Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:44:09.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Body development in sows, feed intake and maternal capacity. Part 1: performance, pre-breeding and lactation feed intake traits of primiparous sows1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2011

C. R. G. Lewis  and
K. L. Bunter
C. R. G. Lewis*
Affiliation:
Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit (AGBU), University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
K. L. Bunter
Affiliation:
Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit (AGBU), University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study examined the genetic and phenotypic associations between finisher performance, pre-breeding body condition of the gilt, subsequent lactation feed intake and survival of the primiparous sow to farrow in the second parity. Complete data were available on ∼2200 sows, along with additional cohort and historical performance data. Genetic variation was observed for average lactation feed intake (heritability: 0.18 ± 0.04), with a significant proportion of observed variation in average intake attributable to variation in lactation length. Weight and body condition (fatness) at finishing were very highly correlated genetically (0.89 ± 0.03 and 0.90 ± 0.02) and moderately correlated phenotypically (0.58 ± 0.01 and 0.58 ± 0.01) with weight and body condition before mating. Estimates of genetic (rg) and phenotypic (rp) correlations between feed intake recorded at finishing and average lactation feed intake (LADI) were moderate (rg = 0.26 ± 0.16 and 0.42 ± 0.22) and low (rp = 0.07 ± 0.02 and 0.08 ± 0.03), with rg dependent on the models and data subsets used for lactation intake. Non-unity genetic correlations imply that different genetic control mechanisms regulate feed intake during growth and lactation. Moderate genetic correlations between lactation feed intake with live weight (TWT) or growth rate (TADG) recorded at selection and live weight before mating (0.42 ± 0.11, 0.42 ± 0.11 and 0.37 ± 0.15) were considerably higher than the corresponding phenotypic correlations for LADI with TADG or 29WT (0.09 ± 0.02 and 0.08 ± 0.02). Correlations between fatness at selection (TFAT) or mating (29FT) and LADI were negative but not significantly different from 0. Overall, these data suggest that there is exploitable genetic variation for feed intake during lactation, and that selection is possible if lactation feed intakes are recorded. However, genetic correlations suggest that early growth seems to be related to lactation feed intake capacity. There was generally no strong evidence that selection for lean growth potential in dam lines will substantially diminish sow lactation intake capacity as a correlated response.

Keywords

heritabilitygenetic parameterslongevitystayabilitygilt selection criteria.
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 12 , 10 November 2011 , pp. 1843 - 1854
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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.)

Footnotes

1

AGBU is a joint venture of NSW I&I and the University of New England.

References

Anil, SS, Anil, L, Deen, J, Baidoo, SK, Walker, RD 2006. Association of inadequate feed intake during lactation with removal of sows from the breeding herd. Journal of Swine Health and Production 14, 296–301.Google Scholar
Becker, BA, Misfeldt, ML 1995. Effects of constant and cycling hot environments on mitogen-stimulated proliferation of peripheral-blood lymphocytes from sows and litters. Journal of Thermal Biology 20, 485–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergsma, R, Kanis, E, Verstegen, MWA, Knol, EF 2008. Genetic parameters and predicted selection results for maternal traits related to lactation efficiency in sows. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1067–1080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bunter, KL, Luxford, BG, Hermesch, S 2007a. Associations between feed intake of growing gilts, lactating sows and other reproductive or performance traits. Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 17, 57–60.Google Scholar
Bunter, KL, Tull, M, Luxford, BG 2007b. Factors affecting feed intake during lactation for primiparous sows. In Manipulating Pig Production XII, Proceedings of the Twelth Biennaial Conference of the Australasian Pig Science Association, Australian Pig Science Association, Perth, WA, Australia, 121pp.Google Scholar
Bunter, KL, Smits, R, Luxford, B, Hermesch, S 2008. Sow body composition and its associations with reproductive and litter growth performance of the primiparous sow. Pig Genetics Workshop Notes, 67–81. AGBU, UNE, Armidale, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Bunter, KL, Lewis, CRG, Luxford, BG 2009. Variation in sow health affects the information provided by lactation feed intake data. Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 18, 504–507.Google Scholar
Bunter, KL, Lewis, CRG 2010. Sow development, reproductive performance and longevity. Pig Genetics Workshop Notes, 51–58. AGBU, UNE, Armidale, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Eissen, JJ, Kanis, E, Kemp, B 2000. Sow factors affecting voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livestock Production Science 64, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eissen, JJ, Apeldoorn, EJ, Kanis, E, Verstegen, MWA, de Greef, KH 2003. The importance of a high feed intake during lactation of primiparous sows nursing large litters. Journal of Animal Science 81, 594–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engblom, L, Lundeheim, N, Schneider, MD, Dalin, AM, Andersson, K 2009. Genetics of crossbred sow longevity. Animal 3, 783–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estienne, MJ, Harper, AF, Barb, CR, Azain, MJ 2000. Concentrations of leptin in serum and milli collected from lactating sows differing in body condition. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 19, 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, H, Bidanel, JP, Gruand, J, Caritez, JC, Billon, Y, Guillouet, P, Lagant, H, Noblet, J, Sellier, P 2007. Genetic parameters for residual feed intake in growing pigs, with emphasis on genetic relationships with carcass and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 85, 3182–3188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilmour, AR, Cullis, BR, Welham, SJ, Thompson, R 2005. ASREML reference manual. NSW Agriculture, Orange, Australia.Google Scholar
Grandinson, K, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E, Solanes, FX 2005. Genetic analysis of body condition in the sow during lactation, and its relation to piglet survival and growth. Animal Science 80, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greer, EB, Mort, PC, Lowe, TW, Giles, LR 1987. Accuracy of ultrasonic backfat testers in predicting carcass P2 fat depth form live pig measurement and the effect on accuracy of mislocating the P2 site on the live pig. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillemet, R, Dourmad, JY, Meunier-Salaun, MC 2006. Feeding behavior in primiparous lactating sows: impact of a high-fiber diet during pregnancy. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2474–2481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hermesch, S 2004. Genetic improvement of lean meat growth and feed efficiency in pigs. Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, pp. 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S 2006. From genetic to phenotypic trends. Retrieved August 21, 2009, from http://agbu.une.edu.au/pigs/pigblup/pdf/2006/Paper%2010_SH_Trends.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S 2007. Genetic analysis of feed intake in lactating sows. Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 17, 61–64.Google Scholar
Hermesch, S, Jones, RM 2007. Association between lactation feed intake and lifetime reproductive performance of sows. In Manipulating Pig Production XII, Proceedings of the Twelth Biennaial Conference of the Australasian Pig Science Association, Australian Pig Science Association, Perth, WA, Australia, p. 196.Google Scholar
Hermesch, S, Luxford, BG, Graser, HU 1999. Genetic parameters for performance traits of pigs recorded under ad libitum and restricted feeding. Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, pp. 142–145.Google Scholar
Hermesch, S, Jones, RM, Bunter, KL 2008. Feed intake of sows during lactation has genetic relationships with growth and lifetime performance of sows. Pig Genetics Workshop Note, s 55–65. AGBU, UNE, Armidale, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Hoque, A, Suzuki, K 2008. Genetic parameters for production traits and measures of residual feed intake in Duroc and Landrace pigs. Animal Science Journal 79, 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanis, E 1990. Effect of food-intake capacity on production traits in growing pigs with restricted feeding. Animal Production 50, 333–341.Google Scholar
Knauer, M, Stalder, KJ, Serenius, T, Baas, TJ, Berger, PJ, Goodwin, RN, Mabry, JW 2007. Factors assiciated with sow stayability Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 2007, Leaflet R2234. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://www.ans.iastate.edu/report/air/2007pdf/R2234.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koketsu, Y, Dial, GD 1997. Quantitative relationships between reproductive performance in sows and its risk factors. Pig News and Information 18, 47N–52N.Google Scholar
Koketsu, Y, Dial, GD, Pettigrew, JE, King, VL 1996. Feed intake pattern during lactation and subsequent reproductive performance of sows. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2875–2884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawlor, PG, Lynch, PB 2005. Management interventions to help keep piglets alive in large litters. Irish Veterinary Journal 58, 640–645.Google Scholar
Lewis, CRG, Bunter, KL 2009. Longevity to the second parity requires good attention to sow health in the first. In Manipulating Pig Production XII, Proceedings of the Twelth Biennaial Conference of the Australasian Pig Science Association, Australian Pig Science Association, Perth, WA, Australia, 106pp.Google Scholar
Lewis, CRG, Hermesch, S, Bunter, KL 2010. A random regression analysis of sow lactation feed intake and the effect of temperature on intake. In Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Gesellschaft fur Tierzuchtwissenschafteng.Google Scholar
Lopez-Serrano, M, Reinsch, N, Looft, H, Kalm, E 2000. Genetic correlations of growth, backfat thickness and exterior with stayability in large white and landrace sows. Livestock Production Science 64, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCracken, KJ 1980. An integrated two-diet feeding regimen up to 30 kg body weight for pigs weaned at 10 d. Agricultural Research Databook. 28.Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Stansbury, WF, Tribble, LF, Morrow, JL 1988. Photoperiod and heat-stress influence on lactating sow performance and photoperiod effects on nursery pig performance. Journal of Animal Science 66, 1915–1919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, JJ, Vines, B, Rudine, AC, DuBois, P 2004. The physical size of gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2421–2427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosnier, E, Dourmad, JY, Etienne, M, Le Floc'h, N, Pere, MC, Ramaekers, P, Seve, B, Van Milgen, J, Meunier-Salaun, MC 2009. Feed intake in the multiparous lactating sow: its relationship with reactivity during gestation and tryptophan status. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1282–1291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauw, WM, Hermesch, S, Bunter, KL, Gomez-Raya, L 2009. The relationship of food intake during growth and food intake at maturity with lactation food intake in a mouse model. Livestock Science 123, 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, MF, Bidanel, JP 1998. Biology and genetics of reproduction. The genetics of the pig (ed. MF Rothschild and A Ruvinsky), pp. 313–343. CAB Institute, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L 2000. Genetics of sow reproduction, including puberty, oestrus, pregnancy, farrowing and lactation. Livestock Production Science 66, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydhmer, L, Johansson, K, Eliasson-Selling, L, Persson, A 2001. Clinical and genetic studies of disturbed milk production in sows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section a-Animal Science 51, 1–6.Google Scholar
SAS 1999. SAS User Guide. Enterprise Miner, Release 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schneider, JE 2004. Energy balance and reproduction. Physiology & Behavior 81, 289–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serenius, T, Stalder, KJ 2004. Genetics of length of productive life and lifetime prolificacy in the finnish landrace and large white pig populations. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3111–3117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serenius, T, Stalder, KJ 2006. Selection for sow longevity. Journal of Animal Science 84, E166–E171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tholen, E, Bunter, KL, Hermesch, S, Graser, HU 1996a. The genetic foundation of fitness and reproduction traits in Australian pig populations .1. Genetic parameters for weaning to conception interval, farrowing interval, and stayability. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 1261–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tholen, E, Bunter, KL, Hermesch, S, Graser, HU 1996b. 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
van Barneveld, RJ, Vandepeer, ME, Brooke, G 2007. Manipulation of ad libitum feed intake in sows. In Manipulating Pig Production XI, Proceedings of the Twelth Biennaial Conference of the Australasian Pig Science Association, Australian Pig Science Association, Perth, WA, Australia, 65pp.Google Scholar
Van Erp, AJM, Molendijk, RJF, Eissen, JJ, Merks, JWM 1998. Relation between ad libitum feed intake of gilts during rearing and feed intake capacity of lactating sows. Proc. of the 49th EAAP, Warsaw, Poland, G5.10 (abstract).Google Scholar
Wallenbeck, A, Rydhmer, L 2008. Relationships between sow and piglet traits in organic production outdoors and indoors. International Society of Organic Agricultural Research (ISOFAR), pp. 134–137.Google Scholar
Yamada, Y 1968. On the realized heritability and genetic correlation estimated from double selection experiments when two characters are measured. Japanese Poultry Science 5, 148–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar