Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:19:05.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Model relating litter size to ovulation rate and embryo survival in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

J.P. Hanrahan*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Food Development Authority Belclare, Tuam, Co. Galway, Ireland
Get access

Extract

The number of pigs weaned per sow per year has increased substantially in recent years due mainly to changes in husbandry with probably some contribution from breed substitution and crossbreeding (Haley et al 1986). Because of emerging difficulties in relation to responses to continued selection for leaness and reassessment of the economic importance of prolificacy in pigs there is considerable interest in selection for increased litter size. It is generally agreed that the heritability of litter size is about 0.1 and attempts to increase litter size by within population selection have not been particularly successful. On the other hand selection for increased ovulation rate in pigs has been effective but the correlated change in litter size has been small. This apparent failure to achieve significant correlated response in litter size has been attributed to a negative genetic association between ovulation rate and embryo survival. However, there is very little information on the magnitude of genetic variation in embryo survival or its relationship with ovulation rate.

Type
Pig and Poultry Production
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1989

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

Haley, et al. (1986), Proc. 37th EAAP, (Budapest).Google Scholar
Hanrahan, , (1980). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 16: 405-8Google Scholar
Bolet and Legault (1982). Proc. 2 Wld. Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod. 5: 548567.Google Scholar
Blickfeldt and Almlid (1982). Theriogenology 18: 615620.Google Scholar
Aumaitre et al. (1982). J. Rech. Porcine en France, 14: 109124.Google Scholar