Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:51:56.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of azaperone treatment at weaning on reproductive performance of sows: altering effects of season and parity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2017

T. Schwarz ,
J. Nowicki ,
R. Tuz  and
P. M. Bartlewski
T. Schwarz*
Affiliation:
Department of Swine and Small Animal Breeding, Institute of Animal Sciences, University of Agriculture in Kraków, 24/28 Mickiewicza Ave., 30-059 Cracow, Poland
J. Nowicki
Affiliation:
Department of Swine and Small Animal Breeding, Institute of Animal Sciences, University of Agriculture in Kraków, 24/28 Mickiewicza Ave., 30-059 Cracow, Poland
R. Tuz
Affiliation:
Department of Swine and Small Animal Breeding, Institute of Animal Sciences, University of Agriculture in Kraków, 24/28 Mickiewicza Ave., 30-059 Cracow, Poland
P. M. Bartlewski
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd., Guelph, ON, CanadaN1G 2W1
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Azaperone treatment can control aggression and decrease stress due to weaning, re-grouping and hierarchical fighting of gilts and sows. However, the effects of this butyrophenone neuroleptic and sedative administered at weaning on pig reproductive function are poorly characterized. In this year-long study, a total of 619 cross-bred sows (Polish Large White×Polish Landrace) kept on a commercial farm received an i.m. injection of azaperone (Stresnil®; 2 mg/kg BW) just before weaning and were artificially inseminated during the ensuing estrus with 3×109 spermatozoa per dose of an inseminate; 1180 sows served as untreated controls. Immediately after weaning, the sows were moved to four pens of seven to nine animals each. A teaser boar was used twice daily to check for estrus and sows were bred at heat detection. Subsequently, all sows stayed in individual stalls until pregnancy testing on day 30 post-artificial insemination and were then re-grouped until farrowing. The proportion of pigs that were in estrus within 6 days post-weaning was significantly lower in azaperone-treated groups of animals than in controls (71.4% v. 84.2%). Overall, the azaperone-treated sows had a significantly longer weaning-to-estrus interval (WEI; 8.7±10.1 v. 6.3±8.1 days; mean±SD) and a significantly larger litter size (LS: 11.8±3.0 v.11.3±3.2; azaperone-treated v. control sows). Treatment of the winter-farrowing sows was associated with increased LS (12.8±2.6 and 11.3±3.1 piglets/sow, respectively; P<0.05) and longer (P<0.05) weaning-to-effective-service intervals (11.7±19.3 and 8.4±12.3 days, respectively) as well as farrowing intervals (155.7±19.7 and 152.2±16.1 days, respectively) compared with untreated controls. In the summer months, significantly longer WEIs (12.1±21.0 v. 8.4±16.9 days) were accompanied by a significant decline in LS only in azaperone-treated sows that were inseminated within 6 days post-weaning (10.8±2.9 v. 11.5±3.3 piglets/sow; azaperone-treated v. controls). Azaperone-treated second parity sows had greater LS (P<0.001) along with prolonged WEIs (P<0.05) in comparison to their respective controls, regardless of the timing of estrus. An application of azaperone at weaning increased the annual piglet productivity of winter-farrowing animals and of second parity sows but depressed it significantly in summer. The extra cost and labor due to delayed onset of estrus may cancel out any reproductive benefits of azaperone treatment.

Keywords

pigsazaperoneweaningfertilitystress
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , February 2018 , pp. 303 - 311
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Arey, DS 2009. Time course of the formation and disruption of social organisation in group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 199–207.Google Scholar
Bjork, AKK 1989. Is social stress in pigs a detrimental factor to health and growth that can be avoided by amperozide treatment? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 39–48.Google Scholar
Cochran, WG and Cox, GM 1957. Experimental designs, 2nd edition. Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Csermeley, D and Wood-Gush, D 1990. Agonistic behaviour in grouped sows III. Effects off grouping methods. Bollettino di Zoologia 57, 271–275.Google Scholar
Einarsson, S, Brandt, Y, Lundheim, N and Madej, A 2008. Stress and its influence on reproduction in pigs: a review. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50, 48–56.Google Scholar
Harlow, CR, Jenkins, JM and Winston, RML 1997. Increased follicular fluid total and free cortisol levels during the luteinizing hormone surge. Fertility and Sterility 68, 48–53.Google Scholar
Hurtgen, JP and Leman, AD 1978. Seasonal breeding pattern in parous sows: a slaughterhouse survey. In Proceedings of the 5th International Pig Veterinarian Society Conference. Abstract M50, International Pig Veterinary Society, 13 to 15 June 1978, Zagreb, Yugoslavia.Google Scholar
Hurtgen, JP, Leman, AD and Crabo, B 1980. Effect of season, parity and housing factors on estrus and fertility in swine. Proceedings of the International Pig Veterinary Society, 30 June to 3 July 1980, Copenhagen, Denmark, p. 20.Google Scholar
Kemp, B and Soede, NM 1996. Relationship of weaning-to-estrus interval to timing of ovulation and fertilization of sows. Journal of Animal Science 74, 944–949.Google Scholar
Kemp, B, Soede, NM and Langendijk, P 2005. Effects of boar contact and housing conditions on estrus expression in sows. Theriogenology 63, 643–656.Google Scholar
King, GJ, Walton, JS and Bellisimo, DJ 1985. Anestrus in pigs: confirmation by a solid-phase RIA for progesterone and subsequent response to treatment. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 26, 2–6.Google Scholar
Knox, RV, Rodriguez Zas, SL, Sloter, NL, McNamara, KA, Gall, TJ, Levist, DG, Safranski, TJ and Singleton, WL 2012. An analysis of survey data by size of the breeding herd for the reproductive management practices of North American sow farms. Journal of Animal Science 91, 433–445.Google Scholar
Kos, M and Bilkei, G 2004. Prostaglandin F2α supplemented semen improves reproductive performance in artificially inseminated sows. Animal Reproduction Science 80, 113–120.Google Scholar
Luescher, UA, Friendship, RM and Mckeown, DB 1990. Evaluation of methods to reduce fighting among regrouped gilts. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70, 363–370.Google Scholar
Madej, A, Lang, A, Brandt, Y, Kindahl, H, Madsen, MT and Einarsson, S 2005. Factors regulating ovarian function in pig. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 29, 347–361.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th edition. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
O’Connell, NE, Beattie, VE and Moss, BW 2003. Influence of social status on the welfare of sows in static and dynamic groups. Animal Welfare 2, 239–249.Google Scholar
Peltoniemi, OAT, Love, RJ, Heinonen, M, Tuovinen, V and Saloniemi, H 1999. Seasonal and management effects on fertility of the sow: a descriptive study. Animal Reproduction Science 55, 47–61.Google Scholar
Peltoniemi, OAT, Tasta, A and Love, RJ 2000. Factors effecting reproduction in the pig: seasonal effects and restricted feeding of the pregnant gilt and sow. Animal Reproduction Science 60–61, 173–184.Google Scholar
Pena, FJ, Dominquez, JC, Pelaez, J and Alegre, B 2000. Intrauterine infusion of PgF2α at insemination enhances reproductive performance of sows during low fertility season. Veterinary Journal 159, 259–261.Google Scholar
Pol, F, Courboulay, V, Cotte, JP, Nartrenchar, A, Hay, M and Mormede, P 2002. Urinary cortisol as an additional tool to assess the welfare of pregnant sows kept in two types of housing. Veterinary Research 33, 13–22.Google Scholar
Poleze, E, Bernardi, ML, Amaral Filha, WS, Wentz, I and Bortolozzo, FP 2006. Consequences of variation in weaning-to-estrus interval on reproductive performance of swine females. Livestock Science 103, 124–130.Google Scholar
Prunier, A, Quesnel, H, de Braganca, MM and Kermabon, AY 1996. Environmental and seasonal influences on the return-to-oestrus after weaning in primiparous sows: a review. Livestock Production Science 45, 103–110.Google Scholar
Quesnel, H and Prunier, A 1995. Endocrine bases of lactational anoestrus in the sow. Reproduction, Nutrition and Development 35, 395–414.Google Scholar
Safranski, TJ and Cox, NM 2007. Clinical reproductive physiology and endocrinology of sows: mating management. In Current therapy in large animal theriogenology (2nd edition) (ed. Youngquist RS and Threlfall WR), pp. 738–749. Saunders, Elsevier St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
Schwarz, T and Kopyra, M 2006. Influence of duration of insemination on reproductive performance in sows. Annals of Animal Science 2, 409–414.Google Scholar
Selye, H. 1978. The stress of life (Revised edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Steffen, H, Bauer, J, Borberg, C, Chonsch, L and Weirich, C 2009. Investigations on dynamics of social rank of sows during several parities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 103–107.Google Scholar
Stewart, KR, Flowers, WL, Rampacek, GB, Greger, DL, Swanson, ME and Hafs, HD 2010. Endocrine, ovulatory and reproductive characteristics of sows treated with an intravaginal GnRH agonist. Animal Reproduction Science 120, 112–119.Google Scholar
Tilbrook, AJ, Turner, AI and Clarke, IJ 2005. Effects of stress on reproduction in non-rodent mammals: the role of glucocorticoids and sex differences. Reviews of Reproduction 5, 105–111.Google Scholar
Tsuma, VT, Einarsson, S, Madej, A, Forsberg, M, Lundheim, N and Rojkittikhun, T 1996. Endocrine changes during group housing of primipoarous sows in early pregnancy. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 37, 481–490.Google Scholar
Tsuma, VT, Einarsson, S, Madej, A and Lundheim, N 1995. Cortisol and endorphin levels in peripheral circulation around weaning in primiparous sows. Animal Reproduction Science 37, 175–182.Google Scholar
Turner, AI, Hemsworth, PH, Canny, BJ and Tilbrook, AJ 1999. Inhibition of the secretion of LH in ovariectomised pigs by sustained but not repeated acute elevation of cortisol in the absence but not presence of oestradiol. Journal of Endocrinology 163, 477–486.Google Scholar
Turner, AI, Hemsworth, PH and Tilbrook, AJ 2002. Susceptibility of reproduction in female pigs to impairment by stress and the role of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 14, 338–339.Google Scholar
Weitze, KF, Wagner-Rietchef, H, Waberski, D, Richter, L and Krieter, J 1994. The onset of heat after weaning, heat duration, and ovulation as major factors in AI timing in sows. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 29, 433–443.Google Scholar
Willenburg, KL, Miller, GM, Rogriduez-Zas, SL and Knox, RV 2003. Effect of boar exposure at time of insemination on factors influencing fertility in gilts. Journal of Animal Science 81, 9–15.Google Scholar
Zak, LJ, Williams, IH, Foxcroft, GR, Pluske, JR, Cegielski, AC, Clowes, EJ and Aherne, FX 1998. Feeding lactating primiparous sows to establish three divergent metabolic states: I. Associated endocrine changes and postweaning reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1145–1453.Google Scholar