High-performing farms exploit reproductive potential of high and low prolific sows better than low-performing farms

• Published in: Porcine Health Management. Vol. 4; no. 1; p. 15
• Main Authors: Tani, Satomi, Piñeiro, Carlos, Koketsu, Yuzo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central 16.07.2018; BMC
• Subjects: Cattle; Farm effect; High prolific sows; High-performing farms; Hogs; Lifetime performance; Mortality; Productivity; Reproductive technologies; Sow potential; Weaning; Europe; Spain; High prolific sows; Lifetime performance; High-performing farms; Sow potential; Farm effect
• ISSN: 2055-5660; 2055-5660
• DOI: 10.1186/s40813-018-0091-8

Our objective was to examine the impact of farm effects and sow potential on various aspects of sow performance. We examined the interaction between sow prolificacy groups categorized at parity 1 and farm productivity groups for reproductive performance across parities, and lifetime performance. Data included 419,290 service records of 85,096 sows, on 98 Spanish farms, from first-service as gilts to removal, that were served between 2008 and 2013. Farms were categorized into three productivity groups based on the upper and lower 25th percentiles of the farm means of annualized lifetime piglets weaned per sow over the 6 years: high-performing (HP), intermediate-performing (IP), and low-performing (LP) farms. Also, parity 1 sows were categorized into three groups based on the upper and lower 10th percentiles of piglets born alive (PBA) as follows: 15 piglets or more (H-prolific), 8 to 14 piglets, and 7 piglets or fewer (L-prolific). The farm groups represent farm effects, whereas the sow groups represent sow potential. Linear mixed effects models were performed with factorial arrangements and repeated measures. Mean parity at removal (4.8 ± 0.01) was not associated with three farm productivity groups (  = 0.43). However, HP farms had 7.7% higher farrowing rates than LP farms (  <  0.05). As a result, H-prolific and L-prolific sows on HP farms had 29.7 and 30.7 fewer non-productive days during lifetime than the respective sows on LP farms (  <  0.05). Furthermore, the H-prolific and L-prolific sows on HP farms had 4.9 and 6.2 more annualized piglets weaned than respective H-prolific and L-prolific sows on LP farms (  <  0.05), which was achieved by giving birth to 0.8-1.0 and 1.4-1.7 more PBA per litter, respectively, than on HP farms during parities 2-6 (  <  0.05). During the first parity, HP farms had 18.8% H-prolific sows compared to 6.2% on LP farms. Farm effects substantially affected lifetime performance of sows. Higher lifetime productivity of sows on HP farms was achieved by higher farrowing rate, fewer non-productive days, more PBA and more piglets weaned per sow, regardless of prolific category of the sows.