Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:58:25.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Litter productivity in Large White pigs: 1. The relative importance of some sources of variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. S. Strang
G. S. Strang
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Summary

Data from 38000 Large White litters farrowed in 146 British herds were analysed to investigate the relative importance of various sources of variation affecting litter productivity. The effects of the season and the year of farrowing were very small relative to the effect of the herd of farrowing which was particularly large on the litter and average pig weights at three weeks. There was a small increase in the size of gilt litters as the age of the gilt at first farrowing increased. Litter size increased progressively with parity up to around the fourth litter and then declined gradually at higher pari-ties. There was a suggestion that the sire of a litter may hve a very small effect on litter size at birth but not at three weeks or eight weeks.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , May 1970 , pp. 225 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1970

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

Aamdal, J. 1964. Artificial insemination in the pig. 5th int. Congr. Reprod. 4: 147–177.Google Scholar
Bowman, G. H., Bowland, J. P. and Fredeen, H. T. 1961. An appraisal of certain sources of environmental variation in Yorkshire sows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 41: 220–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brink, H. 1960. [The influence of age of sow on litter size.] Veeteelt- en Zuivelber. 3: 169–172.Google Scholar
Clark, A. and Leonard, W. H. 1939. The analysis of variance with special reference to data expressed as percentages. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 31: 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curnow, R. N. 1961. The estimation of repeatability and heritability from records subject to culling. Biometrics 17: 553–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C. R., Kempthorne, O., Searle, S. R. and Von Krosigk, C. M. 1959. The estimation of environmental and genetic trends from records subject to culling. Biometrics 15: 192–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korkman, N. 1947. Causes of variation in the size and weight of litters from sows. Acta. agric. suec. 2: 253–310.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L. and Molln, A. E. 1942. Litter size and weight as permanent characteristics of sows. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agric, No. 836.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L. and Shrode, R. R. 1950. Changes in milk production with age and milking frequency. J. Dairy Sci. 33: 338–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkema, D. 1967. [Some factors affecting litter size in pigs.] Veeteelt- en Zuivelber. 10: 161–172.Google Scholar
Ollivier, L. and Legault, C. 1967. [The direct influence of the boar on the size and weight of litters obtained by artificial insemination.] Artnls Zootech. 16: 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quenouille, M. H. 1950. Introductory Statistics. Butterworth-Springer, Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Scofield, A. M. and Perry, R. H. C. 1969. An analysis of some factors affecting performance in a large pig herd in annual production of pigs per sow. Br. vet. J. 125: 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherritt, G. W. 1962. Some interrelations of productivity of the gilt with age of the gilt at farrowing. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 140.Google Scholar
Skjervold, H. 1963. To what extent do boars affect litter size? Meld. Norg. LandbrHøgsk. 42: (9) p. 11.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical Methods. 5th ed.Iowa State College Press, Ames, Ia.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: 1148–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar