ResearchersLinks

Short Communication · Volume 55, Issue 3, 20 April 2023 · Open Access

Litter Size Trait as a Selection Criterion in Merino Crossbred Rams

· · · ·

Affiliations & Notes ⌄
  1. 1Research Center for Biotechnology, Research Organization for Life Sciences, National Research and Innovation Agency, Cibinong 16911, West Java, Indonesia 2Center for Advanced Technologies in Animal Genetics and Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW, Australia 2006 * Corresponding author: endangtri@hotmail.com
Article Info ⌄
Journal:
Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Published:
20 April 2023

From the article

  • The average litter size (LS) in Merino×Garut (MEGA) ewes was 1.34±0.51 as presented in Table I, with range of 1.16 to 1.47.
  • In addition, the highest LS value in studied ewes was 1.47±0.54 and reached by Rams ID: 1267.
  • However, selection of observed rams based on LS trait was revealed six rams (43%) with positive of EBVLS.

Selected from the article's own text.

Abstract

Litter size is a reproductive trait of economic importance in small ruminants. This study was carried out to investigate litter size (LS) as a selection criterion in Merino rams using Estimated Breeding Value (EBV). Hence, the heritability (h2) value was estimated with paternal halfshib correlation model through analysis of variance (ANOVA) method. A total of 650 records of LS were used in this study, representing in the progeny of fourteen (14) rams collected from year 1999 to 2004 at Cimanglid Research Park, Bogor, Indonesia. This study showed that the average of LS in sheep samples was 1.34±0.51 with h2 value of 0.04±0.06 (low). However, six Merino rams (43%) had positive of EBV value. Moreover, the data records of LS from each observed ram were sufficient for evaluation and signed by a moderate relative accuracy (RA) value ranged from 0.27 to 0.71. It can be concluded that selection of Merino rams can be performed based on LS using EBV. 

Materials and methods

A total of 650 records data of litter size (LS) of Merino backcross (F1 of (Garut x Merino) x Merino ewes) were applied. The progeny was bred from 14 Garut rams (Iindonesian Thin-tailed/ITT sheep) mated to Merino ewes selected at random. The F1 rams were then mated to Merino ewes and LS data collected from year 1999 to 2004 at Cimanglid Research Park, Bogor, West Java of Indonesia. The research park is located at 15-150 (m above the sea level with temperature is about 20-30°C with relative humidity is about 70% and rainfall is 2500 - 5000 mm/year. All sheep were kept under cover and hand fed throughout the entire study as described below. After weaning, the animal samples (backcross) were moved and reared at the Research Centre for Biotechnology– LIPI, Cibinong, West Java of Indonesia.

The sheep were reared in colony stalls with intensive management system. The feed ration consisted of Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and commercial concentrate containing of 14% of crude protein, 4% of fat, 7% of crude fiber, 8% of ash, 12% of digested protein and 60% of total digestible nutrient (TDN). Water was given by ad libitum and health examination was taken every month. The natural mating was managed in this research park, with breeding as above (Garut × Merino × Merino) ewes to produce generation 2 (G2) of backcross Merino lambs (75% Merino; 25% Garut) as ilustrated in Figure 1.

The pedigree of all sheep were confirmed by DNA parentage assignment using microsatellite markers . Data of LS in this study was used for estimating heritability (h2) value using paternal halfsib correlation model through analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a mathematical formula according to Becker (1992) as follows:

Yik = μ + Si + Eik

Where, Yik is the observation of trait; μ is the common mean; Si is the effect of ith sire and Eik is the experimental error. Hence, h2 value was estimated using mathematical formula according to Becker (1992) as follows:

h2 = 4t

Equation 1.
Equation 2.
Equation 3.

Where, h2 is the heritability; t is the constant; σ2s is the variance component of sire; σ2w is the variance component of records; S is the number of sire; k is the constanta to estimate the number of progeny per sire; ni is the number of records data per sire; N is the total of records data.

The estimated breeding value (EBV) of LS for sire (ram) was analyzed with mathematical formula according to Hardjosubroto (1994) as follows:

Equation 4.

Where, EBV is the estimated breeding value; h2 is the heritability; n is the number of records data in observed sire; P̅s is the average trait in observed sire; P̅P is the average trait of population.

The relative accuracy (RA) was estimated in this study to obtain the best rams based on records data accurately with mathematical formula according to Warwick et al. (1990) as follows:

Equation 5.

t = R h2

Where, RA is the relative accuracy; n is the number of records data in observed sire; R is the constanta of 0.25 (halfsib correlation); h is the root of h2; h2 is the heritability. The data analysis was computed by using Microsoft Excel 2007 computer program.

Results and discussion

The average litter size (LS) in Merino×Garut (MEGA) ewes was 1.34±0.51 as presented in Table I, with range of 1.16 to 1.47. Previous studies reported the average of LS in some Indonesian native sheep of Fat-Tailed (1.54), Thin-Tailed (1.82), Batur (1.55), Priangan (1.51), Garut (1.69) and Dombos/Texel (1.45) breeds ; ; ; ; ; . Moreover, the average of LS in Indonesian crossbred sheep of Pribados and composite Garut were 1.91 and 1.37 respectively ; . The average LS in the MEGA ewes was similar to that for the composite Garut ewes. LS can be affected by age of ewe (parity), breed (genetic) and nutrition . The highest LS in ewes studied here was 4.00 with mated by Rams ID: 1263. In addition, the highest LS value in studied ewes was 1.47±0.54 and reached by Rams ID: 1267.

Table I. Descriptive statistics of litter size in the Merino × Garut (MEGA) rams mated with non selected Merino ewes.

Rams ID

N

Mean±SD (Range)

CV (%)

1258

43

1.42±0.50 (1.00 - 2.00)

35.19

1261

98

1.36±0.50 (1.00 - 3.00)

37.03

1262

79

1.39±0.49 (1.00 - 2.00)

35.29

1263

88

1.39±0.60 (1.00 - 4.00)

42.96

1265

38

1.32±0.47 (1.00 - 2.00)

35.80

1266

19

1.21±0.42 (1.00 - 2.00)

34.60

1267

53

1.47±0.54 (1.00 - 3.00)

36.75

1268

27

1.19±0.48 (1.00 - 3.00)

40.78

1269

11

1.18±0.40 (1.00 - 2.00)

34.23

1273

76

1.36±0.51 (1.00 - 3.00)

37.53

1274

8

1.25±0.46 (1.00 - 2.00)

37.03

1348

31

1.16±0.37 (1.00 - 2.00)

32.20

1578

46

1.20±0.45 (1.00 - 3.00)

37.90

1630

33

1.33±0.48 (1.00 - 2.00)

35.90

Total

650

1.34±0.51 (1.00 - 4.00)

37.73

N, number of records; SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation.

The heritability (h2) value in this study was 0.04 and is considered as low category (h2<0.10) as presented in Table II. Abdoli et al. (2019) reported the low of h2 value was in commercial (0.10) and Markhoz (0.002±0.007) sheep ; . Meanwhile, the moderate (0.11<h2<0.30) to high (h2 > 0.31) of h2 value were reported in Canadian (0.13±0.02); Outaouais (0.13±0.02); Rideau (0.12±0.02) and Mehraban (0.16±0.04) sheep ; Yavarivard et al., 2015). The low of h2 value may be due to the importance of random environmental effects on variability of the observations and due to categorycal expression of trait . Therefore, high standard error (SE) of h2 values can be caused by statistical analysis methods, low number of progeny and low number of sires used. According to estimated h2 value, improvement of LS trait in animals study would be difficult even though LS has great economical importance. Moreover, about 5% the LS variation in animals study was affected by genetic paternal effect. Unfortunately, the genetic maternal effect in the present study can not be estimated because of limited records data information.

Table II. The result of variance analysis (ANOVA) to estimate heritability (h2) value for litter size trait in backcross Merino sheep of Indonesia.

Source of variation

DF

SS

MS

σ2s

σ2e

k

h2

SE(h2)

Sire

13

4.91

0.38

0.003

0.25

45

0.04

0.06

Residual

636

160.62

0.25

Total

649

DF, degree of freedom; SS, sum of square; MS, means of square; σ2s, variance component of sire; σ2e, variance component of records; k, constanta; h2, heritability; SE(h2), standard error of progeny.

Table III. The estimated breeding value (EBV) and relative accuracy (RA) to select the best Merino rams based on litter size trait.

Ram’s ID

EBV

RA

Rank

Remark

1258

+0.05

0.55

2

Selected

1261

+0.02

0.29

4

Selected

1262

+0.04

0.29

3

Selected

1263

+0.05

0.29

2

Selected

1265

-0.01

0.27

5

Culling

1266

-0.04

0.25

8

Culling

1267

+0.09

0.28

1

Selected

1268

-0.06

0.26

9

Culling

1269

-0.03

0.23

7

Culling

1273

+0.02

0.29

4

Selected

1274

-0.01

0.21

6

Culling

1348

-0.09

0.27

10

Culling

1578

-0.09

0.28

10

Culling

1630

-0.01

0.50

5

Culling

Although h2 value of LS in animals study is small, total of six studied rams (43%) capable to select based on estimated breeding value (EBV) of this trait as presented in Table III. The EBV of LS (EBVLS) in animals study was ranged from -0.09 (Rams ID: 1348 and 1578) to +0.09 (Rams ID: 1267). Hence, the highest of relative accuracy (RA) value was 0.55 in rams ID: 1258 with 43 progeny for evaluation. Sumadi et al. (2017) reported that the highest RA value of 0.80 in bull ID: JIMIN with 18 progeny for evaluation. The RA value can be affected by number of records data in each observed sire and h2 value.

Studies of EBV for LS trait in sheep are very limited. Bhuiyan and Curran (1993) reported that the EBV of LS in Romney Marsh sheep was capable to improve from 0.03 to +2.77 during six years. In the future, selection of reproductive traits must be supported by molecular approach using Marker Assisted Selection or genomic selection (GS) to improve the accuracy of EBV. Ahlawat et al. (2015) stated that molecular genetic techniques are promising where they have ability to analyse genetic variability at the DNA level by detecting causal genes for reproductive characteristics or marker closely linked to underlying QTL.

Conclusions and recommendations

The h2 value of LS was 0.04 and considered low. However, selection of observed rams based on LS trait was revealed six rams (43%) with positive of EBVLS. Meanwhile, the highest of EBVLS was +0.09 and reached by Rams ID: 1267. In conclusion, LS trait can be used as the selection criteria in observed rams.

Acknowledgments

This research was possible due to available data from ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) project (AS1/9727). Authors are greatful to some colleagues who helped in collecting field data at the Research Centre for Biotechnology - LIPI (Indonesian Institute of Sciences).

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interests.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1..

Backcross Merino progeny sheep (75% Merino; 25% Garut).

References

  1. Abdoli, R., Zamani, P., Mirhoseini, S.Z., Hossein-Zadeh, N.G. and Almasi, M., 2019. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu., 32: 58-63. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rccp.v32n1a07[CrossRef]
  2. Ahlawat, S., Sharma, R., Maitra, A. and Tantia, M.S., 2015. Small Rumin. Res., 125: 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2015.01.027[CrossRef]
  3. Al-Banani, A.U., 2019. Productivity and reproduction index of ewes in Margawati Breeding in Garut regency. B.Sc thesis. Jenderal Soedirman University, Purwokerto, Indonesia.
  4. Becker, W.A., 1992. Manual of quantitative genetics. 5th edn. Academic Enterprises Valllman, USA.
  5. Bhuiyan, A.K.F.H. and Curran, M.K., 1993. Small.Rumin. Res., 12: 315-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-4488(93)90066-Q[CrossRef]
  6. Bourdon, R.M., 2000. Understanding animal breeding: 2nd edn. Colorado StateUniversity Press, USA.
  7. Brand, T.S., van der Westhuizen, E.J., van Der Merwe, D.A. and Hoffman, L.C., 2018. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 48: 477-488. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v48i3.8[CrossRef]
  8. Choiria, R., Nurachma, S. and Ramdani, D., 2016. Available at: http://www.jurnal.unpad.ac.id. (accessed 10 Jan 2020).
  9. Hafez, E.S.E., 1968. Reproduction in farm animals: 2nd edn. Lea and Febiger, USA.
  10. Hakim, F.R., Arifin, M. and Rianto, E., 2019. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Env. Sci., 247: 012044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/247/1/012044[CrossRef]
  11. Hansen, C. and Shrestha, J.N.B., 1997. Small Rumin. Res., 24: 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(96)00952-2[CrossRef]
  12. Hardjosubroto, W., 1994. Aplikasi pemuliabiakan di lapangan. Gramedia Widiasarana, INA.
  13. Long, T.E., Johnson, R.K. and Keele, J.W., 1991. J. Anim. Sci., 69: 2787-2794. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6972787x[CrossRef]
  14. Margawati, E.T., Tammen, I., Jones, M., and Raadsma, HW., 2002. Berita Biol., 6: 475-479.
  15. Najmuddin, M. and Nasich, M., 2019. J. Ternak Tropika, 20: 76-83. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jtapro.2019.020.01.10[CrossRef]
  16. Prayitno., 2010. Analisis genetik dan kekerabatan domba Batur dengan domba lokal dan Merino menggunakan marker Random Amplyfied Polymorphism DNA. Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, YK.
  17. Priyanto, D. and Adiati, U., 2013. In: Proc. Nat. Sem. Anim. Husb. Vet. Technol. Bogor, Indonesia. pp. 519-529.
  18. Rahmat, D., Dhalika, T. and Dudi., 2006. J. Ilmu. Ternak., 6: 96-101.
  19. Rosati, A., Mousa, E., van Vleck, L.D. and Young, L.D., 2002. Small Rumin. Res., 43: 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(01)00256-5[CrossRef]
  20. Sodiq, A., 2010. Agripet, 10: 25-31. https://doi.org/10.17969/agripet.v10i1.634[CrossRef]
  21. Sodiq, A., Yuwono, P. and Santosa, S.A., 2011. Anim. Prod., 13: 166-172.
  22. Sumadi, Fathoni, A., Maharani, D., Ngadiyono, N., Widayatai D.T. Noviandi, C.T. and Khusnudin, M. 2017. J. Indones. Trop. Anim. Agric., 42: 160-166. https://doi.org/10.14710/jitaa.42.3.160-166[CrossRef]
  23. Warwick, E.J., Astuti, J.M. and Hardjosubroto, W., 1990. Pemuliaan ternak. Gadjah Mada University Press, INA.
  24. Yavarifard, R., Hossein-Zadeth, G. and Shadparvar, A.A., 2015. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 60: 281-288. https://doi.org/10.17221/8242-CJAS[CrossRef]

Services

Article usage statistics

Loading…