Genotyping both live and dead animals to improve post‑weaning survival of pigs in breeding programs

Background In this study, we tested whether genotyping both live and dead animals (GSD) realises more genetic gain for post-weaning survival (PWS) in pigs compared to genotyping only live animals (GOS).Methods Stochastic simulation was used to estimate the rate of genetic gain realised by GSD and GOS at a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding in three breeding schemes, which differed in PWS (95%, 90% and 50%) and litter size (6 and 10). Pedigree-based selection was conducted as a point of reference. Variance components were estimated and then estimated breeding values (EBV) were obtained in each breeding scheme using a linear or a threshold model. Selection was for a single trait, i.e. PWS with a heritability of 0.02 on the observed scale. The trait was simulated on the underlying scale and was recorded as binary (0/1). Selection candidates were genotyped and phenotypes before selection, with only live candidates eligible for selection. Genotyping strategies differed in the proportion of live and dead animals genotyped, but the phenotypes of all animals were used for predicting EBV of the selection candidates.Results Based on a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding, GSD realised 14 to 33% more genetic gain than GOS for all breeding schemes depending on PWS and litter size. GSD increased the prediction accuracy of EBV for PWS by at least 14% compared to GOS. The use of a linear versus a threshold model did not have an impact on genetic gain for PWS regardless of the genotyping strategy and the bias of the EBV did not differ significantly among genotyping strategies.Conclusions Genotyping both dead and live animals was more informative than genotyping only live animals to predict the EBV for PWS of selection candidates, but with marginal increases in genetic gain when the proportion of dead animals genotyped was 60% or greater. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to use genomic information on both live and more than 20% dead animals to compute EBV for the genetic improvement of PWS under the assumption that dead animals reflect increased liability on the underlying scale.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
RUNE (Research UNE)
Published
2024-09-18
Primary Topic
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Genotyping both live and dead animals to improve post‑weaning survival of pigs in breeding programs

Susanne Hermesch, Julius Herman Van Der Werf, Md Sharif-Islam
RUNE (Research UNE)
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
article

Genotyping both live and dead animals to improve post‑weaning survival of pigs in breeding programs

Susanne Hermesch, Julius Herman Van Der Werf, Md Sharif-Islam
article en

Abstract

Background In this study, we tested whether genotyping both live and dead animals (GSD) realises more genetic gain for post-weaning survival (PWS) in pigs compared to genotyping only live animals (GOS).Methods Stochastic simulation was used to estimate the rate of genetic gain realised by GSD and GOS at a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding in three breeding schemes, which differed in PWS (95%, 90% and 50%) and litter size (6 and 10). Pedigree-based selection was conducted as a point of reference. Variance components were estimated and then estimated breeding values (EBV) were obtained in each breeding scheme using a linear or a threshold model. Selection was for a single trait, i.e. PWS with a heritability of 0.02 on the observed scale. The trait was simulated on the underlying scale and was recorded as binary (0/1). Selection candidates were genotyped and phenotypes before selection, with only live candidates eligible for selection. Genotyping strategies differed in the proportion of live and dead animals genotyped, but the phenotypes of all animals were used for predicting EBV of the selection candidates.Results Based on a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding, GSD realised 14 to 33% more genetic gain than GOS for all breeding schemes depending on PWS and litter size. GSD increased the prediction accuracy of EBV for PWS by at least 14% compared to GOS. The use of a linear versus a threshold model did not have an impact on genetic gain for PWS regardless of the genotyping strategy and the bias of the EBV did not differ significantly among genotyping strategies.Conclusions Genotyping both dead and live animals was more informative than genotyping only live animals to predict the EBV for PWS of selection candidates, but with marginal increases in genetic gain when the proportion of dead animals genotyped was 60% or greater. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to use genomic information on both live and more than 20% dead animals to compute EBV for the genetic improvement of PWS under the assumption that dead animals reflect increased liability on the underlying scale.

RUNE (Research UNE)
Aarhus Universitet, University of New England, NSW Department of Primary Industries
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Genotyping both live and dead animals to improve post‑weaning survival of pigs in breeding programs — Susanne Hermesch, Julius Herman Van Der Werf, et al. · RUNE (Research UNE) (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS