Optimal definition of contemporary groups for crossbred pigs in a joint purebred and crossbred genetic evaluation

In the pig industry, purebred animals are raised in nucleus herds and selected to produce crossbred progeny to perform in commercial environments. Crossbred and purebred performances are different, correlated traits. All purebreds in a pen have their performance assessed together at the end of a performance test. However, only selected crossbreds are removed (based on visual inspection) and measured at different times creating many small contemporary groups (CGs). This may reduce estimated breeding value (EBV) prediction accuracies. Considering this sequential recording of crossbreds, the objective was to investigate the impact of different CG definitions on genetic parameters and EBV prediction accuracy for crossbred traits. Growth rate (G(P)) and ultrasound backfat (BF(P)) records were available for purebreds. Lifetime growth (G(X)) and backfat (BF(X)) were recorded on crossbreds. Different CGs were tested: CG_all included farm, sex, birth year, and birth week; CG_week added slaughter week; and CG_day used slaughter day instead of week. Data of 124,709 crossbreds were used. The purebred phenotypes (62,274 animals) included three generations of purebred ancestors of these crossbreds and their CG mates. Variance components for four-trait models with different CG definitions were estimated with average information restricted maximum likelihood. Purebred traits’ variance components remained stable across CG definitions and varied slightly for BF(X). Additive genetic variances (and heritabilities) for G(X) fluctuated more: 812 ± 36 (0.28 ± 0.01), 257 ± 15 (0.17 ± 0.01), and 204 ± 13 (0.15 ± 0.01) for CG_all, CG_week, and CG_day, respectively. Age at slaughter (AAS) and hot carcass weight (HCW) adjusted for age were investigated as alternatives for G(X). Both have potential for selection but lower heritabilities compared with G(X): 0.21 ± 0.01 (0.18 ± 0.01), 0.16 ± 0.02 (0.16 + 0.01), and 0.10 ± 0.01 (0.14 ± 0.01) for AAS (HCW) using CG_all, CG_week, and CG_day, respectively. The predictive ability, linear regression (LR) accuracy, bias, and dispersion of crossbred traits in crossbreds favored CG_day, but correlations with unadjusted phenotypes favored CG_all. In purebreds, CG_all showed the best LR accuracy, while showing small relative differences in bias and dispersion. Different CG scenarios showed no relevant impact on BF(X) EBV. This study shows that different CG definitions may affect evaluation stability and animal ranking. Results suggest that ignoring slaughter dates in CG is more appropriate for estimating crossbred trait EBV for purebred animals.