MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414831144 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf300.403

PSIV-24 Genetic analysis of the service sire effect on survival of swine from birth to market weight.

2025· article· en· W4414831144 on OpenAlexaffabout
Guoyu Hu, Mohsen Jafarikia, Laurence Maignel, Dan Tulpan, Graham Plastow, Justin Holl, Brian Sullivan, Younes Miar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of GuelphDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLitterSireHeritabilityBirth weightWeaningSelection (genetic algorithm)OffspringMaternal effectSurvival analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mortality from birth to market weight in swine imposes substantial economic losses on pork production systems and raises critical animal welfare concerns. While genetic selection has predominantly targeted maternal and direct genetic effects, the role of service sires in shaping offspring survival remains poorly characterized, limiting opportunities for optimizing breeding strategies. Quantifying the genetic contribution of service sires to offspring survival may provide an opportunity to improve selection for survival traits. Thus, this study aimed to estimate the heritability of service sires on seven survival-related traits from birth to market weight. The studied traits included total number of piglets born (TNB), total number of piglets born alive (NBA), survival rate at birth (SRB), total number weaned (TNW), survival rate from birth to weaning (SRW), total number of individuals reaching market weight (TNM), and survival rate from weaning to market weight (SRM), The dataset included records from 9,828 litters of the Canadian Landrace breed. The phenotypic records of litter originated from a total of 4,067 dams and 788 service sires. The significance of fixed effects (herd-year-season and number of services), covariates (inbreeding of litter and dam, parity, farrowing age of dam within parity, lactation length of previous parity, previous weaning to conception interval), and random effects (additive genetic effects of dam and sire, permanent environmental effect of dam, and common litter effect of dam) were determined using univariate models in ASReml 4.2. Only the significant effects were retained in the final model for variance component estimation for each trait. The estimated heritabilities (±SE) for the service sire were low at 0.066±0.009 for TNB, 0.059±0.008 for NBA, 0.018±0.005 for SRB, 0.049±0.008 for TNW, 0.014±0.004 for SRW, 0.032±0.006 for TNM, and 0.026±0.006 for SRM. On average, the difference in the estimated EBVs between the top and bottom 10% of service sires corresponded to an increase of 3.77 TNB, 3.44 NBA, 0.03 SRB, 2.58 TNW, 0.04 SRW, 1.96 TNM, and 0.10 in SRM per litter. These results indicate that sire selection could be used to improve piglet survival, although direct genetic gains may be limited due to the low heritability of the traits. However, the low heritabilities highlight the potential for genomic selection, which leverages genome-wide markers to capture additive genetic variance beyond what is detected by pedigree-based methods and offers a viable strategy to improve pre- and post-weaning survival. Further research should explore integrating genomic information to refine selection strategies for service sires on these critical yet low-heritability survival traits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→