You are here

Reproductive qualities of sows of different breeding levels.

The article compares the reproductive qualities of sows GGP, GP and P breeding levels in terms of industrial technology of pork production for different variants of their breeding. It is established that sows of maternal genotypes of Great White and Landrace breeds of Irish origin have a high level of reproductive qualities at all levels of the breeding pyramid in the industrial complex of the steppe zone of Ukraine. It is proved that sows of large white and landrace breeds in their purebred breeding gave birth to 32.1-35.2% more piglets, had higher by 35.9-37.5% fertility, less by 5.1- 6.4% share non-viable piglets in the nest at birth, increased by 11.4 -11.9% of the nest weight of piglets at birth and increased by 31.6% the number of piglets in the nest at weaning compared to their purebred counterparts of the synthetic terminal line Max Gro. At the same time, they were inferior to the latter in terms of high fertility by 22.0-29.2%, preservation by 5.9-6.8%, dew intensity of suckling piglets by 12.5-15.4% and as a result the weight of one piglet at weaning in 28 days by 14.2-18.8%. According to the complex of reproductive traits, sows of maternal genotypes were naturally better by 12.4-32.4% than their paternal counterparts. When comparing the reproductive qualities of sows of great white and Landrace breeds of GGP level (for purebred breeding) and their counterparts for GP level (for direct and reverse crossing), the advantages of GP level animals in the total number of born piglets by 2.1%, in fertility by 2.8%, by high fertility by 1.7%, by weight of nests of piglets at birth by 2.2%, by number of piglets at weaning by 4.1%, average weight of piglets at weaning by 1.3%, average weight of nests of piglets at weaning by 4.6%, the growth rate of piglets in the suckling period by 1.3%. At the same time, for the number of non-viable piglets and the safety of piglets before weaning, no significant difference was found between animals of these groups. A comprehensive assessment of the reproductive performance of GP sows using the SIVYAS index and the index with a limited number of traits showed the advantage of animals of this level over their counterparts with GGP level by 2.8-3.3%. It was found that local sows P level ♀VB × ♂L and ♀L × ♂ VB when inseminated with sperm boars of synthetic terminal line Max Gro predominated GP animals by 2.1% of the total number of piglets at birth, by 5.1% for high fertility, 2.3% -3.2% by number of piglets at weaning, 2.8% by weight of one head at weaning, 3.7% by weight of nest of piglets at weaning and 2.3% by growth rate piglets in the suckling period. At the same time, they were inferior to their GP counterparts by 2.7-3.3% in terms of the share of non-viable piglets and 0.6% in terms of fertility. A comprehensive assessment of the reproductive qualities of sows using the SIVYAS index and the index of reproductive qualities of sows with a limited number of traits did not reveal significant differences between sows P and GP levels. When comparing sows P and GGP levels (ma ternal form) found their advantages in the total number of piglets at birth by 3.9%, in fertility by 2.2%, in high fertility by 6.8%, in nest weight of piglets at birth by 6 , 3%, the safety of piglets before weaning by 1.7% -2.0%, the number of piglets weaned by 5.7% -6.5%, the weight of one head at weaning by 4.2%, live nest weight of piglets at weaning by 8.5%, the growth rate of piglets in the suckling period by 3.5%, but they have a 0.3% -2.7% lower proportion of non-viable piglets. According to a comprehensive assessment of sows using the SIVYAS index and the index of reproductive qualities of sows with a limited number of traits, the advantage of sows P level over GGP by 3.9% and 3.3%, respectively. P-level sows outperformed analogues of the Max Gro synthetic line in the total number of piglets at birth by 34.2%, in multiplicity by 59.1%, in nest weight of piglets at birth by 27.8%, in the number of piglets at weaning by 54.1%, by live weight of piglets' nests when weaned by 8.5%. But in the nests of sows of the synthetic line Max Gro found 4.2% higher share of non-viable piglets, 25.8% high fertility, 4.6%, survival of piglets before weaning, 11.8% weight of one head at weaning, 8.8% growth rate of piglets in the suckling period. According to a comprehensive assessment of sows using the SIVYAS index and the index of reproductive qualities of sows with a limited number of traits, the advantage of sows P level over GGP by 25.9 and 31.8%, respectively.

Key words: reproductive qualities, preservation, multiplicity, nest weight, maternal lines, paternal lines.

  1. Merks, J., Mathur, P., Knol, E. (2012). New phenotypes for new breeding goals in pigs. Animal. Vol. 6, Issue 04, pp. 535–543.
  2. Cucchi, T., Hulme-Beaman, A., Yuan, J., Dobney, K. (2011). Early Neolithic pig domestication at Jiahu, Henan Province, China: Clues from molar shape analyses using geometric morphometric approaches. J Archaeol Sci. Issue 38, pp. 11–22.
  3. Bosse, M., Lopes, M.S., Madsen, O., Megens, H.J., Crooijmans, R.P., Frantz, L.A. (2015). Artificial selection on introduced Asian haplotypes shaped the genetic architecture in European commercial pigs. Proceedings of the Biological Sciences. Issue 282. pii:20152019. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2015.2019
  4. Zeder, M.A. (2012). The domestication of animals. J Anthropol Res Compet. 68, pp.161–190. DOI:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201
  5. Mirkena, T., Duguma, G., Haile, A., Tibbo, M., Okeyo, A.M., Wurzinger, M
  6. Mignon-Grasteau, S., Boissy, A., Bouix, J., Faure, J.M., Fisher, A.D., Hinch, G.N. (2005). Genetics of adaptation and domestication in livestock. Livest Prod Sci. Issue 93, pp. 3–14. DOI:10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.001
  7. Price, E.O. (1984). Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Q Rev Biol. Issue 59, pp. 1–32. DOI:10.1086/413673
  8. Eriksson, J., Larson, G., Gunnarsson, U., Bed’hom, B., Tixier-Boichard, M., Strömstedt, L. (2008). Identification of the yellow skin gene reveals a hybrid origin of the domestic chicken. PLoS Genet. Issue 4:e1000010. DOI:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000010
  9. Chen, N., Cai, Y., Chen, Q., Li, R., Wang, K., Huang, Y. (2018). Whole-genome resequencing reveals world-wide ancestry and adaptive introgression events of domesticated cattle in East Asia. Nat Commun. Issue 9, pp. 1–13. DOI:10.1038/s41467-018-04737-0
  10. Heikkinen, M.E., Ruokonen, M., White, T.A., Alexander, M.M., Gündüz, I., Dobney, K.M. (2020). Long-term reciprocal gene flow in wild and domestic geese reveals complex domestication history. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. Issue 10, pp. 3061–3070. DOI:10.1534/g3.120.400886
  11. Warmuth, V., Eriksson, A., Bower, M.A., Barker, G., Barrett, E., Hanks, B.K. (2012). Reconstructing the origin and spread of horse domestication in the Eurasian steppe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. Issue 109, pp. 8202–8206. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1111122109
  12. Barbato, M., Hailer, F., Orozco-terwengel, P., Kijas, J., Mereu, P., Cabras, P. (2017). Genomic signatures of adaptive introgression from European mouflon into domestic sheep. Sci Rep. Issue 7, 7623 p. DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-07382-7
  13. Crispo, E., Moore, J.S., Lee-Yaw, J.A., Gray, S.M., Haller, B.C. (2011). Broken barriers: human-induced changes to gene flow and introgression in animals: an examination of the ways in which humans increase genetic exchange among populations and species and the consequences for biodiversity. BioEssays. Issue 33, pp. 508–518.
  14. Iacolina, L., Corlatti, L., Buzan, E., Safner, T., Šprem, N. (2019). Hybridisation in European ungulates: an overview of the current status, causes, and consequences. Mamm Rev. Issue 49, pp. 45–59.
  15. Ottenburghs, J. (2021). The genic view of hybridization in the Anthropocene. Evol Appl. Issue 14, pp. 2342–2360.
  16. Anderson, E., Stebbins, G.L.J. (1954). Hybridization as an evolutionary stimulus. Evolution. Issue 8, pp. 378–388.
  17. Mallet, J. (2005). Hybridization as an invasion of the genome. Trends EcolEvol. Issue 20, pp. 229–237.
  18. vonHoldt, B.M., Brzeski, K.E., Wilcove, D.S., Rutledge, L.Y. (2018). Redefining the role of admixture and genomics in species conservation. Conserv Lett. Issue 11, pp. 1–6.
  19. Randi, E. (2008). Detecting hybridization between wild species and their domesticated relatives. Mol Ecol. Issue 17, pp. 285–293.
  20. Trouwborst, A. (2014). Exploring the legal status of wolf-dog hybrids and other dubious animals: International and EU law and the wildlife conservation problem of hybridization with domestic and alien species. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law. Issue 23, pp. 111–124.
  21. Bosse, M. (2018). A Genomics Perspective on Pig Domestication. In (Ed.), Animal Domestication. Intech Open. DOI:10.5772/intechopen.82646
  22. Huang, W., Mackay, T.F. (2016). The genetic architecture of quantitative traits cannot be inferred from variance component analysis. PLoS Genet. 12:e1006421. DOI:10.1371/journal.pgen. 1006421
  23. Jia, Y., Jannink, J.L. (2012). Multiple-trait genomic selection methods increase genetic value prediction accuracy. Genetics. Issue 192, pp. 1513–1522. DOI:10.1534/genetics.112.144246
  24. Liu, H., Wang, Q., Chen, M., Ding, Y., Yang, X., Liu, J. (2020). Genome-wide identification and analysis of heterotic loci in three maize hybrids. Plant Biotechnol. J. Issue 18, pp. 185–194. DOI:10.1111/ pbi.13186
  25. Povod, M.H., Mykhalko, O.H., Kremez, M.I. (2021). Vidtvoriuvalniy akosti svynomatok materynskykh ta batkivskoi linii [Reproductive qualities of sows of maternal and paternal lines]. Visnyk Sumskoho natsionalnoho ahrarnoho universytetu [Bulletin of Sumy National Agrarian University]. Tvarynnytstvo [Livestock]. Issue 4(47), pp. 133–138. DOI:10.32845/ bsnau. lvst.2021.4.22
  26. Povod, M.H., Khramkova, O.M. (2016). Vidtvoriuvalni yakosti svynomatok f1 riznoiselektsii ta intensyvnist rostuy ikh pryplodu pry hibrydyzatsii v umovakh promyslovoho kompleksu [Reproductive qualities of f1 sows of different selection and growth intensity of their offspring during hybridization in the conditions of industrial complex]. Naukovo-tekhnichnyi biuleten IT NAAN [Scientific and Technical Bulletin of IT NAAS]. Issue 116, pp. 121–156.
  27. Mykhalko, O.H., Povod, M.H., Andriichuk, V.F. (2021). Vplyv metodiv rozvedennia ta viku svynomatok danskoi selektsii na yikh produktyvnist [Influence of breeding methods and age of Danish sows on their productivity]. NTB IT NAAN, no. 125, pp. 161– 179.
  28. Berezovskiy, N.D., Pochernyaev, F.K. Korotkov, V.A. (1986). Metodika modelirovaniya indeksov dlya ispolzovaniya ih v selektsii sviney [Methodology for modeling indices for use in breeding pigs]. Metody i uluchsheniya protsessov selektsii, razvedeniya i vosproizvodstva sviney (metodicheskie ukazaniya) [Methods for improving the processes of selection, breeding and reproduction of pigs (guidelines)]. M., pp. 3–14.
  29. Tsereniuk, O.M. (2010). Ob’jektyvna ocinka materyns'koi' produktyvnosti svynej [Objective assessment of maternal productivity of pigs]. Tavrijs'kyj naukovyj visnyk [Taurian Scientific Bulletin]. Issue 78, Part 2(I), pp. 73–77.
  30. Merkureva, E.K. (1977). Henetycheskye osnovy selektsyy v skotovodstve [Genetic bases of selection in cattle breeding]. M.: Kolos, 240 p.
AttachmentSize
PDF icon kremez_1_2022.pdf667.06 KB