Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:49:11.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between placental and piglet birth weights and growth traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

N. J. Biensen ,
M. F. Haussmann ,
D. C. Lay Jr ,
L. L. Christian  and
S. P. Ford
N. J. Biensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA
M. F. Haussmann
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA
D. C. Lay Jr
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA
L. L. Christian
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA
S. P. Ford*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA
*
To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Get access

Abstract

Our laboratory recently reported that the ratio of a piglet’s weight to that of its placenta (RATIO) varies approximately three-fold within a litter, due predominantly to variation in placental size which is known to be a limiting factor in litter size. It was further determined that selection of boars and gilts with a higher than average RATIO for breeding resulted in an increased litter size and reduced placental weights. The objective of this experiment was to examine the effects of RATIO on economically important production traits (piglet survival to weaning, 21-day weights, days to 105 kg, backfat depth and loin muscle area at 105 kg) in a purebred breeding stock herd of Finnish Yorkshire and Landrace pigs. Sows were monitored throughout farrowing and each piglet was matched to its placenta. Each piglet and its placenta were individually weighed and a RATIO determined. Placental weight but not piglet birth weight exhibited a strong (P < 0·001) negative correlation with RATIO (r = -073). Up to three-fold differences in RATIO were observed within a single litter. These differences were much greater than the variation noted between litters and litter mean RATIO was not significantly associated with litter size. The distribution of individual piglet RATIOS across the entire group of pigs ranged from 2·8 to 11·4 suggesting a marked difference in placental efficiencies. No significant association was seen between RATIO and 21-day weight, days to 105 kg, backfat depth or loin muscle area. Thus, an above average ratio of a piglet’s weight to that of its placenta is indicative of a smaller more efficient placenta and appears to have no subsequent detrimental effects on growth efficiency.

Keywords

birth weightpigletsplacentaproductivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , June 1999 , pp. 709 - 715
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Amoroso, E. C. 1952. Placentation. In Physiology of reproduction, third edition (ed. Parkes, A. S.), pp. 127–316. Longmans Green, London.Google Scholar
Baker, M. L., Hazel, L. N. and Reinmiller, C. F. 1943. The relative importance of heredity and environment in the growth of pigs at different ages. Journal of Animal Science 2: 3–13.Google Scholar
Barcroft, J. 1944. The nutritional function of the placenta. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2: 14–18.Google Scholar
Bazer, F. W., Thatcher, W. W., Martinat-Botte, F. and Terqui, M. 1988. Conceptus development in Large White and prolific Chinese Meishan pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 84: 37–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, H. N. 1986. Castration, vasectomy, hernia repair and baby pig processing. In Diseases of swine, sixth edition (ed. Leman, A. D., Straw, B., Glock, R.D., Mengling, W.L., Penny, R.H. C. and School, E.), pp. 852–865. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
Bereskin, B.. 1984. A genetic evaluation of sow productivity traits. Journal of Animal Science 59: 1149–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biensen, N. J., Wilson, M. E. and Ford, S. P. 1998. The impact of either a Meishan or Yorkshire uterus in Meishan or Yorkshire fetal and placental development to days 70, 90 and 110 of gestation. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2169–2176.Google Scholar
Blunn, C.T., and Baker, M. L. 1954. Heritability of sow productivity and litter performance. Journal of Animal Science 13: 89–97.Google Scholar
Blunn, C.T., Warwick, E. J. and Wiley, J. R. 1954. Interrelationships of swine weights at three ages. Journal of Animal Science 13: 383–389.Google Scholar
Boylan, W. J., Rempel, W. F. and Comstock, R. E. 1961. Heritability of litter size in swine. Journal of Animal Science 20: 566–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dziuk, P. J. 1968. Effect of the number of embryos and uterine space on embryo survival in the pig. Journal of Animal Science 27: 673–676.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. 1971. Weight of placenta membranes in seven breeds of swine and its relationship with litter size and weight at birth. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 51: 247–249.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. and Bernard, C. S. 1972. Interrelations between some reproductive traits in swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 52: 39–45.Google Scholar
Fenton, F. R., Bazer, F. W., Robison, O. W. and Ulberg, L. C. 1970. Effect of quantity of uterus on uterine capacity in gilts. Journal of Animal Science 31: 105–106.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. and Jones, R. M. 1975. The ‘teat order’ of suckling pigs. 1. Relation to birth weight and subsequent growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84: 387–391.Google Scholar
Gill, J. C. and Thomson, W. 1956. Observations on the behaviour of suckling pigs. British Journal of Animal Behaviour 4: 46–51.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. 1963. Symposium on growth: physio-genetics of prenatal and postnatal growth. Journal of Animal Science 22: 779–791.CrossRefGoogle 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. 15,pp. 458–461.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. 1914. On some factors controlling fertility in domestic livestock. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 6: 264–277.Google Scholar
Hartsock, T. G. and Graves, H. B. 1976. Neonatal behavior and nutrition related mortality in domestic swine. Journal of Animal Science 42: 235–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertzer, H. O., Lambert, W. V. and Zeller, H. H. 1940. Influence of inbreeding and other factors on litter size in Chester Wltite swine. United States Department of Agriculture circular no. 570.Google Scholar
Jin, R.B., Cui, H. M. and Mao, J. D. 1992. Reproductive characteristics of Taihu pigs. Pig News and Information 13: 99N–102N.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. 1993. By the year 2000: more pigs from fewer sows. National Hog Farmer, 12 January, pp. 22–24.Google Scholar
Lee, G. J. and Haley, C. S. 1995. Comparative farrowing to weaning performance in Meishan and Large White pigs and their crosses. Animal Science 60: 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, G. J., Ritchie, M., Thomson, M., MacDonald, A. A., Blasco, A., Santacreu, M. A., Argente, M. J. and Haley, C. S. 1995. Uterine capacity and prenatal survival in Meishan and Large White pigs. Animal Science 60: 471–479.Google Scholar
Moeller, S. J., Christian, L. L. and Goodwin, R. N. 1998. Development of adjustment factors for backfat and loin muscle area from serial real-time ultrasonic measurements on purebred lines of swine. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2008–2016.Google Scholar
Musson, A. L. 1946. The influence of the boar on litter size. Journal of Animal Science 5: 418–419.Google Scholar
National Association of Statistical Services. 1998. Hogs and pigs report, March. National Association of Statistical Services, United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
National Swine Improvement Federation. 1996. Guidelines for unified swine improvement programs, pp. 12–13. National Swine Improvement Federation, USA.Google Scholar
Rahnfeld, G. W. and Swierstra, E. E. 1970. Influence of the sire on litter size in swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 50: 671–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, E. M. 1982. The placenta: human and animal,pp. 138–140. Praeger Publications, New York.Google Scholar
Réveile, T. J. and Robison, O. W. 1973. An explanation for the low heritability of litter size in swine. Journal of Animal Science 37: 668–675.Google Scholar
Rossillion-Warnier, A. and Paquay, R. 1984. Development and consequences of teat order in piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 13: 47–58.Google Scholar
Scheel, D. E., Graves, H. B. and Sherritt, G. W. 1977. Nursing order, social dominance and growth in swine. Journal of Animal Science 45: 219–229.Google Scholar
South wood, O. I. and Kennedy, B. W. 1991. Genetic and environmental trends for litter size in swine. Journal of Animal Science 69: 3177–3182.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SAS user’s guide: statistics, version 5 edition. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 1992. Application of ultrasound for genetic improvement. Journal of Animal Science 70: 973–983.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. E., Biensen, N. J. and Ford, S. P. 1998a. Selection for litter size using the ratio of piglet wt: placental wt as a measure of placental efficiency. Proceedings of the Midwest Section, American Society of Animal Science, Des Moines, IA,ab str. no. 170.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. E., Biensen, N. J., Youngs, C. R. and Ford, S. P. 1998b. Development of Meishan and Yorkshire littermate conceptuses in either a Meishan or Yorkshire uterine environment to day 90 of gestation and to term. Biology of Reproduction 58: 905–909.Google Scholar
Wood, C. M., Christian, L. L. and Rothschild, M. F. 1990. Factors to adjust litter weight of pigs to a standard 21 days of age. Journal of Animal Science 68: 2628–2633.Google Scholar