DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Sire Breed on the Subsequent Reproductive Performances of Landrace Sows

  • Huang, Y.H. (Division of Applied Biology, Animal Technology Institute Taiwan) ;
  • Yang, T.S. (Division of Applied Biology, Animal Technology Institute Taiwan) ;
  • Lee, Y.P. (Dept. of Animal Science, National Chung-Hsing University) ;
  • Roan, S.W. (Dept. of Animal Science, National Chung-Hsing University) ;
  • Liu, S.H. (Division of Applied Biology, Animal Technology Institute Taiwan)
  • Received : 2002.03.04
  • Accepted : 2002.10.08
  • Published : 2003.04.01

Abstract

Reproductive traits of sows are determined chiefly by the genetic background of the dam herself. Whether the breed of the serviced boars also contributes is not yet clear. A total of 8,946 litters of Landrace (L) sows from 68 farms were examined. Of these, 876, 1,260, and 6,810 litters were produced from natural mating with L, Yorkshire (Y), and Duroc (D) breeds, respectively. The birth litter size (BLS), weaning litter size (WLS), live born piglets (LBP), and survival rate % (SR), of every litter were recorded. A general linear-model procedure was followed to estimate the effects of boars' breed (B), parity (P) and B${\times}$P interaction on the reproductive traits of the sows. Results show that BLS, WLS, and LBP were all significantly (p<0.001) affected by B and P. SR% was significantly influenced by B but not by P. L sows crossbred with Y or purebred with L produced litters with higher BLS, WLS, and LBP values than those bred with D. Pure L breeding yielded litters with lower SR% than did crossbreeding with D, while the difference between SR% due to LY and that due to LD crossbreeding was not significant. The interaction of B with P was significant with respect to BLS, WLS, and LBP (p<0.001), but not SR%. No significant B effect on reproductive traits was measured in sows at their first parity; but at latter parities, LL or LY produced litters with similarly high BLS, WLS and LBP, which values were all significantly greater than those of LD litters. The breed of boar evidently affected the subsequent reproductive performance of L sows and this effect may be further manipulated by the parity effect. Breed differences in semen quality and the success of fetus development with different interactions of the genetic background with the uterus function of the sow that may contribute to these effects are discussed.

Keywords

Sow;Sire Effects;Parity;Litter Size;Survival Rate

References

  1. Kennedy, B. W. and J. N. Wilkins. 1984. Boar, breed and environmental factors influencing semen characteristics of boars used in artificial insemination. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 64: 833-843. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas84-097
  2. Kuo, Y. H., S. Y. Huang and Y. P. Lee. 1997. Effect of breed and season on semen characteristics of boars in subtropical area. J. Chin. Soc. Vet. Sci. 23:114-122.
  3. Tantasuparuk, W., N. Lundeheim, A. M. Dalin, A. Kunavongkrit and S. Einarsson. 2000. Reproductive performance of purebred Landrace and Yorkshire sows in Thailand with special reference to seasonal influence and parity number. Theriogenology 54:481-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00364-2
  4. Hill, W. G. and A. J. Webb. 1982. Genetics of reproduction in the pig. In: Control of Pig Reproduction (Ed. D. J. A. Cole and G. R. Foxcroft). Butterworth Scientific, London. pp. 541-564.
  5. Yen, H. F., G. A. Isler, W. R. Harvey and K. M. Irvin. 1987. Factors affecting reproductive performance in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 64:1340-1348.
  6. Cheon, Y. M., H. K. Kim, C. B. Yang, Y. J. Yi and C. S. Park. Effect of seaeon influencing semen characteristics, frozenthawed sperm viability and testosterone concentration in Duroc boars. Asian-Aust. J. Ainm. Sci. 15:500-503.
  7. Kim, B. W., S. D. Kim, I. J. Lee, K. H. Chung, O. S. Kwon, J. K. Ha and J. G. Lee. 2002. Estimation of direct and service sire genetic parameters for reproductive traits in Yorkshire. Asian-Aust. J. Ainm. Sci. 15:1232-1236.
  8. Wang, C. D. and C. Lee. 1999. Estimation of genetic variance and covariance components for litter size and litter weight in Danish Landrace swine using a multivariate mixed model. Asian-Aust. J. Ainm. Sci. 12:1015-1018.
  9. Clark, L. K., A. P. Schinckel, W. L. Singleton, M. E. Einstein and R. F. Teclaw. 1989. Use of farrowing rate as a measure of fertility of boars. JAVMA 194:239-243.
  10. Tummaruk, P., N. Lundeheim, S. Einarsson and A. M. Dalin. 2001. Reproductive performance of purebred Hampshire sows in Sweden. Live. Prod. Sci. 68:67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00207-4
  11. Baas, T. J., L. L. Christian and M. F. Rothschild. 1992. Heterosis and recombination effects in Hampshire and Landrace Swine: I. Maternal traits. J. Anim. Sci. 70:89-98.
  12. Swierstra, E. E. and G. W. Dyck. 1976. Influence of the boar and ejaculation frequency on pregnancy rate and embryonic survival in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 42:455-460.
  13. Strang, G. S. 1970. Litter productivity in Large White pigs. Anim. Prod. 12:225-233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100038794
  14. Xue, J. L, G. D. Dial, W. E. Marsh and T. Lucia. 1997. Association between lactation length and sow reproductive performance and longevity. JAVMA 210:935-938.
  15. Pepper, T. A., G. Gettinby, M. A. Waddell and D. J. Taylor. 1984. Assessment of the reproductive performance of individual boars and the growth rate of their progeny in commercial units using a computerised monitoring system. Vet. Rec. 114:134-137. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.114.6.134
  16. Wettemann, R. P. and F. W. Bazer. 1985. Influence of environmental temperature on prolificacy of pigs. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 33:199-208.
  17. Boender, J. 1966. The development of A.I. in pigs in the Netherlands and the storage of boar semen. World Rev. Anim. Prod. 2:29-41.
  18. Van der Lende, T., N. M. Soede and B. V. Kemp. 1994. Embryo mortality and prolificacy in the pig. In: Principles of Pig Science (Ed. D. J. A. Cole, J. Wiseman and M. A. Varley). Nottinggham University Press. Nottinggham. pp. 297-317.
  19. Koketsu, Y., G. D. Dial and V. L. King. 1997. Influence of various factors on farrowing rate on farms using early weaning. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2580-2587.
  20. Gaugler, H. R., D. S. Buchanan, R. L. Hintz and R. K. Johnson. 1984. Sow productivity comparisons for four breeds of swine: purebred and crossbred litters. J. Anim. Sci. 59:941-947.
  21. Tomes, G. L. and H. E. Nielsen. 1982. Factors affecting reproductive efficiency of the breeding herd. In: Control of Pig Reproduction (Ed. D. J. A. Cole and G. R. Forcroft). pp. 527-539.

Cited by

  1. The effects of breed, season and parity on the reproductive performance of pigs reared under hot and humid environments pp.1573-7438, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-018-1705-5