Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:46:43.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency of different selection strategies against boar taint in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2013

A. M. Haberland ,
H. Luther ,
A. Hofer ,
E. Tholen ,
H. Simianer ,
B. Lind  and
C. Baes
A. M. Haberland*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Georg-August University Goettingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075 Goettingen, Germany
H. Luther
Affiliation:
SUISAG, Allmend 8, 6204 Sempach, Switzerland
A. Hofer
Affiliation:
SUISAG, Allmend 8, 6204 Sempach, Switzerland
E. Tholen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University Bonn, Endenicher Allee 15, 53115 Bonn, Germany
H. Simianer
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Georg-August University Goettingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075 Goettingen, Germany
B. Lind
Affiliation:
Förderverein Biotechnologieforschung e.V., Adenauerallee 174, 53113 Bonn, Germany
C. Baes
Affiliation:
SUISAG, Allmend 8, 6204 Sempach, Switzerland School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Länggasse 85, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The breeding scheme of a Swiss sire line was modeled to compare different target traits and information sources for selection against boar taint. The impact of selection against boar taint on production traits was assessed for different economic weights of boar taint compounds. Genetic gain and breeding costs were evaluated using ZPlan+, a software based on selection index theory, gene flow method and economic modeling. Scenario I reflected the currently practiced breeding strategy as a reference scenario without selection against boar taint. Scenario II incorporated selection against the chemical compounds of boar taint, androstenone (AND), skatole (SKA) and indole (IND) with economic weights of −2.74, −1.69 and −0.99 Euro per unit of the log transformed trait, respectively. As information sources, biopsy-based performance testing of live boars (BPT) was compared with genomic selection (GS) and a combination of both. Scenario III included selection against the subjectively assessed human nose score (HNS) of boar taint. Information sources were either station testing of full and half sibs of the selection candidate or GS against HNS of boar taint compounds. In scenario I, annual genetic gain of log-transformed AND (SKA; IND) was 0.06 (0.09; 0.02) Euro, which was because of favorable genetic correlations with lean meat percentage and meat surface. In scenario II, genetic gain increased to 0.28 (0.20; 0.09) Euro per year when conducting BPT. Compared with BPT, genetic gain was smaller with GS. A combination of BPT and GS only marginally increased annual genetic gain, whereas variable costs per selection candidate augmented from 230 Euro (BPT) to 330 Euro (GS) or 380 Euro (both). The potential of GS was found to be higher when selecting against HNS, which has a low heritability. Annual genetic gain from GS was higher than from station testing of 4 full sibs and 76 half sibs with one or two measurements. The most effective strategy to reduce HNS was selecting against chemical compounds by conducting BPT. Because of heritabilities higher than 0.45 for AND, SKA and IND and high genetic correlations to HNS, the (correlated) response in units of the trait could be increased by 62% compared with scenario III with GS and even by 79% compared with scenario III, with station testing of siblings with two measurements. Increasing the economic weights of boar taint compounds amplified negative effects on average daily gain, drip loss and intramuscular fat percentage.

Keywords

boar taintbiopsyandrostenonegenomic selectionskatole
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 11 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Annor-Frempong, IE, Nute, GR, Whittington, FW and Wood, JD 1997. The problem of taint in porc: 1. Detection thresholds and odour profiles of androstenone and skatole in a model system. Meat Science 46, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badke, YM, Bates, RO, Ernst, CW, Schwab, C and Steibel, JP 2012. Estimation of linkage disequilibrium in four US pig breeds. BMC Genomics 13, 24.Google Scholar
Baes, C, Mattei, S, Luther, H, Ampuero Kragten, S, Sidler, X, Bee, G, Spring, P and Hofer, A 2013. A performance test for boar taint compounds in live boars. Animal 7, 714–720.Google Scholar
Bergsma, R, Knol, E and Feitsma, H 2007. Parameters of AI boars and predicted correlated responses of selection against boar taint. Book of abstracts of the 58th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, August 26–29, 2007, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 25–29. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cleveland, MA, Forni, S, Garrick, DJ and Deeb, N 2010. Prediction of Genomic Breeding Values in a Commercial Pig Population. Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 1st–6th 2010, Leipzig, Germany, p. 506.Google Scholar
Daetwyler, HD, Pong-Wong, R, Villanueva, B and Woolliams, JA 2010. The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 185, 1021–1031.Google Scholar
Dekkers, JCM 2007. Prediction of response to marker-assisted and genomic selection using selection index theory. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124, 331–341.Google Scholar
Desmoulin, B and Bonneau, M 1982. Consumer testing of pork and processed meat from boars: The influence of fat androstenone level. Livestock Production Science 9, 707–715.Google Scholar
Elsen, JM and Mocquot, JC 1974. Méthode de prévision de l'évolution du niveau génétique d'une population soumise à une opération de sélection et dont les générations se chevauchent. INRA Bulletin technique du département de la génétique animale 17, 30–54.Google Scholar
Erbe, M, Reinhardt, F and Simianer, H 2011. Empirical determination of the number of independent chromosome segments based on cross-validated data. Book of abstracts of the 62th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, August 29--September 2, 2011, Stavanger, Norway, p. 115. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
European Commission 2010. European Declaration on alternatives to surgical castration of pigs. Retrieved March 16, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/initiatives_en.htm.Google Scholar
Fàbrega, E, Velarde, A, Cros, J, Gispert, M, Suárez, P, Tibau, J and Soler, J 2010. Effect of vaccination against gonadotrophin-releasing hormone, using Improvac®, on growth performance, body composition, behaviour and acute phase proteins. Livestock Science 132, 53–59.Google Scholar
Garrick, DJ, Taylor, JF and Fernando, RL 2009. Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 55.Google Scholar
Goddard, ME and Hayes, BJ 2007. Genomic selection (Review article). Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124, 323–330.Google Scholar
Goddard, ME, Hayes, BJ and Meuwissen, THE 2011. Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the accuracy of genomic selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 128, 409–421.Google Scholar
Grindflek, E, Meuwissen, THE, Aasmundstad, T, Hamland, H, Hansen, MHS, Nome, T, Kent, M, Torjesen, P and Lien, S 2011. Revealing genetic relationships between compounds affecting boar taint and reproduction in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 89, 680–692.Google Scholar
Haberland, AH, Ytournel, F, Luther, H and Simianer, H 2010. Evaluation of selection strategies including genomic breeding values in pigs. Book of abstracts of the 61st Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, August 23–27, Heraklion, Greece, p. 354. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Haberland, AH, Pimentel, ECG, Ytournel, F, Erbe, M and Simianer, H 2013. Interplay between heritability, genetic correlation and economic weighting in a selection index with and without genomic information. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics (published online on 29 August 2013) (DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12051).Google Scholar
Hazel, LN 1943. The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28, 476–490.Google Scholar
Hill, WG 1974. Prediction and evaluation of response to selection with overlapping generations. Animal Production 18, 117–139.Google Scholar
Mathur, PK, ten Napel, J, Bloemhof, S, Heres, L, Knol, EF and Mulder, HA 2012. A human nose scoring system for boar taint and its relationship with androstenone and skatole. Meat Science 91, 414–422.Google Scholar
Merks, JMM, Hanenberg, EHAT, Bloemhof, S and Knol, EF 2009. Genetic opportunities for pork production without castration. Animal Welfare 18, 539–544.Google Scholar
Merks, JWM, Bloemhof, S, Mathur, PK and Knol, EF 2010. Quantitative genetic opportunities to ban castration. Book of abstracts of the 61st Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, August 23–27, Heraklion, Greece, p. 135. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, THE, Hayes, BJ and Goddard, ME 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.Google Scholar
Prunier, A, Bonneau, M, von Borell, EH, Cinotti, S, Gunn, M, Fredriksen, B, Giersing, M, Morton, DB, Tuyttens, FAM and Velarde, A 2006. A review of the welfare consequences of surgical castration in piglets and the evaluation of non-surgical methods. Animal Welfare 15, 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramos, AM, RPMA, Crooijmans, Affara, NA, Amaral, AJ, Archibald, AL, Beever, JE, Bendixen, C, Churcher, C, Clark, R, Dehais, P, Hansen, MS, Hedegaard, J, Hu, Z-L, Kerstens, HH, Law, AS, Megens, H-J, Milan, D, Nonneman, DJ, Rohrer, GA, Rothschild, MF, Smith, TPL, Schnabel, RD, Van Tassell, CP, Taylor, JF, Wiedmann, RT, Schook, LB and Groenen, MAM 2009. Design of a high density SNP genotyping assay in the pig using SNPs identified and characterized by next generation sequencing technology. PLoS One 4, e6524. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006524.Google Scholar
Rohrer, GA, Alexander, LI, Hu, Z, Smith, TP, Keele, JW and Beattie, CW 1996. A comprehensive map of the porcine genome. Genome Research 6, 371–391.Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L, Lundström, K and Andersson, K 2010. Immunocastration reduces aggressive and sexual behavior in male pigs. Animal 4, 965–972.Google Scholar
Sellier, P and Bonneau, M 1988. Genetic relationships between fat androstenone level in males and development of male and female genital tract in pigs. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 105, 11–20.Google Scholar
Sellier, P, Le Roy, P, Fouilloux, MN, Gruand, J and Bonneau, M 2000. Responses to restricted index selection and genetic parameters for fat androstenone level and sexual maturity status of young boars. Livestock Production Science 63, 265–274.Google Scholar
Täubert, H, Reinhardt, F and Simianer, H 2010. ZPLAN+, a new software to evaluate and optimize animal breeding programs. Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 1–6 2010, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
Uimari, P and Tapio, M 2011. Extent of linkage disequilibrium and effective population size in Finnish Landrace and Finnish Yorkshire pig breeds. Journal of Animal Science 89, 609–614.Google Scholar
Vazquez, JM, Parrilla, I, Roca, J, Gil, MA, Cuello, C, Vazquez, JL and Martínez, EA 2009. Sex-sorting sperm by flow cytometry in pigs: issues and perspectives. Theriogenology 71, 80–88.Google Scholar
von Borell, E, Baumgartner, J, Giersing, M, Jäggin, N, Prunier, A, Tuyttens, FAM and Edwards, SA 2009. Animal welfare implications of surgical castration and its alternatives in pigs. Animal 3, 1488–1496.Google Scholar
Walstra, P 1974. Fattening of young boars: quantification of negative and positive aspects. Livestock Production Science 1, 187–196.Google Scholar
Willam, A, Nitter, G, Bartenschlager, H, Karras, K, Niebel, E and Graser, H-U 2008. ZPLAN- Manual for a PC-program to optimize livestock selection schemes.Google Scholar
Windig, JJ, Mulder, HA, ten Napel, J, Knol, EF, Mathur, PK and Crump, RE 2012. Genetic parameters for androstenone, skatole, indole, and human nose scores as measures of boar taint and their relationship with finishing traits. Journal of Animal Science 90, 2120–2129.Google Scholar
Willeke, H, Claus, R, Müller, E, Pirchner, F and Karg, H 1987. Selection for high and low level of 5α-androst-16-en-3-one in boars. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 104, 64–73.Google Scholar
Wright, S 1951. The genetical structure of populations. Annals of Eugenics 15, 323–354.Google Scholar