Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:49:13.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of a methodology to describe udder conformation in sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

A. Balzani ,
H. J. Cordell  and
S. A. Edwards
A. Balzani*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
H. J. Cordell
Affiliation:
Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop a methodology to measure sow udder conformation to use in studying the correlation between udder traits and piglet survival, health and performance. The steps in the investigation were (i) to assess the repeatability of measures, (ii) to determine if there was an important difference between the two sides of the udder, (iii) to assess the extent of variation between sows, and finally (iv) to verify if the measures differ in a systematic way over the days shortly before farrowing. A total of 24 sows were scored for six conformation traits of the udder measured twice a day, every day from the sows’ entrance into the farrowing crates until farrowing (1 to 4 days later). The data were recorded from both sides when the sow was lying and when she was standing. The measurements taken were: inter-teat distance within the same row (SAMER; mm between the adjacent teat bases); distance from the base of the teats to the abdominal midline, recorded only in a lying posture (B); distance between the teat base and the adjacent teat on the opposite row, recorded only in a standing posture (OPPR), distance from the base of the teats to the ground (FLOOR); teat length (LEN) measured from the tip to the base, and diameter (DIA) measured at the tip of the teat. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) revealed that most udder conformation traits were highly repeatable (ICC>0.8); only DIA and FLOOR had lower repeatability (ICC=0.7). Measurements did not differ by side. In general, the greatest proportion of variance occurred at the sow level. Traits changed little in the days before farrowing, except for a change 1 day before farrowing in DIA, FLOOR and OPPR. Measures which used anatomical landmarks as the reference point were more reliable than those using the floor of the pen. Udder conformation measures can be used as a reliable phenotype for further study. They can be collected on any day shortly before farrowing, and only from one side and in one posture to save time.

Keywords

conformationmammary glandmeasurementswineudder
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , March 2016 , pp. 432 - 439
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Andersen, IL, Naevdal, E and Boe, KE 2011. Maternal investment, sibling competition, and offspring survival with increasing litter size and parity in pigs (Sus scrofa). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65, 1159–1167.Google Scholar
Aziz, MA, Roehe, R and Kalm, E 1995. Genetic and environmental-factors associated with firmness of the mammary-gland in sows using quasi-loglinear and linear-models. Archiv Fur Tierzucht-Archives of Animal Breeding 38, 665–671.Google Scholar
Canario, L, Pere, MC, Tribout, T, Thomas, F, David, C, Gogue, J, Herpin, P, Bidanel, JP and Le Dividich, J 2007. Estimation of genetic trends from 1977 to 1998 of body composition and physiological state of Large White pigs at birth. Animal 1, 1409–1413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casu, S, Pernazza, I and Carta, A 2006. Feasibility of a linear scoring method of udder morphology for the selection scheme of sardinian sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2200–2209.Google Scholar
Casu, S, Sechi, S, Salaris, SL and Carta, A 2010. Phenotypic and genetic relationships between udder morphology and udder health in dairy ewes. Small Ruminant Research 88, 77–83.Google Scholar
Chalkias, H, Ekman, E, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L and Jacobson, M 2014. Inverted teats (Mammillae invertitae) in gilts – effect on piglet survival and growth rate. Journal of Animal Science 92, 2587–2594.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA 2002. Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, C and Sorensen, MT 2001. Factors affecting mammary development in gilts. Livestock Production Science 70, 141–148.Google Scholar
Fernandez, G, Alvarez, P, Sanprimitivo, F and Delafuente, LF 1995. Factors affecting variation of udder traits of dairy ewes. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 842–849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, JA, Kim, SW, Rodriguez-Zas, SL and Hurley, WL 2003. Quantification of mammary gland tissue size and composition changes after weaning in sows. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2583–2589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D 1976. Nursing posture of domestic sows and related behavior. Behaviour 57, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, CG 1964. Teat shape and size in relation to production characteristics and mastitis in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 47, 777–782.Google Scholar
Higginst, S, Moore, R. K. and Kennedy, BW 1980. Heritabilities of teat conformation traits and their relationships with somatic cell counts in Holstein. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 60, 231–239.Google Scholar
Horak, F and Gerza, J 1969. A morphological study of the goat’s udder. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Brno 17, 189–199.Google Scholar
Jonas, E, Schreinemachers, H-J, Kleinwaechter, T, Uen, C, Oltmanns, I, Tetzlaff, S, Jennen, D, Tesfaye, D, Ponsuksili, S, Murani, E, Juengst, H, Tholen, E, Schellander, K and Wimmers, K 2008. QTL for the heritable inverted teat defect in pigs. Mammalian Genome 19, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SW, Easter, RA and Hurley, WL 2001. The regression of unsuckled mammary glands during lactation in sows: the influence of lactation stage, dietary nutrients, and litter size. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2659–2668.Google Scholar
Kim, SW, Osaka, I, Hurley, WL and Easter, RA 1999. Mammary gland growth as influenced by litter size in lactating sows: impact on lysine requirement. Journal of Animal Science 77, 3316–3321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labussiere, J, Dotchewski, D and Combaud, JF 1981. Morphological-characteristics of the udder of lacaune ewes and relationships with milkability – methodology used for collection of data. Annales De Zootechnie 30, 115–136.Google Scholar
Makovicky, P, Nagy, M and Makovicky, P 2013. Comparison of external udder measurements of the sheep breeds improved Valachian, Tsigai, Lacaune and their crosses. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 73, 366–371.Google Scholar
Moore, RK, Higgins, S, Kennedy, BW and Burnside, EB 1981. Relationships of teat conformation and udder height to milk flow-rate and milk-production in holsteins. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61, 493–501.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J, Bates, D, DebRoy, S and Sarkar, D 2007. Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3, 57.Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L 2000. Genetics of sow reproduction, including puberty, oestrus, pregnancy, farrowing and lactation. Livestock Production Science 66, 1–12.Google Scholar
Theil, PK, Sejrsen, K, Hurley, WL, Labouriau, R, Thomsen, B and Sorensen, MT 2006. Role of suckling in regulating cell turnover and onset and maintenance of lactation in individual mammary glands of sows. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1691–1698.Google Scholar
Tribout, T, Caritez, JC, Gruand, J, Bouffaud, M, Guillouet, P, Billon, Y, Pery, C, Laville, E and Bidanel, JP 2010. Estimation of genetic trends in French Large White pigs from 1977 to 1998 for growth and carcass traits using frozen semen. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2856–2867.Google Scholar
Vasdal, G and Andersen, IL 2012. A note on teat accessibility and sow parity – consequences for newborn piglets. Livestock Science 146, 91–94.Google Scholar
Wang, PQ 1989. Udder characteristics in toggenburg dairy goats. Small Ruminant Research 2, 181–190.Google Scholar
Wolak, ME, Fairbairn, DJ and Paulsen, YR 2012. Guidelines for estimating repeatability. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3, 129–137.Google Scholar
Zwertvaegher, I, Van Weyenberg, S, Piepers, S, Baert, J and De Vliegher, S 2012. Variance components of teat dimensions in dairy cows and associated factors. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 4978–4988.Google Scholar