Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:48:30.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Litter performance characteristics of pigs in tropical south-western Nigeria 1. Breed differences and effects of some non-genetic sources of variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. O. Leigh
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Get access

Summary

Data for 432 litters of pigs were collected from 1965 to 1975 inclusive, at the Fasola Stock Farm, near Oyo in the Western State of Nigeria. The breeds represented were Large White, Duroc and Hampshire, and their crosses. The main objective was to investigate the effects of certain identifiable environmental sources of variation on litter performance characteristics such as litter size, mortality and weight at birth, 3 weeks and 8 weeks of age. Breed and year effects were significant for the litter size traits, but parity of dam, season and breed × season effects were significant only for litter size at birth which increased up to the fifth parity and then declined steadily in subsequent parities. Postnatal pig mortality was affected significantly by breed, litter size at birth and breed × season interaction. It was found that the larger the size of litter at birth the higher the postnatal mortality. Average pig weight at birth was reduced by approximately 0·01 kg for each additional pig in the litter.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1977

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

REFERENCES

Braude, R., Clarke, P. M. and Mitchell, K. G. 1954. Analysis of the breeding records of a herd of pigs. J. agric. Set, Camb. 45: 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. F. 1965. Swine genetics and biomedical research. In Swine in Biomedical Research. Proc. int. Symp., Richland, Washington, p. 1 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Cox, D. F. 1968. Birth weight in pigs descended from irradiated spermatogonia. Mutat. Res. 4: 865869.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. and Bernard, C. S. 1972. Interrelations between some reproductive traits in swine. Can. J. Anint. Sci. 52: 3945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A. F. 1966. Studies of piglet husbandry in Jamaica. I. The relationship of litter size to survival till weaning. Br. vet. J. 122: 288295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1960. Least squares analysis of data with unequal sub-class numbers. United States Department of Agriculture ARS-20-8 (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Johansson, I. and Korkman, N. 1950. A study of the variation in production traits of bacon pigs. Ada Agric. scand. 1: 6296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legault, C. 1969. [Statistical and genetical study of the breeding performance of Large White sows. I. Effect of herd, season, parity and month of birth.] Annls Génét. Sél. anim. 1: 281298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lush, J. L. 1945. Animal Breeding Plans. Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L. and Molln, A. E. 1942. Litter size and weight as permanent characteristics of sows. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric, No. 836.Google Scholar
Sharpe, H. B. A. 1966. Pre-weaning mortality in a herd of Large White pigs. Br. vet. J. 122: 99111.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1969. Biometry. The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. Freeman, San Francisco, Calif.Google Scholar
Steinbach, J. 1971. Effects of season and breed on sow performance in the seasonal-equatorial climate of Southern Nigeria. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 77: 331336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, G. S. 1970. Litter productivity in Large White pigs. 1. The relative importance of some sources of variation. Anim. Prod. 12: 225233.Google Scholar
Urban, W. E., Shelby, C. E., Chapman, A. B., Whatley, J. A. and Garwood, V. A. 1966. Genetic and environmental aspects of litter size in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 25: 11481153.Google Scholar