Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Popescu, C. P.
Right arrow Articles by Boscher, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Popescu, C. P.
Right arrow Articles by Boscher, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The Journal of Heredity 1984:75(6):448-452
© 1984 The American Genetic Association 75:448-452

research-article

Reciprocal translocations in pigs

Their detection and consequences on animal performance and economic losses

C. P. Popescu, M. Bonneau, M. Tixier, I. Bahri, and J. Boscher

Laboratoire de Cytogenetique
Laboratotre de Physiologie de la Nutrition
Station de Genetique Quantitative et Appliquee of the Institut National de La Recherche Agronomique, Centre National Recherches Zootechniques (CNRZ) 78350 Jouy en Josas, France

Abstract

In France, the national computerized program for sow herd management regularly delivers a listing of hypoprollfic boars for which a cytogenetic evaluation is required, and participates in the differential diagnosis of the other causes of reduced prolificacy. Two reciprocal translocations, 4/14 and 7/15, reducing the prolificacy by about 45 percent have been discovered since 1979. A third one, leading to a prolificacy reduction of about 28 percent, is described in the present paper. The effects of translocatlon 4/14 were studied in an experimental herd, in which the ovulation rate did not seem to be modified and the early embryonic mortality accounted for the decrease in litter size. The growth rate at day 35 was higher in piglets carrying the chromosomal abnormality than in their normal littermates, i.e., 215 vs. 182 g per day (P < 0.10). The economic consequences of using a boar carrying a translocation on a group of 21 sows were estimated by means of a simulation model "Porsim." When prolificacy decreased by five piglets per litter, the losses represented 157 piglets, i.e., about $4000. If, in addition to this, the percentage of non-returns into heat decreased by 35 percent, the losses then represented 248 piglets, i.e., $6000. Because of this important economic risk, it is suggested that measures be taken to detect defective animals and to prevent their use.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.