ACTA AGRICULTURAE SCANDINAVICA, SECTION A — ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2016

VOL. 66, NO. 3, 145–151

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2017.1284259

Economic values for lean meat and fat efficiency in Norwegian Landrace nucleus
pig population
Kristine Hov Martinsena,b, Dan Olsenc, Jørgen Ødegårda,d and Theodorus Meuwissena
a
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ås, Norway; bNofima AS, Ås, Norway; cTopigs Norsvin
Hamar, Norway; dAquaGen AS Trondheim, Norway

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A profit function was developed to estimate economic values for new efficiency traits for fattening Received 27 June 2016
pigs in Norwegian Landrace. These traits were lean meat efficiency (LME) and fat efficiency (FE). LME Revised 16 December 2016
and FE described how much feed the animal used to produce 1 kg lean meat and fat as a deviation Accepted 23 December 2016
from the mean. Both traits were derived from analysing total feed consumption in a random
KEYWORDS
regression model which included lean meat and fat content of the carcass (FC) as random Animal breeding; profit
covariates. In addition, economic values and breeding values were calculated for days from 40 to function; feed efficiency;
100/120 kg live weight (DAYS), lean meat percentage (LMP) and FC. To compare LME and FE Norwegian Landrace;
with total feed intake (FI), two indexes were constructed. One index included LME, FE, DAYS, standardized economic value
LMP and FC and was referred to as breeding goal A and one index included FI, LMP and DAYS
and was referred to as breeding goal B. The standardized economic values for LME and FE were
8.9 and 2.9 EUR/σa, respectively. There was a larger variation in the index for breeding goal A
(SD = 5.65) than B (SD = 3.97). The results suggested that the two efficiency traits had an
economic importance in pork production and that there was a potential for increased genetic
gain in profit by using breeding goal A compared to breeding goal B.

Introduction efficiency to utilize nutrients. Therefore, the same study

established two new efficiency traits which indicated
The purpose of pig breeding is to meet the demands for
how well the animal utilized the feed used for lean
high-quality meat production in a sustainable way. The
meat and fat production. The traits were named lean
breeding goal should therefore include traits that
meat efficiency (LME) and fat efficiency (FE) and describe
increase the commercial producer’s income and reduce
how much feed the animal need to produce one extra kg
their costs in pork production. This includes traits such
lean meat and fat (as a deviation from the mean),
as growth and feed efficiency, but also demands from
respectively. The aim of this study was to estimate the
the society, with traits such as meat quality, animal
economic values for the two new efficiency traits, LME
welfare and health (Kanis et al., 2005; Flint & Woolliams,
and FE. The study also set out to compare a traditional
2008). These traits are often of different economic impor-
breeding goal including actual feed consumption,
tance, and in order to assign weights to the traits in the
growth and lean meat percentage (LMP) with a new
breeding goal, their economic value needs to be esti-
breeding goal including the new efficiency traits that
mated (De Vries, 1989). The Norwegian Landrace (NL) is
are used for calculating feed consumption.
a maternal breed and the breeding goal consists of
seven trait groups with several traits within each group.
These groups are production, carcass quality, meat Material and methods
quality, litter size, reproduction, maternal ability and
Model description
robustness, and all are differently weighted in the total
merit index (Norsvin, 2016). The NL is a feed efficient The breeding company Topigs Norsvin (TN; Vught, the
and lean breed with a low amount of back fat (Gjer- Netherlands) provided data from their boar test station
laug-Enger et al., 2012). This is due to extensive selection in Norway which was used as input for a profit function.
for reduced back fat, increased lean growth and reduced The profit function combined biological data recorded at
feed intake (FI) per kg growth (FCR) over 50 years. Martin- the boar test station and economic data from TN’s profit-
sen et al. (2015) suggested that this selection was more ability analyses to predict the economic importance of
related to resource allocation rather than selection for the different traits included in the function. The profit

CONTACT Kristine Hov Martinsen kristine.martinsen@nofima.no

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
146 K. H. MARTINSEN ET AL.
function describes the costs of and income earned for
the purebred NL fattening pigs, from when they are
bought as feeder pigs (40 kg) to when they are slaugh-
tered (100/120 kg).
Traits evaluated
All traits were recorded on purebred NL boars from 40
nucleus herds in Norway at the boar test station. The
boars are housed in pens with a feed intake recording
equipment station (Osborne Industries Inc., Osborne,
KS, USA), with 12 pigs in each pen. Here, individual FI
and weight are recorded. The boars’ live weight were
∼40 kg when they entered the test, and about 100/
120 kg when they ended the test. At the end of the
test, the boars’ body composition was scanned by com-
puted tomography (CT). Boars that finished the test
before 1 March 2012 were CT-scanned at 100 kg live
weight, while boars that finished after this date were
scanned at 120 kg. Through image analysis from the CT
scans, lean meat and fat content of the carcass (FC)
were registered. In total, 8161 NL boars had information
on the traits included in the profit function. These traits
were LME and FE, which tell how well the animal utilizes
feed for lean meat and fat production by describing how
much feed the animal needs to produce 1 kg of lean
meat and fat, respectively. In addition, days from 40 to
100/120 kg live weight (DAYS), LMP and fat content of
the carcass measured in kg (FC) was also included in
the profit function. An index including all the aforemen-
tioned traits was constructed and referred to as breeding
goal A. In order to compare breeding goal A with a tra-
ditional breeding goal, an index including feed intake
during the test period (FI), DAYS and LMP was con-
structed and referred to as breeding goal B.
Days from 40 to 100/120 kg live weight
Days from 40 to 100/120 kg live weight is a measurement
of the individual growth. The trait is defined as the
number of days between when the animal is bought as
a feeder pig (40 kg) and slaughtered at 100/120 kg. A
reduction in this trait is preferable, as it would take a
faster growing pig fewer days to reach the end weight,
and thus, require less feed. In addition, the farmer can
minimize housing and labour costs per unit produced
when the animals are slaughtered earlier.
Lean meat percentage
LMP is a measure of carcass quality in the pig, and influ-
ences the farmer’s income. LMP is calculated based on an
equation developed by TN including information from
the image analysis of CT scans (J. Kongsro, TN, Hamar,
Norway, personal communication). The price per kg for
the carcass is influenced by LMP, as the market prefers
a lean carcass (high LMP). Therefore, by improving this
trait, the income of the farmer will increase.
Fat content on the carcass
The FC represents the amount of fat of the carcass
measured in kg, which implies a cost to the farmer. By
reducing FC in the fattening pigs, feed costs for fat depo-
sition can be minimized, and the farmer’s total cost
decrease. This trait is included in the calculation of FI
costs together with FE.
Total FI in the test period
Total FI in the test period is a measure of individual total
FI during the test period. A reduction in this trait is desir-
able, as animals with low FI save feed costs in production
systems.
Lean meat and fat efficiency
The traits LME or FE are not observed phenotypes on the
boar. They are calculated breeding values for each boar.
The breeding values are calculated by analysing FI in a
random regression animal model where lean meat and
FC were included as random covariates. That way the
model is able to account for individual differences in FI
due to efficiency to deposit lean meat and fat. The breed-
ing value estimation was performed in a univariate analy-
sis using DMU (Madsen & Jensen, 2013). The fixed effects
used in the model were determined based on an analysis
of the traits in SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC).
For analysing FI the following model was used:
FIijknoqrst = HYi + BMj + STk + SECn + blm LMEA To
+ bfat FATq + bamw × AMWr + as +pent + alms
× LMEATo + afats × FATq + eijknoqrst . (1)
The fixed effects included in the model were herd-year
(HY), birth month (BM), scanning time (ST) and section
(SEC). Section was defined as the compartment, in
which the pen was located. In each compartment there
were six pens. Number of levels in i was 207 and for j,
12. For k number of levels was 2 (finishing before or
after 1 March 2012) and n had 132 levels. The boars’
amount of lean meat (LMEAT) and fat (FAT) of the
carcass and accumulated metabolic body weight
(AMW) were included as fixed regression covariates. As
a measure of the individual genetic potential for LME
and FE, LMEAT and FAT were also included as random
regression covariates. LME and FE represent the
amount of feed needed to produce one extra kg of
lean meat or fat as a deviation from the mean, respect-
ively. Both traits are estimated as the random regression
coefficients, alms andafats . The animal’s breeding value (as )
 ACTA AGRICULTURAE SCANDINAVICA, SECTION A – ANIMAL SCIENCE
and pen (pen) were included as random effects. In this
model, as represented the additive genetic effect of the
animal on FI that is not explained by the genetic effect
of fat and LME and is referred to as the residual FI of
the animal. This could be factors such as disease status
of the animal, heat production or immune response.
The fixed regression coefficients for feed used for lean
meat and fat deposition estimated by model (1) were set
as the mean for LME and FE. The regression coefficients
were used in the profit function to estimate the econ-
omic value of the traits, as they represent the amount
of feed used to produce 1 kg of lean meat (LMEAT) and
fat (FAT) of the carcass, respectively.
Profit function
The profit function is a function consisting of the input and
output per unit and describes the profitability of the unit.
In this study, the profit was calculated per fattening pig.
The input data and means are presented in Table 1.
Income
In fattening pig production in Norway, the income is a
result of the value of the fattening pig and subsidies.
The value of the fattening pig is dependent on the
settling price, which is associated with the SEUROP
carcass grading system for pigs. The system organizes
the carcasses into categories (S to R), depending on
their LMP (Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research
Center, 2012). In recent years, the average LMP has
been above 60%, and in category S. The farmer is paid
a bonus if LMP in the carcass is above 60% or a reduction
in the price if LMP is lower than this. This price adjustment
was set to ±0.03 EUR per LMP above or below 60% and
added to the settling price per kg slaughter weight
(Table 2). The settling price also depends on the carcass
weight. The settling price for the carcass weight was col-
lected from Norsvin SA’s economic analysis of pork pro-
duction in 2014 (M. Narum, TN, Hamar, Norway,
personal communication). The subsidies for this given
situation were set to 1.8 EUR/fattening pig (Table 2) and
Table 1. Input data, mean performance from purebred NL boars
at test station.
Variable Performance mean
Carcass weight (kg) 77.40
Days in test (days) 68.30
Total FI in the test period (kg) 152.08
Maintenance requirement/day (kg) 1.58
LMP (%) 67.92
Average fat percentage (%) 20.40
Lean meat content (kg) 52.34
FC (kg) 15.99
Average LME (kg feed/kg lean meat) −0.03
Average FE (kg feed/kg fat) 2.24
147
Table 2. Market prices related to costs and income in fattening
pig production (M. Narum, TN, Hamar, Norway, personal
communication).
Variable EUR (€)
Price/kg carcass weight (Prkg) 2.75
Additional price per kg if LMP above or below 60% (AdPr) 0.03
Subsidies per fattening pig (S) 1.83
Cost/kg feed (Pfeed) 0.34
Note: The currency was set at 13 April 2016 where 1 EUR = NOK 9.3.
treated as a fixed income. The income (I ) of a fattening
pig (fp) was calculated with the following function:
Ifp = CW × ( Prkg + (LMPfp − 60) × AdPr) + Sfp , (2)
where CW represents the carcass weight and Prkg is the
settling price per kg. AdPr is the price adjustment per
LMP above or below 60% and Sfp represents the fixed
subsidies.
Costs
The costs included in fattening pig production were feed
for production and maintenance, labour costs, machines,
housing and fixed non-feed costs. The following function
was used to calculate the costs (Cfp) of a fattening pig:
Cfp = Pfeed × (blm × mlmc ) + Pfeed × (bfat × mfc )
+ Pfeed × (MAINday × DAYSfp )
(3)
+ (LABday × DAYSfp ) + (HOUday × DAYSfp )
+ FNFfp .
The feed costs for maintenance per day (MAIN) were cal-
culated based on the equation for the standard mainten-
ance requirement given in NRC (2012), and multiplied by
the number of feed days (DAYS). To calculate feed used for
production of lean meat and fat, the fixed regression coef-
ficients derived from model (1) (blm = LME and bfat = FE)
were used with the amount of lean meat (mlmc ) and fat
(mfc ) (Table 1). All feed requirements were multiplied by
the cost per kg feed (Pfeed) (Table 2). In addition, a fixed
non-feed cost (FNFfp) dependent on the expression unit
(per fattening pig) was included. This cost includes
piglet price, veterinary expenses, insurance, mortality
and interest per fattening pig for all traits (Table 3).
Since machines/buildings (HOU) and labour (LAB) were
dependent on DAYS, these costs are not included in
FNF. The cost function (3) was related to breeding goal
A. The estimated cost for breeding goal B (FI is analysed
instead of LME and FE) is identical to function (3), but par-
ameters associated with FI estimation (blm ,bfat , mlmc ,mfc
and MAIN) were replaced by FI multiplied with the feed
price (Pfeed). The profit per fattening pig was the differ-
ence between total income per fattening pig (Ifp) and
total costs per fattening pig (Cfp) in both breeding goal
A and B.
148 K. H. MARTINSEN ET AL.

Table 3. Marginal economic values (MEV) expressed in EUR (€), and B:

genetic standard deviation (σa) and standardized economic

values (SEV) for the six traits; total feed intake in the test Indexj = MEVi × EBVij , (6)
period (FI), lean meat efficiency (LME), fat efficiency (FE), days
from 40 to 100/120 kg live weight (DAYS), lean meat The index for animal j was calculated as the summation
percentage (LMP) and fat content on the carcass (FC). of the product of the marginal economic value for
MEV SEV Breeding goal Breeding goal each trait (i) (MEVi) and the estimated breeding value
Trait (€) σa (€/σa) A B
for the trait (EBVij) in animal j.
FI (kg) 0.348 4.684 1.634 x
LME 18.255 0.489 8.927 x
(kg feed)
FE (kg 5.577 0.517 2.881 x Results
feed)
DAYS 0.907 2.851 2.588 x x Economic values
(days)
LMP (%) 2.499 1.802 4.503 x x
Table 1 gives the production means for NL pigs at the
FC (kg) 0.782 1.367 1.069 x
Note: All traits are expressed on a fattening pig-basis. The currency was set at
test station. The average carcass weight of a purebred
April 13, where 1 NOK = 9.3 EUR. NL boar was 79.1 kg with a mean LMP of 67.9%. The
average FC was 15.9 kg, and the boars used on
Economic values average 66.3 days from 40 to 100/120 kg live weight
at the test.
Economic values for the traits were estimated by improv-
The marginal economic values (EUR per trait unit) are
ing the mean of the trait by 1%, while the other traits
presented in Table 3. The marginal economic value of FI
remained constant. The following formula was used to
was estimated to 0.3 EUR/kg feed. A 1% improvement of
estimate the marginal economic value of the traits:
LME reduced feed used for lean meat production by
Marginal economic valuen (MEV) 0.015 kg and hereby increased the profit by 0.005 EUR.
P(mn + Dn) − P(mn ) This gave LME the highest marginal economic value of
= . (4) 18.3 EUR/kg feed/kg lean meat deposited (unit
Dn
regression coefficient). For FE, the 1% improvement
The difference in profit (P) between the original (mn ) and
reduced the use of feed for fat production of 0.3 kg,
the improved (mn + Dn) mean was divided by the
which increased the profit by 0.12 EUR. The marginal
change in the trait (Dn) and represented the marginal
economic value for FE was 5.6 EUR/kg feed/kg fat depos-
economic value of the trait per trait unit. As the effects
ited. In terms of carcass payment, LMP was an important
are linear, the same economic values could be derived
trait (Table 2). By improving LMP by 1%, to 68.5%, the
by changing the traits by one unit instead of improving
profit increased by 1.7 EUR. The marginal economic
the traits by 1%. The marginal economic value was stan-
value for LMP was 2.5 EUR/percentage. The FC affected
dardized by multiplying with the additive genetic stan-
FI in the profit function in breeding goal A. A 1%
dard deviation (sa ) for each trait.
improvement in the trait was assumed (from 15.99 to
15.83 kg), and resulted in increasing the profit by 0.12
Indexes EUR. The marginal economic value for FC was 0.8 EUR/
kg fat. For growth in the fattening period, DAYS was
To create an index for each breeding goal (A and B), pre- included in the analysis. By reducing DAYS by 1% (0.7
diction of breeding values for the traits included in the days), profit increased by 0.6 EUR per fattening pig and
two breeding goals was necessary. The prediction of
the marginal economic value was 0.9 EUR/day.
breeding values for FI, FC, LMP and DAYS was performed Table 3 also includes standardized economic values
using univariate models in DMU (Madsen & Jensen, (SEV), which makes it possible to compare the econ-
2013). The following model was used: omic values on the same scale, that is, change in
Yijklmn = HYi + BMj + STk + SECl + am + penn profit resulting from one genetic standard devi-
ation increase in each included trait (EUR/σa). Out of
+ eijklmn . (5)
all the traits, LME had the highest economic importance
Model (5) was identical to model (1), but did not include (8.9 EUR/σa), while FE (2.9 EUR/σa) was the third most
the fixed and random effects of lean meat and FC nor the important trait (4.5 EUR/σa). For DAYS, the standardized
fixed effect of accumulated metabolic body weight. economic value was 2.6 EUR/σa. The trait FC was the
To compare the two breeding goals for production least important (1.1 EUR/σa). The trait FI had the
relative to potential for genetic gain in profit for each second lowest economic importance out of all six
animal j, an index was calculated for breeding goals A traits in the analyses (1.6 EUR/σa).

Breeding goals
Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics for the indexes
for breeding goals A and B. The standard deviation of
the index for breeding goal B was 3.97. For the index
for breeding goal A, the standard deviation was esti-
mated at 5.65. The standard deviation suggested that
the index for breeding goal A had two times as high vari-
ation as the index for breeding goal B. The high variance
indicates that there is a bigger variation in the genetic
potential for profit using breeding goal A. Breeding
goal A included LME and FE as feed efficiency measures,
while breeding goal B included FI. The rank correlation
between the two indexes was 0.77. There was a com-
plete re-ranking of the 10 best sires when breeding
goal B was used instead of breeding goal A, with no
overlap among the 10 best boars for the two breeding
goals. The best animals in breeding goal A had overall
lower phenotypic FI than the best animals for breeding
goal B. However, the animals had poorer growth
(higher DAYS).
Discussion
The study found economic values for LME and FE,
together with directly observed traits DAYS, LMP, FC
and FI. Higher variance was observed in the index con-
taining LME and FE as feed consumption traits (breeding
goal A) compared to the index for breeding goal B, con-
taining FI as the feed consumption trait. The results
suggested that both efficiency traits are important for
profit and an inclusion of the traits in the breeding
goal might improve genetic gain in profit as the index
of breeding goal A shows a substantially higher variance.
Still, parameters such as accuracy of the breeding values,
heritabilities, genetic correlations, selection intensity and
generation interval also affect the genetic gain in a trait.
These are parameters that have not been investigated in
this study, and might have a significant effect on the
results.
Table 4. Number of observations (n), standard deviation (SD),
minimum value (Min) and maximum value (Max) for index
calculated for breeding goal A and breeding goal B. Breeding
goal A contain lean meat efficiency (LME), fat efficiency (FE),
fat content on the carcass (FC), lean meat percentage (LMP)
and days between 40 to 100/120 kg live weight (DAYS).
Breeding goal A Breeding goal B
n 8161
Mean 4.61
SD 5.65
Min −15.13
Max 33.52
Note: Breeding goal B contains total feed consumption in the test period (FI),
lean meat percentage (LMP) and days from 40 to 100/120 kg live weight
(DAYS).
ACTA AGRICULTURAE SCANDINAVICA, SECTION A – ANIMAL SCIENCE 149
The profit function constructed for breeding goal A in
this study was only dependent on five boar traits, as the
aim was to estimate the economic value of LME and FE
and not to describe the overall complexity of the pork
production in Norway. Therefore, the model constructed
was simple, but included traits that are important in
respect to feed consumption and growth in pork pro-
duction. The quality of the input data used for the base
situation is important when calculating economic
values for traits. This study used input data on purebred
NL from the boar test station. These data are used for the
national genetic evaluation of the boars and are the
upper part of the genetic level of the NL population.
The feed price and carcass price were market averages
from 2014.
The input data for LME and FE in the profit function
were the fixed regression coefficient of lean meat (blm )
and FC (bfat ), as these traits did not have observed phe-
notypes. Martinsen et al. (2015) suggested that blm was
difficult to predict, as it was not significantly different
from zero. The blm might have been difficult to estimate
due to the fact that energy costs for depositing fat are
higher than for lean meat. At the same live weight, the
only way an animal could deposit more lean meat than
others would be by reducing the non-carcass body
mass (intestines, visceral fat, etc.) as bones are relatively
constant (little variation) and fat are corrected for in the
model (Model 1). This means that the cost of depositing
lean meat actually reflects the difference between the
costs of depositing lean meat minus the cost of deposit-
ing non-carcass body mass. This difference might not be
different from zero, as these costs are likely to be close to
the same.
Economic values
The marginal economic values in this study were pre-
sented per trait unit per fattening pig. Other studies
have estimated economic values for production traits
in different breeds, countries and with a different defi-
nition of production efficiency in the economic model
(Hermesch et al., 2003; Houska et al., 2004, 2010; Seren-
ius et al., 2007). Economic values across countries,
breeding companies and breeds are difficult to
compare due to different definitions of production effi-
ciency, varying market and management conditions
across countries and different economic models
8161 (Houska et al., 2004). The SEV estimated for DAYS and
2.36
3.97 LMP in this study were higher than the economic
−14.76 values TN use. For FI, the economic value was slightly
17.83
lower than what TN currently use. Still, the trait defi-
nitions are not exactly the same, and our profit function
is not very complex.
150 K. H. MARTINSEN ET AL.
Serenius et al. (2007) mentioned the importance of
what a realistic change in the trait is, when marginal
economic values are investigated. This study found a
marginal economic value for LME of 18.3 EUR/kg feed/
kg lean meat per slaughter pig, which is high.
However, it may not be realistic to reduce the amount
of feed used for 1-kg lean meat deposition by 1 kg. In
2014, the feed used for 1-kg growth in Norwegian com-
mercial fattening pigs was 2.74 kg (Ingris, 2014). Feed for
growth includes feed for deposition of fat, lean meat and
other tissues as well as feed for maintenance (Schinckel &
de Lange, 1996). To reduce the amount of feed for pro-
duction of a kg lean meat by 1 kg might be unlikely, as
there is obviously a biological limit for how efficient a
pig could become.
The genetic standard deviation of LME was low (0.5),
and the standardized economic value of the trait was
8.9 EUR/σa. LME is not a phenotype that is observed,
but a regression coefficient estimating the cost for pro-
duction of one additional kg lean meat (as a deviation
from the mean). Lean meat efficient animals utilize less
feed per kg lean meat deposited, that is, the breeding
value is negative and low. Even though the marginal
economic value of LME was high per kg feed/kg lean
meat per slaughter pig, a small change in the trait was
observed when improved by 1%. This small change
reduced the feed cost and caused a change in profit.
This change in profit was large compared to the
change in the trait and thus a high economic value per
trait unit was calculated. The high economic value for
LME is also dependent on the amount of lean meat on
the fattening pig. As the trait is a result of FI as a function
of amount of lean meat on the fattening pig, the trait is
expressed as kg feed/kg lean meat. The same applies for
FE. The lower economic value for FE compared to LME is
related to the lower amount FC on the carcass compared
to lean meat. For both FE and LME, the economic value is
dependent on the production level (amount of lean meat
and fat), which makes it even more difficult to compare
to other studies (Hermesch et al., 2003).
All feed-related traits had high economic values, and a
significant influence on the profit from pork production.
These economic values are highly dependent on the
feed price, and a market change in the feed price influ-
ences the economic importance of feed consumption
traits in the breeding goal. Currently, feed prices are
low in Norway, but the importance of feed efficiency
traits is expected to increase as feed prices rise.
Breeding goals
The two breeding goals defined in this study contained
few, but important, production traits in pig breeding.
Breeding goal A represented the new traits LME and
FE, established in Martinsen et al. (2015), while breeding
goal B represented a more traditional breeding goal with
FI, DAYS and LMP included. The index resulting from
breeding goal A had the highest variance, which
suggested that inclusion of LME and FE in the breeding
goal could result in bigger genetic gain for profit. The dis-
tribution of the index for the two breeding goals was
dependent on the distribution of the breeding values
of the traits in the indexes for the two breeding goals.
The standard deviation of the breeding values for both
LME and FE in breeding goal A was significantly lower
than for FI in breeding goal B. This might suggest that
LME and FE had a lower impact on the index of breeding
goal A than FI had on breeding goal B. Still, based on the
results, it also seemed like the economic values of
the different traits had a considerable impact on the
indexes. Both the economic value of LME and FE are
high compared to the economic value of FI. The var-
iances of the breeding values for both LME and FE
were small compared to the variance of the breeding
values for FI, but due to the high economic value of
both LME and FE in breeding goal A, the variance of
the index for breeding goal A was higher than for breed-
ing goal B.
It is also important to take into consideration the use
of univariate analyses of the traits. No genetic corre-
lations among the traits are accounted for in the predic-
tion of breeding values, and hence some breeding
values might be over- or underestimated which might
affect the index (Smith, 1983). The reason for not per-
forming multitrait analyses was problems with conver-
gence. Breeding goal A also included more traits in
the index, which might influence the variation in the
index. In addition, the traits included in breeding goal
A have a considerably higher economic value than FI
in breeding goal B.
The rank correlation between the indexes for the
breeding goal was low (0.77), and suggested that the
two breeding goals are not the same. The re-ranking
of the sires suggested that the new efficiency traits con-
tribute new information, not described in breeding goal
B with FI as feed consumption trait. There would not
have been any sires selected in common for the two
breeding goals, if selection was carried out. The effi-
ciency traits do not necessarily indicate which animals
that have lowest FI or highest growth, but which one
deposit lean meat and fat most efficiently. The
animals with the highest FIs are not necessarily less effi-
cient. However, when comparing the best boars for the
two breeding goals, the top 10 boars for breeding goal
A had lower FI and poorer growth than the top 10 boars
for breeding goal B. This highlights the importance of
 ACTA AGRICULTURAE SCANDINAVICA, SECTION A – ANIMAL SCIENCE
including genetic relationships between the traits in the
breeding value estimation, but also gives an indication
of what direction the traits would evolve if LME and FE
are selected for. The selection response was not calcu-
lated for the two breeding goals. Still, as the genetic
response for the breeding goal is dependent on the
accuracy of the breeding values, one might expect
that the response is lower than first expected for breed-
ing goal A. This is because the accuracy of the breeding
values for LME and FE might be low, due to limited
amount of information for estimation of the regression
coefficients.
Conclusions
Both of the new efficiency measures had an economic
importance in pork production. LME had a high economic
value compared to other production traits in NL. Including
LME and FE in the breeding goal could potentially give a
bigger genetic gain for profit than the breeding goal
including FI. The rank correlation between the breeding
goals proved that the new efficiency traits does not
describe the same as FI, and includes additional infor-
mation to improve the genetic evaluation of boars.
However, genetic relationships between neither traits
nor accuracies for the estimated breeding values were
included in the analysis, which might influence the results.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Topigs Norsvin (Hamar,
Ås) for access to data.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
De Vries, A. G. (1989) A model to estimate economic values for
traits in pig breeding. Livestock Production Science, 21, 49–66.
151
Flint, A. P. F. & Woolliams, J. A. (2008) Precision animal breeding.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 573–590.
Gjerlaug-Enger, E., Kongsro, J., Ødegård, J., Aass, L. & Vangen, O.
(2012) Genetic parameters between slaughter pig efficiency
and growth rate of different body tissues estimated by com-
puted tomography in live boars of Landrace and Duroc.
Animal, 6, 9–18.
Hermesch, S., Kanis, E. & Eissen, J. J. (2003) Economic weights for
feed intake in the growing pig derived from a growth model
and an economic model. Journal of Animal Science, 81,
895–903.
Houska, L., Wolfová, M. & Fiedler, J. (2004) Economic weights for
production and reproduction traits of pigs in the Czech
Republic. Livestock Production Science, 85, 209–221.
Houska, L., Wolfová, M., Nagy, I., Csörnyei, Z. & Komlósi, I. (2010)
Economic values for traits of pigs in Hungary. Czech Journal
of Animal Science, 55, 139–148.
Ingris. (2014) Norsvin SA and Norwegian meat and poultry
research centre. Annual Report 2014. 31 pp. (in Norwegian).
Kanis, E., De Greef, K. H., Heimstra, A. & van Arendonk, J. A. M.
(2005) Breeding for societally important traits in pigs.
Journal of Animal Science, 83, 948–957.
Madsen, P. & Jensen, J. (2013) A user’s guide to DMU. A package
for analyzing multivariate mixed models. Version 6, release
5.2. University of Aarhus, Center for Quantitative Genetics
and Genomics Dept. of Molecular Biology and Genetics,
Research Centre Foulum, Tjele, Denmark.
Martinsen, K. H., Ødegård, J., Olsen, D. & Meuwissen, T. H. E.
(2015) Genetic variation in efficiency to deposit fat and
lean meat in Norwegian Landrace and Duroc pigs. Journal
of Animal Science, 93, 3794–3800.
Norsvin (2016) Accessed 11 May 2016, available at http://
norsvin.no/Avl/Avlslaere/Avlsmaal (in Norwegian).
Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Centre (2012) Kjøttets til-
stand 2012, available at http://www.animalia.no/Kjottets-
tilstand/Kjottets-tilstand-2012/ (in Norwegian).
NRC (2012) Nutrient requirements of swine. 11 th Rev. ed.,
Washington, DC: The National Academy Press, 400 pp.
ISBN: 9780309224239.
Schinckel, A. P. & de Lange, C. F. M. (1996) Characterization of
growth parameters needed as inputs for pig growth
models. Journal Animal Science, 74, 2021–2036.
Serenius, T., Muhonen, P. & Stalder, K. (2007) Economic values of
pork production related traits in Finland. Agricultural and
Food Science, 16, 79–88.
Smith, C. (1983) Effect of changes in the economic weights on
the efficiency of index selection. Journal of Animal Science,
56, 1057–1064.
Copyright of Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section A, Animal Science is the property of
Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.