Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:40:48.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Failure to recycle after weaning, and weaning to oestrus interval in crossbred sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. H. Fahmy ,
W. B. Holtmann  and
R. D. Baker
M. H. Fahmy
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada, Laval University and Macdonald College, Quebec, Canada
W. B. Holtmann
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada, Laval University and Macdonald College, Quebec, Canada
R. D. Baker
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada, Laval University and Macdonald College, Quebec, Canada
Get access

Abstract

Failure to recycle after weaning and the interval from weaning to oestrus were studied using sows representing 28 crosses from eight breeds at three stations. Of the sows farrowing their first litter, 12·9% failed to recycle within 50 days. The least squares mean for weaning to oestrus interval for all crosses was 13·5 days. Hampshire × Landrace, followed by Hampshire × Yorkshire sows had the shortest intervals (8·0 and 8·7 days respectively) whereas Large Black × Lacombe sows had the longest interval (22·1 days). Crosses involving the Yorkshire, Hampshire, Berkshire and Tamworth breeds had shorter intervals than those involving Landrace, Duroc, Large Black and Lacombe. Season of farrowing had significant effect (P < 0·05), with the shortest interval (11·4 days) occurring in autumn and the longest (15·1 days) in spring and summer. Weaning to oestrus interval increased with the increase in litter size. The interval was longer (15·7 days) at Lennoxville but similar at the other stations. There was a steady increase in size in the following litter with the increase in the weaning-oestrus interval. The heritability estimate (full-sib analysis) for the weaning-oestrus interval was 0·25 ± 0·10. Repeatability based on limited data was calculated at 0·28.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , October 1979 , pp. 193 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

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

Adam, J. L. and Shearer, I. J. 1971. The effects of type and level of feeding of sows during pregnancy. II. Reproductive performance. N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 14: 661–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumaitre, A., Dagorn, J., Legault, C. and Le Denmat, M. 1976. Influence of farm management and breed type on sow's conception-weaning interval and productivity in France. Livest. Prod. Sci. 3: 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boaz, T. G. 1962. The significance of level of protein in the nutrition of the pregnant sow. Vet. Rec. 74: 1482–1489.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. H., Cole, D. J. A., Rowlinson, P., Croxson, V. J. and Luscombe, J. R. 1975. Studies in sow reproduction. 3. The effect of nutrition between weaning and remating on the reproductive performance of multiparous sows. Anim. Prod. 20: 407–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. F. 1952. Sex physiology of pigs. Onderstepoort J. vet. Res. 25: (Suppl. No. 2) 3–218.Google Scholar
Dyck, G. W. 1971. Puberty, post-weaning estrus and estrous cycle length in Yorkshire and Lacombe swine. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, G. W. 1972. Effects of postweaning level of feeding on return to estrus in sows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 52: 570–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahmy, M. H., Bernard, C. S. and Holtmann, W. B. 1971. Crossbreeding swine: reproductive performance of seven breeds of sows bred to produce crossbred progeny. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. and Dufour, J. J. 1976. Effects of post-weaning stress and feeding management on return to oestrus and reproductive traits during early pregnancy in swine. Anim. Prod. 23: 103–110.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. and Holtmann, W. B. 1977. Crossbreeding swine in Canada. Wld Rev. Anim. Prod. 13 (4): 9–30.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1960. Least squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. US Dep. Agric, ARS-20-8 (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Holtmann, W. B., Fahmy, M. H., MacIntyre, T. M. and Moxley, J. E. 1975. Evaluation of female reproductive performance of 28 one-way crosses produced from eight breeds of swine. Anim. Prod. 21: 199–207.Google Scholar
King, G. J. 1974. Effects of several weaning procedures on the interval of estrus in sows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 54: 251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legault, C., Aumaitre, A. and Du Mesnil Du Buisson, F. 1975. The improvement of sow productivity, a review of recent experiments in France. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2: 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, G. 1965. [An investigation into the interval between weaning and subsequent service of the sow and its correlation with some reproductive characteristics.] Meld. Norg. LandbrHegsk. 44(4): 1–7.Google Scholar
MacLean, C. W. 1969. Observations on non-infectious infertility in sows. Vet. Rec. 85: 675–682.Google ScholarPubMed
Du Mesnil Du Buisson, F. and Signoret, J. P. 1968. [Influence of the interval between the end of the lactation and oestrus on the AI results in the sow.] 6th int. Congr. Reprod. AI, Paris, 2: 1091–1094.Google Scholar
Moody, N. W., Baker, D. S., Hays, V. W. and Speer, V. C. 1969. Effect of reduced farrow-ing interval on sow productivity. J. Anim. Sci. 28: 76–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, J. F., Elsley, F. W. H., MacPherson, R. M. and McDonald, I. 1973. The response of lactating sows and their litters to different dietary energy allowances. 1. Milk yield and composition, reproductive performance of sows and growth rate of litters. Anim. Prod. 17: 65–74.Google Scholar
O'Grady, J. F. and Hanrahan, T. J. 1975. Influence of protein level and amino-acid supplementation of diets fed in lactation on the performance of sows and their litters. 1. Sow and litter performance. Ir. J. agric. Res. 14: 127–135.Google Scholar
Rasbech, N. O. 1969. A review of the causes of reproductive failure in swine. Br. vet. J. 125: 599–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smidt, D., Scheven, B. and Steinbach, J. 1965. [The influence of lactation on sexual functions in sows.] Züchtungskunde 37: 23–36.Google Scholar
Van Der Heyde, H., Lievens, R., Van Nieuwerburgh, G. and Doorme, H. 1974. [Reproduction in the sow as a function of different lactation lengths.] Revue agric, Univ. Gand 27: 1153–1189.Google Scholar