CommunicationsSeedstock EDGE | “For the Record” | “The Pinnacle” | |
| Seedstock EDGE Seedstock EDGE main | Seedstock EDGE archives Advertising rates/deadlines | Mail dates Subscribe today! | Seedstock EDGE staff |
Nov./Dec. 2005 Issue
SPI - It's everyone's job #1
by Darrell Anderson
I have been very pleased with the response of the advertisers as we re-introduced this Brood Sow Issue. It’s been several years since we dedicated an issue of this publication to the “brood sow” – the foundation of our genetic improvement.
In years past, this was always one of my favorite issues, as breeders would take full-page ads featuring pictures and records of some of their favorite foundation females. It’s reassuring to see that we still have breeders who understand the role of the female in the success of their herds.
Sometimes I think we have lost ground as an industry in understanding this phenomenon.
You may remember that I harped on this subject a few months ago in my column entitled, “Heart of a Champion.” I talked about Secretariat’s unusually large heart, and how his daughters were eventually proven successful in the thoroughbred industry.
I probably received more phone calls, e-mails and kind comments regarding that editorial than for any I had written for some time. I want to discuss the same issue this month, but I probably won’t get any nice responses, as I intend to be a bit more direct in my comments.
Since this is the resurrection of the Brood Sow Issue, I decided that it would be good to investigate our success in making genetic improvement in the vitally important area of sow productivity.
We all know that the traits involved with SPI (sow productivity index) are relatively low in their heritability estimates, so it takes some serious selection pressure to make real progress. And yet it is these very same traits (number born alive, number weaned and litter weaning weights) that often determine the profitability of many hog enterprises each year.
So how are we doing? Listed below are the phenotypic unadjusted averages for our four breeds over the past five years:
1999 2004 1999 2004
Yorkshire 10.02 9.97 119.7 129.6
Duroc 9.20 8.82 106.2 109.9
Hampshire 8.84 8.63 109.3 112.7
Landrace 9.99 10.55 124.8 146.5
As you can see, breeders in each breed continue to identify those top-milking sows and keep daughters out of them. Every breed has made improvement in 21-day litter weights, and Landrace has made incredible progress with an increase of nearly 22 pounds in that five-year period.
In my opinion, in the absence of accurate record keeping, most breeders will still make progress in weaning weight averages. All stockmen like to see those big, bloomy pigs at weaning time, and they will typically keep daughters out of those litters. That is encouraging and speaks well for our genetic improvement in that trait.
Now, let’s look at what most commercial producers would tell you is the most important component of SPI: number born alive. Whoops! Three of our breeds have actually slipped during the past five years. One breed – Landrace – has made an incredible leap of more than 0.5 pigs per litter.
Now, do you want to guess which breed is doing the most testing and the highest submission of SPI records?
That’s right. Landrace.
Now, you could argue that selection pressure has been slanted toward the post-weaning traits of growth and backfat, and that is why numbers born alive has suffered. I would have to agree with you. That is exactly what has happened.
But my question is this: is it not important for all four breeds, regardless of your industry focus, to work on improving the number of pigs born per litter?
If you’re in the showpig industry, why wouldn’t you want to have one more pig to sell at that consignment sale you attend each year? Obviously, if you’re in the commercial industry, you know the value of one more pig per sow per year, and I don’t need to convince you to keep and submit all your sow productivity records.
Here’s my request: let’s all commit to increasing the number of sow productivity records you submit each year to our office. The percentage of herds submitting sow information has dwindled each of the past few years, and I really have trouble understanding that.
I know it isn’t the cost. After the initial $25 enrollment fee, it costs absolutely nothing to send in your 21-day weaning information. You will receive, in return, EPDs for NBA and LWT, along with a calculated SPI on each sow in that contemporary group.
The most important thing in solving a problem is to begin.
I’m not sure the declining numbers to the left should be classified as a huge problem, but it isn’t the direction in which we would like to move. Take a lesson from the Landrace breed – improvement can be made if you submit records and apply selection pressure. Let’s begin!
