus infection. Veterinary Parasitology 106, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg V, Ciappesoni G and Aguilar I 2012. Genetic parameters for nematode resistance in periparturient ewes and post-weaning lambs in Uruguayan Merino sheep. Livestock Science 147, 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowane, GR, Chopra, A, Prakash, V and Arora, AL 2010. Estimates of (co)variance components and genetic parameters for body weights and first greasy fleece weight in Malpura sheep. Livestock Science 131, 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollema, BL, Bijma, P and van der Werf, JHJ 2018. Sensitivity of the breeding values for growth rate and worm egg count to environmental worm burden in Australian Merino sheep. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 135, 357–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houdjik JGM, Jessop NS and Kyriazakis I 2001. Nutrient partitioning between reproductive and immune functions in animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 60, 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBM Corp 2017. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 25.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Kaplan, RM and Vidyashankar, AN 2012. An inconvenient truth: global warming and anthelmintic resistance. Veterinary Parasitology. 186, 70–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlsson, LJ and Greeff, JC 2012. Genetic aspects of sheep parasitic diseases. Veterinary Parasitology 189, 104–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leathwick, DM and Besier, RB 2014. The management of anthelmintic resistance in grazing ruminants in Australasia–Strategies and experiences. Veterinary Parasitology. 204, 44–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, L, Swan, AA, Brown, DJ and Van der Werf, JHJ 2015. Australian sheep breeding values for worm egg count retain predictive power across flocks in the presence of G×E. Proceeding of Association Advancement in Breeding and Genetics 21, 386–389.Google Scholar
Lobo, RNB, Vieira, LS, de Oliveira, AA, Muniz, EN and da Siva, JM 2009. Genetic parameters for faecal egg count, packed-cell volume and body-weight in Santa Inês lambs. Genetics and Molecular Biology 32, 288–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1986. Manual of veterinary parasitological laboratory techniques, Her majesty’s stationary Office, London, UK.Google Scholar
Meyer, K 2007. WOMBAT – a tool for mixed model analyses in quantitative genetics by restricted maximum likelihood (REML). Journal of Zhejiang University Science 8, 815–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, HA and Bijma, P 2005. Effects of genotype x environment interaction on genetic gain in breeding programs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ngere, L, Burke, JM, Morgan, JLM, Miller, JE and Notter, DR 2018. Genetic parameters for fecal egg counts and their relationship with body weights in Katahdin lambs. Journal of Animal Science 96, 1590–1599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Notter, DR, Ngere, L, Burke, JM, Miller, JE and Morgan, JLM 2018. Genetic parameters for ewe reproductive performance and peri-parturient fecal egg counts and their genetic relationships with lamb body weights and fecal egg counts in Katahdin sheep. Journal of Animal Science 96, 1579–1589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollott, GE and Greeff, JC 2004. Genotype×environment interactions and genetic parameters for fecal egg count and production traits of merino sheep. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2840–2851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, LLL, Gowane, GR, Chopra, A and Arora, AL 2010a. Estimates of (co)variance components and genetic parameters for growth traits of Avikalin sheep. Tropical Animal Health and Production 42, 1093–1101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, LLL, Gowane, GR, Swarnkar, CP, Singh, D and Arora, AL 2010b. Estimates of genetic parameters for faecal egg count of Haemonchus contortus infection and relationship with growth traits in Avikalin sheep. Tropical Animal Health and Production 42, 785–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Safari, E, Fogarty, NM and Gilmour, AR 2005. A review of genetic parameter estimates for wool, growth, meat and reproduction traits in sheep. Livestock Production Science 92, 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, D, Swarnkar, CP and Khan, FA 2018. Epidemiology of gastrointestinal parasites and impact of two anthelmintic treatment systems in sheep flocks of arid and semi-arid Rajasthan. Small Ruminant Research 164, 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, D, Swarnkar, CP, Prince, LLL and Pathak, KML 2011. Economic analysis and impact of gastrointestinal nematodes in Rajasthan. In Book Directorate of knowledge management in Agriculture (DKMA) (ed. AT Kumar), pp. 28–55. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Stear, MJ, Bairden, K, Duncan, JL, Gettinby, G, McKellar, QA, Murray, M and Wallace, DS 1995. The distribution of faecal nematode egg counts in Scottish Blackface lambs following natural, predominantly Ostertagia circumcincta infection. Parasitology 110, 573–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swarnkar, CP, Singh, D, Kumar, S, Mishra, AK and Arora, AL 2009. Study on Malpura sheep selected for resistance to Haemonchus contortus. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 79, 577–581.Google Scholar
Traoré, A, Notter, DR, Soudre, A., Kaboré, A, Álvarez, I, Fernández, I, Sanou, M, Shamshuddin, M, Periasamy, K, Tamboura, HH and Goyache, F 2017. Resistance to gastrointestinal parasite infection in Djallonké sheep. Animal 11, 1354–1362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanimisetti, HB, Andrew, SL, Zajac, AM and Notter, DR 2004. Inheritance of faecal egg count and packed cell volume and their relationship with production trait in sheep infected with Haemonchus contortus. Journal of Animal Sciences 82, 1602–1611.Google Scholar