1 / 57

GxE in commercial pig breeding reaction norms selection for the response environment Pieter Knap

GxE in commercial pig breeding reaction norms selection for the response environment Pieter Knap Genus-PIC. Selection of genotypes for a particular production environment Between lines relatively straightforward Within-line much more interesting.

marcos
Download Presentation

GxE in commercial pig breeding reaction norms selection for the response environment Pieter Knap

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. GxE in commercial pig breeding reaction norms selection for the response environment Pieter Knap Genus-PIC

  2. Selection of genotypes for a particular production environment Between lines relatively straightforward Within-line much more interesting

  3. Selection of genotypes for a particular production environment Selection between lines relatively straightforward: usually few lines to choose from

  4. Selection of genotypes for a particular production environment Selection between lines relatively straightforward: usually few lines to choose from

  5. Selection of genotypes for a particular production environment Selection between lines relatively straightforward: usually few lines to choose from

  6. Selection of genotypes for a particular production environment Selection between lines relatively straightforward: usually few lines to choose from

  7. Selection of genotypes for a particular production environment Selection between lines relatively straightforward: usually few lines to choose from

  8. Selection of genotypes for a particular production environment Selection between lines relatively straightforward: usually few lines to choose from

  9. Selection of genotypes for a particular production environment Selection between lines relatively straightforward: usually few lines to choose from

  10. Selection of genotypes for a particular production environment Within-line selection much more interesting: continuous variation to choose from

  11. Rischkowsky & Pilling (2007)

  12. Anderson (2004) after Haldane (1946)

  13. 0.70 0.68 0.66 Poster: AnttiKause average daily gain (kg / d) 0.64 0.62 0.60 very high high very low low infectiousness Schinckel et al. (1999)

  14. Within-line selection much more interesting:continuous variation to choose from Anderson (2004) after Haldane (1946)

  15. Within-line selection much more interesting:continuous variation to choose from Anderson (2004) after Haldane (1946)

  16. 0.70 0.70 y = 0.30 + 0.57 x 0.68 0.68 0.66 0.66 average daily gain (kg / d) average daily gain (kg / d) 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.62 y = –0.30 + 1.43 x 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 very high high very low low infectiousness treatment mean: average daily gain (kg / d) Schinckel et al. (1999)

  17. Within-line selection much more interesting:continuous variation to choose from Anderson (2004) after Haldane (1946)

  18. E > I : incentive to improve the environment • I > E : incentive to match genotype to environment • Select in the response envrmnt • Select on data from the response environment

  19. Knap & Su (2008)

  20. Knap & Su (2008)

  21. Individual reaction norms intercept : the conventional EBVfor productivity (when they differ, the trait is heritable) slope :the EBV for environmental sensitivity of productivity (when they differ, the trait shows GxE) two breeding goal traits

  22. P N phenotype environment E N

  23. P N PC = PN– b × ( EN– EC ) P H selection environment response environment P C P L b E E E E N L C H

  24. how far away is the nucleus from the commercial level ? P N PC = PN– b × ( EN– EC ) P average performance in commercial conditions:= the breeding goal trait H P C P genetic potential L b environmental sensitivity E E E E N L C H

  25. Set up the profit equation to derive economic values P = WT × KO × [Vcarcass+ LEAN × Vlean] – DAYS120 × [Cday + ADF × Cfeed ] P = WT × KO × [Vcarcass+ LEAN × Vlean] – [ PN, DAYS – bDAYS × (DAYSN – DAYSC) ] × [Cday + ADF × Cfeed ] Two breeding goal traits

  26. Differentiate to derive marginal economic values MEV(PN, DAYS) = dP / dPN, DAYS = – [Cday + ADF × Cfeed ] P = WT × KO × [Vcarcass+ LEAN × Vlean] – [ PN, DAYS – bDAYS × (DAYSN – DAYSC) ] × [Cday + ADF × Cfeed ] MEV(bDAYS) = dP / dbDAYS = (DAYSN – DAYSC) × [Cday + ADF × Cfeed ] = – (DAYSN – DAYSC) × MEV(PN, DAYS)

  27. Differentiate to derive marginal economic values • The MEV of the environmental sensitivity depends on • the MEV of the trait as such • the distance selection environment  response environment MEV(bDAYS) = dP / dbDAYS = (DAYSN – DAYSC) × [Cday + ADF × Cfeed ] = = – (DAYSN – DAYSC) × MEV(PN, DAYS)

  28. Differentiate to derive marginal economic values MEV(PN, DAYS) = – [Cday + ADF × Cfeed ] = = – [0.24 + 2.3 × 0.29 ] = –0.16 € per d Negative MEV : a reduction of DAYS120means faster growth MEV(bDAYS) = – (DAYSN – DAYSC) × MEV(PN, DAYS) = =–(163– 179) × –0.16 = –2.56 € per d/d Negative MEV : a reduction of the slope brings commercial performance closer to the potential

  29. Individual reaction norms intercept : the conventional EBVfor productivity (when they differ, the trait is heritable) slope :the EBV for environmental sensitivity of productivity (when they differ, the trait shows G×E) two breeding goal traits An elegant option to deal with G×E on the individual level: Calculate sensitivity EBVs, and include them in the index, weighted by the MEV as usual.  is that feasible?

  30. Litter size: daughter group reaction norms Line B; all parities 93 farms with 73.352 records of52.120 daughters of 1091 sires Line B; parity 1 only 66 farms with 33.641 records of33.641 daughters of 792 sires Lines A, B and AB; all parities 144 farms with 346.030 records of121.104 daughters of 2040 sires

  31. Litter size reaction norms of sires: standard error of slope vs. HYS environmental range Line B; all parities 93 farms with 73.352 records of52.120 daughters of 1091 sires Line B; parity 1 only 66 farms with 33.641 records of33.641 daughters of 792 sires Lines A, B and AB; all parities 144 farms with 346.030 records of121104 daughters of 2040 sires sires sires sires

  32. Litter size reaction norms of sires: standard error of slope vs. number of daughters Line B; all parities 93 farms with 73.352 records of52.120 daughters of 1091 sires Line B; parity 1 only 66 farms with 33.641 records of33.641 daughters of 792 sires Lines A, B and AB; all parities 144 farms with 346.030 records of121104 daughters of 2040 sires sires sires sires

  33. Litter size reaction norms of sires: standard error of slope vs. slope Line B; all parities 93 farms with 73.352 records of52.120 daughters of 1091 sires Line B; parity 1 only 66 farms with 33.641 records of33.641 daughters of 792 sires Lines A, B and AB; all parities 144 farms with 346.030 records of121104 daughters of 2040 sires h2rG intcpt 10 26±7 slope 8±3 h2rG intcpt 9 69±5 slope 2±0.4 h2rG intcpt 10 –9±15 slope 15±8 Knap & Su (2008)

  34. Litter size: daughter group reaction norms Line B; all parities 93 farms with 73.352 records of52.120 daughters of 1091 sires Line B; parity 1 only 66 farms with 33.641 records of33.641 daughters of 792 sires Lines A, B and AB; all parities 144 farms with 346.030 records of121.104 daughters of 2040 sires ? E > I > G Same data (Line B; all parities)  analyzed with SAS I > E > G

  35. ? E > I : incentive to improve the environment • I > E : incentive to match genotype to environment • Select in the response envrmnt • Select on data from the response environment

  36. Individual reaction norms intercept : the conventional EBVfor productivity (when they differ, the trait is heritable) slope :the EBV for environmental sensitivity of productivity (when they differ, the trait shows G×E) two breeding goal traits An elegant option to deal with G×E on the individual level: Calculate sensitivity EBVs, and include them in the index, weighted by the MEV as usual.  is that feasible? Not for pigs, today

  37. The individual reaction norm approach is notfeasible for commercial pig breeding, today Simplify Most extreme: E as a continuous variable (= reaction norms)  two E classes (e.g. nucleus & commercial) …or anything in between Poster: Ann McLaren et al. Poster: Anna-Maria Tyrisevä et al.

  38. Reciprocal Recurrent Selection Commercial Sibling Test Combined Crossbred & Purebred Selection Van Sambeek (2010)

  39. Theory: • Baumung et al. (1997) • Bijma & Van Arendonk (1998) • Spilke et al. (1998) • Misztal et al. (1998) • Dekkers & Chakraborty (2004) • Standal (1968) • McNew & Bell (1971) • Biswas et al. (1971) • Wei Ming & Van der Werf (1994)

  40. An example: PIC's GN-Xbred program GN multiplication commercial crossbred sows commercial crossbred slaughter pigs • semen of GN boars is first used on crossbred sows  crossbred progeny … grown on commercial farms • after that, semen is used for GN matings  purebred progeny

  41. An example: PIC's GN-Xbred program GN multiplication commercial breeding stock commercial crossbred slaughter pigs CBVs selection decisions  crossbred halfsibs of purebred GN selection candidates GN progeny performance data PICTraq Database • crossbred halfsib performance CBVs of GN selection candidates Commercial sowperformance data • Xbred sow performance CBVs of GN selection candidates Commercial progeny performance data

  42. GN-Xbred logistics sire lines dam lines

  43. Is this useful? • Depends on the coheritability • ΔGC|N ~ hC × rG (C,N) × hN • ΔGC|C ~ hC × hC • is hC> rG (C,N) × hN ?  is rG (C,N) low enough ?  what about hNvshC ? • !! effective heritabilities !! The crucial aspects :Can the trait be recorded at all in nucleus conditions ? And on how many animals ? Reciprocal Recurrent Selection Commercial Sibling Test Combined Crossbred & Purebred Selection

  44. Theory: • Baumung et al. (1997) • Bijma & Van Arendonk (1998) • Spilke et al. (1998) • Misztal et al. (1998) • Dekkers & Chakraborty (2004) • Standal (1968) • McNew & Bell (1971) • Biswas et al. (1971) • Wei Ming & Van der Werf (1994) • Cecchinato et al. (2010): stillbirth rate rG = 0.25 ± 0.34 • Bosch et al. (2000): litter size 0.40 < rG < 0.59 • Zumbach et al. (2007): ADG 0.53 < rG < 0.80; BFT and LMD 0.78 < rG < 0.89 • Ibáñez-Escriche et al. (2011): lean percentage 0.81 < rEBV < 0.96 • Brandt & Täubert (1998): ADG and BFT 0.87 < rG < 1.0

  45. rEBV = 0.85 rEBV = 0.85 rEBV = 0.55 rEBV = –0.06 ADG BFD DFI RFI Poster: Helene Gilbert et al. crossbred commercial performance crossbred commercial performance rEBV = 0.80 rEBV = 0.78 rEBV = 0.54 rEBV = 0.06 ADG BFD DFI RFI purebred nucleus performance Knap & Wang (2012)

  46. grower-finisher mortality rate rEBV = 0.24 rEBV = 0.33 Poster: GeirSteinheim et al. crossbred commercial performance crossbred commercial performance purebred nucleus performance

  47. lowrG (C,N) • many more data from C than from N • much more variation in C : σ2 = p × (1 – p) and p is much higher

  48. E > I : incentive to improve the environment This is the actual worldwide situation in technified pig production,according to the evidence that I have • I > E : incentive to match genotype to environment • Select in the response envrmnt • Select on data from the response environment

  49. E > I : incentive to improve the environment This is what we are targeting,in terms of genetic evaluation: ~ "better safe than sorry" • I > E : incentive to match genotype to environment • Select in the response envrmnt • Select on data from the response environment

  50. E > I : incentive to improve the environment • I > E : incentive to match genotype to environment • Select in the response envrmnt • Select on data from the response environment

More Related