Feeding Sows for Maximum Lifetime Production

What are we trying to measure?

• Chronological age• There is no greater harm than that of time

wasted - Michelangelo

• Other options• Parity at removal• Pigs / day of productive life• Lifetime pigs / gilt entered

Reasons for RemovalEvaluating Differences in Retention

Taken from Culbertson, 2007; Discover Conference

Reasons for RemovalEvaluating Differences in Retention

Taken from Culbertson, 2007; Discover Conference

Gilt Development Feeding ProgramThe Non-Negotiables

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 2 3 4 5

Litt

er

Siz

e (

TB

)

Parity

Figure 1: Performance By Parity Based on P-1 Litter Size

<= 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >=17

5.1K females w/full data from P1 to P5 in the US Midwest. Different farms, health status, and genotypes (70% CAMs)Source: Pinilla, Molinari, Coates, Piva, Thompson, Teuber and Canavate (2014)

• By far, largest variation in litter size is at P1. • Good gilts are consistently good sows: sow lifetime performance is

decided in P1• 1 pig difference at P1 = 0.4 pigs per farrowing in the P1-P5 interval.

Reasons for Removal

• General agreement across data sets and with current industry experience• Repro failure and poor

performance• Old age and feet / leg• Mortality / injury

Impact of Seasonal Infertility

• What is seasonal infertility?• A reduction in ability to successfully demonstrate

normal estrus behavior or produce a target quality litter from matings during the late summer months

• Why?• Pig is naturally a seasonal breeder…domestication

has changed the need

Impacts of Seasonal InfertilityWhat Happens?

• Increase in…• Wean to service interval• Regular / Irregular returns• Number of anoestrus gilts

• Decrease in…• Farrowing rate• Numbers farrowed

Why is Lifetime Performance Important?Impact on System Profitability

• Impact on wean pig cost• Welfare implications• Health and production implications for

growing pigs

Feeding Females for Maximum Lifetime Production

So…where should we focus…

Breeding

WeaningFarro

win

g

Birth

Impacting Future Results

• Distinct phases with differing goals• Gilt development• Breeding to farrowing• Farrowing to breeding

• Components of feeding program• Management

considerations• Diet and ingredients

Gilt Development ProgramThe Non-Negotiables

• Always remember the impact of P1 performance on lifetime production

• Increasing chances to get better P1 performance by– Ad lib feed until first breeding and ensure an

optimum ADG range allow higher litter size in P1

– HNS program that make the system to breed 95%+ of the gilts with at least 1 HNS

Gilt Development ProgramThe Non-Negotiables

• Design the GDU to allow optimum management for the practical variation that exists in how we use them today

- Dynamic flows to match up with the utilization of health management programs to combat specific scenarios

- Stocking densities, flooring and feeder/water space that contribute to growth performance and high rates of voluntary selection

Gilt DevelopmentNutrition Considerations

• Recommendations• Ad libitum feeding for maximum performance• Lysine : Calorie ratio similar to market hogs• Gilt specific diets after approximately 135lb

• Increased micronutrients• Higher calcium and phosphorous• Potential inclusion of zinc, manganese, copper

• Avoid terminal market diets• Sow VTM starting at this point

Gilt Development ProgramImpact of Gain on P1 Performance

• Faster growing gilts attain puberty earlier and have lower anoestrus rate (Bertolozzo et al., 2009)

• Slow growing gilts don’t do as well as faster growing ones but up to some point….Lameness can be a problem (culling) when breeding gilts to heavy

Source: Adapted from G. Castro

Gilt Development ProgramImpact of Flushing Pre-Breeding

Farm Avg. Sow Inventory

Avg. TB Pre Avg TB Post Difference

1 2,600 13.5 14.2 0.7

2 3,500 13.5 14.1 0.6

3 2,700 13.6 14.4 0.8

4 1,300 12.7 13.6 0.9

5 1,300 12.6 13.9 1.3

6 5,600 12.9 14.2 1.3

Total or Avg 17,000 1.2

Source: Adapted from: Pinilla, Teuber, Piva and Coates (2013). AASV Proceedings

Marginal Cost = $6.8 (18 d full feed; +2.5 lb/d) ; $0.15/lb) Marginal Revenue = $40.8 (1.2 pigs x 85% piglet conversion x $40 piglet

price)MOFC = $ 34.1 per giltCost : Benefit = 1 : 5

Gilt Development ProgramImpact of Managing Weight at Mating

In average, every 10% of heavier gilts…Add 0.7 extra days in WSI

Reduce P2 litter size vs P1 by 0.3 pigsPractical Implication – How to manage the variation?

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

Figure 2: Effect Of >240 Day Old Gilts on Subsequent WSI Length & P2 Litter Size

WSI, days P2 littersize

% of Gilts Bred Above the Weight/Age Range

Gilt Development ProgramTraining for Electronic Sow FeedingTraining Flow:

Breeding

Go to pen in max 3 days after

breeding

Go to pen

after 35 days of gestatio

n

orFull Feed for 2 weeks

Training for 2 weeks

Contact with gates

GROWER GDU SOW FARM

Gilt Weight

60-210lbs 210-280lbs 280-300lbs 300-320lbs

Gilt Development ProgramImpact of Health Acclimation Program

• Total Intake • Aggressive

• 6 lb increase• On Demand

• 30 lb increase

• Wean-to estrus interval

• Cycling sows only • Slow: 5.4 d• Aggressive: 5.3 d• Full: 5.3 d

Farrowing to BreedingImpact of Maximizing Lactation Intake

Slow Aggressive Full on Demand 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

28.13

14.13 15.15

Sows Not Bred 7-d Post-Wean

So

ws

no

t b

red

7-d

po

st-w

ean

, %

Data from PIC C29 sow population

Farrowing to BreedingImpact of Maximizing Lactation Intake

RANGE OF ADFI n TB WEI WT VAR

< 10 LBS 36 12.61 5.36 -5.93

10.0-10.4 28 13.11 5.32 -4.69

10.5-10.9 48 13.38 5.40 -3.17

11.0-11.4 71 13.42 5.14 -2.58

11.5-11.9 170 13.56 5.47 -2.66

12.0-12.5 71 13.85 4.77 -3.46

Within a sow population, lactation feed intake is still one of the biggest sources of variation in subsequent performance

(48) (54) (58) (59) (63)

Lysine Impact on Milk Production

P4+ Lysine Requirement

• 10 treatment groups consuming between 35.2 and 78.2 grams SID Lysine/day from Corn-SBM based diet

• Using Linear broken line analysis, the SID Lysine requirement for older Parity sows was found to be 62 g/d to maximize Litter Weight Gain.

• This is similar to the results found for P1 animals

Farrowing to BreedingPreliminary Proof of Concept – Intake after Weaning

Parity distribution: P1= 21%, P2 – P5 = 69%, P6+ = 10%Weanings of September of 2013.N= 250 sows.Nipple drinkers and dry feed.

Farrowing to WeaningPost-Weaning Intake – Concepts We Gathered

• When well managed and healthy, weaned sows tend to eat more than people believe they will

• It’s key to realize the value of the feed eaten after the weaning

• Be careful of items that limit intake – running water too soon, etc

• Feed weaned sows at least twice daily• Main effect is realized in Parities 2 and 3

Trial Control Difference Better/Worse

Avg WSI 4.8 d 6.2 d 1.4 d Better

Bred by d 7 96.4% 87.6% 8.8% Better

Litter Size 13.7 12.4 1.3 Better

Farrowing to BreedingFeeding the Weaned Sow – Field Validation

Trial Control Difference Better/Worse

Avg WSI 4.4 d 5.3 d 0.9 d Better

Bred by d 7 97.5% 92.8% 4.7% Better

Sows 279 391

Total Feed 41 lb 30 lb 11 lb Better

ADFI 9.3 lb/d 5.7 lb/d 3.6 lb/d Better

Litter Size 13.9 12.9 1.0 Better

Source: PIC non-published data (2014).

Marginal Cost = $1.4 (11 lb x $0.13/d) Marginal Revenue = $34 (1.0 pig x 85% piglet conversion x $40

piglet price)MOFC = $ 32.6 / sow

Cost : Benefit = 1 : 23

Novel Focus AreasSeasonal Infertility

• New research is being done that highlights potential opportunities to modulate response of some at-risk females• Increases sow herd performance• Improves breeding female retention

• Special thanks to David Rosero for his recent dissertation on work conducted in the Hanor system

Seasonal InfertilityLinoleic Acid’s Impact on Pregnancy Retention

Taken from Rosero, 2014; “Nutritional Value of Dietary Lipids in Lactating Sow Diets “

Seasonal InfertilityLinoleic Acid Impact on Culling Rate

Taken from Rosero, 2014; “Nutritional Value of Dietary Lipids in Lactating Sow Diets “

Diet ConsiderationsLinoleic Acid’s Impact on Farrowing Rate

Taken from Rosero, 2014; “Nutritional Value of Dietary Lipids in Lactating Sow Diets “

Diet ConsiderationsLinoleic Acid Impact on Future Litter Size

Taken from Rosero, 2014; “Nutritional Value of Dietary Lipids in Lactating Sow Diets “

Dietary ConsiderationsEconomics of Added Energy

Taken from Rosero, 2014; “Nutritional Value of Dietary Lipids in Lactating Sow Diets “

Dietary ConsiderationsEconomics of Added Linoleic Acid

Taken from Rosero, 2014; “Nutritional Value of Dietary Lipids in Lactating Sow Diets “

So…what does this mean?

• Have a good plan on gilt development• Facilities and flows – for the routine/routine

and the routine/special scenarios• Good growing gilt performance = good sow

performance• Time spent on gilt development is a good

investment• Heat no serve• Flushing pre-breeding• ESF training

So…what does this mean?

• Managing the sow herd has two distinct phases• Breeding to farrowing

• Managing body condition• Less critical than historically thought

• Farrowing to breeding• Not farrowing to weaning• All about maximizing good intake

So…what does this mean?

• Changing realities should cause us to continue to challenge our perspectives• Higher total production output• Greater efficiency of the biological process• Changing production environments – facilities, health,

etc

• Continually search for and revisit opportunities • Novel nutritional strategies• Acclimation / health programs• Expectations for the pigs and people