JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Genetic Parameters of Pre-adjusted Body Weight Growth and Ultrasound Measures of Body Tissue Development in Three Seedstock Pig Breed Populations in Korea
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Genetic Parameters of Pre-adjusted Body Weight Growth and Ultrasound Measures of Body Tissue Development in Three Seedstock Pig Breed Populations in Korea
Choy, Yun Ho; Mahboob, Alam; Cho, Chung Il; Choi, Jae Gwan; Choi, Im Soo; Choi, Tae Jeong; Cho, Kwang Hyun; Park, Byoung Ho;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the effects of body weight growth adjustment methods on genetic parameters of body growth and tissue among three pig breeds. Data collected on 101,820 Landrace, 281,411 Yorkshire, and 78,068 Duroc pigs, born in Korean swine breeder farms since 2000, were analyzed. Records included body weights on test day and amplitude (A)-mode ultrasound carcass measures of backfat thickness (BF), eye muscle area (EMA), and retail cut percentage (RCP). Days to 90 kg body weight (DAYS90), through an adjustment of the age based on the body weight at the test day, were obtained. Ultrasound measures were also pre-adjusted (ABF, EMA, AEMA, ARCP) based on their test day measures. The (co)variance components were obtained with 3 multi-trait animal models using the REMLF90 software package. Model I included DAYS90 and ultrasound traits, whereas model II and III accounted DAYS90 and pre-adjusted ultrasound traits. Fixed factors were sex (sex) and contemporary groups (herd-year-month of birth) for all traits among the models. Additionally, model I and II considered a linear covariate of final weight on the ultrasound measure traits. Heritability () estimates for DAYS90, BF, EMA, and RCP ranged from 0.36 to 0.42, 0.34 to 0.43, 0.20 to 0.22, and 0.39 to 0.45, respectively, among the models. The estimates of DAYS90 from model II and III were also somewhat similar. The for ABF, AEMA, and ARCP were 0.35 to 0.44, 0.20 to 0.25, and 0.41 to 0.46, respectively. Our heritability estimates varied mostly among the breeds. The genetic correlations () were moderately negative between DAYS90 and BF (-0.29 to -0.38), and between DAYS90 and EMA (-0.16 to -0.26). BF had strong with RCP (-0.87 to -0.93). Moderately positive existed between DAYS90 and RCP (0.20 to 0.28) and between EMA and RCP (0.35 to 0.44) among the breeds. For DAYS90, model II and III, its correlations with ABF, AEMA, and ARCP were mostly low or negligible except the between DAYS90 and AEMA from model III (0.27 to 0.30). The between AEMA and ABF and between AEMA and ARCP were moderate but with negative and positive signs, respectively; also reflected influence of pre-adjustments. However, the between BF and RCP remained non-influential to trait pre-adjustments or covariable fits. Therefore, we conclude that ultrasound measures taken at a body weight of about 90 kg as the test final should be adjusted for body weight growth. Our adjustment formulas, particularly those for BF and EMA, should be revised further to accommodate the added variation due to different performance testing endpoints with regard to differential growth in body composition.
 Keywords
Pig;Growth Trait;Ultrasound Measures;Heritability;Genetic Correlation;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Arango, J., I. Misztal, S. Tsuruta, M. Culbertson, and W. Herring. 2005. Threshold-linear estimation of genetic parameters for farrowing mortality, litter size, and test performance of Large White sows. J. Anim. Sci. 83:499-506.

2.
Boggess, M. V., D. E. Wilson, M. F. Rothschild, and D. G. Morrical. 1991. National sheep improvement program: age adjustment of weaning weight. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3190-3201.

3.
Bourdon, R. M. and J. S. Brinks. 1986. Scrotal circumference in yearling Hereford bulls: Adjustment factors, heritabilities and genetic, environmental and phenotypic relationships with growth traits. J. Anim. Sci. 62:958-967.

4.
Chen, P., T. J. Baas, J. W. Mabry, J. C. Dekkers, and K. J. Koehler. 2002. Genetic parameters and trends for lean growth rate and its comvonents in U.S. Yorkshire, Duroc, Hampshire, and Landrace pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 80:2062-2070.

5.
Choi, J. G., C. I. Cho, I. S. Choi, S. S. Lee, T. J. Choi, K. H. Cho, B. H. Park, and Y. H. Choy. 2013. Genetic parameter estimation in seedstock Swine population for growth performances. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 26:470-475. crossref(new window)

6.
Emenheiser, J. C., S. P. Greiner, R. M. Lewis, and D. R. Notter. 2010. Longitudinal changes in ultrasonic measurements of body composition during growth in Suffolk ram lambs and evaluation of alternative adjustment strategies for ultrasonic scan data. J. Anim. Sci. 88:1341-1348. crossref(new window)

7.
Gilmour, A. R., B. J. Gogel, B. R. Cullis, and R. Thompson. 2009. ASReml User Guide, Release 3.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.

8.
Hamlin, K. E., R. D. Green, T. L. Perkins, L. V. Cundiff, and M. F. Miller. 1995. Real-time ultrasonic measurement of fat thickness and longissimus muscle area: I. Description of age and weight effects. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1713-1724.

9.
Hicks, C., M. Satoh, K. Ishii, S. Kuroki, T. Fujiwara, and T. Furukawa. 1999. Effect of sex on estimates of genetic parameters for daily gain and ultrasonic backfat thickness in swine. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 12:677-681. crossref(new window)

10.
Kim, J. I., Y. G. Sohn, J. H. Jung, and Y. I. Park. 2004. Genetic parameter estimates for backfat thickness at three different sites and growth rate in swine. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 17:305-308. crossref(new window)

11.
Kriese, L. A., J. K. Bertrand, and L. L. Benyshek. 1991. Age adjustment factors, heritabilities and genetic correlations for scrotal circumference and related growth traits in Hereford and Brangus bulls. J. Anim Sci. 69:478-489.

12.
Li, X. and B. W. Kennedy. 1994. Genetic parameters for growth rate and backfat in Canadian Yorkshire, Landrace, Duroc, and Hampshire pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1450-1454.

13.
Misztal, I. 2002. REMLF90 Mannual. http://nce.ads.uga.edu/-ignacy/numpub/blupf90/docs/remlf90.pdf. Accessed on Jun 15, 2014.

14.
Nakaoka, H., A. Narita, T. Ibi, Y. Sasae, T. Miyake, T. Yamada, and Y. Sasaki. 2007. Effectiveness of adjusting for heterogeneity of variance in genetic evaluation of Japanese Black cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 85:2429-2436. crossref(new window)

15.
Noguera, J. L., L. Varona, D. Babot, and J. Estany. 2002. Multivariate analysis of litter size for multiple parities with production traits in pigs: I. Bayesian variance component estimation. J. Anim. Sci. 80:2540-2547.

16.
NSIF. 1997. Guidelines for Uniform Swine Improvement Programs. USDA, Washington, DC, USA.

17.
Rossi, D. J., D. D. Kress, M. W. Tess, and P. J. Burfening. 1992. Correcting bias from the standard linear adjustment of weaning weight to an age-constant basis for beef calves. J. Anim. Sci. 70:1333-1341.

18.
Suzuki, K., M. Ishida, H. Kadowaki, T. Shibata, H. Uchida, and A. Nishida. 2006. Genetic correlations among fatty acid compositions in different sites of fat tissues, meat production, and meat quality traits in Duroc pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 84:2026-2034. crossref(new window)

19.
Wood, C. M., L. L. Christian, and M. F. Rothschild. 1990. Factors to adjust litter weight of pigs to a standard 21 days of age. J. Anim. Sci. 68:2628-2633.