Share This Article:

Physical Conditions of Cull Sows Associated with On-Farm Production Records

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:264KB) PP. 137-150
DOI: 10.4236/ojvm.2012.23023    2,920 Downloads   5,361 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Cull sow physical conditions were associated with on-farm production records. Sows (923) within one integrated U.S. production system were evaluated at two harvest facilities. Physical conditions evaluated at harvest were analyzed by parity, culling code and production measures. Farm culling codes were categorized into poor body condition (BC), old age (G), lameness (L), other (O), poor litter performance (P) and reproductive failure (R). Production measures included lifetime pigs born alive (LPBA), pigs born alive in the last litter (PBALL), pigs per sow per year (PSY) and weaning to culling interval. The L culling code had a greater (P < 0.05) prevalence of cracked hooves when compared to the other five culling codes (30.9% vs. 18.7%). Sows without front cracked hooves tended (P = 0.07) to have greater PSY (0.80) when compared to sows having front cracked hooves. Females without rear digital overgrowth had more (P < 0.05) PBALL (0.54) and tended (P = 0.06) to have increased PSY (0.80) when compared to sows with rear digital overgrowth. Sows without shoulder lesions had greater (P < 0.05) LPBA (2.01) when compared to sows with shoulder lesions. Regression coefficient estimates for percent lung lesion involvement were positive and tended (P < 0.10) to be different from zero for LPBA (0.06) and PSY (0.03). Females with severe teeth wear tended (P ≤ 0.10) to have fewer LPBA (1.36), PBALL (0.45) and had fewer (P < 0.01) PSY (1.10) when compared to sows without severe teeth wear. Sows culled for BC and L had lower (P < 0.01) backfat when compared to sows from the other four culling codes (1.83 and 2.04 cm vs. 2.47 to 2.85 cm, respectively). Multiple cull sow physical conditions evaluated at harvest had associations with on-farm reproductive measures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

M. Knauer, K. Stalder, T. Baas, C. Johnson and L. Karriker, "Physical Conditions of Cull Sows Associated with On-Farm Production Records," Open Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 2 No. 3, 2012, pp. 137-150. doi: 10.4236/ojvm.2012.23023.

References

[1] K. J. Stalder, M. Knauer, T. J. Baas, M. F. Rothschild and J. W. Mabry, “Sow Longevity,” Pig News and Information, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2004, pp. 53-74.
[2] S. S. Anil and J. Deen, “Benchmark Pig CHAMP Year in Review,” 2007. http://www.pigchamp.com/Portals/_default/Skins/ PigChamp/Creative/Assets/PDF/ Benchmark_2007_File_A.pdf
[3] J. Deen, “Benchmark 2007 Summary of the Pig CHAMP Database,” 2008. http://www.pigchamp.com/Portals/ _default/Skins/PigChamp/Creative/Assets/ PDF/Benchmark_2008.pdf
[4] M. Heinonen, A. Lepp?vuori and S. Py?r?l?, “Evaluation of Reproductive Failure of Female Pigs Based on Slaughterhouse Material and Herd Record Survey,” Animal Reproduction Science, Vol. 52, No. 3, 1998, pp. 235-244. doi:10.1016/S0378-4320(98)00105-5
[5] L. A. Ritter, J. L. Xue, G. D. Dial, R. B. Morrison and W. E. Marsh, “Prevalence of Lesions and Body Condition Scores among Female Swine at Slaughter,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol. 214, No. 4, 1999, pp. 525-528.
[6] J. F. Patience and P. A. Thacker, “Swine Nutrition Guide,” Prairie Swine Centre, Saskatoon, 1989.
[7] Subcommittee on Swine Nutrition, Committee on Animal Nutrition and National Research Council, “Nutrient Requirements for Swine, 10th Revised Edition,” The National Academies Press, Washington DC, 1998.
[8] H. Gjein and R. B. Larssen, “Housing of Pregnant Sows in Loose and Confined Systems—a Field Study 2. Claw Lesions: Morphology, Prevalence, Location and Relation to Age,” Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, Vol. 36, No. 4, 1995, pp. 433-442.
[9] SAS Institute, “SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, Release 9.1,” SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, 2003.
[10] P. H. Brooks, D. A. Smith and V. C. R. Irwin, “Biotin- Supplementation of Diets; The Incidence of Foot Lesions, and the Reproductive Performance of Sows,” Veterinary Record, Vol. 101, No. 3, 1977, pp. 46-50. doi:10.1136/vr.101.3.46
[11] M. D. Lindemann, E. T. Kornegay and E. R. Collins Jr., “The Effect of Various Flooring Materials on Performance and Foot Health of Early-Weaned Pigs,” Livestock Production Science, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1985, pp. 373-382. doi:10.1016/0301-6226(85)90028-4
[12] H. Gjein and R. B. Larssen, “Housing of Pregnant Sows in Loose and Confined Systems—a Field Study 3. The Impact of Housing Factors on Claw Lesions,” Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, Vol. 36, No. 4, 1995, pp. 443-450.
[13] MAFF, “Injuries Caused by Flooring: A Survey in Pig Health Scheme Herds,” Proceedings Pig Veterinary Society, Vol. 8, 1981, pp. 119-125.
[14] P. H. Simmins and P. H. Brooks, “Supplementary Biotin for Sows: Effect on Claw Integrity,” Veterinary Record, Vol. 122, No. 18, 1988, pp. 431-435. doi:10.1136/vr.122.18.431
[15] H. Gjein and R. B. Larssen, “Housing of Pregnant Sows in Loose and Confined Systems—a Field Study 1. Vulva and Body Lesions, Culling Reasons and Production Results,” Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1995, pp. 185-200.
[16] R. A. Barczewski, E. T. Kornegay, D. R. Notter, H. P. Veit and M. E. Wright, “Effects of Feeding Restricted Energy and Elevated Calcium and Phosphorus During Growth on Gait Characteristics of Culled Sows and Those Surviving Three Parities,” Journal of Animal Science, Vol. 68, No. 10, 1990, pp. 3046-3055.
[17] G. L. Newton, C. V. Booram, O. M. Hale and B. G. Mullinix, Jr., “Effect of Four Types of Floor Slats on Certain Feet Characteristics and Performance of Swine,” Journal of Animal Science, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1980, pp. 7- 20.
[18] B. J?rgensen and M. T. S?rensen, “Different Rearing Intensities of Gilts: II. Effects on Subsequent Leg Weakness and Longevity,” Livestock Production Science, Vol. 54, No. 2, 1998, pp. 167-171.
[19] R. F. Fitzgerald, K. J. Stalder, L. A. Karriker, L. J. Sadler, H. T. Hill, J. Kaisand and A. K. Johnson, “The Effect of Hoof Abnormalities on Sow Behavior and Performance,” Livestock Science, Vol. 145, No. 1-3, 2012, pp. 230-238. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2012.02.009
[20] Y. Koketsu, G. D. Dial, J. E. Pettigrew and V. L. King, “Influence of Feed Intake during Individual Weeks of Lactation on Reproductive Performance of Sows on Commercial Farms,” Livestock Production Science, Vol. 49, No. 3, 1997, pp. 217-225.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.