Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2025

Accurate and Phenol Free DNA Sexing of Day 30 Porcine Embryos by PCR
Published on: February 14, 2016
Genotyping both live and dead animals to improve post-weaning survival of pigs in breeding programs
Md Sharif-Islam1, Julius H J van der Werf2, Mark Henryon3
1AGBU, a joint venture of NSW Department of Primary Industries and University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia. mislam40@myune.edu.au.
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.
More Related Videos
05:41Author Spotlight: Surgical Methods and Outcomes in Oviductal Cloned Pig Embryo Transfers
Published on: October 18, 2024
07:59Transition of Farm Pigs to Research Pigs using a Designated Checklist followed by Initiation of Clicker Training - a Refinement Initiative
Published on: August 21, 2021