Reasons for Culling in Relation to Longevity and Lifetime Efficiency of Landrace and Large White Sows in a Nucleus Breeding Farm in the Philippines

O. Bondoc, J. Isubol

Abstract

Information on the reasons for sow removal is limited and often unreported for nucleus breeding farms. This study analyzed the distribution of culling type (planned vs. unplanned) and culling reasons in relation to longevity – parity at culling (PAC) and productive herd life (PHL), and lifetime efficiency – lifetime pigs born alive (LPBA) and total pigs weaned (TPW) using data recorded from 2017 to 2019 by a local nucleus breeding farm. The study revealed a considerable amount of unplanned removal (84.1%) compared to planned culls, which is due to old age (11.4%) and poor farrowing performance (4.6%). The most common reasons for unplanned sow removal were reproductive failures (26.2%) and health disorders (23.4%), followed by physical defects (15.3%), leg/foot problems (10.8%), and mortality (8.5%). A high proportion (22.1%) of sows was culled at their first parity. The proportion of culled sows decreased up to parity 4, especially for unplanned sow removals due to reproductive failures, leg/foot problems, and mortality. Unplanned culling corresponded to lower PAC (3.8), PHL (459 days), LPBA (14.1 pigs/year), and TPW (12.4 pigs/year). Average PAC and PHL were significantly higher (p<0.05) for Large White sows (PAC= 5.2; PHL= 696 days) than Landrace sows (PAC= 4.6; PHL= 588 days). However, the LPBA and TPW were not significantly different between breeds. Information about sow removal could be used to develop management strategies to avoid unplanned culling in purebred sows and extend their productive life.

References

Balogh, P., W. Kapelanski, H. Jankowiak, L. Nagy, S. Kovács, L. Huzsvai, J. Popp, J. Posta, & A. Soltész. 2015. The productive lifetime of sows on two farms from the aspect of reasons for culling. Ann. Anim. Sci. 5: 747-758. https://doi.org/10.1515/aoas-2015-0020
Cador, C., F. Pol, M. Hamoniaux, V. Dorenlor, E. Eveno, C. Guyomarc’h, & N. Rose. 2014. Risk factors associated with leg disorders of gestating sows indifferent group-housing systems: A cross-sectional study in108 farrow-to-finish farms in France. Prev. Vet. Med. 116: 102-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.05.004
de Jong, E., R. Appeltant, A. Cools, J. Beek, F. Boyen, K. Chiers, & D. Maes. 2014. Slaughterhouse examination of culled sows in commercial pig herds. Livest. Sci. 167: 362-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.07.001
Ek-Mex, J. E., J. C. Segura-Correa, A. Alzina-López, & L. Batista-Garcia. 2015. Lifetime and per year productivity of sows in four pig farms in the tropics of Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 47: 503-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-014-0749-4
Engblom, L., N. Lundeheim, A. M. Dalin, & K. Andersson. 2007. Sow removal in Swedish commercial herds. Livest. Sci. 106: 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.07.002
Hoge, M. D. & R. O. Bates. 2011. Developmental factors that influence sow longevity. J. Anim. Sci. 89: 238-1245. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3175
Malanda, J., P. Balogh, & G. Novotni Dankó. 2019. Optimal age of breeding gilts and its impact on lifetime performance.  Acta Agraria Debreceniensis 2: 15-20. https://doi.org/10.34101/actaagrar/2/3672
Masaka, L., M. Sungirai, C. Nyamukanza, & C. Bhondai. 2014. Sow removal in a commercial pig herd in Zimbabwe. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 46: 725-731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-014-0554-0
Mote, B. E., J. W. Mabry, K. J. Stalder, & M. F. Rithschild. 2009. Evaluation of current reasons for removal of sows from commercial farms. Prof. Anim. Sci. 25: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30672-0
Patterson, J. & G. Foxcroft. 2019. Gilt management for fertility and longevity. Animals 9: 434. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070434
Sasaki, Y. & Y. Koketsu. 2008. Sows having high lifetime efficiency and high longevity associated with herd productivity in commercial herds. Livest. Sci. 118: 140-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.12.029
Sasaki, Y. & Y. Koketsu. 2011. Reproductive profile and lifetime efficiency of female pigs by culling reason in high-performing commercial breeding herds. J. Swine Health Prod. 19: 284-291. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283820442
Sasaki, Y. & Y. Koketsu. 2012. A herd management survey on culling guidelines and actual culling practices in three herd groups based on reproductive productivity in Japanese commercial swine herds. J. Anim. Sci. 90: 1995-2002. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4313
Segura-Correa, J. C., E. Ek-Mex, A. Alzina-López, & V. M. Segura-Correa. 2011. Frequency of removal reasons of sows in Southeastern Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 43: 1583-1588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-011-9847-8
Sobczyńska, M., T. Blicharski, & M. Tyra. 2014. A canonical correlation analysis of relationships between growth, compositional traits and longevity, lifetime productivity and efficiency in Polish Landrace sows. Ann. Anim. Sci. 14:257-270. https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2014-0006
Statistical Analysis System (SAS). 2009. SAS/STAT ® 9.2 User’s Guide. 2nd ed. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC USA.
Tani, S. & Y. Koketsu. 2017. Factors for culling risk due to pregnancy failure in breeding-female pigs. J. Agric. Sci. 9: 109-117. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v9n1p109
Wang, C., Y. Wu, D. Shu, K. Wei, Y. Zhou, & J. Peng. 2019. An analysis of culling patterns during the breeding cycle and lifetime production from the aspect of culling reasons for gilts and sows in Southwest China. Animals 9: 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9040160
Zhao, Y., X. Liu, D. Mo, Q. Chen, & Y. Chen. 2015. Analysis of reasons for sow culling and seasonal effects on reproductive disorders in Southern China. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 159: 191-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2015.06.018

Authors

O. Bondoc
olbondoc@up.edu.ph (Primary Contact)
J. Isubol
BondocO., & IsubolJ. (2022). Reasons for Culling in Relation to Longevity and Lifetime Efficiency of Landrace and Large White Sows in a Nucleus Breeding Farm in the Philippines. Tropical Animal Science Journal, 45(1), 30-36. https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2022.45.1.30

Article Details