Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:19:58.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infertility and neonatal mortality in the sow III. Neonatal mortality and foetal development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. W. Pomeroy
R. W. Pomeroy
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge and AgriculturalResearch Council
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An analysis of pre-weaning mortality in inbred Large White pigs showed that the over-all mortality in ten generations of sows was 47·3%. During the first four generations mortality fluctuated between 30 and 45%; from the 5th to the 9th it fluctuated between 50 and 68% and in the 10th rose to 88%.

2. 70·2% of all deaths occurred in the first 3 days post-parturition and the average birth weight of pigs which died within 3 days was only 1003·5 g. compared with 1258·5 g. for those which survived. 83·0% of pigs weighing less than 900 g. at birth died within 3 days, whereas only 18·5% of pigs weighing more than 1400 g. died within the same period.

3. There were marked seasonal variations in mortality, this being highest during the winter months. Mortality was highest in litters of under 5 and over 15, but between 5 and 15 there was no increase in mortality with litter size. There was no difference in mortality between males and females.

4. Foetal growth was studied in 80 outbred sows of various breeds. Foetal weight was affected not only by age but also by litter size. The withinlitter variation in foetal weight increased with litter size but no increase in between-litter variation with litter size could be demonstrated statistically. Male foetuses were slightly heavier than females at all stages of pregnancy investigated.

5. The growth of the inbred Large White foetus was also studied at an early and late stage of inbreeding, and the reduced birth weight in the latter was shown to be reflected in slower growth of the foetus from mid-pregnancy onwards.

6. The anatomical composition of inbred Large White foetuses at a late stage of inbreeding has been compared with that of similar foetuses at an earlier stage and also with normal outbred Essex foetuses, at 51, 74, 97 and 108 days of pregnancy. The chemical composition of inbred Large White foetuses of a later stage of inbreeding was compared with that of outbred Essex foetuses at 51, 74, 97 and 108 days. The differences in anatomical composition between the smallest and largest foetuses within litters are comparable with those found postnatally in pigs fed on a high or low plane of nutrition, but this was not reflected in a very definite way in the chemical composition. X-ray photographs showed that ossification was more advanced in the largest foetus within a litter than in the smallest but the appearance of the ossification centres was not delayed in the latter.

7. Attempts to make reciprocal ovum transfers between inbred Large White and outbred Essex sows met with little success, probably due to the low fertility of the Large Whites, the prolonged exposure of the ovum during transference and the necessity of effecting the transfer of the ova at the 2-cell stage. The latter was conditioned by the rate of passage of the ova through the tube and the fact that they enter the uterus in the 4-cell stage.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 1960 , pp. 31 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Appleton, A. B. (1929). C. R. Ass. Anat. 24th Meeting, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth. Baltimore: Reinhold Publ. Corp.Google Scholar
Cloete, J. H. L. (1939). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 13, 417.Google Scholar
Comline, B. S., Pomeroy, R. W. & Titchen, D. A. (1953). J. Physiol. 122, Proc. 24 07.Google Scholar
Corker, G. W. (1921). Contr. Embryol. Carneg. Instn, 13, 117.Google Scholar
Flexner, L. B. & Gelhorn, A. (1942). Amer. J. Physiol. 136, 750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosser, O. (1927). Fruhentwicklung, Eihautbildung u. Placentation. Munich: Burgmann.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1935). Trans. Dynam. Developm. 10, 93.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1949). Brit. J. Nutr. 3, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. Jnr (1949). Nature, Lond., 163, 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanawalt, V. M. & Sampson, J. (1947). Amer. J. Vet. Res. 8, 73.Google Scholar
Huggett, A. St G. & Widdas, W. F. (1951). J. Physiol. 114, 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, G. L., Adams, C. E. & Rowson, L. E. A. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, H. D., Terrill, S. W., Morrill, C. C., Norton, H. W., Meades, R. J., Jensen, A. H. & Becker, D. E. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 1023.Google Scholar
Jacqué, L. (1902). Mém. cour. Acad. R. Belg. 63, 1.Google Scholar
Kvasnickii, A. V. (1951). Sovetsk. Zootech. 1, 36.Google Scholar
Lowrey, L. G. (1911). Amer. J. Anat. 12, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Dickerson, J. W. J. (1957). J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 5, 43.Google Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Widdowson, E. M. (1954). Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 19, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malan, A. P. & Curzon, H. H. (1937). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 8, 417.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., Carroll, W. E., Hamilton, T. J. & Hunt, G. E. (1931). Univ. Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 375.Google Scholar
Needham, J. (1931). Chemical Embryology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, D. N., Watson, B. P. & Kerr, J. (1907). Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 46, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. (1941). J. Agric Sci. 31, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. (1952). II. Int. Congr. Physiol. Path. Anim. Reprod. A.I. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 54, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, S. R. M. (1946). Anat. Rec. 95, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spray, C. M. & Widdowson, E. M. (1951). Brit. J. Nutr. 4, 361.Google Scholar
Vosburgh, G. T., Flexner, L. B., Cowie, D. B., Hellman, L. M., Procter, N. K. & Wilde, W. S. (1948). Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec. 56, 1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, B. L. (1926). Anat. Rec. 33, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, B. L. (1928). J. Morph. Physiol. 46, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. (1950). Nature, Lond., 166, 626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wislocki, G. B. (1935). Anat. Rec. 63, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar