Gilt Management for Fertility and Longevity

Patterson, Jennifer; Foxcroft, G. R.

doi:10.3390/ani9070434

Cited by 46 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 85 publications

(168 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sow lifetime performance can be categorized as the four components of longevity, prolificacy, fertility and lifetime efficiency of sows. Longevity is measured as the number of parity at removal [2][3][4], herd-life days [9,10] or sow life days. Sow life days is the number of days from birth to removal, whereas herd-life days is the number of days from the date that a sow is first-mated as a gilt to the removal date.…”

Section: Components Of Sow Lifetime Performance In Breeding Herdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Longevity of sows is commonly measured as the number of parity at removal [2][3][4][5]. In North America, Japan, Sweden and Spain, the mean parity at removal varies between 3.3 and 5.6 [11][12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Sow Longevitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, most producers only use the data to generate basic reports such as sow cards, working lists and a brief performance summary, and so do not use their farm data to its full potential [1]. Herd management based on farm data analysis [1] can help producers and veterinarians to maximize lifetime reproductive potential of sows to improve economic inefficiency [2][3][4]. Also, farm data analysis can accurately monitor lifetime performance in individual sows including the four components of longevity, prolificacy, fertility and lifetime efficiency measures, which were well used, but were not well organized to understand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Farm data analysis for lifetime performance components of sows and their predictors in breeding herds

Koketsu

Iida

2020

Porc Health Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our objectives in this review are 1) to define the four components of sow lifetime performance, 2) to organize the four components and other key measures in a lifetime performance tree, and 3) to compile information about sow and herd-level predictors for sow lifetime performance that can help producers or veterinarians improve their decision making. First, we defined the four components of sow lifetime performance: lifetime efficiency, sow longevity, fertility and prolificacy. We propose that lifetime efficiency should be measured as annualized piglets weaned or annualized piglets born alive which is an integrated measure for sow lifetime performance, whereas longevity should be measured as sow life days and herd-life days which are the number of days from birth to removal and the number of days from date of first-mating to removal, respectively. We also propose that fertility should be measured as lifetime non-productive days, whereas prolificacy should be measured as lifetime pigs born alive. Second, we propose two lifetime performance trees for annualized piglets weaned and annualized piglets born alive, respectively, and show inter-relationships between the four components of the lifetime performance in these trees. Third, we describe sow and herd-level predictors for high lifetime performance of sows. An example of a sow-level predictor is that gilts with lower age at first-mating are associated with higher lifetime performance in all four components. Other examples are that no re-service in parity 0 and shorter weaning-to-first-mating interval in parity 1 are associated with higher fertility, whereas more piglets born in parity 1 is associated with higher prolificacy. It appears that fertility and prolificacy are independent each other. Furthermore, sows with high prolificacy and high fertility are more likely to have high longevity and high efficiency. Also, an increased number of stillborn piglets indicates that sows have farrowing difficulty or a herd health problem. Regarding herd-level predictors, large herd size is associated with higher efficiency. Also, herd-level predictors can interact with sow level predictors for sow lifetime performance. For example, sow longevity decreases more in large herds than small-to-mid herds, whereas gilt age at first-mating increases. So, it appears that herd size alters the impact of delayed gilt age at first-mating on sow longevity. Increased knowledge of these four components of sow lifetime performance and their predictors should help producers and veterinarians maximize a sow’s potential and optimize her lifetime productivity in breeding herds.

show abstract

Section: Components Of Sow Lifetime Performance In Breeding Herdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sow Longevitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Farm data analysis for lifetime performance components of sows and their predictors in breeding herds

Koketsu

Iida

2020

Porc Health Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study clearly showed that sows with late AFM were associated with decreased longevity, prolificacy, fertility and reproductive efficiency measurements except for sow life days. However, AFM can be advanced to some degree by a puberty stimulation program for gilts [10,22], although innately fertile sows do tend to have early AFM and high lifetime performance [22]. Additionally, it is recommended that producers record and pay close attention to gilt age at first-estrus, heat-noservice events and AFM [22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased age at first-mating interacting with herd size or herd productivity decreases longevity and lifetime reproductive efficiency of sows in breeding herds

Koketsu

Iida

Piñeiro³

2020

Porc Health Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Our objectives were to characterize sow life and herd-life performance and examine two-way interactions between age at first-mating (AFM) and either herd size or herd productivity groups for the performance of sows. Data contained 146,140 sows in 143 Spanish herds. Sow life days is defined as the number of days from birth to removal, whereas the herd-life days is from AFM date to removal date. Herds were categorized into two herd size groups and two productivity groups based on the respective 75th percentiles of farm means of herd size and the number of piglets weaned per sows per year: large (> 1017 sows) or small-to-mid herds (< 1017 sows), and high productivity (> 26.5 piglets) or ordinary herds (< 26.5 piglets). A two-level liner mixed-effects model was applied to examine AFM, herd size groups, productivity groups and their interactions for sow life or herd-life performance. Results: No differences were found between either herd size or herd productivity groups for AFM or the number of parity at removal. However, late AFM was associated with decreased removal parity, herd-life days, herd-life piglets born alive and herd-life annualized piglets weaned, as well as with increased sow life days and herd-life nonproductive days (P < 0.05). Also, significant two-way interactions between AFM and both herd size and productivity groups were found for longevity, prolificacy, fertility and reproductive efficiency of sows. For example, as AFM increased from 190 to 370 days, sows in large herds decreased herd-life days by 156 days, whereas for sows in small-to-mid herds the decrease was only 42 days. Also, for the same AFM increase, sows in large herds had 5 fewer sow life annualized piglets weaned, whereas for sows in small-to-mid herds this sow reproductive efficiency measure was only decreased by 3.5 piglets. Additionally, for ordinary herds, sows in large herds had more herd-life annualized piglets weaned than those in small-to-mid herds (P < 0.05), but no such association was found for high productivity herds (P > 0.10). Conclusion: We recommend decreasing the number of late AFM sows in the herd and also recommend improving longevity and lifetime efficiency of individual sows.

show abstract

“…Gilts are the foundation of efficient breeding herd performance (Patterson & Foxcroft, 2019). However, before entering the breeding population, all replacement gilts are only indirectly measured on maternal capacities such as the total number of teat and the number of functional teats (Norsvin, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship of Udder Morphometric Traits to Mothering Ability of Landrace X Large White Primiparous Sows

Dominguez

Manzanero

Lontoc-Junsay

et al. 2020

Trop. Anim. Sci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of udder morphometry is often neglected during the selection of replacement gilts. This study was aimed to characterize the udder morphometry of primiparous Landrace x Large White sows across different production stages; and to show its relationship to some mothering ability traits. A total of 20 primiparous Landrace x Large White sows were bred. For each sow, the udder morphometry was characterized by measuring traits like teat tip diameter (DIA), teat length (LEN), inter-teat distance on the same row (SAMER), adjacent teat base distance on opposite row (OPPR), and teat tip to floor distance (FLO) during pre-breeding, post-breeding, and post-farrowing stages. A comparison of observed traits was also made between left and right udders as well as between anterior and posterior udders. Furthermore, the relationship between mothering ability and udder morphometry was evaluated using correlation and regression analyses. Across stages, udder traits were symmetric; however, higher values were measured for traits in posterior than in anterior udders. In the pre-breeding stage, OPPR and FLO of the anterior part had moderate negative correlations to average weaning weight (AWWt) and average daily gain (ADG). On the other hand, in the post-breeding stage, OPPR of the posterior part had a moderate positive correlation to litter size born alive (LSBA) but had a moderate negative correlation to average birth weight (ABWt). Furthermore, IgG content in the colostrum had a strong positive correlation to SAMER of the anterior part but had a strong negative correlation to FLO of the anterior part. It can be concluded that the pre-breeding combined with postbreeding udder morphometry measurements in gilts is useful as a predictor of sow mothering ability. These traits can be included in the criteria when selecting replacement gilts to enhance the productivity of sow herd.

show abstract

Gilt Management for Fertility and Longevity

Cited by 46 publications

References 85 publications

Farm data analysis for lifetime performance components of sows and their predictors in breeding herds

Farm data analysis for lifetime performance components of sows and their predictors in breeding herds

Increased age at first-mating interacting with herd size or herd productivity decreases longevity and lifetime reproductive efficiency of sows in breeding herds

Relationship of Udder Morphometric Traits to Mothering Ability of Landrace X Large White Primiparous Sows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About