Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T11:49:15.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Body development in sows, feed intake and maternal capacity. Part 2: gilt body condition before and after lactation, reproductive performance and correlations with lactation feed intake

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: clewis21@une.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Data on sow body weight (BW) and fatness (n = ∼2250 pregnant sows) and reproductive data (including historical: n = ∼18 000) were used to examine the genetic and phenotypic associations between body condition before and after farrowing, gestational outcomes, lactation feed intake and the gilts’ ability to survive unculled to farrow in the second parity. Within-trait genetic correlations were very high between weight (0.77 ± 0.06) and fat depth (0.91 ± 0.04) recorded before farrowing and at weaning. Litter size traits were generally uncorrelated genetically with aspects of sow BW and body condition. However, genetic correlations indicated that sows producing heavier piglets at birth had litters with increased gain (0.36 ± 0.16), and were characterised by greater weight (−0.72 ± 0.08) and fat change (−0.19 ± 0.15) during lactation, reflected to a lesser extent by lower weight (−0.12 ± 0.11) and fatness (−0.17 ± 0.10) at weaning. Genetic correlations (ra) between reproductive traits and lactation feed intake were generally low, but favourable. However, lactation intake was positively correlated with measures of sow size (ra = ∼0.55), such that selection for lactation feed intake would likely be accompanied by increased mature sow size. Phenotypic correlations (rp) showed that sow survival to the second parity (FAR12) was positively influenced by litter size and fat depth at weaning, supporting attributes of increased fatness before farrowing, less weight loss during lactation and an increased lactation intake.

Keywords

heritabilitygenetic parameterslongevitystayability
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 12 , 10 November 2011 , pp. 1855 - 1867
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.)

References

Abrams, B 2000. Postpartum maternal weight changes: implications for military women. Report for US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 21702-5012, Fort Detrick, MD, USA. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA406580&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdfGoogle Scholar
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
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 2009. Managing consequences of increasing litter size: a genetic perspective. In Manipulating Pig Production XII, Proceedings of the Twelth Biennaial Conference of the Australasian Pig Science Association, Australian Pig Science Association, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 149–156.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, Smits, R, Luxford, B, Hermesch, S 2008. Sow body composition and its associations with reproductive and litter growth performance of the primiparous sow (ed. S Hermesch). Pig Genetics Workshop Notes, pp. 67–81. AGBU, UNE, Armidale, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Bunter, KL, Lewis, CRG, Hermesch, S, Smits, R, Luxford, B 2010. Maternal capacity, feed intake and body development in sows. Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Gesellschaft fur Tierzuchtwissenschaften, 10071p.Google Scholar
Close, WH, Mullan, BP 1996. Nutrition and feeding of breeding stock. World Animal Science, Pig Production (ed. MR Taverner & AC Dunkin), Ch. 8, pp. 169–202. Elsevier Science Ltd, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Doucet, E, Imbeault, P, St-Pierre, S, Almeras, N, Mauriege, P, Richard, D, Tremblay, A 2000. Appetite after weight loss by energy restriction and a low-fat diet-exercise follow-up. International Journal of Obesity 24, 906–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dourmad, JY 1991. Effect of feeding level in the gilt during pregnancy on voluntary feed-intake during lactation and changed in body-composition during gestation and lactation. Livestock Production Science 27, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 2002. Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eissen, JJ, Kanis, E, Kemp, B 2000. Sow factors affecting voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livestock Production Science 64, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estany, J, Villalba, D, Tibau, J, Soler, J, Babot, D, Noguera, JL 2002. Correlated response to selection for litter size in pigs: I. Growth, fat deposition, and feeding behavior traits. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2556–2565.Google ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, PW, Harvey, WR, Irvin, KM 1985. Genetic, phenotypic and environmental relationahips between sow body-weight and sow productivity traits. Journal of Animal Science 60, 375–384.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
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, p. 196.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 Notes, pp. 55–65. AGBU, UNE, Armidale, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Hogberg, A, Rydhmer, L 2000. A genetic study of piglet growth and survival. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section a-Animal Science 50, 300–303.Google Scholar
Hughes, PE, Smits, R 2002. Breeding herd feeding strategies to optimize productive efficiency and reduce culling rates. Pig research report, project number 1161, Australian Pork Limited, Canberra, Australia, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Huisman, AE, Veerkamp, RF, van Arendonk, JAM 2002. Genetic parameters for various random regression models to describe the weight data of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80, 575–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, ZB and Nugent, RA 2004. Relationship between performance test traits and subsequent reproductive performance of Yorkshire females Arkansas Animal Science Department Report 2004, pp. 170–172. Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA.Google Scholar
Kim, SW, Osaka, I, Hurley, WL, Easter, RA 1999. Mammary gland growth as influenced by litter size in lactating sows: Impact on lysine requirement. Journal of Animal Science 77, 3316–3321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SW, Hurley, WL, Wu, G, Ji, F 2009. Ideal amino acid balance for sows during gestation and lactation. Journal of Animal Science 87, E123–E132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Le Dividich, J, Seve, B 2000. Effects of underfeeding during the weaning period on growth, metabolism, and hormonal adjustments in the piglet. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 19, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, CRG, Bunter, KL 2011. Body development in sows, feed intake and maternal capacity. In Part 1: Performance, pre-breeding and lactation feed intake traits of primiparous sows Animal, doi: 10.1017/S1751731111001121.CrossRefGoogle 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, Brisbane, Australia, 106pp.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
McGlone, JJ, Vines, B, Rudine, AC, DuBois, P 2004. The physical size of gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2421–2427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, BP, Williams, IH 1989. The effect of body reserves at farrowing on the reproductive-performance of 1st-litter sows. Animal Production 48, 449–457.Google Scholar
Nguyen, NH, McPhee, CP, Wade, CM 2003. Genetic parameters for reproduction traits in sows of lines selected for growth rate on restricted feeding, Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, pp. 245–248.Google Scholar
Ozcan, L, Ergin, AS, Lu, A, Chung, J, Sarkar, S, Nie, D, Myers, MG, Ozcan, U 2009. Endoplasmic reticulum stress plays a central role in development of leptin resistance. Cell Metabolism 9, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, P, Lipton, M 1994. How third world rural households adapt to dietary energy stress. The evidence and the issues. Food Policy Review 2. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
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 1996. Genetics and reproduction in the pig. Animal Reproduction Science 42, 143–151.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
SAS 1999. SAS User Guide. Enterprise Miner, Release 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
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
Shurson, GC, Isler, GA, Irvin, KM, Peterson, GA 1991. Traits affecting postweaning weight-gain and feed-intake of primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3487–3493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suarez, M, Hermesch, S, Braun, JA, Graser, HU 2005. Estimates of genetic parameters for reproductive traits at different parities in Australian hyperprolific Large White sows. Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, pp. 145–148.Google Scholar
Tarres, J, Tibau, J, Piedrafita, J, Fabrega, E, Reixach, J 2006. Factors affecting longevity in maternal Duroc swine lines. Livestock Science 100, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tholen, E, Bunter, KL, Hermesch, S, Graser, HU 1996. 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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, MG, Aherne, FX 2005. Monitoring and maintaining sow condition. Advances in Pork Production 16, 299–313.Google Scholar
Young, MG, Tokach, MD, Aherne, FX, Main, RG, Dritz, SS, Goodband, RD, Nelssen, JL 2004. Comparison of three methods of feeding sows in gestation and the subsequent effects on lactation performance. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3058–3070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed