Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 921–924 | Cite as

Comparison of artificial insemination with natural mating on smallholder farms in Thailand, and the effects of boar stimulation and distance of semen delivery on sow reproductive performance

  • Nutthee Am-in
  • Wichai Tantasuparuk
  • Mongkol TechakumphuEmail author


Following the implementation of artificial insemination (AI) services for smallholder pig farms, we investigated the reproductive performance after AI and its influencing factors. A small-scale boar station with an AI lab was established with two active boars having good genetics and free from reproductive diseases. Individual sow cards were used for reproductive data recording. A total of 171 sows on 92 farms situated within a radius of 50 km from the AI center were included in this study. Sows bred by AI (n = 121) were inseminated twice per estrus by two trained inseminators. A further 50 sows were mated by natural services using local rental boars. The impact of boar stimulation and distance from the AI center to the farm were also determined. Non-return (P = 0.02) and farrowing rates (P = 0.03) were higher for AI than for naturally bred sows (84.0% and 76.0% vs. 74.0% and 70.0% for AI and naturally bred, respectively). For sows bred by AI, boar stimulation increased non-return rate (84.1% vs. 70.0%; P = 0.09), farrowing rate (83.7% vs. 69.2%; P = 0.01) and litter size (11.2 ± 2.3 vs. 9.7 ± 1.7; P < 0.01). There was no effect on performance due to distance of semen transport. These results clearly indicate that sow performance on smallholder farms will improve if AI is utilized and boar stimulation is employed.


Smallholder farms Reproductive performance Artificial insemination Natural mating 



We are grateful to the participating smallholder pig raisers in Nan Province. This work was supported by the Chula-Nan Research Fund and the CHE-TRF senior research fund (RTA 5080010).


  1. Behan, J.R., Watson, P.F., 2005. The effect of managed boar contact in the post-weaning period on the subsequent fertility and fecundity of sows, Animal Reproduction Science, 88, 319–324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Khounsy, S., Conlan, J.V., Gleeson, L.J., Westbury, H.A., Colling, A., Paton, D.J., Ferris, N.P., Valarcher, J.F., Wadsworth, J., Knowles, N.J., Blacksell, S.D., 2009. Molecular epidemiology of foot-and-mouth disease viruses from South East Asia 1998–2006: the Lao perspective, Veterinary Microbiology, 137, 178–183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Lamberson, W.R., Safranski, T.J., 2000. A model for economic comparison of swine insemination programs, Theriogenology, 54, 799–807.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Lanada, E.B., Lee, J.A., More, S.J., Cotiw-an, B.S., Taveros, A.A., 2005. A longitudinal study of sows and boars raised by smallholder farmers in the Philippines, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 70, 95–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Langendijk, P., Soede, N.M., Kemp, B., 2000. Effects of boar contact and housing conditions on estrus expression in weaned sows, Journal of Animal Science, 78, 871–878.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Langendijk, P., van den Brand, H., Soede, N.M., Kemp, B., 2000. Effect of boar contact on follicular development and on estrus expression after weaning in primiparous sows, Theriogenology, 54, 1295–1303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Langendijk, P., Soede, N.M., Kemp, B., 2005. Uterine activity, sperm transport, and the role of boar stimuli around insemination in sows, Theriogenology, 63, 500–513.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Leiding, C., 2000. Prevention of disease transmission by the use of semen in the porcine AI industry, Livestock Production Science, 62, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lemke, U., Kaufmann, B., Thuy, L.T., Emrich, K., Zarate, A.V., 2007. Evaluation of biological and economic efficiency of smallholder pig production systems in North Vietnam, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 39, 237–254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. More, S.J., Lee, J.A., Lanada, E.B., Taveros, A.A., Cotiw-an, B.S., 2005. A longitudinal study of unweaned piglets raised by smallholder farmers in the Philippines, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 70, 115–131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Popwell, J.M., Flowers, W.L., 2004. Variability in relationships between semen quality and estimates of in vivo and in vitro fertility in boars, Animal Reproduction Science, 81, 97–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Vargas, A.J., Bernardi, M.L., Bortolozzo, F.P., Mellagi, A.P., Wentz, I., 2009. Factors associated with return to estrus in first service swine females, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 89, 75–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Wabacha, J.K., Maribei, J.M., Mulei, C.M., Kyule, M.N., Zessin, K.H., Oluoch-Kosura, W., 2004. Characterisation of smallholder pig production in Kikuyu Division, Central Kenya, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 63, 183–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Wolf, J., 2009. Genetic parameters for semen traits in AI boars estimated from data on individual ejaculates, Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 44, 338–344.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nutthee Am-in
    • 1
  • Wichai Tantasuparuk
    • 1
  • Mongkol Techakumphu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and ReproductionFaculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations