Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:07:57.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic parameters for feed intake, litter weight, body condition and rebreeding success in primiparous Norwegian Landrace sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2013

H. Lundgren ,
W. F. Fikse ,
K. Grandinson ,
N. Lundeheim ,
L. Canario ,
O. Vangen ,
D. Olsen  and
L. Rydhmer
H. Lundgren
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
W. F. Fikse
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
K. Grandinson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
N. Lundeheim
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
L. Canario
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 0444 Laboratoire de Génétique Cellulaire, BP 52627, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
O. Vangen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Box 5003, 1432 Aas, Norway
D. Olsen
Affiliation:
Norsvin, Box 504, 2304 Hamar, Norway
L. Rydhmer*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
† E-mail: Lotta.Rydhmer@slu.se
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to estimate genetic parameters for feed intake recorded as farmers’ perception of young sows’ appetite for the first 3 weeks of lactation (APP) and feed intake recorded for one day in the 3rd week of lactation (FEED), litter weight (LW) at 3 weeks, sow body condition at weaning (BC) and the following five reproduction traits: weaning-to-service interval of 1 to 7 days (WSI7), weaning-to-service interval of 1 to 50 days (WSI50), delayed service or not (DELAYED), pregnant on first service or not (PREGNANT) and litter size in 2nd parity (NBT2). The analyses included data on 4606 Norwegian Landrace 1st-parity sows and their litters. The Gibbs sampling method was used. The traits DELAYED and PREGNANT were analysed as threshold traits and APP, FEED, LW, BC, WSI7, WSI50 and NBT2 were analysed as linear traits. The heritability estimates for APP and FEED were low (<0.1), whereas the estimates for DELAYED and PREGNANT were rather high (0.4 and 0.3). The heritability estimate for BC was 0.2. The genetic correlations confirmed the complexity of breeding for sow performance; selection for heavy 1st litters may lead to lower body condition at weaning, which in turn leads to lower reproductive performance and smaller litters in 2nd parity. Selection for higher sow feed intake would improve body condition, but the simple way of measuring feed intake tested in this study (APP and FEED) cannot be recommended because of the low heritability obtained for these traits.

Keywords

pigheritabilityappetitepiglet growthpregnancy
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , February 2014 , pp. 175 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Adamec, V and Johnson, RK 1997. Genetic analysis of rebreeding intervals, litter traits, and production traits in sows of the national Czech nucleus. Livestock Production Science 48, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergsma, R, Kanis, E, Verstegen, MWA and Knol, EF 2008. Genetic parameters and predicted selection results for maternal traits related to lactation efficiency in sows. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1067–1080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergsma, R, Mathur, PK, Kanis, E, Verstegen, MWA, Knol, EF and Van Arendonk, JAM 2013. Genetic correlations between lactation performance and growing-finishing traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 91, 3601–3611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, DP, Buckley, F, Dillon, P, Evans, RD, Rath, M and Veerkamp, RF 2003. Genetic relationships among body condition score, body weight, milk yield, and fertility in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2193–2204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bunter, KL, Lewis, CRG, Hermesch, S, Smits, R and Luxford, BG 2010. Maternal capacity, feed intake and body development in sows. Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 1–6, Leipzig, Germany, Pig breeding session, ID071.Google Scholar
Canario, L, Lundgren, H, Haandlykken, M and Rydhmer, L 2010. Genetics of growth in piglets and the association with homogeneity of body weight within litters. Journal of Animal Science 88, 1240–1247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eissen, JJ, Kanis, E and Kemp, B 2000. Sow factors affecting voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livestock Production Science 64, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engblom, L, Lundeheim, N, Dalin, AM and Andersson, K 2007. Sow removal in Swedish commercial herds. Livestock Science 106, 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianola, D 1982. Theory and analysis of threshold characters. Journal of Animal Science 54, 1079–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, H, Bidanel, J-P, Billon, Y, Lagant, H, Guillouet, P, Sellier, P, Noblet, J and Hermesch, S 2012. Correlated responses in sow appetite, residual feed intake, body composition, and reproduction after divergent selection for residual feed intake in the growing pig. Journal of Animal Science 90, 1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandinson, K, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E and Solanes, FX 2005. Genetic analysis of body condition in the sow during lactation, and its relation to piglet survival and growth. Animal Science 80, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S, Luxford, BG and Graser, HU 2000. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs 3. Genetic parameters for reproduction traits and genetic correlations with production, carcass and meat quality traits. Livestock Production Science 65, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S, Jones, RM, Bunter, KL and Gilbert, H 2010. Consequences of selection for lean growth and prolificacy of sow attributes. Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 1–6, Leipzig, Germany, session pig breeding, ID292.Google Scholar
Högberg, A and Rydhmer, L 2000. A genetic study of piglet growth and survival. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 50, 300–303.Google Scholar
Holm, B, Bakken, M, Klemetsdal, G and Vangen, O 2004. Genetic correlations between reproduction and production traits in swine. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3458–3464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imboonta, N, Rydhmer, L and Tumwasorn, S 2007. Genetic parameters and trends for production and reproduction traits in Thai Landrace sows. Livestock Science 111, 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanis, E 1990. The effect of food intake capacity on production traits in growing pigs with restricted feeding. Animal Production 50, 333–341.Google Scholar
Knap, PW 2009. Voluntary feed intake and pig breeding. In Voluntary feed intake in pigs (ed. D Torrallardona and E Roura), pp. 13–35. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundgren, H, Canario, L, Grandinson, K, Lundeheim, N, Zumbach, B, Vangen, O and Rydhmer, L 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive performance in Landrace sows and its correlation to piglet growth. Livestock Science 128, 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundgren, H, Zumbach, B, Lundeheim, N, Grandinson, K, Vangen, O, Olsen, D and Rydhmer, L 2012. Heritability of shoulder ulcers and genetic correlations with mean piglet weight and sow body condition. Animal 6, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misztal, I and Gianola, D 1989. Computing aspects of a nonlinear method of sire evaluation for categorical data. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 1557–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noblet, J and Etienne, M 1989. Estimation of sow milk nutrient output. Journal of Animal Science 67, 3352–3359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prunier, A, Soede, N, Quesnel, H and Kemp, B 2003. Productivity and longevity of weaned sows. In Weaning the pig (ed. JR Pluske, J Le Dividich and MWA Verstegen), pp. 385–419. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Quesnel, H, Etienne, M and Père, M-C 2007. Influence of litter size on metabolic status and reproductive axis in primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 85, 118–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauw, WM 2009. Resource allocation theory applied to farm animal production. CABI International, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L 2000. Genetics of sow reproduction, including puberty, oestrus, pregnancy, farrowing and lactation. Livestock Production Science 66, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkel, AC, Bernardi, ML, Bortolozzo, FP and Wentz, I 2010. Body reserve mobilization during lactation in first parity sows and its effect on second litter size. Livestock Science 132, 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standal, N and Vangen, O 1985. Genetic variation and covariation in voluntary feed intake in pig selection programmes. Livestock Production Science 12, 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterning, M, Rydhmer, L, Eliasson, L, Einarsson, S and Andersson, K 1990. A study on primiparous sows of the ability to show standing oestrus and to ovulate after weaning. Influences of loss of body weight and backfat during lactation and of litter size, litter weight gain and season. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 31, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Napel, J, Meuwissen, THE, Johnson, RK and Brascamp, EW 1998. Genetics of the interval from weaning to estrus in first-litter sows: correlated responses. Journal of Animal Science 76, 937–947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ten Napel, J, de Vries, AG, Buiting, GAJ, Luiting, P, Merks, JWM and Brascamp, EW 1995. Genetics of the interval from weaning to estrus in first-litter sows – distribution of data, direct response of selection, heritability. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2193–2203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tholen, E, Bunter, KL, Hermesch, S and Graser, HU 1996. The genetic foundation of fitness and reproduction traits in Australian pig populations. 2. Relationships between weaning to conception interval, farrowing interval, stayability, and other common reproduction and production traits. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 1275–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsuruta, S and Misztal, I 2006. THRGIBBS1F90 for estimation of variance components with threshold-linear models. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 13–18, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. pp. 27–31.Google Scholar
Valros, A, Rundgren, M, Spinka, M, Saloniemi, H, Rydhmer, L, Hulten, F, Uvnas-Moberg, K, Tomanek, M, Krejci, P and Algers, B 2003. Metabolic state of the sow, nursing behaviour and milk production. Livestock Production Science 79, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kaam, JBCHM 1998. Gibanal – analyzing program for Markov Chain Monte Carlo sequences, Version 2.8. Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wallenbeck, A, Rydhmer, L and Thodberg, K 2008. Maternal behavior and performance in first-parity outdoor sows. Livestock Science 116, 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, CT 1996. Nutrition reproduction interactions in primiparous sows. Livestock Production Science 46, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar