Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.20160062

Social genetic effects on days to 90 kg in Duroc and Yorkshire pigs  

Kim, Yong-Min (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Cho, Eun-Seok (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Cho, Kyu-Ho (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Sa, Soo-Jin (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Jeong, Yong-Dae (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Woo, Jae-Seok (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Lee, Il-Joo (Darby Genetic Inc.)
Hong, Joon-Ki (National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Agricultural Science / v.43, no.4, 2016 , pp. 595-602 More about this Journal
Abstract
In pigs, individuals in the same pen may show aggressive behavior toward each other, such as tail biting. Such social interactions among pen mates may considerably affect their welfare and performance, both in negative and positive ways. The present study was conducted to investigate social genetic effects on days to 90 kg using data from 12,208 Duroc and Yorkshire pigs that were born between 2008 and 2012. Heritability was estimated using the five following animal models: a basic model with direct heritable effects only (Model 1), a social model with direct and social heritable effects (Model 2), a model accounting for covariance between direct and social heritable effects (Model 3), and two models considering a dilution factor with direct and social heritable effects (Models 4 and 5). The optimal model to represent Duroc pigs was Model 1 which only uses direct heritable effects. Direct heritability (0.21) was higher than total heritability (0.09) and covariance was negative. Model 2 was evaluated as the optimum model for Yorkshire pigs. Yorkshire data showed that total heritability (0.5) was twice as high as direct heritability (0.25) and covariance was positive. Our results suggest that the efficiency of social effects differed among breeding lines. Further research on social effects related to breeds by group size would clarify which is the most efficient selection method that accounts for social genetic effects.
Keywords
animal model; pig; social genetic effect;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Ellen E, Visscher J, Van Arendonk J, Bijma P. 2008. Survival of laying hens: Genetic parameters for direct and associative effects in three purebred layer lines. Poultry Science 87:233-239.
2 Griffing B. 1967. Selection in reference to biological groups I. Individual and group selection applied to populations of unordered groups. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 20:127-140.
3 Hsu W, Johnson RK, Van Vleck LD. 2010. Effect of pen mates on growth, back fat depth, and longissimus muscle area of swine. Journal of Animal Science 88:895-902.   DOI
4 Lynch M, Walsh B. 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits: Sinauer Sunderland, MA.
5 Muir WM. 2005. Incorporation of competitive effects in forest tree or animal breeding programs. Genetics 170:1247-1259.   DOI
6 Van Vleck LD, Cundiff L, Koch R. 2007. Effect of competition on gain in feedlot bulls from Hereford selection lines. Journal of Animal Science 85:1625-1633.   DOI
7 Wilson AJ, Morrissey M, Adams M, Walling CA, Guinness F, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, Kruuk L. 2011. Indirect genetics effects and evolutionary constraint: an analysis of social dominance in red deer, Cervus elaphus. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 24:772-783.   DOI
8 Bergsma R, Kanis E, Knol EF, Bijma P. 2008. The contribution of social effects to heritable variation in finishing traits of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). Genetics 178:1559-1570.   DOI
9 Alemu SW, Bijma P, Moller SH, Janss L, Berg P. 2014. Indirect genetic effects contribute substantially to heritable variation in aggression-related traits in group-housed mink (Neovison vison). Genetics Selection Evolution 46:30.   DOI
10 Arango J, Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Culbertson M, Herring W. 2005. Estimation of variance components including competitive effects of large white growing gilts. Journal of Animal Science 83:1241-1246.   DOI
11 Canario L, Lundgren H, Haandlykken M, Rydhmer L. 2010. Genetics of growth in piglets and the association with homogeneity of body weight within litters. Journal of Animal Science 88:1240-1247.   DOI
12 Bergsma R, Mathur P, Kanis E, Verstegen M, Knol E, Van Arendonk J. 2013. Genetic correlations between lactation performance and growing-finishing traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 91:3601-3611.   DOI
13 Bijma P. 2010. Estimating indirect genetic effects: Precision of estimates and optimum designs. Genetics 186:1013-1028.   DOI
14 Bijma P, Muir WM, Van Arendonk JA. 2007. Multilevel selection 1: Quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175:277-288.
15 Bouwman A, Bergsma R, Duijvesteijn N, Bijma P. 2010. Maternal and social genetic effects on average daily gain of piglets from birth until weaning. Journal of Animal Science 88:2883-2892.   DOI
16 Bunter K, Lewis C, Newman S. 2015. Social genetic effects influence reproductive performance of group-housed sows. Journal of Animal Science 93:3783-3793.   DOI
17 Canario L, Turner S, Roehe R, Lundeheim N, D'Eath R, Lawrence A, Knol E, Bergsma R, Rydhmer L. 2012. Genetic associations between behavioral traits and direct-social effects of growth rate in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90:4706-4715.   DOI
18 Chen C, Kachman SD, Johnson RK, Newman S, Van Vleck LD. 2008. Estimation of genetic parameters for average daily gain using models with competition effects. Journal of Animal Science 86:2525-2530.   DOI
19 Craig J, Muir W. 1996. Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: Beak-related mortality, feathering, and body weight responses. Poultry Science 75:294-302.   DOI