monitoring & maintaining proper condition in gestating sows€¦ · monitoring &...

1ISUIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYDepartment of Animal Science

Monitoring & Maintaining Proper Condition in Gestating Sows

Ken Stalder, Ph.D.Associate Professor and Extension

Swine SpecialistIowa State University

SowBridgeBreeding Herd Education Series

2007 – 2008Timely, Relevant, & Convenient Learning

2

ISU Keys to High Sow Lifetime Productivity

• Proper gilt development– Isolation and acclimation– Vaccination– Age – Condition

• High degree of management over successive parities– Gestation

• Return to ideal condition• Vaccinate for health issues

– Lactation• Nutrition to match production• Lactation length

3

ISUReproductive Efficiency of Average and

Outstanding Swine Herds, PigCHAMP, 2005

6042Pigs weaned / lifetime

25.222.6Pigs weaned / sow / year

2.42.2Litters / year

10.29.3Pigs weaned / litter

90.079.8Farrowing rate,%

59Weaning to effective mating, d

8.512.5Baby pig mortality, %

SuperiorTypicalTrait


Lactation Impacts Body Condition at Weaning

5

ISU Lactation Feeding• Lactation feeding is critical to

– Current production• Milk Yield• Number of pigs weaned• Pig weight at weaning

– Subsequent production• Return to estrus • Eggs ovulated• Conception rate• Number born

• Feed intake as early as the first week of lactation plays a substantial role


What Happens When Lactation Feed Intake is Inadequate?

7

ISUEffects of sow condition at weaning* on reproductive performance & herd longevity

8.911.49.810.9Subsequent litter size (live)

3993711Sow wastage (%)**

8.15.88.26.2Weaning-estrus interval (d)

LowHighLowHighTrait

P2 backfat at weaning

Liveweight at weaning

* Measured in mature sows (parities 3-7) where High = top one-third and low = bottom one-third of total.** Consisting of sows anoestrus, failing to conceive, aborting or non-pregnant at term._______________________________Gilt management to maximize lifetime productivity: Feeding from selection to culling. Dr. Paul Hughes, Pig & Poultry Production Institute, Aug. 2001.

8

ISU First litter sow weight at weaning and wean to mating interval

(Williams and Mullan, 1989 and adapted from Boyd et al. 2002)

9

ISU Influence of Feed Intake in Lactation on Sow Body Weight and Body Backfat

Change, Kryiazakis and Whittemore, 2006


Body Condition at Weaning

11

ISU

Evaluating Condition

12

ISU Condition Scores of Sows, Patience and Thacker, 1989

Score Condition Body Shape1 Emaciated Hip, backbone prominent to the eye2 Thin Hips, backbone easily felt without

applying palm pressure3 Ideal Hips backbone felt only with firm palm

pressure4 Fat Hips, backbone cannot be felt5 Over fat Hips, backbone heavily covered

13

ISU

BCS 1Excessively ThinBackfat < 10 mm

Ribs, hips and backbone are easily visible and palpable.Sow is in poor condition and needs large amounts of muscle and fat to maintain productivity

BCS 2Moderately ThinBackfat 10 - 15 mm

Ribs, hips and backbone can be palpated with slight pressure.A moderate increase in feed intake is required before the sow farrows next litter.

BCS 3Ideal ConditionBackfat 15 - 22 mm

Ribs, hips and backbone can be palpated with firm pressure, but cannot be observed visually. Monitor feed intake to maintain this level of condition.

BCS 4Moderately Fat Backfat 23 - 29 mm

Ribs, hips and backbone cannot be palpated. Reduce feed allowance slightly.

BCS 5Excessively Fat Backfat >30 mm

Ribs, hips and backbone cannot be palpated. Reduce feed allowance to bring her into a more ideal body condition. Sows this fat perform poorly in lactat.

14

ISUWhere do you evaluate condition?

1. Shoulder blades 2. Backbone or spine4. Hip bones

3. Tail head

15

ISU Where do you evaluate condition?

5. Top Shape4. Hip bones

3. Tail head

6. Width between legs

16

ISUTools to Accurately Evaluate Body Condition in Sows

Flank to Flank Measurement Ultrasonic Fat Evaluation

17

ISU

Gestation Feeding

• Do not want to get sows over fat

18

ISU A Simple Approach to Gestation Sow Feeding

• When evaluating sow body condition, ask yourself the question does the sow need

• More feed (add condition)

19



• The same amount of feed (maintain condition)

20



• Less feed (over conditioned)

21

ISUFeed gestation sows based on weight and backfat (KSU)

5.7 (3.2)6.4 (3.2)6.8 (3.4)7.3 (3.65)550 to 650250 to 295

> 44> (112)

5.3(2.65)5.7 (2.85)6.4 (3.2)6.8 (3.4)475 to 550215 to 250

< 41 – 44< (105 – 112)

4.6 (2.3)5.3(2.65)5.7 (2.85)6.4 (3.2)400 to 475180 to 215

< 38 – 41< (98 – 104)

4.2 (2.1)4.6 (2.3)5.3 (2.65)6.0 (3.0)330 to 400150 to 180

< 35 – 38< (90 – 97)

3.7 (1.85)4.2 (2.1)4.6 (2.3)5.3 (2.65)250 to 330113 to 150

< 35 < (90)

>0.67(>17)

0.55 – 0.67 (14 – 17)

0.43 – 0.55 (11 – 14)

0.30 – 0.43(8 – 11)

Backfat at breeding, in. (mm)

Estimated weight, lbs. (kg)

Flank to Flank, in. (cm)

Feeding level from day of sow scan to 101 day of gestation, lb/day (2x / feeding rate)

22

ISUMinimum feed intake required to rebuild body reserves and support current pregnancy (assumes 400 lb. sow, adapted from Boyd et al., 2002)

23

ISU

Avoid Overfeeding in Gestation

24

ISUOccurrence of Agalactia,

Goransson, 1989

• Compared two treatments the last 14 days of gestation– 3.4 kg (7.5 lbs) = Control– 1 kg (2.2 lbs.)vs = Restricted

• Restricted fed sows given extra feed mid- pregnancy in order that total feed was equal

• Parity 1, 2, and 3 sows

25

ISU

Occurrence of Agalactia,Goransson, 1989

882816%

6032%

Agalactic, no. % within group

<0.001

28115284%

12968%

Healthy, no. & % within group

Level of Significance, PTotalRC

Feeding Group

26

ISU What is possible?

149.1 d*136 dFI9.109.30WEANED

6.1 d*6.56 dW2E9.7010.0NAT

17.6 d15.9 dAGE1.611.00SB

152.1 lb138.1 lbADJ WWT10.5712.10NBA

23 LITTER AVG 10 LITTER

AVGTRAIT23 LITTER

AVG 10 LITTER

AVGTRAIT

DOB: 8/2/1997

Weaned litter 23 on July, 2007

27

ISU

Thank You for Your Time and Attention !

monitoring & maintaining proper condition in gestating sows€¦ · monitoring &...

Documents