猪一般恢复力性状遗传参数估计

doi:10.11843/j.issn.0366-6964.2025.11.006

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

旨在通过对大白猪和长白猪的纵向采食数据进行分析，对不同的一般恢复力性状指标进行遗传参数估计和比较。本研究通过利用1 692头大白和长白育肥猪的自动饲喂测定站生长和采食记录数据分析平均日增重(average daily gain, ADG)、平均日采食量(average daily feed intake, ADFI)、平均日采食时间(average daily feeding duration, ADFD)、平均日访问次数(average daily visit times, ADVT)和8个一般恢复力性状。采食量日变化(Var_FI)、采食时间日变化(Var_FD)、访问次数日变化(Var_VT)、采食量变化方差的对数转换(LnVar_FI)、采食时间变化方差的对数转换(LnVar_FD)、访问次数变化方差的对数转换(LnVar_VT)、采食量对应的断饲天数(OFF_FI)、采食时间对应的断饲天数(OFF_FD)被作为一般恢复力性状进行计算。分别利用单性状和多性状模型计算上述性状的遗传力和遗传相关。结果表明，日增重、平均采食量、平均采食时间和平均日访问次数的遗传力分别为0.25、0.49、0.53和0.43。一般恢复力性状Var_FI、Var_FD、Var_VT、LnVar_FI、LnVar_FD、LnVar_VT、OFF_FI、OFF_FD的遗传力分别为0.33、0.26、0.38、0.39、0.29、0.37、0.14和0.16。日增重与平均采食量之间有较高的正遗传相关，为0.83。日增重与一般恢复力性状的遗传相关在-0.85~0.83之间。其中，Var_FI、LnVar_FI与ADG之间有较高的正相关(r_g=0.83)，OFF_FD与ADG之间有较高的负相关(r_g=-0.85)。LnVar_FD与ADVT之间以及LnVar_VT与ADG之间均具有较高的负相关，分别是-0.89和-0.76。本研究通过计算和比较不同一般恢复力指标的遗传参数，发现一般恢复力性状具有低到中等遗传力。其中，LnVar_FI和Var_FI具有较高的遗传力，且与生产性状具有较高的遗传相关，可考虑作为猪一般恢复力性状的评估指标用于个体选育。本研究结果为猪的一般抗病性或恢复力相关性状的选育提供重要理论依据。

关键词: 猪, 一般恢复力, 纵向采食数据, 遗传力, 遗传相关

Abstract:

The objective of this study was to estimate and compare genetic parameters of different general resilience traits using longitudinal daily feed intake data of Large White and Landrace pigs. Growth and feed intake records data from 1 692 Large white and Landrace finishing pigs were collected via automatic feeders, and used to analyze average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), average daily feeding duration (ADFD), average daily visit times (ADVT) and 8 general resilience traits were analyzed. Daily variability in feed intake (Var_FI), daily variability in feeding duration (Var_FD), daily variability in visit times (Var_VT), the log-transformed variance of deviation for the daily feed intake (LnVar_FI), the log-transformed variance of deviation for the daily feeding duration (LnVar_FD), the log-transformed variance of deviation for the daily visit times (LnVar_VT), off-feed days for corresponding feed intake (OFF_FI), and off-feed days for corresponding feeding duration (OFF_FD) were calculated as general resilience traits. The heritability and genetic correlation of the above traits were calculated using the single and multiple traits models, respectively. The results showed that the heritability of ADG, ADFI, ADFD and ADVT were 0.25, 0.49, 0.53 and 0.43, respectively. The heritability of general resilience traits Var_FI, Var_FD, Var_VT, LnVar_FI, LnVar_FD, LnVar_VT, OFF_FI and OFF_FD were 0.33, 0.26, 0.38, 0.39, 0.29, 0.37, 0.14, and 0.16, respectively. The genetic correlation was positive and high between ADG and ADFI with value of 0.83. The genetic correlation between ADG and general resilience traits ranged from -0.85 to 0.83. Specifically, there was a high positive correlation (r=0.83) between both Var_FI and ADG and between LnVar_FI and ADG, while a high negative correlation (r=-0.85) was observed between OFF_FD and ADG. There was a high negative correlation both between LnVar_FD and ADVT, and between LnVar_VT and ADG, with values of -0.89 and -0.76, respectively. In conclusion, we calculated and compared the genetic parameters of different general resilience traits, and found that the heritability of these general resilience indicators was low to moderate. Among them, LnVar_FI and Var_FI exhibited high heritability and high genetic correlations with production traits, and can be considered as evaluation indicators of general resilience traits in pigs for individual selection. The results of this study provide important theoretical basis for the breeding of general disease resistance or resilience-related traits in pigs.

Key words: pig, general resilience, longitudinal daily feed intake data, heritability, genetic correlation

中图分类号:

S828.2

张鼎新, 冷秉雯, 罗蓊昀, 王祉媛, 张勤, 姜力. 猪一般恢复力性状遗传参数估计[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(11): 5402-5413.

ZHANG Dingxin, LENG Bingwen, LUO Wengyun, WANG Zhiyuan, ZHANG Qin, JIANG Li. Estimation of Genetic Parameters for General Resilience Traits in Pigs[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2025, 56(11): 5402-5413.

图/表 8

图 1

表 1

图 2

图 3

图 4

图 5

表 2

表 3

参考文献 35

1	赵曦然, 杨春, 龙雪芬. 我国畜牧业风险研究进展及未来展望[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2024, 45 (7): 247- 260.
	ZHAO X R , YANG C , LONG X F . Research progress and future prospects of risk management in China's livestock industry[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2024, 45, 247- 260.
2	MULDER HA , RASHIDI H . Selection on resilience improves disease resistance and tolerance to infections[J]. J Anim Sci, 2017, 95 (8): 3346- 3358.
3	COLDITZ I G , HINE B C . Resilience in farm animals: biology, management, breeding and implications for animal welfare[J]. Anim Prod Sci, 2016, 56 (12): 1961- 1983. doi: 10.1071/AN15297
4	BERGHOF T V , POPPE M , MULDER H A . Opportunities to improve resilience in animal breeding programs[J]. Front Genet, 2019, 9, 692. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00692
5	CHENG J , LIM K , PUTZ A M , et al. Genetic analysis of disease resilience of wean-to-finish pigs under a natural disease challenge model using reaction norms[J]. Genet Sel Evol, 2022, 54 (1): 11. doi: 10.1186/s12711-022-00702-0
6	杨丽玉, 王立刚, 王立贤. 猪疾病恢复力育种研究进展[J]. 中国畜禽种业, 2024, 20 (1): 5- 12.
	YANG L Y , WANG L G , WANG L X . Advances in resilience breeding for disease recovery in swine[J]. China Livestock and Poultry Breeding Industry, 2024, 20 (1): 5- 12.
7	GORSSEN W , WINTERS C , MEYERMANS R , et al. Breeding for resilience in finishing pigs can decrease tail biting, lameness and mortality[J]. Genet Sel Evol, 2024, 56 (1): 48. doi: 10.1186/s12711-024-00919-1
8	GORSSEN W , WINTERS C , MEYERMANS R , et al. A promising resilience parameter for breeding: the use of weight and feed trajectories in growing pigs[J]. J Anim Sci Biotechnol, 2023, 14 (1): 101. doi: 10.1186/s40104-023-00901-9
9	HARLIZIUS B , MATHUR P , KNOL E F . Breeding for resilience: new opportunities in a modern pig breeding program[J]. J Anim Sci, 2020, 98 (Supplement_1): S150- S154. doi: 10.1093/jas/skaa141
10	POPPE M , MULDER H , KAMPHUIS C , et al. Between-herd variation in resilience and relations to herd performance[J]. J Dairy Sci, 2021, 104 (1): 616- 627. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18525
11	ELGERSMA G G , DE JONG G , VAN DER LINDE R , et al. Fluctuations in milk yield are heritable and can be used as a resilience indicator to breed healthy cows[J]. J Dairy Sci, 2018, 101 (2): 1240- 1250. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13270
12	BERGHOF T V , BOVENHUIS H , MULDER H A . Body weight deviations as indicator for resilience in layer chickens[J]. Front Genet, 2019, 10, 1216. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.01216
13	BERGHOF T V , BEDERE N , PEETERS K , et al. The genetics of resilience and its relationships with egg production traits and antibody traits in chickens[J]. Genet Sel Evol, 2024, 56 (1): 20. doi: 10.1186/s12711-024-00888-5
14	MIYUMO S A , WASIKE C B , ILATSIA E D , et al. Genetic and phenotypic correlations among feed efficiency, immune and production traits in indigenous chicken of Kenya[J]. Front Genet, 2023, 13, 1070304. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1070304
15	PUTZ A M , HARDING J C , DYCK M K , et al. Novel resilience phenotypes using feed intake data from a natural disease challenge model in wean-to-finish pigs[J]. Front Genet, 2019, 9, 660. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00660
16	NGUYEN-BA H , VAN MILGEN J , TAGHIPOOR M . A procedure to quantify the feed intake response of growing pigs to perturbations[J]. Anim, 2020, 14 (2): 253- 260. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119001976
17	HOMMA C , HIROSE K , ITO T , et al. Estimation of genetic parameter for feed efficiency and resilience traits in three pig breeds[J]. Anim, 2021, 15 (11): 100384. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100384
18	CHENG J , PUTZ A M , HARDING J C , et al. Genetic parameters of drinking and feeding traits of wean-to-finish pigs under a polymicrobial natural disease challenge[J]. J Anim Sci Biotechnol, 2021, 12 (1): 105. doi: 10.1186/s40104-021-00622-x
19	MANCIN E , MALTECCA C , JIANG J , et al. Capturing resilience from phenotypic deviations: a case study using feed consumption and whole genome data in pigs[J]. BMC Genomics, 2024, 25 (1): 1128. doi: 10.1186/s12864-024-11052-0
20	REVILLA M , GUILLAUME L , LOÏC F G , et al. Quantifying growth perturbations over the fattening period in swine via mathematical modelling[J]. Peer Commun J, 2022, 2.
21	CASEY D S , STERN H S , DEKKERS J C . Identification of errors and factors associated with errors in data from electronic swine feeders[J]. J Anim Sci, 2005, 83 (5): 969- 982. doi: 10.2527/2005.835969x
22	ROUSSEEUW P J , LEROY A M . Robust regression and outlier detection[M]. New Jersey: John wiley & sons, 2003.
23	NUGROHO W H , WARDHANI N W S , FERNANDES A , et al. Robust regression analysis study for data with outliers at some significance levels[J]. Math Stat, 2020, 8 (4): 373- 381. doi: 10.13189/ms.2020.080401
24	杨晓丹. 猪自动生长性能测定设备的数据质量管控研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2018.
	YANG X D. Research on data quality control of automatic growth performance measurement equipment for pigs[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2018. (in Chinese)
25	ZUMBACH B , MISZTAL I , CHEN C , et al. Use of serial pig body weights for genetic evaluation of daily gain[J]. J Anim Breed Genet, 2010, 127 (2): 93- 99. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2009.00827.x
26	TRAN V H , GILBERT H , DAVID I . How to improve breeding value prediction for feed conversion ratio in the case of incomplete longitudinal body weights[J]. J Anim Sci, 2017, 95 (1): 39- 48.
27	ITO T , FUKAWA K , KAMIKAWA M , et al. Effects of correcting missing daily feed intake values on the genetic parameters and estimated breeding values for feeding traits in pigs[J]. Anim Sci J, 2018, 89 (1): 12- 20. doi: 10.1111/asj.12891
28	ŽÁKOVÁ E , KRUPOVA Z , KRUPA E . Genetics of feed intake traits in the Czech Large White pig population[J]. Acta Fytotech Zootech, 2020, 23 (5) doi: 10.15414/AFZ.2020.23.MI-FPAP.217-223
29	KAVLAK A T , UIMARI P . Inheritance of feed intake-based resilience traits and their correlation with production traits in Finnish pig breeds[J]. J Anim Sci, 2024, 102, skae037. doi: 10.1093/jas/skae037
30	POPPE M , BONEKAMP G , VAN PELT M , et al. Genetic analysis of resilience indicators based on milk yield records in different lactations and at different lactation stages[J]. J Dairy Sci, 2021, 104 (2): 1967- 1981. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-19245
31	ARENTE M , GARCÍA M , ZBYN'OVSKÁ K , et al. Correlated response to selection for litter size environmental variability in rabbits' resilience[J]. Anim, 2019, 13 (10): 2348- 2355. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119000302
32	MANCIN E , MALTECCA C , HUANG Y J , et al. A first characterization of the microbiota-resilience link in swine[J]. Microbiome, 2024, 12 (1): 53. doi: 10.1186/s40168-024-01771-7
33	CASTO-REBOLLO C , ARGENTE M J , GARCÍA M L , et al. Effect of environmental variance-based resilience selection on the gut metabolome of rabbits[J]. Genet Sel Evol, 2023, 55 (1): 15. doi: 10.1186/s12711-023-00791-5
34	LAGHOUAOUTA H , FRAILE L , SUÁREZ-MESA R , et al. A genome-wide screen for resilient responses in growing pigs[J]. Genet Sel Evol, 2022, 54 (1): 50. doi: 10.1186/s12711-022-00739-1
35	LEE B. Behavioral indicators of pigs' resilience to weaning stress: Defense cascade and observing home pen behaviors[D]. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2023.

序号Number	变量Variable	阈值Threshold
1	每次访问采食量(FIV)	FIV < 0 g or FIV>1 400 g
2	每次访问采食时间(FDV)	FDV < 0 s or FDV>1 800 s
3	每次访问进料速率(FRV)	FRV≤2 g·min^-1 or FRV≥120 g·min^-1

性状 Trait	个体数 N	最小值 Min	平均值 Mean	最大值 Max	标准差 SD	平均变异系数/% CV
ADG/g	1 692	400.00	885.30	1 220.90	108.29	12.23
ADFI/g	1 692	1 179.00	2 564.00	6 599.00	805.48	31.41
ADFD/s	1 692	1 804.00	3 822.00	9 538.00	1 213.85	31.76
ADVT/n	1 692	3.73	8.95	26.98	3.25	36.30
VAR_FI/g	1 692	214.20	612.30	1 418.30	275.14	44.93
VAR_FD/s	1 692	346.49	871.40	5 658.60	563.14	64.62
VAR_VT/n	1 692	0.96	2.30	6.93	1.02	44.39
LnVar_FI	1 692	10.73	12.39	14.51	0.65	5.21
LnVar_FD	1 692	9.42	13.00	18.94	0.73	5.62
LnVar_VT	1 692	-2.73	1.50	3.87	0.64	42.69
OFF_FI/d	1 692	0	4.53	7	0.93	20.55
OFF_FD/d	1 692	0	4.54	7	0.95	20.95

性状 Trait	遗传力 Heritability	遗传相关 Genetic correlation
性状 Trait	遗传力 Heritability	ADG	ADFI	ADFD	ADVT	LnVar_FI	LnVar_FD	LnVar_VT	Var_FI	Var_FD	Var_VT	OFF_FI	OFF_FD
ADG	0.25 (0.04)	1
ADFI	0.49 (0.08)	0.83 (0.08)	1
ADFD	0.53 (0.09)	0.47 (0.20)	0.50 (0.18)	1
ADVT	0.43 (0.06)	-0.45 (0.17)	-0.17 (0.22)	-0.24 (0.33)	1
LnVar_FI	0.39 (0.06)	0.83 (0.01)	0.86 (0.06)	0.20 (0.22)	-0.48 (0.17)	1
LnVar_FD	0.29 (0.08)	0.07 (0.21)	-0.14 (0.23)	0.25 (0.31)	-0.89 (0.23)	0.10 (0.20)	1
LnVar_VT	0.37 (0.04)	-0.76 (0.25)	-0.55 (0.34)	-0.51 (0.50)	0.90 (0.11)	-0.71 (0.31)	-0.68 (0.42)	1
Var_FI	0.33 (0.06)	0.83 (0.12)	0.96 (0.05)	0.41 (0.23)	-0.37 (0.20)	0.95 (0.04)	0.04 (0.23)	-0.67 (0.33)	1
Var_FD	0.26 (0.07)	0.35 (0.24)	0.31 (0.25)	0.78 (0.24)	-0.70 (0.34)	0.31 (0.23)	0.74 (0.20)	-0.76 (0.50)	0.39 (0.24)	1
Var_VT	0.38 (0.03)	-0.69 (0.23)	-0.52 (0.30)	-0.26 (0.42)	0.90 (0.08)	-0.80 (0.25)	-0.65 (0.35)	0.94 (0.09)	-0.70 (0.31)	-0.64 (0.49)	1
OFF_FI	0.14 (0.06)	-0.63 (0.20)	-0.56 (0.25)	-0.65 (0.37)	-0.19 (0.28)	-0.23 (0.25)	0.40 (0.31)	0.18 (0.37)	-0.36 (0.25)	-0.15 (0.40)	-0.02 (0.35)	1
OFF_FD	0.16 (0.06)	-0.85 (0.19)	-0.88 (0.28)	-0.67 (0.38)	0.04 (0.27)	-0.64 (0.29)	0.25 (0.31)	0.47 (0.32)	-0.76 (0.28)	-0.32 (0.41)	0.34 (0.32)	0.87 (0.18)	1

[1]	田姣, 龙菊烟, 陈霞, 岑晓丽, 牛熙, 黄世会, 王嘉福, 冉雪琴. 香猪ENTPD1基因3'UTR的SINE插入下调其基因表达[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(9): 4303-4314.
[2]	覃阳, 夏嗣廷, 何流琴, 王天丽, 刘宇炎, 姜肖翰, 刘智豪, 刘思危, 李铁军, 印遇龙. 慢性氧化应激对断奶仔猪器官组织微量元素含量的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(9): 4452-4460.
[3]	茹敏, 蒋小丰, 罗国升, 武永厚. 饲粮添加枯草芽孢杆菌对大肠杆菌攻毒仔猪生长性能、血清免疫及抗氧化功能、肠道形态和微生物的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(9): 4461-4471.
[4]	桂若虹, 曹洪战, 刘松瓒, 刘吉祥, 赵嘉龙, 芦春莲. 饲粮不同代谢能和SID赖氨酸水平对高产哺乳深县母猪相关性能的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(9): 4472-4490.
[5]	邱话龙传, 金芊芊, 许潇涵, 周静, 蔡承志, 李龙. 基于纳米孔测序的十种猪病原检测方法的建立[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(9): 4546-4558.
[6]	刘君君, 郭东辉, 刘缓缓, 宋润泽, 赵赛娅, 杨钧尧, 魏战勇, 项玉强, 陈丽颖. 基于免疫磁珠的智能手机辅助比色传感平台用于PDCoV/TGEV IgG抗体的快速检测[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(9): 4559-4571.
[7]	李慧敏, 雷铭楷, 阮胜男, 李盼盼, 李文涛, 何启盖. 猪流行性腹泻病毒荧光微球免疫层析抗原检测方法的建立[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(9): 4572-4580.
[8]	国桂海, 马茹梦, 尹方洁, 刘芯孜, 王梓, 孟伟静, 李佳璇, 崔文, 姜艳平, 唐丽杰, 赵海渊, 王晓娜. 表达猪流行性腹泻病毒S1基因重组罗伊氏黏液乳杆菌诱导仔猪特异性免疫应答的研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(9): 4581-4592.
[9]	陶丽寒, 林翠, 吴诚诚, 康昭风, 黄建珍. 猪丁型冠状病毒编码蛋白结构与功能研究进展[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(8): 3678-3689.
[10]	胡金玲, 钟奇祺, 黄程, 雷明刚. AKR1B1介导AMPK/mTOR/S6通路调控猪骨骼肌卫星细胞增殖和分化[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(8): 3722-3733.
[11]	迟顺顺, 吴丹, 王楠, 王婉洁, 聂雨欣, 牟玉莲, 刘志国, 朱振东, 李奎. 基于RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a的MSTN基因编辑猪检测方法的建立及应用[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(8): 3734-3748.
[12]	刘莎, 杨彩春, 张晓雨, 陈琼, 刘雄, 陈洪波, 周焕焕, 史良玉. 基于80K SNP芯片的梅花星猪群体遗传结构解析及全基因组连续纯合片段特征研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(8): 3749-3760.
[13]	李伉, 陈思颍, 孙雅雯, 冷璇, 王栋, 崔凯, 庞云渭. 甜菜碱对猪孤雌激活胚胎体外发育的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(8): 3826-3836.
[14]	曹宁, 张虎, 王俊丽, 萨仁娜, 赵峰, 解竞静, 高理想, 赵江涛, 董莹, 王钰明. 干燥方式对仿生法测定猪饲料氨基酸消化率的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(8): 3893-3907.
[15]	孟亚轩, 刘彦, 王晶, 陈国顺, 冯涛. 氨基葡萄糖对断奶仔猪血清抗氧化、炎症指标以及肠道微生物的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2025, 56(8): 3908-3921.