Selection for placental efficiency in swine: Genetic parameters and trends

Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 83, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 983-991

  Mesa, H ^a   Safranski, T J ^a   Fischer, K A ^a   Cammack, K M ^a   Lamberson, W R ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b 159 Animal Sciences Center ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Genetic Parameters; Pigs; Placental Efficiency; Selection

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 30344474531     PISSN: 00218812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2527/2005.835983x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bennett, G. L., and K. A. Leymaster. 1989. Integration of ovulation rate, potential embryonic viability and uterine capacity into a model of litter size in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 67:1230-1241.
2. Bennett, G. L., and K. A. Leymaster. 1990a. Genetic implications of a simulation model of litter size in swine based on ovulation rate, potential embryonic viability and uterine capacity: I. Genetic theory. J. Anim. Sci. 68:969-979.
3. Bennett, G. L., and K. A. Leymaster, 1990b. Genetic implications of a simulation model of litter size in swine based on ovulation rate, potential embryonic viability and uterine capacity: II. Simulated selection. J. Anim. Sci. 68:980-986.
4. Bidanel, J. P., J. Gruand, and C. Legault. 1994. An overview of twenty years of selection for litter size in pigs using "hyperprolific" schemes. Pages 512-515 in Proc. 5th World Cong. Genet. Appl. Livestock Prod., Guelph, Canada.
5. Biensen, N. J., M. E. Wilson, and S. P. Ford. 1999. The impacts of uterine environment and fetal genotype on conceptus size and placental vascularity during late gestation in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 77:954-959.
6. Boldman, K. G., L. A. Kriese, L. D. Van Vleck, and S. D. Kachman. 1995. A manual for use of MTDFREML, a set of programs to obtain estimates of variances and covariances. ARS, USDA, Washington, DC.
7. Chen, P., T. J. Baas, J. W. Mabry, K. J. Koehler, and J. C. M. Dekkers. 2003. Genetic parameters and trends for litter traits in U.S. Yorkshire, Duroc, Hampshire, and Landrace pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 81:46-53.
8. Christenson, R. K., K. A. Leymaster, and L. D. Young. 1987. Justification of unilateral hysterectomy-ovariectomy as a model to evaluate uterine capacity in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 65:738-744.
9. Grandinson, K., M. S. Lund, L. Rydhmer, and E. Strandberg. 2002. Genetic parameters for the piglet mortality traits crushing, still-birth and total mortality, and their relation to birth weight. Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. A Anim. Sci. 52:167-173.
10. Gunsett, F. C. 1984. Linear index selection to improve traits defined as ratios. J. Anim. Sci. 59:1185-1193.
11. Irgang, R., J. A. Favero, and B. W. Kennedy. 1994. Genetic parameters for litter size of different parities in Duroc, Landrace, and Large White sows. J. Anim. Sci. 72:2237-2246.
12. Johnson, R. K., M. K. Nielsen, and D. S. Casey. 1999. Responses in ovulation rate, embryonal survival, and litter traits in swine to 14 generations of selection to increase litter size. J. Anim. Sci. 77:541-557.
13. Kim, J. G., J. L. Vallet, and R. K. Christenson. 2001. Characterization of uterine epidermal growth factor during early pregnancy in pigs. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 20:253-265.
14. Knol, E. F., B. J. Ducro, J. A. M. Arendonk, and T. van der Lende. 2002. Direct, maternal and nurse sow genetic effects on farrowing-, pre-weaning- and total piglet survival. Livest. Prod. Sci. 73:153-164.
15. Lamberson, W. R. 1990. Genetic parameters for reproductive traits. Pages 70-76 in Genetics of Swine. L. D. Young, ed. Publication NC-103. Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln.
16. Lamberson, W. R., and R. K. Johnson. 1984. Preweaning survival in swine: Heritability of direct and maternal effects. J. Anim. Sci. 59:346-349.
17. Legault, C. 1983. Breeding for larger litters in swine. Pages 1-26 in Pork Industry Conf., Urbana, IL. University of Illinois, Urbana.
18. Mesa, H., T. J. Safranski, R. K. Johnson, and W. R. Lamberson. 2003. Correlated response in placental efficiency in swine selected for an index of components of litter size. J. Anim. Sci. 81:74-79.
19. Moeller, S. J., R. N. Goodwin, R. K. Johnson, J. W. Mabry, T. J. Baas, and O. W. Robison. 2004. The National Pork Producers Council Maternal Line National Genetic Evaluation Program: A comparison of six maternal genetic lines for female productivity measures over four parities. J. Anim. Sci. 82:41-53.
20. NRC. 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. 9th ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
21. Pearson, P. L., H. G. Klemcke, R. K. Christenson, and J. L. Vallet, 1998. Uterine environment and breed effects on erythropoiesis and liver protein secretion in late embryonic and early fetal swine. Biol. Reprod. 58:911-918.
22. Quiniou, N., J. Dagorn, and D. Gaudré. 2002. Variation of piglets' birth weight and consequences on subsequent performance. Livest. Prod. Sci. 78:63-70.
23. Roehe, R. 1999. Genetic determination of individual birth weight and its association with sow productivity traits using Bayesian analyses. J. Anim. Sci. 77:330-343.
24. Ruíz-Flores, A., and R. K. Johnson. 2001. Direct and correlated responses to two-stage selection for ovulation rate and number of fully formed pigs at birth in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2286-2297.
25. Rydhmer, L. 2000. Genetics of sow reproduction, including puberty, oestrus, pregnancy, farrowing and lactation. Livest. Prod. Sci. 66:1-12.
26. See, M. T., J. W. Mabry, and J. K. Bertrand. 1993. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of variance components from field data for number of pigs born alive. J. Anim. Sci. 71:2905-2909.
27. Southwood, O. I., and B. W. Kennedy. 1990. Estimation of direct and maternal genetic variance for litter size in Canadian Yorkshire and Landrace swine using an animal model. J. Anim. Sci. 68:1841-1847.
28. Southwood, O. I., and B. W. Kennedy. 1991. Genetic and environmental trends for litter size in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3177-3182.
29. Tess, M. W., G. L. Bennett, and G. E. Dickerson. 1983. Simulation of genetic changes in life cycle efficiency of pork production. II. Effects of components on efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 56:354-368.
30. USDA. 2002. Part III: Reference of swine health and environmental management in the United States, 2000. USDA:APHIS:VS, CEAH, Natl. Anim. Health Monitoring System. #N361.0902, Fort Collins, CO.
31. Vallet, J. L. 2000. Fetal erythropoiesis and other factors which influence uterine capacity in swine. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 17:1-26.
32. Vallet, J. L., and R. K. Christenson. 1993. Uterine space affects placental protein secretion in swine. Biol. Reprod. 48:575-584.
33. Vallet, J. L., K. A. Leymaster, J. P. Cassady, and R. K. Christenson. 2001. Are the hematocrit and placental efficiency selection tools for uterine capacity in swine? J. Anim. Sci. 79(Suppl. 2):89. (Abstr.)
34. Webb, A. J. 1998. Objectives and strategies in pig improvement: An applied perspective. J. Dairy Sci. 81:36-46.
35. Wilson, M. E., N. J. Biensen, and S. P. Ford. 1999. Novel insight into control of litter size in pigs, using placental efficiency as a selection tool. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1654-1658.