Genetics Selection Evolution (Sep 2024)

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

  • Md Sharif-Islam,
  • Julius H. J. van der Werf,
  • Mark Henryon,
  • Thinh Tuan Chu,
  • Benjamin J. Wood,
  • Susanne Hermesch

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-024-00932-4
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 56, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

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 phenotyped 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.