Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:07:21.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationships between ovulation rate, prenatal survival and litter size in French Large White pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Blasco ,
J. Gogué  and
J. P. Bidanel
A. Blasco
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencia Animal, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, PO Box 22012, Valencia 46071, Spain
J. Gogué
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Domaine de Galle, 18520 Avord, France
J. P. Bidanel
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Génétique Quantitative et Apliquée, Domaine de Vilvert, Jouy-en-Josas 78352 Cedex, France
Get access

Abstract

The relationship between total number born (TNB), ovulation rate (CL) and prenatal survival was analysed in a French Large White population. The left ovary had a significantly (P < 0·01) higher ovulation rate (7·9) than the right ovary (6·9). Prenatal survival showed an ovum wastage of 35 or 37% depending on whether referred to total number born or number born alive. No differences between parities were found in these traits. There was a negative relationship between ovulation rate at both sides (v = −0·34). There was a negative relationship between CL and prenatal survival (r = −0·37), a low correlation between CL and TNB (i = 0·19), and a high positive correlation between prenatal survival and TNB (i = 0·82). Litter size showed a quadratic relationship with ovulation rate, and the individual variation for each class of ovulation rate was found to be high. The relationship between prenatal survival and ovulation rate was found to be linear, and a high individual variation for each class of litter size was also found. The relationships between prenatal survival and litter size were quadratic, but depended much less on individual variation.

Keywords

litter sizeovulation ratepigsprenatal
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , August 1996 , pp. 143 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

Bidanel, J. P., Blasco, A. and Sorensen, D. 1995. A bayesian analysis of genetic parameters and selection response for litter size components in pigs. 46th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production. 14–17 09 1995, Prague.Google Scholar
Bidanel, J. P., Ducos, A., Groeneveld, E., Gruand, J., Lagant, H. and Legault, C. 1992. Genetic variability of components of litter size in French Large White gilts. 43rd annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production. 14–17 09 1992, Madrid.Google Scholar
Blasco, A., Bidanel, J. P., Bolet, G., Haley, C. and Santacreu, M. A. 1993. The genetics of prenatal survival of pigs and rabbits: a review. Livestock Production Science 37: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasco, A., Bidanel, J. P. and Haley, C. 1995. Genetics and neonatal survival. In The neonatal pig. Development and survival (ed. Varley, M.). CAB International.Google Scholar
Bolet, G., Martinat-Botté, F., Locatelli, A., Gruand, J., Terqui, M. and Berthelot, M. 1986. Components of prolificacy in hyperprolific Large White sows compared with the Meishan and Large White breeds. Génétiques, Selection, Evolution 18: 333–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyck, G. W. 1971. Ovulation rate and weight of the reproductive organs of Yorkshire and Lacombe swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 51: 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, C. S., Avalos, E. and Smith, C. 1988. Selection for litter size in the pig. Animal Breeding Abstracts 56: 317–332.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S. and Lee, G. J. 1990. Genetic components of litter size in Meishan and Large White pigs and their crosses. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. XV, pp. 458–461.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S. and Lee, G. J. 1992. Genetic factors contributing to variation in litter size in British Large White gilts. Livestock Production Science 30: 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, C. S., Lee, G. J. and Ritchie, M. 1995. Comparative reproductive performance in Meishan and Large White pigs and their crosses. Animal Science 60: 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herment, A., Runavot, J. P. and Bidanel, J. P. 1994. Une nouvelle évaluation de l'intérêt de la voie hyperprolifique chez le porc. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 26: 315–320.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. K. 1992. Selection for fertility in swine. Pig News and Information 13: 59–61.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. K., Zimmerman, D. R., Lamberson, W. R. and Sasaki, S. 1985. Influencing prolificacy of sows by selection for physiological factors. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 33: (supplement) 139–149.Google ScholarPubMed
King, R. H. and Williams, I. H. 1984. The influence of ovulation rate on subsequent litter size in sows. Theriogenology 21: 677–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinat-Botté, F., Bariteau, F., Forgerit, Y., MacAr, C., Terqui, M. and Signoret, J. P. 1989. Introduction des cochettes dans l'élevage en bandes. 2. Augmentation de la fertilité et de la prolificité apres synchronisation des oestrus par un progestagene (Régumate). Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 21: 125–128.Google Scholar
Perry, J. S. 1954. Fecundity and embryonic mortality in pigs. Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology 2: 308–322.Google Scholar
Santacreu, M. A., Gou, P. and Blasco, A. 1992. Relationships between ovulation rate, embryo survival and litter size in rabbits. Animal Production 55: 271–276.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1992. User's guide: statistics. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Wrathall, A. E. 1971. Prenatal survival in pigs. Part 1. Ovulation rate and its influence on prenatal survival and size in pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal.Google Scholar