Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 411–418 | Cite as

The effects of breed, season and parity on the reproductive performance of pigs reared under hot and humid environments

  • J. K. HaganEmail author
  • N. N. Etim
Regular Articles


A research aimed at evaluating the reproductive performance of pigs as influenced by breed, season, and parity was carried out. Reproductive performance records of 1383 sows made up of 204 primiparous and 1179 multiparous large white (687) and Duroc × large white crosses (696) obtained over a 3-year period (2013 to 2016) were used. Data on reproductive performance taken were farrowing rate, litter size at birth and at weaning, piglet weight at birth and at weaning farrowing interval and pre-weaning mortality. To determine the effect of season, parity and breed on reproductive performance, the 4-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. A mixed model was fitted using the generalized linear model (GLM) procedure of the GenStat (Discovery Edition) to investigate the fixed effects of breed (two classes), season of birth (three classes) and parity (five classes) on the reproductive traits. Where differences in means were observed, the means were separated using the least significant difference at 5% level of significance. Results obtained indicated litter size at birth of 12.5 ± 0.3 and 14.2 ± 0.5 for the large white and the Duroc × large white respectively and farrowing rates of 90.0 ± 2.3 and 94.5 ± 2.5% for the large white and the Duroc × large white respectively. Litter size at birth and at weaning, farrowing rate and piglet weight at birth were all influenced by parity and season with increasing parity significantly reducing litter size at birth and at weaning. Reproductive traits of the sows were superior during the rainy season, an indication of the need to consider season of birth in making decision.


Large white Duroc Litter size Season Parity and breed 



The authors would like to acknowledge the immeasurable cooperation of the management and staff of Teaching and Research Farm of the University of Cape Coast, Ghana, for the data made available for the research. The authors are also grateful to the Department of Animal Science, University of Cape Coast for the financial and technical support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Baas, T. J., Christian, L. L. and Rothschild, M. F. 1992. Heterosis and recombination effects in Hampshire and Landrace Swine: I. Maternal traits. J. Anim. Sci. 70:89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basset J.M., Bray C.J., Sharpe C.E. (2001). Reproductive seasonality in domestic sows kept outdoors without boars. Reproduction, 121: 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyga, K. and Rekiel, A. 2010. The effect of the body condition of the late pregnant sows on fat reserves at farrowing and weaning and on litter performance, Arch. Tierz., 53, 50–64.Google Scholar
  4. Bloemhof S., van der Waaij E.H., Merks J.W.M., Knol E.F. 2008. Sow line differences in heat stress tolerance expressed in reproductive performance traits. J. Anim. Sci., 86: 3330–3337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bracken C.J., Lamberson W.R., Safranski T.J., Lucy M.C. 2003. Factors affecting follicular populations on day 3 postweaning and interval to ovulation in a commercial sow herd. Theriogenology, 60: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chimonyo, M. & Dzama, K., 2007. Estimation of genetic parameters for growth performance and carcass traits in Mukota pigs. Animal 1, 317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, S.A., Wood, J.D., Moncrieff, C.B. and Porter, S.J. 1992. Comparison of the Duroc and Large White as terminal sire breeds and their effect on pig meat quality. Animal Production 54: 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Einarsson S., Madej A., Tsuma V. 1996. The influence of stress on early pregnancy in the pig. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 42: 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engblom, L., Lundeheim, N., Dalin, A. M., and Andersson, K. 2007. Sow removal in Swedish commercial herds, Livest. Sci., 106, 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faust, M. A., Robison, O. W., and Tess, M. W. 1993. Genetic and economic analyses of sow replacement rates in the commercial tier of a hierarchical swine breeding structure, J. Anim. Sci., 71, 1400–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foxcroft G.R. 1997. Mechanisms mediating nutritional effects on embryonic survival in pigs. J. Reprod. Fert., Suppl. 52: 47–61.Google Scholar
  12. Hansen P.J., Drost M., Rivera R.M., Paula-Lopes F.F., Al-Katanani Y.M., Krininger III C.E., Chase C.C. (2001). Adverse impact of heat stress on embryo production: causes and strategies for mitigation. Theriogenology, 55: 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoving, L. L., Soede, N. M., Graat, E. A. M., Feitsma, H., and Kemp, B. (2011). Reproductive performance of second parity sows: Relations with subsequent reproduction, Livest. Sci., 140, 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoving, L.L., Soede N.M., Feitsma H., Kemp B. (2012). Embryo survival, progesterone profiles and metabolic responses to an increased feeding level during second gestation in sows. Theriogenology, 77: 1557–1569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang, Y.H. Yang, T.S. Lee, Y.P. Roan, S.W. and Liu, S.H. (2003). Effects of sire breed on the subsequent reproductive performances of Landrace sows. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 16, No. 4: 489–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ilatsia, E.D. Githinji, M.G. Muasya, T.K. Okeno, T.O. and Kahi, A.K. (2008). Genetic parameter estimates for growth traits of Large White pigs in Kenya. South African Journal of Animal Science, 38 (3): 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knecht, D. and Duziński, K. (2014). The effect of parity and date of service on the reproductive performance of Polish Large white X Polish Landrace (PLW X PL) crossbred sows. Ann. Anim. Sci., Vol. 14, No. 1: 69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knecht, D., Środoń, S., Szulc, K., and Duziński, K. (2013). The effect of photoperiod on selected parameters of boar semen, Livest. Sci., 157, 364–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knecht, D., Środoń, S. and Duziński, K. (2015). The impact of season, parity and breed on selected reproductive performance parameters of sows. Arch. Anim. Breed., 58, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuo, Y. H., Huang, S. Y. and Lee, Y. P. (1997). Effect of breed and season on semen characteristics of boars in subtropical area. J. Chin. Soc. Vet. Sci. 23:114–122.Google Scholar
  21. Love, R.J., Evans, G. & Klupiec, C., 1993. Seasonal effects on fertility in gilts and sows. J. Reprod. Fertil. (Suppl.) 48, 191–206.Google Scholar
  22. Lucia Jr. T., Correa M.N., Deschamps J.C., Bianchi I., Donin M.A., Machado A.C. (2002). Risk factors for stillbirths in two swine farms in the south of Brazil. Prev. Vet. Med., 53: 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marchev Y., Szostak B. (2007). The opening periods of sows depending on conditions of rearing system and season (in Polish). Ann. UMCS, sectio EE Zootechnica, 25 (2): 27–32.Google Scholar
  24. McLaren, D.G., Buchanan, D.S. and Johnson, R.K. 1987. Growth performance for four breeds of swine: crossbred females and purebred and crossbred boars. Journal of Animal Science 64: 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MoFA (2012). Agriculture in Ghana, Facts and Figures. Statistical, Research and Information Directorate, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana.Google Scholar
  26. Mungate, F., Dzama, K., Mandisodza, K. & Shoniwa, A., 1999. Some non-genetic factors affecting commercial pig production in Zimbabwe. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 29, 164–173.Google Scholar
  27. Nardone, A., Ronchi, B., Lacetera, N., Ranieri, M. S., and Bernabucci, U. 2010. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock system, Lives.t Sci., 130, 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Patterson, J. L., Beltranena, E., and Foxcroft, G. R. 2010. The effect of gilt age at first estrus and breeding on third estrus on sow body weight changes and long-term reproductive performance, J. Anim. Sci., 88, 2500–2513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peltoniemi, O.A.T., Tast, A., Love, R.J. 2000. Factors effecting reproduction in the pig: seasonal effects and restricted feeding of the pregnant gilt and sow. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 60–61: 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prunier, A., Messias, de Braganca, M., Le Dividich, J. 1997. Influence of high ambient temperature on performance of reproductive sows. Livest. Prod. Sci., 52: 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quesnel, H., Brossard, L., Valancogne, A., and Quiniou, N. (2008). Influence of some sow characteristics on within-litter variation of piglet birth weight, Animal, 2, 1842–1849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quesnel, H., Meunier-Salaün, M. C., Hamard, A., Guillemet, R., Etienne, M., Farmer, C., Dourmad, J. Y., and Pére, M. C. (2009). Dietary fiber for pregnant sows: Influence on sow physiology and performance during lactation, J. Anim. Sci., 87, 532–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rekwot, P.I, Jegede, J.O, Ehoche, O.W. and Tegbe, T.S.B. Reproductive performance in smallhlder piggeries in northern Nigeria. Trop Agric (Trinidad). 2001; 78: 1–4.Google Scholar
  34. Scholman, G. J. and Dijkhuizen, A. A. (1989). Determination and analysis of the economic optimum culling strategy in swine breeding herds in Western Europe and the USA, Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 37, 71–74.Google Scholar
  35. Schwarz, T., Kopyra, M. (2006). Influence of age on insemination process and reproductive performance in sows. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 24, Suppl. 3: 229–239.Google Scholar
  36. Schwarz, T. Nowicki, J. and Tuz, R. (2009). Reproductive performance of polish large white sows in intensive production – effect of parity and season. Ann. Anim. Sci., Vol. 9, No. 3: 269–277.Google Scholar
  37. Škorjanc D., Hohler M., Brus M. (2008). Effect of backfat loss during lactation on weaning-tooestrus interval of sows at gonadotropin application. Arch. Tierz., 51 (6): 560–571.Google Scholar
  38. Suriyasomboon, A., Lundeheim, N., Kunavonkrit, A. & Einarson, S., 2006. Effect of temperature and humidity on reproductive performance of crossbred sows in Thailand. Theriogenology 65, 606–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tantasuparuk, W., Lundeheim, N., Dalin, A.M., Kunavongkrit, A. & Einarsson, S., 2000. Reproductive performance of purebred Landrace and Yorkshire sows in Thailand with special reference to seasonal influence and parity number. Theriogenology 54, 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tummaruk P., Lundeheim N., Einarsson S., Dalin A.M. (2001). Effect of birth litter size, birth parity number, growth rate, backfat thickness and age at first mating of gilts on their reproductive performance as sows. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 66: 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tummaruk, P., Tantasuparuk, W., Techakumphu, M., and Kunavongkrit, A. (2010). Seasonal influences on the litter size at birth of pigs are more pronounced in the gilt than sow litters. J. Agric. Sci., 148, 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Dijk, A.J., van Rens, B.T.T.M., van der Lende, T., Taverne, M.A.M. (2005). Factors affecting duration of the expulsive stage of parturition and piglet birth intervals in sows with uncomplicated, spontaneous farrowings. Theriogenology, 64: 1573–1590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vanderhaeghe, C., Dewulf, J., Ribbens, S., de Kruif, A., and Maes, D. (2010). A cross-sectional study to collect risk factors associated with stillbirths in pig herds, Anim. Reprod. Sci., 118, 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whittemore, C. 1993. The Science and Practice of Pig Production. Longman Group UK Limited, Harlow, Essex, pages 184–188.Google Scholar
  45. Yilma, T. (2017). Study on reproductive performance of breeding sows and ultrasound monitoring of ovarian follicle activity and ovulation of post-weaning sows in a commercial pig farm of central Ethiopia. Vet Med Open J. 2017; 2(3): 76–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal ScienceUniversity of Cape CoastCape CoastGhana
  2. 2.Department of Animal Science, Obio Akpa CampusAkwa Ibom State UniversityObio AkpaNigeria

Personalised recommendations