Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:21:32.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competing risk analyses of longevity in Duroc sows with a special emphasis on leg conformation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

X. Fernàndez de Sevilla ,
E. Fàbrega ,
J. Tibau  and
J. Casellas
X. Fernàndez de Sevilla
Affiliation:
Control i Avaluació de Porcí, IRTA-Monells, 17121 Monells, Spain
E. Fàbrega
Affiliation:
Control i Avaluació de Porcí, IRTA-Monells, 17121 Monells, Spain
J. Tibau
Affiliation:
Control i Avaluació de Porcí, IRTA-Monells, 17121 Monells, Spain
J. Casellas*
Affiliation:
Genètica i Millora Animal, IRTA-Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A competing risk approach was used to evaluate the influence of several factors on culling risk for 587 Duroc sows. Three different analyses were performed according to whether sow failure was due to death during productive life (DE) or to one of two causes for voluntary culling: low productivity (LP) and low fertility (LF). Sow survival was analyzed by the Cox model. Year at first farrowing (batch effect) significantly affected sow survival in all three analyses (P < 0.05 for DE and P < 0.001 for LP and LF) whereas farm of origin accounted for relevant variation in the LP and LF analyses. LP culling increased with backfat thickness of more than 19 mm at the end of the growth period (P < 0.05), bad teat condition (P < 0.05) and reduced piglets born alive (P < 0.001). For the LF competing risk analysis, culling increased with age at first farrowing (P < 0.1). Special emphasis was placed on the influence of leg and teat conformation on sow survivability, although they did not affect sow failure due to DE (P > 0.1). The overall leg-conformation score significantly influenced sow longevity in LP (P < 0.001) and LF competing risk analyses (P < 0.001), showing a higher hazard ratio (HR) for poorly conformed sows (1.013 and 4.366, respectively) than for well-conformed sows (0.342 and 0.246, respectively). Survival decreased with the presence of abnormal hoof growth in LP and LF analyses (HR = 3.372 and 6.002, respectively; P < 0.001) and bumps or injuries to legs (HR = 4.172 and 5.839, respectively; P < 0.01). Plantigradism reduced sow survival in the LP analysis (P < 0.05), while sickle-hooked leg (P < 0.05) impaired sow survival in the fertility-specific analysis. Estimates of heritability for longevity related to LP culling ranged from 0.008 to 0.024 depending on the estimation procedure, whereas heritability values increased to between 0.017 and 0.083 in LF analysis. These analyses highlighted substantial discrepancies in the sources of variation and genetic background of sow longevity depending on the cause of failure. The estimated heritabilities suggested that direct genetic improvement for sow longevity seemed feasible, although only a small genetic progress was expected.

Keywords

competing riskDurocleg conformationlongevitysurvival analysis
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , March 2009 , pp. 446 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Allison, PD 1995. Survival analysis using the SAS® system. A practical guide. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jomgman, EC, Hutson, GD 2001. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casellas, J, Noguera, JL, Varona, L, Sánchez, A, Arqué, M, Piedrafita, J 2004. Viability of Iberian × Meishan F2 newborn pigs. II. Survival analysis up to weaning. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1925–1930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casellas, J, Casas, X, Piedrafita, J, Manteca, X 2005. Effect of medium- and long-chain triglyceride supplementation on small newborn-pig survival. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 67, 213–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casellas, J, Caja, G, Such, X, Piedrafita, J 2007. Survival analysis from birth to slaughter of Ripollesa lambs under semi-intensive management. Journal of Animal Science 85, 512–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, DR 1972. Regression models and life tables (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 34, 187–220.Google Scholar
Dial, G, Koketsu, Y 1996. Reproductive failure. Understanding the reasons that sows are culled for infertility. International Pigletter 16, 15–16.Google Scholar
Dijkhuizen, AA, Krabbenborg, RMM, Huirne, RBM 1989. Sow replacement: a comparison of farmers’ actual decisions and model recommendations. Livestock Production Science 23, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducrocq V 2001. Survival analysis applied to animal breeding and epidemiology. Mimeo. Institut Nattional de la Recherche Agronomique, Jouy-en-Josas, France.Google Scholar
Ducrocq, V, Casella, G 1996. A Bayesian analysis of mixed survival models. Genetics Selection Evolution 28, 505–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducrocq, VP, Sölkner, J 1998. The survival kit v3.12″, a FORTRAN package for large analysis of survival data. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Live stock Production, Armidale, Australia 27, 447–450.Google Scholar
Ducrocq, V, Quaas, RL, Pollak, E, Casella, G 1988. Length of productive life of dairy cows. I. Justification of a Weibull model. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 3061–3070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dürr JW, Schneider MP, Monardes HG and Cue RI 2002. Competing risk analysis of reasons for disposal in Quebec dairy herds. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Enfield, FD, Rempel, WE 1961. Inheritance of teat number and relationship of teat number to various maternal traits in swine. Journal of Animal Science 20, 876–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engblom, L, Lundeheim, N, Dalin, A-M, Andersson, K 2007. Sow removal in Swedish commercial herds. Livestock Science 106, 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernàndez de Sevilla, X, Fabrega, E, Tibau, J, Casellas, J 2008. Effect of leg conformation on survivability of Duroc, Landrace and Large White sows. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2392–2400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friendship, RM, Wilson, MR, Almond, GW, McMillan, RR, Hacker, R, Pieper, R, Swaminathan, SS 1996. Sow wastage: reasons for and effect on productivity. Journal of Veterinary Research 50, 205–208.Google Scholar
Gregory, NG 2004. Physiology and behaviour of animal suffering. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetzer, HO, Miller, LR 1973. Selection for high and low fatness in swine: correlated responses of various carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 37, 1289–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, ES, Parmigiano, G, Berry, DA, Schildkraut, JM 2000. Genetic susceptibility and survival: application to breast cancer. Journal of the American Statistical Association 95, 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, B, Andersen, S 2000. Genetic parameters for osteochondrosis in Danish Landrace and Yorkshire boars and correlations with leg weakness and production traits. Animal Science 71, 427–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalbfleisch, JD, Prentice, RL 1980. The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Kaplan, EL, Meier, P 1958. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association 53, 457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieter J 1995. Zuchtwertschätzung für die Nutzungsdauer von Sauen. 70th Ausschuss für genetisch statistische Methoden in der Tierzucht. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Züchtungskunde, Germany.Google Scholar
Lamberson, WR 1990. Genetic parameters for reproductive traits. In The genetics of swine (ed. LD Young), pp. 70–76. US Department of Agriculture, US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska, US.Google Scholar
Lopez-Serrano, M, Reinsch, N, Looft, H, Kalm, E 2000. Genetic correlations of growth, backfat thickness and exterior with stayability in Large White and Landrace sows. Livestock Production Science 62, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noguera, JL, Varona, L, Babot, D, Estany, J 2002. Multivariate analysis of litter size for multiple parities with production traits in pigs: I. Bayesian variance component estimation. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2540–2547.Google ScholarPubMed
Quintanilla, R, Varona, L, Noguera, JL 2006. Testing genetic determinism in rate of hoof growth in pigs using Bayes Factors. Livestock Science 105, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schukken, YH, Burman, J, Huirne, RBM, Willemse, AH, Vernooy, JCM, van den Broek, J, Verheijden, JHM 1994. Evaluation of optimal age at first conception in gilts from data collected in commercial swine herds. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1387–1392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serenius, T, Stalder, KJ 2004. Genetics of length of productive life and lifetime prolificacy in the Finnish Landrace and Large White pig populations. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3111–3117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterning M 1996. Reproductives performance and estrus symptoms in primiparous sows. PhD, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Tarrés, J, Casellas, J, Piedrafita, J 2005. Genetic and environmental factors influencing mortality up to weaning of Bruna dels Pirineus beef calves in mountain areas. A survival analysis. Journal of Animal Science 83, 543–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarrés, J, Bidanel, JP, Hofer, A, Rosendo, A, Ducrocq, V 2006a. Analysis of longevity and exterior traits on Large White sows in Switzerland. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2914–2924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarrés, J, Tibau, J, Piedrafita, J, Fabrega, E, Reixach, J 2006b. Factors affecting longevity in maternal Duroc swine lines. Livestock Production Science 100, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tholen, E, Bunter, KL, Hermesch, S, Graser, H-U 1996. The genetic foundation of fitness and reproduction traits in Australian pig populations: II. Relationships between weaning to conception interval, farrowing interval, stayability and other common reproduction and production traits. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 1275–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Steenbergen, EJ 1989. Description and evaluation of a linear scoring system for exterior traits in pigs. Livestock Production Science 23, 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vukasinovic, N, Moll, J, Künzi, N 1999. Genetic evaluation for length of productive life with censored records. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2178–2185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittemore, CT 1998. The science and practice of pig production. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Yazdi, MH, Rydhmer, L, Ringmar-Cederberg, E, Lundeheim, N, Johansson, K 2000a. Genetic study of longevity in Swedish Landrace sows. Livestock Production Science 63, 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yazdi, MH, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L, Ringmar-Cederberg, E, Johansson, K 2000b. Survival of Landrace and Yorkshire sows in relation to osteochondrosis: a genetic study. Animal Science 71, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yazdi, MH, Visscher, PM, Ducrocq, V, Thompson, R 2002. Heritability, reliability of genetic evaluations and response to selection in proportional hazards models. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1563–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar