DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Statistical Analysis of Stillbirths in Different Genotypes of Sows

  • Chu, M.X. (Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences)
  • Received : 2004.12.16
  • Accepted : 2005.05.10
  • Published : 2005.10.01

Abstract

Statistical analysis was conducted on sow stillbirth traits of three genotypes with 2,400 litters including the Erhualian, Large White and the $F_1$ cross of these two breeds. Number of stillborn piglets per litter in the Erhualian, Large White and the $F_1$ averaged 0.85, 0.31 and 0.70, and percentage born alive averaged 95.0%, 97.0% and 95.5%, respectively. Erhualian sows with a greater litter size also had a higher stillbirth rate. Results of analysis of variance indicated that genotype, parity, farrowing year${\times}$farrowing season interaction and total number born had highly significant effects on both number of stillborn piglets per litter and percentage born alive in sows (p<0.0001). Farrowing year had no significant effect on number of stillborn piglets per litter (p>0.05), and highly significant effect on percentage born alive (p<0.01). Farrowing season had highly significant effects on both number of stillborn piglets per litter and percentage born alive (p<0.01). From parity one to parity ten, least squares means for number of stillborn piglets per litter progressively increased with increasing parity and least squares means for percentage born alive progressively decreased with increasing parity. Sows that farrowed in winter had the highest number of stillborn piglets per litter and the lowest percentage born alive, sows that farrowed in autumn had the lowest number of stillborn piglets per litter and the highest percentage born alive. With increasing total number born, least squares means for number of stillborn piglets per litter markedly increased and least squares means for percentage born alive markedly decreased. Results from analysis of paternal half sibs indicated that the heritabilities for number of stillborn piglets per litter and percentage born alive were 0.110 and 0.124, and the genetic, phenotypic and environmental correlations between them were -0.989, -0.951 and -0.948, respectively. These results indicated that number of stillborn piglets per litter and percentage born alive were traits with the similar genetic background.

Keywords

Sow;Stillbirth;Environmental Effect;Genetic Parameter

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Natural Science Foundation of China

References

  1. Bidanel, J. P. 1993. Estimation of crossbreeding parameters between Large White and Meishan porcine breeds. III. Dominance and epistatic components of heterosis on reproductive traits. Genet. Sel. Evol. 25:263-281. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-25-3-263
  2. English, P. R. and V. Morrison. 1984. Causes and prevention of piglet mortality. Pig News Info. 5:369-376.
  3. Lucia, T. Jr., M. N. Correa, J. C. Deschamps, I. Bianchi, M. A. Donin, A. C. Machado, W. Meincke and J. E. Matheus. 2002. Risk factors for stillbirths in two swine farms in the south of Brazil. Prev. Vet. Med. 53:285-292.
  4. Moeller, S. J., R. N. Goodwin, R. K. Johnson, J. W. Mabry, T. J. Baas and O. W. Robison. 2004. The National Pork Producers Council Maternal Line National Genetic Evaluation Program: A comparison of six maternal genetic lines for female productivity measures over four parities. J. Anim. Sci. 82:41-53.
  5. Pejsak, Z. 1984. Some pharmacological methods to reduce intrapartum death of piglets. Pig News Info. 5:35-37.
  6. Vazquez, C., C. Menaya, J. Benito, J. L. Ferrera and J. M. Garcia-Casco. 1994. The influence of parity and season on the prolificacy and maternal ability of Iberian sows. Pig News Info. 15:121N-124N.
  7. 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.
  8. Grandinson, K., M. S. Lund, L. Rydhmer and E. Strandberg. 2002. Genetic parameters for the piglet mortality traits crushing, stillbirth and total mortality, and their relation to birth weight. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A, Animal Sci. 52:167-173.
  9. Ishida, T., T. Kuroki, H. Harada and R. Fukuhara. 2001. Estimation of additive and dominance genetic variances in line breeding swine. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 14:1-6.
  10. McLaren, D. G., B. R. White, M. B. Wheeler, W. L. Hurley, P. A. Clamp, H. W. Gonyou, F. K. McKeith, J. Novakofski, R. I. Mackie, L. B. Schook, P. J. Dziuk and D. Gianola. 1990. Evaluation of Chinese swine breeds: Early results at the University of Illinois and research plans. In: Chinese Pig Symposium. (Ed. M. Molenat and C. Legault). INRA, Toulouse, France. p. 116.
  11. Haley, C. S., C. J. Ashworth, G. J. Lee, I. Wilmut, R. P. Aitken and W. Ritchie. 1990. British studies of the genetics of prolificacy in the Meishan pig. In: Chinese Pig Symposium. (Ed. M. Molenat and C. Legault). INRA, Toulouse, France. pp. 86-97.
  12. Leenhouwers, J. I., T. van der Lende and E. F. Knol. 1999. Analysis of stillbirth in different lines of pig. Livest. Prod. Sci. 57:243-253.
  13. Petry, D. B. and R. K. Johnson. 2004. Responses to 19 generations of litter size selection in the Nebraska Index line. I. Reproductive responses estimated in pure line and crossbred litters. J. Anim. Sci. 82:1000-1006.
  14. SAS Institute Inc. 2000. SAS/STAT User’s Guide: Version 8th edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina. USA.
  15. Ruiz-Flores, A. and R. K. Johnson. 2001. Direct and correlated responses to two-stage selection for ovulation rate and number of fully formed pigs at birth in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2286-2297.
  16. Harvey, W. R. 1990. Mixed Model Least-Squares and Maximum Likelihood Computer Program PC-2 Version. Mimeograph. Ohio State University, Ohio, USA.
  17. Spicer, E. M., S. J. Driesen, V. A. Fahy, B. J. Horton, L. D. Sims, R. T. Jones, R. S. Cutler and R. W. Prime. 1986. Causes of preweaning mortality on a large intensive piggery. Aust. Vet. J. 63:71-75.
  18. Bidanel, J. P., J. C. Caritez and C. Legault. 1989. Estimation of crossbreeding parameters between Large White and Meishan porcine breeds. I. Reproductive performance. Genet. Sel. Evol. 21:507-526.