Skip to main content
×
×
Home

An association analysis of sow parity, live-weight and back-fat depth as indicators of sow productivity

  • A. Lavery (a1) (a2) (a3), P. G. Lawlor (a1), E. Magowan (a2), H. M. Miller (a3), K. O’Driscoll (a1) and D. P. Berry (a1)...
Abstract

Understanding how critical sow live-weight and back-fat depth during gestation are in ensuring optimum sow productivity is important. The objective of this study was to quantify the association between sow parity, live-weight and back-fat depth during gestation with subsequent sow reproductive performance. Records of 1058 sows and 13 827 piglets from 10 trials on two research farms between the years 2005 and 2015 were analysed. Sows ranged from parity 1 to 6 with the number of sows per parity distributed as follows: 232, 277, 180, 131, 132 and 106, respectively. Variables that were analysed included total born (TB), born alive (BA), piglet birth weight (BtWT), pre-weaning mortality (PWM), piglet wean weight (WnWT), number of piglets weaned (Wn), wean to service interval (WSI), piglets born alive in subsequent farrowing and sow lactation feed intake. Calculated variables included the within-litter CV in birth weight (LtV), pre-weaning growth rate per litter (PWG), total litter gain (TLG), lactation efficiency and litter size reared after cross-fostering. Data were analysed using linear mixed models accounting for covariance among records. Third and fourth parity sows had more (P<0.05) TB, BA and heavier BtWT compared with gilts and parity 6 sow contemporaries. Parities 2 and 3 sows weaned more (P<0.05) piglets than older sows. These piglets had heavier (P<0.05) birth weights than those from gilt litters. LtV and PWM were greater (P<0.01) in litters born to parity 5 sows than those born to younger sows. Sow live-weight and back-fat depth at service, days 25 and 50 of gestation were not associated with TB, BA, BtWT, LtV, PWG, WnWT or lactation efficiency (P>0.05). Heavier sow live-weight throughout gestation was associated with an increase in PWM (P<0.01) and reduced Wn and lactation feed intake (P<0.05). Deeper back-fat in late gestation was associated with fewer (P<0.05) BA but heavier (P<0.05) BtWT, whereas deeper back-fat depth throughout gestation was associated with reduced (P<0.01) lactation feed intake. Sow back-fat depth was not associated with LtV, PWG, TLG, WSI or piglets born alive in subsequent farrowing (P>0.05). In conclusion, this study showed that sow parity, live-weight and back-fat depth can be used as indicators of reproductive performance. In addition, this study also provides validation for future development of a benchmarking tool to monitor and improve the productivity of modern sow herd.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      An association analysis of sow parity, live-weight and back-fat depth as indicators of sow productivity
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      An association analysis of sow parity, live-weight and back-fat depth as indicators of sow productivity
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      An association analysis of sow parity, live-weight and back-fat depth as indicators of sow productivity
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
Corresponding author
References
Hide All
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2016. Indoor breeding herd key performance indicators (KPI’s). Retrieved on 29 November 2017 from http://pork.ahdb.org.uk/prices-stats/costings-herd-performance/indoor-breeding-herd/?performanceMeasure= Total+pigs+born+per+litter.
Amdi, C, Giblin, L, Hennessy, AA, Ryan, T, Stanton, C, Stickland, NC and Lawlor, PG 2013. Feed allowance and maternal backfat levels during gestation influence maternal cortisol levels, milk fat composition and offspring growth. Journal of Nutritional Science 2, 110.
Andersen, IL, Berg, S and Bøe, KE 2005. Crushing of piglets by the mother sow (Sus scrofa)—purely accidental or a poor mother? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 229243.
Buzoianu, SG, Walsh, MC, Rea, MC, O’Donovan, O, Gelencsėr, E, Ujhelyi, G, Szabȯ, E, Nagy, A, Ross, RP and Gardiner, GE 2012. Effects of feeding Bt maize to sows during gestation and lactation on maternal and offspring immunity and fate of transgenic material. PLoS One 7, e1545.
Close, WH and Cole, DJA 2000. Nutrition of sows and boars. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.
Clowes, E, Aherne, F, Schaefer, A, Foxcroft, G and Baracos, V 2003. Parturition body size and body protein loss during lactation influence performance during lactation and ovarian function at weaning in first-parity sows. Journal of Animal Science 81, 15171528.
Cottney, PD 2012. Improving the productivity of the breeding sow herd in Northern Ireland. PhD thesis, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Craig, A, Henry, W and Magowan, E 2016. Effect of phase feeding and valine-to-lysine ratio during lactation on sow and piglet performance. Journal of Animal Science 94, 38353843.
Decaluwė, R, Maes, D, Declerck, I, Cools, A, Wuyts, B, De Smet, S and Janssens, G 2013. Changes in back fat thickness during late gestation predict colostrum yield in sows. Animal 7, 19992007.
Douglas, S, Szyszka, O, Stoddart, K, Edwards, S and Kyriazakis, I 2014. A meta-analysis to identify animal and management factors influencing gestating sow efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 92, 57165726.
Dourmad, J 1991. Effect of feeding level in the gilt during pregnancy on voluntary feed intake during lactation and changes in body composition during gestation and lactation. Livestock Production Science 27, 309319.
Eissen, J, Kanis, E and Kemp, B 2000. Sow factors affecting voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livestock Production Science 64, 147165.
Engblom, L, Lundeheim, N, Dalin, AM and Andersson, K 2007. Sow removal in Swedish commercial herds. Livestock Science 106, 7686.
Filha, WA, Bernardi, M, Wentz, I and Bortolozzo, F 2010. Reproductive performance of gilts according to growth rate and backfat thickness at mating. Animal Reproduction Science 121, 139144.
Foxcroft, GR, Dixon, WT, Novak, S, Putman, CT, Town, SC and Vinsky, MDA 2006. The biological basis for prenatal programming of postnatal performance in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84 (suppl. 13), 105112.
InterPIG 2015. 2015 Pig cost of production in selected countries. Retrieved on 6 March 2017 from http://pork.ahdb.org.uk/prices-stats/published-reports/.
Kilbride, AL, Mendl, M, Statham, P, Held, S, Harris, M, Cooper, S and Green, LE 2012. A cohort study of preweaning piglet mortality and farrowing accommodation on 112 commercial pig farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 104, 281291.
Koketsu, Y, Dial, GD, Pettigrew, JE and Marsh, WE 1996. Characterization of feed intake patterns during lactation in commercial swine herds. Journal of Animal Science 74, 12021210.
Lawlor, P and Lynch, P 2005. Management interventions to help keep piglets alive in large litters. Irish Veterinary Journal 58, 640645.
Lawlor, PG and Lynch, PB 2007. A review of factors influencing litter size in Irish sows. Irish Veterinary Journal 60, 359366.
Lawlor, PG, Lynch, PB, O’Connell, MK, McNamara, L, Reid, P and Stickland, NC 2007. The influence of over feeding sows during gestation on reproductive performance and pig growth to slaughter. Archiv Fur Tierzucht 50, 8291.
Lawlor, PG, Ryan, T, O’Connell, K and Lynch, PB 2012. Manipulation of liquid feeding curves for sows to increase lactation feed intake. Paper presented at Pig Research to Improve Sustainability, 1 November 2012, Agri-food and Bioscience Institute (AFBI), Hillsborough, Northern Ireland, pp.35–52.
Lucia, T, Dial, GD and Marsh, WE 2000. Lifetime reproductive performance in female pigs having distinct reasons for removal. Livestock Production Science 63, 213222.
Maes, D, Janssens, G, Delputte, P, Lammertyn, A and De Kruif, A 2004. Back fat measurements in sows from three commercial pig herds: relationship with reproductive efficiency and correlation with visual body condition scores. Livestock Production Science 91, 5767.
Markham, T, Latorre, R, Lawlor, P, Ashton, C, McNamara, L, Natter, R, Rowlerson, A and Stickland, N 2009. Developmental programming of skeletal muscle phenotype/metabolism. Animal 3, 10011012.
McNamara, L, Giblin, L, Markham, T, Stickland, N, Berry, DP, O’Reilly, JJ, Lynch, PB, Kerry, J and Lawlor, PG 2011. Nutritional intervention during gestation alters growth, body composition and gene expression patterns in skeletal muscle of pig offspring. Animal 5, 11951206.
Milligan, BN, Fraser, D and Kramer, DL 2002. Within-litter birth weight variation in the domestic pig and its relation to pre-weaning survival, weight gain, and variation in weaning weights. Livestock Production Science 76, 181191.
Noblet, J, Dourmad, JY and Etienne, M 1990. Energy utlisation in pregnant and lactating sows-modeling of energy requirements. Journal of Animal Science 68, 562572.
Oliviero, C, Heinonen, M, Valros, A and Peltoniemi, O 2010. Environmental and sow-realted factors affecting the duration of farrowing. Animal Reproduction Science 119, 8591.
Pluske, JR, Williams, IH, Zak, LJ, Clowes, EJ, Cegielski, AC and Aherne, FX 1998. Feeding lactating primiparous sows to establish three divergent metabolic states: III. Milk production and pig growth. Journal of Animal Science 76, 11651171.
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, 18421849.
Roongsitthichai, A and Tummaruk, P 2014. Importance of backfat thickness to reproductive performance in female pigs. The Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine 44, 171178.
Ryan, TP, Lynch, PB and Lawlor, PG 2009. Comparison between computerised liquid feeding and ad libitum dry feeding for sows during lactation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, 24–27 August 2009, Barcelona, Spain, 451pp.
Sasaki, Y and Koketsu, Y 2008. Sows having high lifetime efficiency and high longevity associated with herd productivity in commercial herds. Livestock Science 118, 140146.
Stalder, KJ, Lacy, RC, Cross, TL and Conatser, GE 2003. Financial impact of average parity of culled females in a breed-to-wean swine operation using replacement gilt net present value analysis. Journal of Swine Health and Production 11, 6974.
Thaker, M and Bilkei, G 2005. Lactation weight loss influences subsequent reproductive performance of sows. Animal Reproduction Science 88, 309318.
Walsh, M, Geraert, P, Maillard, R, Kluess, J and Lawlor, P 2012. The effect of a non-starch polysaccharide-hydrolysing enzyme (Rovabio® Excel) on feed intake and body condition of sows during lactation and on progeny growth performance. Animal 6, 16271633.
Weary, DM, Phillips, PA, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D and Thompson, BK 1998. Crushing of piglets by sows: effects of litter features, pen features and sow behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 103111.
Whittemore, CT and Kyriazakis, I 2008. Whittemore’s science and practice of pig production, 3rd edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Williams, I, Close, W and Cole, D 1985. Strategies for sow nutrition: predicting the response of pregnant animals to protein and energy intake. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition (ed. W Haresign and DJA Cole), pp. 133147. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Willis, H, Zak, L and Foxcroft, G 2003. Duration of lactation, endocrine and metabolic state, and fertility of primiparous sows. Journal of Animal Science 81, 20882102.
Wolf, J, Żȧkovȧ, E and Groeneveld, E 2008. Within-litter variation of birth weight in hyperprolific Czech Large White sows and its relation to litter size traits, stillborn piglets and losses until weaning. Livestock Science 115, 195205.
Yang, H, Eastham, P, Phillips, P and Whittemore, C 1989. Reproductive performance, body weight and body condition of breeding sows with differing body fatness at parturition, differing nutrition during lactation, and differing litter size. Animal Production 48, 181201.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

animal
  • ISSN: 1751-7311
  • EISSN: 1751-732X
  • URL: /core/journals/animal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed