Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T02:28:48.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breeding replacement gilts for organic pig herds*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2010

J. I. Leenhouwers ,
J. Ten Napel ,
E. H. A. T. Hanenberg  and
J. W. M. Merks
J. I. Leenhouwers*
Affiliation:
IPG, Institute for Pig Genetics BV, PO Box 43, 6640AA Beuningen, The Netherlands
J. Ten Napel
Affiliation:
Department Livestock Research, Wageningen University, PO Box 65, 8200AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
E. H. A. T. Hanenberg
Affiliation:
IPG, Institute for Pig Genetics BV, PO Box 43, 6640AA Beuningen, The Netherlands
J. W. M. Merks
Affiliation:
IPG, Institute for Pig Genetics BV, PO Box 43, 6640AA Beuningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: Jascha.Leenhouwers@ipg.nl
Get access

Abstract

In this study, breeding structures and commercial sow lines were evaluated by economic and genetic simulation studies for their suitability to provide the Dutch organic pig sector with replacement gilts. Sow and litter performance from over 2000 crossbred sows from 2006 to 2007 were collected on 11 to 14 Dutch organic pig herds, respectively, and compared with conventional herds. Results showed that organic herds had lower farrowing rates (3.6% to 7.5%), more live born piglets per litter (0.4% to 1.2%) and higher preweaning mortality rates (7% to 13%) compared to conventional herds. These results were used to simulate economic performance of various combinations of breeding structures and sow lines under organic conditions, under the assumption of absence of genotype–environment interactions. Sow and litter performance data under organic conditions (total piglets born/litter, stillborn piglets/litter, mortality until weaning, lactation length, interval weaning-oestrus and sow culling rate) and the costprice calculation for the Dutch organic pig sector were used as input for the economic simulation studies. The expected genetic progress was simulated for three potential breeding structures of the organic sector: organic breeding herds producing F1 gilts (OrgBS), a flower breeding system (FlowerBS) and a two-line rotation breeding system (RotBS). In FlowerBS, an organic purebred sow line is bred, using on-farm gilt replacement. The OrgBS with a Yorkshire × Landrace cross had the highest margin per sow place (€779), followed by RotBS with Yorkshire × Landrace cross (€706) and FlowerBS with Yorkshire sow line (€677). In case that an organic purebred sow population of 5000 sows would be available, FlowerBS gave the highest genetic progress in terms of cost price reduction (€3.72/slaughter pig per generation), followed by RotBS and OrgBS (€3.60/slaughter pig per generation). For FlowerBS, additional costs will be involved for maintaining a dedicated breeding programme. In conclusion, OrgBS using conventional genetics is economically the most viable option for the organic pig sector. However, this structure has clear disadvantages in terms of risks with regard to disease transmission and market demand. FlowerBS using a dedicated purebred organic line will only be cost-effective if sow population size is sufficiently large. RotBS might be a viable alternative, especially in combination with artificial insemination (AI) boars that are ranked according to an organic selection index. Regardless of breeding structure, the Yorkshire sow line gave the highest prolificacy and the highest economic returns on organic herds.

Keywords

pigsorganic productionbreedingsimulation
Type
Review
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , 23 February 2011 , pp. 615 - 621
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*This review is based on an invited presentation at the 60th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production held in Barcelona, Spain during August 2009.

References

Biomonitor Jaarrapport 2009. Task force Marktontwikkeling Biologische Landbouw, Biologica, April 2010. NPN Drukkers, Breda, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Blair, R 2007. Choosing the right breed and strain of pig. In Nutrition and feeding of organic pigs (ed. R Blair), pp. 258–275. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boelling, D, Groen, AF, Sørensen, P, Madsen, P, Jensen, J 2003. Genetic improvement of livestock for organic farming systems. Livestock Production Science 80, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonde, MK, Sørensen, JT 2006. Animal health and welfare in organic European pig production: state of the art and challenges for the future, based on a Northwestern European questionnaire survey. In Organic farming and European rural development: proceedings of the European joint organic congress (ed. CB Andreasen, L Elsgaard, L Søndergaard Sørensen and G Hansen), pp. 562–563. Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming (DARCOF), Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Brandt, H, Werner, DN, Baulain, U, Brade, W, Weißmann, F 2010. Genotype-environment interactions for growth and carcass traits in different pig breeds kept under conventional and organic production systems. Animal 4, 535–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchanan, DS, Luce, WG, Clutter, AC 2004. Swine crossbreeding systems. OSU Extension Fact Sheets ANSI-3603, 1–4.Google Scholar
De Vries, AG 1989. A model to estimate economic values of traits in pig breeding. Livestock Production Science 21, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, CE, Martin, SW, Friendship, RM, Wilson, MR 1994. The effect on litter size of previous lactation length and previous weaning-to-conception interval in Ontario swine. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 18, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 1994. Outdoor pig production: the European perspective. Pig News and Information 15, N111–N112.Google Scholar
Honeyman, MS, Roush, WB 2002. The effects of outdoor farrowing hut type on prewean piglet mortality in Iowa. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17, 92–95.Google Scholar
Hoste 2009. Kostprijsberekening biologische varkensbedrijven 2007–2008. Periode oktober 2007-september 2008. Nota 09-047. LEI Wageningen UR, Den Haag, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hoste, R, Ducro-Steverink, DWB, Bosma, AJJ 2007. Verkenning van economische en foktechnische consequenties van georganiseerde fokkerij voor de biologische varkenshouderij. Rapport 2.07.05. LEI Wageningen UR, Den Haag, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Kelly, HRC, Browning, HM, Day, JEL, Martins, A, Pearce, GP, Stopes, C, Edwards, SA 2007. Effect of breed type, housing and feeding system on performance of growing pigs managed under organic conditions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87, 2794–2800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Cozler, Y, Dagorn, J, Dourmad, JY, Johansen, S, Aumaître, A 1997. Effect of weaning-to-conception interval and lactation length on subsequent litter size in sows. Livestock Production Science 51, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S, Simmins, PH 2000. Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Veterinary Record 147, 209–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mortensen, B, Ruby, V, Pedersen, BK, Smidth, J, Larsen, VA 1994. Outdoor pig production in Denmark. Pig News and Information 15, N117–N120.Google Scholar
Rutten, MJM, Bijma, P, Woolliams, JA, Van Arendonk, JAM 2002. SelAction: software to predict selection response and rate of inbreeding in livestock breeding programs. The Journal of Heredity 93, 456–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallenbeck, A, Rydhmer, L, Lundeheim, N 2009a. GxE interactions for growth and carcass leanness: re-ranking of boars in organic and conventional pig production. Livestock Science 123, 154–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallenbeck, A, Gustafson, G, Rydhmer, L 2009b. Sow performance and maternal behaviour in organic and conventional herds. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 59, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xue, JL, Dial, GD, Marsh, WE, Davies, PR, Momont, HW 1993. Influence of lactation length on sow productivity. Livestock Production Science 34, 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar