[回上頁 | 顯示此文件為可列印格式]
此文件提供者: shuYing - [評分 : 0.00 (0 票選) | 評分!]
THE TAIWAN PIG PERFORMANCE ON-FARM
TESTING PROGRAM:
CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
TSOU, HUI-LIANG
Pig Research Institute, Taiwan
ABSTRACT
Current. Taiwan’s Pig Performance
On-farm Testing Program including the evaluation of growth and reproduction
performances began in 1980. Since then, over 17,000 heads (including 14,000 pure
breeds) of pig were tested each year in this program.
This number is almost equal to one
third of the pigs which should be tested in Taiwan. Selection indices were
derived on the local economic situation.
Effects. Genetic change analysis
revealed that before 1988 the avg. daily gain from birth (ADG) increased 10-30g,
and the backfat (BF), except Landrace’s, declined 0.14-0.27mm every year.
Indeed, Landrace pigs have improved tremendously for both ADG and BF traits in
recent years.
Problems. Undesirable changes of
the sows’ reproduction, bone structure, appetite, and meat quality have been
criticized in recent years, as were breeding goals and parameter estimation
biases.
Future. Several steps will be taken
to redress undesirable changes and increase selection accuracy in the near
future: such as to adopt combined selection indeices by breed/line, apply a
soundness linear scoring system, use a mixed model statistics procedure, set
and/or add new testing traits, adjust end-test weight, and enhance relationships
with artificial insemination centers and other breeding programs.
INTRODUCTION
Performance testing is the main
motivator to promote genetic improvement in pigs. Three pig performance
testing programs have been adopted in Taiwan: Central Boar Performance Test
Station, Central Progeny Test Station, and On-farm Testing Program (Fig.1). The
pig performance on-farm testing program has been widely adopted by many
pork-producing countries since the 1960’s, such as Ven Diper et al.(1989), Merks
et al. (1988), Roberts et al. (1981) and Lindhe et al. (1980). Its main
purposes are to increase the selection intensity of gilts and/or boars, assist
breeders to proceed with their own breeding schemes and do comparison and
selection between herds, reduce the cost of pig testing, and reduce the chance
of disease transmission. The effects of this program have been confirmed by
many countries during the last three decades.
The pig performance on - farm
testing program in Taiwan was organized by )is. Yen and Dr. Chyr at Pig
Research Institute of Taiwan(PRIT) in 1980. The number of annual on-farm tested
pigs in recent years has increased to over 17,000 heads which was about one
third of the total tested pigs on the whole island. In this paper I will review
some of the aspects of the on-farm performance testing program and its changes,
genetic improvement effects, problems in recent years, and steps which should
be taken in the near future. The relationship of this program with other
performance testing programs, and the comparison of on-farm testing and central
testing systems will also be shown in this text.
DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF
ON-FARM TESTING SYSTEMS IN TAIWAN
*Growth
Performance Evaluation
Testing Procedure. The development
of central testing and on-farm testing procedures is shown in Table 1. The
on-farm testing program became operational in 1980. Small full-sib or paternal
half - sib test group (less than ten), high protein diet (>17%), and
stabilizing feeding system were suggested. The choice of this testing management
and the pigs which were selected for test vere decided by farmers themselves.
The end-test weight was designed to be 90kg for both sexes in the beginning, and
was changed to 110 kg in 1979 and 1982 for central tested boars and on-fare
tested pigs, respectively, due to the 20kg lag between backfat deposition of
boars and barrows(Tsou, 1976).
Data Collecting. For the on-farm
testing program, two technicians visited breeding farms once or twice per month
to measure the ultrasonic backfat thickness (ultrasonic loineye depth was
additionally taken beginning in 1992 for loineye evaluation) and to record body
weight of pigs. The backfat and growth rate were corrected to a constant body
weight by the following formulas before the calculation of selection index (Yen,
1986):
Adjusted age at standard body at.
(AGE)
=Actual age +1.257' (Standard
weight -Actual weight).
Adjusted daily gain from birth to
standard body weight (ADG)
=(Standard weight-1) / (Adjusted
age-l).
Adjusted backfat thickness at
standard body wt. (BF)
=Actual backfat «[(Standard weight/
Actual weight)~~0.5].
Loineye area (LEA)
=10.36 *(ultrasonic loineye depth
at last rib).
where, the standard body weights
for female and male pigs are 90kg and 110 kg, respectively.
The estimated breeding value (EBV)
of a boar from its progeny on-farm testing records was analyzed each year in
order to identify the accuracy of selection (Fig. 2).
The pigs of the Central Boar
Performance Test Station which began in 1975 were tested from 30kg to 90kg body
weight. (Table 1). The animals mere penned individually and fed on a high
protein (cp 17.6%) diet at full feeding scale. In 1979, the end-test weight
whas changed to 110kg. Two-full-sib group test was adopted in 1982 due to the
high incidence of testes injury in small individual pens. Individual avg. daily
gain and fullsibs avg. feeds efficiency during the testing period and avg.
ultrasonic backfat at end-test weight of individual were used to calculate
testing boar’s selection index. In order to evaluate the progenies’ carcass
traits of the central tested boars, the Central Progeny Test Station was
constructed in the south of Taiwan at the Taiwan Livestock Research Institute,
in 1989. A full-sib progeny unit which contains two boars and one gilt of a
central tested boar was individually tested in this station. The gilt was
slaughtered at the end of its performance test to collect carcass data.
Selection Index. In the beginning
of operation, local phenotypic and genotypic parameters of tested traits were
not available for central test boars and on-farm tests; therefore, the selection
indices of the Iowa Swine Test Station and NLC index of the U.K. were first
adopted, respectively. Chyr (1980) used the local economic value and parameters
(Tables 2, 8) from foreign research papers to build new selection indices and
applied them to both the boar test and on-farm test programs from 1981 and from
1982, respectively. In 1990, Taiwan index of the Central Boar Test Station
were reevaluated for maternal breeds, Landrace and Yorkshire, and were modified
for increasing ADG and reducing BF genetic improvement in order to diminish
reproduction, bone structure problems and reduce production cost (Tsou, 1990b;
Tsou,1991; Chang, 1990).
The relative economic values and
percentage of expected economic peturn of tested traits of the indices used in
Taiwan are shown and compared in Table 2. The economic weight value of backfat
was not larger than for the other two traits. However, the percentage of
expected economic return of backfat in predicated index gain was the highest
one(61.7%)due to its higher heritability and positive correlation with feed
efficiency. Affected selection indices of different test programs are as
follows:
Central Boar Test Station:
1975-1980 I=250+110(ADG)
-50(FE) -19.7(BF)
1981-1991 I=100+
60(ADG-MADG)-40(FE-MFE)-45(BF-MBF)
1992- L,Y:
I=100+130(ADG-MADG)-40(FE-MFE)-40(BF-MBF)
D: I=100+
60(ADG-MADG)-40(FE-MFE)-45(BF-MBF)
On-farm test program:
1980-1982
I=100+242(ADG-MADG)-41.3(BF-MBF)
1982-
I=100+180(ADG-MADG)-50 (BF-MBF)
MADG, MFE, and
MBF represented the moving means of three months for traits of ADG, FE, and BF
by farm, breed, and sex, respectively.
*Reproduction
performance evaluation
A Sow Productivity Index (SPI) from
U. S. National Swine Improvement Federation (NSIF, 1981) has been used to
evaluate the on-farm reproductive performance of sows since 1985.
SPI= 6.5(LSO) +2.2(LW21 in kg.)
where LS0 was litter size at birth
and LW21 was litter weight at 21 days adjusted for parity and number of nursing
piglets.
To predict sows’ reproductive
performance for culled undesirable saws and estimate their breeding value for
progeny selection, new indices were derived by the path analysis method or
traits added onto the SPI base (Tsou, 1989). Three kinds of these sow
productivity indices were classified as shown in Table3.
TIME
TRENDS OF PIG ON-FARM PERFORMANCES
*Change of the
number of annual tested pigs
The number of on-farm tested pigs
from 1980 to 1992 is shown in Table 4. Landrace (L), Duroc (D), and Yorkshire
(Y) are the three main breeds of pig in Taiwan with more than 80% of the total.
This fact indicates that a large part of slaughtered crossed hogs come from
first cross of L´D
and three breeds cross of L´Y
or Y´L
female with D sire.
*Change of
phenotypic performances
Growth performances.
Raw means of avg. daily gain (ADG)
and ultrasonic backfat (BF) of on-farm test gilts by breed and year are shown in
Figure 3 and 4(Tsou et al., 1992). Large selection pressure has increased lean
meat production since 1985. The yearly decline in backfat thickness was about
0.13, 0.1, and 0.07 cm for Landrace, Yorkshire, and Duroc, respectively. The
rate of backfat reduction was highest in L in which the average backfat was
nearly 1.0 cm in 1992. This large improvement was mainly due to the importation
of thinner backfat and fast-growing Norway Landrace.
The avg. daily gain from birth of
gilts increased quickly from 1980 to 1985, and it remained the same for all pigs
except Landrace. In the past three years the ADG of Yorkshire, Duroc, Duroc,
and Hampshire pigs seemed to decline.
However, when data before 1988 were
adjusted by fixed effects of farm, year, season, their interactions, and
end-test weight, the average annual phenotypic changes for ADG and BF both
approached a desirable direction for every breed studied(Table 6). The results
also revealed that Landrace had the largest annual phenotypic gains in both
traits when compared to Yorkshire and Duroc.
Reproduction performance
Table 5 shows the mean reproductive
traits by year and breed during 1987-1992. It indicates that Landrace had the
highest average in all five reproductive traits. As many foreign reference
papers show, Duroc had inferior reproductive performances when compared with the
other two breeds. Litter size at birth varied among years but was arround the
mean by breed. However, the litter size at 21 days decreased greatly after 1990.
The survival rate at 21 days declined almost 15% for all three breeds during the
past three years.
Complaints from farmers of weak
legs, high replacement of gilts, and long heat return of sows after weaning
also have increased in recent years. Skilled Labor shortage, appetite failure,
disease problems, and thin backfat of sows are doubted to be the main causes of
these problems. A total of 14,846 litter records from 11 farms were analyzed
(Tsou, 1990a) to find the relationship between backfat thickness and
reproduction traits. If the backfat thickness of gilts was allocated into four
groups (<1.0, 1.5, 2.0, >2.5cm), it was found that the first farrowing age of
gilts, litter size at birth, and litter size and litter weight at 21 days were
all significantly inferior when backfat was less than 1.0 cm. The highest annual
replacement rate (35.9%) was found in Landrace due to undesirable bone
structure. It seems that leg weakness is correlated with the backfat thickness.
*Genetic
change of on-farm performances
The Smith’s (1962) within-sire
regression on year method was used to evaluate the genetic change of on-farm
performances from 1980 to 1988(Tsou and Kan, 1990). The genetic progress for
actual values was estimated as follows:
6 = 2
´
(bpy - bpy/s)
where bpy is regression of
performance on year and bpy/s is regression of performance on year within sire.
Smith’s method has been applied widely in pig breeding studies (Smith, 1963;
Ollivier, 1974; Zarnecki, 1979; Standal, 1979; David et el., 1985; Tixier and
Sellier, 1986). The comparison of this method and the Henderson’s (1973) mixed
model method have demonstrated an agreement in swine(Zarnecki, 1979; Lundeheim
and Eriksson, 1984).
Table 6 shows that most of the
annual genetic changes were in a favorable tendency except the BF of Landrace.
In general, genetic gains of BF were smaller than those of ADG and had a larger
estimate error. The genetic progress of ADG was larger than the changes of
phenotypic trends which may be overestimated due to unexpected selection and/or
deterioration of uniform environment within farm.
When comparing the genetic change
of on - farm testing traits with other countries (Table 7), the annual genetic
gain of ADG in Taiwan was 10-30g, about 2.3-5.9% per year, about ten times
higher than those shown for others. However, the genetic gain of BF for Taiwan,
except Duroc breed, was lower. Some biases such as assortative mating, selection
on progeny test, or age of dam effects were also involved, but these differences
may be of only minor importance. However, there was not enough information to
discriminate them. More basic items should be added to the data collection in
this program. Table 7 also indicates that annual genetic gains evaluated from
on-farm test data were lower or had larger errors than other kinds of test data.
*Economic
return from pure breeds’ genetic improvement
Economic return in commercial hogs
from on-farm test program pure breeds’ genetic improvement in Taiwan was
evaluated on some assumptions: (1) no heterosis was considered, (2) sixty
percent of market hogs were assumed to be three-breed crossed, and (3) economic
values were the same in the selection index construction. The estimated annual
benefits is about 120 million NT$, about four times the interest in pig breeding
programs (Tsou, 1990d).
Mitchell et al. (1982) estimated a
fifty times annual benefits in the U. K. by a discount rate method. There was a
bigger pig population there than that in Taiwan; beyond that, other factors
such as production systems, interaction between farms, change in correlated
traits, and uncertainty about husbandry and marketing needs may affect these
results (Smith et al., 1982).
LOCAL GENETIC
PARAMETERS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON SELECTION
Tsou et al. (1990) made preliminary
analysis of a population from data of on-farm test, central boar test, and
national nuclear herds. These results, summarized in Table 8, revealed that
phenotypic standard deviations of FE and BF were smaller than those adopted by
Chyr (1980). The small variation of traits obtained may be due to limited
feeding or less feed intake in the local hot climate. Heritabilities in
parentheses of Table 8 were calculated from on-farm test data of 22 farms. They
show a large variation between farms.
Correlations between ADG and FE
were all in median and negative directions either in phenotype or in genotype
for each breed studied. There was a small but significant positive relationship
between ADG and BF. Results also revealled genetically antagonistic effects on
total economic value improvement. It was also found that the FE and BF had
positive relationships for all breeds except Hampshire.
All of these phenotypic and
genotypic parameters varied widely and the actual value was smaller than that
used by the present selection index. If errors of parameter estimates can not be
eliminated, how is the efficiency of selection index influenced? and how to
introduce a new selection index and extend it properly with minimum fuss?
To find the application
sensitivity of selection index, Tsou (1990c)used the Central Boar Test Station
data to do a simulation study. He found that tolerance limit of selection index
is broad when the phenotypic variation of traits was within 40%, or the
heritability varied less than 30%, or genetic correlation changed within 0-0.25,
or the economic weight ranged 50%. The expected genetic gain for each trait
changed less than 10%. However, if many parameters were lower or higher than
those in the selection index construction, the bias of predicted genetic gain
was large. The new selection index formed by these local parameters in Table 7,
however, was almost the same as the present one when the selection rate was
below 10%. On the other hand, the presently used index overestimated the
breeding value of pigs when the selection rate was over 30%. This study also
showed a negative effect of daily feed intake in Yorkshire and Duroc, but was
positive in Landrace. These results suggests that a new selection index should
be constructed for more emphasis on balanced growth, and backfat change and
enhanced appetite.
THE FUTURE
This preliminary analysis indicated
that on-fare selection has succesfully improved growth rate and backfat, while
reproductive traits have shown a small negative trend. Body structure and meat
quality also deteriorated in recent years. Some steps can be taken to redress
undesirable changes and/or increase selection accuracy in the near future, such
as to adopt combined selection indices by breed/line, apply a soundness linear
scoring system, use a mixed model statistics method, set and/or add new testing
traits, adjust end-test weight, and enhance relationships with artificial
insemination centers and other breeding programs.
*To adopt
combined selection indices depends on individual
breed/line selection goals
Reproductive performance will
become a more important item in in the future when growth and backfat are
improved to a high level. Recent studies in the world showed that genetic
improvement of litter size can be achieved by the use of Chinese high sow
productivity breeds, artificial insemination in group nucleus herds, the mixed
model statistics procedure, and even by the techniques of genetic engineering
(Webb, 1991). Besides, the selection goals of a breed/line may be maternal,
paternal or general improvement depending on the role it plays in commercial
crossed pig production. Growth performance index and sow productivity indices of
on-farm test could be combined into different selection indices for multiple
purposes uses.
*To apply the
body soundness linear scoring system
Body soundness includes body type,
feet, and bone structure, external reproductive organs, and health status. Most
of them have medium to high heritability and can be improved by selection. One
can appraise an individual soundness trait with proper training, however it is
still trouble some to combine all of these soundness traits to make a selection
decision. Kan and Tsou(1991) derived a soundness index by applying the multi -
variate analysis method to conduct a generation soundness selection experiment
in the National Swine Nucleus Herd (northern). They obtained a high heritability
of 0.70 (s. e.= 0.22) for soundness index by parent - offspring regression
analysis. This result indicates that the selection by a soundness index may
prevent the body structure problem.
*To set and/or
add new testing traits
If genetic improvement just
emphasizes feed efficiency and lean meat production, it may cause appetite
failure which has direct and indirect effects on the reproduction, meat quality
and lean meat upper limit production. The measurement of daily feeds intake is
not the only way to improve feeds efficiency but we must do so to improve the
appetite for high meat production breeding pigs. The automatic electric-feeder
is helpful to measure an individual pig’s feeds intake and will be widely used
in nucleus herds to improve or keep its appetite.
Reducing backfat of pigs can
increase the amount of their lean meat. However, selection for hackfat
improvement cannot break through the upper limit of lean meat production.
Therefore, to measure lean meat growth rate and feed efficiency as long-term
selection goals is necessary. The amount of lean meat in alive pigs can be
roughly predicted by backfat, loineye area, and body weight in an on-farm
testing program.
Undesirable meat color and water
capacity were found in fast growth, thin backfat, high lean meat ratio, and
heavy body weight pigs (Young, 1991). Neat chemical composition and eating
quality will be considered to be more important by future consumers. The
definition of meat quality will become more complicate; as a result, a combined
meat quality index should be set up. Furthermore, the pig stress gene which was
negatively correlates with meat quality can be rided by halothern test and its
DNA probe, and can partially solve meat quality problem.
*To utilize
the mixed model statistical procedure
The use of mixed model procedure
(BLUP) can widen the adoption of relative records which tested in different
tines or locations, adjust fixed effects bias, and enlarge the estimated
accuracy of breeding value of pigs. It is especially useful for lot heritability
traits. Some simulation studies in pigs have confirmed its value(Wray, 1990; de
Vries and Sarensen, 1990), and found that it will increase the selection
accuracy rate from 20K to 40% for low heritability traits and 5-10% for medium
heritability traits. Recently, this method has been used in many countries, such
as Canada, Ireland, the United States, the U. K., and Denmark, on the mainframe
computers for pig breeding purposes. Packages of BLUP for the personal computer
have been developed in recent years (Long et al., 1990; Groeneveld et al.,
1990), and are worthwhile to adopt for on-farm testing programs.
*To adjust
end-test weight
Because of the emphasis on the
improvement of lean meat production in the last decade, the average marketing
weight of hogs has changed from 90kg to 100kg in Taiwan, and it will be possible
to increase continuously into the near future. Raising the end-test weight
higher should be considered, especially for the paternal breed/line, to meet the
marketing and producers’ requirements in the future.
*To enhance
the relationships with A. I. centers and other national breeding programs
Although one of the main purposes
of the on-farm test is to assist breeders to proceed with their own breeding
schemes, the use of boars from A. I. centers in their own and other farms with
progeny test on-farm may reduce the interaction of genetic X management systems,
increase accuracy of comparisons across herds, and find suitable breeding
resources they need. To combine records from other performance testing programs
will increase the selection accuracy and highly promot the genetic improvement
of pigs for the whole country.
REFERENCES
1. Chyr, S.C. 1980. [Swine
selection index and direction of pig improvement.] J. Chin. Soc. Anim Sci.
9,55,-69.
2. Chang, H.L. 1990. [Simulation
analysis of selection index in pig.] J. Chinese Soc. Anim. Sci. 19 (suppl.):22
(abstr.).
3. David, P.3., Johnson, P.K. and
Socha, T. E. 1985. Estimates from Nebraska SPF swine field records. J. Anim.
Sci. 61, 1411-1420.
4. de Vries, A. G.; H. A. M. Van
der Steen; G. de Roo, l990. Effects of family size in selection and testing in a
close dam line of pigs. Live. Prod. Sci. 24:36-63.
5. Graeneueld, E.; M. Kovac and T.
Wang, 1990. PEST, a general purpose BLUP package for multivariate prediction and
estimation. Proceed. of the 4th Wld. Cong. on Genetics Applied to Live Prod.
XIII: 448-491.
6. Ran, N. T., Tsou, H.L. and
Huang, Y.H. 1992. [Application of multiple variables analysis method for
external body comfornation in pig.] J. Chinese Soc. Anim. Sci. 21 (suppl.): 31
(abstr.)
7. Lindhe, B., Averdnnk, G.,
Brascamp, E. W., Duniec, H., Gajic, I. M., Legault, C. and Steane, D. E. 1980.
Estimation of breeding value in pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 7:269-282.
8. Long, T. E., Johnson, R. K.
and Keele, J. W. 1990. Effects of errors in pedigree on three methods of
estimating breeding value for litter size, backfat and average daily gain in
swine. J. Anim. Sci. 68:4069-4078.
9. Long, T., Brandt, H. and
Hammond, K. 1991. Application of best linear unbiasid prediction to genetic
evaluation in pigs. Pig News and Information 12:217-219.
10.Lundeheim, N. and Eriksson, J.A.
1984. Estimating genetic change in the Swedish pig population by using mixed
model methodology (BLUP). Acta Aguic. Scand. 34, 97-106.
11.Merks, J.W.M. 1989. Genotype
´
Environment interactions in pig breeding programmes. IV. Sire
´
herd interaction in on-farm test results. Livest. Prod. Sci. 20: 32S-336.
12.Mitchell, G., Smith, C.,
Makower, M. and Bird, P. J. W. N. 1982. An economic appraisal of pig
improvement in Great Britain. l. Genetic and production aspects. Anim. Prod.
35,215-224.
13.NSIF, 1981. Guidelines for
uniform swine improvement. U. S. Dept. of Agri., Prog. Aid 1157.
14.O11ivier, L. 1974. Progeny test
of the French Large White pig from 1953 to 1966. III. Genetic progress. Ann.
Genet. Sel. Anim. 6,447-491.
15.Roberts, D.J. and Curran, M.K.
1981. A comparison of ’on-farm’ and station testing in pigs. Anim. Prod. 33:
291-297
16.Smith, C. 1962. Estimation
of genetic change in farm livestock using field records. Anim. Prod. 4,239-251.
17.Smith, C. 1963. Genetic change
of backfat thickness in the Danish Landrace pig from 1952 to 1960. Anim. Prod.
5,259-268.
18.Tsou, H.L. 1976. Effect of sex,
skeletal size, and maternal breed on perfoumance and carcass traits of
heavyweight swine. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State University, U.S.A., p. 127
19.Tsou, H.L. 1989. [The
reproduction performance evaluation system and its effect.] J. Chinese Soc.
Anim. Sci. 18(3, 4): 4 (abstr.)
20.Tsou, H. L. 1990a. [Effects of
purebred gilts growth rate and backfat thickness during performance testing
period on their reproductive performances.] J. Chinese Soc. Anim. Sci. 19
(suppl.): 2 (abstr.)
21.Tsou, H. L. 1990b. [Selection
index of boar for dam line improvement.] J. Chinese Soc. Anim. Sci.
19(suppl.):10 (abstr.)
22.Tsou, H.L. 1990c. [Application
sensitivity of selection index in swine.] J. Chinese Soc. Anim. Sci. 19 (suppl.):
11 (abstr.)
23.Tsou, H. L. 1990d. Genetic
improvement and parameters of tested performances in the pig population of
Taiwan. The 2nd Sino-Korean Seminar of Pig Prod. Sept. 17-21, Suweon, Korea. pp.
17-39
24.Tsou, H. L. 1991. [Charasteristic
of (new) selection index in Taiwan.] The 2nd Swine Breeding Seminar. Pig Res.
Inst., Taiwan, July 12, Chunan, Taiwan. pp.1-15
25.Tsou, H. L. and Ran, M. T.
1990. [The realized genetic change of on-farm performances in the Taiwan pig
population from 1980 to 1988.] J. Chinese Soc. Anim. Sci. 19:117-129
26.Tsou, H. L., Huang, Y. C.,
Chiang, Y. N., Chu, W. Y., Chi, C. S., Lao, Z. C., Ken, M. T., Tai, C. and Hsu,
L. S. 1990. [Estimates of phenotypic and genetic parameters of growth and
backfat traits in Taiwan pig population.] J. Chinese Soc. Anim. Sci.
19(suppl.) :12 (abstr.)
27.Tsou, H. L., Lin, H. H., Lin,
C. S. and Yang, W. S. 1992. [ Annual report of pig on-farm testing in
1991-92.] Pig Res. Inst., Taiwan. pp.80
28.Tixier, M, and Sellier, P.
1986. Estimated genetic trends for growth and carcass traits in two French
pig breeds. Genet. Sel. Evol. 18, 185-212.
29.Ven Diepen, T. A. and Kennedy,
B. W. 1989. Genetic correlations between test station and on-farm performance
for growth rate and backfat in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 67: 1425-1431.
30.Webb, A. J. 1991. Genetic
programmes to improve litter size in pigs. in Manipulating Pig Production
III, ed. by E. S. Batterham Australasian Pig Science Association, pp. 229-244.
31.Wray, N. R. 1989. Consequences
of selection in closed populations with particular reference to closed nucleus
herds of pigs. PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U. K.
32.Yang, T. S., Liu, S. H. and Lu,
S. A. 1991. [Effects of growth performance and carcass quality on appearance
characteristics of pork.] J. Chinese Soc. Anim. Sci. 20(suppl.): 30 (abstr.).
33.Yen, H. F. 1986. [Adjustment
factors of age and backfat thickness.] Agri. Asso. China (new series) 133, 59-64
34.Zarnecki, A. 1979. Estimation of realized genetic change in the Swedish
pig population. Acta Agri. Scan. 29, 98-102.
Fig. 1. National swine breeding system of Taiwan |
Fig. 2. Sires’
breeding value evaluation on progeny on-farm test records
Central Boar
Testing * Central Progeny Testing * Estimated breeding value
Period:80/8
1/11 Date:82/04/27
Page:1
|
|
|
|
ADG |
BF |
AGE |
INDEX |
|
|
|
BRD |
Farm NO. |
Sire No. (Regist No,) |
Progeny No. (Litter No.) |
progeny performance mean
progeny performance breeding
value
(Breeding value standard
deviation) |
Index
(EBV)
accuracy |
Index
(EBV)
rank |
L |
21 |
1994-3 |
5 |
1.092 |
2.21 |
1.18 |
149.4 |
138.6 |
0.571 |
1/156 |
|
|
(92481) |
(3) |
0.078 |
-0.12 |
-0.17 |
-7.8 |
25.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.011) |
(0.04) |
(0.05) |
(2.0) |
(4.5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L |
21 |
1202-3 |
4 |
1.082 |
2.19 |
1.16 |
152.0 |
146.0 |
0.516 |
|
|
|
(86537) |
(2) |
0.078 |
-0.14 |
-0.12 |
-7.9 |
24.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.012) |
(0.05) |
(0.06) |
(2.3) |
(5.0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L |
16 |
1326-6 |
11 |
0.895 |
2.16 |
1.16 |
170.9 |
119.3 |
0.713 |
3/156 |
|
|
(78529) |
(6) |
-0.006 |
-0.22 |
-0.26 |
3.4 |
19.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.007) |
(0.03) |
(0.04) |
(1.4) |
(3.0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On-farm testing * Porgeny testing *
Estimated breeding value
Farm NO.:
35 Period: 78/06/01-81/05/31
Date:81/11/06/ Page:1
|
|
|
|
ADG |
BF |
AGE |
INDEX |
|
|
BRD |
Sire NO. |
Litter No. |
Progeny No. |
progeny performance mean
progeny performance breeding
value
(Breeding value standard
deviation) |
Index
(EBV)
accuracy |
Index
(EBV)
rank |
L |
520 |
81 |
139 |
0.566 |
0.98 |
158.9 |
109.4 |
0.964 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
0.037 |
-.21 |
-10.8 |
17.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.002) |
(0.01) |
(0.4) |
(0.7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L |
32-5 |
18 |
28 |
0.522 |
0.89 |
171.8 |
110.7 |
0.857 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
0.026 |
-.22 |
-9.1 |
15.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.005) |
(0.02) |
(0.9) |
(1.5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L |
1029 |
50 |
63 |
0.568 |
0.97 |
158.5 |
108.6 |
0.932 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
0.027 |
-.19 |
-7.7 |
15.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.003) |
(0.02) |
(0.6) |
(1.0) |
|
|
Table
1. Change of performance testing methods in Taiwan
Item |
Central
boar performance test |
|
On-farm
performance test |
1975 |
’79 |
’81 |
’82 |
’89 |
’92 |
|
’80 |
’82 |
’92 |
Group
size:
Individual
Fullsib-group |
|
|
|
Choosen |
x------------------->x |
2, group |
|
|
|
|
|
x---------------->x |
|
|
Feeds:
High protein
General |
cp.=17.6% |
|
|
Choosen |
x---------------------------------------------------->x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feeding
system:
Full
Restricted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
x---------------------------------------------------->x |
|
Choosen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Testing
period: |
|
|
|
|
|
30-90
kg. |
x--------->x |
|
|
|
|
30-110
kg. |
|
x----------------------------------------->x |
|
gilts |
Birth-90 kg. |
|
|
|
|
|
x-------------->x |
Birth-110 kg. |
|
|
|
|
|
Boars
x---->x |
Testing
traits: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg.
daily gain |
x---------------------------------------------------->x |
|
x-------------->x |
Feed
efficiency |
x---------------------------------------------------->x pen avg. |
Utra.
backfat |
x---------------------------------------------------->x |
|
x-------------->x |
Utra.
loineye |
|
|
x |
area |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selection index: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ames,
Iowa |
x------------------>x |
|
|
|
MLC, U.
K. |
|
|
|
|
x------->x |
Taiwan |
|
|
x------------------>x xa |
|
|
x------->x |
Progeny
test: |
|
|
|
|
|
x |
Reproduction index: |
|
|
|
|
x----------------->x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a: Started to
use selection indices by breed.
Table
2. Relative economic value of traits in Taiwan pig population
Period |
Avg.
daily gain |
Feed
efficiency |
Ultrasonic backfat |
Selection index used in breeds |
|
Relative economic value |
1975-1980 |
1 |
0.60 |
0.53 |
L, Y,
D, H |
1981-1990 |
1 |
1.20 |
0.83 |
L, Y,
D, H |
1991- |
1 |
0.29 |
0.20 |
L, Y |
|
1 |
1.20 |
0.83 |
D, H |
|
Percentage of
expected economic return in total (%) |
1975-1980 |
9.2 |
50.7 |
40.1 |
L, Y,
D, H |
1981-1990 |
2.9 |
35.4 |
61.7 |
L, Y,
D, H |
1991- |
44.4 |
42.0 |
13.6 |
L, Y |
|
2.9 |
35.4 |
61.7 |
D, H |
Sources: Chyr
(1980), Chang (1990), Tsou(1990b)
Table 3. Kinds
of sow prouctivity indexes in this system
|
Performances evaluated |
Situiation to be used |
Fertility & nursing ability |
Yearly
productivity |
Heat
return & conception ability |
For
present |
SPI |
PSPI |
PSPI
-SPI |
For
culled |
MPSPI |
PMPSPI |
PMPSPI-MPSPI |
For
breeding |
BVSPI |
PBVSPI |
PBYSPI-BVSPI |
SPI : Sow
productivity index
MPSPI : Most
Possible Sow Productivity Index
BYSPI :
Breeding Value of Sow Productivity Index
PSPI : Periodic
Sow Productivity Index
PNPSPI:
Periodic Most Possible Sow Productivity index
PBVSPI:
Periodic Breeding Value of Sow Productivity Index
Table
4. Number and percentage of on-farm tested pigs by breed and year
Year |
Breeds |
Year total |
L |
Y |
D |
H |
0 |
|
Number of tested pigs |
|
’80 |
1,221 |
726 |
674 |
134 |
228 |
2,883 |
’82 |
1,827 |
920 |
1,418 |
251 |
1,355 |
5,771 |
’84 |
2,862 |
2,172 |
2,268 |
1,424 |
1,724 |
10,450 |
’86 |
3,349 |
2,763 |
3,157 |
274 |
1,168 |
10,711 |
’88 |
3,979 |
2,008 |
3,807 |
194 |
2,993 |
12,978 |
’90 |
7,962 |
2,724 |
5,399 |
68 |
1,900 |
18,053 |
’92 |
6,506 |
2,812 |
5,318 |
53 |
3,030 |
17,719 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of year total |
|
’80 |
42.3 |
25.2 |
23.4 |
4.6 |
7.9 |
100.0 |
’82 |
31.7 |
15.9 |
24.6 |
4.3 |
23.5 |
100.0 |
’84 |
27.4 |
20.8 |
21.7 |
13.6 |
16.6 |
100.0 |
’86 |
31.3 |
25.8 |
29.5 |
2.6 |
10.9 |
100.0 |
’88 |
30.7 |
15.5 |
29.3 |
1.5 |
23.1 |
100.0 |
’90 |
44.1 |
15.1 |
29.9 |
0.4 |
10.5 |
100.0 |
’92 |
36.7 |
15.9 |
30.0 |
0.3 |
17.1 |
100.0 |
a: L=Landrace,
Y=Yorkshire, D=Duroc, 8=Hampshire,
0=Crossbreeds and synthtic breeds.
Source: Tsou et
al. (1992)
Table
5. Means of reproductive performances by year and breed during 1987-1992
Year |
Breed |
No. of
litters |
Litter
size at birth |
Litter
size at
21 days |
Litter
weight at 21 days(kg) |
Survival rate at 21 days(%) |
SPI |
’87 |
L |
1059 |
8.5 |
8.1 |
42.9 |
95.3 |
166.0 |
|
Y |
643 |
8.6 |
8.3 |
40.3 |
96.5 |
160.7 |
|
D |
450 |
6.5 |
6.1 |
29.7 |
93.8 |
127.4 |
|
Year |
2255 |
8.3 |
7.8 |
39.8 |
93.9 |
159.1 |
|
total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
’88 |
L |
992 |
9.0 |
8.5 |
46.9 |
94.4 |
176.7 |
|
Y |
490 |
8.5 |
7.8 |
39.0 |
91.8 |
158.6 |
|
D |
600 |
7.8 |
7.0 |
34.4 |
89.7 |
148.3 |
|
Year |
2175 |
8.5 |
7.8 |
41.2 |
91.8 |
163.6 |
|
total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
’89 |
L |
1228 |
8.8 |
8.4 |
45.4 |
95.5 |
169.6 |
|
Y |
554 |
8.4 |
7.9 |
38.0 |
94.0 |
152.6 |
|
D |
776 |
7.9 |
7.3 |
35.9 |
92.4 |
147.4 |
|
Year |
2606 |
8.4 |
7.9 |
40.8 |
94.0 |
158.8 |
|
total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
’90 |
L |
1457 |
9.1 |
8.0 |
43.4 |
87.9 |
171.4 |
|
Y |
637 |
8.8 |
7.3 |
35.3 |
83.0 |
154.3 |
|
D |
851 |
8.1 |
6.5 |
32.4 |
80.2 |
146.3 |
|
Year |
2945 |
8.7 |
7.4 |
38.4 |
85.1 |
160.5 |
|
total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
’91 |
L |
1361 |
9.4 |
7.7 |
41.9 |
81.9 |
169.2 |
|
Y |
656 |
9.1 |
7.4 |
36.5 |
81.3 |
158.9 |
|
D |
669 |
8.8 |
6.2 |
30.4 |
70.5 |
146.4 |
|
Year |
2686 |
9.2 |
7.3 |
37.7 |
79.3 |
161.0 |
|
total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
’92 |
L |
1094 |
9.4 |
7.8 |
44.0 |
83.0 |
173.8 |
|
Y |
771 |
8.7 |
6.8 |
35.4 |
78.2 |
155.0 |
|
D |
612 |
8.3 |
6.1 |
31.3 |
73.5 |
146.9 |
|
Year |
2477 |
8.9 |
7.1 |
38.2 |
79.8 |
161.3 |
|
total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SPI=
6.5*(1itter size at birth)+2.2*(litter weight at 21 dayp)
Soorce: Tsou et
al. (1992).
Table
6. Estimates of annual
phenotypic change and genetic change of on-farm testing performance in actual
values (percentage of mean)
Breed |
Phenotypic change |
Genetic change |
ADG(g) |
BF(mm) |
ADG(g) |
BF(mm) |
Landrace |
13.0**(2.6) |
-0.59**(3.1) |
29.4**(5.9) |
0.12(0.7) |
Yorkshire |
10.5**(2.0) |
-0.42**(2.2) |
29.2**(5.5) |
-0.14(0.7) |
Duroc |
5.6**(1.1) |
-0.28**(1.4) |
11.8(2.3) |
-0.27 (1.3) |
*,**: Over 2 or
3 times of S.E., respectively.
ADG: Average
daily gain from birth.
BF : Ultrasonic
backfat.
Source: Tsou
and Kan (1990)
Table 6.1 Annual phenotypic change
of testing performances in boar test station from 1975 to 1988
Breed |
Avg. daily
gain (g) |
Feed
efficiency |
Ultrasonic backfat(mm) |
Age to
110kg wt. (day) |
|
In actual units |
Landrace |
3.1 |
-0.043 |
0.66 |
-1.0 |
Yorkshire |
3.8 |
-0.007 |
0.55 |
-1.5 |
Duroc |
6.9 |
-0.045 |
0.62 |
-2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In percentage units |
Landrace |
+0.4% |
-1.4% |
-2.8% |
-0.5% |
Yorkshire |
+0.5% |
-0.3% |
-2.1% |
-0.8% |
Duroc |
+0.8% |
-1.4% |
-2.5% |
-1.3% |
Table 7. A comparison of genetic
change of testing performance in Taiwan with other countries’
|
|
|
|
|
Performance |
Country |
First author |
Data
period |
Tested methoda |
Breed |
Avg. daily gain (g) |
Backfat
(mm) |
Feed efficiency |
Taiwan |
Tsou
(1990) |
1980-88 |
OF |
L |
+29.4 |
+0.13 |
-.043b |
|
|
|
Y |
+29.2 |
-0.14 |
-.007b |
|
|
|
D |
+11.8 |
-0.26 |
-.045b |
Denmark |
Smith |
1952-60 |
BT |
L |
|
-0.18 |
|
|
(1963) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Norway |
Standal
(1979) |
1970-76 |
BT |
L |
+4.3 |
-0.94 |
-.038 |
Sweden |
Zarnecki
(1979) |
1968-73 |
PT |
L |
+9.0 |
-0.70 |
-.030 |
|
Lundeheim |
1976-80 |
PT |
L |
+6.0 |
-0.27 |
-.032 |
|
(1984) |
|
|
Y |
+4.0 |
-0.47 |
-.031 |
U. K. |
Mitchell
(1982) |
1970-77 |
CT |
L |
+5.0 |
(+0.7%) |
-.027 |
Canada |
Hudson |
1974-82 |
OF |
L |
-.43c |
-0.14 |
|
|
(1985) |
|
|
Y |
-.36c |
-0.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
D |
-.15c |
-0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
H |
-.33c |
-0.04 |
|
France |
Tixier |
1970-81 |
PT |
LW |
-4.7 |
|
-.003 |
|
(1986) |
|
|
L |
+3.2 |
|
-.022 |
|
|
1969-81 |
BT |
LW |
+2.9 |
-0.26 |
-.011 |
|
|
|
|
L |
+1.0 |
-0.16 |
-.008 |
a: OF=on-farm
test data, BT=boar performance test data,
PT=progeny test data, CT=control
herds
b: phenotypic
change of boar test station
d: days at 90kg
weight. Source: Tsou (1991).
Table 8. Assumed and estimated
phenotypic and genetic parameters in the pig population of Taiwana
|
|
Estimated breedc |
Traits |
Assumed
estimates |
L |
Y |
D |
H |
|
|
Phenotypic standard deviation |
ADG |
.09 |
.09 |
.10 |
.09 |
.09 |
FE |
.26 |
.17 |
.18 |
.15 |
.14 |
BF |
.46 |
.10 |
.12 |
.11 |
.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heritability |
ADG |
.30 |
.19(0-.42) |
.16(0-.22) |
.18(0-.40) |
.33 d |
FE |
.35 |
.0 |
.0 |
.44 |
.70 d |
BF |
.50 |
.22(0-.48) |
.17(0-.63) |
.11(0-.40) |
.26 d |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phenotypic correlation |
ADG´FE |
-.50 |
-.468
** |
-.393 |
-.409
** |
-.543
** |
ADG´BF |
.25 |
.086 * |
.228 |
.132 ** |
.264 |
FE´BF |
.15 |
.081 |
.107 |
.102 ** |
-.198
** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genetic
correlation |
ADG´FE |
-.70 |
-.573 |
-.296 |
-.617 |
|
ADG´BF |
.25 |
.105 |
.214 |
.232 |
|
FE´BF |
.30 |
.152 |
.206 |
.149 |
|
a: Estimates in
parentheses were calculated from on-farm test
data, others evaluated from Central
Boar Test Station and
National Nuclear Herds’ data (Tsou
et al., 1990)
b: Chyr (1980)
adopted from foreign research papers
c: L=Landrace,
Y=Yorkshire, D=Duroc, H=Hampshire
d:
Lee (1979)
[回上頁 | 顯示此文件為可列印格式]
此文件提供者: shuYing - [評分 : 0.00 (0 票選) | 評分!]