Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T11:41:46.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect on sow productivity of oestrus suppression following a two-day lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

N. Walker  and
S. M. Eddie
N. Walker
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down
S. M. Eddie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down
Get access

Summary

Sows which had lactated for 2 days were allocated either to a control group or to a group in which oestrus was delayed by the administration of 75 mg methallibure per day for 12 consecutive days, followed by an intramuscular injection of 1000 IU pregnant mare serum gonadotrophin. All sows were mated whenever they were receptive to a boar. The mean time to first mating for the control group of 12 sows was 7·3 days but the mean time to conception was 22·3 days. The corresponding figures for the 9 treated sows were 17·0 and 22·2 days. The treated sows had significantly (P < 0·025) larger litters than the control sows (11·7 v. 8·5). For those sows which conceived at the first post-weaning service, the delayed oestrus treatment increased litter size on average by more than four pigs per litter.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 1974 , pp. 153 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1974

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

REFERENCES

Akpokodje, J. V. and Barker, C. A. V. 1971. Observations on the antigestational effect of Aimax (methallibure) in recently bred gilts. Can. vet. J. 12: 110–114.Google Scholar
Anon. 1973. Fertility switched by synthetic hormones. New Scientist 59: 6.Google Scholar
Te Brake, J. H., Koomans, P. and Boeve, J. 1971. The rearing of pigs in cages. I. The ultra early weaning of piglets and the fertility of sows. Bedrifjsontwikkeling Vechouder. 2: 73–87.Google Scholar
Gerrits, R. J. and Johnson, L. A. 1965. Synchronisation of estrus in gilts fed two levels of I.C.I. 33828 and the effect on fertility, embryo survival and litter size. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 917 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Groves, T. W. 1967. Methallibure in the synchronisation of oestrus in gilts. Vet. Rec. 80: 470–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, R. H. F. 1964. Superovulation and fertility in the pig. Anim. Prod. 6: 189–194Google Scholar
Longenecker, D. E. and Day, B. N. 1968. Fertility level of sows super-ovulated at post-weaning estrus. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 709–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcphee, H. C. and Zeller, J. H. 1934. The stillborn pig. J. Am. vet. med. Ass. 85: 224–231.Google Scholar
Moody, N. W. and Speer, V. C. 1971. Factors affecting sow farrowing interval. J. Anim. Sci. 23: 510–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polge, C. 1965. Effective synchronisation of oestrus in pigs after treatment with I.C.I. compound 33828. Vet. Rec. 77: 232–236.Google Scholar
Polge, C. 1972. Reproductive physiology in the pig with special reference to early weaning. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. 1972: 5–18.Google Scholar
Polge, C., Day, B. N. and Groves, T. W. 1968. Synchronisation of ovulation and artificial insemination in pigs. Vet. Rec. 83: 136–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pomeroy, R. W. 1960. Infertility and neonatal mortality in the sow. I. Lifetime performance and reasons for disposal of sows. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 54: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, C. E., Vincent, C. K. and Thrasher, D. M. 1968. Effect of I.C.I. 33828 and PMS on reproduction in gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 303 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Rundell, J. W. and Vincent, C. K. 1969. Growth of tubal swine ova in vivo and in vitro. J. Anim. Sci. 28: 145–146.Google Scholar
Self, H. L. and Grummer, R. H. 1958. The rate and economy of pig gains and the reproductive behaviour in sows when litters are weaned at 10 days, 21 days or 56 days of age. J. Anim. Sci. 17: 862–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, H. B. A. 1966. Pre-weaning mortality in a herd of Large White pigs. Br. vet. J. 122: 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical Methods. 5th ed. Iowa State College Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Stratman, F. W. and First, N. L. 1969. Diet consumption, bodyweight change, estrus inhibition, and reproductive performance in gilts fed on dithiocarbamoylhydrazine (I.C.I. 33828). J. Anim. Sci. 28: 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Heyde, H. 1971. A practical assessment of early weaning. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. 1972: 33–36.Google Scholar
Withers Green, C. 1972. The commercial application of an early weaning system. Sow Symposium. The Rowett Research Institute, March, 1972.Google Scholar
Wrathall, A. E. 1971. Prenatal survival in pigs. Pt 1. Ovulation rate and its influence on prenatal survival and litter size in pigs. Rev. Series No. 9, Commonw. Bur. Anim. Health, Slough: C.A.B.Google Scholar