Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:56:29.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic variation and responses in reproductive performance of sows in lines selected for growth rate under restricted feeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

N. H. Nguyen ,
C. P. McPhee  and
C. M. Wade
N. H. Nguyen*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia Institute of Agricultural Science of South Vietnam, HoChiMinh City, Viet Nam
C. P. McPhee
Affiliation:
Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly, QLD4105, Australia
C. M. Wade
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, 9 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA
*
†Email: [email protected]/[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine genetic changes in reproduction traits in sows (total number born (TNB), number born alive (NBA), average piglet birth weight (ABW) and number of piglets weaned (NW), body weight prior to mating (MW), gestation length (GL) and daily food intake during lactation (DFI)) in lines of Large White pigs divergently selected over 4 years for high and low post-weaning growth rate on a restricted ration. Heritabilities and repeatabilities of the reproduction traits were also determined. The analyses were carried out on 913 litter records using average information-restricted maximum likelihood method applied to single trait animal models. Estimates of heritability for most traits were small, except for ABW (0·33) and MW (0·35). Estimates of repeatability were slightly higher than those of heritability for TNB, NBA and NW, but they were almost identical for ABW, MW, GL and DFI. After 4 years of selection, the high growth line sows had significantly heavier body weight prior to mating and produced significantly more piglets born alive with heavier average birth weight than the low line sows. There were, however, no statistical differences between the selected lines in TNB or NW. The lower food intake of high relative to low line sows during lactation was not significant, indicating that daily food intake differences found between grower pigs in the high and low lines (2·71 v. 2·76 kg/day, s.e.d. 0·024) on ad libitum feeding were not fully expressed in lactating sows. It is concluded that selection for growth rate on the restricted ration resulted in beneficial effects on important measures of reproductive performance of thea sows.

Keywords

growthpigsreproductive performanceselection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 7 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Australian Pork Limited. 2001. Pig stats: Australian pig industry handbook. ACT, Deakin West.Google Scholar
Chen, P., Baas, T. J., Dekkers, J. C. M. and Christian, L. L. 2001. Selection for lean growth rate and correlated responses in litter traits in a synthetic line of Yorkshire-Meishan pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81: 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, E. R., Johnson, R. K. and Cunningham, P. J. 1988. Correlated responses of carcass and reproductive traits to selection for rate of lean growth in swine. Journal of Animal Science 66: 1371–1377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crump, R. E., Haley, C. S., Thompson, R. and Mercer, J. 1997. Individual animal model estimates of genetic parameters for reproduction traits of Landrace pigs performance tested in a commercial nucleus herd. Animal Science 65: 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeNise, R. S. K., Irvin, K. M., Swiger, L. A. and Plimpton, R. F. 1983. Selection for increased leanness of Yorkshire swine. IV. Indirect responses of the carcass, breeding efficiency and preweaning litter traits pigs. Journal of Animal Science 56: 551–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S. A. 2002. Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredeen, H. T. and Mikami, H. 1986. Mass selection in a pig population: correlated responses in reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1523–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GenStat, 6. 2002. Release 6.1 for Windows. sixth edition. VSN International Ltd, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. P., Quinton, V. M. and Simedrea, P. 2001. Responses to selection for growth and backfat in closed nucleus herds of Hampshire and Duroc pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81: 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, A. R., Cullis, B. R., Welham, S. J. and Thompson, R. 1999. ASREML reference manual. NSW Agriculture Biometric bulletin no. 3. Orange Agricultural Institute, Forest Road, Orange 2800 NSW Australia.Google Scholar
Hanenberg, E. H. A. T., Knol, E. F. and Merks, J. W. M. 2001. Estimates of genetic parameters for reproduction traits at different parities in Dutch Landrace pigs. Livestock Production Science 69: 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S., Luxford, B. G. and Graser, H. U. 2000. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs. 3. Genetic parameters for reproduction traits and genetic correlations with production, carcass and meat quality traits. Livestock Production Science 65: 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, J. C. and Cameron, N. D. 1995. Reproductive performance of pigs selected for components of efficient lean growth. Animal Science 60: 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, J. C. and Cameron, N. D. 1996a. Genetic and phenotypic relationships between performance test and reproduction traits in Large White pigs. Animal Science 62: 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, J. C. and Cameron, N. D. 1996b. Responses in gilt post-farrowing traits and pre-weaning piglet growth to divergent selection for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science 63: 523–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knol, E. F., Ducro, B. J., Arendonk, J. A. M. van and Lende, T. van der 2002b. Direct, maternal and nurse sow genetic effects on farrowing-, pre-weaning- and total piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 73: 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlers, D. L. and Jungst, S. B. 1992. Correlated responses in reproductive and carcass traits to selection for 200-day weight in Duroc swine. Journal of Animal Science 70: 2707–2713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhlers, D. L. and Jungst, S. B. 1993. Correlated responses in reproductive and carcass traits to selection for 200-day weight in Landrace pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71: 595–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPhee, C. P., Kerr, J. C. and Cameron, N. D. 2001. Peri-partum posture and behaviour of gilts and the location of their piglets in lines selected for components of efficient lean growth. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPhee, C. P., Rathmell, G. A., Daniels, L. J. and Cameron, N. D. 1988. Selection in pigs for increased lean growth rate on a time-based feeding scale. Animal Production 47: 149–156.Google Scholar
Milligan, B. N., Fraser, D. and Kramer, D. L. 2002. Within-litter birth weight variation in the domestic pig and its relation to pre-weaning survival, weight gain, and variation in weaning weights. Livestock Production Science 76: 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, N. H. and McPhee, C. P. 2005a. Genetic parameters and responses of performance and carcass composition traits in pigs selected for growth rate on fixed ration over a set time. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 37: 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, N. H. and McPhee, C. P. 2005b. Responses in production and body composition traits in ad libitum fed pigs selected for high and low growth rate on a fixed ration. Livestock Production Science (In press).Google Scholar
Nguyen, N. H., McPhee, C. P. and Wade, C. M. 2005. Responses in residual feed intake in lines of Large White pigs selected for growth rate on restricted feeding (measured on ad libitum individual feeding). Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 122: 264–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rehfeldt, C., Fiedler, I., Dietl, G. and Ender, K. 2000. Myogenesis and postnatal skeletal muscle cell growth as influenced by selection. Livestock Production Science 66: 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehe, R. and Kalm, E. 2000. Estimation of genetic and environmental risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality in piglets using generalized linear mixed models. Animal Science 70: 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M. F. and Bidanel, J. P. 1998. Biology and genetics of reproduction. In The genetics of the pig (eds Rothschild, M. F. and Ruvinsky, A.) pp. 313–343. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L. 2000. Genetics of sow reproduction, including puberty, oestrus, pregnancy, farrowing and lactation. Livestock Production Science 66: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schall, R. 1994. Estimation in generalized linear models with random effects. Biometrika 78: 719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tholen, E., Bunter, K. L., Hermesch, S. and Graser, H. U. 1996. The genetic foundation of fitness and reproduction traits in Australian pig populations. 2. Relationships between weaning to conception interval, farrowing interval, stayability, and other common reproduction and production traits. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47: 1275–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangen, O. 1980. Studies on a two trait selection experiment in pigs. V. Correlated responses in reproductive performance. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavia 30: 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, S., Bidanel, J. P., Burlot, T., Legault, C. and Naveau, J. 2000. Genetic parameters and genetic trends in the Chinese×European Tiameslan composite pig line. II. Genetic trends. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 32: 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar