Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:45:52.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling foetal growth in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

M. A. A. J. van Oijen ,
W. J. Koops ,
T. Zandstra  and
B. Kemp
M. A. A. J. van Oijen
Affiliation:
Departments of Animal Breeding, Nutrition and Husbandry, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
W. J. Koops
Affiliation:
Departments of Animal Breeding, Nutrition and Husbandry, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
T. Zandstra
Affiliation:
Departments of Animal Breeding, Nutrition and Husbandry, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
B. Kemp
Affiliation:
Departments of Animal Breeding, Nutrition and Husbandry, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Get access

Abstract

A theoretical function is proposed which describes the individual weight-age relationship for foetuses in pigs. The function is based on total growth of the litter. A maximum uterus capacity, dependent on insemination weight of the sow, and a limitation of this capacity, dependent on litter size, is assumed. A modified Michaelis-Menten function is used as a basic growth function. The model was tested against experimental data and compared with four models from the literature. Goodness of fit, extrapolation outside the range of data, and biological interpretation of the parameters from the model were checked. A maximum uterus capacity of 20·3 kg for the average insemination weight of 119·0 kg was found. The inflexion point of the model was significantly (P < 0·05) dependent on litter size.

Keywords

foetal growthmathematical modelspigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , December 1993 , pp. 447 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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, L. L. 1975. Embryonic and placental development during prolonged inanition in the pig. American Journal of Physiology 229:1687–1694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bazer, F. W., Thatcher, W. W., Martinat Botte, F. and Terqui, M. 1988. Sexual maturation and morphological development of the reproductive tract in Large White and prolific Chinese Meishan pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 83: 723–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, J. D. and Hamilton, W. J. 1952. Cleavage, early development and implantation of the egg. In Marshall's physiology of reproduction. 3rd ed. (ed. Parkers, A. S.), vol. 2, p. 11. Longmans, London.Google Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Dickinson, A. G., Hancock, J. L., Hovell, G. J. R., Taylor, St C. S. and Wiener, G. 1962. The size of lambs at birth — a study involving egg transfer. Animal Production 4: 64–79.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied regression analyses. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. T., Johnson, R. K. and Eckardt, G. R. 1987. Effect of unilateral hysterectomy and ovariectomy on puberty, uterine size and embryo development in swine. Journal of Animal Science 65: 1298–1305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karihaloo, A. K. and Combs, W. 1971. Some prenatal effects on birth size in Lincoln and Southdown lambs produced by reciprocal ovum transfer. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 51: 729–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koong, L. J. and Bradford, G. E. 1976. Effects of stage of gestation and litter size on prenatal growth in the mouse. Animal Production 22: 225–230.Google Scholar
Koops, W. J. and Grossman, M. 1989. Multiple- versus single-phase growth functions. In Multiphasic analysis of growth, pp. 51–69. Doctoral thesis, Department of Animal Breeding, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Leymaster, K. A., Christenson, R. K. and Young, L. D. 1986. A biological model to measure uterine potential for litter size in swine. Proceedings of third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Lincoln II, pp. 209–214.Google Scholar
MacNeil, M. D. and Koong, L. J. 1983. Improvements to the mathematical description of prenatal growth. Growth 47: 371–380.Google Scholar
Merks, J. W. M. and Buitlng, G. A. J. 1985. Correction factors to estimate birth weight of piglets from weight on day one or day two after birth. I.V.O.-rapport B-269.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., Carroll, W. E., Hamilton, T. S. and Hunt, G. E. 1931. Food requirements of pregnancy in swine. Bulletin, Illinois Agriculture Experiment Station, no. 375.Google Scholar
Moustgaard, J. 1962. Foetal nutrition in the pig. In Nutrition of pigs and poultry (ed. Morgan, J. T. and Lewis, D.), pp. 189–206. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Close, W. H., Heavens, R. P. and Brown, D. 1985. Studies on the energy metabolism of the pregnant sow, 1. Uterus and mammary tissue development. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 251–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owens, J. A., Allotta, E., Falconer, J. and Robinson, J. S. 1985. Effect of restricted placental growth upon oxygen and glucose delivery to the fetus. In The physiological development of the fetus and newborn, pp. 33–36. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. 1960. Infertility and neonatal mortality in the sow. III. Neonatal mortality and foetal development. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 54: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. J. and McDonald, I. 1979. Ovine prenatal growth, its mathematical description and the effects of maternal nutrition. Annales de Biologic Animale Biochimie et Biophysique 19: 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 1985. SAS user's guide: statistics. Version 5 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Van der Lende, T. 1989. Effect of growth retardation early in life on the embryonic development and embryonic mortality rate during first pregnancy. In Impact of early pregnancy on prenatal development of the pig, pp. 21–40. Doctoral thesis, Department of Animal Husbandry, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Walker, B. and Young, B. A., 1992. Modelling the development of uterine components and sow body composition in response to nutrient intake during pregnancy. Livestock Production Science 30: 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A. and Hammond, J. 1938. The maternal effects on growth and conformation in Shirehorse-Shetland pony crosses. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London 125: 311–355.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Morgan, C. A. 1990. Model components for the determination of energy and protein requirements for breeding sows: a review. Livestock Production Science 26:1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar