Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:14:14.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Heritability of shoulder ulcers and genetic correlations with mean piglet weight and sow body condition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2011

H. Lundgren*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
B. Zumbach
Affiliation:
Interbull Center, Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
N. Lundeheim
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
K. Grandinson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
O. Vangen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Aas, Norway
D. Olsen
Affiliation:
Norsvin, P.O. Box 504, 2304 Hamar, Norway
L. Rydhmer
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this paper was to estimate the heritability for shoulder ulcers and the genetic correlations between shoulder ulcers, mean piglet weight and sow body condition. The analyses were based on information on 5549 Norwegian Landrace sows and their 7614 purebred litters. The genetic analysis was performed using the Gibbs sampling method. Shoulder ulcers were analyzed as a threshold trait. Sow body condition and mean piglet weight were analyzed as linear traits. The heritability of shoulder ulcers was estimated at 0.25 (s.d. = 0.03). The heritability for sow body condition was estimated at 0.14 (s.d. = 0.02) and that for mean piglet weight at 0.23 (s.d. = 0.02). The genetic correlation between shoulder ulcers and sow body condition was negative (−0.59, s.d. = 0.09). The genetic correlation between shoulder ulcers and mean piglet weight was positive (0.23, s.d. = 0.10) and the genetic correlation between sow body condition and mean piglet weight was negative (−0.24, s.d. = 0.10).

Type
Full Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Agerley, M, Høgedal, P, Pedersen, B 2007. Pilot project concerning examination of the shoulder blade in sows with or without shoulder ulcers (in Danish). Nyhedsbrevet PigVet. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from http://www.pigvet.dk/secure/hudsygd.htmGoogle Scholar
Animalia. Postboks 396 – Økern, 0513 Oslo, Norway (www.animalia.no).Google Scholar
Baustad, BM, Fredriksen, B 2006. Prevalence and prevention of decubital shoulder ulcers in Norwegian sows. Proceedings of the International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, 16–19 July, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Beilharz, RG, Luxford, BG, Wilkinson, JL 1993. Quantitative genetics and evolution – is our understanding of genetics sufficient to explain evolution. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics – Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie 110, 161170.Google Scholar
Bøe, K 1991. The process of weaning in pigs: when the sow decides. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 4759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonde, M 2008. Prevalence of decubital shoulder lesions in Danish sow herds (in Danish). Internal Report 12, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus, 8 pp.Google Scholar
Bonde, M, Rousing, T, Badsberg, JH, Sørensen, JT 2004. Associations between lying-down behaviour problems and body condition, limb disorders and skin lesions of lactating sows housed in farrowing crates in commercial sow herds. Livestock Production Science 87, 179187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonde, M, Herskin, MS, Jørgensen, E, Hjelholt Jensen, K 2007. Knowledge synthesis of shoulder ulcers in sows (in Danish). DJF Husdyrbrug nr 81. Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Borg, RC, Notter, DR, Kott, RW 2009. Phenotypic and genetic associations between lamb growth traits and adult ewe body weights in western range sheep. Journal of Animal Science 87, 35063514.Google Scholar
Bradley, H 2005. Variation in back conformation and prevalence of ulcers on the shoulders – a cohort study of related Swedish Landrace and Landrace*Yorkshire sows. Master Thesis, No. 270, Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
Broom, DM 1988. The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20, 519.Google Scholar
Brouns, F, Edwards, SA 1994. Social rank and feeding behavior of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 225235.Google Scholar
Canario, L, Lundgren, H, Haandlykken, M, Rydhmer, L 2010. Genetics of growth in piglets and the association with homogeneity of body weight within litters. Journal of Animal Science 88, 12401247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleveland-Nielsen, A, Bækbo, P, Ersbøll, AK 2004. Herd-related risk factors for decubital ulcers present at post-mortem meat-inspection of Danish sows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 64, 113122.Google Scholar
Davies, PR, Morgan Morrow, WE, Rountree, WG, Miller, DC 1997. Epidemiologic evaluation of decubital ulcers in farrowing sows. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 210, 11731178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vries, AG, Kanis, E 1994. Selection for efficiency of lean tissue deposition in pigs. In Principles of pig science (ed. DJA Cole, J Wiseman and MA Varley), pp. 2341. Nottingham University Press, UK.Google Scholar
Dyrevaernsloven. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=2714Google Scholar
Edwards, SA 1998. Nutrition of the rearing sow and gilt. In Progress in pig science (ed. J Wiseman, MA Varley and JP Chadwick), pp. 361382. Nottingham University Press, UK.Google Scholar
Eissen, JJ, Kanis, E, Kemp, B 2000. Sow factors affecting voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livestock Production Science 64, 147165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianola, D 1982. Theory and analysis of threshold characters. Journal of Animal Science 54, 10791096.Google Scholar
Gourdine, JL, de Greef, KH, Rydhmer, L 2010. Breeding for high welfare in outdoor pig production: a simulation study. Livestock Science 132, 2634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandinson, K, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E, Solanes, FX 2005. Genetic analysis of body condition in the sow during lactation, and its relation to piglet survival and growth. Animal Science 80, 3340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herskin, MS, Bonde, MK, Jørgensen, E, Jensen, KH 2010. Decubital shoulder ulcers in sows: a review of classification, pain and welfare consequences. Animal, doi:10.1017/S175173111000203X, Published online by Cambridge University Press 22 November 2010.Google Scholar
Högberg, A, Rydhmer, L 2000. A genetic study of piglet growth and survival. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 50, 300303.Google Scholar
Hoy, S, Bauer, J, borberg, C, Chonsch, L, Weirich, C 2009. Investigation on dynamics of social rank of sows during several parities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 103107.Google Scholar
Ivarsson, E, Mattson, B, Lundeheim, N, Holmgren, N 2009. Shoulder ulcers – prevalence and risk factors (in Swedish). Svenska Pig, Report 42, 8pp.Google Scholar
Jensen, HE 2009. Investigation into the pathology of shoulder ulcerations in sows. Veterinary Record 165, 171174.Google Scholar
Kaiser, M, Mose, K, Alban, L 2006. Which sows get shoulder ulcers? (in Danish) Danish Pig Production, Report 0620, 8pp.Google Scholar
Kaiser, M, Bach-Mose, K, Alban, L 2007. Risk factors for shoulder ulcers in sows (in Danish). Dansk Veterinærtidsskrift 1, 2026.Google Scholar
Kanis, E, de Greef, KH, Hiemstra, A, van Arendonk, JAM 2005. Breeding for societally important traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 948957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kass, RE, Carlin, BP, Gelman, A, Neal, RM 1998. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice: a roundtable discussion. American Statistician 52, 93100.Google Scholar
KilBride, AL, Gillman, CE, Green, LE 2009. A cross sectional study of the prevalence, risk factors and population attributable fractions for limb and body lesions in lactating sows on commercial farms in England. BMC Veterinary Research 5, 30.Google Scholar
Knauer, M, Stalder, KJ, Karriker, L, Baas, TJ, Johnson, C, Serenius, T, Layman, L, McKean, JD 2007. A descriptive survey of lesions from cull sows harvested at two Midwestern U.S. facilities. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 82, 198212.Google Scholar
Kranendonk, G, Van der Mheen, H, Fillerup, M, Hopster, H 2007. Social rank of pregnant sows affects their body weight gain and behavior and performance of the offspring. Journal of Animal Science 85, 420429.Google Scholar
Le, KM, Madsen, BA, Barth, PW 1984. An in-depth look at pressure ulcers using monolithic silicon pressure sensors. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 74, 745753.Google Scholar
Lundgren, H, Canario, L, Grandinson, K, Lundeheim, N, Zumbach, B, Vangen, O, Rydhmer, L 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive performance in Landrace sows and its correlation to piglet growth. Livestock Science 128, 173178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Vines, B, Rudine, AC, Dubois, P 2004. The physical size of gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science 82, 24212427.Google Scholar
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Slotsholmsgade 12, DK-1260 Copenhagen V, Denmark (www.fvm.dk).Google Scholar
Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Strabel, T, Auvray, B, Druet, T, Lee, DH 2002. BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 19–23. Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Mousing, J, Noergaard, N, kirkeskov Jensen, M, Havbroe Andersen, P, Lindahl, J, Damm, BI, Fraas Johnsen, P, Hjelholt Jensen, K, Gulisano, CA, Auken, J, Rosenberg Khawaja, EO, Caspersen, O, Feldstedt, H, Groen Pedersen, O 2008. Working group report on shoulder ulcers in sows (in Danish). 235pp. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Lovforberedende_udvalg/SR052008.pdfGoogle Scholar
Norsvin. P.O. Box 504, 2304 Hamar, Norway (www.norsvin.no).Google Scholar
Olesen, I, Groen, AF, Gjerde, B 2000. Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. Journal of Animal Science 78, 570582.Google Scholar
Retsinformation.dk. Civilstyrelsen, Gyldenløvesgade 11, 2., DK-1600 Copenhagen V, Denmark (www.retsinformation.dk).Google Scholar
Rolandsdotter, E, Westin, R, Algers, B 2009. Maximum lying bout duration affects the occurrence of shoulder lesions in sows. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 51, Article no. 44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sørensen, G 2009. Thirty percent lower risk of decubital shoulder ulcers after increasing the number of daily feedings (in Danish). Report 847, Danish Pig Production, 13 pp.Google Scholar
Stalder, KJ, Lacy, RC, Cross, TL, Conatser, GE 2003. Financial impact of average parity of culled females in a breed-to-wean swine operation using replacement gilt net present value analysis. Journal of Swine Health and Production 11, 6974.Google Scholar
Swedish Animal Health Service, Lindhagensgatan 126, Box 30167, 104 25 Stockholm, Sweden (www.svdhv.org).Google Scholar
Tsuruta, S, Misztal, I 2006. THRGIBBS1F90 for estimation of variance components with threshold-linear models. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 13–18, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Google Scholar
Valros, A, Rundgren, M, Spinka, M, Saloniemi, H, Rydhmer, L, Hulten, F, Uvnäs-Moberg, K, Tomanek, M, Krejci, P, Algers, B 2003. Metabolic state of the sow, nursing behaviour and milk production. Livestock Production Science 79, 155167.Google Scholar
Whittemore, CT 1996. Nutrition reproduction interactions in primiparous sows. Livestock Production Science 46, 6583.Google Scholar
Zurbrigg, K 2006. Sow shoulder lesions: risk factors and treatment effects on an Ontario farm. Journal of Animal Science 84, 25092514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar