Reproductive characteristics of pigs of Irish selection and manifestation of different forms of heterosis by different methods of breeding in modern conditions of industrial pork production


Keywords: pigs, Irish selection, reproductive capacity, breeding methods, heterosis effect, industrial pork production.

Abstract

The manifestation of different forms of heterosis and its effect on the reproductive capacity of pigs of modern genotypes of Irish selection by different methods of breeding in domestic industrial production on breeding and commercial breeders LLC “SPE “Globinsky pig farm.” To compare the reproductive capacity of animals in purebred breeding, crossbreeding, and hybridization and their dependence on the manifestation of various forms of heterosis of potential and actual multiplicity, high fertility, and nest weight of piglets at birth and weaning, the number of weaned piglets per nest and their safety. A comprehensive assessment of the reproductive qualities of sows was determined using an evaluation index with a limited number of traits, and the selection index of reproductive qualities of sows was determined according to the proposed method. Heterosis indices were determined by V. T. Gorin and I. M. Nikitchenko and modified by O. M. Tserenyuk. Biometric processing of the obtained data was performed by using variation statistics using a personal computer software Microsoft Excel. It was found that the indicators of reproductive traits of sows of all experimental groups and combinations studied were characterized by high reproductive performance, except for purebred sows of the synthetic line Max Gro. Sows of large white and landrace breeds in their direct and reverse cross outperformed their purebred counterparts in birth by 2.8 % in terms of fertility, 2.2 % in terms of nest weight of piglets at birth, and 1.7 % in terms of high fertility. They weighed 4.1 % more piglets, weighed 1.3 % more weight, and 4.6 % the weight of the nest, while the preservation of piglets before weaning was not significantly different between animals of these groups. According to a comprehensive assessment of reproductive indicators, they were 2.83.3 % higher when crossing parent breeds than their purebred breeding. At the final stage of hybridization, the advantages of hybrid nests over purebreds (maternal form) during farrowing were established  by potential and actual fertility by 3.9 % and 2.2 %, respectively, by nest weight of piglets at birth and high fertility by 6.3%, and 6.8 %. When weaned, their preferences were – for the safety of piglets  1.72.0 %, for the number of piglets, the weight of their nest, and the weight of one head when weaned by 5.76.5 % and 8.5 % and 4.2 %, respectively. 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, an advantage of 3.9 % and 3.3 % of hybrid nests over purebreds was established. At the same time, sows in hybridization outperformed purebred analogs of the synthetic line Max Gro at the time of farrowing by potential and actual multiplicity by 34.2 % and 59.1 %, nest weight by nest weight of piglets at birth by 27.8 % but had a lower by 25.8, 8.0 % high fertility. At the time of weaning in hybrid nests, there were 54.1 % more piglets, 11.8 % higher live weight of 1 head, and 8.5 % live weight of nests of piglets, according to a comprehensive assessment of sows for SIVYAS and IVYa by 25.9 and 31.8 %, respectively, but they have a 4.6 % worse safety of piglets compared to analogs of the synthetic line Max Gro. There was a more pronounced effect of heterosis on such features as the number of piglets at weaning, live weight of the nest at weaning, SIVYAS and evaluation index, and moderate level of heterosis effect on the average weight of 1 head at weaning at 28 days and average daily gain of young for suckling period. Under the conditions of two-breed crossbreeding, an increase in reproductive indicators was found to a greater extent due to the manifestation of hypothetical and general forms of heterosis, while in hybridization, in most cases, specific and authentic heterosis was manifested.

References

Ahlschwede, W. T., & Johnson, R. K., (1988). EC88-217 Crossbreeding Systems for Commercial Pork Production. Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension, 4615. URL: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist/4615.

Buchanan, D. S., Luce, W. G., & Clutter, A. C. (1990). Swine crossbreeding systems. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, 3603. URL: http://file.efeedlink.com/pdfiles/swinecrossbreedingsystems.pdf.

Cassady, J. P., Young, L. D., & Leymaster, K. A. (2002). Heterosis and recombination effects on pig growth and carcass traits. J Anim Sci, 80(9), 2286–2302. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12350006.

Cobb, E. H. (1958). Comparative performance of purebred and crossbred swine on Pennsylvania farms. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations, 2247. DOI: 10.31274/rtd-180813-3401.

Edwards, S., Wood, J., Moncrieff, C., & Porter, S. (1992). Comparison of the Duroc and Large White as terminal sire breeds and their effect on pigmeat quality. Animal Science, 54(2), 289–297. DOI: 10.1017/S0003356100036928.

Glinoubola, J., Jaturasithaa, S., Mahinchaib, P., Wickec, M., & Kreuzerd, M. (2015). Effects of Crossbreeding Thai Native or Duroc pigs with Pietrain Pigs on Carcass and Meat Quality. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 5, 133–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.08.020.

Groenen, M. A., Archibald, A. L., Uenishi, H., Tuggle, C. K., Takeuchi, Y., Rothschild, M. F. et al. (2012). Analyses of pig genomes provide insight into porcine demography and evolution. Nature, 491(7424), 393–398. DOI: 10.1038/nature11622.

Guy, S. Z., Thomson, P., & Hermesch, S. (2012). Selection of pigs for improved coping with health and environmental challenges: breeding for resistance or tolerance? Frontiers in Genetics, 3, 281. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2012.00281.

Harmatiuk, K. (2019). Innovatsiini pidkhody pry poiednanni svynei riznoho pokhodzhennia v umovakh pivdnia Ukrainy. Ahrarnyi visnyk Prychornomoria, 95, 39–46. DOI: 10.37000/abbsl.2019.95.07 (in Ukrainian).

Hetia, A. A. (2009). Orhanizatsiia selektsiinoho protsesu v suchasnomu svynarstvi: monohrafiia. Poltava: Poltavskyi literator (in Ukrainian).

Iversen, M. W., Nordbø, Ø., Gjerlaug-Enger, E. et al. (2019). Effects of heterozygosity on performance of purebred and crossbred pigs. Genet. Sel. Evol., 51, 8. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-019-0450-1.

Khalak, V. I., Hutyi, B. V., Usenko, S. O., & Shostia, A. M. (2021). Oznaky dovhotryvaloi adaptatsii ta yikh zviazok z pokaznykamy vidtvoriuvalnykh yakostei u svynomatok universalnoho napriamku produktyvnosti. Scientific Messenger of LNU of Vet-erinary Medicine and Biotechnologies. Series: Agricul-tural Sciences, 23(95), 147–152. DOI: 10.32718/nvlvet-a9522.

Khalak, V., Gutyj, B., Stadnytska, O., Shuvar, I., Balkov-skyi, V., Korpita, H., Shuvar, A., & Bordun, О. (2021). Breeding value and productivity of sows of the Large White breed. Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, 11(1), 319–324. DOI: 10.15421/2021_48.

Khalak, V., Gutyj, B., Bordun, O., Stadnytska, O., & Ilchenko, M. (2021). The biochemical indicators of blood serum and their relationship with fattening and meat qualities of young swine of different inbreed dif-ferentiation according to the sazer-fredin index. Scien-tific Papers. Series D. Animal Science, LXIV(2), 70–75. URL: http://animalsciencejournal.usamv.ro/pdf/2021/issue_2/Art9.pdf.

Kim, S. W., Weaver, A. C., Shen, Y. B., & Zhao, Y. (2013). Improving efficiency of sow productivity: nutrition and health. J Anim Sci Biotechnol., 4(1), 26. DOI: 10.1186/2049-1891-4-26.

Knox, R. V., Rodriguez Zas, S. L., Sloter, N. L., McNamara, K. A., Gall, T. J., & Levis, D. G. (2013). An analysis of survey data by size of the breeding herd for the reproductive management practices of North American sow farms. J Anim Sci., 91(1), 433–45. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2012-5189.

Kramarenko, S. S., Luhovyi, S. I., Lykhach, A. V., & Kramarenko, S. S. (2019). Analiz biometrychnykh danykh u rozvedenni ta selektsii tvaryn: navchalnyi posibnyk Mykolaiv: MNAU (in Ukrainian).

Lertpatarakomol, R., Chaosap, C., Chaweewan, K., Sitthigripong, R., & Limsupavanich, R. (2019). Carcass characteristics and meat quality of purebred Pakchong and crossbred pigs sired by Pakchong or Duroc boar. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 32(4), 585–591. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.18.0279.

Lucia, T. J., Dial, G. D., & Marsh, W. E. (2000). Lifetime reproductive performance in female pigs having distinct reasons for removal. Livest Prod Sci., 63(3), 213–22. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00142-6.

McCann, M. E. E., Beattie, V. E., Watt, D., & Moss, B. W. (2008). The Effect of Boar Breed Type on Reproduction, Production Performance and Carcass and Meat Quality in Pigs. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 47(2), 171–185. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25564589.

Mykhalko, O., Povod, M., Verbelchuk, Т., Shcherbyna, O., Susol, R., Kirovich, N., & Riznychuk, I. (2022). Effect of Pre-Slaughter Weight on Morphological Composition of Pig Carcasses. Open Agriculture, 7(1), 335–347. DOI: 10.1515/opag-2022-0096.

Rhodes, R. T., Appleby, M. C., Chinn, K., Douglas, L., Firkins, L. D., & Houpt, K. A. (2005). A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. J Am Vet Med Assoc., 227(10), 1580–1590. DOI: 10.2460/javma.2005.227.1580.

Rybalko, V. P., Berezovskyi, M. D., Bohdanovta, H. A. (2005). Suchasni metodyky doslidzhen u svynarstvi. Poltava: IS UAAN (in Ukrainian).

Susol, R., Reshetnichenko, O., Kirovych, N., & Riznychuk, I. (2021). Suchasnyi stan promyslovoi tekhnolohii vyrobnytstva pleminnoi ta tovarnoi produktsii svynarstva v Ukraini. Ahrarnyi visnyk Prychornomoria. Odesa, 101, 59–66. DOI: 10.37000/abbsl.2021.101.10.

Tang, G., Yang, R., Xue, J., Liu, T., Zeng, Z., Jiang, A., Jiang, Y., Li, M., Zhu, L., Bai, L., Shuai, S., & Li, X. (2013). Optimising a crossbreeding production system using three specia) lised imported swine breeds in south-western China. Animal Production Science, 54, 999–1007. DOI: 10.1071/AN13308.

Thiengpimol, P., Tappreang, S., & Onarun, P. (2017). Reproductive Performance of Purebred and Crossbred Landrace and Large White Sows Raised under Thai Commercial Swine Herd. Thammasat International Journal of Science and Technology, 22(2), 16–22. DOI: 10.14456/tijsat.2017.13.

Tsereniuk, O. M., Shablia, V. P., & Akimov, O. V. (2016). Vykorystannia indeksu SIVIaS v selektsii svynei porody uels. Naukovo-tekhnichnyi biuleten IT NAAN, 116, 174–183 (in Ukrainian).

Virolainen, J. V., Tast, A., Sorsa, A., Love, R. J., & Peltoniemi, O. A. (2004). Changes in feeding level during early pregnancy affect fertility in gilts.Anim Reprod Sci., 80(3-4), 341–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2003.08.005.

Voloshchuk, V. M. (2014). Svynarstvo: monohrafiia. K.: Ahrar. Nauka (in Ukrainian).

Yadav, V., Singh, N. P., Sharma, R., Gupta, A., Baranwal, A., Ahmad, S. F., & Raina, V. (2018). Crossbreeding systems of livestock. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 7(7), 08–13. URL: https://www.thepharmajournal.com/archives/2018/vol7issue7/PartA/7-7-18-126.pdf.

Zhang, J. H., Xiong, Y. Z., & Deng, C. Y. (2005). Correlations of genic heterozygosity and variances with heterosis in a pig population revealed by microsatellite DNA marker. Asian Aust J Anim Sci., 18(5), 620–625. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2005.620.

Abstract views: 0
PDF Downloads: 0
Published
2022-05-07
How to Cite
Kremez, M., Povod, M., Mykhalko, O., Susol, R., Trybrat, R., Onishenko, L., Kravchenko, O., Verbelchuk, T., & Sherbyna, O. (2022). Reproductive characteristics of pigs of Irish selection and manifestation of different forms of heterosis by different methods of breeding in modern conditions of industrial pork production. Scientific Messenger of LNU of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies. Series: Agricultural Sciences, 24(96), 78-88. https://doi.org/10.32718/nvlvet-a9610