Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Estimates of Genetic Correlations between Production and Semen Traits in Boar
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Estimates of Genetic Correlations between Production and Semen Traits in Boar
Oh, S.H.; See, M.T.; Long, T.E.; Galvin, J.M.;
  PDF(new window)
Currently, boars selected for commercial use as AI sires are evaluated on grow-finish performance and carcass characteristics. If AI sires were also evaluated and selected on semen production, it may be possible to reduce the number of boars required to service sows, thereby improving the productivity and profitability of the boar stud. The objective of this study was to estimate genetic correlations between production and semen traits in the boar: average daily gain (ADG), backfat thickness (BF) and muscle depth (MD) as production traits, and total sperm cells (TSC), total concentration (TC), volume collected (SV), number of extended doses (ND), and acceptance rate of ejaculates (AR) as semen traits. Semen collection records and performance data for 843 boars and two generations of pedigree data were provided by Smithfield Premium Genetics. Backfat thickness and MD were measured by real-time ultrasound. Genetic parameters were estimated from five four-trait and one five-trait animal models using MTDFREML. Average heritability estimates were 0.39 for ADG, 0.32 for BF, 0.15 for MD, and repeatability estimates were 0.38 for SV, 0.37 for TSC, 0.09 for TC, 0.39 for ND, and 0.16 for AR. Semen traits showed a strong negative genetic correlation with MD and positive genetic correlation with BF. Genetic correlations between semen traits and ADG were low. Therefore, current AI boar selection practices may be having a detrimental effect on semen production.
Genetic Correlation;Boar;Semen;Production;Heritability;AI;
 Cited by
Boldman, K. G., L. A. Kriese, L. D. Van Vleck, C. P. Van Tassell and S. D. Kachman. 1995. A Manual for Use of MTDFREML. A Set of Programs to Obtain Estimates of Variances and Covariances [Draft]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service

Brandt, H. and G. Grandjot. 1998. Genetic and environmental effects on male fertility of AI boars. Proc. 6th World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Armidale, Australia. 23:527-530

Du Mesnil du Buisson, F., B. Millanvoye, F. Bariteau and C. Legault. 1974. Factors affecting the production and quality of boar semen: seasonal effects, heritability and correlations between variables. In: Journees de la recherche porcine en France. Paris, I.T.P. Ed., pp. 63-70

Du Mesnil du Buisson, F., M. Paquignon and M. Courot. 1978. Boar sperm production: use in artificial insemination - a review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 5:293-302 crossref(new window)

Graser, H. U., S. P. Smith and B. Tier. 1987. A derivative-free approach for estimating variance components in animal models by restricted maximum likelihood. J. Anim. Sci. 64:1362-1370

Hermesch, S., B. G. Luxford and H.-U. Graser. 2000. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs 1. Description of traits and heritability estimates. Livest. Prod. Sci. 65:239-248 crossref(new window)

Johnson, Z. B., J. J. Chewning and R. A. Nugent III. 1999. Genetic parameters for production traits and measures of residual feed intake in Large White swine. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1679-1685

Johnson, Z. B., J. J. Chewning and R. A. Nugent III. 2002. Maternal effects on traits measured during post weaning performance test of swine from four breeds. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1470-1477

Lutaaya, E., I. Misztal, J. W. Marbry and T. Short. 2001. Genetic parameter estimates from joint evaluation of purebreds and crossbreeds in swine using the crossbred model. J. Anim. Sci. 79:3002-3007

McPhee, C. P., P. J. Brennan and F. Cuncalfe. 1979. Genetic and phenotypic parameters of Australian Large White and Landrace boars performance-tested when offered food ad libitum Anim. Prod. 28:79-85

Mrode, R. A. and B. W. Kennedy. 1993. Genetic variation in measures of food efficiency in pigs and their genetic relationship with growth rate and Backfat. Anim. Prod. 56:225-232

Nestor, K. E. 1976. Selection for increased semen yield in the turkey. Poult. Sci. 55:2363-2369

Nsoso, S. J., M. J. Young and P. R. Beatson. 1999. Correlated responses in greasy fleece weight in Border Leicester and Coopworth Sheep breeds selected for lean tissue growth rate. Small ruminant research. 34:149-154 crossref(new window)

Singleton, W. L. 2001. State of the art in artificial insemination of pigs in the United States. Theriogenology 56:1305-1310 crossref(new window)

Smith, C. and G. J. S. Ross. 1965. Genetic parameters of British Large White bacon pigs. Anim. Prod. 7:291-301

Smith, C., J. W. B. King and N. Gilbert. 1962. Genetic parameters of British Large White bacon pigs. Anim. Prod. 4:128-143

Taylor, J. F., B. Bean, C. E. Marshall and J. J. Sullivan. 1985. Genetic and environmental components of semen production traits of artificial insemination Holstein bulls. J. Dairy Sci. 68:2703-2722

Xu, X., S. Pommier, T. Arbov, B. Hutchings, W. Sotto and G. R. Foxcroft. 1998. In vitro maturation and fertilization techniques for assessment of semen quality and boar fertility. J. Anim. Sci. 76:3079-3089