Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:51:03.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New phenotypes for new breeding goals in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2011

J. W. M. Merks ,
P. K. Mathur  and
E. F. Knol
J. W. M. Merks
Affiliation:
Institute for Pig Genetics B.V., PO Box 43, 6640 AA Beuningen, The Netherlands
P. K. Mathur*
Affiliation:
Institute for Pig Genetics B.V., PO Box 43, 6640 AA Beuningen, The Netherlands
E. F. Knol
Affiliation:
Institute for Pig Genetics B.V., PO Box 43, 6640 AA Beuningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: pramod.mathur@ipg.nl
Get access

Abstract

Pig breeders in the past have adopted their breeding goals according to the needs of the producers, processors and consumers and have made remarkable genetic improvements in the traits of interest. However, it is becoming more and more challenging to meet the market needs and expectations of consumers and in general of the citizens. In view of the current and future trends, the breeding goals have to include several additional traits and new phenotypes. These phenotypes include (a) vitality from birth to slaughter, (b) uniformity at different levels of production, (c) robustness, (d) welfare and health and (e) phenotypes to reduce carbon footprint. Advancements in management, genomics, statistical models and other technologies provide opportunities for recording these phenotypes. These new developments also provide opportunities for making effective use of the new phenotypes for faster genetic improvement to meet the newly adapted breeding goals.

Keywords

breeding goalsvitalityrobustnessuniformitysociety
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , April 2012 , pp. 535 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Ait-Ali, T, Wilson, AD, Westcott, DG, Clapperton, M, Waterfall, M, Mellencamp, MA, Drew, TW, Bishop, SC, Archibald, AL 2007. Innate immune responses to replication of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus in isolated swine alveolar macrophages. Viral Immunology 20, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auvigne, V, Leneveu, P, Jehannin, C, Peltoniemi, O, Sallé, E 2010. Seasonal infertility in sows: a five year field study to analyze the relative roles of heat stress and photoperiod, 02 March 2010. Theriogenology 74, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergsma, R, Kanis, E, Knol, EF, Bijma, P 2008a. The contribution of social effects to heritable variation in finishing traits of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). Genetics 178, 1559–1570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergsma, R, Kanis, E, Verstegen, MWA, Knol, E 2008b. Genetic parameters and predicted selection results for maternal traits related to lactation efficiency in sows. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1067–1080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijma, P, Muir, WM, Van Arendonk, JAM 2007. Multilevel selection 1: quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloemhof, S, Van der Waaij, EH, Merks, JWM, Knol, EF 2008. Sow line differences in heat stress tolerance expressed in reproductive performance traits. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3330–3337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calo, LL, McDowell, RE, Van Vleck, LD, Miller, PD 1973. Genetic aspects of beef production among Holstein–Friesians pedigree selected for milk production. Journal of Animal Science 37, 676–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capper, JL, Cady, RA, Bauman, DE 2009. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2160–2167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dekkers, JCM, Mathur, PK, Knol, EF 2011. Genetic improvement of the pig. In The genetics of the pig (ed. MF Rothschild and A Ruvinsky), 390–425. CAB International, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detilleux, JC 2011. Effectiveness analysis of resistance and tolerance to infection. Genetics Selection Evolution 43, 9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doeschl-Wilson, AB, Kyriazakis, I, Vincent, A, Rothschild, MF, Thacker, E, Galina-Pantoja, L 2009. Clinical and pathological responses of pigs from two genetically diverse commercial lines to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1638–1647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duijvesteijn, N, Knol, EF, Merks, JWM, Crooijmans, RPMA, Groenen, MAM, Bovenhuis, H, Harlizius, B 2010. A genome-wide association study on androstenone levels in pigs reveals a cluster of candidate genes on chromosome 6. BMC Genetics 11, 42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, SA 2005. Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production. Livestock Production Science 94, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA, Casabianca, F 1997. Perception and reality of product quality from outdoor production systems in Northern and Southern Europe. In Livestock farming systems – more than food production (ed. JT Sorensen), EAAP Publication, vol. 89, 145–156. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS 1952. The problem of environment and selection. American Naturalist 86, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamborg, C, Sandøe, P 2005. Sustainability in farm animal breeding: a review. Livestock Production Science 92, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, M, Smith, P, Wilkinson, JM 2010. Mitigating climate change: the role of domestic livestock. Animal 4, 323–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, M 2009. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica 136, 245–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gourdine, JL, de Greef, KH, Rydhmer, L 2010. Breeding for welfare in outdoor pig production: a simulation study. Livestock Science 132, 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbur, P, Rothschild, M, Thacker, B 1998. Differences in susceptibility of Duroc, Hampshire, and Meishan pigs to infection with a high-virulence strain (vr2385) of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV). Journal of Animal Breeding Genetics 115, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S, Luxford, BG 2010. Towards healthy, productive genotypes. AGBU Pig Genetics Workshop, October 2010, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
Hermesch, S, Huisman, AE, Luxford, BG, Graser, HU 2006. Analysis of genotype by feeding level interaction in pigs applying reaction norm models. 8th World Conference on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Contribution 06-03.Google Scholar
Johnson, RK, Nielsen, MK, Casey, DS 1999. Responses in ovulation rate, embryonal survival, and litter traits in swine to 14 generations of selection to increase litter size. Animal Science 7, 541–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, G, Bijma, P 2002. Selection and phenotypic plasticity in evolutionary biology and animal breeding. Livestock Production Science 78, 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, PW 2005. Breeding robust pigs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 763–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, PW, Su, G 2008. Genotype by environment interaction for litter size in pigs as quantified by reaction norms analysis. Animal 2, 1742–1747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knol, EF 2001. Genetic aspects of piglet survival. Doctoral thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Knol, EF, Bergsma, R 2004. Piglet survival and sow efficiency. AGBU Pig Genetics Workshop, November 2004, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
Knol, EF, Mathur, PK, Foxcroft, G 2010. Birth phenotypes in commercial sows: relevance of appropriate genetic understanding for better management. Proceedings of the Banff Pork Seminar, Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Knol, EF, Bloemhof, S, Heerens, L, Tacken, G 2010. Selection against boar taint: slaughter line panel and consumer perceptions. World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I 2011. Opportunities to improve nutrient efficiency in pigs and poultry through breeding. Animal 5, 821–832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leenhouwers, JI, de Almeida, CA Jr, Knol, EF, van der Lende, T 2001. Progress of farrowing and early postnatal pig behavior in relation to genetic merit for pig survival. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1416–1422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathur, PK 2003. Genotype–environment interactions: problems associated with selection for increased production. In Poultry genetics, breeding and biotechnology (ed. WM Muir and SE Aggrey), pp. 83–99. CAB Publishing, Oxon, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merks, JWM 2000. One century of genetic changes in pigs and the future needs. In The challenge of genetic change in animal production (ed. WG Hil, SC Bishop, B McGuirk, JC McKay, G Simm and AJ Webb), pp. 8–19. British Society of Animal Science, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Merks, JWM, Hanenberg, EHAT, Bloemhof, S, Knol, EF 2009. Genetic opportunities for pork production without castration. Animal Welfare 18, 539–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, TH 2009. Accuracy of breeding values of ‘unrelated’ individuals predicted by dense SNP genotyping. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, THE, Hayes, BJ, Goddard, ME 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulder, HA, Bijma, P 2006. Benefits of cooperation between breeding programs in the presence of genotype by environment interaction. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1727–1739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Opriessnig, T, McKeown, NE, Zhou, EM, Meng, XJ, Halbur, PG 2006. Genetic and experimental comparison of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) isolates from cases with and without PCV2-associated lesions provides evidence for differences in virulence. Journal of General Virology 87, 2923–2932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prunier, A, Heinonen, M, Quesnel, H 2010. High physiological demands in intensively raised pigs: impact on health and welfare. Animal 4, 886–898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramos, A, Crooijmans, R, Affara, N, Amaral, A, Archibald, A, Beever, J, Bendixen, C, Churcher, C, Clark, R, Dehais, P 2009. Design of a high density SNP genotyping assay in the pig using SNPs identified and characterized by next generation sequencing technology. PLoS One 4, e6524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauw, WM, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN, Grommers, FJ 1998. Behavioural differences in a long-term selection experiment for litter size in mice. 47th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
D'Eath, RB, Turner, SP, Kurt, E, Evans, G, Thölking, L, Looft, H, Wimmers, K, Murani, E, Klont, R, Foury, A, Ison, SH, Lawrence, AB, Mormède, P 2010. Pigs’ aggressive temperament affects pre-slaughter mixing aggression, stress and meat quality. Animal 4, 604–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandøe, P, Nielsen, BL, Christensen, LG, Sørensen, P 1999. Staying good while playing God – the ethics of breeding farm animals. Animal Welfare 8, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprangers, AMFM, Knol, EF, Heuven, HCM 2010. Piglet survival genetically correlated with longevity in sows. World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
Stalder, KJ, Saxton, AM, Conatser, GE, Serenius, TV 2005. Effect of growth and compositional traits on first parity and lifetime reproductive performance in U.S. Landrace sows. Livestock Production Science 97, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svendsen, J 1992. Perinatal mortality in pigs. Animal Reproduction Science 28, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P, Lawrence, AB 2006. The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Roehe, R, D'Eath, RB, Ison, SH, Farish, M, Jack, MC, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L, Lawrence, AB 2009. Genetic validation of skin injuries in pigs as an indicator of post-mixing aggressiveness and the relationship with aggression under stable social conditions. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3076–3082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Lende, T, Knol, EF, Leenhouwers, JI 2001. Prenatal development as a predisposing factor for perinatal losses in pigs. Reproduction 58, 247–261.Google ScholarPubMed
Van der Waaij, EH, Hazeleger, W, Soede, NM, Laurenssen, BF, Kemp, B 2010. Effect of excessive, hormonally induced intrauterine crowding in the gilt on fetal development on day 40 of pregnancy. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2611–2619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Leengoed, L, Postma, M, van Geijlswijk, IM, Feitsma, H, Meijer, E, van Groenland, GJ, Mevius, D 2010. Transparent decision making about antibiotic therapy in pigs [Article in Dutch]. Tijdschrift Voor Diergeneeskunde 135, 282–289.Google ScholarPubMed
Vincent, AL, Thacker, BJ, Halbur, PG, Rothschild, MF, Thacker, EL 2006. An investigation of susceptibility to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus between two genetically diverse commercial lines of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wegener, HC 2003. Antibiotics in animal feed and their role in resistance development. Microbiology 6, 439–445.Google ScholarPubMed
White, BR 2010. Swine symposium: environmental concerns based on swine production. Journal of Animal Science 88, E82–E83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittemore, CT, Fawcett, RH 1976. Theoretical aspects of a flexible model to stimulate protein and lipid growth in pigs. Animal Production 22, 87–96.Google Scholar