Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wlg5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T20:16:29.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic aspects regarding piglet losses and the maternal behaviour of sows. Part 2. Genetic relationship between maternal behaviour in sows and piglet mortality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2008

B. Hellbrügge ,
K.-H. Tölle ,
J. Bennewitz ,
C. Henze ,
U. Presuhn  and
J. Krieter
B. Hellbrügge
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
K.-H. Tölle
Affiliation:
Chamber of Agriculture Schleswig-Holstein, LVZ Futterkamp, D-24732 Blekendorf, Germany
J. Bennewitz
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
C. Henze*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
U. Presuhn
Affiliation:
Farm concepts GmbH & Co. KG, D-23812 Wahlstedt, Germany
J. Krieter
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
*
E-mail: chenze@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de
Get access

Abstract

The aim of the study was to analyse the genetic background of different traits to characterise the maternal behaviour of sows and to evaluate the relationship to different causes of piglet losses – increasing piglet survival due to higher maternal abilities of the sow. A total of 1538 purebred litters from 943 German Landrace sows in the year 2004 were available for data analysis. Around 13 971 individually earmarked piglets were included in the analyses. Maternal abilities were characterised through the sow’s reaction to the separation from her litter during the first 24 h after farrowing, and on day 21 of lactation, the reaction towards the playback of a piglet’s distress call and the reaction towards an unknown noise (music). In 1220 of these litters, the sows were also scored for aggressiveness in the group when regrouped before entering the farrowing crates. To describe fertility, the number of piglets born alive, stillborn piglets, number of piglets born in total and the individual birth weight were utilised. Different causes of piglet losses were evaluated as binary traits of the dam with survival rate, different definitions for crushing by the sow, being underweight and runts. The heritability for being aggressive in the group was h2 = 0.32 and for the behaviour traits during lactation, the heritabilities ranged from h2 = 0.06 to 0.14. The genetic correlations showed that more-reactive sows had fewer piglet losses.

Keywords

behaviourcauses of lossescorrelationheritabilitymaternal abilitysurvival rate

Information

Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 9 , September 2008 , pp. 1281 - 1288
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Andersen, IL, Berg, S, Boe, KE 2005. Crushing of piglets by the mother sow (Sus scrofa) – purely accidental or a poor mother? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 229–243.Google Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jongman, EC, Hutson, GD 2001. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, MR 1991. The ‘Freedom’ farrowing system. Farm Building Progress 104, 9–15.Google Scholar
Brooks PH 2003. Group Housing of Sows. The European Experience. London Swine Conference, London, Ontario, Canada, 9–10 April 2003, pp. 37–56.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Forkman, B, Pedersen, LJ 2005. Lying down and rolling behaviour in sows in relation to piglet crushing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gäde, S, Bennewitz, J, Kirchner, K, Looft, H, Knap, PW, Thaller, G, Kalm, E 2008. Genetic parameters for behaviour traits in sows. Livestock Science 114, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianola, D 1982. Theory and analysis of threshold characters. Journal of Animal Science 54, 1079–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandinson, K, Lund, MS, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E 2002. Genetic parameters for piglet mortality traits crushing, stillbirth and total mortality, and their relation to birth weight. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 52, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandinson, K, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E, Thodberg, K 2003. Genetic analysis of on-farm tests of maternal behaviour in sows. Livestock Production Science 83, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandinson, K 2005. Genetic background of maternal behaviour and its relation to offspring survival. Livestock Production Science 93, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, S, Mason, G, Mendl, M 2006. Maternal responsiveness of outdoor sows from first to fourth parities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 216–233.Google Scholar
Hellbrügge B, Tölle KH, Bennewitz J, Henze C, Presuhn U and Krieter J 2008. Genetic aspects regarding piglet losses and the maternal behaviour of sows. Part 1. Genetic analysis of piglet mortality and fertility traits in pigs, Animal (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
Hutson, GD, Wilkinson, JL, Luxford, BG 1991. The response of lactating sows to tractile, visual and auditory stimuli associated with a model piglet. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, PW, Merks, JWM 1987. A note on the genetics of aggressiveness of primiparous sows towards their piglets. Livestock Production Science 17, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løvendahl P, Damgaard LH, Nielsen BL, Thodberg K, Skovgaard K and Su G 2003. Genetic co-variation in aggression and mothering ability of sows. EAAP Annual Meeting 2003, Session G2. Genetics and behaviour, Rome, Italy, 1 August–3 September 2003, p20.Google Scholar
Løvendahl, P, Damgaard, LH, Nielsen, BL, Thodberg, K, GuoSheng, S, Rydhmer, L 2005. Aggressive behaviour of sows at mixing and maternal behaviour are heritable and genetically correlated traits. Livestock Production Science 93, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumaier, A, Groeneveld, E 1998. Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation of covariances in sparse linear models. Genetics Selection Evolution 30, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Damm, BI, Marchand-Forde, JN, Jensen, KH 2003. Effects of feed-back from the nest on maternal responsiveness and postural changes in primiparous sows during the first 24 h after farrowing onset. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, PA, Fraser, D 1993. Developments in farrowing housing for sows and litters. Pig News Information 14, 51–55.Google Scholar
Reinsch, N 1996. Two Fortran programs for the Gibbs Sampler in univariate linear mixed models. Archiv für Tierzucht 39, 203–209.Google Scholar
Röhe, R, Kalm, E 2000. Estimation of genetic and environmental risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality in piglets using generalized linear mixed models. Animal Science 70, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 2004. Version 8.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schmid H 1993. Ethological design of a practicable farrowing pen. Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology, pp. 238–242. KTBL, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Signoret, JP, Baldwin, BA, Fraser, D, Hafez, ESE 1975. The behaviour of swine. In The behaviour of domestic animals (ed. ESE Hafez), pp. 295–329. Balliere Tindall, London, UK.Google Scholar
Sorensen, DA, Andersen, S, Gianola, D, Korsgaard, J 1995. Bayesian inference in threshold models using Gibbs sampling. Genetics Selection Evolution 27, 229–249.Google Scholar
Thibault RM 2004. Managing sows in groups. Annual Meeting of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, March 6–9, 2004. Des Moines, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Van Erp-van der Kooij E 2003. Coping behaviour in pigs – consequences for welfare and performance. PhD, Utrecht University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine.Google Scholar
Vangen, O, Holm, B, Valros, A, Lund, MS, Rydhmer, L 2005. Genetic variation in sow’s maternal behaviour recorded under field conditions. Livestock Production Science 93, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer HM 1999. Comparison of group housing systems for sows and introduction in practice in the Netherlands driven by legislation and market. ASAE Paper 994103, St Joseph, MI, USA.Google Scholar
Wechsler, B, Hegglin, D 1997. Individual differences in the behaviour of sows at the nest-site and the crushing of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar