Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:53:00.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic analysis of body condition in the sow during lactation, and its relation to piglet survival and growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

K. Grandinson ,
L. Rydhmer ,
E. Strandberg  and
F. X. Solanes
K. Grandinson*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
L. Rydhmer
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
E. Strandberg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
F. X. Solanes
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A study seeking to estimate phenotypic and genetic parameters for sow body condition around lactation and their relationship with piglet growth and survival is described. It also investigates the genetic relationship between piglet growth and survival, including both direct and maternal effects for both traits. Records were available from 24 549 Swedish Yorkshire piglets born in 2198 litters. Sows had records of weight and backfat depth at farrowing and at weaning. Piglets had individual records for weight at birth and weaning and cause of death for those that failed to survive during lactation. Mixed linear bivariate models were used to estimate correlations between traits. The models for the sow traits took into account the random effects of permanent environment and the genetic effect of the sow, whereas the models for the piglet traits included a litter effect as well as direct and maternal genetic effects. Estimated heritabilities for sow weight and backfat at farrowing and change of weight and backfat during lactation were low to moderate (0·10 to 0·47). We found significant genetic correlations between change of weight and backfat during lactation and piglet survival and growth, indicating that sows with the genetic capacity for rapid early piglet growth and high survival rate may lose more body reserves during lactation. Negative direct-maternal correlations for early piglet growth and survival imply that both the piglet and the sow trait should be included in a genetic evaluation for these traits. Genetic correlations between piglet survival and growth were not clearly favourable. Selection for the direct effect of piglet survival may lead to a decrease in early growth rate. We conclude that in a selection programme aiming at improving piglet survival and growth, attention should be paid to the sow's body condition during lactation. A high enough level of body reserves needs to be maintained in the sow if the incidence of reproductive problems and involuntary culling is not to increase.

Keywords

backfatgenetic parametersmortalitypigsweight loss
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 33 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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 van, J. A. M., Rosmeulen van, C., 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
Edwards, S. A. 1998. Nutrition of the rearing sow and gilt. In Progress in pig science. (ed. Wiseman, J., Varley, M. A. and Chadwick, J. P.), pp. 361–382. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Gatlin, L. A., Odle, J., Soede, J. and Hansen, J. A. 2002. Dietary medium- or long-chain triglycerides improve body condition of leangenotype sows and increase suckling pig growth. Journal of Animal Science 80: 38–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandinson, K., Lund, S. M., Rydhmer, L. and Strandberg, E. 2002. Genetic parameters for the piglet mortality traits crushing, stillbirth and total mortality, and their relation to birth weight. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 52: 167–173.Google Scholar
Hermesch, S., Luxford, B. G. and Graser, H. U. 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, carcase and meat quality traits. Livestock Production Science 65: 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herpin, P., Le Dividich, J. and Amaral, N. 1993. Effect of selection for lean tissue growth on body composition and physiological state of the pig at birth. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2645–2653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Högberg, A. and Rydhmer, L. 2000. A genetic study of piglet growth and survival. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 50: 300–303.Google Scholar
Hughes, P. E. 1993. The effects of food level during lactation and early gestation on the reproductive performance of mature sows. Animal Production 57: 437–445.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
Kaufmann, D., Hofer, A., Bidanel, J. P. and Kunzi, N. 2000. Genetic parameters for individual birth and weaning weight and for litter size of Large White pigs. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 117: 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, J. C. and Cameron, N. D. 1995. Reproductive performance of pigs selected for components of efficient lean growth. Animal Science 60: 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, J. C. and Cameron, N. D. 1996. Responses in gilt postfarrowing traits and pre-weaning piglet growth to divergent selection for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science 63: 523–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knol, E. F. 2001. Genetic aspects of piglet survival. Ph. D. thesis, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
Lund, M. S., Puonti, M., Rydhmer, L. and Jensen, J. 2002. Relationship between litter size and perinatal and pre-weaning survival in pigs. Animal Science 74: 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, R. M. 1993. Preweaning losses of piglets as a result of index selection for reduced backfat thickness and increased growth rate. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73: 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, D. D. S. and Revell, D. K. 1998. Genetic influences on milk quantity. In The lactating sow(ed. Verstegen, M. W. A., Moughan, P. J. and Schrama, J. W.) pp. 97–112. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen.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
Mersmann, H. J., Pond, W. G., Stone, R. T., Yen, J. T. and Lindvall, R. N. 1984. Factors affecting growth and survival of neonatal genetically obese and lean swine: cross fostering experiments. Growth 48: 209–220.Google ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K. 1992. Bias and sampling covariances of estimates of variance components due to maternal effects. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 24: 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, B. P. and William, I. H. 1989. The effect of body reserves at farrowing on the reproductive performance of first-litter sows. Animal Production 48: 449–457.Google Scholar
Reeds, P. J., Burrin, D. G., Davis, T. A., Fiorotto, M. A., Mersmann, H. J. and Pond, W. G. 1993. Growth regulation with particular reference to the pig. In Growth of the pig(ed. Hollis, G. R.), pp. 1–32. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Roehe, R. 1999. Genetic determination of individual birth weight and its association with sow productivity traits using Bayesian analyses. Journal of Animal Science 77: 330–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rydhmer, L., Johansson, K., Stern, S. and Eliasson-Selling, L. 1992. A genetic study of pubertal age, litter traits, weight loss during lactation and relations to growth and leanness in gilts. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 42: 211–219.Google Scholar
Simmins, P. H., Edwards, S. A. and Spechter, H. H. 1994. Growth and body condition of sows given different feeding regimes during the rearing stage and through eight parities when housed in groups with straw bedding. Animal Production 58: 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solanes, F. X., Grandinson, K., Rydhmer, L., Stern, S., Andersson, K. and Lundeheim, N. 2004. Direct and maternal influences on the early growth, fattening performance, and carcass traits of pigs. Livestock Production Science 88: 199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solanes, F. X. and Stern, S. 2001. Estimated mature weights and growth curves for large white sows. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 51: 142–147.Google 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
Tholen, E., Bunter, K. L., Hermesch, S. and Graser, H. U. 1996. The genetic foundation ofittness 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
Valros, A., Rundgren, M., Spinka, M., Saloniemi, H., Rydhmer, L., Hultén, F., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Tománek, M., Krejcí, P. and Algers, B. 2003. Metabolic state of the sow, nursing behaviour and milk production. Livestock Production Science 79: 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangen, O. 1972. Mortality in two lines of pigs selected for rate of gain and thickness of backfat. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 22: 238–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangen, O. 1980. Studies on a two trait selection experiment in pigs. V. Correlated responses in reproductive performance. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 30: 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries de, A. G. and Kanis, E. 1994. Selection for efficiency of lean tissue deposition in pigs. In Principles of pig science(ed. Cole, D. J. A., Wiseman, J. and Varley, M. A.), pp. 23–41. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Wang, L. and Greef, K. de. 1998. A genetic study of weight loss during lactation and relations with growth, leanness and subsequent sow productivity. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 23, pp. 539–542.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1996. Nutrition reproduction interactions in primiparous sows. Livestock Production Science 46: 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, H., Eastham, P. R., Phillips, P. and Whittemore, C. T. 1989. Reproductive performance, body weight and body condition of breeding sows with differing body fatness at parturition, differing nutrition during lactation, and differing litter size. Animal Production 48: 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yazdi, M. H., Lundeheim, N., Rydhmer, L., Ringmar-Cederberg, E. and Johansson, K. 2000. Survival of Swedish Landrace and Yorkshire sows in relation to osteochondrosis: a genetic study. Animal Science 71: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, L. G., King, G. J., Shaw, J., Quinton, M., Walton, J. S. and McMillan, I. 1991. Interrelationships among age, body weight, backfat and lactation feed intake with reproductive performance and longevity of sows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71: 567–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, S., Bidanel, J. P., Burlot, T., Legault, C. and Naveau, J. 2000. Genetic parameters and genetic trends in the Chinese × European Tiameslan composite pig line. I. Genetic parameters. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 32: 41–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed