Factors associated with the productive longevity of sows in commercial breeding herds
-
Published:2024-07-02
Issue:3
Volume:67
Page:297-310
-
ISSN:2363-9822
-
Container-title:Archives Animal Breeding
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Arch. Anim. Breed.
Author:
Ordaz Gerardo,López Manuel,Pérez Rosa E.,Mariscal Gerardo,Ortiz Ruy
Abstract
Abstract. Maximizing sows' productive longevity (PL) represents a significant challenge faced by the swine industry, as the growing increase in the removal rate of sows, mainly young sows, directly impacts the system's economy. In addition, there are ethical concerns associated with animal welfare issues due to the low PL of sows. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate the risk factors influencing the removal of sows from commercial swine production systems. The variable of interest was the PL of sows. The PL was modeled using Cox regression analysis to identify the factors that affected this variable. The factor with the greatest contribution to PL was sow type (ST), followed by the return to estrus percentage (REP), herd size (HS), season, lactation duration, weaning–estrus interval (WEI), piglets born alive, mummy percentage, and total piglets born. The removal risk was higher for hyperprolific sows than for normal sows. According to the nonproductive day (NPD) variable (an indicator that considers REP and WEI in its calculation), sows with more than 60 nonproductive days per year are at higher risk of elimination. The risk of removal was higher for sows from large herds than for sows from medium or small herds. The PL of sows within a herd is determined by the type of sow and the sows' association with environmental disturbances, including climatic factors (artificial climate control), management practices (human resources), and economic resources (size and infrastructure).
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference55 articles.
1. Babot, D., Chavez, E. R., and Noguera, J. L.: The effect of age at the first mating and herd size on the lifetime productivity of sows, Anim. Res., 52, 49–64, https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2003001, 2003. 2. Bertoldo, M. J., Holyoake, P. K., Evans, G., and Grupen, C. G.: Seasonal variation in the ovarian function of sows, Reprod. Fert. Develop., 24, 822–834, https://doi.org/10.1071/RD11249, 2012. 3. Bjerg, B., Brandt, P., Pedersen, P., and Zhang, G.: Sows' responses to increased heat load – A review, J. Therm. Biol., 94, 102758, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2020.102758, 2020. 4. Borges, V. F., Bernardi, M. L., Bortolozzo, F. P., and Wentz, I.: Risk factors for stillbirth and foetal mummification in four Brazilian swine herds, Prev. Vet. Med., 70, 165–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.03.003, 2005. 5. Dolman, M. A., Vrolijk, H. C. J., and de Boer, I. J. M.: Exploring variation in economic, environmental and societal performance among Dutch fattening pig farms, Livest. Sci., 149, 143–154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.07.008, 2012.
|
|