Full text for subscribers

WFL Publisher
Science and Technology
Meri-Rastilantie 3 B, FI-00980
Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.11 (2): 336-339. 2013
www.world-food.net
Fecundity and sow gestation lost by pen type
Cornelia Petroman, Diana Marin and Angela Bela
Faculty of Agricultural Management, Banat’s University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Calea Aradului no
119, 300645, Timişoara, România. e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Received 16 November 2012, accepted 28 April 2013.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the fertility and pregnancy loss of sows F1 hybrid, Large White x Landrace at ages 2-5 years, in intensive
industrial exploitation with artificial insemination. After the artificial insemination until 28 days of pregnancy, animals were housed in individual and
open pens - with the goal to see how the type of pen influences on fecundity and pregnancy loss, calculated at 28 and 56 days. The results were
analysed using χ2 test. Fecundity at 28 days for sows housed in individual pens was higher than for sows housed in group pens, but the difference
was not statistically significant (χ2 test p≥0.05). The same was found in terms of the index of fecundity diagnosed in 56 days. Pregnancy loss from
28 to 56 days after the artificial insemination was 1.83 ± 0.40 for sows housed in individual pens and 2.14±1.38 for sows housed in group pens, the
difference being statistically not significant (χ2 test p≤0.05). The higher the number of animals in group pen, gestation losses were higher reaching
16.24±1.12 for sows kept in pens with a capacity of 10 heads, very significant difference comparing to animals kept in pens 5 and 7 (χ2 test p≤0.001).
The difference between animals kept in pens of 7 and 10 animals was not statistically significant (χ2 test p≥0.05). The best results were obtained if
up to 28 days after the artificial insemination sows were housed in individually and in late gestation when the sows were housed in group pens with
size varied between 5 to 7 sows.
Key words: Fertility, loss, gestation, sows, pen type,individualy, group, artificialy insemination, rebreeds, culls, mortality.
Introduction
Reproductive performance of sows depends on a considerable
extent, to the farmer management knowledges 13 in different stages
of the breeding and exploitation of this species 14, 25, 26. Behavior of
breeding swine, in different operating systems, is a constant
concern of specialists in sow exploitation. Research into the field18
shows the diversity of approaches and research usefulness in
finding solutions to optimize sow reproductive indices 26. The
proof is the large number of pregnant sow behavior research
dedicated to group and/or individual pens 3, pregnant sows
tethered behavior 1, 27, to increase milk production 20 characteristics
of hormonal, behavioral, welfare 10 and pregnant and lactating
sows performance 5, the relationship between individual behavior
and individual housing of the sows on pasture28 and industrial 11,
15
, pregnant and lactating sows group effect on the operating
behavior 4, the relationship between social rank of pregnant sows
and their behavior 9, the relationship between behavior and
reproductive performance of sows 7, 12, 24, diurnal behavior of sows
during pregnancy 19, 23, the relationship between behavior and
performance of sows and piglets in crate by supplementary feeding
with organic acids 20 and growing-finishing system 2, 8, 16.
The outdoor housing system for pregnant females has the
advantage of low costs of investment in buildings, the use of low
value land with low productivity; the rational grazing rotational
system providing favorable conditions for obtaining vigorous
336
and healthy piglets.
Pregnant sows indoor housing system use multiple pen systems
where accommodation is in outdoor individual pens fixed, group
pens with access to individual feeding place 17, housing in
farrowing crates, growth, housing in group pens with permanent
strow litter 6, 8.
The transfer of the pregnant sows from individual pens at 28
days after the artificial insemination, in common pens of different
sizes have adverse effects on reproduction indices, have lower
values for the number of animals grouped in common pens.
Agonistic behaviors were more common in the first week of the
grouping 22, observing that hybrid sows agonistic behavior more
pronounced than pure breeds suggesting the possibility of
combining internal feeding structures for movement and interaction
with paddocks policies between sows. These measures
contributed to improving fertility and pregnancy loss according
to pen type and average surface per pregnant sow 21.
Material and Methods
In order to determine the fertility and pregnancy loss, a study
was made on biological material F1 hybrid sows, Large White x
Landrace at ages 2-5 years in intensive industrial exploitation with
artificial insemination.
After the artificial insemination until 28 days of pregnancy,
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.11 (2), April 2013
animals were housed in individual and open pens - with the goal
to see how the type of pen influences fecundity and pregnancy
loss, calculated at 28 and 56 days.
The causes of fertility and pregnancy loss were analyzed using
χ2 test to see if the differences between the groups housed in
different types of pens are significant or due to other reasons to
implement a new farm management, in order to improve
reproduction and decrease agonistical behavior by reducing the
number of animals in the group formed after artificial insemination,
or of pregnancy by ultrasound at 28 days throughout gestation.
Results and Discussion
Taking in consideration the new housing requirements of animals
in individual boxes in the first 28 days after artificial insemination
this parameter was tested. Thus, fecundity at 28 days was
86.39±2.03 for in animals housed in individual pens and 85.11±1.48
for animals housed in group pens (Table 1). The difference of this
parameter was not statistically significant (χ2 test p>0.05).
Table 1. Fecundity and pregnancy losses according to the pen
type.
Pen type
Individual pens
Group pens
Fecundity at
28 days
86.39 ± 2.03a
85.11 ± 1.48a
Fecundity at 56
days
84.17 ± 1.61a
82.97 ± 0.83a
χ2 test A-a p<0.001, A-b p<0.01, A-c p<0.05, a-a p>0.05.
Pregnancy loss
from 28 to 56 days
1.83 ± 0.40a
2.14 ± 1.38a
Regarding fecundity diagnosed at 56 days, for the animals kept
in individual pens, this index was 84.17±1.61, for animals housed
in group pens for animals group was 82.97±0.83. Differences
between animals housed in individual pens and group pens
housed animals were not statistically significant (χ2 test p>0.05).
The pregnancy loss was 1.83±0.40 in animals maintained in
individual pens after artificial insemination and 2.14±1.38 for
animals housed in group pens. The difference was also statistically
not significant (χ2 test p>0.05).
Referring only to animals housed in group pens after the artificial
insemination (Table 2) we observed that in animals kept in pens
with a capacity of 5 animals quantified pregnancy losses were
from the day of the artificial insemination until ultrasound at 28
days of 12.61±1.33. For animals kept in pens with a capacity of 7
animals of pregnancy losses were 15.83±0.73, and for the animals
kept in pens with a capacity of 10 animals, losses were 16.24±1.12.
(Fig. 1).
The difference between the losses observed in animals housed
in pens with 5 animals capacity and housed in pens with 7 and 10
animals capacity/pen was very significant (χ2 test p<0.001). The
difference between animals kept in pens with 7 heads and 10 heads
was not statistically significant (χ2 test p>0.05).
The pregnancy loss in the first 28 days after artificial insemination
varied both as total loss and in terms of the main causes which
have been determined (Table 3, Fig. 2). Therefore, the proportion
of animals, which showed estrus and were rebreed, was 7.13±2.18
Table 2. Pregnancy losses measured in the first 28 days
after the artificial insemination (%) to the animals
housed in pens.
Pen type
Pens with 5 animals capacity
Pens with 7 animals capacity
Pens with 10 animals capacity
Average
Proportion of not pregnant
animals at 28 days
12.61 ± 1.33A
15.83 ± 0.73a
16.24 ± 1.12a
14.89 ± 1.08
χ2 test A-a p<0.001, A-b p<0.01, A-c p<0.05, a-a p>0.05.
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
15.83
16.24
12.61
Pens
with10
10
Pens
with
PensPens
withwith
5 5
PensPens
withwith
7 7
animals capacity animals capacity animals capacity
Proportion of not pregnant animals at 28 days
Figure 1. Graphical representation of pregnancy losses
measured in the first 28 days after the artificial
insemination (%) to the animals housed in pens.
for animals kept in individual pens, 9.12±0.49 for animals kept in
pens with 7 animals and 8.90±2.15 in animals kept in pens with a
capacity of 10 heads. The difference between rebreeds observed
for the group of animals kept in pens with a capacity of 5 animals
and animals kept in pens with 7 and 10 heads capacity was very
significant (χ2 test p<0.001).
Regarding the proportion of animals that have suffered various
injuries or showed discharges, or other reproductive disorders,
which made them unsuitable for preserving breeding group, animals
that have been culled, for animals housed in pens of 5 animals
was 2.08±1.03, in animals kept in pens with a capacity of 7 heads
was 3.77±1.04, while for animals kept in pens of 10 animals the
proportion of culls was of 4.11±0.73. The difference between
Rebreeds
Figure 2. Graphical representation of the main causes of pregnancy
losses measured in the first 28 days after the artificial insemination
(%) to the animals housed in pens.
Table 3. Main causes of pregnancy losses measured in the first 28 days after the artificial
insemination (%) to the animals housed in pens.
Pen type
Pens with 5 animals capacity
Pens with 7 animals capacity
Pens with 10 animals capacity
Average
Rebreeds
7.13 ± 2.18A
9.12 ± 0.49a
8.90 ± 2.15a
8.38 ± 2.03
Culls
2.08 ± 1.03A
3.77 ± 1.04ac
4.11 ± 0.73ac
3.32 ± 1.00
Pregnancy check negative
3.18 ± 1.00a
1.29 ± 0.03a
2.51 ± 1.08a
2.33 ± 0.71
Mortality
0.22 ± 0.01A
1.65 ± 0.11a
0.72 ± 0.22a
0.86 ± 0.58
χ2 test A-a p<0.001, A-b p<0.01, A-c p<0.05, a-a p>0.05.
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.11 (2), April 2013
337
Table 4. Main reasons for pregnancy losses in the first 28 days after the artificial
insemination (%) to animals housed in crates and pens.
Pen type
Group pens
Individual pens
Rebreeds
8.38 ± 1.08A
7.49 ± 2.81c
Culls
3.32 ± 1.08A
2.19 ± 0.40c
Pregnancy check negative
2.33 ± 1.08a
2.80 ± 0.39a
Mortality
0.86 ± 1.08a
1.13 ± 0.08a
χ2 test A-a p<0.001, A-b p<0.01, A-c p<0.05, a-a p>0.05.
rebreeds observed in animals kept in pens with a capacity of 5
animals and animals kept in pens by 7 and 10 animals was
statistically significant (χ2 test p<0.05).
Pregnancy losses measured with the ultrasound performed at
28 days after artificial insemination were 3.18±1.00 in animals
housed in the group of 5, 1.29±0.03 in animals kept in groups of 7
and 1.08±2.51 for animals housed in pens with a capacity of 10
animals. The difference was not statistically significant (χ2 test
p>0.05) (Fig. 2).
In terms of pregnancy losses represented by mortality, they
were 0.22±0.01 in animals housed in the pens of 5, 1.65±0.11 in
animals housed in the pens of 7 and 0.72±0.22 in animals housed
in pens of 10 animals/pen. The difference was not statistically
significant (χ2 test p>0.05).
Analyzing loss of pregnancy in the first 28 days after the artificial
insemination, quantified for animals housed in individual pens
compared with animals housed in group pens (Table 4), we
observed that loss of pregnancy due rebreeds were 8.38±1.08 for
animals kept in group pens and 7.49±2.81 and for animals housed
in individual pens. The difference was statistically significant (χ2
test p<0.05) (Fig. 3).
The proportion of animals culled was higher, 3.32±1.08, for
animals housed in group pens and 2.19±0.40 for animals housed
in individual pens. The difference was statistically significant (χ2
test p<0.05) (Fig. 3).
Pregnancy loss observed with ultrasound conducting at 28 days
was 2.33±1.08 for animals housed in group pens and 2.80±0.39
and for animals housed individually. The difference was not
statistically significant (χ2 test p>0.05) (Fig. 3).
9
8
Group pens
8.38
7.49
Individual pens
7
6
5
4
3.32
3
2.19
2
2.8
2.33
0.861.13
1
Conclusions
Fecundity at 28 days in sows housed in individual pens was higher
than in sows housed in group pens, but the parameter values are
not statistically significant (χ2 test p≥0.05). The same is found in
terms of the index of fecundity diagnosed in 56 days, differences
between animals housed in individual pens and animals kept in
group pens were not significant in terms of statistics (χ2 test
p≥0.05).
Pregnancy losses from 28 to 56 days after the artificial
insemination were 1.83±0.40 for sows housed in individual pens
after artificial insemination and 2.14±1.38 for sows housed in group
pens, the difference being statistically not significant (χ2 test
p≤0.05). The higher the number of animals in group pen, gestation
losses are higher reaching 16.24±1.12 for sows kept in pens with a
capacity of 10 heads, very significant difference comparing to
animals kept in pens 5 and 7 (χ2 test p≤0.001). The difference
between animals kept in stalls 7 and 10 animals was not statistically
significant (χ2 test p≥0.05).
Pregnancy loss measured by ultrasound at 28 days after artificial
insemination varied from 3.10±1.00 to 2.5 ±1.08 according to the
number of animals housed in a pen but the differences were not
significant between the different group pen sizes (χ2 test p≥0.05).
It is found that the highest loss recorded before pregnancy
ultrasound at 28 days, the reason being an advantage to implement
a farm management in order to improve reproduction, regardless
of type and size where we housed the animals until the first control
of pregnancy.
The best results are obtained if up to 28 days after the artificial
insemination sows were housed in individually and in late
gestation when the sows are housed in group pens with size
varied between 5 to 7 sows.
Acknowledgements
This work was published during the project „Postodoctoral School
of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine” POSDRU/89/1.5/S/62371,
co-financed by the European Social Fund through the sectorial
Operational Programme for the Human Resources Development
2007-2013.
0
Rebreeds
Culls
Prenancy check
negative
Mortality
Figure 3. Graphic representation of the main reasons for
pregnancy losses in the first 28 days after the artificial
insemination (%) to animals housed in pens
The proportion of animals dying within 28 days after artificial
insemination was 0.86±1.08 in animals housed in group pens and
1.13±0.08 for animals maintained in individual pens. The difference
was not statistically significant (χ2 test p>0.05) (Fig. 3).
As observed from the information presented above, most of
pregnancy loss was observed prior to ultrasound at 28 days, and
this is an advantage for efficient breeding sows, regardless of
type and size of pens.
338
References
Bergeron, R., Bolduc, J., Ramonet, Y., Meunier-Salaün, M. C. and Robert,
S. 2000. Feeding motivation and stereotypies in pregnant sows fed
increasing levels of fibre and/or food. Applied Animal Behaviour Science
70:27-402.
2
Bradshaw, R. H. and Broom, D. M. 2010. Behaviour and Performance
of Sows and Piglets in Crates and a Thorstensson System. Online:
http://www.bsas.org.uk/downloads/annlproc/Pdf99/179.pdf
3
Craig, J. V. 1982. Pregnant sow behaviour when housed in groups and
singly. Swine Day, pp.14-22.
4
Eriksen, J., Studnitz, M., Strudsholm, K., Kongsted, A. G. and
Hermansen, J. E. 2006. Effect of nose ringing and stocking rate of
pregnant and lactating outdoor sows on exploratory behaviour, grass
cover and nutrient loss potential. Livestock Science 104:91-102.
1
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.11 (2), April 2013
Farmer, C. and Robert, S. 2003. Hormonal, behavioural and performance
characteristics of Meishan sows during pregnancy and lactation.
Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83(1):1-12.
6
Foxcroft, G. R. 1992. Nutritional and lactational regulation of fertility in
sows. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility Supplement 45:113-125.
7
Heber, L., Petroman, C., Petroman I., Bălan, I., Marin, D., Şandru, O.
and Palade, S. 2010. Possibilities to combat MMA syndrome in sows.
Animal Science and Biotechnologies, Facultatea de Zootehnie şi
Biotehnologii, Editura Agroprint Timişoara, 43(1,2):409-411.
8
Huţu, I. and Onan, W. G. 2007. Tehnologii alternative pentru creşterea
porcilor. Editura Mirton, Timişoara, pp. 55-58.
9
Kranendonk, G., Van der Mheen, H., Fillerup, M. and Hopster, H.
2007. Social rank of pregnant sows affects their body weight gain and
behavior and performance of the offspring. Journal of Animal Science
85:420-429.
10
Lixandru, B. 2011. Zooigienă şi bunăstrarea animalelor de fermă. Editura
Eurobit, Timişoara, pp. 156-157.
11
Marin, D., Păcală, N., Petroman, I., Petroman, C. and Untaru, R. 2011.
Influence of the season upon starting weight and average daily gain of
commercial hybrids pigs during the nursery period, International
scientific Conference Economy and Society in the Global Space, Tomori
Pal College, Kallocsa, Hungary, pp. 221-224.
12
Petroman, C., Stoica, A. and Petroman, I. 1998. Mortalitatea embrionară
la scroafă. Editura Mitron, Timişoara, pp. 103-104.
13
Petroman, C., Petroman, I., Marin, D. and Zappe, E. 2011. Ways of
improving quality management in the pork industry. International
Journal for Quality Research, University of Podgorica, Montenegro &
University of Kragujevac, Serbia, pp. 657-664.
14
Petroman, I., Untaru, R. C., Petroman, C., Orboi, M. D., Banes, A.,
Marin, D., Balan, I. and Negrut, V. 2011. The influence of differentiated
feeding during the early gestation status on sows prolificacy and
stillborns. J. Food, Agric. and Environ. 9(2):223-224.
15
Petroman, I. 2007. Managementul sistemelor de creştere şi exploatare a
animalelor. Editura Eurostampa, Timişoara, pp. 11-13.
16
Petroman, I., Culea, C., Nicolae, M. and Petroman, C. 2002. Creşterea
porcinelor. Editura Mirton, Timişoara, pp. 97-99.
17
Petroman, I. 1997. Reproducţia suinelor. Editura Mirton, Timişoara,
pp. 103-105.
18
Petroman, P., Petroman, C., Petroman, L. and Petroman I. 1998.
Psihologie animală – elemente de psihologie a suinelor. Editura Mirton,
Timişoara, pp. 27-28.
19
Rekwot, P. I., Ogwu, D., Oyedipe, E. O. and Sekoni, V. O. 2001. The
role of feromones and biostimulation in animal reproduction. Animal
Reprod. Sci. 6:5157-170.
20
Sarandan, H., Petroman, I. and Sarandan, R. I. 2002. Compensation of
the insufficient hydrochloric acid secretion in the suckling and recently
weaned piglets’ stomach by supplementation of the fodder with organic
acids. Bulletin of the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary
Medicine, Cluj-Napoca 57-58:540-543.
21
Şandru, O., Petroman, I., Sărăndan, H., Furdui, I. and Loredana, H.
2009. Possibilities of improving the swine breeding management.
International Scientific symposium Management of Durable Rural
Development, Lucrari ştiintifice, Seria I Vol XI(2), Facultatea de
Management Agricol, Timişoara, pp.365-370.
22
Silva, S. R., Lourenço, A, Fernades, A. L., LeBras, E., Almeida, J. C.,
Mestre, R. B. and Monteiro, D. O. 2007. Sow agonistic behaviour of
two breeds moved from individual stalls to an outdoor park. Proceedings
of the Annual Conference of the British Association of Animal Science,
pp. 203-207.
23
Stoica, M. A., Petroman, C. and Petroman, I. 1998. Rezultate practice
privind valorile unor indici de reproducþie la scroafe. Editura Mirton,
Timişoara, 212-213.
24
Tanaka, Y. and Koketsu, Y. 2007. A field study of the associations
between behaviour and reproductive performance in lactating sows.
Journal of Veterinary Medicine Science 69(12):1229-1233.
25
Untaru, R. C., Păcală, N. and Petroman, I. 2011. Impact of environmental
5
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.11 (2), April 2013
temperature on estrus induction in gilts. Journal of Food, Agriculture
& Environment 9(2):230-231.
26
Untaru, R. C., Păcală, N. and Petroman, I. 2011. Heat induction in gilts
and primiparous weaned sow. Journal of Food, Agriculture &
Environment 9(2):232-234.
27
Untaru, R., Petroman, I., Petroman, C. and Marin, D. 2011. Effects of
using mineral and vitamin supplement to induce fertile estrus in wean
sows. International Scientific Conference Economy and Society in the
global space, Tomori Pal College, Kallocsa, Hungary, pp 251-254..
28
Vieuille, C., Beregr, F., Le Pape, G. and Bellanger, D. 2003. Sow behaviour
involved in the crushing of piglets in outdoor farrowing huts – A brief
report. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80:109-115.
339