Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:35:28.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative farrowing to weaning performance in Meishan and Large White pigs and their crosses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. J. Lee  and
C. S. Haley
G. J. Lee
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute(Edinburgh)†, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
C. S. Haley
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute(Edinburgh)†, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
Get access

Abstract

Growth and survival from birth to weaning were monitored during three generations of crossbreeding between British Large White (LW) and Chinese Meishan (MS) pigs. The design allowed comparisons between sow genotypes ranging from zero to all MS genes, which were mated toLWor MS boars, to produce progeny with proportions of 0·0 to 0·5 or 0·5 to 1·0 MS genes, respectively. Crossbreeding parameters of both maternal and direct piglet performance were estimated for the first two parities using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) methods for litter traits (litter weight at birth, litter mean and within litter standard deviation of piglet weight at birth, proportion surviving to weaning, litter size and weight at weaning and litter mean piglet weight at weaning) and for traits of the piglet (birth weight, probability of survival and weaning weight). For litter traits, the estimated contribution of the additive maternal effect to the breed differences (MS-LW) was significant for litter mean piglet birth weight (–0·46 (s.e. 0·04) kg), survival to weaning (0·15 (s.e. 0·02)), litter size at weaning (1·6 (s.e. 0·16) piglets), litter weaning weight (–11·2 (s.e. 3·8) kg) and litter mean piglet weaning weight (2·54 (s.e. 0·24) kg). Adding litter size and litter mean piglet birth weight to the model removed the additive maternal contribution to the breed differences in survival, and litter size and reduced that for litter mean piglet weaning weight. The contribution of the direct additive effect to the breed difference (MS-LW) was significant for the within litter standard deviation in birth weight (0·018 (s.e. 0·006)), survival to weaning (0·12 (s.e. 0·02)) and litter size (1·12 (s.e. 0·64)) and weight (11·6 (s.e. 4·0) kg) at weaning, but not for piglet weight at birth or weaning. Fitting litter size and litter mean birth weight had comparatively little impact on the direct additive effects. There were significant maternal heterosis effects for litter weight at birth and litter size and weight at weaning, the estimated deviation of the F1 from the midpoint of the two purebreds 3·22 (s.e. 0·55) kg, 2·20 (s.e. 0·47) piglets, and 20·1 (s.e. 3·3) kg respectively, but none for survival or piglet weights. There were direct heterosis effects for litter weight and litter mean piglet weights, the estimated deviation of the Fjfrom the mid point of the two purebreds being 1·16 (s.e. 0·41) kg and 0·14 (s.e. 0·02) kg, for survival to weaning (0·04 (s.e. 0·02)) and for litter weight (11·2 (s.e. 2·5) kg) and litter mean piglet weight (0·96 (s.e. 0·17) kg) at weaning. Fitting litter size and litter mean piglet birth weight removed or reduced both maternal and direct heterosis effects. Individual piglet analyses gave similar results to analyses of the equivalent sow trait. It was concluded that in litters born to MS cows, the lower piglet survival and lower weaning weights were related to the larger litter sizes and lower piglet birth weights. For their birth weight, however, MS piglets have a greater ability to survive and thrive. The large direct and maternal heterosis effects observed for litter and mean piglet weight at weaning werepartly associated with the heavier birth weight of the crossbred piglet.

Keywords

crossbreedinglitter weightMeishanpigsproductivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 269 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Bidanel, J. P., Caritez, J. C. and Legault, C. 1989. Estimation of cross-breeding parameters between Large White and Meishan porcine breeds. 1. Reproductive performance. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 21: 507–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidanel, J. P., Caritez, J. C. and Legault, C. 1990. Estimation of cross-breeding parameters between Large White and Meishan porcine breeds. 2. Growth before weaning and growth of females during the growing and reproduction periods. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 22: 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1969. Experimental approaches in utilising breed resources. Animal Breeding Abstracts 37: 191–202.Google Scholar
English, P.R. and Smith, W. J. 1975. Some causes of death in neonatal piglets. Veterinary Annual 15: 95–104.Google Scholar
English, P. R. and Wilkinson, V. 1982. Management of the sow and litter in late pregnancy and lactation in relation to piglet survival and growth. In Control of pig reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 479–506. Butterworths Scientific, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahmy, M. H., Holtmann, W. B., Maclntyre, T. M. and Moxley, J. E. 1978. Evaluation of piglet mortality in 28 two-breed crosses among eight breeds of pig. Animal Production 26: 277–285.Google Scholar
Galvin, J. M., Wilmut, I., Day, B. N., Ritchie, M., Thomson, M. and Haley, C. S. 1993. Reproductive peformance in relation to uterine and embryonic traits during early gestation in Meishan, Large White and crossbred sows. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 98: 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GENSTAT 5 Committee. 1989. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S., Ashworth, C. J., Lee, G. J., Aitken, R. P. and Ritchie, W. 1990. British studies of the genetics of prolificacy in the Meishan pig. In Chinese pig symposium (ed. Molénat, M. and Legault, C.), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Toulouse, France, pp. 83–97.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S. and Lee, G. J. 1990. Genetic components of litter size in Meishan and Large White pig and their crosses. Proceedings of the fourth world congress of genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. XV, pp. 458–461.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S., Lee, G. J. and Ritchie, M. 1995. Comparative reproductive performance in Meishan and Large White pigs and their crosses. Animal Science 60: 000–000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herpin, P., Le Dividich, J. and Amaral, N. 1993. Effect of selection for lean tissue growth on body composition and physiological state of the pig at birth. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2645–2653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. 1982. Dominance and epistasis as components of heterosis. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 99: 161–168.Google Scholar
Komender, P. and Hoeschele, I. 1989. The use of mixed-model methodology to improve estimation of crossbreeding parameters. Livestock Production Science 21: 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, G. J., Ritchie, M., Thomson, M., MacDonald, A. A., Blasco, A., Santacreu, M. A., Argente, M. J. and Haley, C. S. 1994. A study of uterine capacity in Meishan and Large White pigs. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to animal production, Guelph 19: 226–229.Google Scholar
Lende, T. van der and Jager, D. de 1991. Death risk and preweaning growth rate of piglets in relation to the within-litter weight distribution at birth. Livestock Production Science 28: 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prunier, A. and Chopineau, M. 1990. Sexual maturation of Meishan gilt. In Chinese pig symposium (ed. Molénat, M. and Legault, C.), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Toulouse, France, pp. 37–40.Google Scholar
Prunier, A., Chopineau, M., Meunier, A. M. and Mormede, P. 1993. Patterns of plasma LH, FSH, oestradiol and corticosteroids from birth to the first oestrus cycle in Meishan gilts. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 98: 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schouten, W. G. P. and Meunier-Salaun, M. C. 1990. Behavioural and physiological changes around farrowing in Meishan, Large White and crossed-breed Dutch-Landrace × Great-Yorkshire sows. In Chinese pig symposium (ed. Molénat, M. and Legault, C.), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Toulouse, France, pp. 167–178.Google Scholar
Steen, H. A. M. van der and Groot, P. N. de 1992. Direct and maternal breed effects on growth and milk intake of pigs: Meishan versus Dutch breeds. Livestock Production Science 30: 361–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W-C., Wu, J. S. and Rempel, W. E. 1983. Some performance characteristics of prolific breeds of pigs in China. Livestock Production Science 10: 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zou, S., McLaren, D. G. and Hurley, W. L. 1992. Pig colostrum and milk composition: comparisons between Chinese Meishan and United States breeds. Livestock Production Science 30: 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar