Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T06:28:32.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An effective rotational mating scheme for inbreeding reduction in captive populations illustrated by the rare sheep breed Kempisch Heideschaap

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

J. J. Windig  and
L. Kaal
J. J. Windig*
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
L. Kaal
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
E-mail: jack.windig@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

Within breeds and other captive populations, the risk of high inbreeding rates and loss of diversity can be high within (small) herds or subpopulations. When exchange of animals between different subpopulations is organised according to a rotational mating scheme, inbreeding rates can be restricted. Two such schemes, a breeding circle and a maximum avoidance of inbreeding scheme, are compared. In a breeding circle, flocks are organised in a circle where each flock serves as a donor flock for another flock, and the same donor–recipient combination is used in each breeding season. In the maximum inbreeding avoidance scheme, donor–recipient combinations change each year so that the use of the same combination is postponed as long as possible. Data from the Kempisch Heideschaap were used with computer simulations to determine the long-term effects of different breeding schemes. Without exchanging rams between flocks, high inbreeding rates (>1.5% per year) occurred. Both rotational mating schemes reduced inbreeding rates to on average 0.16% per year and variation across flocks in inbreeding rates, caused by differences in flock size, almost disappeared. Inbreeding rates with maximum inbreeding avoidance were more variable than with a breeding circle. Moreover, a breeding circle is easier to implement and operate. Breeding circles are thus efficient and flexible and can also be efficient for other captive populations, such as zoo populations of endangered wild species.

Keywords

agrobiodiversitysheepinbreeding restrictiongenetic managementcaptive populations
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 12 , December 2008 , pp. 1733 - 1741
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

Alderson, L 1990. The relevance of genetic improvement programmes within a policy for genetic conservation. In Genetic conservation of domestic livestock (ed. L Alderson), p. 242. CAB International, Oxon.Google Scholar
Boakes, EH, Wang, J, Amos, W 2007. An investigation of inbreeding depression and purging in captive pedigreed populations. Heredity 98, 172–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caballero, A, Santiago, E, Toro, MA 1996. Systems of mating to reduce inbreeding in selected populations. Animal Science 62, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevalet, C, De Rochambeau, H 1985. Predicting the genetic drift in small populations. Livestock Production Science 13, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rochambeau, H, Chevalet, C 1985. Minimisation des coefficients de consanguinité moyens dans les petites populations d’animaux domestiques [Minimizing inbreeding rates in small populations of domestic species]. Genetics Selection Evolution 17, 459–480.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS, Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Group, Harlow.Google Scholar
Farid, A, Makarechian, M, Strobeck, C 1987. Inbreeding under a cyclical mating system. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 73, 506–515.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization 1998. Secondary guidelines for the management of small populations at risk. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Goyache, F, Gutierrez, JP, Fernandez, I, Gomez, E, Alvarez, I, Diez, J, Royo, LJ 2003. Using pedigree information to monitor genetic variability of endangered populations: the Xalda sheep breed of Asturias as an example. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 120, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, M, Meuwissen, T, Vangen, O 2005. The effect of fast created inbreeding on litter size and body weights in mice. Genetics Selection Evolution 37, 523–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honda, T, Nomura, T, Mukai, F 2004. Reduction of inbreeding in commercial females by rotational mating with several sire lines. Genetics Selection Evolution 36, 509–526.Google Scholar
Kimura, M, Crow, JF 1963. On the maximum avoidance of inbreeding. Genetical Research 4, 399–415.Google Scholar
Lewis, RM, Simm, G 2000. Selection strategies in sire referencing schemes in sheep. Livestock Production Science 67, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, THE 1997. Maximizing the response of selection with a predefined rate of inbreeding. Journal of Animal Science 75, 934–940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, THE, Woolliams, JA 1994. Effective sizes of livestock populations to prevent a decline in fitness. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 89, 1019–1026.Google Scholar
Montgomery, ME, Ballou, JD, Nurthen, RK, England, PR, Briscoe, DA, Frankham, R 1997. Minimizing kinship in captive breeding programs. Zoo Biology 16, 377–389.Google Scholar
Oldenbroek, K 2007. Utilisation and conservation of farm animal genetic resources. Wageningen Academic publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliehoek, PA, Windig, JJ, van Arendonk, JAM, Bijma, P 2006. Estimating relatedness between individuals in general populations with a focus on their use in conservation programs. Genetics 173, 483–496.Google Scholar
Roden, JA 1996. A comparison of alternative nucleus breeding systems and a sire referencing scheme for sheep improvement. Animal Science 62, 265–270.Google Scholar
Sanchez, L, Bijma, P, Woolliams, JA 2003. Minimizing inbreeding by managing genetic contributions across generations. Genetics 164, 1589–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellema, P 2002. Verplichte inzet ARR/ARR-rammen vanaf 1 juli 2004. Het Schaap 3, 16–17.Google Scholar
Windig, JJ, Eding, H, Moll, L, Kaal, L 2004. Effects on inbreeding of different strategies aimed at eliminating scrapie sensitivity alleles in rare sheep breeds in The Netherlands. Animal Science 79, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windig, JJ, Meuleman, H, Kaal, L 2007. Selection for scrapie resistance and simultaneous restriction of inbreeding in the rare sheep breed “Mergellander”. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 78, 161–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolliams, JA 2007. Genetic contributions and inbreeding. In Utilisation and conservation of farm animal genetic resources (ed. K Oldenbroek), pp. 147–165. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolliams, JA, Bijma, P 2000. Predicting rates of inbreeding: in populations undergoing selection. Genetics 154, 1851–1864.Google Scholar
Woolliams, JA, Bijma, P, Villanueva, B 1999. Expected genetic contributions and their impact on gene flow and genetic gain. Genetics 153, 1009–1020.Google Scholar
Wright, S 1921. Systems of mating. Genetics 6, 111–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S 1938. Size of populations and breeding structure in relation to evolution. Science 87, 430–431.Google Scholar