Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T10:40:39.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dependence of the growth rate and meat content of young boars on semen parameters and conception rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

D. Knecht ,
A. Jankowska-Mąkosa  and
K. Duziński
D. Knecht
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Chelmonskiego 38C, 51-630 Wroclaw, Poland
A. Jankowska-Mąkosa
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Chelmonskiego 38C, 51-630 Wroclaw, Poland
K. Duziński*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Chelmonskiego 38C, 51-630 Wroclaw, Poland
*
†E-mail: kamil.duzinski@up.wroc.pl
Get access

Abstract

Boars have a decisive impact on the progress in pig production, however, there is no recent information about the optimal growth parameters during the rearing period for modern breed later used in artificial insemination (AI) stations. Therefore, the objective of the research was to conduct semen parameter and conception rate analyses on the basis of growth rate and meat content assessments made during the rearing of AI boars of different genotypes. The study was carried out between 2010 and 2014 and included 184 boars in five breed combinations: 46 Polish Large White, 50 Polish Landrace, 27 Pietrain, 36 Duroc×Pietrain and 25 Hampshire×Pietrain. Boars were qualified by daily gains and meat content assessment (between 170 and 210 days of life). A total number of 38 272 ejaculates were examined (semen volume (ml), spermatozoa concentration (×106 ml−1), total number of spermatozoa (×109) and number of insemination doses from one ejaculate (n)). The fertility was determined by the conception rate (%). Semen volume, spermatozoa concentration and conception rate (P<0.01), followed by the total number of spermatozoa and insemination doses (P<0.05) were characterized by the highest variability in relation to breed of boars. The effect of daily gains was reported for spermatozoa concentration, number of insemination doses, conception rate (all P<0.01) and total number of spermatozoa (P<0.05). The peak of growth for spermatozoa concentration, total number of spermatozoa, insemination doses and conception rate was achieved for 800 to 850 g gains. Meat content affected semen volume, number of insemination doses and conception rate (P<0.05). Rearing boars while maintaining daily gains at the 800 to 850 g level and 62.5% to 65% meat content helps AI stations to increase the efficiency and economic profitability, and the number of insemination doses to increase by up to 300 doses/boar within a year. The analyses of growth parameters may help increase the efficiency and economic viability of AI stations.

Keywords

semenswine breedsgrowth ratemeat contentconception rate
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , May 2017 , pp. 802 - 810
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Andersson, HK, Hullberg, A, Malmgren, L, Lundström, K, Rydhmer, L and Squires, J 1999. Sexual maturity in entire male pigs, environmental effects, relations to skatole level and female puberty. Acta Agriculture Scandinavica, Sectio A – Animal Science 49, 103–112.Google Scholar
Banaszewska, D and Kondracki, S 2012. An assessment of the breeding maturity of insemination boars based on ejaculate quality changes. Folia Biologica 60, 151–162.Google Scholar
Berndtson, WE, Igboeli, G and Pickett, BW 1987. Relationship of absolute number of Sertoli cells to testicular size and spermatogenesis in young beef bulls. Journal of Animal Science 64, 241–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchanan, DS 1987. The crossbred sire: experimental results for swine. Journal of Animal Science 65, 117–127.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, PJ 2005. Genetic sperm defects. Theriogenology 64, 457–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duziński, K, Knecht, D and Środoń, S 2014. The use of oxytocin in liquid semen doses to reduce seasonal fluctuations in the reproductive performance of sows and improve litter parameters – a 2-year study. Theriogenology 81, 780–786.Google Scholar
Flowers, WL 2008. Genetic and phenotypic variation in reproductive traits of AI boars. Theriogenology 70, 1297–1303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
França, LR, Silva, VA, Chiarini-Garcia, H, Garcia, SK and Debeljuk, L 2000. Cell proliferation and hormonal changes during postnatal development of the testis in the pig. Biology of Reproduction 63, 1629–1636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, BW and Wilkins, JN 1984. Boar, breed and environmental factors influencing semen characteristics of boars used in artificial insemination. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64, 833–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, GJ and Macpherson, JW 1973. A comparison of two methods for boar semen collection. Journal of Animal Science 36, 563–565.Google Scholar
Knecht, D and Duziński, K 2014. The effect of parity and date of service on the reproductive performance of Polish Large White×Polish Landrace (PLW×PL) crossbreed sows. Annals of Animal Science 14, 69–79.Google Scholar
Knecht, D, Środoń, S and Duziński, K 2014a. Does a boar’s season of birth determine semen parameters and reproductive performance? Reproduction in Domestic Animals 49, 183–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knecht, D, Środoń, S and Duziński, K 2014b. The influence of boar breed and season on semen parameters. South African Journal of Animal Science 44, 1–9.Google Scholar
Knecht, D, Środoń, S, Szulc, K and Duziński, K 2013. The effect of photoperiod on selected semen parameters. Livestock Science 157, 364–371.Google Scholar
Mucha, A and Różycki, M 2005. Standaryzacja cech określających mięsność tusz w ocenie przyżyciowej świń. Roczniki Naukowe Zootechniki 32, 45–50.Google Scholar
Neely, JD and Robison, OW 1983. Estimates of heterosis for sexual activity in boars. Journal of Animal Science 56, 1033–1038.Google Scholar
Oh, SH, See, MT, Long, TE and Galvin, JM 2003. Genetic correlations between boar semen traits. Annual Swine Report. Retrieved on 13 September 2015 from www.ncsu.edu/project/swine_extension/swinereports/2003/oh2.htm.Google Scholar
Oh, SH, See, MT, Long, TE and Galvin, JM 2006. Estimates of genetic correlations between production and semen traits in boar. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 19, 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OMARD 2010. Ordinance of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, 15 February 2010 on the requirements and how to proceed while maintaining livestock species for which protection standards are provisions of the European Union. Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland 344, 5020–5027.Google Scholar
Polish Swine Nutrition Requirements 2014. The Kielanowski Institute Animal Physiology and Nutrition. Polish Academy of Sciences, Jablonna, Poland. pp. 7–90.Google Scholar
Ren, D, Xing, Y, Lin, M, Wu, Y, Li, K, Li, W, Yang, S, Guo, T, Ren, J, Ma, J, Lan, L and Huang, L 2009. Evaluations of boar gonad development, spermatogenesis with regard to semen characteristics, libido and serum testosterone levels based on large White Duroc×Chinese Erhualian crossbred boars. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 44, 913–919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, JAB and Buhr, MM 2005. Impact of genetic selection on management of boar replacement. Theriogenology 63, 668–678.Google Scholar
Roca, J, Vazquez, JM, Gil, MA, Cuello, C, Parilla, I and Martinez, EA 2006. Challenges in pig artificial insemination. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41 (suppl. 2), 43–53.Google Scholar
Schulze, M, Buder, S, Rüdiger, K, Bayerbach, M and Waberski, D 2014. Influences on semen traits used for selection of young AI boars. Animal Reproduction Science 148, 164–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smital, J 2009. Effects influencing boar semen. Animal Reproduction Science 110, 335–346.Google Scholar
Smital, J, De Sousa, LL and Mohsen, A 2004. Differences among breeds and manifestation of heterosis in AI boar sperm output. Animal Reproduction Science 80, 121–130.Google Scholar
Smital, J, Wolf, J and De Sousa, LL 2005. Estimation of genetic parameters of semen characteristics and reproductive traits in AI boars. Animal Reproduction Science 86, 119–130.Google Scholar
Szyndler-Nędza, M and Różycki, M 2005. Opracowanie równań regresji do przyżyciowego szacowania procentowej zawartości mięsa w tuszy knurów. Roczniki Naukowe Zootechniki 32, 51–60.Google Scholar
Wolf, J 2009. Genetic correlations between production and semen traits in pigs. Animal 3, 1094–1099.Google Scholar
Wysokińska, A and Kondracki, S 2013. Assessment of the effect of heterosis on semen parameters of two-breed crosses of Duroc, Hampshire and Pietrain boars. Archiv fur Tierzucht 56, 65–74.Google Scholar