4.1 Article

Associations between Age of Gilts at First Mating and Lifetime Performance or Culling Risk in Commercial Herds

期刊

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 73, 期 5, 页码 555-559

出版社

JAPAN SOC VET SCI
DOI: 10.1292/jvms.10-0040

关键词

age at first mating; culling risk; gilt; herd management; litter size

资金

  1. Meiji University
  2. High-Tech Research Center of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Age of gilts at first mating (AFM) is a factor associated with reproductive performance of female pigs. The objectives of the present study were to compare AFM and reproductive performance across parity between three herd groups based on a productivity measurement and to determine lifetime performance by AFM and the herd groups. The female data included 38,212 mated gilts entered between 2001 and 2003, and the herd data included mean measurements from 2001 to 2006 in 101 herds. The average female inventory of the 101 herds was 370.2 females. Females were categorized into five groups: AFM 188-208, 209-229, 230-250, 251-271 or 272-365 days. Three herd groups were formed on the basis of the upper and lower 25th percentiles of pigs weaned per mated female over six years: high-, intermediate- and low-performing herds. Multilevel mixed-effects models were performed to analyze comparisons. The AFMs (+/- SEM) in the high-, intermediate- and low-performing herds were 239.5 +/- 0.22, 247.4 +/- 0.21 and 256.7 +/- 0.35 days, respectively. As the AFM increased from 209-229 to 272-365 days, annualized lifetime pigs born alive (PBA) decreased from 18.2 to 15.3 pigs, and the number of parities at removal decreased from 4.8 to 4.1 (P < 0.05). In parity 1, females with an AFM of 209-229 days had fewer PBA, but had a lower culling risk and shorter weaning-to-first mating interval than those with an AFM of 251-271 days (P < 0.05). In conclusion, we recommend management practices such as boar exposure to hasten puberty in gilts and decrease AFM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据