Dr. Mark Knauer - Evaluating Body Condition & Reproductive Performance

Evaluating body condition & reproductive performance

September 15, 2014

Knauer, M. T., and M. Bryan

[email protected]

NCSU Swine Extension Specialist

Focus

– Swine genetics and production management

Appointment

– 70% extension, 30% research

Start date – July 2011

Training graduate students Animal Science – Animal Breeding & Genetics

– M.S. (4)

John Langdon

Cassie Ferring

Austin Putz

Matt Morrison

– PhD (2)

Emily Cook

Miranda Bryan

Pellet quality

Sow body condition

Genetics of

piglet quality

Evaporative Cooling

Selection for improved reproduction under

heat stress

Outline

Making a case for objective body condition tools

Research

– Exp. 1 – Ideal body condition in relation to reproduction

– Exp. 2 – Ideal body condition change in relation to

reproduction

Economic impact of implementing the sow caliper

Summary

Sow feeding management concepts Repartition gestation intake to lactation

– Reducing gestation feed intake improves Feed cost

Subsequent lactation feed intake

– Increasing lactation feed intake improves Litter weight gain

Wean-to-estrous interval

Subsequent farrowing rate

Subsequent litter size

Cull weight

Example of repartitioning gestation feed to lactation

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Gestation Lactation Total

Feed intake per sow per year, lb.

Feed budget A Feed budget B

Superior reproductive throughput

Feeding based on visual body condition

Pros

Inexpensive

Cons

Requires continuous training

Farm to farm variation

Potential for reduce profitability

Problem – visual BCS

If you cannot objectively measure body condition

– How will you

manage it?

will you improve?

Optimal

0

5

10

15

20

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

%

Caliper

Farm 1

Farm 2

Validating problems with

BCSThin Fat

Sow caliper score

Differences in body condition

Trait P-13 (n=75) P-23 (n=150)

Parity 3.9 3.4

Weight, lb. 486 545

Backfat, in. 0.90 1.15

Farm BCS 2.9 3.2

Expert BCS 2.7 3.4

Caliper 12.1 16.5

*All means differ (P < 0.05)

Farm 1 Farm 2

Problem – visual BCS

Underfeeding Overfeeding

High feed costs

Farrowing problems

Increased preweaning mortality

Impaired reproduction

Well-being concerns

0

5

10

15

20

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

%

Caliper

Farm 1

Farm 2

Impaired reproduction

Well-being concern

Optimal

High feed costs

Farrowing problems

↑ preweaning mortality

Problem – visual BCS

Sow caliper score

Adoption of objective body condition tools

Standardize farms & people

Train new/existing employees to visually

score sow condition

Fast and accurate tools will reduce

weaned pig cost

Commercial sow farm in eastern NC

August 2012 - May 2013

1,500 whiteline sows

Multiparous

Exp. 1 – Define ideal body condition in relation to reproduction

Sow housing

Stalls

– Weaning to ~35 days

Pens

– ~35 days to

farrowing

– 8×10ft

– 4 to 5 sows per pen

Body condition traits

Caliper score (CS)

Weight (WT)

Backfat (BF)

Loin eye area (LEA)

Visual BCS

– 1-5 by experienced

technician

Knauer sow body condition caliperAn objective body condition tool – the sow caliper

The concept…

Adapted from Edmonson et al. (1989)

Data analyzed with SAS using PROC GLM

Fixed effects

– group

– barn

– group x barn interaction

– parity

Example model

– reproductive trait = group + barn + group*barn + parity + body

condition trait

Statistical analysis

Relationships between body condition measures at breeding with subsequent reproductive performance

CS CS2 WT BF LEA LEA2 BCS BCS2

NBA

BW

NW

WW

PS

WCI

= (P<0.05)2Denotes quadratic body condition term. NBA= number born alive, BW= litter birth weight, NW= number weaned, WW= litter weaning weight, PS= piglet survival, WCI=wean-to-conception interval.

Optimum sow caliper score for piglet survival

80

85

90

95

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Piglet survival,

%

Sow caliper score

Lighter weight sows had greater piglet survival

80

85

90

95

Piglet survival,

%

Sow weight at breeding, lb.

Parity p>0.05

Optimum sow caliper score for reproductive throughput

25

26

27

28

29

30

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Pigs weaned per sow per year

Sow caliper score

Exp. 2 – Define ideal body condition change in relation to reproduction

Commercial sow farm in eastern NC

– 885 sows

– 250 gilts

Smithfield Premium Genetics

February to August, 2013

Traits measured

26

Sow caliper

Heart girth (gilts)

Ultrasound backfat

2 3 4

Farm body condition score

Backfat, BCS, caliper and gilt weight traits

gestation

breeding day 35 day 105

Gain early gestation

Gain late gestation

Gestation gain

Statistical analysis 24 body condition traits related to reproduction

Data analyzed with SAS using PROC GLM

Fixed effects

– farrowing group

– parity

Example model

– reproductive trait = farrowing group + parity + body condition

trait

Results – in general

Reproduction associated with

– Gilts body condition change but not specific body

condition

– Sows specific body condition but not body condition

change

Results - giltsAt

breeding Day 35 of gestation

Day of gestation

105

Early gestation

gain

Late gestation

gain

Gestation gain

Backfat

NBA

STB

NW

BCS

NBA

STB

NW

Caliper score

NBA

STB

NW

Weight

NBA

STB

NW

= (P<0.05)NBA= number born alive, STB= stillborn, NW= number weaned.

Results - sowsAt

breeding Day 35 of gestation

Day of gestation

105

Early gestation

gain

Late gestation

gain

Gestation gain

Backfat

NBA

STB

NW

BCS

NBA

STB

NW

Caliper score

NBA

STB

NW

NBA= number born alive, STB= stillborn, NW= number weaned. = (P<0.05)

Distribution of gilt weight at breeding

Average weight at breeding = 360 pounds

0

10

20

263 285 306 328 349 371 392 414 435 457 478

%

Gilt weight, lb.

Gilts that gained condition during gestation farrowed fewer piglets

11.611.1

10.610.0

9.5

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

-2 -1 0 1 2 3

NBA

Caliper score gain/loss

Early gestation

Late gestation

Gilts that gained condition farrowed fewer piglets

8

9

10

11

12

0

10

20

30

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

NBA% of gilts

Gestation caliper gain/loss

11.611.0

10.4

44% of gilts gained condition

Identifying “ideal” sow body condition

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

NW

Caliper score

10.0

10.5

11.0

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

NW

Caliper score

Exp. 1

Exp. 2

Benchmarking gestation feed intake

0

10

20

30

≤ 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 ≥ 6.5

%

Gestation feed intake, lb.

Agri Stats 2005 to 2010

Gestation feed intake per day, lb.

18,000 sows - implementation of sow caliper in 2013

8 farms – 18,000 sows

4.24.44.64.85.05.25.4

2012 2013 2014

Gestation feed

intake per day,

lb.

Year

savings of $285,000, $15.82 per sow

Summary

Repartitioning gestation feed intake to lactation can

improve herd reproduction/profitability

The sow caliper is an objective tool that can be used to

manage body condition

– We recommend maintaining sows at a caliper score between a

12 and 15

– Sow calipers are available to the public – contact

[email protected]

Summary

Sows

– “Ideal” body condition in relation to sow reproductive

throughput was identified

– Heavy sows have greater preweaning mortality

Gilts

– A one caliper score increase in body condition during

gestation decreased NBA by 0.57 piglets

Body condition extension materials

Sow body condition poster – Free – Available @ pork.org – Pork Store

Thank you

Dave Baitinger

Dr. Dustin Kendall

Mark Daughtry

Tommie Dale

Bob Ivey

Stacey Jones

Dr. Cary Sexton

Miranda Bryan

Frank Hollowell

Thank you for your time

Mark Knauer

[email protected]