2. Peri-natal survival of piglets understanding and genetics Lauren Christian Endowed Lecture Egbert F. Knol

3. Road map Challenge Our business is efficient pork production Our responsibility is to maintain animal integrity Pork chain mortality is out of bounds in many situations Peri-natal survival: Basics Genetics Piglet side: vitality Nurse sow side: mothering ability Genomics will help Mission for all of us

4. Challenge

5. Our business FARROW FINISH FEED PORK

6. Efficiency FARROW FINISH FEED PORK FE =----------- FEED

7. Losses on the way FARROW FINISH FEEDPORK Losses drain efficiency; feed is invested, but not harvested † † † † † † † † † † †

8. GOOD: 12 weaned FARROW FINISH Gestation lactation nursery finishing LOSSES 30 ova shed 15 piglets born 1 stillborn 14.3% PWM 2% nursery 5% sow mortality3% finishing 76% of total born reaches plant

9. GOOD: 12 weaned FARROW FINISH Gestation lactation nursery finishing LOSSES 30 ova shed 15 piglets born Crowding? Selection for increased litter size overdone? (Canada, university of Alberta, Foxcroft et al.)

10. GOOD: 12 weaned FARROW FINISH Gestation lactation nursery finishing LOSSES 30 ova shed 15 piglets born 1 stillborn 14.3% PWM 2% nursery 20% peri-natal mortality in a good situation

11. GOOD: 12 weaned FARROW FINISH Gestation lactation nursery finishing   farrowing survival preweaning survival Correlated responses backward and forward

12. Added challenge Hours spent per piglet in a farrowing unit Hours Year

13. Basics

14. Modeling of test farm Bell curve is birth weight distribution S – curve is Survival curve Weight (kg) Frequency/% survival

15. Increasing birth weight

16. Reducing variation

17. Increasing survival

18. Duroc (black) against Pietrain

19. Sire differences >350 offspring each Pre-weaning survival 2 lbs4 lbs

20. Genetics of survival

21. Death: whom to blame? Genes of the piglet? Genes of the sow? Genes of the foster?

22. Genetic models Classic approach Litter mortality = HYS + sow (+ error) Litter survival = HYS + service sire + sow Improved (still recording at litter level) Litter survival = HYS + service sire + sow Our perception Piglet survival = HYS + f(BW) + animal + dam + foster Animal = piglet vitality, Dam = uterine quality and Foster = mothering ability

23. Piglet weighing > 500,000 piglets per per year

24. Validation: 100 low against 100 high EBV litters

27. Piglet vitality The animal effect from the model

28. Why does it work? 25 high EBV gilts mated to high EBV boars 25 low low All 50 caesarian sectioned 2 days before farrowing, placentae weighed All 650 piglets fully dissected Organs weighed, length of intestinal tract, blood parameters etc. etc. More vital: heavier livers, more glycogen (P=0.04)

29. Blue: high EBV litters Jascha Leenhouwers en Tette van der Lende

30. High EBV litters more cortisol Jascha Leenhouwers, JAS 2002

31. Stronger piglets, not heavier!

32. Mothering ability Foster effect from the model

33. What do we LIKE in a sow Quiet Attentive Enough teats Quality of teats Enough milk Uniformity at birth and at weaning Maintenance of body condition.... Lots of grad students needed … Or: use EBV for mothering ability

34. 1. Visual scan sampling 4 hours walking through farrowing rooms Visually ‘ Scanning ’ each sow every 5 minutes 5 observation days (days -2, 0, 7, 14) 80 sows, 150 traits

35. Position

36. Behaviour

37. 2. Open field test

38. 3. Aggression test

39. 4. Questionnaire Tattoo number89BE65 Farrowing date23 – 03 – 200 6 Aggressive to peopleX Aggressive to piglets No care for piglets Fearful during handlingX Udder qualityBirth3 weeks Number of teats 14 Regularity (low-high)1X345 Litter qualityBirth3 weeks Weight (low-high)123X512X45 Uniformity (low-high)1X34512X45

40. Results: 1. Scan sampling Sows with high EBV-MA: Less changes of posture Less activity Less in sitting position

41. Results: 2. Open field test Sows with high EBV-MA: More exploring behaviour in open field

42. Results: 3. Aggression test Sows with high EBV-MA: More lying laterally More vocalisation Less aggression (biting plush piglet)!!!

43. Results 4. Questionnaire h²SDr g MA2 Aggressive to people0.050.06 Aggressive to piglets0.160.07 Fearful during treatment0.060.07 Aggression + fear0.120.07-0.63 No care for piglets0.030.05 Weight at birth0.260.09-0.03 Weight at weaning0.220.080.12 Uniformity at birth0.100.070.91 Uniformity at weaning0.130.070.72 Regularity udder0.100.070.16 Number of teats0.210.080.38

44. Conclusion Statistical model results in what we want: Quiet Attentive Enough teats Quality of teats Uniformity at birth and at weaning No need for grad students here

45. Implementation in breeding program

46. EBV estimation 2 million piglets with underline count 4 million piglets weighed 1.2 million sows

47. Validation 1 take out 10,000 records 2 estimate breeding values on the remaining data 3 predict the 10,000 4 expected b-value should be 1.00

48. General conclusions Survival: management = selection Survival selection: hard work, but feasible Most genetic companies select, be it with different tools Faster than economic progress should be an option Longer gestation, lower variation in bw, but not higher bw Next table closer than you might expect

49. Labour per piglet produced

50. Miranda’s slide, quoted by Foxcroft in Banff

51. Validation of this graph: 2 extreme sows

52. Andreia’s slide on variation

54. Birth weights on farms

55. 2004-2011: 1.1 pig extra * 50 g= 55 g; trend is almost double

56. Resultaten onderzoek fase 1

57. 56 Seizoensinvloeden op geboortegewicht 65 gram

58. Invloed pariteit op geboortegewicht

59. Invloed pariteit op bigoverleving

60. Interesting remarks Sows housed in groups have piglets with heavier birth weights BWIndividualGroup/indGroup 1.2101 1.3623 1.4006

61. Group housing in gestation Corrected mean: avg birthwt P-value# farmers Yes1.38780.2412 No1.35127 Raw data: avg birthwt P-value# farmers Yes1.3970.1712 No1.3557

62. Thank you for your attention