Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:18:59.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between litter size and perinatal and pre-weaning survival in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

M. S. Lund ,
M. Puonti ,
L. Rydhmer  and
J. Jensen
M. S. Lund*
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, PO Box 50, DK-8830, Tjele, Denmark
M. Puonti
Affiliation:
Finnish Animal Breeding Association, PO Box 40, 01301 Vantaa, Finland
L. Rydhmer
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Dept of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Funbo-Lövsta, S-755 97 Uppsala, Sweden
J. Jensen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, PO Box 50, DK-8830, Tjele, Denmark
*
† E-mail: mogens.lund@agrsci.dk
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to analyse the relationship between direct and maternal genetic effects on litter size and piglet survival. The analyses were performed on records from 26 564 Landrace litters and 15 103 Yorkshire litters from first parity dams in Finnish herds. The trivariate model fitted total number of piglets born, proportion alive at birth and proportion survived from birth until 3 weeks as traits of the litter. The model included direct genetic and maternal genetic effects for all traits. In Landrace pigs, maternal heritabilities were estimated to be 0·11 for total number born, 0·06 for proportion alive at birth, and 0·08 for proportion survived from birth until 3 weeks. The corresponding estimates for the Yorkshire breed were 0·14, 0·06 and 0·01. All heritability estimates of direct effects were below 0·05. In the Landrace breed, there was a negative correlation of -0·39 between maternal genetic effects on total number born and maternal genetic effects on proportion survived from birth until 3 weeks and a negative correlation of -0·41 between direct and maternal genetic effects on proportion survived from birth until 3 weeks. These correlations were not significant in the Yorkshire breed. The results show that selection for number born in total alone will lead to a deterioration in the maternal ability of sows. Selection for pre-weaning survival could be achieved by selecting on direct and maternal components jointly.

Keywords

genetic correlationlitter sizemortalitypigletssows
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 217 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Arendonk, J. A. M. van, Rosemeulen, C. van, Janss, L. L. G. and Knol, E. F. 1996. Estimation of direct and maternal genetic (co)variances for survival within litters of piglets. Livestock Production Science 46: 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidanel, J. P., Gruand, J. and Legault, C. 1994. An overview of twenty years of selection for litter size in pigs using “hyperprolific” schemes. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 17, pp. 512–515.Google Scholar
Bradford, G. E. 1969. Genetic control of ovulation rate and embryonal survival in mice. I. Response to selection. Genetics 61: 905–921.Google Scholar
Brandt, H. and Grandjot, G. 1998. Genetic and environmental effects on male fertility of AI-boars. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 23, pp. 527–530.Google Scholar
Cunningham, P. J., England, M. E., Young, L. D. and Zimmerman, D. R. 1979. Selection for ovulation rate in swine: correlated response in litter size and weight. Journal of Animal Science 48: 509–516.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. and Webb, A. J. 1982. Genetics of reproduction in the pig. In Control of pig reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 541–564. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Jensen, J., Mäntysaari, E. A., Madsen, P. and Thompson, R. 1997. Residual maximum likelihood estimation of (co)variance components in multivariate mixed linear models using average information. Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics 49: 215–236.Google Scholar
Johansson, K. and Kennedy, B. 1985. Estimation of genetic parameters for reproductive traits in pigs. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 35: 421–431.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. K., Nielsen, M. K. and Casey, D. S. 1999. Responses in ovulation rate, embryonal survival, and litter traits in swine to 14 generations of selection to increase litter size. Journal of Animal Science 77: 541–557.Google Scholar
Lamberson, W. R. and Johnson, R. K. 1984. Preweaning survival in swine: heritability of direct and maternal effects. Journal of Animal Science 59: 346–349.Google Scholar
Lamberson, W. R., Johnson, R. K., Zimmerman, D. R. and Long, T. E. 1991. Direct responses to selection for increased litter size, decreased age at puperty, or random selection following selection for ovulation rate in swine. Journal of Animal Science 69: 3129–3143.Google Scholar
Land, R. B. and Falconer, D. S. 1969. Genetics of ovulation rate in the mouse. Genetical Research 13: 25–46.Google Scholar
Lobke, A., Willeke, H. and Pirchner, F. 1983. Genetic parameters for reproductive traits estimated by different methods in German Landrace. Proceedings of the 34th meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Madrid, Spain, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
Madsen, P. and Jensen, J. 2000. A user’s guide to DMU: a package for analysing multivariate mixed models, version 6, release 4. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Orgeur, P., Chéreau, E., Lévy, F., Nowak, R., Panthou, K., Schaal, B. and Venturi, E. 1998. Behavioural consequences of very early weaning in the Large White piglet. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 30: 383–388.Google Scholar
Orgeur, P., Salaun, C., le Roux, T., Venturi, E. and le Dividich, J. 2000. Fostering and very early weaning: a strategy for rearing surplus piglets. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 32: 143–149.Google Scholar
Rothschild, M. F. and Bidanel, J. P. 1998. Biology and genetics of reproduction. In The genetics of the pig (ed. Rothschild, M. F. and Ruvinsky, A.), pp. 313–343. CAB International, Oxon.Google Scholar
Strang, G. S. 1970. Litter productivity in Large White pigs. 1. The relative importance of some sources of variation. Animal Production 12: 225–233.Google Scholar
Strang, G. S. and King, J. W. B. 1970. Litter productivity in Large White pigs. 2. Heritability and repeatability estimates. Animal Production 12: 235–243.Google Scholar
Tummaruk, P., Lundeheim, N., Einarsson, S. and Dalin, A.-M. 2000. Reproductive performance of purebred Swedish Landrace and Swedish Yorkshire sows. I. Seasonal variation and parity influence. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 50: 205–216.Google Scholar
Vaillancourt, J. P., Stein, T. E., Marsh, W. E., Leman, A. D. and Dial, G. D. 1990. Validation of producer-recorded causes of preweaning mortality in swine. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 10: 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar