Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:50:36.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and environmental factors influencing litter size, sex ratio and gestation length in the pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. W. Kennedy  and
J. E. Moxley
B. W. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Macdonald College of McGill University, Ste-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada HOA 1CO
J. E. Moxley
Affiliation:
Macdonald College of McGill University, Ste-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada HOA 1CO
Get access

Abstract

Data from 675 litters were used to study the effects of type of service, number of services, parity, year, season, breed of sire, sire, type of dam (purebred or crossbred), breed of dam, dam, breed of sire × type of dam and breed of sire × breed of dam on litter size (live births), number of males, number of females, sex ratio (percentage of males) and length of gestation. Yorkshire, Landrace and Lacombe breeds and their crosses were represented. Artificial insemination significantly reduced litter size and the number of females and increased sex ratio. Parity had a significant effect on all traits except sex ratio. Lacombe-sired litters were approximately one-half pig smaller than Yorkshire- and Landrace-sired litters. Landrace-sired litters had gestations of one-third day shorter than Yorkshires. On average, crossbred dams farrowed 0·65 more pigs per litter than pure-bred dams. Litters from Yorkshire dams, however, were more than one pig larger than Landrace and Lacombes, and did not differ significantly from crossbred dams. Gestation length of Lacombe sows was 1·34 days shorter than Yorkshires. Repeatabilities of litter size, number of males, number of females, sex ratio and gestation length were 0·15, 0·08, 0·06, 0·05 and 0·32 respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , August 1978 , pp. 35 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1978

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

Biggers, J. D., Curnow, R. N., Finn, C. A. and McLaren, A. 1963. Regulation of the gestation period in mice. J. Reprod. Fert. 6: 125–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borton, A., Jaworski, A. and Nellor, J. E. 1965. Factors influencing the fertility of naturally and artificially mated swine. Res. Bull. Mich. agric. Exp. Stn., No. 8.Google Scholar
Cox, D. F. 1964a. Relation of litter size and other factors to the duration of gestation in the pig. J. Reprod. Fert. 7: 405–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. F. 1964b. Genetic variation in the gestation period of swine. J. Anim. Sci. 23: 746–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahmy, M. H., Bernard, C. S. and Holtmann, W. B. 1971. Crossbreeding swine: reproductive performance of seven breeds of sows bred to produce crossbred progeny. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C. R. 1953. Estimation of variance and covariance components. Biometrics 9: 226–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. K. and Omtvedt, I. T. 1973. Evaluation of purebreds and two-breed crosses in swine: reproductive performance. J. Anim. Sci. 37: 1279–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, G. J. 1972. Reproductive differences between Lacombe and Yorkshire females. Proc. VHth int. Congr. Anim. Reprod. Artif. Insem., Munich, pp. 201–202.Google Scholar
Legault, C. 1970. [Statistical and genetical study of the breeding performance of Large White sows. II. Direct effect of boar, heritability, repeatability, and correlations.] Annls Genet. Sel. anim. 2: 209–227.Google Scholar
Legault, C., Aumaitre, A. and Du mesnil du buisson, F. 1975. The improvement of sow productivity. A review of recent experiments in France. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2: 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legault, C. and Ollivier, L. 1965. [Preliminary results on the influence of the boar on litter size in artificial insemination.] Annls Zootech. 14: 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, D. H. L. 1959. Field experience of pig A.I. in Hampshire, U. K. Annls Zootech. 8: (Suppl.), 59–67.Google Scholar
Musson, A. L. 1946. The influence of the boar on litter size. J. Anim. Sci. 5: 418 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Nishida, S., Mamba, K., Seta, S., Otsuka, J., Shudo, S. and Tokoro, K. 1969. [Sex ratio of offspring in domestic animals. 1. Pigs.] Jap. J. zootech. Sci. 40: 449–462.Google Scholar
Nishida, S., Otsuka, J. and Saito, K. 1971. [Sex ratio of offspring in domestic animals. 2. Pigs.] Jap. J. zootech. Sci. 42: 71–78.Google Scholar
Nishida, S., Otsuka, J., Sanada, T., Arai, T. and Kano, Y. 1973. [Sex ratio of offspring in domestic animals. 4. Pigs.] Jap. J. Anim. Reprod. 18: 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ollivier, L. and Legault, C. 1967. [The direct influence of the boar on the size and weight of litters obtained by artificial insemination.] Annls Zootech. 16: 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omtvedt, J. T., Stanislaw, C. M. and Whatley, J. A. Jr, 1965. Relationship of gestation length, age and weight at breeding, and gestation gain to sow productivity at farrowing. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 531–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahnefeld, G. W. and Swierstra, E. E. 1970. Influence of the sire on litter size in swine. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 50: 671–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellier, P. 1970. [Heterosis and crossbreeding in the pig.] Annls Gènèt. Sèl. anim. 2: 145–207.Google Scholar
Skjervold, H. 1963. To what extent do boars affect the litter size. Meld. Norg. Landbr Høgsk. 42 (No. 9).Google Scholar
Swierstra, E. E. and Rahnefeld, G. W. 1972. Effects of cold stress and repeat mating on reproductive performance of swine. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 52: 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar