No abstract

No abstract

This study compares the reproductive performance of boars produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer versus conventional breeding. Two different genotypes were selected for comparison: terminal cross line 1 (TX1) and terminal cross line 2 (TX2). The boars selected for comparison from TX1 were three cloned boars, produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer and the conventionally produced progenitor of the clones. The boars selected for comparison from TX2 were a cloned boar produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer and two conventionally produced half sibling boars that were offspring of the progenitor of the clone. Semen from each boar was collected, extended, evaluated and shipped offsite. Upon arrival, the semen was reevaluated and utilized for artificial insemination of 89 commercial gilts, at least 12 gilts per boar, producing 625 piglets. Pregnancy rates were determined at day 30 and 110 of gestation; and farrowing rate and gestation length were recorded. Differences were observed in some of the semen characteristics analyzed with the clones usually possessing superior semen quality to the control, this likely being a result of age differences amongst the clones and controls. Additionally no differences were noted between the clones and controls (progenitor) or between individual boars within genetic line for pregnancy rates, gestation length or any of the litter parameters examined between the clones and controls. These data further support previous reports with limited numbers that the reproductive capabilities of cloned boars are equal to that of conventionally produced boars.

This study compares the meat composition of the offspring from boars produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer (n=4) to that of the offspring from conventionally produced boars (n=3). In total, 89 commercial gilts were artificially inseminated and 61 progressed to term and farrowed. All of the resulting piglets were housed and raised identically under standard commercial settings and slaughtered upon reaching market weight. Loin samples were taken from each slaughtered animal and shipped offsite for meat composition analysis. In total, loin samples from 404 animals (242 from offspring of clones and 162 from controls) were analyzed for 58 different parameters generating 14,036 and 9396 data points from offspring of clones and the controls, respectively. Values for controls were used to establish a range for each parameter. Ten percent was then added to the maximum and subtracted from the minimum of the control range, and all results within this range were considered clinically irrelevant. Of the 14,036 data points from the offspring of clones, only three points were found outside the clinically irrelevant range, two of which were within the range established by the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18, 2005; website: (www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/). The only outlier was the presence of Eicosadienoic acid (C20:2) in one sample which is typically present in minute quantities in pork; no reference data were found regarding this fatty acid in the USDA National Nutrient Database. In conclusion, these data indicated that meat from the offspring of clones was not chemically different than meat from controls and therefore supported the case for the safety of meat from the offspring of clones.

Health maximization is a farm essential because of its implications for animal well-being and for production. Health care in all livestock species is a dynamic, technologically-limited, and resource-constrained enterprise. As in any health endeavor, challenges abound. Fundamentally, the cornerstones of animal health are good husbandry and good housing. Effective health systems, however, incorporate other management aspects, including biotechnology and epidemiology. The degree to which each affects the incidence and severity of pig disease is not fully appreciated. Shortfalls in management, resource allocation, available tools, and/or understanding are not uncommon. This article reviews the dynamics of pig health emphasizing how technology and management marginally affect the course of disease. Further, management techniques that incorporate technology in disease control, elimination, and eradication are reviewed. Antimicrobials are a key biotechnical tool for maximizing pig health.