Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33832423›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2021

Genetic parameters and genomic prediction for feed intake recorded at the group and individual level in different production systems for growing pigs.

Hongding Gao, Guosheng Su, Just Jensen, Per Madsen, Ole F Christensen, Birgitte Ask, Bjarke G Poulsen, Tage Ostersen, Bjarne Nielsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Practical Considerations When Using Mendelian Sampling Variances for Selection Decisions in Genomic Selection Programs.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Hongding GaoCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark. hongding.gao@qgg.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6018-0766
Guosheng SuCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Just JensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Per MadsenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Ole F ChristensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Birgitte AskSEGES, Pig Research Centre, 1609, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bjarke G PoulsenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Tage OstersenSEGES, Pig Research Centre, 1609, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bjarne NielsenSEGES, Pig Research Centre, 1609, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

GUDP 34009-14-0849
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsBased 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.

Indexed as

Body WeightQuantitative Trait, HeritableAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsBreedingEatingPedigreeSwine

Identifiers

PMID33832423
PMCPMC8028714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.