Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:50:54.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetics of crossbred sow longevity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

L. Engblom ,
N. Lundeheim ,
M. del P. Schneider ,
A.-M. Dalin  and
K. Andersson
L. Engblom*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7023, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
N. Lundeheim
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7023, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
M. del P. Schneider
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7023, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
A.-M. Dalin
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Reproduction, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7054, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
K. Andersson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7023, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to estimate genetic parameters for longevity from Swedish crossbred sows to investigate the possibilities of selecting for this trait. Data were collected from 16 commercial piglet-producing herds, on crossbred (Landrace × Yorkshire) sows farrowing in the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2004. The data set with records on 10 373 sows was split into two sets according to the breed of the sire, i.e. Landrace sires (LS) or Yorkshire sires (YS). Removal hazard during productive life (PL) was analysed with survival analysis, using a sire model. Stayability from first to second litter (STAY12), stayability from first to third litter (STAY13), length of productive life (LPL) and lifetime production (LTP) were analysed with linear models, using an animal model. Females after the worst sire had 1.7 times higher (progeny of LS) and 2.4 times higher (progeny of YS) risk of removal than females after the best sire. Heritability for PL was estimated at 0.06 (LS) and 0.12 (YS). The heritabilities for the linear longevity traits ranged from 0.03 to 0.08. Genetic correlations between the four linear longevity traits were all high and positive (0.6 to 1.0), as were the phenotypic correlations (0.5 to 0.8). The correlations (Spearman rank) between the sire’s estimated breeding values for all the five longevity traits were all significant (P < 0.001) and moderate to strong in both data sets. Estimated breeding value (EBV) correlations between the five longevity traits and traits included in the present Swedish breeding evaluation (Quality Genetics (QG)) were significant in a few cases. Significant and favourable EBV correlations were found between age at first farrowing and both STAY12 and STAY13 (−0.20 and −0.31), as well as between litter weight at 3 weeks and LPL and LTP (0.13 to 0.20). Significant and unfavourable EBV correlations were found between age at 100 kg and STAY12 (0.32), as well as between the exterior conformation score from testing station and PL (−0.20). The level of the estimated heritabilities for longevity indicates that genetic improvement of sow longevity would be possible. However, overall, there was no strong indirect selection for sow longevity with the current Swedish breeding evaluation (QG).

Keywords

geneticlifetime productionlongevitysowstayability
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 6 , June 2009 , pp. 783 - 790
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Boyle, L, Leonard, FC, Lynch, B, Brophy, P 1998. Sow culling patterns and sow welfare. Irish Veterinary Journal 51, 354–357.Google Scholar
Ducrocq, V, Sölkner, J 1998. The Survival Kit – a Fortran package for the analysis of survival data. In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production Armidale, Australia, pp. 447–450.Google Scholar
Engblom, L, Lundeheim, N, Dalin, A-M, Andersson, K 2007. Sow removal in Swedish commercial herds. Livestock Science 106, 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engblom, L, Lundeheim, N, Strandberg, E, Schneider, MD, Dalin, A-M, Andersson, K 2008. Factors affecting length of productive life in Swedish commercial sows. Journal of Animal Science 86, 432–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, S-F, Gianola, D, Rekaya, R, Short, T 2001. Bayesian analysis of lifetime performance and prolificacy in Landrace sows using a linear mixed model with censoring. Livestock Production Science 72, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heusing, M, Hamann, H, Distl, O 2005. Genetic analysis of lifetime performance and fertility traits in the pig breeds Large White, German Landrace and Pietrain. Züchtungskunde 77, 15–34.Google Scholar
Holm Damgaard, L 2004. Quantitative genetic analysis of survival, linear Gaussian and ordered categorical traits. PhD, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
López-Serrano, M, Reinsch, N, Looft, H, Kalm, E 2000. Genetic correlations of growth, backfat thickness and exterior with stayability in Large White and Landrace sows. Livestock Production Science 64, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucia, T, Dial, GD, Marsh, WE 2000. Lifetime reproductive performance in female pigs having distinct reasons for removal. Livestock Production Science 63, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, P, Jensen, J 2000. A user’s guide to DMU. A Package for analysing multivariate mixed models. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Zas, SL, Southey, BR, Knox, RV, Connor, JF, Lowe, JF, Roskamp, BJ 2003. Bioeconomic evaluation of sow longevity and profitability. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2915–2922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rydhmer, L, Lundeheim, N, Johansson, K 1995. Genetic parameters for reproduction traits in sows and relations to performance-test measurements. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 112, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, MD, Strandberg, E, Ducrocq, V, Roth, A 2005. Survival analysis applied to genetic evaluation for female fertility in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2253–2259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serenius, T, Stalder, KJ 2004. Genetics of length of productive life and lifetime prolificacy in the Finnish Landrace and Large White pig populations. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3111–3117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serenius, T, Sevón-Aimonen, M-L, Kause, EA, 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-Animal Science 54, 36–43.Google Scholar
Serenius, T, Stalder, KJ, Puonti, M 2006. Impact of dominance effects on sow longevity. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 123, 355–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarrés, J, Bidanel, JP, Hofer, A, Ducrocq, V 2006. Analysis of longevity and exterior traits on Large White sows in Switzerland. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2914–2924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tholen, E, Bunter, KL, Hermesch, S, Graser, H-U 1996. The genetic foundation of fitness and reproduction traits in Australian pig populations. 1. Genetic parameters for weaning to conception interval, farrowing interval, and stayability. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 1261–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yazdi, MH, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L, Ringmar-Cederberg, E, Johansson, K 2000a. Survival of Swedish Landrace and Yorkshire sows in relation to osteochondrosis: a genetic study. Animal Science 71, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yazdi, MH, Rydhmer, L, Ringmar-Cederberg, E, Lundeheim, N, Johansson, K 2000b. Genetic study of longevity in Swedish Landrace sows. Livestock Production Science 63, 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yazdi, MH, Visscher, PM, Ducrocq, V, Thompson, R 2002. Heritability, reliability of genetic evaluations and response to selection in proportional hazard models. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1563–1577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed