Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:47:38.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prediction of genetic growth curves in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2009

M. Haraldsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB), PO Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway
J. Ødegård
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB), PO Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway NOFIMA, PO Box 5010, NO-1432 Ås, Norway
D. Olsen
Affiliation:
Norsvin, PO Box 504, NO-2304 Hamar, Norway
O. Vangen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB), PO Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway
I. M. A. Ranberg
Affiliation:
Norsvin, PO Box 504, NO-2304 Hamar, Norway
T. H. E. Meuwissen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB), PO Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway
Get access

Abstract

Genetic growth curves of boars in a test station were predicted on daily weight records collected by automated weighing scales. The data contained 121 865 observations from 1477 Norwegian Landrace boars and 108 589 observations from 1300 Norwegian Duroc boars. Random regression models using Legendre polynomials up to second order for weight at different ages were compared for best predicting ability and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) for both breeds. The model with second-order polynomials had best predictive ability and BIC. The heritability for weight, based on this model, was found to vary along the growth trajectory between 0.32–0.35 for Duroc and 0.17–0.25 for Landrace. By varying test length possibility to use shorter test time and pre-selection was tested. Test length was varied and compared with average termination at 100 kg, termination of the test at 90 kg gives, e.g. ∼2% reduction in accuracy of estimated breeding values (EBV) for both breeds and termination at 80 kg gives ∼5% reduction in accuracy of EBVs for Landrace and ∼3% for Duroc. A shorter test period can decrease test costs per boar, but also gives possibilities to increase selection intensity as there will be room for testing more boars.

Type
Full Paper
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

Gilmour, AR, Gogel, BJ, Cullis, BR, Thompson, R 2006. ASReml user guide release 2.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead HP1 1ES, UK. ISBN 1-904375-23-5.Google Scholar
Huisman, AE, Veerkamp, RF, Van Arendonk, JAM 2002. Genetic parameters for various random regression models to describe the weight data of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80, 575582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, A 2008. Et avlsselskap i verdensklasse, Norsvin 1958–2008. Norsvin, Hamar.Google Scholar
Köhn, F, Sharifi, AR, Simianer, H 2007. Modeling the growth of Goettingen minipig. Journal of Animal Science 85, 8492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odegård, J, Jensen, J, Klemetsdal, G, Madsen, P, Heringstad, B 2003. Genetic analysis of somatic cell score in Norwegian cattle using random regression test-day models. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 41034114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, G 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6, 461464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togashi, K, Lin, CY 2007. Genetic modification of the lactation curve by bending the eigenvectors of the additive genetic random regression coefficient matrix. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 57535758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vangen, O, Sehested, E 1997. Swine production and research in Norway. Pigs News and Information 18, 29N34N.Google Scholar