Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T23:48:31.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of some sow characteristics on within-litter variation of piglet birth weight*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

H. Quesnel ,
L. Brossard ,
A. Valancogne  and
N. Quiniou
H. Quesnel*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1079, F-35000 Rennes, France Agrocampus Rennes, UMR 1079, F-35000 Rennes, France
L. Brossard
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1079, F-35000 Rennes, France Agrocampus Rennes, UMR 1079, F-35000 Rennes, France
A. Valancogne
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1079, F-35000 Rennes, France Agrocampus Rennes, UMR 1079, F-35000 Rennes, France
N. Quiniou
Affiliation:
IFIP-Institut du Porc, BP 35104, 35651 Le Rheu Cedex, France
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Within-litter variation of piglet birth weight (BW0) is associated with an increased piglet mortality and a high variability in pig weight at weaning and weight or age at slaughter. Data collected in two experimental herds were used to quantify within-litter variability in BW0 and to assess the influence of factors mainly related to the sow. Within 24 h after birth, piglets born alive were individually weighed and stillborn piglets were collectively (first data set) or individually (second data set) weighed. The first data set was restricted to litters with no or only one stillborn piglet (3338 litters). It was used to assess the influence of genetic selection on BW0 variation by comparing litter characteristics before (1994 to 1996) and after (2001 to 2004) the development of hyperprolific sows in this herd. The second data set included all litters (n = 1596) from sows born between 2000 and 2004. For each litter, mean BW0 (mBW0) and its coefficient of variation (CVBW0) were calculated. Then, variance analyses were performed to test the influence of litter size, parity, year of sow birth and season at conception. Prolificacy improvement was associated with an increased CVBW0 in litters from pure Large White (LW) and Landrace × Large White (LR × LW) crossbred sows. The CVBW0 averaged 21% and was significantly influenced by litter size and parity. It increased from 15% to 24% when litter size varied from less than 10 piglets to more than 15 piglets. The proportion of small piglets (i.e. weighing less than 1 kg) increased concomitantly. The CVBW0 was not repeatable from a parity to the following. It was lowest for first and second parities (20%) and thereafter increased progressively. The CVBW0 was positively related to sow’s backfat thickness gain during gestation. Taking into account litter size, parity, year of sow birth and season at conception explained 20% of BW0 variation. Thus, major part of heterogeneity is due to other factors, presumably including embryo genotype, on the one hand, and factors that influence embryo and foetus development, such as epigenetic factors, on the other hand.

Keywords

birth weightpigletsowwithin-litter variation
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 12 , December 2008 , pp. 1842 - 1849
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

*

Part of these results was presented at the EAAP meeting (58th meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Dublin, Ireland, 26 to 29 August 2007).

References

Blasco, A, Gogué, J, Bidanel, JP 1996. Relationships between ovulation rate, prenatal survival and litter size in French Large White pigs. Animal Science 63, 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolet, G, Etienne, M 1982. Relations entre les caractéristiques pondérales et numériques de la portée et la mortalité du porcelet de la naissance au sevrage. In Physiologie et pathologie périnatales chez les animaux de ferme. XIV Journées du Grenier de Theix, Clermont-Ferrand, France (ed. R Jarrige), pp. 329–342. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Canario, L, Cantoni, E, Le Bihan, E, Caritez, JC, Billon, Y, Bidanel, JP, Foulley, JL 2006. Between-breed variability of stillbirth and its relationship with sow and piglet characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3185–3196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canario, L, Père, MC, Tribout, T, Thomas, F, David, C, Gogué, J, Herpin, P, Bidanel, JP, Le Dividich, J 2007. Estimation of genetic trends from 1977 to 1998 of body composition and physiological state of Large White pigs at birth. Animal 1, 1409–1413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damgaard, LH, Rydhmer, L, Løvendahl, P, Grandison, K 2003. Genetic parameters for within-litter variation in piglet birth weight and change in within-litter variation during suckling. Journal of Animal Science 81, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
English, PR, Smith, WJ 1975. Some causes of death in neonatal piglets. Veterinary Annual 15, 95–104.Google Scholar
Ferguson, EM, Slevin, J, Edwards, SA, Hunter, MG, Ashworth, CJ 2006. Effects of alterations in the quantity and composition of the pre-mating diet on embryo survival and foetal growth in the pig. Animal Reproduction Science 96, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finch, AM, Antipatis, C, Pickard, AR, Ashworth, CJ 2002. Patterns of fetal growth within Large White × Landrace and Chinese Meishan gilt litters at three stages of gestation. Reproduction, Fertility, and Development 14, 419–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK 1997. Farrowing behaviour and stillbirth in two environments: an evaluation of the restraint-stillbirth hypothesis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garreau H, San Cristobal M, Hurtaud J, Bodin L, Ros M, Robert-Granié C, Saleil G and Bolet G 2004. Can we select on within litter homogeneity in rabbit birth weight? A divergent selection experiment. Conference at the 8th World Rabbit Congress, Puebla City, Mexico, pp. 63–68.Google Scholar
Gondret, F, Lefaucheur, L, Juin, H, Louveau, I, Lebret, B 2006. Low birth weight is associated with enlarged muscle fiber area and impaired meat tenderness of the longissimus muscle in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IFIP (French Institute for Pig and Pork Industry) 1995 to 2007. Porc Performances (brochure annuelle). Performances nationales et régionales des élevages porcins français de 1994 à 2006. Institut Technique du Porc (ITP), Paris, France.Google Scholar
King, RH, Williams, IH 1984. The influence of ovulation rate on subsequent litter size in sows. Theriogenology 21, 677–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knol, EF, Leenhouwers, JI, van der Lende, T 2002. Genetic aspects of piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 78, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Cozler, Y, Dagorn, J, Dourmad, JY, Johansen, S, Aumaître, A 1997. Effect of weaning-to-conception interval and lactation length on subsequent litter size in sows. Livestock Production Science 51, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Cozler, Y, Pichodo, X, Roy, H, Guyomarc’h, C, Pellois, H, Quiniou, N, Louveau, I, Lebret, B, Lefaucheur, L, Gondret, F 2004. Influence du poids individuel et de la taille de portée à la naissance sur la survie du porcelet, ses performances de croissance et d’abattage et la qualité de la viande. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 36, 443–450.Google Scholar
Le Dividich, J 1999. A review – neonatal and weaner pig: management to reduce variation. In Manipulating pig production VII (ed. PD Cranwell), pp. 135–155. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Leenhouwers, JI, van der Lende, T, Knol, EF 1999. Analysis of stillbirth in different lines of pig. Livestock Production Science 57, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, BN, Fraser, D, Kramer, DL 2002. Within-litter birth weight variation in the domestic pig and its relation to pre-weaning survival, weight gain, and variation in weaning weights. Livestock Production Science 76, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, NH, McPhee, A, Wade, CM 2006. Genetic variation and responses in reproductive performance of sows in lines selected for growth rate under restricted feeding. Animal Science 82, 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Père, MC, Dourmad, JY, Etienne, M 1997. Effect of number of pig embryos in the uterus on their survival and development and on maternal metabolism. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1337–1342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pettigrew, JE, Cornelius, SG, Moser, RL, Heeg, TR, Hanke, HE, Miller, KP, Hagen, CD 1986. Effects of oral doses of corn oil and other factors on preweaning survival and growth of piglets. Journal of Animal Science 62, 601–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quesnel, H, Pasquier, A, Mounier, AM, Prunier, A 1998. Influence of feed restriction during lactation on gonadotropic hormones and ovarian development in primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 76, 856–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quesnel, H, Boulot, S, Le Cozler, Y 2005. Les variations saisonnières des performances de reproduction chez la truie. INRA Productions Animales 18, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiniou, N, Quesnel, H 2008. Effet de la quantité d’aliment allouée aux truies pendant le premier mois de gestation sur la reconstitution des réserves et les caractéristiques de la portée à la naissance: premiers résultats. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 40, 227–232.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N, Dagorn, J, Gaudré, D 2002. Variation of piglets’ birth weight and consequences on subsequent performance. Livestock Production Science 78, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehe, R, Kalm, E 2000. Estimation of genetic and environmental risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality in piglets using generalized linear mixed models. Animal Science 70, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 1999. SAS/STAT user’s guide: statistics (version 8). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Tribout, T, Caritez, JC, Gogué, J, Gruand, J, Billon, Y, Bouffaud, M, Lagant, H, Le Dividich, J, Thomas, F, Quesnel, H, Guéblez, R, Bidanel, JP 2003. Estimation, par utilisation de semence congelée, du progrès génétique réalisé en France entre 1977 et 1998 dans la race porcine Large White: résultats pour quelques caractères de reproduction femelle. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 35, 285–291.Google Scholar
Tuchscherer, M, Puppe, B, Tuchscherer, A, Tiemann, U 2000. Early identification of neonates at risk: traits of newborn piglets with respect to survival. Theriogenology 54, 371–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Brand, H, Soede, NM, Kemp, B 2006. Supplementation of dextrose to the diet during the weaning to estrus interval affects subsequent variation in within-litter piglet birth weight. Animal Reproduction Science 91, 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Lende, T, Hazeleger, W, de Jager, D 1990. Weight distribution within litters at the early foetal stage and at birth in relation to embryonic mortality in the pig. Livestock Production Science 26, 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vonnahme, KA, Wilson, ME, Foxcroft, GR, Ford, SP 2002. Impacts on conceptus survival in a commercial swine herd. Journal of Animal Science 80, 553–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, T, Roberts, AJ, Christenson, RK 1997. Relationships of light and heavy fetuses to uterine position, placental weight, gestational age, and fetal cholesterol concentrations. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2197–2207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xue, JL, Dial, GD, Marsh, WE, Davies, PR 1994. Multiple manifestations of season on reproductive performance of commercial swine. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 204, 1486–1489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zak, LJ, Cosgrove, JR, Aherne, FX, Foxcroft, GR 1997. Pattern of different feed intake and associated metabolic and endocrine changes differentially affect postweaning fertility in primiparous lactating sows. Journal of Animal Science 75, 208–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed