Estimation of Additive and Dominance Genetic Effects on Body Weight, Carcass and Ham Quality Traits in Heavy Pigs

Abstract

Simple Summary The response to genetic selection in animal populations depends on both additive and nonadditive (e.g., dominance) effects. Neglecting nonadditive effects in genetic evaluations, when they are relevant, may lead to an overestimation of the genetic progress achievable. Our study evidenced that dominance effects influence the prediction of the total genetic progress achievable in heavy pigs, for growth, carcass, fresh ham and dry-cured ham seasoning traits, and indicated that neglecting nonadditive effects leads to an overestimation of the additive genetic variance. However, goodness of fit and ranking of breeding candidates obtained by models including litter and dominance effects simultaneously were not different from those obtained by models including only litter effects. Consequently, accounting for litter effects in the models for genetic evaluations, even when neglecting dominance effects, would be sufficient to prevent possible consequences arising from the overestimation of the genetic variance, with no repercussions on the ranking of animals and on accuracy of breeding values, ensuring at the same time computational efficiency. Abstract Neglecting dominance effects in genetic evaluations may overestimate the predicted genetic response achievable by a breeding program. Additive and dominance genetic effects were estimated by pedigree-based models for growth, carcass, fresh ham and dry-cured ham seasoning traits in 13,295 crossbred heavy pigs. Variance components estimated by models including litter effects, dominance effects, or both, were compared. Across traits, dominance variance contributed up to 26% of the phenotypic variance and was, on average, 22% of the additive genetic variance. The inclusion of litter, dominance, or both these effects in models reduced the estimated heritability by 9% on average. Confounding was observed among litter, additive genetic and dominance effects. Model fitting improved for models including either the litter or dominance effects, but it did not benefit from the inclusion of both. For 15 traits, model fitting slightly improved when dominance effects were included in place of litter effects, but no effects on animal ranking and accuracy of breeding values were detected. Accounting for litter effects in the models for genetic evaluations would be sufficient to prevent the overestimation of the genetic variance while ensuring computational efficiency.