Does the Degree of Fatness and Muscularity Determined by Ultrasound Method Affect Sows’ Reproductive Performance?
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- xijk = µ + αi + βj + (αβ)ij + εijkl;
- xijk—value of the dependent variable (fatness and muscularity degree);
- µ—overall average;
- αi—main effect of the i-th breed;
- βj—main effect of j-th insemination order;
- (αβ)ij—effect of i-th breed interaction with j-th insemination order;
- εijk—random error with a normal distribution with an average of zero and a variance σ2.
- xijk = µ + αi + βj + γk + (αβ)ij + (αγ)ik + (βγ)jk + (αβγ)ijk + εijkl;
- xijk—value of the dependent variable (reproductive parameter);
- µ—overall average;
- αi—main effect of the i-th breed;
- βj—main effect of the j-th parity or insemination order;
- γk—main effect of the k-th level of fatness or muscularity;
- (αβ)ij—effect of the i-th breed interaction with the j-th parity or insemination order;
- (αγ)ik—effect of the i-th breed interaction with the k-th level of fatness or muscularity;
- (βγ)jk—effect of the j-th parity or insemination order interaction with the k-th level of fatness or muscularity;
- (αβγ)ijk—effect of the i-th breed interaction with the j-th parity or insemination order and the kth level of fatness or muscularity;
- εijk—random error with a normal distribution with an average of zero and a variance σ2.
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References and Notes
- POLSUS. Results of the Evaluation of Pigs in 2017; Polish Association of Pig Farmers and Producers: Warsaw, Poland, 2018; pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
- Rozeboom, D.W.; Pettigrew, J.E.; Mosel, R.L.; Cornelius, S.G.; El Kandelgy, S.M. Influence of gilt age and body composition at first breeding on sow reproductive performance and longevity. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 74, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tummaruk, P.; Lundeheim, N.; Einarsson, S.; Dalin, A.M. Effect of birth litter size, birth parity number, growth rate, backfat thickness and age at first mating of gilts on their reproductive performance as sow. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2001, 66, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holm, B.; Bakken, M.; Klemetsdal, G.; Vangen, O. Genetic correlations between reproduction and production traits in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 3458–3464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, J.S.; Yang, X.; Pangeni, D.; Baidoo, S.K. Relationship between backfat thickness of sows Turing late gestation and reproductive efficiency at different parities. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A 2015, 65, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knecht, D.; Duziński, K. The effect of parity and date of service on the reproductive performance of polish large white × polish landrace (plw × pl) crossbred sows. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2014, 14, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Knecht, D.; Środoń, S.; Jankowska-Mąkosa, A.; Duziński, K. Appropriate level of gilt fatness and muscularity during insemination can improve the efficiency of piglet production. Anim. Reprod. 2017, 14, 1138–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quinton, V.M.; Wilton, J.W.; Robinson, J.A.; Mathur, P.K. Economic weights for sow productivity traits in nucleus pig populations. Livest. Sci. 2006, 99, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matysiak, B.; Kawęcka, M.; Jacynio, E.; Kołodziej-Skalska, A.; Pietruszka, A. Relationships between test of gilts before day at first mating on their reproduction performance. Acta Sci. Pol. Zoot. 2010, 9, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
- Grela, E.; Skomiał, J. Nutritional Recommendations and Nutritional Value of Feedingstuffs for Pigs. Standards of pigs Nutrition; Jan Kielanowski Institute of Physiology and Animal Nutrition, Polish Academy of Sciences: Jabłonna, Poland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Journal of Laws of 2010, no 116, item 778, Ordinance of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development of 28 June 2010 on minimum conditions for maintaining farm animal species other than those for which the standards of protection are laid down in the European Union regulations.
- Journal of Laws of 26 February 2015, item 266, Act of 15 January 2015 on the protection of animals used for scientific and educational purposes.
- Tyra, M.; Szyndler-Nędza, M.; Eckert, R. Possibilities of using ultrasonography in breeding work with pigs, Part I—Analysis of ultrasonic, ultrasonographic and dissection measurements of the most numerous breeds of pigs raised in Poland. Annals Anim. Sci. 2011, 11, 27–40. [Google Scholar]
- Schulte, K.J.; Baas, T.J.; Wilson, D.E. An evaluation of equipment and procedures for the prediction of intramuscular fat in live swine. Anim. Ind. Rep. 2011, 657, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Mörlein, D.; Rosner, F.; Brand, S.; Jenderka, K.V.; Wicke, M. Non-destructive estimation of the intramuscular fat content of the longissimus muscle of pigs by means of spectral analysis of ultrasound echo signals. Meat Sci. 2005, 69, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Strzetelski, J.; Bilik, K.; Niwińska, B.; Skrzyński, G.; Łuczyńska, E. Ultrasound evaluation of the mammary gland structure in preparturient heifers vs performance of first calves. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2004, 13, 5–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamiak, S.J.; Mackie, K.; Watt, R.G.; Webb, R.; Sinclair, K.D. Impact of nutrition on oocyte quality: Cumulative effects of body composition and diet leading to hyperinsulinemia in cattle. Biol. Reprod. 2005, 73, 918–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- McNeill, R.E.; Diskin, M.G.; Sreenan, J.M.; Morris, D.G. Associations between milk progesterone concentration on different days and with embryo survival during the early luteal phase in dairy cows. Theriogenology 2006, 65, 1435–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krška, P.; Bahelka, I.; Demo, P.; Peškovičová, D. Meat content in pigs estimated by various methods and compared with objective lean meat content. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 47, 206–211. [Google Scholar]
- Tyra, M.; Orzechowska, B.; Żak, G. Relationships between ultrasonic and dissection measurements of backfat thickness and m. Longissimus dorsi of pigs using Piglog 105 and Aloka SSD 500. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2005, 5, 279–286. [Google Scholar]
- Kearns, C.F.; McKeever, K.H.; Roegner, V.; Brady, S.M.; Malinowski, K. Adiponectin and leptin are related to fat mass in horses. Vet. J. 2006, 172, 460–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rempel, L.A.; Vallet, J.L.; Lents, C.A.; Nonneman, D.J. Measurements of body composition during late gestation and lactation in first and second parity sows and its relationship to piglet production and post-weaning reproductive performance. Livest. Sci. 2015, 178, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyra, M.; Żak, G. Characteristics of the Polish breeding population of pigs in terms of intramuscular fat (IMF) content of m. Longissimus dorsi. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2010, 10, 241–248. [Google Scholar]
- Bahelka, I.; Oravcová, M.; Peškovičová, D.; Tomka, J.; Hanusová, E.; Lahučký, R.; Demo, P. Comparison of accuracy of intramuscular fat prediction in live pigs using five different ultrasound intensity levels. Animal 2009, 3, 1205–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orzechowska, B.; Tyra, M.; Mucha, A.; Żak, G. Quality of carcasses from polish large white and polish landrace pigs with particular consideration of intramuscular fat (IMF) content depending on carcass meat percentage. Roczniki Nauk. Zoot. 2012, 39, 77–85. [Google Scholar]
- Jankowiak, H.; Bocian, M.; Kapelanski, W.; Roslewska, A. The relationship between carcass fatness and intramuscular fat content, and fatty acids profile in pig meat. Food Sci. Technol. Qual. 2010, 17, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knecht, D.; Środoń, S.; Duziński, K. In vivo evaluation of the fat content and muscularity of gilts with different genotypes using Aloka SSD-500 ultrasound scanner in relation to selected reproductive performance indicators. Roczn. Nauk. Pol. Tow. Zoot. 2014, 10, 25–35. [Google Scholar]
- De Rensis, F.; Gherpelli, M.; Superchi, P.; Kirkwood, R.N. Relationships between backfat depth and plasma leptin during lactation and sow reproductive performance after weaning. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2005, 90, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergsma, R.; Kanis, E.; Verstegen, M.W.A.; van der Peet-Schwering, C.M.C.; Knol, E.F. Lactation efficiency as a result of body composition dynamics and feed intake in sows. Livest. Sci. 2009, 125, 208–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanroose, G.; de Kruif, A.; Van Soom, A. Embryonic mortality and embryo–pathogen interactions. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2000, 60–61, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milligan, B.N.; Dewey, C.E.; de Grau, A.F. Neonatal-piglet weight variation and its relation to pre-weaning mortality and weight gain on commercial farms. Prevent. Vet. Med. 2002, 56, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strathe, A.V.; Bruun, T.S.; Hansen, C.F. Sows with high milk production had both a high feed intake and high body mobilization. Animal 2017, 11, 1913–1921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szulc, K.; Knecht, D.; Jankowska-Mąkosa, A.; Skrzypczak, E.; Nowaczewski, S. The influence of fattening and slaughter traits on reproduction in Polish Large White sows. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 12, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karsten, S.; Rohe, R.; Schulze, V.; Looft, H.; Kalm, E. Genetic association between individual feed intake during performance test and reproductions traits in pigs. Archiv Tierz. 2000, 43, 451–461. [Google Scholar]
- Bečková, R.; Daněk, P.; Václavková, E.; Rozkot, M. Influence of growth rate, backfat thickness and meatiness on reproduction efficiency in Landrace gilts. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 50, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stalder, K.J.; Saxton, A.M.; Conatser, G.E.; Serenius, T.V. Effect of growth and compositional traits on first parity and lifetime reproductive performance in U.S. Landrace sows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2005, 97, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawęcka, M.; Matysiak, B.; Kamyczek, M.; Delikator, B. Relationships between growth, fatness and meatiness traits in gilts and their subsequent reproductive performance. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2009, 9, 249–258. [Google Scholar]
- Lewis, C.R.; Bunter, K.L. Body development in sows, feed intake and maternal capacity. Part2: Gilt body condition before and after lactation, reproductive performance and correlations with lactation feed intake. Animal 2011, 5, 1855–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Measurement | Description of the Measurement Point |
---|---|
UP2 | Backfat thickness at point P2—backfat thickness at the last rib, at the junction of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae—3 cm from the midline of the spine (mm). |
UP4 | Backfat thickness at point P4—backfat thickness at the last rib, at the junction of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae—8 cm from the midline of the spine (mm). |
UPT | Fat cross-sectional area on the surface of the Longissimus dorsi muscle (cm2). |
UTŚ | Intramuscular fat content in the Longissimus dorsi muscle (%). |
UP4M | Depth of Longissimus dorsi muscle at point P4—height of eye of the loin, at the junction of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae—8 cm from the midline of the spine (mm). |
USLD | Width of the Longissimus dorsi muscle (mm). |
UPLD | Cross-sectional area of the Longissimus dorsi muscle (cm2). |
Parameter UP2 | ||||||
Parity | Breed | |||||
Polish Landrace (PL) | Polish Large White (PLW) | PL × PLW | ||||
(mm) | SD | (mm) | SD | (mm) | SD | |
1 | 22.26 | ±4.70 | 21.17 y | ±3.99 | 23.08 a,x | ±3.89 |
2 | 23.29 x | ±4.02 | 21.19 y | ±4.16 | 21.18 b,y | ±4.79 |
3 | 22.24 | ±4.76 | 22.93 | ±4.52 | 22.94 | ±4.43 |
Parameter UP4 | ||||||
Parity | Breed | |||||
PL | PLW | PL × PLW | ||||
(mm) | SD | (mm) | SD | (mm) | SD | |
1 | 17.54 | ±3.60 | 16.35 y | ±4.21 | 18.56 a,x | ±3.44 |
2 | 18.98 x | ±3.34 | 15.67 y | ±4.03 | 16.26 b,y | ±4.15 |
3 | 17.65 | ±3.65 | 17.07 | ±3.89 | 18.12 | ±3.38 |
Parameter UPT | ||||||
Parity | Breed | |||||
PL | PLW | PL × PLW | ||||
(cm2) | SD | (cm2) | SD | (cm2) | SD | |
1 | 25.19 y | ±6.61 | 23.34 Y | ±6.85 | 28.20 a,X,x | ±7.43 |
2 | 27.23 X | ±7.45 | 23.02 b,Y | ±6.45 | 25.10 b | ±7.11 |
3 | 26.46 | ±8.96 | 25.96 a | ±7.66 | 27.83 | ±6.78 |
Parameter UTŚ | ||||||
Parity | Breed | |||||
PL | PLW | PL × PLW | ||||
(%) | SD | (%) | SD | (%) | SD | |
1 | 1.67 | ±0.66 | 1.68 | ±0.60 | 1.71 | ±0.67 |
2 | 1.71 | ±0.78 | 1.73 | ±0.74 | 1.75 | ±0.72 |
3 | 1.77 | ±0.83 | 1.79 | ±0.80 | 1.82 | ±0.87 |
Parameter UP4M | ||||||
Parity | Breed | |||||
PL | PLW | PL × PLW | ||||
(mm) | SD | (mm) | SD | (mm) | SD | |
1 | 57.85 b | ±6.16 | 57.73 B | ±6.04 | 59.94 B | ±6.75 |
2 | 59.52 | ±6.52 | 59.42 b,y | ±7.99 | 63.47 x | ±5.83 |
3 | 62.59 a,y | ±6.62 | 64.53 A,a | ±5.62 | 66.80 A,x | ±4.23 |
Parameter USLD | ||||||
Parity | Breed | |||||
PL | PLW | PL × PLW | ||||
(mm) | SD | (mm) | SD | (mm) | SD | |
1 | 131.68 b | ±9.01 | 131.83 B | ±7.06 | 132.86 B | ±8.97 |
2 | 135.10 | ±8.26 | 134.32 b | ±7.19 | 135.38 b | ±8.52 |
3 | 139.40 a | ±8.32 | 141.35 A,a | ±7.84 | 142.76 A,a | ±9.24 |
Parameter UPLD | ||||||
Parity | Breed | |||||
PL | PLW | PL × PLW | ||||
(cm2) | SD | (cm2) | SD | (cm2) | SD | |
1 | 59.37 b | ±9.16 | 58.90 B | ±8.92 | 62.51 b | ±8.82 |
2 | 61.51 | ±10.01 | 61.59 | ±9.38 | 65.16 | ±9.93 |
3 | 66.58 a | ±10.49 | 67.70 A | ±11.40 | 69.58 a | ±10.26 |
Degree of Fatness Determined by Aloka SSD-500 Apparatus | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UP2 | UP4 | UPT | UTŚ | |||||
≤22.25 mm | >22.25 mm | ≤17.36 mm | >17.36 mm | ≤25.81 cm2 | >25.81 cm2 | ≤1.74% | >1.74% | |
Farrowing rate (%) | 87.89 b | 91.90 a | 87.99 b | 91.99 a | 87.50 b | 91.56 a | 88.00 | 90.30 |
Number of piglets born in total (head) | 10.34 b ± 0.83 | 11.14 a ± 0.91 | 10.30 b ± 0.85 | 11.25 a ± 0.92 | 10.20 B ± 0.87 | 11.30 A ± 0.94 | 10.45 ± 0.88 | 10.99 ± 0.95 |
Number of alive-born piglets (head) | 10.04 b ± 0.85 | 10.94 a ± 0.77 | 9.97 b ± 0.79 | 11.06 a ± 0.76 | 9.82 B ± 0.91 | 11.08 A ± 0.74 | 10.19 ± 0.70 | 10.74 ± 0.82 |
Number of dead-born piglets (head) | 0.30 b ± 0.41 | 0.20 a ± 0.39 | 0.33 b ± 0.35 | 0.19 a ± 0.43 | 0.38 B ± 0.40 | 0.22 A ± 0.38 | 0.26 ± 0.41 | 0.25 ± 0.36 |
Number of weaned piglets (head) | 9.58 B ± 0.77 | 10.59 A ± 0.69 | 9.56 B ± 0.65 | 10.76 A ± 0.68 | 9.39 B ± 0.75 | 10.77 A ± 0.67 | 9.75 ± 0.60 | 10.33 ± 0.63 |
Mortality of piglets until weaning day (head) | 0.46 b ± 0.53 | 0.35 a ± 0.51 | 0.41 b ± 0.45 | 0.30 a ± 0.48 | 0.43 b ± 0.54 | 0.31 a ± 0.47 | 0.44 ± 0.50 | 0.41 ± 0.43 |
Total litter weight at 1st day (kg) | 14.56 b ± 2.44 | 17.50 a ± 2.13 | 14.26 b ± 2.32 | 17.47 a ± 2.20 | 14.14 B ± 2.47 | 17.95 A ± 2.05 | 14.98 ± 2.19 | 16.11 ± 2.28 |
Average piglet weight at 1st day (kg) | 1.45 B ± 0.25 | 1.60 A ± 0.20 | 1.43 B ± 0.27 | 1.58 A ± 0.18 | 1.44 B ± 0.23 | 1.62 A ± 0.20 | 1.47 ± 0.25 | 1.50 ± 0.29 |
Total litter weight at weaning (kg) | 80.57 B ± 10.90 | 91.07 A ± 9.85 | 80.30 B ± 10.29 | 92.86 A ± 9.81 | 78.78 B ± 10.83 | 92.84 A ± 9.89 | 82.39 ± 10.50 | 87.70 ± 9.51 |
Average piglet weight at weaning (kg) | 8.41 b ± 0.44 | 8.60 a ± 0.48 | 8.40 B ± 0.51 | 8.63 A ± 0.53 | 8.39 B ± 0.52 | 8.62 A ± 0.51 | 8.45 ± 0.47 | 8.49 ± 0.50 |
Average body gains of piglets (g) | 248.57 b ± 9.85 | 250.00 a ± 9.59 | 248.93 B ± 10.36 | 251.79 A ± 9.55 | 248.21 b ± 9.86 | 250.00 a ± 9.66 | 249.29 ± 10.47 | 249.64 ± 9.57 |
Gestation period (days) | 114.62 ± 2.25 | 114.09 ± 2.70 | 114.55 ± 2.44 | 114.26 ± 2.39 | 114.72 ± 2.51 | 114.10 ± 2.73 | 114.65 ± 2.44 | 114.60 ± 2.71 |
Weaning to service interval (days) | 11.12 b ± 10.33 | 9.77 a ± 9.78 | 11.00 b ± 11.02 | 9.65 a ± 9.99 | 11.20 b ± 10.31 | 9.84 a ± 9.90 | 10.60 ± 10.45 | 10.29 ± 10.25 |
Degree of Muscularity Determined by Aloka SSD-500 Apparatus | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UP4M | USLD | UPLD | ||||
≤61.32 mm | >61.32 mm | ≤136.08 mm | >136.08 mm | ≤63.66 cm2 | >63.66 cm2 | |
Farrowing rate (%) | 92.59 a | 88.58 b | 91.29 a | 87.11 b | 92.79 a | 88.78 b |
Number of piglets born in total (head) | 10.99 a ± 0.89 | 10.15 b ± 0.85 | 11.02 A ± 0.90 | 9.97 B ± 0.89 | 11.14 A ± 0.91 | 10.05 B ± 0.88 |
Number of alive-born piglets (head) | 10.81 a ± 0.75 | 9.87 b ± 0.79 | 10.82 A ± 0.71 | 9.67 B ± 0.69 | 10.93 A ± 0.70 | 9.73 B ± 0.78 |
Number of dead-born piglets (head) | 0.18 a ± 0.34 | 0.28 b ± 0.31 | 0.20 a ± 0.39 | 0.30 b ± 0.42 | 0.21 a ± 0.39 | 0.32 b ± 0.47 |
Number of weaned piglets (head) | 10.55 a ± 0.65 | 9.50 b ± 0.61 | 10.52 A ± 0.65 | 9.26 B ± 0.72 | 10.65 A ± 0.61 | 9.34 B ± 0.67 |
Mortality of piglets until weaning day (head) | 0.26 a ± 0.41 | 0.37 b ± 0.45 | 0.30 a ± 0.44 | 0.41 b ± 0.47 | 0.28 a ± 0.40 | 0.39 b ± 0.50 |
Total litter weight at 1st day (kg) | 16.76 ± 2.22 | 14.21 ± 2.25 | 16.66 ± 2.09 | 13.83 ± 2.55 | 17.27 a ± 2.20 | 14.30 b ± 2.24 |
Average piglet weight at 1st day (kg) | 1.55 a ± 0.23 | 1.44 b ± 0.27 | 1.54 a ± 0.19 | 1.43 b ± 0.29 | 1.58 a ± 0.26 | 1.47 b ± 0.30 |
Total litter weight at weaning (kg) | 90.31 A ± 10.24 | 79.80 B ± 10.29 | 90.37 A ± 9.80 | 77.97 B ± 10.99 | 91.38 A ± 9.78 | 78.55 B ± 10.28 |
Average piglet weight at weaning (kg) | 8.56 a ± 0.44 | 8.40 b ± 0.52 | 8.59 a ± 0.55 | 8.42 b ± 0.45 | 8.58 a ± 0.53 | 8.41 b ± 0.47 |
Average body gains of piglets (g) | 250.36 a ± 10.35 | 248.57 b ± 10.39 | 251.79 a ± 9.78 | 249.64 b ± 9.90 | 250.00 a ± 9.87 | 247.86 b ± 10.67 |
Gestation period (days) | 114.20 ± 2.45 | 114.60 ± 2.57 | 114.15 ± 2.80 | 114.71 ± 2.75 | 114.03 ± 2.77 | 114.76 ± 2.50 |
Weaning to service interval (days) | 9.81 a ± 9.94 | 11.16 b ± 11.32 | 10.00 a ± 9.95 | 11.36 b ± 9.97 | 9.93 a ± 10.32 | 11.28 b ± 10.89 |
Breed | |||
---|---|---|---|
PL | PLW | PL × PLW | |
Farrowing rate (%) | 90.22 | 88.70 b | 91.30 a |
Number of piglets born in total (head) | 10.20 ± 0.77 | 9.90 b ± 0.81 | 11.00 a ± 0.72 |
Number of alive-born piglets (head) | 10.00 ± 0.70 | 9.60 b ± 0.80 | 10.80 a ± 0.75 |
Number of dead-born piglets (head) | 0.20 ± 0.31 | 0.25 ± 0.37 | 0.15 ± 0.31 |
Number of weaned piglets (head) | 9.70 ± 0.50 | 9.55 b ± 0.70 | 10.51 a ± 0.61 |
Mortality of piglets until weaning day (head) | 0.44 ± 0.44 | 0.32 ± 0.50 | 0.38 ± 0.40 |
Total litter weight at 1st day (kg) | 14.99 ± 2.30 | 13.80 b ± 2.51 | 16.95 a ± 2.09 |
Average piglet weight at 1st day (kg) | 1.43 b ± 0.27 | 1.41 b ± 0.29 | 1.55 a ± 0.20 |
Total litter weight at weaning (kg) | 83.20 ± 10.15 | 78.77 b ± 10.66 | 89.40 a ± 9.99 |
Average piglet weight at weaning (kg) | 8.45 ± 0.39 | 8.30 ± 0.42 | 8.59 ± 0.49 |
Average body gains of piglets (g) | 249.00 ± 10.50 | 248.01 b ± 9.71 | 250.19 a ± 9.89 |
Gestation period (days) | 114.76 ± 2.35 | 114.53 ± 2.19 | 114.79 ± 2.71 |
Weaning to service interval (days) | 10.70 ± 9.71 | 10.90 ± 10.01 | 10.66 ± 9.80 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Knecht, D.; Środoń, S.; Czyż, K. Does the Degree of Fatness and Muscularity Determined by Ultrasound Method Affect Sows’ Reproductive Performance? Animals 2020, 10, 794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050794
Knecht D, Środoń S, Czyż K. Does the Degree of Fatness and Muscularity Determined by Ultrasound Method Affect Sows’ Reproductive Performance? Animals. 2020; 10(5):794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050794
Chicago/Turabian StyleKnecht, Damian, Sebastian Środoń, and Katarzyna Czyż. 2020. "Does the Degree of Fatness and Muscularity Determined by Ultrasound Method Affect Sows’ Reproductive Performance?" Animals 10, no. 5: 794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050794
APA StyleKnecht, D., Środoń, S., & Czyż, K. (2020). Does the Degree of Fatness and Muscularity Determined by Ultrasound Method Affect Sows’ Reproductive Performance? Animals, 10(5), 794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050794