Putting it all together - Improving Sow Lifetime Productivity - Dr. Laura Greiner, from the 2012 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, September 15-18, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2012-leman-swine-conference-material

1. Putting It All Together
Laura L. Greiner
Innovative 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.
2

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.
3

4. What We Learned Today
• Dr. Pollmann has outlined critical areas to
evaluate to help define the opportunities for
each system.
4

5. Reasons (%) for culling sows from commercial
herds
Reproductive failure
Failure to conceive 24.6
No oestrus 9.1
Total 33.6
Low productivity
Old age 8.7
Small litters 14.1
Health/physical damage 3.1
Mothering ability 4.9
Lameness/leg weakness 13.2
Death 7.4
Aborted -
Misc 15.0
Lucia et al., 2000
5

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.
6

7. Courtesy of Juan Carlos Pinilla
7

8. Courtesy of Juan Carlos Pinilla
8

9. What We Learned Today
• Dr. Flowers discussed the physiological test for
sow longevity.
9

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
10

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
11

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
12

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.
13

14. Heat
Detection
Nutrition Health
Production
Genetics
practices
Maternal Housing
influence environment
Gilt
acclimation
14

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.
15

16. Nutritional Opportunities for the
Reproductive Female
• What is our goal?
– Increase number of pigs weaned by parity
– Improve sow retention
16

17. Effect of Breeding Weight on Retention Rate to 3rd Parity
Locomotion Reproductive Other
70
68.8 68.5 16 c
68 14
Retention by 3 parities (%)
66 12
b
Culling Reason (%)
10
64
8
62 61 a
6
60 AI @ AI @ AI @ 4
211 d 219 d 225 d
58 143 160 177
kg 2
kg kg
56 0
130-150 151-170 171-200 130-150 151-170 171-200
Breeding weight (kg) Breeding weight (kg)
Source: Amaral Filha, unpublished data (2008)

18. Total born over 3 parities according to breeding weight
34.0
33.1
Total born over 3 parities
33.0 32.8 32.8
32.3
32.0
31.1
31.0
30.0
29.0
<135 135-148 148-159 159-170 >170
Weight at first breeding
Source: Williams et al, 2005

19. 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

20. Effect of Feed Restriction on Performance
Early Lactation Late Lactation Late Lactation, Late Lactation,
Zak et al. 1997 Zak et al., 1997 Vinsky et al., Foxcroft,
2006 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

21. Calculated Sow Daily Mineral Intake During
Lactation, mg/d/kg BW
1.6
Mineral intake, mg/d/kg BW
1.4
1.2
1.0 Cu
Zn
0.8
Mn
0.6
Se
0.4
0.2
0.0
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
Peters and Mahan, 2008

22. 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, 2008
a, source response
b, level response

23. Improved Sow Retention Rates with OTM
Supplementation
Retention Rates, %
Parity 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
Novus International and ISS,
Feedstuffs, 2012
23

24. Improved Sow Reproduction with OTM
Supplementation
OTM ITM
Variable P-value
Weaned 36.39 34.64 .08
Total born 44.10 40.76 .02
Live born 41.61 38.89 .04
Novus International and ISS,
Feedstuffs, 2012
24

25. Well-being Results
D13-17
Stall D3-7 Mix D35 Mix Pooled SE P value
Mix
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, 3 Hopgood et al., 2012
BL: 0,1, 2, 3
VL: 0, 1, 2
BCS: 0-5

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.
26

27. Thank you to our Speakers
• Dr. Pollmann
• Dr. Flowers
• Dr. Ross
• Dr. Cassady
27

28. Thank you for your attendance!
28