Search

Abstract Background In breeding programs, recording large-scale feed intake (FI) data routinely at the individual level is costly and difficult compared with other production traits. An alternative approach could be to record FI at the group level since animals such as pigs are normally housed in groups and fed by a shared feeder. However, to date there have been few investigations about the difference between group- and individual-level FI recorded in different environments. We hypothesized that group- and individual-level FI are genetically correlated but different traits. This study, based on the experiment undertaken in purebred DanBred Landrace (L) boars, was set out to estimate the genetic variances and correlations between group- and individual-level FI using a bivariate random regression model, and to examine to what extent prediction accuracy can be improved by adding information of individual-level FI to group-level FI for animals recorded in groups. For both bivariate and univariate models, single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) and pedigree-based BLUP (PBLUP) were implemented and compared. Results The variance components from group-level records and from individual-level records were similar. Heritabilities estimated from group-level FI were lower than those from individual-level FI over the test period. The estimated genetic correlations between group- and individual-level FI based on each test day were on average equal to 0.32 (SD = 0.07), and the estimated genetic correlation for the whole test period was equal to 0.23. Our results demonstrate that by adding information from individual-level FI records to group-level FI records, prediction accuracy increased by 0.018 and 0.032 compared with using group-level FI records only (bivariate vs. univariate model) for PBLUP and ssGBLUP, respectively. Conclusions Based on the current dataset, our findings support the hypothesis that group- and individual-level FI are different traits. Thus, the differences in FI traits under these two feeding systems need to be taken into consideration in pig breeding programs. Overall, adding information from individual records can improve prediction accuracy for animals with group records.

Abstract Background Several studies have found that the growth rate of a pig is influenced by the genetics of the group members (indirect genetic effects). Accounting for these indirect genetic effects in a selection program may increase genetic progress for growth rate. However, indirect genetic effects are small and difficult to predict accurately. Genomic information may increase the ability to predict indirect genetic effects. Thus, the objective of this study was to test whether including indirect genetic effects in the animal model increases the predictive performance when genetic effects are predicted with genomic relationships. In total, 11,255 pigs were phenotyped for average daily gain between 30 and 94 kg, and 10,995 of these pigs were genotyped. Two relationship matrices were used: a numerator relationship matrix ( $${\mathbf{A}}$$ A ) and a combined pedigree and genomic relationship matrix ( $${\mathbf{H}}$$ H ); and two different animal models were used: an animal model with only direct genetic effects and an animal model with both direct and indirect genetic effects. The predictive performance of the models was defined as the Pearson correlation between corrected phenotypes and predicted genetic levels. The predicted genetic level of a pig was either its direct genetic effect or the sum of its direct genetic effect and the indirect genetic effects of its group members (total genetic effect). Results The highest predictive performance was achieved when total genetic effects were predicted with genomic information (21.2 vs. 14.7%). In general, the predictive performance was greater for total genetic effects than for direct genetic effects (0.1 to 0.5% greater; not statistically significant). Both types of genetic effects had greater predictive performance when they were predicted with $${\mathbf{H}}$$ H rather than $${\mathbf{A}}$$ A (5.9 to 6.3%). The difference between predictive performances of total genetic effects and direct genetic effects was smaller when $${\mathbf{H}}$$ H was used rather than $${\mathbf{A}}$$ A . Conclusions This study provides evidence that: (1) corrected phenotypes are better predicted with total genetic effects than with direct genetic effects only; (2) both direct genetic effects and indirect genetic effects are better predicted with $${\mathbf{H}}$$ H than $${\mathbf{A}}$$ A ; (3) using $${\mathbf{H}}$$ H rather than $${\mathbf{A}}$$ A primarily improves the predictive performance of direct genetic effects.