Effects of correcting missing daily feed intake values on the genetic parameters and estimated breeding values for feeding traits in pigs

Abstract

Daily feed intake (DFI) is an important consideration for improving feed efficiency, but measurements using electronic feeder systems contain many missing and incorrect values. Therefore, we evaluated three methods for correcting missing DFI data (quadratic, orthogonal polynomial, and locally weighted (Loess) regression equations) and assessed the effects of these missing values on the genetic parameters and the estimated breeding values (EBV) for feeding traits. DFI records were obtained from 1622 Duroc pigs, comprising 902 individuals without missing DFI and 720 individuals with missing DFI. The Loess equation was the most suitable method for correcting the missing DFI values in 5–50% randomly deleted datasets among the three equations. Both variance components and heritability for the average DFI (ADFI) did not change because of the missing DFI proportion and Loess correction. In terms of rank correlation and information criteria, Loess correction improved the accuracy of EBV for ADFI compared to randomly deleted cases. These findings indicate that the Loess equation is useful for correcting missing DFI values for individual pigs and that the correction of missing DFI values could be effective for the estimation of breeding values and genetic improvement using EBV for feeding traits.

Genetic Analysis of Major Production and Reproduction Traits of Korean Duroc, Landrace and Yorkshire Pigs

“…Lopez et al also had an h 2 of 0.35, further supporting our values [15]. In other studies, consistent h 2 estimates were published in Duroc pigs (0.53 ± 0.15) [33], as well as in Landrace (0.54 ± 0.01) and Yorkshire pigs (0.45 ± 0.01) [14]. Other reports in different breeds showed overall agreement, presenting values between 0.38 and 0.61 [1,27,28,32,[34][35][36][37].…”

“…There was also partial agreement with Miar et al [28], with their similar lower estimate between ADG and subcutaneous backfat depth in commercial crossbred pigs. Nonetheless, several other published figures, such as those ranging from −0.21 to −0.47 in Akanno et al [38], −0.19 in Chang et al [39] and 0.35 ± 0.18 in Ito et al [33], were found to be inconsistent with ours. In this regard, Clutter [21] stated that the genetic association of these two traits is determined by how closely each of these traits is linked to feed intake versus the ability to partition energy intake towards lean tissue development.…”

Maternal effect on body measurement and meat production traits in purebred Duroc pigs

“…Using an animal model ignoring it, Ito et al. (2018) reported direct heritabilities of 0.45 for ADG, 0.53 for BF and 0.35 for LMA. Hoque et al.…”

Heritability and genetic correlation estimates of semen production traits with litter traits and pork production traits in purebred Duroc pigs

“…In Japan, efforts have been made to improve pork productivity and quality in Duroc pig populations ( Suzuki et al, 2005a ; Ohnishi and Satoh, 2018 ; Yazaki et al, 2020 ). To achieve more efficient pork production, it is important to improve feed efficiency ( Hoque et al, 2007 ; Ito et al, 2018 ; Homma et al, 2021 ) and reproductive efficiency, such as increasing litter size ( Tomiyama et al, 2011 ; Konta et al, 2019 ; Ogawa et al, 2019b ) and using artificial insemination techniques ( González-Peña et al, 2015 , 2016 ; Krupa et al, 2020 ). In regard to semen production traits, including semen volume ( VOL ) and total number of sperm ( NUM ) per ejaculate, previous studies have estimated genetic parameters by using a repeatability animal model (0.1–0.3; Wolf, 2010 ; Marques et al, 2017 ; Zhao et al, 2019 ), and moderate heritabilities were often estimated ( Zak et al, 2017 ).…”