Genetic parameters and phenotypic trends in the mean and variability of number of stillborn piglets and changes in their relationships with litter size and gestation length
Craig R. G. Lewis A B and Susanne Hermesch A CA Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit (AGBU),1 1AGBU is a joint venture between the Department of Primary Industries NSW and the University of New England.
B Present address: PIC North America, 100 Bluegrass Commons Blvd, Suite 2200, Hendersonville, TN 37075, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: Susanne.Hermesch@une.edu.au
Animal Production Science 53(5) 395-402 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN12202
Submitted: 10 June 2012 Accepted: 15 October 2012 Published: 7 February 2013
Abstract
This study examined changes in genetic and phenotypic factors affecting stillborn piglets (SB). Over 15 years, 76 851 litter records were available from Large White (LW), Landrace (LR) and Duroc (DU) sows to investigate SB. The analyses focussed on trends over time in SB and the changes in the number of SB per litter, in factors associated with SB and in genetic parameters for SB. Breed differences were identified with DU producing more SB than the white breeds (mean of 1.46 ± 0.02 vs 1.11 ± 0.01 and 1.07 ± 0.01). However, maximum differences between levels of each factor were 0.73 and 0.65 SB for parity and herd, respectively. Over the 15 years studied, SB had increased by 0.2 piglets accompanied by an increase in the total numbers of piglets born per litter (TB) of ~0.5 piglets. This increase in SB was driven by higher occurrence of more than two SB within a single litter. The effect of TB on SB changed over time with solutions of 0.127 ± 0.002 and 0.150 ± 0.002 SB/TB in 1996 and 2010, respectively. Heritability estimates for SB ranged from 0.06 ± 0.01 to 0.09 ± 0.01 for alternative models and time periods. The unfavourable genetic correlation between SB and TB of 0.46 ± 0.03 based on all data available was slightly lower using only data from the first 5 years (0.38 ± 0.07) versus using data from the last 5 years (0.46 ± 0.06). However, this increase in phenotypic and genetic associations between SB and TB over time may be larger in populations that have observed a larger increase in TB.
Additional keywords: farrowing survival, pigs, total born.
References
Bidanel JP (2011) Biology and genetics of reproduction. In ‘The genetics of the pig’. 2nd edn (Eds MF Rothschild, A Ruvinsky) pp. 218–241. (CAB International: Wallingford)Blasco A, Bidanel JP, Haley CS (1995) Genetics and neonatal survival. In ‘The neonatal pig. Development and survival’. (Eds MA Varley) pp. 17–38. (CAB International: Wallingford)
Boulot S, Quesnel H, Quinou N (2008) Management of high prolificacy in French herds: can we alleviate side effects of piglet survival? Advances in Pork Production 19, 213–220.
Bunter KL (2009) Managing consequences of increasing litter size: a genetic perspective. In ‘Manipulating pig production XII. Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Pig Science Association’. (Ed. RJ van Barneveld) pp. 149–156. (Australasian Pig Science Association Inc.: Werribee)
Bunter KL, Tabuaciri P (2011) Sow health influences piglet survival. In ‘Manipulating pig production XIII. Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Pig Science Association’. (Ed. R van Barneveld) p. 99. (Australasian Pig Science Association Inc.: Werribee)
Cameron ND, Crump RE (2001) Economic values for the Australian pig industry. In ‘Manipulating pig production VIII. Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Pig Science Association’. (Ed. PD Cranwell) p. 146. (Australasian Pig Science Association Inc.: Werribee)
Chen CY, Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Herring WO, Holl J, Culbertson M (2010) Genetic analysis of stillborn in relation to littersize using random regression. Journal of Animal Science 88, 3800–3808.
| Genetic analysis of stillborn in relation to littersize using random regression.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXhsFGnsrrP&md5=424606208537e9260ff97faae2f42767CAS |
English PR, Wilkinson V (1982) Management of the sow and her litter in late pregnancy and lactation in relation to piglet survival and growth. In ‘Control of pig reproduction’. (Eds DJA Cole, GR Foxcroft) pp. 479–506. (Butterworth: London)
Foxcroft G (2008) Hyper-prolificacy and acceptable post-natal development – a possible contradiction. Advances in Pork Production 19, 205–211.
Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2006) ‘ASReml user guide. Release 2.0.’ (VSN International Ltd.: Hemel Hempstead)
Glastonbury JR (1977) Preweaning mortality in the pig. Pathological findings in piglets dying before and during parturition. Australian Veterinary Journal 53, 282–286.
Guéry L, Tribout T, Bidanel JP (2009) Genetic parameters and genetic trends for litter size and pre-weaning mortality in French Landrace and Large White pigs. In ‘Proceedings of the 60th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production’, 24–27 August 2009, Barcelona, Spain. Paper G14–G66, p. 164. (Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands) Available at http://www.eaap.org/previous_annual_meetings/2009barcelona/book_abstracts.pdf [Verified 9 January 2013]
Hanenberg E, Knol EF, Merks JWM (2001) Estimates of genetic parameters for reproduction traits at different parities in Dutch landrace pigs. Livestock Production Science 69, 179–186.
| Estimates of genetic parameters for reproduction traits at different parities in Dutch landrace pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hermesch S (2002) Genetic parameters for lean tissue deposition, birth weight, weaning weight and age at puberty. UNE.23P/1335. Final report prepared for Australian Pork Limited, Canberra.
Hermesch S (2005) Mean and variation in back fat influence profit of pig production. In ‘Manipulating pig production X. Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Pig Science Association’. (Ed. JE Paterson) p. 51. (Australasian Pig Science Association Inc.: Werribee)
Hermesch S (2006) From genetic to phenotypic trends. In ‘2006 pig genetics workshop notes’. (Eds S Hermesch, K Dobos) pp. 59–65. (AGBU, University of New England: Armidale) Available at http://agbu.une.edu.au/pig_genetics/pdf/2006/Paper%2010_SH_Trends.pdf [Verified 24 May 2012]
Hermesch S, Jones RM (2010) Phenotypic trends for traits of the growing pig and the sow. In ‘2010 pig genetics workshop notes’. (Eds S Hermesch, K Dobos) pp. 1–7. (AGBU, University of New England: Armidale) Available at http://agbu.une.edu.au/pig_genetics/pdf/2010/P01-Susanne-Trends.pdf [Verified 24 May 2012]
Johnson RK, Nielsen MK, Casey DS (1999) Responses in ovulation rate, embryonal survival and litter traits in swine to 14 generations of selection to increase litter size. Journal of Animal Science 77, 541–557.
Knol EF, Leenhouwers JI, van der Lende T (2002a) Genetic aspects of piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 78, 47–55.
| Genetic aspects of piglet survival.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Knol EF, Ducro BJ, van Arendonk JAM, van der Lende T (2002b) Direct, maternal and nurse sow genetic effects on farrowing, pre-weaning and total piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 73, 153–164.
| Direct, maternal and nurse sow genetic effects on farrowing, pre-weaning and total piglet survival.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Leenhouwers JI, van der Lende T, Knol EF (1999) Analysis of stillbirth in different lines of pig. Livestock Production Science 57, 243–253.
| Analysis of stillbirth in different lines of pig.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lewis CRG, Bunter KL (2011a) Body development in sows, feed intake and maternal capacity. Part 1: performance, pre-breeding and lactation feed intake traits of primiparous sows. Animal 5, 1843–1854.
| Body development in sows, feed intake and maternal capacity. Part 1: performance, pre-breeding and lactation feed intake traits of primiparous sows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC38vovFWjtA%3D%3D&md5=a806c66803e291af4b5962f0166f4b86CAS |
Lewis CRG, Bunter KL (2011b) Body development in sows, feed intake and maternal capacity. Part 2: gilt body condition pre and post lactation, reproductive performance and correlations with lactation feed intake. Animal 5, 1855–1867.
| Body development in sows, feed intake and maternal capacity. Part 2: gilt body condition pre and post lactation, reproductive performance and correlations with lactation feed intake.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC38vovFWjtQ%3D%3D&md5=20bdacef1ce4ded8f2372dd7363b97b4CAS |
Oldham J (1989) Pig recording for production and profit. In Practice 11, 35–38.
| Pig recording for production and profit.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rothschild MF, Bidanel JP (1998) Biology and genetics of reproduction. In ‘The genetics of the pig’. (Eds MF Rothschild, A Ruvinsky) pp. 313–343. (CAB International: Wallingford)
Rydhmer L, Lundeheim N, Canario L (2008) Genetic correlations between gestation length, piglet survival and early growth. Livestock Science 115, 287–293.
| Genetic correlations between gestation length, piglet survival and early growth.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
SAS (1999) ‘SAS user guide. Enterprise Miner, Release 9.1.’ (SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC)
Tabuaciri P, Bunter KL (2011) Piglet attributes at birth affects survival. In ‘Manipulating pig production XIII. Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Pig Science Association’. (Ed. R van Barneveld) p. 246. (Australasian Pig Science Association Inc.: Werribee)
Vanderhaeghe C, Dewulf J, De Vligher S, Papadopoulos GA, de Kruif A, Maes D (2010a) A cross-sectional study to collect risk factors associated with stillbirths in pig herds. Animal Reproduction Science 118, 62–68.
| A cross-sectional study to collect risk factors associated with stillbirths in pig herds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1MfhsF2rsA%3D%3D&md5=4c9ddf97448c245bd1e8388d4b5e81ceCAS |
Vanderhaeghe C, Dewulf J, De Vligher S, Papadopoulos GA, de Kruif A, Maes D (2010b) Longitudinal field study to assess sow level risk factors associated with stillborn piglets. Animal Reproduction Science 120, 78–83.
| Longitudinal field study to assess sow level risk factors associated with stillborn piglets.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3czktVaisg%3D%3D&md5=6cff686cae7f110ab44b449ca8933190CAS |
