Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T12:39:57.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of triple versus double mating on sow productivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. E. Tilton  and
D. J. A. Cole
J. E. Tilton
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE12 5RD
D. J. A. Cole
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE12 5RD
Get access

Abstract

Two hundred Landrace × Large White sows were used to evaluate the influence of mating to Landrace or hybrid boars, at different intervals and with different frequencies, on subsequent reproductive performance. Sows were allocated at random to either a mating on each of the first 2 days of oestrus (double mating), two matings on the 1st day and one on the 2nd, one on the 1st day and two on the 2nd or single matings on each of the first 3 days of oestrus. All triple mating systems increased number of piglets born and born alive, with mating on 3 consecutive days significantly influencing these parameters compared with double mating (P < 0·05). Number of piglets weaned and mean piglet weaning weight were not affected significantly by treatment. Breed of boar used did not influence significantly any of the factors measured.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , June 1982 , pp. 279 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

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

REFERENCES

Čupka, V. 1961. The effect of double mating and the interval between matings on the fertility of sows and their piglet growth and viability. Véd. Pr. výzk. Úst. zivoc. Vgroby Nitre 1: 80–98.Google Scholar
Domański, J. 1966. Effect of the time of the repeat mating in a double mating system on the fertility of the sow. Zesz. prob. Postep. Nauk roln. 67: 113–116.Google Scholar
Drugociu, G. 1966. The importance of internal and external stimuli for sexual function in sows. Zesz. probl. Postep. Nauk roln. 61: 107–116.Google Scholar
Meding, J. H. and Rasbech, M. O. 1968. Investigation on artificial insemination in pig breeding. Arsberetn. Inst. Steriletsforsk. K. Vet.-og., Landbohøjsk. pp. 65–79.Google Scholar
Miljak, N., Stanković, F., Laktić, Z. and Herak, M. 1969. Results of examination of oestrous sows and gilts four times daily for the optimum time of insemination. Vet. Glasn. 23: 185–190.Google Scholar
Niswender, G. D., Reichert, L. E. and Zimmerman, D. R. 1970. Radioimmunoassay of serum levels of luteinizing hormone throughout the oestrous cycle of the pig. Endocrinology 87: 576–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkjanen, I. G. 1955. Ovulation, fertilization and the first stages of embryonic development in pigs. Jzv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. biol. 3: 120–131.Google Scholar
Pitkjanen, I. G. 1962. Characteristics of the physiology of reproduction in the sow. Vet. Med., Praha 7: 487–494.Google Scholar
Randel, R. D., Short, R. E., Christensen, D. S. and Bellows, R. A. 1973. Effects of various mating stimuli on the LH surge and ovulation time following synchronization of estrus in the bovine. J. Anim. Sci. 37: 128–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, H. C. B. 1982. Artificial insemination. In Control of Pig Reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 65–90. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Signoret, J. P., Du Mesnil Du Buisson, F. and Mauléon, P. 1972. Effect of mating on the onset and duration of ovulation in the sow. J. Reprod. Ferl. 31: 327–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Tilton, J. E., Ziecik, A., Kirsch, J. D. and Weigl, R. 1980. Patterns of the LH release in pigs during estrus. J. Anim. Sci. 51: Suppl. 1, pp. 89–90 (Abstr.).Google Scholar