China Swine Industry ›› 2021, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (1): 46-51.

• Genetic Breeding • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison on the Litter Size of Three-way and Two-way Crossbred Sows in an Enterprise in the Circumstance of African Swine Fever

YAN Ying1#, CHEN Xiaoling1#, LIU Yan1, XU Xuewen1,2,*, MA Guojian1,*   

  1. 1Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Ministry of Education & College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China;
    2The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production in Hubei, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China
  • Received:2021-02-07 Online:2021-02-25 Published:2021-03-23

PDF (PC)

416

Abstract: The present study analyzed the difference in litter performance of sows with different genetic backgrounds and parities by comparing the number of healthy piglets per litter of purebred, two-way and three-way crossbred sows of Danish and Canadian pigs, which we hope to provide reference for evaluating litter performance of three-way crossbred sows and its replacement strategy. A total of 209 963 litter records including 56 016 litters of Danish pigs and 153 947 litters of Canadian pigs were collected from a large-scale enterprise in China from May 2019 to August 2020. The number of healthy piglets of two lines was analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Duncan test. The results showed that the number of healthy piglets per litter of Danish pigs〔(12.54±2.61), n=56 016〕 was significantly higher than that of the Canadian pigs〔(11.21±2.89), n=153 947〕 (P<0.01). Further analysis of the litter performance difference between two-way and three-way crossbred sows within the line showed that the number of healthy piglets per litter of two-way crossbred sows of Danish pigs〔(12.59±2.69), n=43 007〕 was significantly higher than that of three-way crossbred sows〔(11.12±2.95), n=1 236〕 (P<0.05); the number of healthy piglets per litter of two-way crossbred sows of Canadian pigs〔(11.55±2.81), n=84 374〕 was significantly higher than that of three-way crossbred sows 〔(10.73±2.87), n=47 185〕 (P<0.05). The study also compared the effects of different parities on litter performance. The number of healthy piglets of the second parity of two-way crossbred sows of Danish pigs〔(13.28±2.32), n=9 396〕 was significantly higher than that of other parities, and the number of healthy piglets of the third parity of two-way crossbred sows of Canadian pigs〔(12.11±2.61), n=12 208〕 was significantly higher than that of other parities. The study shows that the litter performance of three-way crossbred sows was significantly inferior than that of two-way crossbred sows. Wide use of three-way crossbred sows may have obvious negative impacts on PSY and MSY of enterprises. If there were sufficient two-way crossbred gilts to supplement the population, enterprises should take the initiative to eliminate the three-way crossbred sows that have been used 4~5 parities to minimize the adverse impact on the breeding cost and on the economic benefits.

Key words: Danish pigs, Canadian pigs, three-way crossbred sows, two-way crossbred sows, the number of healthy piglets per litter, parity

CLC Number: 

  • S828.9
[1] 刘小红, 陈瑶生. 2019年生猪产业发展状况、未来发展趋势与建议[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2020, 56(3):126-130.
[2] 燕志宏, 宋高翔, 文艺. 猪三元杂交体系中不同二元母本繁殖性能的研究[J]. 贵州畜牧兽医, 2003, 27(3):9-10.
[3] 杨礼, 杨静, 杨蛟. 三元杂交商品猪技术推广探讨[J]. 畜牧兽医科技信息, 2014(3):80-81.
[4] 郭建凤, 牛月波, 王继英, 等. 不同品种及产仔季节对母猪繁殖性能影响[J]. 养猪, 2017(1):41-46.
[5] 杨杰, 周李生, 刘先先, 等. 莱芜猪与杜长大三元杂交猪肉质性状种质资源比较研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2014, 45(11):1752-1759.
[6] 张利娟, 郭宗义, 陈四清, 等. 后非洲猪瘟时期洋三元(DLY)商品母猪作种用的可行性分析及建议[J]. 猪业科学, 2020, 37(10):35-38.
[7] 刘莹, 龙欢, 牛丽珠, 等. 杜陆与杜隆陆猪生长、胴体及肉质性状的比较分析[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2018, 49(12):2576-2583.
[8] 刘庆生. 三元母猪种用应注意的问题[J]. 畜禽业, 2020(2):25.
[9] 裴志勤, 汲如芬, 薛喜飞, 等. 三元母猪种用调研及生产建议[J]. 北方牧业, 2020(9):21.
[10] 孙亚楠, 刘双, 黄强, 等. 非洲猪瘟背景下的三元商品母猪养殖策略[J]. 猪业科学, 2020, 37(3):122-124.
[11] 喻传州. 外种猪杂交优势的利用[J]. 中国猪业, 2015,10(7):28-29.
[12] 赵志超, 谭岳华, 江科, 等. 丹系与美丹大白、长白和杜洛克母猪的胎产活仔性能比较[J]. 猪业科学, 2018, 35(11):116-117.
[13] 吴建新. 不同品系大白猪生产性能对比分析[J]. 养猪, 2018(3):52-54.
[14] 杨云, 曾勇庆. 影响母猪产仔性能因素的分析研究[J]. 养猪, 2013(1):33-35.
[15] 刘庆伟, 王春强, 刘兴辉, 等. 不同品种母猪产仔性能的比较研究[J]. 现代畜牧兽医, 2018(10):29-31.
[16] 刘彬, 陈映, 李强, 等. 影响母猪繁殖性能的几种因素研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(8):1950-1955.
[17] 韦景斋, 韦荣显, 韦仕标. 猪杂交优势利用的体会[J]. 畜禽业, 2013(11):53-54.
[18] 周开锋, 侯明权, 王燕男, 等. 当前三元母猪留种饲养繁育情况调查分析[J]. 养猪, 2020(3):79-81.
[19] 陈方钦, 杨有福, 谭辉, 等. 关于三元母猪种用价值和改善措施的探讨[J]. 猪业科学, 2020, 37(2):114-117.
[20] 赵永珠, 翟羽佳. 三元母猪留做繁殖母猪的问题探讨及建议[J]. 猪业科学, 2020, 37(4):108-109.
[21] 赵洋, 张宏, 史济波, 等. 非洲猪瘟下科学利用三元母猪提升复产效率[J]. 中国猪业, 2020, 15(4):28-30.
[22] 胡雄贵, 陈晨, 蔡文杰. 三元商品猪留种做母猪的注意事项[J]. 湖南畜牧兽医, 2019(6):3-5.
[23] 于传军. 三元商品猪留为种用存在的问题与探讨[J]. 中国猪业, 2020, 15(5):47-49.
[24] 陈伟, 曾勇庆. 非洲猪瘟疫情下三元母猪轮回杂交繁育策略分析[J]. 猪业科学, 2020, 37(10):31-34.
[25] YuzoKoketsu, 林亦孝, 曹丁壬. 论商品群中母猪高繁殖性能的影响因素[J]. 猪业科学, 2017, 34(1):26-29.
[26] 孟庆利, 周海深, 王朝军, 等. 不同胎次对不同品种猪产仔数的影响[J]. 养猪, 2015(3):39-40.
[27] 李沁光, 张力, 方金福, 等. 母猪若干繁殖性状的相关分析[J]. 福建农业大学学报, 1995, 24(4):446-449.
[28] 李文明, 唐凡. 不同胎次、不同首配日龄对新丹系大白母猪产仔性能的影响[J]. 猪业科学, 2017, 34(3):112-114.
[29] 田恩孝,王宏伟,辛玄飞. 三元母猪留作种用初产性能观察[J]. 中国畜牧业, 2020(11):56-57.
[30] 苏建. 不同品种、不同胎次对母猪总产仔数的影响[J]. 今日养猪业, 2019(1):82-83.
[1] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 2021, 16(1): 52-54.
[2] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 2021, 16(1): 55-58.
[3] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 2019, 14(6): 81-85.
[4] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 2019, 14(5): 107-110.
[5] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 2012, 7(12): 32-33.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 0, (): 5 -7 .
[2] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 2021, 16(1): 8 -10 .
[3] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 2021, 16(1): 64 -67 .
[4] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 2021, 16(1): 68 -69 .
[5] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 2021, 16(1): 74 -76 .
[6] . [J]. China Swine Industry, 2021, 16(1): 77 -79 .
Copyright © 2018 Editorial Board of China Swine Industry
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd