Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-21T08:49:56.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the effects of boar presence on the performance of sows and their litters when penned as groups in late lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. M. Petchey  and
P. R. English
A. M. Petchey
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen, AB9 1UD
P. R. English
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen, AB9 1UD
Get access

Abstract

When sows and their litters were grouped 21 days after farrowing, the introduction of a boar 4 days later stimulated lactational oestrus in only 2 of the 21 sows (seven groups of three sows and litters) exposed to the boar, while none of the sows in the control groups showed lactational oestrus. The boar presence in lactation affected the subsequent weaning to first service interval. This interval was 228 days for the sows exposed to a boar and 10·0 days for the control groups, the difference approaching significance (0·05<P<0·10). None of the sows in the boar treatment groups had a weaning to oestrus interval exceeding 9 days.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , August 1980 , pp. 107 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1980

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1972. Service time is two weeks before weaning. Fmrs' Wkly 76 (5) Suppl.: Intensive pig rearing.Google Scholar
Agricultural Reasearch Council. 1967. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 3, Pigs. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. H. 1978. Early sexual maturity and mating of gilts. A.D.A.S. q. Rev., No. 30, pp. 139–152.Google Scholar
Crighton, D. B. and Lamming, G. E. 1969. The lactational anoestrus of the sow: the status of the anterior pituitary-ovarian system during lactation and after weaning. J. Endocr. 43: 507–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dominic, C. J. 1966. Observations on the reproductive pheromones of mice. II. Neuro-endocrine mechanisms involved in the olfactory block to pregnancy. J. Reprod. Fert. 11: 415–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eames, T. J. 1964. Service while suckling. Pig Fmg 12 (11): 39.Google Scholar
Petchey, A. M., Dodsworth, T. L. and English, P. R. 1978. The performance of sows and litters penned individually or grouped in late lactation. Anim. Prod. 27: 215–221.Google Scholar
Petchey, A. M. and Jolly, G. M. 1979. Sow service in lactation: an analysis of data from one herd. Anim. Prod. 29: 183–191.Google Scholar
Phelps, A. 1969. Batched sows served while suckling. Pig Fmg 17 (3): 46–47.Google Scholar
Rowlinson, P., Boughton, H. G. and Bryant, M. J. 1975. Mating of sows durin g lactation: observations from a commercial unit. Anim. Prod. 21: 233–241.Google Scholar
Schlegel, W. and Loebel, J. 1972. [The effect of bodyweight loss in lactating sows on fertility.] Mh. VetMed. 27: 300–302.Google Scholar
Sipilov, V. S. 1965. [The importance of teaser boars as a prophylactic measure against infertility in sows.] Veterinariya 42 (6): 81–83.Google Scholar
Varley, M. A. and Cole, D. J. A. 1978. The relationship between the weight change of the sow and her reproductive output. Anim. Prod. 26: 368 (Abstr.).Google Scholar