Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:44:12.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative reproductive performance in Meishan and Large White pigs and their crosses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. S. Haley ,
G. J. Lee  and
M. Ritchie
C. S. Haley
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute(Edinburgh)†, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
G. J. Lee
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute(Edinburgh)†, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
M. Ritchie
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute(Edinburgh)†, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
Get access

Abstract

A crossbreeding trial extending over three generations was used to investigate the genetic components contributing to the prolificacy of the Meishan breed in comparison with the Large White breed. Information on the number of teats and on body weight and litter size in the first two parities was recorded on purebred Meishan and Large White females and on reciprocal F1 and backcross females. Ovulation rate was also recorded for all litters, allowing the estimation of per litter prenatal survival. Crossbreeding parameters for direct, maternal and grandmaternal effects were estimated using restricted maximum likelihood analysis. There was a consistent advantage of three to four piglets born alive to the Meishan female compared with the Large White female. This was controlled by the maternal genotype, with no effect of the genotype of the litter itself. Both additive and heterosis effects were important, the contribution of additive maternal effects to the breed difference being similar across parities (4·0 (s.e. 1·1) and 4·2(s.e. 1·1), in the two parities respectively) and the maternal heterosis increasing slightly across parities (2·2 (s.e. 0·8) and 2·9 (s.e. 0·8), in the two parities respectively). The number born alive to F 1 females was similar to, or greater than, the number born alive to Meishan females. Ovulation rate was significantly higher in Meishan than in Large White females and this was controlled by additive gene effects which had a similar effect across parities, the weighted average of their contribution to the breed difference being 5·7 (s.e. 0·8) ova. Differences between the breeds in prenatal survival were small, although there was significant maternal heterosis, however, the maternal additive effect became significant after the inclusion of ovulation rate as a covariate. After adjustment for ovulation rate, the weighted average estimates across parity of the maternal additive contribution to the breed difference and the maternal heterosis for the proportional prenatal survival loere 0-14 (s.e. 0·05) and 0·13 (s.e. 0·03), respectively. This suggests that a combination of a high ovulation rate and especially a high level of prenatal survival for that ovulation rate led to the prolificacy observed in this sample of Meishan pigs. The inclusion of ovulation rate as a covariate in the analysis of number born alive confirms this view, as the maternal additive effect on litter size was only reduced by about one third and the heterosis effect was largely unchanged. Both numbers stillborn and mummified were increased in litters born to Meishan sows due to maternal additive effects, but the effects seemed largely a consequence of the increased ovulation rate as they became non-significant after its inclusion as a covariate in the model.

Keywords

crossbreedinglitter sizeMeishanovulation ratepigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 259 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Ashworth, C. J., Haley, C. S., Aitken, R. P. and Wilmut, I. 1990. Embryo survival and conceptus growth after reciprocal embryo transfer between Chinese Meishan and Landrace × Large White gilts. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 90: 595–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashworth, C. J., Haley, C. S. and Wilmut, I. 1992. Effect of regumate on ovulation rate, embryo survival and conceptus growth in Meishan and Landrace × Large White gilts. Theriogenology 37: 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazer, F. W., Thatcher, W. W., Martinat-Botte, F. and Terqui, M. 1988. Conceptus development in Large White and prolific Chinese Meishan pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 84: 37–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bidanel, J. P. 1993. Estimation of crossbreeding parameters between Large White and Meishan porcine breeds. III. Dominance and epistatic components of heterosis on reproductive traits. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 25: 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidanel, J. P., Caritez, J. C. and Legault, C. 1989. Estimation of crossbreeding parameters between Large White and Meishan porcine breeds. I. Reproductive performance. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 21: 507–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidanel, J. P., Caritez, J. C. and Lagant, H. 1990. Ovuiation rate and embryonic survival in gilts and sows with variable proportions of Meishan (MS) and Large White (LW) genes. Mean performance and crossbreeding parameters between MS and LW breeds. In Chinese pig symposium (ed. Molénat, M. and Legault, C.). Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris, pp. 109–110.Google Scholar
Bidanel, J. P., Caritez, J. C. and Legault, C. 1991. Ten years of experiments with Chinese pigs in France. 2. Utilisation in crossbreeding. Pig News and Information 12: 239–243.Google Scholar
Bolet, G., Martinat-Botte, F., Locatelli, A., Gruand, J., Terqui, M. and Berthelot, F. 1986. Components of prolificacy in hyperprolific Large White sows compared with the Meishan and Large White breeds. Genetique, Selection, Evolution 18: 333–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, P-L. 1983. A highly prolific big breed in China — the Taihu pig. Pig News and Information 4: 407–425.Google Scholar
Christenson, R. K. 1993. Uterine function in Meishan pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 48: suppl, pp. 247–259.Google ScholarPubMed
Galvin, J. M., Wilmut, I., Day, B. N., Ritchie, M., Thomson, M. and Haley, C. S. 1993. Reproductive performance in relation to uterine and embryonic traits during early gestation in Meishan, Large White and crossbred sows. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 98: 377–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genstat 5 Committee 1993. Genstat 5, release 3, reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S., Ashworth, C. J., Lee, G. J., Wilmut, I., Aitken, R. P. and Ritchie, W. 1990. British studies of the genetics and prolificacy in the Meishan pig. In Chinese pig symposium (ed. Molénat, M. and Legault, C.). Institut de la Recherce Agronomique, Paris, pp. 85–97.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S. and Lee, G. J. 1990. Genetic components of litter size in Meishan and Large White pigs and their crosses. In Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. XV (ed. Hill, W. G., Thompson, R. and Woolliams, J. A.), pp. 458–481.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S. and Lee, G. J. 1993. Genetic basis of prolificacy in Meishan pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 48: suppl, pp. 247–259.Google ScholarPubMed
Hunter, M. G., Biggs, C., Ashworth, C. J. and Haley, C. S. 1991. Ovarian function in Chinese Meishan pigs. Biology of Reproduction 44: suppl. 1, p. 148.Google Scholar
Komender, P. and Hoeschele, I. 1989. Use of mixed-model methodology to improve estimation of crossbreeding parameters. Livestock Production Science 21: 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legault, C. and Caritez, J. C. 1983. L'expérimentation sur le pore chinois en France. 1. Performances de reproduction en race pure et en croisement. Genetique, Selection, Evolution 15: 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. E. and Robison, O. W. 1976. Effects of postnatal maternal environment on reproduction of gilts. Journal of Animal Science 43: 71–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutledge, J. J. 1980. Fraternity size and reproduction. 1. Effect on fecundity of gilts. Journal of Animal Science 51: 868–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, H. A. M. van der. 1985. Maternal influence mediated by litter size during the suckling period on reproduction traits in pigs. Livestock Production Science 13: 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terqui, M., Bazer, F. W. and Martinat-Botté, F. 1992. Hyperprolificité de la truie Meishan: le point sur les mechanismes en jeu au début de la gestation. Journées Recherche Porcine en France 24: 351–356.Google Scholar
Wei, M. and Steen, H. A. M. van der. 1991. Comparison of reciprocal recurrent selection with pure-line selection systems in animal breeding (a review). Animal Breeding Abstracts 59: 281–298.Google Scholar
Wildt, D., Fujimoto, S., Spencer, J. and Dukelow, W. 1973. Direct ovarian observation in the pig by means of laparoscopy. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 35: 541–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilmut, I., Ritchie, W. A., Haley, C. S., Ashworth, C. J. and Aitken, R. P. 1992. A comparison of rate and uniformity of embryo development in Meishan and European White pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 95: 45–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wrathall, A. E. 1971. Prenatal survival in pigs. Part 1. Ovuiation rate and its influence on prenatal survival and litter size in pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal.Google Scholar