Loading…
Distribution of subjectively evaluated conformation traits in commercial growing replacement gilts
Feet and leg/locomotor issues represent a primary reason for sow removal from U.S. breeding herds. A shift from gestation stalls (GS) to group-sow housing (GSH) is occurring the U.S. swine industry, emphasizing the importance of structural soundness in replacement gilts. The objectives of this study...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of animal science 2020-11, Vol.98, p.6-6 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 6 |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 6 |
container_title | Journal of animal science |
container_volume | 98 |
creator | Moeller, Grace A Abell, Courtney L Somrack, Tom P Herring, William O Holl, Justin W Stalder, Kenneth J |
description | Feet and leg/locomotor issues represent a primary reason for sow removal from U.S. breeding herds. A shift from gestation stalls (GS) to group-sow housing (GSH) is occurring the U.S. swine industry, emphasizing the importance of structural soundness in replacement gilts. The objectives of this study were 1) to determine if feet and leg/body conformation score differences exist when evaluated at approximately 50 kgs. and 100 kgs.; 2) estimate subjectively scored feet and leg/body conformation trait repeatability within and across measurement time and scorer(s); and 3) determine if the ideal feet and leg conformation traits and scores within traits are the same within GS and GSH. A total of 4494 gilts were evaluated at approximately 22 weeks of age at 3 different farms within the same production system by 4 scorers, representing varying levels of experience. The conformation traits evaluated included locomotion score (LS), front and rear leg conformation (FLC and RLC), front and rear pastern angle (FP and RP), front and rear foot position (FFP and RFP), rib shape (RS), foot size (FS) and toe size (TS). Across farms, the mean gilt BW was 83 ± 11.5 kg. Across scorers and the entire gilt population, the mean conformation scores were: LS (0.06 ± 0.16), FLC (6.1 ± 0.54), RLC (5.4 ± 0.40), FP (3.6 ± 0.62), RP (4.0 ± 0.64), FFP (4.4 ± 0.31), RFP (4.1 ± 0.30), RS (4.3 ± 0.72), FS (2.0 ± 0.35) and TS (4.8 ± 0.61). The entire gilt population was divided amongst four individual sow herds (2 GS and 2 GSH). Sow performance will be followed for three parities to determine the relationship between production and longevity within gestation housing systems and determine if the relationships are associated with one or more conformation traits and/or differences in scores within each conformation trait. |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2501932761</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2501932761</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_25019327613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNiksKwjAUAIMoWD93CLguJCmpdu0HD-Be0vpaXkkTTV4q3l4RD-BqYGYmLJNa6byQZTFlmRBK5rudVHO2iLEXQipd6YzVB4wUsE6E3nHf8pjqHhrCEeyLw2hsMgQ33njX-jCY70bBIEWO7qOHAUKDxvIu-Ce6jge4W9PAAI54h5biis1aYyOsf1yyzel42Z_ze_CPBJGuvU_BfdJVaSGrQm1LWfx3vQGZ9UiX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2501932761</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Distribution of subjectively evaluated conformation traits in commercial growing replacement gilts</title><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>Moeller, Grace A ; Abell, Courtney L ; Somrack, Tom P ; Herring, William O ; Holl, Justin W ; Stalder, Kenneth J</creator><creatorcontrib>Moeller, Grace A ; Abell, Courtney L ; Somrack, Tom P ; Herring, William O ; Holl, Justin W ; Stalder, Kenneth J</creatorcontrib><description>Feet and leg/locomotor issues represent a primary reason for sow removal from U.S. breeding herds. A shift from gestation stalls (GS) to group-sow housing (GSH) is occurring the U.S. swine industry, emphasizing the importance of structural soundness in replacement gilts. The objectives of this study were 1) to determine if feet and leg/body conformation score differences exist when evaluated at approximately 50 kgs. and 100 kgs.; 2) estimate subjectively scored feet and leg/body conformation trait repeatability within and across measurement time and scorer(s); and 3) determine if the ideal feet and leg conformation traits and scores within traits are the same within GS and GSH. A total of 4494 gilts were evaluated at approximately 22 weeks of age at 3 different farms within the same production system by 4 scorers, representing varying levels of experience. The conformation traits evaluated included locomotion score (LS), front and rear leg conformation (FLC and RLC), front and rear pastern angle (FP and RP), front and rear foot position (FFP and RFP), rib shape (RS), foot size (FS) and toe size (TS). Across farms, the mean gilt BW was 83 ± 11.5 kg. Across scorers and the entire gilt population, the mean conformation scores were: LS (0.06 ± 0.16), FLC (6.1 ± 0.54), RLC (5.4 ± 0.40), FP (3.6 ± 0.62), RP (4.0 ± 0.64), FFP (4.4 ± 0.31), RFP (4.1 ± 0.30), RS (4.3 ± 0.72), FS (2.0 ± 0.35) and TS (4.8 ± 0.61). The entire gilt population was divided amongst four individual sow herds (2 GS and 2 GSH). Sow performance will be followed for three parities to determine the relationship between production and longevity within gestation housing systems and determine if the relationships are associated with one or more conformation traits and/or differences in scores within each conformation trait.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Animal breeding ; Breeding of animals ; Conformation ; Farms ; Feet ; Gestation ; Hogs ; Housing ; Leg ; Livestock ; Locomotion</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2020-11, Vol.98, p.6-6</ispartof><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press Nov 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moeller, Grace A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abell, Courtney L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Somrack, Tom P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herring, William O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holl, Justin W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stalder, Kenneth J</creatorcontrib><title>Distribution of subjectively evaluated conformation traits in commercial growing replacement gilts</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>Feet and leg/locomotor issues represent a primary reason for sow removal from U.S. breeding herds. A shift from gestation stalls (GS) to group-sow housing (GSH) is occurring the U.S. swine industry, emphasizing the importance of structural soundness in replacement gilts. The objectives of this study were 1) to determine if feet and leg/body conformation score differences exist when evaluated at approximately 50 kgs. and 100 kgs.; 2) estimate subjectively scored feet and leg/body conformation trait repeatability within and across measurement time and scorer(s); and 3) determine if the ideal feet and leg conformation traits and scores within traits are the same within GS and GSH. A total of 4494 gilts were evaluated at approximately 22 weeks of age at 3 different farms within the same production system by 4 scorers, representing varying levels of experience. The conformation traits evaluated included locomotion score (LS), front and rear leg conformation (FLC and RLC), front and rear pastern angle (FP and RP), front and rear foot position (FFP and RFP), rib shape (RS), foot size (FS) and toe size (TS). Across farms, the mean gilt BW was 83 ± 11.5 kg. Across scorers and the entire gilt population, the mean conformation scores were: LS (0.06 ± 0.16), FLC (6.1 ± 0.54), RLC (5.4 ± 0.40), FP (3.6 ± 0.62), RP (4.0 ± 0.64), FFP (4.4 ± 0.31), RFP (4.1 ± 0.30), RS (4.3 ± 0.72), FS (2.0 ± 0.35) and TS (4.8 ± 0.61). The entire gilt population was divided amongst four individual sow herds (2 GS and 2 GSH). Sow performance will be followed for three parities to determine the relationship between production and longevity within gestation housing systems and determine if the relationships are associated with one or more conformation traits and/or differences in scores within each conformation trait.</description><subject>Animal breeding</subject><subject>Breeding of animals</subject><subject>Conformation</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Feet</subject><subject>Gestation</subject><subject>Hogs</subject><subject>Housing</subject><subject>Leg</subject><subject>Livestock</subject><subject>Locomotion</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNiksKwjAUAIMoWD93CLguJCmpdu0HD-Be0vpaXkkTTV4q3l4RD-BqYGYmLJNa6byQZTFlmRBK5rudVHO2iLEXQipd6YzVB4wUsE6E3nHf8pjqHhrCEeyLw2hsMgQ33njX-jCY70bBIEWO7qOHAUKDxvIu-Ce6jge4W9PAAI54h5biis1aYyOsf1yyzel42Z_ze_CPBJGuvU_BfdJVaSGrQm1LWfx3vQGZ9UiX</recordid><startdate>20201101</startdate><enddate>20201101</enddate><creator>Moeller, Grace A</creator><creator>Abell, Courtney L</creator><creator>Somrack, Tom P</creator><creator>Herring, William O</creator><creator>Holl, Justin W</creator><creator>Stalder, Kenneth J</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201101</creationdate><title>Distribution of subjectively evaluated conformation traits in commercial growing replacement gilts</title><author>Moeller, Grace A ; Abell, Courtney L ; Somrack, Tom P ; Herring, William O ; Holl, Justin W ; Stalder, Kenneth J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_25019327613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Animal breeding</topic><topic>Breeding of animals</topic><topic>Conformation</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Feet</topic><topic>Gestation</topic><topic>Hogs</topic><topic>Housing</topic><topic>Leg</topic><topic>Livestock</topic><topic>Locomotion</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moeller, Grace A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abell, Courtney L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Somrack, Tom P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herring, William O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holl, Justin W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stalder, Kenneth J</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Career and Technical Education</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moeller, Grace A</au><au>Abell, Courtney L</au><au>Somrack, Tom P</au><au>Herring, William O</au><au>Holl, Justin W</au><au>Stalder, Kenneth J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Distribution of subjectively evaluated conformation traits in commercial growing replacement gilts</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2020-11-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>98</volume><spage>6</spage><epage>6</epage><pages>6-6</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Feet and leg/locomotor issues represent a primary reason for sow removal from U.S. breeding herds. A shift from gestation stalls (GS) to group-sow housing (GSH) is occurring the U.S. swine industry, emphasizing the importance of structural soundness in replacement gilts. The objectives of this study were 1) to determine if feet and leg/body conformation score differences exist when evaluated at approximately 50 kgs. and 100 kgs.; 2) estimate subjectively scored feet and leg/body conformation trait repeatability within and across measurement time and scorer(s); and 3) determine if the ideal feet and leg conformation traits and scores within traits are the same within GS and GSH. A total of 4494 gilts were evaluated at approximately 22 weeks of age at 3 different farms within the same production system by 4 scorers, representing varying levels of experience. The conformation traits evaluated included locomotion score (LS), front and rear leg conformation (FLC and RLC), front and rear pastern angle (FP and RP), front and rear foot position (FFP and RFP), rib shape (RS), foot size (FS) and toe size (TS). Across farms, the mean gilt BW was 83 ± 11.5 kg. Across scorers and the entire gilt population, the mean conformation scores were: LS (0.06 ± 0.16), FLC (6.1 ± 0.54), RLC (5.4 ± 0.40), FP (3.6 ± 0.62), RP (4.0 ± 0.64), FFP (4.4 ± 0.31), RFP (4.1 ± 0.30), RS (4.3 ± 0.72), FS (2.0 ± 0.35) and TS (4.8 ± 0.61). The entire gilt population was divided amongst four individual sow herds (2 GS and 2 GSH). Sow performance will be followed for three parities to determine the relationship between production and longevity within gestation housing systems and determine if the relationships are associated with one or more conformation traits and/or differences in scores within each conformation trait.</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0021-8812 |
ispartof | Journal of animal science, 2020-11, Vol.98, p.6-6 |
issn | 0021-8812 1525-3163 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2501932761 |
source | PubMed (Medline); Oxford Journals Online |
subjects | Animal breeding Breeding of animals Conformation Farms Feet Gestation Hogs Housing Leg Livestock Locomotion |
title | Distribution of subjectively evaluated conformation traits in commercial growing replacement gilts |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T13%3A03%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Distribution%20of%20subjectively%20evaluated%20conformation%20traits%20in%20commercial%20growing%20replacement%20gilts&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Moeller,%20Grace%20A&rft.date=2020-11-01&rft.volume=98&rft.spage=6&rft.epage=6&rft.pages=6-6&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2501932761%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_25019327613%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2501932761&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |