Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:01:18.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of selection for leanness on overall reproductive performance in Large White sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. B. Gaughan ,
R. D. A. Cameron ,
G. McL. Dryden  and
M. J. Josey
J. B. Gaughan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, University of Queensland Gatton, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia
R. D. A. Cameron
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Medicine and Production, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia
G. McL. Dryden
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, University of Queensland Gatton, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia
M. J. Josey
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, University of Queensland Gatton, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Reproductive records from 1072 Large White sows (3589 litters) were used to examine the effect ofbackfat depth (Bd) and live weight (Lw) at selection on first litter and lifetime reproductive performance. The variables investigated included mating age, total piglets born, total born alive, piglet birth weight, number weaned, piglet weaning weight, weaning to remating period and number of litters produced. Using backfat depth, sows were categorized into three groups: L, 9 to 13 mm; M, 14 to 16 mm; and F, ≥17 mm. Bd had no significant effect (P > 0·05) on the measured traits for the sows grouped by fat at first parity. When lifetime reproductive data were analysed, the L group had fewer litters (P < 0·05), and weaned fewer pigs (P < 0·01) than either the M or F group. The birth weight for piglets from L sows were significantly higher (P < 0·05) than for piglets from the other groups. The data suggest that the reproductive performance of L sows is not as good as that of M or F sows.

Keywords

backfatreproductive performancesows
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 561 - 564
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

Anonymous. 1994. In Pigstats 93 Australian Pig Industry Handbook (ed. Ransley, R. and Cleary, G.), p. 15. Pig Research and Development Corporation, Kingston, ACT.Google Scholar
Beltranena, E., Aherne, F. X. and Foxcroft, G. R. 1993. Innate variability in sexual development irrespective of body fatness in gilts. Journal of Animal Science 71: 471–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gueblez, R. and Gestin, J. M. 1985. Effect of age and backfat thickness on reproductive performance of 100 kg Large White sows. Journal de Recherche Porcine en France 17: 113–120.Google Scholar
Hixon, A. L., Mabry, J. W., Benyshek, L. L., Weaver, W. M. and Marks, M. A. 1987. Estimates of genetic parameters for sexual and compositional maturity in gilts. Journal of Animal Science 64: 977–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, K. 1979. Some notes concerning the genetic possibilities of improving sow fertility. Livestock Production Science 8: 431–447.Google Scholar
King, R. H. 1989. Effect of live weight and body-composition of gilts at 24 weeks of age on subsequent reproductive efficiency. Animal Production 49: 109–115.Google Scholar
King, R. H. and Dunkin, A. C. 1986. The effects of nutrition on the reproductive performance of first-litter sows. 4. The relative effects of energy and protein intakes during lactation on the performance of sows and their piglets. Animal Production 43: 319–325.Google Scholar
King, R. H., Williams, I. H. and Barker, I. 1984. The effect of diet during lactation on the reproductive performance of first-litter sows. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 15: 412–415.Google Scholar
Laplante, B., D'Allaire, S. and Martineau, G-P. 1990. Effects of age, weight, backfat and pen on the attainment of puberty in the gilt. Proceedings of the eleventh international Pig Veterinary Society congress, Lausanne, Switzerland, p. 381.Google Scholar
McCracken, K. J. 1993. High lean content or high lean growth rate — implications for nutrition. In Recent advances in animal nutrition in Australia (ed. Farrell, D. J.), pp. 223–232. University of New England, Armidale.Google Scholar
McKay, R. M. 1990. Response to selection for reduced backfat thickness in swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70: 973–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, R. M. 1993. Preweaning losses of piglets as a result of index selection for reduced backfat thickness and increased growth rate. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73: 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, M. J. 1984. Anoestrus in the pig. Pig News and Information 5: 213–218.Google Scholar
Nelson, A. H., Mabry, J. W., Benysheck, L. L. and Marks, M. A. 1990. Correlated response in reproduction, growth and composition to selection in gilts for extremes in age at puberty and backfat. Livestock Production Science 24: 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, J. E. 1989. Recent trends in pig production: the importance of intake. In The voluntary food intake of pigs (ed. Forbes, J. M., Varley, M. A. and Lawrence, T. L. J.). Occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production, No. 13, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1993. SAS/STAT users' guide, volume 2. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary NC.Google Scholar
Todd, A. C. and Brennan, P. J. 1978. On farm selection of breeding stock December 1972 to 04 1977. Report to the Australian Pig Industry Research Committee.Google Scholar
Vener, I. 1980. The effect of growth capacity and backfat thickness of sows on their fertility. Genetika i Sclektsiya 13: 312 (Animal Breeding Abstracts, 1981, abstr. 4060).Google Scholar
Young, L. G., King, G. J., Walton, J. S., McMillan, I. and Klevorick, M. 1990. Age, weight, backfat and time of mating effects on performance of gilts. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70: 469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar