dr. laura greiner - putting it all together - improving sow lifetime productivity

Putting It All Together

Laura L. GreinerInnovative Swine Solutions, LLC

2

Overview

• As the world population grows and resources become limited, it is imperative that the swine industry continues to maximize productivity and efficiency.

• One area that allows for improvement in productivity is maximizing the reproductive performance of the sow.

3

Overview

• As outlined earlier this year by the National Pork Board, an initiative has been set forth to maximize the number of quality pigs a sow produces in her lifetime with the goal to increase productivity by 30% in the next seven years.

4

What We Learned Today

• Dr. Pollmann has outlined critical areas to evaluate to help define the opportunities for each system.

5

Reasons (%) for culling sows from commercial herds

Reproductive failureFailure to conceive 24.6No oestrus 9.1Total 33.6

Low productivityOld age 8.7Small litters 14.1

Health/physical damage 3.1Mothering ability 4.9Lameness/leg weakness 13.2Death 7.4Aborted -Misc 15.0

Lucia et al., 2000

6

Implications of Sow Productivity

• According to an article in Feedstuffs1, Dr. Sundberg notes that if US sow herds can increase the number of litters produced by a sow by one additional litter in her lifetime, the pork industry could receive an increase in $250 million in net value.

7

Courtesy of Juan Carlos Pinilla

8Courtesy of Juan Carlos Pinilla

9

What We Learned Today

• Dr. Flowers discussed the physiological test for sow longevity.

10

Sow Lifetime Productivity

• A sow’s lifetime performance is impacted by:– Age of breeding– Offspring pre-wean mortality– Wean to estrus– Gestation and lactation length– Offspring wean to finish mortality– Total born and born alive– Feed utilization and cost– Housing– Lifetime economic productivity

11

Maternal Influence

• Gluckman et al, 2005– Good summary of research that discusses the role

of maternal environment on offspring performance

• Periods of nutritional deficiency can impact offspring growth

12

Maternal Influence

• Ibanez et al, 2000– Demonstrated that girls defined as being small for

gestation age:• Higher FSH levels indicating ovarian hyporesponsivenes• Small uterus• Reduced ovarian volume

13

What We Learned Today

• As discussed by both Drs. Ross and Cassady, sow productivity does not start at the time that a sow is first bred, but rather early in the life of a sow.

14

Nutrition Health

Production practices

Housing environment

Maternal influence

Genetics

Heat Detection

Gilt acclimation

15

Improving Replacement Gilt Retention

• Published literature and conference proceedings released in the last ten years demonstrate that selection and production methods need to start at an early age before the gilt is first bred.

• Facility spacing/housing, average daily gain, structure selection, health, and nutrition in gilt developer units can all influence sow lifetime performance.

16

Nutritional Opportunities for the Reproductive Female

• What is our goal?– Increase number of pigs weaned by parity– Improve sow retention

68.8 68.5

61

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

130-150 151-170 171-200

Breeding weight (kg)

Ret

entio

n by

3 p

ariti

es (%

)

Effect of Breeding Weight on Retention Rate to 3rd Parity

Source: Amaral Filha, unpublished data (2008)

AI @211 d143 kg

AI @219 d160 kg

AI @225 d177 kg

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

130-150 151-170 171-200

Breeding weight (kg)

Cul

ling

Rea

son

(%)

Locomotion Reproductive Other

a

b

c

31.1

32.3

33.132.832.8

29.0

30.0

31.0

32.0

33.0

34.0

<135 135-148 148-159 159-170 >170

Weight at first breeding

Tot

al b

orn

over

3 p

arit

ies

Total born over 3 parities according to breeding weight

Source: Williams et al, 2005

ADFI Variations on multiparous sows performance

RANGE OF ADFI N TB WEI WT VAR

< 4.5 kg 36 12.61 5.36 -5.93

4.5-4.7 28 13.11 5.32 -4.69

4.7-5.0 48 13.38 5.40 -3.17

5.0-5.2 71 13.42 5.14 -2.58

5.2-5.4 170 13.56 5.47 -2.66

5.4-5.7 71 13.85 4.77 -3.46

Evaluation of over 400 sows

Effect of Feed Restriction on PerformanceEarly LactationZak et al. 1997

Late LactationZak et al., 1997

Late Lactation, Vinsky et al., 2006

Late Lactation,Foxcroft, unpublished

Wean to Estrus Interval (hr)

Control 88.7 ± 11.2* 88.7 ± 11.2* 127.2 ± 7.2 160.3 ± 3.65

Treated 134.7 ± 8.7* 122.3 ± 9.8* 129.6 ± 7.2 167.35 ± 3.72

Ovulation Rate at d30

Control 19.8 ± 1.6* 19.8 ± 1.6* 18.3 ± 0.7 18.57 ± 0.52*

Treated 15.4 ± 1.9* 15.4 ± 2.3* 18.2 ± 0.6 16.72 ± 0.47*

Embryo Survival at d30

Control 87.5 ± 6.4* 87.5 ± 6.4* 79.2 ± 4.0* 64.00 ± 4.08

Treated 86.5 ± 7.6* 64.4 ± 6.1* 67.9 ± 3.9* 69.03 ± 3.81

Courtesy of Dr Foxcroft

Calculated Sow Daily Mineral Intake During Lactation, mg/d/kg BW

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

Min

eral

in

take

, m

g/d

/kg

BW

Cu

Zn

Mn

Se

Peters and Mahan, 2008

Effect of TM on Reproductive Performance

OTM NRC OTM IND ITM NRC ITM IND SEM

Total born a,b 12.40 12.66 11.97 11.14 0.18

Born alive a 11.08 11.79 11.14 10.44 0.46

Still born a 1.02 0.55 0.45 0.60 0.18

Weaned 10.28 10.10 10.06 10.38 0.35

Piglet ADG, g a 277 275 267 267 5

Peters and Mahan, 2008a, source responseb, level response

23

Parity

Retention Rates, % P-value

OTM ITM

2 90.0 88.7 0.06

3 82.2 77.7 <0.01

4 72.1 63.5 <0.01

Improved Sow Retention Rates with OTM Supplementation

Novus International and ISS, Feedstuffs, 2012

24

Variable

OTM ITM P-value

Weaned 36.39 34.64 .08

Total born 44.10 40.76 .02

Live born 41.61 38.89 .04

Improved Sow Reproduction with OTM Supplementation

Novus International and ISS, Feedstuffs, 2012

Well-being Results

Stall D3-7 Mix D13-17 Mix D35 Mix Pooled SE P value

Lameness 0.03a 0.1b 0.1b 0.1b 0.006 <0.0001

Leg Inflammation 0.03a 0.06b 0.02ac 0.01d 0.004 <0.0001

Head Lesions 0.8a 1.3b 1.3c 1.2d 0.011 <0.0001

Body Lesions 0.6a 1.2b 1.2bc 1.1d 0.010 <0.0001

Vulva Lesions 0.02a 0.2b 0.1c 0.1c 0.008 <0.0001

BCS 2.88a 2.81b 2.86c 2.94d 0.004 <0.0001

Lameness: 0 or 1 LI: 0 or 1 HL: 0, 1, 2, 3BL: 0,1, 2, 3VL: 0, 1, 2BCS: 0-5

Hopgood et al., 2012

26

Method for Improving Sow Lifetime Productivity

• Improving sow lifetime productivity is a complex goal that requires all facets of pork production

• A systematic approach that addresses each area at various points before and during a sow’s reproductive career must be taken to determine how to maximize her performance.

27

Thank you to our Speakers

• Dr. Pollmann• Dr. Flowers• Dr. Ross• Dr. Cassady

28

Thank you for your attendance!