Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:42:18.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lifetime productivity in gilts previously selected for decreased age at puberty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. B. Holder ,
W. R. Lamberson ,
R. O. Bates  and
T. J. Safranski
R. B. Holder
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA
W. R. Lamberson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA
R. O. Bates
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA
T. J. Safranski
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA
Get access

Abstract

A study was conducted to evaluate the effect of decreasing age of puberty on lifetime productivity in sows. Two lines of gilts from the Nebraska Gene Pool population were used in this study: a line that had been selected for decreased age at puberty (AP) and a line in which selection had been random (RS). The study was conducted in two parts. In part one, 75 gilts were mated at second oestrus and the productivity measured over five parities. A second experiment utilizing 68 gilts was conducted to provide further data for comparing litter size at parity 1, and also to compare ovulation rates in the two lines at second oestrus. Results showed that litter size was similar in both lines across parities. After five parities the percentage of sows farrowing relative to parity 1 was 58-8% for the AP line but only 39·4% for the RS line (P = 0·17). Litter birth weight, litter size and weight at 21 days, number weaned, and lactation food consumption were similar for both lines. Lactation weight loss was not significantly different between the two lines (60·9 (s.e. 5·9) v. 527 (s.e. 5·0) kg, for RS and AP gilts, respectively) but was consistent with the slightly longer weaning to remating intervals in the RS line (7·8 (s.e. 0·7) v. 6·6 (s.e. 0·7) days, P = 0·22). Ovulation rate at second oestrus did not differ between the two lines (14·1 (s.e. 0·9) v. 14·3 (s.e. 0·5), for RS and AP gilts, respectively). The regression of mean accumulative productivity on time was in favour of the AP line (P = 0·05). These results suggest that reproductive performance is not impaired in gilts which have been selected to reach puberty at earlier ages, and productivity at a specific age may be enhanced.

Keywords

giltsproductivitypuberty
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , August 1995 , pp. 115 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Brooks, P. H. and Cole, D. J. A. 1973. Meat production from pigs which were farrowed. 1. Reproductive performance and food conversion efficiency. Animal Production 17:305–315.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. H. and Cole, D. J. A. 1974. The effect of nutrition during the growing period and the oestrous cycle on the reproductive performance of the pig. Livestock Production Science 1:7–20.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. H. and Cooper, K. J. 1972. Short term nutrition and litter size. In Pig production (ed. Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 385–398. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. H., Patterson, M. A. and Cole, D. J. A. 1970. Reproduction in the young gilt. Report, School of Agriculture, University of Nottingham, pp.65–67.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. H. and Smith, D. A. 1980. The effect of mating age on the reproductive performance, food utilization and liveweight change of the female pig. Livestock Production Science 7:67–78.Google Scholar
Consortium, . 1988. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching. Consortium Developing a Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
D'Allaire, S., Leman, A. D. and Drolet, R. 1992. Optimizing longevity in sows and boars. In The veterinary clinics of North America (ed. Tubbs, R. C. and Leman, A. D.), pp. 545–557. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dziuk, P. J., Phillips, T. N. and Graber, J. W. 1964. Halothane closed-circuit anaesthesia in the pig. American journal of Veterinary Research 25:1773–1775.Google Scholar
King, R. H. and Williams, I. H. 1984. The effect of nutrition on the reproductive performance of first-litter sows. 1. Feeding level during lactation, and between weaning and mating. Animal Production 38:241–247.Google Scholar
Kroes, Y. and Male, J. P. van. 1979. Reproductive lifetime of sows in relation to economy of production. Livestock Production Science 6:179–183.Google Scholar
Lamberson, W. R., Johnson, R. K., Zimmerman, D. R. and Long, T. E. 1991. Direct responses to selection for increased litter size, decreased age at puberty, or random selection following selection for ovulation rate in swine, journal of Animal Science 69:3129–3143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacPherson, R. M., Hovell, F. D. DeB. and Jones, A. S. 1977. Performance of sows first mated at puberty or second or third oestrus and carcass assessment of once-bred gilts. Animal Production 24:333–342.Google Scholar
Mullan, B. P. and Close, W. H. 1989. The partition and utilization of energy and nitrogen by sows during their first lactation. Animal Production 48:626–627(abstr.).Google Scholar
Safranski, T. J., Lamberson, W. R. and Bates, R. O. 1991. Effect of boar exposure on expression of genetic potential for age of puberty in gilts. Animal Production 52:521–526.Google Scholar
Schukken, Y. H., Buurman, J., Huirne, R. B. M., Willemse, A. H., Vernooy, J. C. M., Broek, J. van den and Verheijden, J. H. H. 1994. Evaluation of optimal age at first conception in gilts from data collected in commercial swine herds. journal of Animal Science 72:1387–1392.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. JMP user's guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tess, M. W., Bennett, G. L. and Dickerson, G. E. 1983. Simulation of genetic changes in life cycle efficiency of pork production. II. Effects of components on efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 56:354–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warnick, A. C., Wiggins, E. L., Cassida, L. E., Grummer, R. H. and Chapman, A. B. 1951. Variation in puberty phenomena in inbred gilts, journal of Animal Science 10:479–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wildt, D. E. 1980. Laparoscopy in the pig. In Animal laparoscopy (ed. Harrison, R. M. and Wildt, D. E.), pp. 121–132. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Wildt, D. E., Fujimoto, S., Spencer, J. L. and Dukelow, W. R. 1973. Direct ovarian observation in the pig by means of laparoscopy. journal of Reproduction and Fertility 35:541–543.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. R. and Cunningham, P. J. 1975. Selection for ovulation rate in swine: population, procedures and ovulation response, journal of Animal Science 40:61–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed