Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T12:20:36.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herd-level factors associated with piglet weight at weaning, kilograms of piglets weaned per sow per year and sow feed conversion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2020

C. R. Pierozan Open the ORCID record for C. R. Pierozan [Opens in a new window] ,
M. A. Callegari ,
C. P. Dias ,
K. L. de Souza ,
J. Gasa Open the ORCID record for J. Gasa [Opens in a new window]  and
C. A. da Silva
C. R. Pierozan*
Affiliation:
Aluno de doutorado, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid, Pr 445 Km 380, Campus Universitário, 86.057-970Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
M. A. Callegari
Affiliation:
Aluno de doutorado, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid, Pr 445 Km 380, Campus Universitário, 86.057-970Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
C. P. Dias
Affiliation:
Akei Animal Research, Estrada Vicinal Fartura – Areias, Km 3, Bairro Três Saltos, 18870-000Fartura, São Paulo, Brazil
K. L. de Souza
Affiliation:
Aluna de graduação, Faculdades Integradas de Ourinhos, Rodovia BR-153 Km 338, Água do Cateto, 19909-100Ourinhos, São Paulo, Brazil
J. Gasa
Affiliation:
Department de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Plaça Cívica, 08193Bellaterra, Spain
C. A. da Silva
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid, Pr 445 Km 380, Campus Universitário, 86.057-970Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

To understand the production factors that affect conclusive parameters of sow herd performance can improve the use of the resources and profitability of farm. The objective of this study was to identify associations and quantify the effects of a set of factors related to piglet weight at weaning (PWW), kilograms of piglets weaned per sow per year (kgPWSY) and sow feed conversion (SFC). Data from 150 farms were collected, for a total study population of 135 168 sows, including gilt replacement, breeding (mating), gestation and farrowing/lactation phases. A questionnaire focusing on reproductive performance, management, facilities, feeding, health and biosafety was administered. Multiple linear regression models were used to assess associations among factors with each of the three dependent variables. Increased duration of lactation was positively associated with PWW, kgPWSY and SFC. The increase in the number of live born pigs per litter was positively associated with kgPWSY and with SFC. Farms with higher PWW had farrowing room humidifiers, did not surgically castrate male piglets and used quaternary ammonia compounds for farrowing room disinfection. Farms with higher kgPWSY used lined ceilings in farrowing rooms and winter feeds with higher CP percentages in gestation; they also had more farrowings per sow per year. Sow feed conversion was worse in farms with partly slatted floors during gestation, in farms feeding lactating sows six times a day or ad libitum and farms with a higher sow-handler ratio. This study indicates that farms can increase PWW and kgPWSY and improve the SFC by changing one or more management, biosafety and feeding practices or facilities as well as by focusing on improving several performance parameters, particularly increasing the duration of lactation and the number of live born pigs per litter.

Keywords

breedingfeed efficiencymanagement proceduresreproductionswine
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 6 , June 2020 , pp. 1283 - 1292
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agostini, PS, Fahey, AG, Manzanilla, EG, O’Doherty, JV, de Blas, C and Gasa, J 2014. Management factors affecting mortality, feed intake and feed conversion ratio of grow-finishing pigs. Animal 8, 1312–1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agriness 2016. Melhores da suinocultura Agriness: resultados consolidados, 8th edition (2015). Agriness, Florianópolis, Brazil.Google Scholar
Agriness 2018. Relatório anual do desempenho da produção de suínos, 10th edition (2017). Agriness, Florianópolis, Brazil.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, AD, Aalhus, JL, Willians, NH and Patience, JF 2010. Impact of piglet birth weight, birth order and litter size on subsequent growth performance, carcass quality, muscle composition, and eating quality of pork. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2767–2778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, W, Urioste, JI, Barlocco, N, Vadell, A and Clariget, RP 2015. Genetic and environmental factors affecting reproductive traits in sows in an outdoor production system. Livestock Science 182, 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos, PHRF, Silva, BAN, Donzele, JL, Oliveira, RFM and Knol, EF 2012. Effects of sow nutrition during gestation on within-litter birth weight variation: a review. Animal 6, 797–806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chantziaras, I, Dewulf, J, van Limbergen, T, Klinkenberg, M, Palzer, A, Pineiro, C, Moustsen, VA, Niemi, J, Kyriazakis, I and Maes, D 2018. Factors associated with specific health, welfare and reproductive performance indicators in pig herds from five EU countries. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 159, 106–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diaz, IDPS and Nascimento, JD 2014. Genética quantitativa e seleção assistida por marcadores. In Produção de suínos: teoria e prática (ed. Associação Brasileira de Criadores de Suínos – ABCS), pp 72–83. ABCS, Brasília, Brazil.Google Scholar
Dvorak, G 2008. Disinfection 101. Retrieved on 8 January 2019 from http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Disinfection/Assets/Disinfection101.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ek-Mex, JE, Segura-Correa, JC, Batista-Garcia, L and Alzina-López, A 2014. Factores ambientales que afectan los componentes de producción y productividad durante la vida de las cerdas. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 17, 447–462.Google Scholar
Enokida, M and Koketsu, Y 2011. Floor slat direction is related to severity of superficial claw lesions on hind limbs in gestating sows, but not reproductive performance and behaviour. Journal of Veterinary Epidemiology 15, 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA ) 2005. Opinion of the scientific panel on animal health and welfare on a request from the commission related to welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor types. The EFSA Journal 268, 1–19.Google Scholar
Fablet, C, Marois-Chéhan, C, Grasland, B, Simon, G and Rose, N 2016. Factors associates with herd-level PRRSV infection and age-time to seroconversion in farrow-to-finish herds. Veterinary Microbiology 192, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furtado, CSD, Mellagi, APG, Cypriano, CR, Bernardi, ML, Wentz, I and Bortolozzo, FP 2007. Fatores não infecciosos que influenciam o desempenho de leitões lactentes. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae 35 (suppl.), S47–S55.Google Scholar
Gillman, CE, Kilbride, AL, Ossent, P and Green, LE 2009. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of foot lesions in post-weaning pigs and risks associated with floor type on commercial farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 91, 146–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jørgensen, B 2003. Influence of floor type and stocking density on leg weakness, osteochondrosis and claw disorders in slaughter pigs. Animal Science 77, 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaneko, M, Iida, R and Koketsu, Y 2013. Herd management procedures and factors associated with low farrowing rate of female pigs in Japanese commercial herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 109, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kauppinen, T, Vesala, KM and Valros, A 2012. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livestock Science 143, 142–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, SW 2010. Recent advances in sow nutrition. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 39, 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, SW, Weaver, AC, Shen, YB and Zhao, Y 2013. Improving efficiency of sow productivity: nutrition and health. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 4, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, VL, Koketsu, Y, Reeves, D, Xue, J and Dial, GD 1998. Management factors associated with swine breeding-herd productivity in the United States. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 35, 255–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kluivers-Poodt, M, Zonderland, JJ, Verbraak, J, Lambooij, E and Hellebrekers, LJ 2013. Pain behaviour after castration of piglets; effect of pain relief with lidocaine and/or meloxicam. Animal 7, 1158–1162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knox, RV, Rodriguez Zas, SL, Sloter, NL, McNamara, KA, Gall, TJ, Levis, DG, Safranski, TJ and Singleton, WL 2013. An analysis of survey data by size of the breeding herd for the reproductive management practices of North American sow farms. Journal of Animal Science 91, 433–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koketsu, Y 2000. Retrospective analysis of trends and production factors associated with sow mortality on swine-breeding farms in USA. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 46, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koketsu, Y, Tani, S and Iida, R 2017. Factors for improving reproductive performance of sows and herd productivity in commercial breeding herds. Porcine Health Management 3, 2–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraeling, RR and Webel, SK 2015. Current strategies for reproductive management of gilts and sows in North America. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 6, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leidig, MS, Hertrampf, B, Failing, K, Schumann, A and Reiner, G 2009. Pain and discomfort in male piglets during surgical castration with and without local anesthesia as determined by vocalization and defence behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 174–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Z-X, Wei, H-K, Zhou, Y-F and Peng, J 2018. Multi-level mixed models for evaluating factors affecting the mortality and weaning weight of piglets in large-scale commercial farms in central China. Animal Science Journal 89, 760–769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, JJ, Stansbury, WF and Tribble, LF 1988. Management of lactating sows during heat stress: effects of water drip, snout coolers, floor type and a high energy-density diet. Journal of Animal Science 66, 885–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nääs, IA, Caldara, FR and Cordeiro, AFS 2014. Conceitos de ambiência na definição de instalações em suinocultura. In Produção de suínos: teoria e prática (ed. Associação Brasileira de Criadores de Suínos – ABCS), pp 878–884. ABCS, Brasília, Brazil.Google Scholar
Neves, MF, Lima Júnior, JC, de Sá, NC, Pinto, MJA, Kalaki, RB, Gerbasi, T, Galli, RM and Vriesekoop, F 2016. Mapeamento da suinocultura brasileira. Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Pequenas Empresas; Associação Brasileira dos Criadores de Suínos, Brasília, Brazil.Google Scholar
Silva, BAN, Oliveira, RFM, Donzele, JL, Fernandes, HC, Lima, AL, Renaudeau, D and Noblet, J 2009. Effect of floor cooling and dietary amino acids content on performance and behaviour of lactating primiparous sows during summer. Livestock Science 120, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soede, NM and Kemp, B 2015. Best practices in the lactating and weaned sow to optimize reproductive physiology and performance. In The gestating and lactating sow (ed. Farmer, C), pp. 377–407. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thingnes, SL, Ekker, AS, Gaustad, AH and Framstad, T 2012. Ad libitum versus step-up feeding during late lactation: the effect on feed consumption, body composition and production performance in dry fed loose housed sows. Livestock Science 149, 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, MR, Friendship, RM, McMillan, I, Hacker, RR, Pieper, R and Swaminathan, S 1986. A survey of productivity and its component interrelationships in Canadian swine herds. Journal of Animal Science 62, 576–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar