Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:45:21.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embryonic survival at day 9, 21 and 35 of pregnancy in intact and unilaterally oviduct ligated multiparous sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2016

P. Langendijk ,
T. Y. Chen ,
R. Z. Athorn  and
E. G. Bouwman
P. Langendijk*
Affiliation:
South Australian Research and Development Institute, Roseworthy Campus, Roseworthy 5371, South Australia
T. Y. Chen
Affiliation:
South Australian Research and Development Institute, Roseworthy Campus, Roseworthy 5371, South Australia
R. Z. Athorn
Affiliation:
School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, Roseworthy 5371, South Australia
E. G. Bouwman
Affiliation:
South Australian Research and Development Institute, Roseworthy Campus, Roseworthy 5371, South Australia
*
†E-mail: pieter.langendijk@nutreco.com
Get access

Abstract

To investigate the effect of uterine space on timing of embryonic mortality, multiparous sows were left intact (CTR; n=42) or subjected to unilateral oviduct ligation (LIG; n=23), after their first post wean oestrus. Intact sows were killed at day 9 (n=10), day 21 (n=15), or day 35 (n=17), and LIG sows were killed at day 21 (n=11) or day 35 (n=12) of gestation. At day 9, 92% of ovulations were represented by an embryo. At day 21, embryonic mortality was 24% and was not altered by increasing uterine space. At day 35, space per embryo was twice as large in LIG sows (30±3 v. 16±0.8 cm), and implantation length tended to be larger (19.0±1.2 v. 15.5±1.3 cm). Between day 21 and day 35, CTR sows lost another 8% to 14% of their embryos, whereas LIG sows lost none. Embryos tended to be heavier (4.9±0.2 v. 4.3±0.3 g) in LIG sows. In conclusion, embryonic loss in multiparous sows is 24% by day 21 and is not related to space, whereas after day 21 limited space causes additional 8% to 14% embryonic mortality in intact sows only.

Keywords

sowsuterinecrowdingembryosurvival
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 8 , August 2016 , pp. 1336 - 1341
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

Anderson, RLH, Christenson, LK, Christenson, RK and Ford, SP 1993. Investigations into the control of litter size in swine: II. Comparisons of morphological and functional embryonic diversity between Chinese and American breeds. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1566–1571.Google Scholar
Chen, ZY and Dziuk, PJ 1993. Influence of initial length of uterus per embryo and gestation stage on prenatal survival, development, and sex ratio in the pig. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1895–1901.Google Scholar
Dziuk, PJ 1968. Effect of number of embryos and terine space on embryonic survival in the pig. Journal of Animal Science 27, 673–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dziuk, P 1985. Effect of migration, distribution and spacing of pig embryos on pregnancy and fetal survival. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility Supplement 33, 57–63.Google Scholar
Ford, SP, Vonnahme, KA and Wilson, ME 2002. Uterine capacity in the pig reflects a combination of uterine environment and conceptus genotype effects. Journal of Animal Science 80 (E. suppl.), E66–E73.Google Scholar
Freking, BA, Leymaster, KA, Vallet, JL and Christenson, RK 2007. Number of fetuses and conceptus growth throughout gestation in lines of pigs selected for ovulation rate or uterine capacity. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2093–2103.Google Scholar
Geisert, RD and Schmitt, RAM 2002. Early embryonic survival in the pig: can it be improved? Journal of Animal Science 80, E54–E65.Google Scholar
Geisert, RD, Ross, JW, Ashworth, MD, White, FJ, Johnson, GA and Da Silva, U 2006. Maternal recognition of pregnancy or endocrine disruptor: the two faces of oestrogen during establishment of pregnancy in the pig. In: Control of Pig Reproduction. Proceedings of the VIIth International Conference on Pig Reproduction. Reproduction Supplements 62, 131–146.Google Scholar
King, RH and Williams, IH 1984. The influence of ovulation rate on subsequent litter size in sows. Theriogenology 21, 677–680.Google Scholar
Knight, JW, Bazer, FW, Thatcher, WW, Franke, DE and Wallace, HD 1977. Conceptus development in intact and unilaterally hysterectomized-ovariectomized gilts: interrelations among hormonal status, placental development, fetal fluids and fetal growth. Journal of Animal Science 44, 620–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, GL, Geisert, RD, Zavy, MT and Fazleabas, AT 1987. Development and survival of pig blastocysts after oestrogen administration on day 9 or days 9 and 10 of pregnancy. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 80, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neill, LA, Geisert, RD, Zavy, MT, Morgan, GL and Wettemann, RP 1991. Effect of estrogen inhibitors on conceptus estrogen synthesis and development in the gilt. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 8, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Père, MC, Dourmad, J-Y and Etienne, M 1997. Effect of number of pig embryos in the uterus on their survival and development and on maternal metabolism. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1337–1342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pope, CE, Christenson, RK, Zimmerman-Pope, VA and Day, BN 1972. Effect of number of embryos on embryonic survival in recipient gilts. Journal of Animal Science 35, 805–808.Google Scholar
Pope, WF, Lawyer, MS and First, NL 1986. Intrauterine migration of the porcine embryo: coordination of bead migration with estradiol. Journal of Animal Science 63, 848–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Town, SC, Putman, CT, Turchinsky, NJ, Dixon, WT and Foxcroft, GR 2004. Number of conceptuses in utero affects porcine fetal muscle development. Reproduction 128, 443–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webel, SK and Dziuk, PJ 1974. Effect of stage of gestation and uterine space on prenatal survival in the pig. Journal of Animal Science 38, 960–963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed