Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:44:31.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uterine capacity and prenatal survival in Meishan and Large White pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. J. Lee ,
M. Ritchie ,
M. Thomson ,
A. A. Macdonald ,
A. Blasco ,
M. A. Santacreu ,
M. J. Argente  and
C. S. Haley
G. J. Lee
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
M. Ritchie
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
M. Thomson
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
A. A. Macdonald
Affiliation:
Department of Pre-clinical Veterinary Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 1QH
A. Blasco
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencia Animal, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, 46071 Valencia, Spain
M. A. Santacreu
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencia Animal, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, 46071 Valencia, Spain
M. J. Argente
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencia Animal, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, 46071 Valencia, Spain
C. S. Haley
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
Get access

Abstract

Uterine capacity was estimated in Chinese Meishan (MS), Large White (LW) and crossbred (LW × MS) sows, using unilateral liysterectomy-ovariectomy (UHO) methods. In the first two parities, 20 sows of each genotype, whose left uterine horn and ovary had been removed in the post-pubertal period, were mated, their ovulation rate recorded by laparoscopy and allowed to farrow normally. In the third parity the mated sows were slaughtered at around 30 days of pregnancy and ovarian, uterine and embryo traits were recorded. The ovulation rate in UHO females was similar to that observed previously in intact females of the same population, MS sows producing 4·2 (s.e. 1·0) more ova at parities 1 and 2 and 7·0 (s.e. 1·9) more ova at parity 3 than LW sows. At parity 3, MS sows had 5·9 (s.e. 2·0) more viable embryos at 30 days of pregnancy than LW sows. Crossbred sows were intermediate for both ovulation rate and the number of viable embryos at 30 days. At the first two parities, litter size was higher in the MS by 1·0 (s.e. 0·8) piglets per litter than in the LW, while the crossbred sows exceeded the mid-breed mean by 1·7 (s.e. 0·7) piglets. Uterine capacity, estimated as twice the number of piglets carried to term in a single horn, was 12 foetuses in the LW, 14 in the MS and 16 in the crossbred sow. Piglets born to MS sows were 0·4 (s.e. 0·1) kg lighter than those born to LW sows, with a significantly lower (MS: LW = 0-68, P < 0·01) within-Utter standard deviation, which was found to be independent of the smaller mean weight. At parity 3, MS sows were found to have uteri of similar length with both lighter (-0·36 (s.e. 0·14) g) and shorter (-1·54 (s.e. 0·76) mm) embryos with smaller spaces (-7·8 (s.e. 2·7) cm) between embryo sites than LW sows. Within-Utter standard deviations for embryo size traits were lower in MS than in LW sows, especially for the distance between embryo sites (MS: LW = 0·45, P<0·01). The reduced variability of embryo traits in litters in MS sows was independent of their smaller litter means. Third parity litters from crossbred sows were similar to the mid-breed mean for means and variability of embryo traits but crossbred sows had significantly longer uteri (48·5 (s.e. 18·5) cm) than the mid-breed mean, being longer than either pure breed. It was concluded that differences between the pure breeds in uterine capacity may have arisen through better within-uterus organization, whereas the observed heterosis effects may result in part from physically longer uteri in crossbred sows and that uterine capacity contributes to the genotype differences in prenatal survival and prolificacy, especially in crossbred sows.

Keywords

geneticspigsprenatal periodreproductionuterus
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , June 1995 , pp. 471 - 479
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

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 ami fertility 84: 37–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bidanel, J. P., Caritez, J. C. and Legant, H. 1990. Ovulation 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.), pp. 110. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Jouy-en-Josas, France.Google Scholar
Bidanel, J. P., Caritez, J. C. and Legault, C. 1989. Estimation of cross-breeding parameters between Large White and Meishan porcine breeds. 1. Reproductive performance. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 21: 507–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolet, G., Martinat-Botte, F., Locatelli, A., Gruand, J., Terqui, M. and Berthelot, F. 1986. Components of prolificacy in hyper prolific Large White sows compared with the Meishan and Large White breeds. Genetics, Selection Evolution 18: 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, R. K., Leymaster, K. A. and Young, L. D. 1987. Justification of unilateral hysterectomy-ovariectomy as a model to evaluate uterine capacity in swine. Journal of Animal Science 65: 738–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. and Lee, G. J. 1993. Genetic basis of prolificacy in Meishan pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 48: suppl., pp. 247–259.Google ScholarPubMed
Haley, C. S., Lee, G. J. and Ritchie, M. 1995. Comparative reproductive performance in Meishan and Large White pigs and their crosses. Animal Science 60: 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G. 1982. Dominance an d epistasis as components of heterosis. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 99: 161–168.Google Scholar
Irgang, R., Scheid, I. R., Wentz, I. and Favero, J. A. 1993. Ovulation rate, embryo number and uterus length in purebred and crossbred Duroc, Landrace and Large White gilts. Livestock Production Science 33: 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, G. J. and Haley, C. S. 1995. Comparative farrowing to weaning performance in Meishan and Large White pigs and their crosses. Animal Science 60: 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, G. J., Ritchie, M., Thomson, M., Macdonald, A. A., Blasco, A., Santacreu, M. A., Argente, M. J. and Haley, C. S. 1994. A study of uterine capacity in Meishan and Large White pigs. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, Canada, vol. 19, pp. 226–229.Google Scholar
Neal, S. M. and Irvin, K. M. 1993. Correlated changes in reproductive components accompanying 10 generations of selection for improved sow productivity index, journal of Animal Science 70: 2322–2327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soede, N. M., Nieuwenhuis, C. C. and Lende, T. van der. 1992. Paired somite counts to assess the within litter diversity in embryonic development at day 17, 19 and 21 of pregnancy in Meishan and Yorkshire × Landrace crossbred gilts. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 27:112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldorf, D. P., Foote, W. C., Self, H. L., Chapman, A. B. and Cassida, L. E. 1957. Factors affecting foetal pig weight late in gestation, journal of Animal Science 18: 976–985.CrossRefGoogle 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
Wrathall, A. E. 1971. Prenatal survival in pigs. Part 1. Ovulation rate and its influence on prenatal survival and litter sized in pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Wu, M. C., Hentzel, M. D. and Dziuk, P. J. 1987. Relationship between uterine length and number of foetuses and prenatal mortality in pigs, journal of Animal Science 65: 762–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar