3.8 Article

Genetic variation and responses in reproductive performance of sows in lines selected for growth rate under restricted feeding

期刊

ANIMAL SCIENCE
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 7-12

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1079/ASC20052

关键词

growth; pigs; reproductive performance; selection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to examine genetic changes in reproduction traits in sows (total number born (TNB), number born alive (NBA), average piglet birth weight (ABW) and number of piglets weaned (NW), body weight prior to mating (MW), gestation length (GL) and daily food intake during lactation (DFI)) in lines of Large White pigs divergently selected over 4 years for high and low post-weaning growth rate on a restricted ration. Heritabilities and repeatabilities of the reproduction traits were also determined. The analyses were carried out on 913 litter records using average information-restricted maximum likelihood method applied to single trait animal models. Estimates of heritability for most traits were small, except for ABW (0(.)33) and MW (0(.)35). Estimates of repeatability were slightly higher than those of heritability for TNB, NBA and NW, but they were almost identical for ABW, MW, GL and DFI. After 4 years of selection, the high growth line sows had significantly heavier body weight prior to mating and produced significantly more piglets born alive with heavier average birth weight than the low line sows. There were, however, no statistical differences between the selected lines in TNB or NW. The lower food intake of high relative to low line sows during lactation was not significant, indicating that daily food intake differences found between grower pigs in the high and low lines (2(.)71 v. 2(.)76 kg/day, s.e.d. 0(.)024) on ad libitum feeding were not fully expressed in lactating sows. It is concluded that selection for growth rate on the restricted ration resulted in beneficial effects on important measures of reproductive performance of the sows.

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

3.8
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