Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-rwnhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-25T22:30:07.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The efficiency of artificial insemination in pigs : lessons from australian research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

John Dunne
John Dunne*
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen, School of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
Get access

Extract

Recent years have seen a small but consistent growth in the use of AI on commercial pig farms in Britain. Currently about 12 percent of all matings are artificial and 25 percent or more of farms are using some AI.(6) This figure still falls well short of our continental neighbours, with Denmark and the Netherlands inseminating 50 percent of their sows. The conception rate and litter size achievable with AI (6) can at least equal results from natural matings. However, it is recognised that some people achieve far superior fertility results to others when using AI. Part of this is due to different genotypes employed (e.g. purebreds vs crossbreds), different production systems and management practices imposed. It is most likely, however, that an unquantified but substantial part of the reason for such big differences between farms in fertility following AI is due to differing abilities of stockpeople performing the inseminations. “Ability’ refers not only to the actual insemination technique, which is straightforward and can be quickly learned, but to their general ability to recognise behavioural changes in their stock, to interact with their stock and generally get the best out of their stock i.e. their level of stockmanship skills.

Type
Pig Welfare and Behaviour
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1992 , March 1992 , pp. 58
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1992

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

1. Hemsworth, P. B., Cronin, G. M., Hansen, C. and Winfield, C.G. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 12 (1984) 339–347.Google Scholar
2. Hemsworth, P. H., Winfield, C.G., Barnett, J.L., Hansen, C, Schirmer, B and Foote, M. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 19 (1987) 81–87.Google Scholar
3. Hemsworth, P. H., Winfield, C. G., Barnett, J. L., Schirmer, B and Hansen, C. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 16 (1986) 345–351.Google Scholar
4. Hemsworth, P. H., Hansen, C, Coleman, G.J. and Jongman, E. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 30 (1991) 273–285.Google Scholar
5. Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Coleman, C. J. and Hansen, C. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 23 (1989) 301–314.Google Scholar
6. Meat and Livestock Commission (1991) Pig Yearbook. P 0 Box 44, Winterhill House, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes, MK6 1AX.Google Scholar