Impact of dominance effects on sow longevity

Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics

Volumn 123, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 355-361

  Serenius, T ^a,b   Stalder, K J ^a   Puonti, M ^c  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c Finnish Animal Breeding Association   (Finland)

Author keywords

Crossbred model; Dominance variation; Genetic correlation; Longevity; Pig; Stayability

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BREEDING; CROSS BREEDING; DOMINANT GENE; FEMALE; FINLAND; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; LITTER SIZE; LONGEVITY; MALE; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; SWINE;

ANIMALS; BREEDING; CROSSES, GENETIC; FEMALE; FINLAND; GENES, DOMINANT; LITTER SIZE; LONGEVITY; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE; SUS SCROFA; VARIATION (GENETICS);

ANIMALIA; PIERIS BRASSICAE; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 33845451107     PISSN: 09312668     EISSN: 14390388     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2006.00614.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bijma P., Woolliams I.A., van Arendonk J.A.M. (2001) Genetic gain of pure line selection and combined crossbred purebred selection with constrained inbreeding. Anon. Sci., 72, 225-232.
2. Boesch M.R., Looft R., Kalm H. (1998) Estimation of the genetic association between purebred and crossbred performance for litter size in pigs. In: Proc. 6th World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Armidale, Australia, Vol. 23, pp. 595-598.
3. FABA (2002) Kotielainjalostuksen Tilastokirja (Animal Breeding Statistics). Finnish Animal Breeding Association, Vantaa, Finland.
4. Falconer D.S., Mackay T.F.C. (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th edn. Longman Group Limited, Harlow, UK.
5. Hoeschele I., van Raden P.M. (1991) Rapid inversion of dominance relationship matrices for noninbred populations by including sire by dam subclass effects. J. Dairy Sci., 74, 557-569.
6. Lo L.L., Fernando R.L., Grossman M. (1997) Genetic evaluation by BLUP in two-breed terminal crossbreeding systems under dominance. J. Anim. Sci., 75, 2877-2884.
7. Lutaaya E.M., Mabry J.W., Short T., Timm H.H., Holzbauer R. (2001) Genetic parameter estimates from joint evaluation of purebreds and crossbreds in swine using the crossbred model. J. Anim. Sci, 79, 3002-3007.
8. Misztal I. (1998) REMLF90 Manual. Available at http://nce.ads.uga.edu/ ~ignacy/newprograms.html (accessed on 15 June 2006).
9. Misztal I., Besbes B. (2000) Estimates of parental-dominance and full-sib permanent environment variances in laying hens. Anim. Sci., 71, 421-426.
10. Pante M.J.R., Gjerde B., McMillan I., Misztal I. (2002) Estimation of additive and dominance genetic variances for body weight at harvest in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture, 204, 383-392.
11. Rydhmer L., Johansson K., Eliasson-Selling L., Persson A. (2001) Clinical and genetic studies of disturbed milk production in sows. Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. A. Anim. Sci., 51, 1-6.
12. Serenius T. (2004) Genetics of sow efficiency in the Finnish Landrace and Large White populations. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, Agrifood Research Reports 55.
13. Serenius T., Stalder K.J. (2004) Genetics of length of productive life and lifetime prolificacy in the Finnish Landrace and Large White pig populations. J. Anim. Sci., 82, 3111-3117.
14. Serenius T., Stalder K.J. (2006) Selection for sow longevity. J. Anim. Sci., 84, E166.
15. Serenius T., Sevon-Aimonen M.L., Mäntysaari E.A. (2001) The genetics of leg weakness in Finnish Large White and Landrace populations. Livest. Prod. Sci., 69, 101-111.
16. Serenius T., Sevon-Aimonen M.L., Kause A., Mäntysaari E.A., Mäki-Tanila A. (2004) Selection potential of different prolificacy traits in the Finnish Landrace and Large White populations. Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. A. Anim. Sci., 54, 36-43.
17. Smith S.P., Mäki-Tanila A. (1990) Genotypic covariance matrices and their inverses for models allowing dominance and inbreeding. Genet. Sel. Evol., 22, 65-91.
18. Täubert H., Brandt H., Glodek P. (1998) Estimation of genetic parameters for farrowing traits in purebred and crossbred sows and estimation of their genetic relationship. Proc. 6th World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., 23, 579-582, Armidale, Australia.
19. Tholen E., Bunter K.L., Hermesch S., Graser H.U. (1996) The genetic foundation of fitness and reproduction traits in Australian pig populations. 1. Genetic parameters for weaning to conception interval, farrowing interval, and stayability. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 47, 1261-1274.
20. Tsuruta S., Misztal I. (2000) AIREMLF90 Manual. Available at http://nce.ads.uga.edu/~ignacy/newprograms.html (accessed on 6 September 2006).
21. Varona L., Misztal I. (1999) Prediction of parental dominance combinations for planned matings, methodology and simulation results. J. Dairy Sci., 82, 2186-2191.
22. Yazdi M.H., Lundeheim N., Rydhmer L., Ringmar-Cederberg E., Johansson K. (2000) Survival of Swedish Landrace and Yorkshire sows in relation to osteochondrosis: a genetic study. Anim. Sci., 71, 1-9.