@article{obermier_howard_gray_knauer_2023, title={The impact of functional teat number on reproductive throughput in swine}, volume={7}, ISSN={["2573-2102"]}, DOI={10.1093/tas/txad100}, abstractNote={Abstract
               The objective was to evaluate the impact of functional teat number on reproductive throughput in swine. Data included 735 multiparous Landrace × Large White F1 females. Sow underlined traits consisted of total teat number (TT), functional teat number (FT), nonfunctional teat number (NFT), and number of functional mammary glands (FMG). Weaning traits were calculated for both the biological and the nurse dam. For the biological dam, litter size at weaning (LSW) included a sow’s biological piglets regardless of cross-fostering. For nurse dam, number weaned (NW) included the piglets a sow weaned. For the biological dam, piglet survival (PS) was calculated as litter size at weaning / (total number born × 100). Linear regression estimates were calculated in RStudio v. 1.1.456 and variance components were estimated using GIBBS3F90. Average total number born, number born alive, TT, FT, NFT, and FMG were 14.22, 13.12, 14.43, 13.96, 0.42, and 10.7, respectively. An increase in one FT enhanced (P < 0.05) LSW by 0.32 piglets and NW by 0.33 piglets. Similarly, an increase in one FT improved (P < 0.05) PS by 1.63% and reduced (P < 0.05) preweaning mortality by 2.73%. However, an increase in one FT reduced (P < 0.05) average piglet weaning weight (WW) for biological and nurse dams by 35 and 94 g, respectively. Yet an increase in one FT enhanced (P < 0.05) litter weaning weight (LWW) for biological and nurse dams by 1.3 and 1.5 kg, respectively. Heritability estimates for TT, FT, NFT, FMG, WW, LWW, LSW, and PS were 0.25, 0.22, 0.53, 0.18, 0.21, 0.22, 0.16, and 0.18, respectively. Genetic correlation estimates between FT with TT, NFT, and FMG were 0.79, 0.09, and 0.28, respectively. Estimated genetic correlations between TT with WW, LWW, LSW, and PS were 0.37, 0.38, 0.11, and −0.19, respectively. Genetic correlation estimates between FT with WW, LWW, LSW, and PS were 0.44, 0.49, 0.39, and 0.35, respectively. Results suggest increasing functional teat number would enhance both piglet survival and reproductive throughput.}, number={1}, journal={TRANSLATIONAL ANIMAL SCIENCE}, author={Obermier, Dalton R. and Howard, Jeremy Thomas and Gray, Kent A. and Knauer, Mark T.}, year={2023}, month={Jan} }
 @article{peppmeier_obermier_knauer_2019, title={Production trait differences between show pig and commerical genetic lines.}, volume={97}, ISSN={["1525-3163"]}, DOI={10.1093/jas/skz122.297}, abstractNote={Abstract
               The objective was to compare growth and body composition of pigs sired by boars from the show pig industry to those sired by modern commercial genetic lines. Data included one group of 174 male pigs from 16 sires and 50 dams. Pigs were sired by Large White (LW) show pig sires (SHOW) or one of two maternal LW commercial genetic lines (W or P). Dams of all pigs evaluated were from line P. Pigs were weaned at 27 d of age and placed into a mechanically ventilated nursery (0.23 m2 per pig). After 35 d in the nursery, pigs moved to a naturally ventilated finisher (0.74 m2 per pig) with fully slatted floors. Weight, 10th rib backfat, and loin eye area (LEA) were collected at 156 d of age (backfat and LEA adjusted to 114 kg). Data was analyzed using PROC GLM with a fixed effect of genetic line and covariates of weaning age and birth weight. A one day increase in weaning age increased (P < 0.01) 156 d weight by 658 g. Nursery average daily gain (ADG) was greater (P < 0.01) for pigs sired by SHOW and W when compared to P (414 and 397 vs. 351 g, respectively) yet finishing ADG did not differ (P > 0.05) (821 and 817 vs. 797 g, respectively). Backfat was thicker (P < 0.01) for SHOW when compared to W or P (16.7 vs. 14.7 and 14.7 mm, respectively) and LEA was larger (P < 0.05) for SHOW when compared to W or P (47.3 vs. 44.8 and 44.0 cm2, respectively). Finishing lean gain per day was greater (P < 0.05) for SHOW and W when compared to P (323 and 322 vs. 309 g per d, respectively). Results suggest pigs sired by LW SHOW are fatter, heavier muscled, and have comparable lean growth to those sired by commercial LW genetic lines.}, journal={JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE}, author={Peppmeier, Zack and Obermier, Dalton R. and Knauer, Mark}, year={2019}, month={Jul}, pages={168–168} }
 @article{obermier_peppmeier_knauer_2019, title={Structural conformation differences between show pigs and commercial genetic lines.}, volume={97}, ISSN={["1525-3163"]}, DOI={10.1093/jas/skz122.070}, abstractNote={Abstract
               Structural conformation differences between show pig and commercial genetic linesD.R. Obermier, Z.C. Peppmeier, M.T. Knauer North Carolina State University, Raleigh.The objective was to compare the structural conformation of pigs sired by boars from the show pig industry to those sired by modern commercial genetic lines. Data included 174 male pigs from 16 sires and 50 dams. Pigs were sired by Large White (LW) show pig sires (SHOW) or one of two maternal LW commercial genetic lines (W or P). Dams of all pigs evaluated were from line P. Pigs were reared in barns (0.74 m2 per pig) with natural ventilation and totally slatted concrete flooring. Two technicians visually evaluated pigs at five months of age for front leg side view (FSIDEVIEW), rear pastern angle (RPASTERN), rib width (RIB) and locomotion (LOCO). The traits FSIDEVIEW and RPASTERN were scored on a seven point scale where one was soft pasterns, four was normal and seven was buck-kneed and straight pasterns, respectively. Rib width was scored on a five point scale with five being wide ribbed. Locomotion was scored on a seven point scale where one was ideal. Correlations between technicians for FSIDEVIEW, RPASTERN, RIB and LOCO were 0.54, 0.66, 0.77 and 0.72, respectively. Males sired by SHOW had lower (P < 0.01) FSIDEVIEW scores than those sired by W or P (2.2 vs. 3.3 and 3.6, respectively) and softer (P < 0.05) RPASTERN (3.4 vs. 3.8 and 4.2, respectively). Rib width was wider (P < 0.01) for SHOW when compared to W or P (3.7 vs. 2.6 and 2.4, respectively) Locomotion was superior (P < 0.01) for SHOW when compared to W or P (2.6 vs. 3.4 and 3.6, respectively). Line W had lower (P < 0.05) FSIDEVIEW and RPASTERN than P. Yet RIB and LOCO did not differ (P > 0.05) between W and P. Results suggest pigs sired by SHOW had softer pasterns, greater rib width and superior locomotion when compared to those sired by commercial genetic lines.}, journal={JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE}, author={Obermier, Dalton R. and Peppmeier, Zack and Knauer, Mark}, year={2019}, month={Jul}, pages={39–39} }
 @article{obermier_knauer_graham_frobose_2019, title={The effects of lift crates on sow performance and litter survival.}, volume={97}, ISSN={["1525-3163"]}, DOI={10.1093/jas/skz122.411}, abstractNote={Abstract
               In modern sow farms, pre-weaning mortality (PWM) remains a key barrier to achieving peak productivity and optimizing piglet welfare. Therefore, a total of 270 sows (PIC 1050, 3.6 average parity) were used (May to July 2018) to determine the effect of lift crates in farrowing on sow and piglet performance and litter survival in a commercial setting in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Lift crates are driven by postural changes in the sow which activate a hydraulic lift system (Balance Frame; NOOYEN, Deurne, NL) which temporarily raises a movable sow slat 25 cm above the crate floor. Sows were randomly assigned to 2.44 m × 1.83 m farrowing crates that were 1) conventional or 2) lift crates. Within rooms, litters were standardized to 13 or 14 pigs within 24 h after parturition. Daily sow feed intake was measured using electronic lactation feeders (Gestal SOLO; JYGA Technologies, Inc.). Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS (Cary, NC). Sow was the experimental unit. No differences (P > 0.22) were observed for number born alive, stillbirths or mummified fetuses. Sow backfat loss (2.2 vs. 2.5 mm), average daily feed intake (5.67 vs. 5.74 kg) and wean-to-estrus interval (5.27 vs. 5.62 d) were similar (P > 0.16) between conventional and lift crate treatments. However, from birth to cross-fostering, lift crates reduced (P < 0.01) piglet deaths by 55% when compared to conventional crates (0.58 vs. 0.32 piglets). Piglet deaths from cross-fostering to weaning did not differ (P = 0.18, 0.68 vs. 0.54 piglets). Number of pigs weaned (12.62 vs. 12.87) and suckled litter weaning weight (75.7 vs. 75.6 kg) did not differ (P > 0.11) across treatments. These results provide evidence that lift crates can reduce the number of piglet deaths and may improve PWM in sow farms.Keywords: crate, piglet, survival}, journal={JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE}, author={Obermier, Dalton R. and Knauer, Mark and Graham, Amanda and Frobose, Hyatt}, year={2019}, month={Jul}, pages={233–233} }