Loading…

Optimal definition of contemporary groups for crossbred pigs in a joint purebred and crossbred genetic evaluation

In the pig industry, purebred animals are raised in nucleus herds and selected to produce crossbred progeny to perform in commercial environments. Crossbred and purebred performances are different, correlated traits. All purebreds in a pen have their performance assessed together at the end of a per...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of animal science 2021-01, Vol.99 (1)
Main Authors: Steyn, Yvette, Lourenco, Daniela A, Chen, Ching-Yi, Valente, Bruno D, Holl, Justin, Herring, William O, Misztal, Ignacy
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 99
creator Steyn, Yvette
Lourenco, Daniela A
Chen, Ching-Yi
Valente, Bruno D
Holl, Justin
Herring, William O
Misztal, Ignacy
description In the pig industry, purebred animals are raised in nucleus herds and selected to produce crossbred progeny to perform in commercial environments. Crossbred and purebred performances are different, correlated traits. All purebreds in a pen have their performance assessed together at the end of a performance test. However, only selected crossbreds are removed (based on visual inspection) and measured at different times creating many small contemporary groups (CGs). This may reduce estimated breeding value (EBV) prediction accuracies. Considering this sequential recording of crossbreds, the objective was to investigate the impact of different CG definitions on genetic parameters and EBV prediction accuracy for crossbred traits. Growth rate (GP) and ultrasound backfat (BFP) records were available for purebreds. Lifetime growth (GX) and backfat (BFX) were recorded on crossbreds. Different CGs were tested: CG_all included farm, sex, birth year, and birth week; CG_week added slaughter week; and CG_day used slaughter day instead of week. Data of 124,709 crossbreds were used. The purebred phenotypes (62,274 animals) included three generations of purebred ancestors of these crossbreds and their CG mates. Variance components for four-trait models with different CG definitions were estimated with average information restricted maximum likelihood. Purebred traits' variance components remained stable across CG definitions and varied slightly for BFX. Additive genetic variances (and heritabilities) for GX fluctuated more: 812 ± 36 (0.28 ± 0.01), 257 ± 15 (0.17 ± 0.01), and 204 ± 13 (0.15 ± 0.01) for CG_all, CG_week, and CG_day, respectively. Age at slaughter (AAS) and hot carcass weight (HCW) adjusted for age were investigated as alternatives for GX. Both have potential for selection but lower heritabilities compared with GX: 0.21 ± 0.01 (0.18 ± 0.01), 0.16 ± 0.02 (0.16 + 0.01), and 0.10 ± 0.01 (0.14 ± 0.01) for AAS (HCW) using CG_all, CG_week, and CG_day, respectively. The predictive ability, linear regression (LR) accuracy, bias, and dispersion of crossbred traits in crossbreds favored CG_day, but correlations with unadjusted phenotypes favored CG_all. In purebreds, CG_all showed the best LR accuracy, while showing small relative differences in bias and dispersion. Different CG scenarios showed no relevant impact on BFX EBV. This study shows that different CG definitions may affect evaluation stability and animal ranking. Results suggest that ignoring slaughter dates
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_33515474</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>33515474</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-pubmed_primary_335154743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFjssKwjAQRYMgtj5-QeYHCm3TKK5FcefGfYnNtKS0SZykQv_eBwruXN3FPRzOhMWZyEXCsw2P2Nz7Nk2zXOzEjEWci0wU2yJmt7MLupcdKKy10UFbA7aGypqAvbMkaYSG7OA81JagIuv9lVCB040HbUBCa7UJ4AbC9yGN-sEaNBh0BXiX3SBf-iWb1rLzuPrsgq2Ph8v-lLjh2qMqHT17aCy_jfwv8ADD-Emf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Optimal definition of contemporary groups for crossbred pigs in a joint purebred and crossbred genetic evaluation</title><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Steyn, Yvette ; Lourenco, Daniela A ; Chen, Ching-Yi ; Valente, Bruno D ; Holl, Justin ; Herring, William O ; Misztal, Ignacy</creator><creatorcontrib>Steyn, Yvette ; Lourenco, Daniela A ; Chen, Ching-Yi ; Valente, Bruno D ; Holl, Justin ; Herring, William O ; Misztal, Ignacy</creatorcontrib><description>In the pig industry, purebred animals are raised in nucleus herds and selected to produce crossbred progeny to perform in commercial environments. Crossbred and purebred performances are different, correlated traits. All purebreds in a pen have their performance assessed together at the end of a performance test. However, only selected crossbreds are removed (based on visual inspection) and measured at different times creating many small contemporary groups (CGs). This may reduce estimated breeding value (EBV) prediction accuracies. Considering this sequential recording of crossbreds, the objective was to investigate the impact of different CG definitions on genetic parameters and EBV prediction accuracy for crossbred traits. Growth rate (GP) and ultrasound backfat (BFP) records were available for purebreds. Lifetime growth (GX) and backfat (BFX) were recorded on crossbreds. Different CGs were tested: CG_all included farm, sex, birth year, and birth week; CG_week added slaughter week; and CG_day used slaughter day instead of week. Data of 124,709 crossbreds were used. The purebred phenotypes (62,274 animals) included three generations of purebred ancestors of these crossbreds and their CG mates. Variance components for four-trait models with different CG definitions were estimated with average information restricted maximum likelihood. Purebred traits' variance components remained stable across CG definitions and varied slightly for BFX. Additive genetic variances (and heritabilities) for GX fluctuated more: 812 ± 36 (0.28 ± 0.01), 257 ± 15 (0.17 ± 0.01), and 204 ± 13 (0.15 ± 0.01) for CG_all, CG_week, and CG_day, respectively. Age at slaughter (AAS) and hot carcass weight (HCW) adjusted for age were investigated as alternatives for GX. Both have potential for selection but lower heritabilities compared with GX: 0.21 ± 0.01 (0.18 ± 0.01), 0.16 ± 0.02 (0.16 + 0.01), and 0.10 ± 0.01 (0.14 ± 0.01) for AAS (HCW) using CG_all, CG_week, and CG_day, respectively. The predictive ability, linear regression (LR) accuracy, bias, and dispersion of crossbred traits in crossbreds favored CG_day, but correlations with unadjusted phenotypes favored CG_all. In purebreds, CG_all showed the best LR accuracy, while showing small relative differences in bias and dispersion. Different CG scenarios showed no relevant impact on BFX EBV. This study shows that different CG definitions may affect evaluation stability and animal ranking. Results suggest that ignoring slaughter dates in CG is more appropriate for estimating crossbred trait EBV for purebred animals.</description><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33515474</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Animals ; Hybridization, Genetic ; Models, Genetic ; Phenotype ; Swine - genetics</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2021-01, Vol.99 (1)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33515474$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Steyn, Yvette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lourenco, Daniela A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Ching-Yi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valente, Bruno D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holl, Justin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herring, William O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misztal, Ignacy</creatorcontrib><title>Optimal definition of contemporary groups for crossbred pigs in a joint purebred and crossbred genetic evaluation</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><description>In the pig industry, purebred animals are raised in nucleus herds and selected to produce crossbred progeny to perform in commercial environments. Crossbred and purebred performances are different, correlated traits. All purebreds in a pen have their performance assessed together at the end of a performance test. However, only selected crossbreds are removed (based on visual inspection) and measured at different times creating many small contemporary groups (CGs). This may reduce estimated breeding value (EBV) prediction accuracies. Considering this sequential recording of crossbreds, the objective was to investigate the impact of different CG definitions on genetic parameters and EBV prediction accuracy for crossbred traits. Growth rate (GP) and ultrasound backfat (BFP) records were available for purebreds. Lifetime growth (GX) and backfat (BFX) were recorded on crossbreds. Different CGs were tested: CG_all included farm, sex, birth year, and birth week; CG_week added slaughter week; and CG_day used slaughter day instead of week. Data of 124,709 crossbreds were used. The purebred phenotypes (62,274 animals) included three generations of purebred ancestors of these crossbreds and their CG mates. Variance components for four-trait models with different CG definitions were estimated with average information restricted maximum likelihood. Purebred traits' variance components remained stable across CG definitions and varied slightly for BFX. Additive genetic variances (and heritabilities) for GX fluctuated more: 812 ± 36 (0.28 ± 0.01), 257 ± 15 (0.17 ± 0.01), and 204 ± 13 (0.15 ± 0.01) for CG_all, CG_week, and CG_day, respectively. Age at slaughter (AAS) and hot carcass weight (HCW) adjusted for age were investigated as alternatives for GX. Both have potential for selection but lower heritabilities compared with GX: 0.21 ± 0.01 (0.18 ± 0.01), 0.16 ± 0.02 (0.16 + 0.01), and 0.10 ± 0.01 (0.14 ± 0.01) for AAS (HCW) using CG_all, CG_week, and CG_day, respectively. The predictive ability, linear regression (LR) accuracy, bias, and dispersion of crossbred traits in crossbreds favored CG_day, but correlations with unadjusted phenotypes favored CG_all. In purebreds, CG_all showed the best LR accuracy, while showing small relative differences in bias and dispersion. Different CG scenarios showed no relevant impact on BFX EBV. This study shows that different CG definitions may affect evaluation stability and animal ranking. Results suggest that ignoring slaughter dates in CG is more appropriate for estimating crossbred trait EBV for purebred animals.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Hybridization, Genetic</subject><subject>Models, Genetic</subject><subject>Phenotype</subject><subject>Swine - genetics</subject><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFjssKwjAQRYMgtj5-QeYHCm3TKK5FcefGfYnNtKS0SZykQv_eBwruXN3FPRzOhMWZyEXCsw2P2Nz7Nk2zXOzEjEWci0wU2yJmt7MLupcdKKy10UFbA7aGypqAvbMkaYSG7OA81JagIuv9lVCB040HbUBCa7UJ4AbC9yGN-sEaNBh0BXiX3SBf-iWb1rLzuPrsgq2Ph8v-lLjh2qMqHT17aCy_jfwv8ADD-Emf</recordid><startdate>20210101</startdate><enddate>20210101</enddate><creator>Steyn, Yvette</creator><creator>Lourenco, Daniela A</creator><creator>Chen, Ching-Yi</creator><creator>Valente, Bruno D</creator><creator>Holl, Justin</creator><creator>Herring, William O</creator><creator>Misztal, Ignacy</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210101</creationdate><title>Optimal definition of contemporary groups for crossbred pigs in a joint purebred and crossbred genetic evaluation</title><author>Steyn, Yvette ; Lourenco, Daniela A ; Chen, Ching-Yi ; Valente, Bruno D ; Holl, Justin ; Herring, William O ; Misztal, Ignacy</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-pubmed_primary_335154743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Hybridization, Genetic</topic><topic>Models, Genetic</topic><topic>Phenotype</topic><topic>Swine - genetics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Steyn, Yvette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lourenco, Daniela A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Ching-Yi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valente, Bruno D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holl, Justin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herring, William O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misztal, Ignacy</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Steyn, Yvette</au><au>Lourenco, Daniela A</au><au>Chen, Ching-Yi</au><au>Valente, Bruno D</au><au>Holl, Justin</au><au>Herring, William O</au><au>Misztal, Ignacy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Optimal definition of contemporary groups for crossbred pigs in a joint purebred and crossbred genetic evaluation</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><date>2021-01-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>99</volume><issue>1</issue><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>In the pig industry, purebred animals are raised in nucleus herds and selected to produce crossbred progeny to perform in commercial environments. Crossbred and purebred performances are different, correlated traits. All purebreds in a pen have their performance assessed together at the end of a performance test. However, only selected crossbreds are removed (based on visual inspection) and measured at different times creating many small contemporary groups (CGs). This may reduce estimated breeding value (EBV) prediction accuracies. Considering this sequential recording of crossbreds, the objective was to investigate the impact of different CG definitions on genetic parameters and EBV prediction accuracy for crossbred traits. Growth rate (GP) and ultrasound backfat (BFP) records were available for purebreds. Lifetime growth (GX) and backfat (BFX) were recorded on crossbreds. Different CGs were tested: CG_all included farm, sex, birth year, and birth week; CG_week added slaughter week; and CG_day used slaughter day instead of week. Data of 124,709 crossbreds were used. The purebred phenotypes (62,274 animals) included three generations of purebred ancestors of these crossbreds and their CG mates. Variance components for four-trait models with different CG definitions were estimated with average information restricted maximum likelihood. Purebred traits' variance components remained stable across CG definitions and varied slightly for BFX. Additive genetic variances (and heritabilities) for GX fluctuated more: 812 ± 36 (0.28 ± 0.01), 257 ± 15 (0.17 ± 0.01), and 204 ± 13 (0.15 ± 0.01) for CG_all, CG_week, and CG_day, respectively. Age at slaughter (AAS) and hot carcass weight (HCW) adjusted for age were investigated as alternatives for GX. Both have potential for selection but lower heritabilities compared with GX: 0.21 ± 0.01 (0.18 ± 0.01), 0.16 ± 0.02 (0.16 + 0.01), and 0.10 ± 0.01 (0.14 ± 0.01) for AAS (HCW) using CG_all, CG_week, and CG_day, respectively. The predictive ability, linear regression (LR) accuracy, bias, and dispersion of crossbred traits in crossbreds favored CG_day, but correlations with unadjusted phenotypes favored CG_all. In purebreds, CG_all showed the best LR accuracy, while showing small relative differences in bias and dispersion. Different CG scenarios showed no relevant impact on BFX EBV. This study shows that different CG definitions may affect evaluation stability and animal ranking. Results suggest that ignoring slaughter dates in CG is more appropriate for estimating crossbred trait EBV for purebred animals.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>33515474</pmid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 1525-3163
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2021-01, Vol.99 (1)
issn 1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmed_primary_33515474
source Oxford Journals Online; PubMed Central
subjects Animals
Hybridization, Genetic
Models, Genetic
Phenotype
Swine - genetics
title Optimal definition of contemporary groups for crossbred pigs in a joint purebred and crossbred genetic evaluation
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T19%3A01%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Optimal%20definition%20of%20contemporary%20groups%20for%20crossbred%20pigs%20in%20a%20joint%20purebred%20and%20crossbred%20genetic%20evaluation&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Steyn,%20Yvette&rft.date=2021-01-01&rft.volume=99&rft.issue=1&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed%3E33515474%3C/pubmed%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-pubmed_primary_335154743%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/33515474&rfr_iscdi=true