Open Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 2012, 2, 137-150
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojvm.2012.23023 Published Online September 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojvm)
Physical Conditions of Cull Sows Associated with On-Farm
Production Records
Mark Knauer1*, Ken Stalder2, Tom Baas2, Colin Johnson2, Locke Karriker3
1Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA
2Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, USA
3Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine Department, Ames, USA
Received July 7, 2012; revised July 31, 2012; accepted August 7, 2012
ABSTRACT
Cull sow physical conditions were associated with on-farm production records. Sows (923) within one integrated U.S.
production system were evaluated at two harvest facilities. Physical conditions evaluated at harvest were analyzed by
parity, culling code and production measures. Farm culling codes were categorized into poor body condition (BC), old
age (G), lameness (L), other (O), poor litter performance (P) and reproductive failure (R). Production measures included
lifetime pigs born alive (LPBA), pigs born alive in the last litter (PBALL), pigs per sow per year (PSY) and weaning to
culling interval. The L culling code had a greater (P < 0.05) prevalence of cracked hooves when compared to the other
five culling codes (30.9% vs. 18.7%). Sows without front cracked hooves tended (P = 0.07) to have greater PSY (0.80)
when compared to sows having front cracked hooves. Females without rear digital overgrowth had more (P < 0.05)
PBALL (0.54) and tended (P = 0.06) to have increased PSY (0.80) when compared to sows with rear digital overgrowth.
Sows without shoulder lesions had greater (P < 0.05) LPBA (2.01) when compared to sows with shoulder lesions. Re-
gression coefficient estimates for percent lung lesion involvement were positive and tended (P < 0.10) to be different
from zero for LPBA (0.06) and PSY (0.03). Females with severe teeth wear tended (P ≤ 0.10) to have fewer LPBA
(1.36), PBALL (0.45) and had fewer (P < 0.01) PSY (1.10) when compared to sows without severe teeth wear. Sows
culled for BC and L had lower (P < 0.01) backfat when compared to sows from the other four culling codes (1.83 and
2.04 cm vs. 2.47 to 2.85 cm, respectively). Multiple cull sow physical conditions evaluated at harvest had associations
with on-farm reproductive measures.
Keywords: Cull; Productivity; Sow
1. Introduction
Poor sow lifetime productivity in commercial pork pro-
duction systems can lead to economic inefficiency and
animal well-being concerns [1]. In the United States,
reported annual breeding female culling rates are near
50% [2,3].
Traditional culling studies are based on retrospective
farm data as they are relatively easy and economical to
obtain. Producers are typically limited to reporting one
reason for culling individual sows by their record keep-
ing software. Additionally, these reasons are typically
based on external signs or indications and do not incor-
porate information from internal and external body sys-
tems evaluation. Culling may be the result of multiple
factors. Evaluating cull sows at harvest offers researchers
an opportunity to confirm farm data and further identify
factors related to sow culling. However, few studies in-
vestigating reasons for sow culling in harvest plants have
been reported in the scientific literature [4,5].
Post-mortem reproductive organ examination offer
potential information concerning sow reproductive fai-
lure. Foot lesions, disease, body condition and other body
system problems may contribute to sow culling from
commercial pork operations. Therefore, information from
harvest plants can be used as a diagnostic tool to evaluate
these lesions and further understand why sows are culled.
The objective of this study was to relate the cull sows’
physical conditions at harvest with on-farm production
records within an integrated US pork production system.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals and Housing
Housing and animal care information is reported to pro-
vide the reader with management information with re-
spect to how animals were housed and fed leading up to
their harvest. A total of 923 sows from 8 farms within a
*Corresponding author.
C
opyright © 2012 SciRes. OJVM

M. KNAUER ET AL.
138
single large integrated US pork production system were
evaluated. Gestation sows were housed individually with
solid concrete flooring in the front half and concrete slats
in the rear half of the pen. Throughout gestation females
were fed a gestation diet according to body condition [6]
and had ad libitum access to water. Estrous detection was
carried out once daily using fence-line boar contact. Fe-
males were bred using AI at 12 and 36 h after first de-
tected estrus. Farrowing stalls contained either cast iron
or wire metal slatted flooring. Sows were provided ad
libitum access to feed and water throughout lactation.
Gestation and lactation diets were balanced to meet or
exceed NRC requirements [7].
2.2. On-Farm Data Collection
The Data collected from production records included sow
identification, parity, first conception date, first farrow-
ing date, lifetime pigs born alive (summation of pigs
born alive across parities), pigs born alive in the last litter
(prior to culling), farrowing and weaning dates, culling
date and culling code. Data derived from on-farm pro-
duction records included pigs per litter (lifetime pigs
born alive)/(number of parities in the herd), non-produc-
tive days per parity [(culling date − first litter conception
date) − (number of parities in the herd × 114)]/(number
of parities in the herd), weaning to culling interval (cull-
ing date − last weaning date) and pigs per sow per year
[(lifetime pigs born alive)/(culling date − first litter con-
ception date) × 365]. First litter conception date was used
to calculate non-productive days per parity instead of
herd entry date because of the variation in entry date to
first conception (32 ± 47 d).
Farm culling codes were categorized into body condi-
tion (BC), old age (G), lameness (L), other (O), poor
litter performance (P) and reproductive failure (R). Body
condition included the farm codes poor body condition
and unthrifty. Old age contained the farm codes old age
and parity. Lameness consisted of the farm codes downer,
injury and lameness. The culling code O included cesar-
ean section, not found, other illness, prolapse, sudden
death and unknown. Poor litter performance was com-
prised of farrowing complications, low number born
alive, low number weaned, mastitis, poor milking ability
and retained pigs. Reproductive failure included the farm
codes abortion, did not conceive, no heat and not in pig.
All farms culled sows on a weekly basis. No gilts (parity
0 females) were included in the study.
2.3. Harvest Data Collection
The Harvest facilities were chosen to represent the range
of sows typically sent to market in the US. Because the
type of sows harvested by individual facilities is driven
by varied purchasing criteria based on anticipated pro-
ducts from those facilities, we chose two different Mid
western plants for data collection. Plant 1 (n = 281 sows)
harvested a thinner type of sow and Plant 2 (n = 642
sows) harvested a heavier conditioned sow. Based on
body condition score, ultrasonic backfat and ultrasonic
loin muscle area we achieved our goal of evaluating a
wide variety of cull sows. Twelve trips, six to each har-
vest plant, were made. Feet, shoulders, reproductive
tracts, lungs, teeth and body condition were visually
evaluated on individual harvested sows.
Front and rear foot lesions were evaluated and re-
corded by a trained technician. The technician examined
each foot for the following abnormalities: 1) claw and
hoof wall cracks (cracked hooves) including side-wall
lesions, white line and toe cracks [8]; 2) pad (heel) le-
sions [8]; 3) the presence of abscesses on any foot sur-
face; 4) abnormal overgrowth conditions (digital over-
growth) as defined by upward or inward toe curvature or
excessive hoof growth (2 cm longer than a normal toe);
and 5) missing dew claws.
Shoulder lesions were evaluated and assigned to one
of the following categories “none”, “abscess”, “abrasion”,
or “open” lesions. Lesion score was classified as “none”
if the skin appeared normal over the point of the shoulder,
an “abscess” lesion score was assigned when an opened
or closed abscess was present, an “abrasion” lesion score
was designated when fibrous tissue nodules were evident
at the point of the shoulder [5] and an “open” lesion
score was designated when an open, draining or healing
sore was apparent at the point of the shoulder [5].
Reproductive tracts were removed from the carcass by
harvest plant personnel and visually inspected immedi-
ately by the research veterinarian. From the macroscopic
ovary examination sows were classified as normal (cor-
pora lutea, corpora hemorrhagica or mature follicles were
present), cystic (multiple follicular cysts, >1.5 cm in di-
ameter without corpora lutea or corpora hemorrhagica) or
acyclic (no corpora lutea, corpora hemorrhagica and
small follicles covering less <50% of ovary). Pregnancy
status was determined and fetal tissues, if present, were
classified as normal, decomposed or mummified.
The thoracic and abdominal cavities and organs were
visually evaluated for lesions by the research veterinarian.
The presence or absence of peritonitis, pleural adhesions
and lung lesions were recorded. If lung lesions were pre-
sent, a total lung involvement percentage estimate was
made. Lesions other than those previously mentioned
were noted when visual evidence was present.
Teeth were evaluated by a trained technician. Top and
bottom teeth were counted and scored for severity of
wear. The following three definitions were used to cate-
gorize teeth wear: Minimum, sharp points present on
molars and incisors; moderate, points on molars and in-
cisors worn but grooves between points still evident;

M. KNAUER ET AL. 139
severe, no points or grooves present on molars and inci-
sors.
A National Swine Improvement Federation certified
real-time ultrasound technician measured backfat, long-
issimus muscle area, and longissimus muscle depth from
a cross sectional 10th rib image using an Aloka 500 V
SSD ultrasound machine (Corometrics Medical Systems,
Inc., Wallingford, CT). At both plants, ultrasound eva-
luations were performed ante mortem while sows were
restrained in a chute prior to harvest.
Body condition score (BCS) was evaluated using a
scale of 1 (thin) to 5 (fat) [6]. At plant 1, BCS was evalu-
ated as sows were suspended from a gambrel with their
backs facing the observer. At plant 2, BCS was evaluated
just prior to stunning as the animal was in a standing po-
sition. Technicians evaluating BCS were consistent across
plants and visits, and had extensive livestock evaluation
experience.
All data were recorded and reported at the sow level.
In this study, attributing “left,” “right” or “bilateral”
characteristics to lesions in paired organs did not provide
additional information as to cause or source and was not
reliably obtained given the carcass fabrication process.
Additionally, for the present study we did not find value
in determining side or bilateral characteristics.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
The Statistical analyses were carried out using SAS [9].
Harvest facility data and on-farm production data were
analyzed by parity and culling code. For the models
comparing culling codes, parity was not included. Be-
cause so few culled sows had produced 10 or more pari-
ties, records from parity 10 and greater (n = 67) were
combined into a single classification (10).
The GLIMMIX procedure can analyze response vari-
ables with a non-normal distribution while incorporating
random effects into the model. Therefore, PROC GLIM-
MIX was used to analyze binary traits by parity and
culling code. All models included the evaluator of the
trait as a random effect.
The PROC MIXED procedure was used to analyze
teeth number and body composition data by parity, cull-
ing code and body condition score. All models included
the evaluator of the trait as a random effect. Parity was
included as a fixed effect when analyzing backfat, long-
issimus muscle area and longissimus muscle depth by
culling code and BCS.
The PROC MIXED procedure was used to analyze
lifetime pigs born alive, pigs per litter, pigs born alive in
the last litter, non-productive days per parity, weaning to
culling interval and pigs per sow per year mean by parity
and culling code. The models for parity and culling code
included farm as a fixed effect.
3. Results
3.1. Feet Lesions
Physical characteristics and production LS MEANS by
parity are shown in Ta bl e 1. The probability for front
and rear heel lesion presence was different (P < 0.01)
between parities. Both front and rear heel lesions gener-
ally increased as parity increased. Front heel lesions
ranged from 11.0% in parity 2 to 48.8% in parity 9 and
rear heel lesions varied from 46.7% in parity 1 to 75.8%
in parity 7. Physical characteristics and production LS
MEANS by culling code are shown in Tabl e 2. Front
heel lesions were different (P < 0.01) between culling
codes. Old age had the greatest likelihood for front heel
lesion presence (49.2%). Physical characteristic contrasts
(binary traits) and solution estimates (for continuous
traits) for sow productivity traits are shown in Tabl e 3.
The weaning to culling interval for sows with no front
heel lesions was longer (P < 0.01) when compared to
those with front heal lesions (9.9 d).
The probability for cull sows having cracked front
hooves was different across parity of the sows and was
generally greater in younger parity females. Front
cracked hooves ranged from 36.6% in parity 2 to 12.9%
in parity 5. The likelihood for the presence of front
cracked hooves found on cull sows differed (P < 0.01)
among the culling codes. Sows within the L culling code
had a greater probability for the presence of cracked
hooves (P < 0.05) than the other 5 culling codes com-
bined (30.9% vs. 18.7%). Cull sows without cracked
hooves on their front feet tended (P = 0.07) to have more
pigs per sow per year (0.80) when compared to sows
with cracked hooves on the front feet. Sows without front
cracked hooves had a shorter (P < 0.05) weaning to cull-
ing interval (5.4 d) when compared to sows with front
cracked hooves.
The likelihood of rear digital overgrowth differed (P <
0.01) between parities with older sows generally having a
greater frequency among the cull sows evaluated. Rear
digital overgrowth varied from 8.3% in parity 1 to 52.3%
in parity 10. The probability for cull sows having rear
digital overgrowth was different (P < 0.01) between cul-
ling codes. Sows culled for BC, G and O had a greater (P <
0.05) incidence for rear digital overgrowth when com-
pared to sows culled for P and R (35.7%, 35.7% and
33.9% vs. 18.6% and 15.8%, respectively). Cull sows
without rear digital overgrowth in comparison to those
with had more (P < 0.05) pigs born alive in the last litter
(0.54) and a trend (P = 0.06) for increased pigs per sow
per year (0.80).
3.2. Shoulder Lesions
The presence of shoulder lesions on cull sows differed (P <
0.01) between parities with older parities generally hav-
ing a greater occurrence. Cull sows with shoulder

M. KNAUER ET AL.
140
Table 1. Physical characteristics and production LS MEANS by parity for 923 cull sowsǂ evaluated at two U.S. harvest facili-
ties.
Parity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Trait n = 124 n = 74 n = 74n = 71n = 106n = 113n = 101n = 100 n = 93 n = 67P-value
Front feet
Heel lesions, % 24.4b 11.0a 17.6ab 24.3bc 37.6cd 43.8d 41.0d 44.4d 48.8d 47.0d 0.01
Cracked hooves, % 17.9ab 36.6c 32.4c 27.1bc12.9a 18.8ab 17.0ab 13.1ab 16.3ab 15.2ab 0.01
Digital overgrowth, % 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.4 1.0 1.8 3.0 5.1 9.8 6.1 0.19
Rear feet
Heel lesions, % 46.7a 57.5ab 67.6bc 67.7bc 72.6c 70.4bc75.8c 67.4bc 74.4c 56.9ab 0.01
Digital overgrowth, % 8.3a 9.6a 12.7a 27.9b 27.5b 30.6b 33.3b 32.7b 40.0bc 52.3c 0.01
Cracked hooves, % 9.2 20.6 11.3 20.6 17.7 17.6 12.1 10.2 18.9 7.7 0.10
Missing dewclaws, % 1.7 2.7 2.8 10.3 5.9 7.4 4.0 5.1 12.2 7.7 0.07
Abscesses, % 0.8 0.0 8.5 5.9 1.0 2.8 2.0 3.0 3.3 0.0 0.32
Shoulder lesions
None, % 90.3bc 97.3c 86.5ab 80.3a 86.8ab80.5a 86.2ab83.0ab 85.0ab 74.6a 0.04
Abrasions, % 8.1 0.0 10.8 15.5 8.5 15.0 10.0 12.0 8.6 22.4 0.17
Open, % 1.6 2.7 2.7 4.2 4.7 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.4 1.5 0.90
Ovaries
Normal, % 85.3 90.4 82.2 84.3 84.6 78.2 88.0 86.9 89.9 85.1 0.48
Acyclic, % 13.1 4.1 11.0 10.0 7.7 7.3 5.0 5.1 5.6 6.0 0.33
Cystic, % 1.6 5.5 6.9 5.7 7.7 14.6 7.0 8.1 4.5 9.0 0.11
Pregnancy
Pregnant, % 1.6a 9.6bc 4.1abc 5.7abc 6.7abc 4.5abc 12.0c 12.1c 2.3ab 3.0ab 0.03
Systemic lesions
Lung involvement 1% - 10%k 0.8 1.4 9.5 8.5 2.8 5.3 8.9 7.0 6.5 12.0 0.10
Lung involvement > 10%l 6.5 1.4 1.4 4.2 5.7 6.2 8.9 4.0 1.1 3.0 0.29
Pleural adhesions, % 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.7 7.7 1.8 5.0 4.0 4.5 10.5 0.62
Teeth wear
Minimum, % 63.6c 21.6b 7.4a 3.0a 0.0a 2.0a 1.0a 1.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.01
Moderate, % 30.5a 64.9cd 75.0d 52.9bcd 57.5cd 47.0bc42.4ab40.2ab 36.1ab 23.8a 0.01
Severe, % 6.0a 13.5b 17.7b 44.1cd 42.6c 51.0cd56.6de 58.7de 64.0de 76.2e 0.01
Teeth no.
Top teeth, no. 20.9a 21.0a 21.8b 21.7b 21.9b 21.8b 21.8b 21.8b 21.8b 21.8b 0.01
Bottom teeth, no. 21.1a 21.7b 22.0bc22.2c 22.1c 21.9bc22.1c 22.0c 22.1c 22.1c 0.01
Production
Lifetime pigs born alive 9.9a 20.5b 33.8c 44.9d 55.4e 64.7f 74.7g 86.8h 97.2i 108.8j0.01
Pigs per litter 11.1bc 10.6ab 11.3c 11.1bc 11.0bc 10.7abc 10.6ab 10.8abc 10.6ab 10.2a 0.05
Pigs born alive in the last litter 10.5cd 11.1de 11.0de 11.8e 10.4cd 9.7bc 9.9bc 9.2ab 9.2ab 8.3a 0.01
Non-productive days per parity 47.6ef 51.2f 44.9e 38.4d 38.6d 33.9c 31.5bc30.0ab 27.2a 27.9ab 0.01
Weaning to culling interval, d 38.6c 48.2de 50.0e 40.6cde 40.0cd 26.5b 22.7b 21.8b 9.5a 11.4a 0.01
Pigs per sow per year 24.3a 23.9a 26.2b 26.9b 26.6b 26.7b 26.8b 27.3b 27.5b 26.5b 0.01
ǂSows were from eight farms within one integrated US pork production system and harvested at two midwestern sow harvest facilities. abcdefghijRow means with
different subscripts differ (P < 0.05). kSows with lesions involving 1% - 10% of their lungs. lSows with lesions involving >10% of their lungs.

M. KNAUER ET AL. 141
Table 2. Physical characteristics and production LS MEANS by culling code for 923 cull sowsǂ evaluated at two US midwest-
ern harvest facilities.
Culling Codee
BC G L O P R
Trait n = 90 n = 322 n = 83 n = 60 n = 73 n = 295 P-value
Front feet
Heel lesions, % 31.8bc 49.2d 29.6bc 15.0a 41.4cd 23.3ab 0.01
Cracked hooves, % 25.0bc 14.4a 30.9c 15.0ab 15.7ab 22.9bc 0.01
Digital overgrowth, % 4.5 4.7 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.7 0.24
Rear feet
Heel lesions, % 64.3 70.4 57.9 59.3 65.7 64.3 0.26
Digital overgrowth, % 35.7c 35.7c 26.3bc 33.9c 18.6ab 15.8a 0.01
Cracked hooves, % 16.7 12.4 18.4 11.9 11.4 16.2 0.57
Missing dewclaws, % 7.1 5.7 5.3 11.9 4.3 4.8 0.44
Abscesses, % 3.6 1.6 6.6 1.7 2.9 2.4 0.31
Shoulder lesions
None, % 73.3a 82.6b 83.1ab 85.0ab 79.5ab 93.9c 0.01
Abrasions, % 16.7b 12.7b 8.4ab 15.0b 17.8b 5.1a 0.01
Open, % 10.0c 4.0b 7.2bc 0.0a 2.7abc 1.0a 0.01
Ovaries
Normal, % 83.0 87.1 81.5 85.0 81.9 86.2 0.71
Acyclic, % 10.2 6.0 9.9 10.0 11.1 6.6 0.45
Cystic, % 6.8 6.9 8.6 5.0 6.9 7.3 0.98
Pregnancy
Pregnant, % 6.7a 4.1a 4.9a 28.3b 4.2a 4.5a 0.01
Systemic lesions
Lung involvement 1% - 10%f 9.8 12.9 11.2 5.8 10.5 6.8 0.49
Lung involvement >10%g 5.6 5.3 8.4 3.3 6.8 2.0 0.15
Pleural adhesions 5.6 5.4 7.3 8.3 4.2 4.5 0.81
Teeth wear
Minimum, % 7.1b 0.4a 9.7bc 8.6bc 9.4bc 14.1c 0.01
Moderate, % 47.9 36.4 46.3 48.0 37.6 42.0 0.27
Severe, % 41.2a 63.6b 37.5a 40.3a 48.0a 35.1a 0.01
Teeth wear
Top teeth, no. 21.5ab 21.7b 21.6ab 21.4a 21.6ab 21.5a 0.05
Bottom teeth, no. 21.8ab 22.1b 22.1b 21.7a 21.8ab 21.7a 0.01
Production
Average parity 4.8c 8.0d 4.1b 4.5bc 5.0c 3.5a 0.01
Lifetime pigs born alive 47.4b 86.5c 44.3ab 48.4b 49.8b 38.8a 0.01
Pigs per litter 11.2bc 10.7ab 11.0bc 10.6abc 10.3a 11.0c 0.02
Pigs born alive in last litter 10.6c 9.5b 10.8c 10.3bc 8.4a 10.7c 0.01
Non-productive days per parity 32.4ab 30.5a 35.0b 40.7c 31.6ab 48.5d 0.01
Weaning to culling interval, d 22.8bc 15.3a 25.1c 42.9d 15.2ab 57.9e 0.01
Pigs per sow per year 28.2c 27.1bc 26.8bc 24.8a 25.9ab 24.8a 0.01
ǂSows were from eight farms within one integrated US pork production system and harvested at two midwestern sow harvest facilities. abcdRow means with
different subscripts differ (P < 0.05). eBC = body condition, G = old age, L = lameness, O = other, P = poor litter performance, R = reproductive failure. fSows
with lesions involving 1% - 10% of their lungs. gSows with lesions involving >10% of their lungs.

M. KNAUER ET AL.
142
Table 3. Physical characteristic contrasts (binary traits†) and solution estimates (continuous traits‡) for sow productivity
traits¶ on 923 cull sowsǂ evaluated at two US midwestern harvest facilities.
LPBA PBALL PSY WCI
Trait Absence –
presence P-value Absence – presence P-value Absence – presence P-value Absence – presence P-value
Front feet
Heel lesions† –0.45 0.55 0.18 0.42 –0.51 0.19 9.9 0.01
Cracked hooves† 0.50 0.57 0.00 0.98 0.80 0.07 –5.4 0.05
Digital overgrowth† 0.22 0.92 0.35 0.55 –0.07 0.94 0.8 0.89
Rear feet
Heel lesions† –0.66 0.39 –0.26 0.23 0.22 0.55 –1.3 0.58
Digital overgrowth† 0.94 0.27 0.54 0.03 0.80 0.06 –1.1 0.67
Cracked hooves† 0.26 0.79 –0.14 0.65 –0.55 0.29 0.1 0.99
Missing dewclaws† 2.15 0.16 –0.02 0.97 0.40 0.60 –6.4 0.16
Abscesses† –2.00 0.37 –0.08 0.91 –0.33 0.76 4.3 0.54
Shoulder lesions
None† –2.01 0.04 –0.14 0.64 –0.04 0.93 –10.6 0.01
Abrasions† 2.09 0.07 0.36 0.27 0.29 0.65 12.1 0.01
Open† 1.06 0.57 –0.32 0.55 –0.88 0.41 5.8 0.30
Ovaries
Normal† 0.68 0.50 –0.27 0.36 0.11 0.82 –5.6 0.06
Acyclic† –0.41 0.76 0.24 0.53 –0.51 0.45 11.2 0.01
Cystic† –0.89 0.53 0.24 0.54 0.33 0.63 –1.4 0.74
Pregnancy
Pregnant† –0.13 0.93 0.80 0.06 1.10 0.14 –13.5 0.01
Systemic lesions
Lung 1% - 10%†a –1.93 0.19 –0.44 0.31 –0.95 0.20 2.3 0.61
Lung > 10%†b –2.49 0.13 –0.45 0.36 –1.20 0.14 9.6 0.06
Pleural adhesions† –1.58 0.30 0.13 0.77 0.26 0.74 –1.8 0.70
Teeth wear
Minimum, %† –1.00 0.50 –0.24 0.58 –1.10 0.15 11.6 0.01
Moderate, %† –0.92 0.22 –0.32 0.14 –0.66 0.08 0.0 0.99
Severe, %† 1.36 0.10 0.45 0.06 1.10 0.01 –3.5 0.15
Teeth no.
Top teeth, no. ‡ 0.20 0.61 0.17 0.13 –0.14 0.50 3.64 0.01
Bottom teeth, no. ‡ 0.07 0.82 0.04 0.67 –0.08 0.61 –0.51 0.59
BCS‡c –0.28 0.53 0.09 0.47 –0.26 0.24 4.57 0.01
10th rib backfat‡ –0.04 0.93 –0.00 0.99 –0.62 0.23 4.65 0.01
LMAd, cm2 ‡ –0.12 0.02 –0.01 0.51 –0.49 0.01 0.44 0.01
LMDe, cm‡ –1.02 0.04 –0.08 0.57 –1.54 0.01 3.26 0.03
Lung, %‡f 0.06 0.09 0.01 0.46 0.03 0.06 –0.26 0.01
¶LPBA = Lifetime pigs born alive, PBALL = Pigs born alive in last litter, PSY = Pigs per sow per year, WCI = Weaning to culling interval. ǂSows were from
eight farms within one integrated U.S. pork production system and harvested at two Midwestern sow harvest facilities. aSows with lesions involving 1% - 10%
of their lungs (presence) compared to sows with no lung lesions (absence). bSows with lesions involving >10% of their lungs (presence) compared to sows with
no lung lesions (absence). cBCS = body condition score (possible range 1 to 5, Patience and Thacker, 1989). dLMA = Longissimus muscle area. eLMD = Long-
issimus muscle depth. fTotal lung involvement from lesions.

M. KNAUER ET AL.
143
lesions ranged from 2.7% in parity 2 to 25.4% in parity
10. The probability for the presence of shoulder lesions
on cull sows was different (P < 0.01) between culling
codes. Sows culled for R had the lowest (P < 0.05) like-
lihood for shoulder lesions when compared to the other
five culling codes (6.1% vs. 15.0% to 26.7%). Sows
without shoulder lesions had greater (P < 0.05) lifetime
pigs born alive (2.01) and averaged more (P < 0.01) days
from weaning to culling (10.6 d) when compared to sows
having shoulder lesions.
The probability for the presence of open shoulder le-
sions on cull sows was different (P = 0.01) between cull-
ing codes. Open shoulder lesions were greatest among
sows culled for BC (10.0%) and L (7.2%).
3.3. Reproductive Tracts
Grossly normal appearing ovaries were not different (P >
0.05) between parities and culling codes among the cull
sows evaluated in this study. The weaning to culling in-
terval was shorter (P < 0.01) for sows with acyclic ova-
ries when compared to those without (11.2 d).
The likelihood for pregnant females among cull sows
evaluated differed (P < 0.05) between parities and culling
codes. There were more (P < 0.01) pregnancies in the O
culling code when compared to other 5 culling codes
(28.3% vs. 4.1% to 6.7%). Sows that were observed
pregnant at culling tended (P = 0.06) to have fewer pigs
born alive in their last litter (0.80) when compared to cull
sows that were not pregnant. Sows that were not preg-
nant at culling had fewer (P < 0.01) days from weaning
to culling when compared to cull sows that were found to
be pregnant (13.5 d).
3.4. Respiratory Systems
The probability for cull sows with lesions involving 1%
to 10% of the lungs, greater than 10% of the lungs or
pleural adhesions did not differ between parities or cull-
ing codes. Sows with lesions that involved greater than
10% of the lung tissue tended (P = 0.06) to have a shorter
weaning to culling interval (9.6 d) when compared to cull
sows with no lung lesions. However, this difference was
not observed (P > 0.05) among cull sows where lung
lesion involvement was from 1% to 10% when compared
to sows without any lung lesion involvement. Regression
coefficient estimates for percent lung lesion involvement
were positive and tended (P < 0.10) to be different from
zero for lifetime pigs born alive (0.06) and pigs per sow
per year (0.03) and negative (P = 0.01) for weaning to
culling interval (−0.26).
3.5. Teeth Evaluation
Minimum, moderate and severe teeth wear among the
cull sows evaluated differed (P < 0.01) among the pari-
ties evaluated. Severe teeth wear increased as parity in-
creased among the cull sows evaluated. Minimum teeth
wear ranged from 63.6% in parity 1 to 0.0% in parity 9
and 10. Severe teeth wear varied from 6.0% in parity 1 to
76.2% in parity 10. Minimum and severe teeth wear were
different across (P < 0.01) culling codes. Cull sows re-
moved for G had a lower percentage of sows with (P <
0.01) minimum teeth wear and greater percentage of
sows having (P < 0.05) severe teeth wear when compared
to sows culled from the other 5 culling codes. Cull sows
with moderate teeth wear tended (P = 0.08) to have more
pigs per sow per year (0.66) in comparison to those
without moderate teeth wear. Sows with severe teeth
wear tended (P < 0.10) to have fewer lifetime pigs born
alive (1.36), pigs born alive in last litter (0.45) and less
(P < 0.01) pigs per sow per year (1.10) when compared
to sows without severe teeth wear.
Top and bottom teeth number differed (P < 0.01) be-
tween parities among the cull sows evaluated in this
study. Cull sows from parities 1 and 2 had fewer (P <
0.01) top teeth and sows in parity 1 had fewer (P < 0.01)
bottom teeth when compared to cull sows from older
parities.
3.6. Body Condition and Composition
Cull sow body composition LS MEANS by parity, cull-
ing code and body condition score are presented in Table
4. Backfat and BCS were not different (P > 0.05) be-
tween parities among the cull sows evaluated in this
study. However, BCS for the cull sows was different (P <
0.01) between parities within harvest plant. As parity
increased, BCS from sows harvested at plant 1 tended to
increase while BCS from sows harvested at plant 2
tended to decrease. Longissimus muscle area and depth
from the cull sows were different (P < 0.01) between
parities. Longissimus muscle area generally increased
from parity 1 to 5 (44.8 cm2 to 47.8 cm2) and then pla-
teaued (Table 4).
Cull sow backfat, longissimus muscle area, longis-
simus muscle depth and BCS were different (P < 0.01)
between culling codes. Sows culled from the breeding
herd for BC and L had less (P < 0.01) backfat when
compared to sows having other on-farm culling codes
(1.83 cm and 2.04 cm vs. 2.47 cm to 2.85 cm, respec-
tively). The BC culling code had the smallest (P < 0.01)
longissimus muscle area (41.2 cm2), longissimus muscle
depth (4.91 cm) and lowest (P < 0.05) body condition
score (2.37). Sows culled for L had a lower (P < 0.05)
BCS than G, P or R sows. The R culling code had the
greatest (P < 0.01) BCS.
Backfat, longissimus muscle area and longissimus
muscle depth were different (P < 0.01) between body
condition scores from the cull sows evaluated in this
study. With each increase in body condition score, back-

M. KNAUER ET AL.
144
Table 4. Body composition trait LS MEANS by parity, culling code and body condition score for 923 cull sowsǂ evaluated at
two US midwestern harvest facilities.
Parity
Trait 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 P-value
Backfat, cm 2.61 2.54 2.65 2.22 2.56 2.59 2.53 2.35 2.65 2.63 0.21
LMAf, cm2 44.8a 45.3ab 46.3abc 45.6abc 47.8bcd 48.0cd 49.2d 47.1bcd 47.0abcd 47.7bcd 0.01
LMDg, cm 5.26a 5.29ab 5.30ab 5.27ab 5.53bc 5.58c 5.73c 5.51bc 5.53bc 5.61c 0.01
BCSh 2.98 2.99 2.98 2.71 2.89 2.87 2.94 2.80 2.85 2.85 0.29
Culling Codei
BC G L O P R P-value
Backfat, cm 1.83a 2.60b 2.04a 2.62bc 2.47b 2.85c 0.01
LMA, cm2 41.2a 47.2bc 46.5b 47.0bc 46.3b 48.8c 0.01
LMD, cm 4.91a 5.53bc 5.37b 5.47bc 5.44bc 5.60c 0.01
BCS 2.37a 2.92c 2.60b 2.78bc 2.86c 3.09d 0.01
Body Condition Score
1 2 3 4 5 P-value
Backfat, cm 1.07a 1.76b 2.71c 3.64d 4.68e 0.01
LMA, cm2 35.2a 43.2b 48.9c 51.8d 54.4d 0.01
LMD, cm 4.19a 5.13b 5.70c 5.84d 6.01cd 0.01
ǂSows were from eight farms within one integrated U.S. pork production system and harvested at two midwestern sow harvest facilities. abcdeRow means with
different subscripts differ (P < 0.05). fLMA = Longissimus muscle area. gLMD = Longissimus muscle depth. hBCS = Body condition score (possible range 1 to
5, Patience and Thacker, 1989). iBC = body condition, G = old age, L = lameness, O = other, P = poor litter performance, R = reproductive failure.
fat increased (P < 0.01). Longissimus muscle area in-
creased (P < 0.01) from body condition score 1 to 4, but
not 4 to 5 (P = 0.19).
Regression coefficients for longissimus muscle area
and depth were different (P < 0.05) from zero for lifetime
pigs born alive (−0.12 and −1.02, respectively) and pigs
per sow per year (−0.49 and −1.54, respectively). The
regression coefficients for BCS, backfat, longissimus
muscle area and longissimus muscle depth for weaning
to culling interval were positive and different (P < 0.05)
from zero (4.57, 4.65, 0.44 and 3.26, respectively).
3.7. Production Data
Lifetime pigs born alive, pigs per litter, pigs born alive in
last litter, non-productive days per parity, weaning to
culling interval, and pigs per sow per year differed (P <
0.05) between parities and culling codes from the cull
sows evaluated in this study.
Lifetime pigs born alive increased (P < 0.01) as parity
increased. Among the sows evaluated, pigs per litter
were lower (P < 0.05) in parity 10 when compared to
parities 1, 3, 4 and 5 (10.2 vs. 11.1, 11.3, 11.1, and 11.0,
respectively). When evaluating the production records
from the cull sows in the present study, pigs born alive in
the last litter varied from 11.8 in parity 4 to 8.3 in parity
10. Non-productive days per parity generally decreased
with increasing parity, ranging from 51.2 d in parity 2 to
27.2 d in parity 9. Pigs per sow per year was lower (P <
0.05) in parities 1 and 2 when compared to other parities
(24.3 and 23.9 vs. 26.2 to 27.5, respectively).
Sows culled for G had greater (P < 0.01) lifetime pigs
born alive when compared to the other 5 culling codes
(86.5 vs. 38.8 to 49.8, respectively). Sows culled for R
tended (P < 0.10) to have the fewest lifetime pigs born
alive (38.8). Females culled for P had the fewest (P <
0.01) pigs born alive in last litter (8.4) when compared to
the other 5 culling codes. Sows culled for G had fewer (P <
0.01) pigs born alive in last litter when compared to the
BC, L and R culling codes (9.5 vs. 10.6, 10.8 and 10.7,
respectively). The R culling code had greater (P < 0.01)
non-productive days per parity when compared to sows
from the other five culling codes (48.5 d vs. 30.5 to 40.7
d). Culling codes O and R had the fewest pigs per sow
per year (24.8 and 24.8, respectively). However, assum-
ing each sows’ first farrowing was at one year of age and
adding 60 days to herd life to account for gilt develop-
ment, pigs per sow per year was greatest (P < 0.01) in the
G culling code (25.8) and lowest (P < 0.01) in the R cul-

M. KNAUER ET AL. 145
ling code (21.7).
Culling code information by parity from the sows
evaluated in this study is presented in Ta bl e 5. Repro-
ductive failure was the most common culling code in
parities 1 to 5 (66.1%, 58.1%, 52.7%, 39.4% and 37.7%,
respectively). Sows not detected in estrus (no heat) was
the most frequent farm culling code in parity 1 (41.1%)
and did not conceive most common in parities 2 to 5
(39.2%, 36.5%, 25.4%, and 27.4%, respectively). Body
condition was the second most frequent culling code in
parities 1 to 3 (11.3%, 12.2%, and 16.2%, respectively).
In parities 6 to 10, G was the most common culling code
(30.1%, 60.4%, 71.0%, 81.7% and 86.6%, respectively).
Front missing dew claws, front feet abscesses, perito-
nitis and shoulder abscesses were found in 2/908 (0.2%),
7/903 (0.7%), 16/895 (1.7%) and 3/920 (0.3%) of sows,
respectively. Due to the relatively low incidence rate in
each of these conditions they were not further evaluated.
4. Discussion
4.1. Feet Lesions
The probability for front and rear heel lesions was asso-
ciated with increased parity. These findings are in gree-
ment with Brooks et al. [10] who reported heel lesions
increased with increasing sow age.
Multiple factors are thought to influence heel lesions.
Gjein and Larssen [8] suggest foot lesions may increase
as body weight increases in older parities. This is sup-
ported by Lindemann et al. [11] who reported foot le-
sions were positively correlated with body weight in
nursery pigs. In the present study, front heel lesions were
associated with fewer days from weaning to culling.
These results are supported by Gjein and Larssen [12]
who reported the proportion of claw lesions decreased
from the first to second month after farrowing. This sug-
gests that front heel lesions may resolve during gestation.
Perhaps floor quality influenced feet and leg injuries. A
study by MAFF [13] revealed concrete floors that were
too slippery or too rough caused injuries in gestating
sows. With concrete that was too slippery, sows tended
to show swollen tendons, whereas with rough concrete,
sows often exhibited abrasions on the pressure points of
the feet. The same study reported foot problems with
concrete slats having rough edges or slats set too wide
apart. Gjein and Larssen [8] observed wet floors with
accumulation of manure were associated with increased
heel lesions.
Early parity sows had a greater likelihood for the
presence of front cracked hooves. This could be ex-
plained at least in part by biotin deficiency. Studies have
shown corn-based diets to be a good source of biotin, but
deficiencies contributing to cracked hooves have been
demonstrated in studies utilizing diets based on cereal
grains other than corn [10,14]. In the current study, corn
based diets were fed indicating that any biotin deficiency
would have had to occur because of low sow feed intake
either in gestation, lactation or both. However, feed in-
take information was not available in the present study so
it is not possible to determine whether a biotin deficiency
occurred. Simmins and Brooks [14] suggest a young,
immature sow may be more likely to enter biotin defi-
ciency at certain times in the breeding cycle (such as
lactation) and hence, more prone to cracked hooves.
Facilities are another factor that can affect cracked
hooves. Although facilities were similar in the present
study, different gestation housing and flooring systems
have shown to result in cracked hooves differences
among the breeding animals. On concrete, sows housed
in stalls generally have fewer rear cracked hooves when
compared to sows housed in loose housing systems [15].
Comparing sows housed in concrete stalls or in deep lit-
ter bedding, the latter has been shown to produce fewer
foot lesions on sows housed in this manner [12].
Table 5. Culling code information by parity for 923 cull sowsǂ evaluated at two US midwestern harvest facilities.
Parity
Culling code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
n = 124 n = 74 n = 74n = 71n = 106n = 113n = 101 n = 100 n = 93n = 67
Body condition, % 11.3 (2)a 12.2 (2) 16.2 (2)14.1 (3)8.5 (6)10.6 (4)5.9 (4)9.0 (2) 4.3 (3)7.5 (2)
Old age, % 1.6 (6) 1.4 (6) 2.7 (5)5.6 (6)12.3 (4)30.1 (1)60.4 (1) 71.0 (1) 81.7 (1)86.6 (1)
Lameness, % 10.5 (3) 10.8 (3) 14.9 (3)21.1 (2)14.2 (3)8.0 (5)5.9 (4)5.0 (4) 1.1 (6)0.0 (5)
Other, % 4.8 (5) 10.8 (3) 10.8 (4)9.9 (4)9.4 (5)7.1 (6)6.9 (3)4.0 (5) 2.2 (4)0.0 (5)
Poor litter performance, % 5.7 (4) 6.8 (5) 2.7 (5)9.9 (4)17.9 (2)21.2 (3)3.0 (6)2.0 (6) 2.2 (4)3.0 (3)
Reproductive failure, % 66.1 (1) 58.1 (1) 52.7 (1)39.4 (1)37.7 (1)23.0 (2)17.8 (2) 9.0 (2) 8.6 (2)3.0 (3)
ǂSows were from eight farms within one integrated US pork production system and harvested at two midwestern sow harvest facilities. aCulling code rank
within parity.

M. KNAUER ET AL.
146
Increased front cracked hooves appeared to be associ-
ated with the L culling code in the present study. This
association is supported by Simmins and Brooks [14]
who observed infected side-wall cracks often led to
lameness. Perhaps mitigating cracked hooves would help
prevent lameness among breeding herd females.
The probability for the presence of front and rear digi-
tal overgrowth among cull sows increased as parity in-
creased. It has been postulated that pastern angle de-
creases as the sow gets older [16], which may reduce
hoof wear. Rear pastern angles are smaller than front
pasterns [16] which may contribute to the greater inci-
dence for rear digital overgrowth when compared to
overgrown front hooves (or toes) in the present study.
Flooring and nutrition have been reported to be associ-
ated with overgrown hooves. Newton et al. [17] and
MAFF [13] reported that pigs housed on plastic slats had
a greater overgrown toe incidence when compared to
pigs housed on concrete slats. Nutritionally, Jørgensen
and Sørensen [18] reported sows reared on higher feed-
ing levels during gilt development experienced longer
dew claws.
In the current study, cull sows without rear digital
overgrowth had greater pigs born alive in their last litter
and exhibited a trend for increased pigs per sow per year
(P = 0.06) when compared to sows with overgrown rear
toes. The explanation may be that sows with rear digital
overgrowth spend less time feeding in lactation and eat
less feed [19] which can reduce subsequent reproductive
performance. Decreased lactation feed intake is known to
reduce subsequent litter size [20] and increase wean-
ing-to-conception interval [21].
4.2. Shoulder Lesions
The probability for shoulder abrasions among cull sows
generally increased as parity increased. In agreement
with the present findings, Davies et al. [22] found shoul-
der lesion incidence increased as parity increased. In the
current study, sows with shoulder abrasions tended (P =
0.07) to have fewer lifetime pigs born alive. In contrast,
Davies et al. [22] found no association between shoulder
lesions and total number born. In the present study, sows
with shoulder abrasions averaged fewer days from
weaning to culling than sows without shoulder abrasions.
Davies et al. [22] reported that shoulder lesions devel-
oped during lactation and healed rapidly during the fol-
lowing gestation. The occurrence of shoulder lesions is
believed to be a multifactorial event affecting post-par-
turient sows [22]. Environmental factors including poor
body condition, reduced activity level, lameness, moist
skin, soiling of the floor and flooring type have been ob-
served to increase the risk of shoulder lesions [5,22,23].
4.3. Reproductive Tracts
The likelihood that cull sows had normal appearing ova-
ries did not differ between culling codes. Sows culled for
R had an 86.2% probability of having grossly normal
ovaries. In contrast, Dalin et al. [24] and Einarsson et al.
[25] reported that the percentage of sows with normal
ovaries but were culled for reproductive reasons (69.4%
and 52.6%, respectively) was lower than in the present
study. The underlying reasons sows have normal appear-
ing ovaries but are culled from the breeding herd for re-
productive failure are unknown. It is possible that this
occurrence can be explained by variation in breeding
management or stockmanship [26], poor estrous symp-
toms [27], genetic lines [28], or other reasons.
When compared to the present study, Heinonen et al.
[4] reported a greater prevalence of acyclic ovaries from
cull sows (25.1%). Einarsson et al. [25] and Dalin et al.
[24] reported that sows culled for reproductive disorders
had an acyclic ovary incidence of 24.7% and 17.0%, re-
spectively. These values are greater than the likelihood of
acyclic ovaries from sows culled for reproductive reasons
in the current study (6.6%). In the present study, weaning
to culling interval was shorter for sows with acyclic ova-
ries when compared to sows without acyclic ovaries.
These results may be influenced by sows culled during or
immediately after lactation. This is supported by Einars-
son et al. [25] who reported 69% of sows harvested dur-
ing weeks 1 to 3 of lactation and 97% of sows harvested
day 0 or 1 post-weaning were acyclic.
Cull sows with cystic ovaries when harvested did not
differ between parities in the present study. Castagna et
al. [29] reported numerical, but not significant differ-
ences for cystic ovary presence between first litter and
multiparous sows (1.0% vs. 2.6%) in an on-farm study
using a real-time transcutaneous ultrasound. The same
study reported sows with cystic ovaries had greater re-
turns to estrus following insemination (34.0% vs. 7.7%)
and lower farrowing rates (52.2% vs. 90.0%) when
compared to sows without cystic ovaries. Similarly, Wa-
berski et al. [30] reported that a greater percentage of
sows with cystic ovaries had failed to conceive following
insemination (14.6% vs. 5.2%) and lower farrowing rate
(62.8% vs. 83.7%) when compared to sows without cys-
tic ovaries. The same study reported sows with ovarian
cysts or cyst-like structures were more likely to be culled
(9.6% vs. 2.9%) when compared to sows without ovarian
cysts.
Cull sows that were pregnant at harvest tended to have
fewer pigs born alive in their last litter when compared to
sows that were not pregnant at harvest. Perhaps farm
managers attempted to cull the least productive sows
when exceeding breeding targets. However, there was no
difference in lifetime pigs born alive between pregnant

M. KNAUER ET AL. 147
and non-pregnant sows in the present study. This sug-
gests sows should not be culled based on single litter
performance. Walker et al. [31] reported litter size has a
low repeatability (r = 0.14) providing further evidence
sows should not be cullied based on performance from
one litter.
4.4. Respiratory Systems
In comparison to the present study, lung lesion presence
in cull sows has been previously reported to be greater
(21%) by Ritter et al. [5] and even greater in market pigs
[32,33] (75.0% and 79.5%, respectively). In the present
study, the presence of lesions on the lungs from cull sows
tended to be associated with increased lifetime pigs born
alive and pigs per sow per year. Therefore, high produc-
ing females appear to be more susceptible to lungs le-
sions. Sows with lung lesions (greater than 10% lung
involvement) may be identifiable as they were culled
earlier post-weaning when compared to sows culled with
no or few lung lesions. Knauer et al. [34] reported the
presence of lung lesions was greater in cull sows with
poor body condition. Thus maintaining proper sow body
condition may mitigate the presence of lung lesions in
high producing females.
4.5. Teeth Evaluation
Cull sows having severe teeth wear when compared to
cull sows without teeth wear tended to have fewer pigs
born alive in the litter prior to culling and had fewer pigs
per sow per year. These results support the findings from
Sekiguchi and Koketsu [35] who reported females with a
high frequency of vacuum chewing during gestation
produced fewer total number born (11.7 vs. 12.6) and
tended to have fewer pigs born alive (10.6 vs. 11.3) when
compared to those that did not vacuum chew. Perhaps the
present results indicate severe teeth wear, when corrected
for parity, is an indication of stress due its association
with poor reproductive performance. Other studies have
reported that stressors reduce reproductive performance
[36,37]. High ambient temperatures have been reported
to decrease embryonic survival after fertilization [36].
Hemsworth et al. [37] reported farms with timid sows
were associated with lower total pigs per sow per year
when compared to those farms without timid sows. In
that study, the authors defined timid as the time sows
took to resume feeding after hand contact from the ex-
perimenter.
Cull sows in parities 1 and 2 had fewer top teeth and
cull sows in parity 1 had fewer bottom teeth when com-
pared to sows that were culled at other parities. These
results are supported by Pond and Mersmann [38] who
report pigs’ full permanent dentition is acquired when
they are approximately 18 months of age (parity 1 and
parity 2).
4.6. Body Condition and Composition
Body condition and backfat were not different between
parities in the present study. In contrast, Gjein and Lars-
sen [15] and Bonde et al. [23] reported older sows were
in better body condition than younger sows. One differ-
ence between the two studies was that sows were housed
in gestation stalls in the present study and in gestation
pens in the Gjein and Larssen [15] and Bonde et al. [23]
studies. Gestation stalls typically allow for greater indi-
vidual sow feed management when compared to group
gestation sow pens. It is possible that the relatively
widespread gestation stall use in the present study ex-
plains the consistent sow body condition observed across
parities.
Sows culled for L were leaner and had poorer body
condition than G, P and R sows. These results are sup-
ported by Bonde et al. [23] who observed severely lame
sows were often in poorer body condition. Serenius et al.
[39] reported skeletal locomotion had a negative genetic
correlation with lean percentage in Landrace (−0.31) and
Large White (−0.24) gilts. This correlation suggests lean
gilts may be predisposed to lameness. However, selecting
gilts with good structural conformation, feeding sows to
an appropriate body condition and providing them with
good care are management strategies to mitigate loco-
motor or lameness problems. In the current study, R sows
had the heaviest body condition. These sows likely gain-
ed body condition from additional days on feed from
weaning until culling.
Both backfat and longissimus muscle area increased as
BCS increased from the cull sows evaluated in the pre-
sent study. However, backfat had a greater impact on
distinguishing body condition scores 4 and 5 when com-
pared to longissimus muscle area. Collectively these re-
sults suggest muscling explains more variation in thinner
cull sows in comparison to overly fat cull sows.
Lifetime pigs born alive and pigs per sow per year in-
creased as longissimus muscle area and depth at culling
decreased among the cull sows evaluated in this study.
Perhaps sows producing fewer lifetime pigs born alive
and pigs per sow per year were able to maintain higher
body protein stores due to reduced production. Tarrés et
al. [40] reported maternal Duroc gilts that had loin
depths greater than 5.0 cm at first farrowing tended to
have poorer length of productive life than sows with less
muscle. Holm et al. [41] reported negative genetic corre-
lations between lean meat content in gilts and parity 1
and 2 number born alive (−0.12 and −0.24, respectively)
in the Norwegian Landrace sow population. In the pre-
sent study, body condition score, backfat, longissimus
muscle area and longissimus muscle depth increased as
the number of days between weaning to culling interval

M. KNAUER ET AL.
148
increased for the cull sows evaluated. This suggests sows
gained body condition from weaning their last litter until
they were culled.
4.7. Production Data
Sows culled at parities 1, 3, 4 and 5 had more pigs per
litter compared to sows culled at parity 10. These results
are in agreement with Rodriguez-Zas et al. [42]. Non-
productive days per parity and weaning to culling inter-
val decreased as parity increased. These results are sup-
ported by Dagorn and Aumaitre [43] who found weaning
to mating interval and weaning to culling interval de-
creased as parity increased. Pigs per sow per year was
poorest in parities 1 and 2. These results are supported by
Lucia et al. [44] who reported pigs weaned per day per
mated female increased as parity increased. Hence, the
inefficiencies from sows culled in early parities appears
costly to the production system.
Sows culled for R tended to have the fewest lifetime
pigs born alive (38.8) when compared to other culling
codes in the present study. These results are supported by
Lucia et al. [45] who reported sows culled for reproduc-
tive failure had the lowest lifetime pigs born alive. The R
culling code had the most non-productive days per parity
(48.5 d) which is agreement with Lucia et al. [45].
Reproductive failure was the most common culling
code in parities 1 to 5 among the sows culled in the pre-
sent study. This is in agreement with several other stu-
dies where reproductive failure was the most frequently
reported culling reason in early parities [45-47]. Within
the reproductive failure category, females not showing
estrus appears to be a larger problem among gilts than
sows [4,48] and younger than older sows [46]. The cur-
rent study reported anestrous the most common reason
parity 1 females were culled but in parities 2 to 5 sows
the most common removal reason was did not conceive.
Serenius et al. [49] reported first farrowing interval to be
lowly heritable (0.10 to 0.11) indicating the majority of
variation in rebreeding is due to environmental factors.
Identifying and correcting suboptimal farm specific fer-
tility factors offers an opportunity to improve culling for
reproductive failure and hence, sow lifetime productivity.
Old age was the most common culling code in parities
6 and greater. These results are in agreement with several
other studies that reported old age was the most common
culling code in higher parities [45-47]. When culling for
productivity does not occur, the natural life span for
swine has been estimated to be 12 to 15 years of age [38].
Sows culled younger than their natural life span should
be culled for reproductive failure, poor litter performance,
or some other productivity reason rather than being
culled for old age in order to better understand the rea-
sons high parity sows are removed from the breeding
herd.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support given by
the Hatch Act, State of Iowa funds and by the National
Pork Board, Project No. 04-127.
REFERENCES
[1] K. J. Stalder, M. Knauer, T. J. Baas, M. F. Rothschild and
J. W. Mabry, “Sow Longevity,” Pig News and Informa-
tion, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2004, pp. 53-74.
[2] S. S. Anil and J. Deen, “Benchmark Pig CHAMP Year in
Review,” 2007.
http://www.pigchamp.com/Portals/_default/Skins/PigCha
mp/Creative/Assets/PDF/Benchmark_2007_File_A.pdf
[3] J. Deen, “Benchmark 2007 Summary of the Pig CHAMP
Database,” 2008.
http://www.pigchamp.com/Portals/_default/Skins/PigCha
mp/Creative/Assets/PDF/Benchmark_2008.pdf
[4] M. Heinonen, A. Leppävuori and S. Pyörälä, “Evaluation
of Reproductive Failure of Female Pigs Based on Slaugh-
terhouse Material and Herd Record Survey,” Animal Re-
production Science, Vol. 52, No. 3, 1998, pp. 235-244.
doi:10.1016/S0378-4320(98)00105-5
[5] L. A. Ritter, J. L. Xue, G. D. Dial, R. B. Morrison and W.
E. Marsh, “Prevalence of Lesions and Body Condition
Scores among Female Swine at Slaughter,” Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol. 214, No.
4, 1999, pp. 525-528.
[6] J. F. Patience and P. A. Thacker, “Swine Nutrition Guide,”
Prairie Swine Centre, Saskatoon, 1989.
[7] Subcommittee on Swine Nutrition, Committee on Animal
Nutrition and National Research Council, “Nutrient Re-
quirements for Swine,” 10th Revised Edition, The Na-
tional Academies Press, Washington DC, 1998.
[8] H. Gjein and R. B. Larssen, “Housing of Pregnant Sows
in Loose and Confined Systems—A Field Study 2. Claw
Lesions: Morphology, Prevalence, Location and Relation
to Age,” Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, Vol. 36, No. 4,
1995, pp. 433-442.
[9] SAS Institute, “SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, Release
9.1,” SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, 2003.
[10] P. H. Brooks, D. A. Smith and V. C. R. Irwin, “Biotin-
Supplementation of Diets; the Incidence of Foot Lesions,
and the Reproductive Performance of Sows,” Veterinary
Record, Vol. 101, No. 3, 1977, pp. 46-50.
doi:10.1136/vr.101.3.46
[11] M. D. Lindemann, E. T. Kornegay and E. R. Collins Jr.,
“The Effect of Various Flooring Materials on Perfor-
mance and Foot Health of Early-Weaned Pigs,” Livestock
Production Science, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1985, pp. 373-382.
doi:10.1016/0301-6226(85)90028-4
[12] H. Gjein and R. B. Larssen, “Housing of Pregnant Sows
in Loose and Confined Systems—A Field Study 3. The
Impact of Housing Factors on Claw Lesions,” Acta Ve-
terinaria Scandinavica, Vol. 36, No. 4, 1995, pp. 443-
450.
[13] MAFF, “Injuries Caused by Flooring: A Survey in Pig

M. KNAUER ET AL. 149
Health Scheme Herds,” Proceedings Pig Veterinary Soci-
ety, Vol. 8, 1981, pp. 119-125.
[14] P. H. Simmins and P. H. Brooks, “Supplementary Biotin
for Sows: Effect on Claw Integrity,” Veterinary Record,
Vol. 122, No. 18, 1988, pp. 431-435.
doi:10.1136/vr.122.18.431
[15] H. Gjein and R. B. Larssen, “Housing of Pregnant Sows
in Loose and Confined Systems—A Field Study 1. Vulva
and Body Lesions, Culling Reasons and Production Re-
sults,” Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, Vol. 36, No. 2,
1995, pp. 185-200.
[16] R. A. Barczewski, E. T. Kornegay, D. R. Notter, H. P.
Veit and M. E. Wright, “Effects of Feeding Restricted
Energy and Elevated Calcium and Phosphorus during
Growth on Gait Characteristics of Culled Sows and Those
Surviving Three Parities,” Journal of Animal Science, Vol.
68, No. 10, 1990, pp. 3046-3055.
[17] G. L. Newton, C. V. Booram, O. M. Hale and B. G. Mul-
linix Jr., “Effect of Four Types of Floor Slats on Certain
Feet Characteristics and Performance of Swine,” Journal
of Animal Science, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1980, pp. 7-20.
[18] B. Jørgensen and M. T. Sørensen, “Different Rearing
Intensities of Gilts: II. Effects on Subsequent Leg Weak-
ness and Longevity,” Livestock Production Science, Vol.
54, No. 2, 1998, pp. 167-171.
[19] R. F. Fitzgerald, K. J. Stalder, L. A. Karriker, L. J. Sadler,
H. T. Hill, J. Kaisand and A. K. Johnson, “The Effect of
Hoof Abnormalities on Sow Behavior and Performance,”
Livestock Science, Vol. 145, No. 1-3, 2012, pp. 230-238.
doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2012.02.009
[20] Y. Koketsu, G. D. Dial, J. E. Pettigrew and V. L. King,
“Influence of Feed Intake during Individual Weeks of
Lactation on Reproductive Performance of Sows on
Commercial Farms,” Livestock Production Science, Vol.
49, No. 3, 1997, pp. 217-225.
doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00050-X
[21] Y. Koketsu, G. D. Dial, J. E. Pettigrew and V. L. King,
“Feed Intake Pattern during Lactation and Subsequent
Reproductive Performance of Sows,” Journal of Animal
Science, Vol. 74, No. 12, 1996, pp. 2875-2884.
[22] P. R. Davies, W. E. M. Morrow, W. G. Rountree and D.
C. Miller, “Epidemiologic Evaluation of Decubital Ulcers
in Farrowing Sows,” Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association, Vol. 210, No. 8, 1997, pp. 1173-
1178.
[23] M. T. Bonde, M. T. Rousing, J. H. Badsberg and J. T.
Sørensen, “Associations between Lying-Down Behaviour
Problems and Body Condition, Limb Disorders and Skin
Lesions of Lactating Sows Housed in Farrowing Stalls in
Commercial Sow Herds,” Livestock Production Science,
Vol. 87, No. 2-3, 2004, pp. 179-187.
doi:10.1016/j.livprodsci.2003.08.005
[24] A.-M. Dalin, K. Gidlund and L. Eliasson-Selling, “Post
Mortem Examination of Genital Organs from Sows with
Reproductive Disturbances in a Sow-Pool,” Acta Veteri-
naria Scandinavica, Vol. 38, No. 3, 1997, pp. 253-262.
[25] S. Einarsson, N. Lundeheim, K. Martinsson, N. Persson
and I. Persson, “Post Mortem Examination of the Genital
Organs of Culling Sows from One Large Herd with Rela-
tion to Fertility Data,” Proceedings International Pig
Veterinary Society, Mexico, 26-31 July 1982, p. 211.
[26] W. L. Flowers, “Management of Reproduction,” In: J.
Wiseman, M. A. Varley and J. P. Chadwick, Eds., Pro-
gress in Pig Science, Nottingham University Press, Not-
tingham, 1997, pp. 383-405.
[27] L. Rydhmer, L. Eliasson-Selling, K. Johansson, S. Stern
and K. Andersson, “A Genetic Study of Estrus Symptoms
at Puberty and Their Relationship to Growth and Lean-
ness in Gilts,” Journal of Animal Science, Vol. 72, No. 8,
1994, pp. 1964-1970.
[28] P. Tummaruk, N. Lundeheim, S. Einarsson and A.-M.
Dalin, “Repeat Breeding and Subsequent Reproductive
Performance in Swedish Landrace and Swedish Yorkshire
Sows,” Animal Reproduction Science, Vol. 67, No. 3,
2001, pp. 267-280. doi:10.1016/S0378-4320(01)00129-4
[29] C. D. Castagna, C. H. Peixoto, F. P. Bortolozzo, I. Wentz,
G. B. Neto and F. Ruschel, “Ovarian Cysts and Their
Consequences on the Reproductive Performance of Swine
Herds,” Animal Reproduction Science, Vol. 81, No. 1,
2004, pp. 115-123. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2003.08.004
[30] D. Waberski, A. Kunz-Schmidt, G. Borchardt Neto, L.
Richter and K. F. Weitze, “Real-Time Ultrasound Diag-
nosis of Ovulation and Ovarian Cysts in Sows and Its
Impact on Artificial Insemination Efficiency,” Proceed-
ings of American Society of Animal Science, Indianapolis,
June 1 2012.
http://www.asas.org/jas/symposia/proceedings/0944.pdf
[31] I. J. Walker, R. G. Beilharz and A. C. Dunkin, “A Genetic
Study of Reproductive Performance in a Large Commer-
cial Pig Herd,” Proceedings of Australian Society of
Animal Production, Canberra, February 1972, pp. 147-
152.
[32] M. R. Wilson, R. Takov, R. M. Friendship, S. W. Martin,
I. McMillan, R. R. Hacker and S. Swaminathan, “Preva-
lence of Respiratory Diseases and Their Association with
Growth Rate and Space in Randomly Selected Swine
Herds,” Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, Vol.
50, No. 2, 1986, pp. 209-216.
[33] A. B. Scheidt, V. B. Mayrose, M. A. Hill, L. K. Clark, T.
R. Cline, K. E. Knox, L. J. Runnels, S. Frantz and M. E.
Einstein, “Relationship of Growth Performance to Pneu-
monia and Atrophic Rhinitis Detected in Pigs at Slaugh-
ter,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Asso-
ciation, Vol. 196, No. 6, 1990, pp. 881-884.
[34] M. Knauer, K. J. Stalder, L. Karriker, T. J. Baas, C.
Johnson, T. Serenius, L. Layman and J. D. McKean, “A
Descriptive Survey of Lesions from Cull Sows Harvested
at Two Midwestern U.S. Facilities,” Preventive Veteri-
nary Medicine, Vol. 82, No. 3-4, 2007, pp. 198-212.
doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.05.017
[35] T. Sekiguchi and Y. Koketsu, “Behavior and Reproduc-
tive Performance by Stalled Breeding Females on a
Commercial Swine Farm,” Journal of Animal Science,
Vol. 82, No. 5, 2004, pp. 1482-1487.
[36] R. L. Edwards, I. T. Omtvedt, E. J. Turman, D. F.
Stephens and G. W. A. Mahoney, “Reproductive Per-
formance of Gilts Following Heat Stress Prior to Breed-
ing and in Early Gestation,” Journal of Animal Science,

M. KNAUER ET AL.
150
Vol. 27, No. 6, 1968, pp. 1634-1637.
[37] P. H. Hemsworth, A. Brand and P. Willems, “The Be-
havioural Response of Sows to the Presence of Human
Beings and Its Relation to Productivity,” Livestock Pro-
duction Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1981, pp. 67-74.
doi:10.1016/0301-6226(81)90031-2
[38] W. G. Pond and H. J. Mersmann, “Biology of the Do-
mestic Pig,” Cornell University Press, New York, 2001.
[39] T. Serenius, M.-L. Sevón-Aimonen and E. A. Mäntysaari,
“The Genetics of Leg Weakness in Finnish Large White
and Landrace populations,” Livestock Production Science,
Vol. 69, No. 2, 2001, pp. 101-111.
doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00260-8
[40] J. Tarrés, J. Tibau, J. Piedrafita, E. Fàbrega and J. Reix-
ach, “Factors Affecting Longevity in Maternal Duroc
Swine Lines,” Livestock Science, Vol. 100, No. 2-3, 2006,
pp. 121-131. doi:10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.08.007
[41] B. Holm, M. Bakken, G. Klemetsdal and O. Vangen,
“Genetic Correlations between Reproduction and Pro-
duction Traits in Swine,” Journal of Animal Science, Vol.
82, No. 12, 2004, pp. 3458-3464.
[42] S. L. Rodriguez-Zas, B. R. Southey, R. V. Knox, J. F.
Connor, J. F. Lowe and B. J. Roskamp, “Bioeconomic
Evaluation of Sow Longevity and Profitability,” Journal
of Animal Science, Vol. 81, No. 12, 2003, pp. 2915-2922.
[43] J. Dagorn and A. Aumaitre, “Sow Culling: Reasons for
and Effect on Productivity,” Livestock Production Scie-
nce, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1979, pp. 167-177.
doi:10.1016/0301-6226(79)90018-6
[44] T. Lucia, G. Dial and W. E. Marsh, “Lifetime Reproduc-
tive and Financial Performance of Female Swine,” Jour-
nal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol.
216, No. 11, 2000, pp. 1802-1809.
doi:10.2460/javma.2000.216.1802
[45] T. Lucia, G. Dial and W. E. Marsh, “Lifetime Reproduc-
tive Performance in Female Pigs Having Distinct Reasons
for Removal,” Livestock Production Science, Vol. 63, No.
3, 2000, pp. 213-222.
doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00142-6
[46] A. A. Dijkhuizen, R. M. M. Krabbenborg and R. B. M.
Huirne, “Sow Replacement: A Comparison of Farmers’
Actual Decisions and Model Recommendations,” Lives-
tock Production Science, Vol. 23, No. 1-2, 1989, pp.
207-218. doi:10.1016/0301-6226(89)90015-8
[47] T. E. Stein, A. Dijkhuizen, S. D’Allaire and R. S. Morris,
“Sow Culling and Mortality in Commercial Swine Breed-
ing Herds,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 9, No.
2, 1990, pp. 85-94. doi:10.1016/0167-5877(90)90027-F
[48] A. Lyczyński and W. Kaczmarek, “Causes of Early Dis-
carding Gilts and Sows from Breeding Herd on the Ex-
ample of a Productive Pig Farm in Denmark,” Proceed-
ings of the 14th International Pig Veterinary Society Con-
gress, Bologna, 7-10 July 1996, p. 542.
[49] T. Serenius, M.-L. Sevón-Aimonen, E. A. Kause, E. A.
Mäntysaari and A. Mäki-Tanila, “Selection Potential of
Different Prolificacy Traits in the Finnish Landrace and
Large White Populations,” Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica,
Vol. 54, No. 1, 2004, pp. 36-43.