Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:36:20.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic aspects regarding piglet losses and the maternal behaviour of sows. Part 1. Genetic analysis of piglet mortality and fertility traits in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2008

B. Hellbrügge ,
K.-H. Tölle ,
J. Bennewitz ,
C. Henze ,
U. Presuhn  and
J. Krieter
B. Hellbrügge
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
K.-H. Tölle
Affiliation:
Chamber of Agriculture Schleswig-Holstein, LVZ Futterkamp, D-24732 Blekendorf, Germany
J. Bennewitz
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
C. Henze*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
U. Presuhn
Affiliation:
Farm concepts GmbH & Co. KG, D-23812 Wahlstedt, Germany
J. Krieter
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
*
E-mail: chenze@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de
Get access

Abstract

In spite of the improvement in management and the breeding goal of increasing the number of piglets born alive, piglet mortality is still a substantial problem in pig breeding. The objective of the first part of the study was to estimate genetic parameters for different causes of piglet losses and to investigate the relationship to litter-size traits. Data were collected on a nucleus herd from January till December 2004. Records from 943 German Landrace sows with 1538 pure-bred litters and 13 971 individually weighted piglets were included. Four different causes of piglet losses (LOSS) were evaluated. Additional analysed traits were underweight and runting. Furthermore, the fertility traits number of piglets born alive, born in total and stillborn piglets as well as the individual birth and weaning weights were analysed. The different LOSS were treated as a binary trait and subsequently the heritabilities were estimated using a threshold model. The most important LOSS was crushing under the sow (12.4%). The survival rate and crushing had a heritability of h2 = 0.03. The fertility traits piglets born alive, born in total and stillborn piglets were analysed with a linear model and heritabilities rank from h2 = 0.05 (stillborn) to h2 = 0.10 (born alive). The estimated heritabilities for birth- and weaning weight were both h2 = 0.10. The genetic correlations between number of piglets born alive and each LOSS trait were analysed bivariately. Of all piglets born alive 84.3% survive the lactation period. Survival decreased with increasing litter size (rg = −0.54 up to −0.78) and the probability of being crushed under the sow increased.

Keywords

causes of lossescorrelationheritabilitypiglet mortalitysurvival rate
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 9 , September 2008 , pp. 1273 - 1280
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.)

References

Adamec, V, Johnson, RK 1997. Genetic analysis of rebreeding intervals, litter traits and production traits in sows of the National Czech nucleus. Livestock Production Science 48, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algers, B, Rojanasthien, S, Uvnäs-Moberg, K 1990. The relationship between teat stimulation, oxytocin release and grunting rate in the sow during nursing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, IL, Berg, S, Boe, KE 2005. Crushing of piglets by the mother sow (Sus scrofa) – purely accidental or a poor mother? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidanel JP, Gruand J and Legault C 1994. An overview of 20 years of selection for litter size in pigs using “hyperprolific” schemes. Proceedings of the 5th WCGALP, Guelph, 17, 512–519.Google Scholar
Crump, RE, Thomson, R, Haley, CS, Mercer, J 1997. Individual animal model estimates of genetic correlations between performance test and reproduction traits of Landrace pigs performance tested in a commercial nucleus herd. Animal Science 65, 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damgaard, LH, Rydhmer, L, Lovendahl, P, Grandinson, 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
Damm, BI, Forkman, B, Pedersen, LJ 2005. Lying down and rolling behaviour in sows in relation to piglet crushing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA, Smith, WJ, Fordyce, C, MacMenemy, F 1994. An analysis of the causes of piglet mortality in a breeding herd kept outside. The Veterinary Record 135, 324–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, PR, Morrison, V 1984. Causes and prevention of piglet mortality. Pig News Information 5, 369–376.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1990. Behavioural aspects on piglet survival. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, Supplement, 355–370.Google ScholarPubMed
Gianola, D 1982. Theory and analysis of threshold characters. Journal of Animal Science 54, 1079–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandinson, K, Lund, MS, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E 2002. Genetic parameters for piglet mortality traits crushing, stillbirth and total mortality, and their relation to birth weight. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 52, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandinson, K, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E, Thodberg, K 2003. Genetic analysis of on-farm tests of maternal behaviour in sows. Livestock Production Science 83, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanenberg, EHAT, Knol, EF, Merks, JWM 2001. Estimates of genetic parameters for reproduction traits at different parities in Dutch Landrace pigs. Livestock Production Science 69, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch S 1996. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs. PhD. Unit of Animal Genetics and Breeding and Department of Animal Science, University of New England, Australia.Google Scholar
Högberg, A, Rydhmer, L 2000. A genetic study of piglet growth and survival. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 50, 300–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holl, JW, Robison, OW 2003. Results from nine generations of selection for increased litter size in swine. Journal of Animal Science 81, 624–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irgang, R, Fávero, JA, Kennedy, BW 1994. Genetic parameters for litter size of different parities in Duroc, Landrace and Large White sows. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2237–2246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karsten, S, Röhe, R, Schulze, V, Looft, H, Kalm, E 2000. Genetische Beziehungen zwischen individueller Futteraufnahme während der Eigenleistungsprüfung und Fruchtbarkeitsmerkmalen beim Schwein. Archiv für Tierzucht 43, 451–461.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, D, Hofer, A, Bidanel, JP, Kunzi, N 2000. Genetic parameters for individual birth weight and weaning weight and for litter size of Large White pigs. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 117, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, PW, van Alst, GJM, Versteeg, JG, Kanis, E 1993. Realised genetic improvement of litter size in Dutch Pig Herdbook breeding. Pig News Information 14, 119–121.Google Scholar
Knol EF 2001. Genetic aspects of piglet survival. PhD, dissertation no. 2994, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Knol, EF, Leenhouwers, JI, van der Lende, T 2002. Genetic aspects of piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 78, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, IR, Lund, MS, Sorensen, D, Gianola, D, Madsen, P, Jensen, J 2003. Multivariate Bayesian analysis of Gaussian, right censored Gaussian, ordered categorical and binary traits using Gibbs sampling. Genetics Selection Evolution 35, 159–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leenhouwers, JI, Wissink, P, van der Lende, T, Parindaans, H, Knol, EF 2003. Stillbirth in pig in relation to genetic merit for farrowing survival. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2419–2424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S, Simmers, PH 2000. The timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. The Veterinary Record 147, 209–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM, Corning, S 2001. The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Animal Science 72, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumaier, A, Groeneveld, E 1998. Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation of covariances in sparse linear models. Genetics Selection Evolution 30, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonait, H 2001. Geburt, Puerperium und perinatale Verluste. In Lehrbuch der Schweinekrankheiten, p. 506. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin and Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Reinsch, N 1996. Two Fortran programs for the Gibbs Sampler in univariate linear mixed models. Archiv für Tierzucht 39, 203–209.Google Scholar
Robinson JAB, Quinton VM 2002. Genetic parameters of early neo-natal piglets survival and number of piglets born. 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 19–23, 2002, Montpellier, France, 4p.Google Scholar
Röhe, R 1999. Genetic determination of individual birth weight and its association with sow productivity traits using Bayesian analyses. Journal of Animal Science 77, 330–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röhe, 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
Röhe, R, Kennedy, BW 1995. Estimation of genetic parameters for litter size in Canadian Yorkshire and Landrace swine with each parity of farrowing treated as a different trait. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2959–2970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydhmer, L 1992. Relations between piglet weights and survival. Neonatal survival and growth. Occasional Publications of the British Society of Animal Production 15, 183–184.Google Scholar
SAS 2004. Version 8.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sorensen, DA, Andersen, S, Gianola, D, Korsgaard, J 1995. Bayesian inference in threshold models using Gibbs sampling. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 27, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tölle, K-H, Tholen, E, Trappmann, W, Stork, F-J 1998. Möglichkeiten der Zuchtwertschätzung für Reproduktionsmerkmale beim Schwein am Beispiel eines Schweinezuchtverbandes. Züchtungskunde 70, 351–361.Google Scholar
van Arendonk, JAM, van Rosmeulen, C, Janss, LLG, Knol, EF 1996. Estimation of direct and maternal genetic (co)variances for survival within litters of piglets. Livestock Production Science 46, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D, Honkanen, AM 1996. Sow body movements that crush piglets: a comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar