APPLIED SCIENCE FOR RESILIENT, HIGH-PERFORMING, SWINE SYSTEMS 20 YEARS OF BENCHMARKING 7 2026 | SPRING EDITION $12
MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE. PigCHAMP Mobile allows for remote data entry of PigCHAMP Reproductive information while providing basic reporting functionality and validation to users. This allows users to interact directly with PigCHAMP Online or Client Hosted PigCHAMP. NEW functionality for mobile is intermittent connectivity, allowing use in areas with limited internet capabilities. Contact our sales team to learn more about PigCHAMP Mobile products. FEATURES › In-barn data validation › Optional intermittent connectivity › Bluetooth-enabled RFID function › Bar code scanning › Real-time data Intermittent mode is NOT available for iOS. AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD:
Published By: Farms.com Media & Publishing & PigCHAMP, Inc. 1531 Airport Road, Suite 101 Ames, Iowa 50010 866-774-4242 Canadian Office: 90 Woodlawn Road West Guelph, ON N1H 1B2 888-248-4893 x293 Publisher & Sales Manager: Andrew Bawden andrew.bawden@farms.com PigCHAMP Product & Sales Manager: Jayne Jackson jayne.jackson@pigchamp.com Editor: Andrew Joseph andrew.joseph@farms.com Design & Production: Greg Marlow Farms.com Marketing & Operations: Denise Faguy denise.faguy@farms.com Benchmark Resources Online: These articles, along with articles from past Benchmark magazines and additional expert information, can be found on the PigCHAMP website: pigchamp.com/news/benchmarkmagazine If you have any additional information or suggestions for future articles please contact us at swinenews@farms.com. We will post these articles on the Farms.com swine news pages, or include them in future issues of Benchmark. To receive weekly swine newsletters (free), email subscriptions@farms.com with the title Swine. Circulation: info@pigchamp.com 866-774-4242 All rights reserved. Editorial materials are copyrighted. Permission to reprint may be granted upon request. Cover: JK_kyoto – stock.adobe.com Inside: Papapig – stock.adobe.com We are proud to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Benchmark magazine. As always, this issue is centered on what matters most— data. Data that supports those working every day in the swine industry by providing the insights needed to operate successful swine farms and better understand the details behind raising pigs. We believe data—especially PigCHAMP benchmarking data—plays a vital role in making informed, strategic business decisions for swine operations of all sizes. To mark this 20-year milestone, this issue features a special article reflecting on two decades of PigCHAMP data. We have also partnered with leading companies across the swine industry to share insights and practical best management practices, all with one goal in mind: supporting the continued success of your swine operation. While much has changed in the swine industry over the past 20 years, one constant remains—the dedication, commitment, and pride of the producers and teams we are privileged to work with. Here’s to the next 20 years. Graham Dyer PRESIDENT & CEO PigCHAMP is proud to partner with these swine industry leaders. Our connectivity with these partners provides you with better, faster, and simpler information tools. SPRING 2026 BENCHMARK WELCOME BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 3 WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM
Artificial intelligence (AI) has gone from being a buzzword, a vision of tomorrow, to a priority topic in many businesses today. And in agriculture, nowhere is that shift more visible than in animal protein production. For larger pork producers, integrators, and retailers, AI is no longer a distant concept or experimental tool; it’s rapidly becoming the difference-maker in terms of operational efficiency, supply chain resilience, and long-term competitiveness. “AI’s coming at us like a freight train and it’s really starting to be a tale of the haves and have-nots,” stated Ben Allen, Chief Executive Officer of BinSentry, a Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, company specializing in AI‑enabled feed supply chain management, providing real‑time visibility and automation across tens of thousands of on‑farm feed bins and thousands of mill and grain‑handling silos. That divide—between companies that are actively adopting AI-enabled technologies and those that are not— is widening. And the implications are showing up clearly in performance metrics. Organizations that have leaned into AI are already seeing measurable gains, while others risk falling behind. AI’S ROLE IN MODERN PROTEIN PRODUCTION At its core, AI is not about replacing producers or fundamentally changing the nature of agriculture. Instead, as Allen explained, it’s about enhancing decision-making, improving efficiency, and eliminating costly manual processes. In protein production, one of the most immediate and impactful applications of AI is within the feed supply chain. Unlike some on-farm innovations that are still in early research and development stages, supply chain optimization offers nearterm, tangible value. “The feed supply chain is just a data-rich environment,” Allen related. “Artificial intelligence needs data to work, and supply chains have a lot of data sets and a lot of moving pieces.” For BinSentry, that broad dataset comes from tens of thousands of on-farm feed bins, plus thousands more silos and ingredient bins at mills and grain handling facilities across North America. This data density creates the ideal conditions for AI—and BinSentry’s technology—to thrive. From feed inventory management to logistics planning and forecasting, AI can process vast amounts of information far faster—and more accurately—than traditional methods. The result? For BinSentry’s customers, it has meant faster decisions, fewer disruptions and feed outages, and a significant reduction in manual labour. MOVING FROM MANUAL PROCESSES TO INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS Historically, many aspects of the feed and protein supply chain have relied heavily on manual processes—people physically checking bins, updating spreadsheets, and reacting to issues as they arise. While these methods have worked, they are inefficient and prone to error. Allen is direct about the cost of maintaining the status quo: “If you AI IN ANIMAL PROTEIN PRODUCTION MOVING FROM COMPETITIVE EDGE TO OPERATIONAL NECESSITY. by BinSentry WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 4
map out a business process and say, ‘what’s the most expensive way I can do this?’ The answer is almost always humans performing manual tasks.” He continued, “AI-enabled systems change those cost structures entirely by automating data collection and analysis. This enables companies to shift from reactive to proactive operations. Instead of discovering problems after they occur, they can anticipate and prevent them. “It’s like turning on the lights in a dark room.” Allen pointed out that this AIenabled visibility is especially valuable in feed supply chains, where small inefficiencies can quickly scale into significant costs. With AI, operators can monitor assets continuously, optimize delivery schedules, and reduce waste—all while freeing up human resources for higher-value work. RAPID ROI AND REAL-WORLD IMPACT Perhaps one of the most compelling aspects of AI adoption in agriculture is the speed at which it can deliver results. Unlike large-scale infrastructure changes, many AI-enabled solutions can be implemented quickly and begin generating value within weeks. “People are applying our technology at BinSentry to their supply chain management, and it’s making an impact right away—as in, within weeks—not years,” said Allen. This rapid return on investment is critical within an industry where the margins are tight and operational efficiency is paramount. From BinSentry’s perspective, Allen said that the company has seen nearly 100 percent customer retention along with significant expansion within current customers. “Our average customer grew their spend by 190 percent last year,” he related. “That tells us the technology is delivering real, sustained value and our customers just want more.” For producers and executives, this reinforces an important takeaway: AI is not just theoretical. It is already driving measurable improvements in performance and profitability. OVERCOMING THE INTIMIDATION FACTOR Despite its benefits, Allen acknowledged that AI adoption can feel daunting. A big part of the issue is the broad and often confusing way AI is discussed in the media. From defense applications to generative tools, the term “AI” can encompass a wide range of technologies, not all of which are relevant to agriculture. The key, explained Allen, is to cut through the noise and focus on practical outcomes. “You just have to look at your P&L and say, are there things in my business that I can automate today that are going to have a short payback?” he said. “Having this mindset shifts the conversation from technology to business value. Instead of asking ‘What is AI?,’ business leaders can ask, ‘Where can this improve my operation right now?’” WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN AN AI TECHNOLOGY PARTNER As AI becomes more integral to operations, choosing the right technology partner is just as important as choosing the technology itself. In agriculture, most companies do not have dedicated AI development teams. That means success often depends on selecting vendors who can deliver stable, proven solutions. So, what should agricultural executives look for in a vendor? The first factor, commented Allen, is stability and staying power. AI implementation shouldn’t be treated as a one-time project—but rather an ongoing partnership. Companies need vendors who will be around for the long term and can support continuous improvement. “You’ve got to make sure you’re choosing a vendor that has both the strength and the staying power to help you for years to come,” he mentioned. In a space filled with startups and emerging technologies, financial stability and a proven track record are critical. The second component is having proven, production-ready technology. Not all AI solutions are created equal. Some are still in experimental phases, while others are already delivering results at scale. Allen emphasized the importance of focusing on application rather than experimentation. “It’s not about R&D work as much as it is application and integration work. You need stable products that can have an impact for you today,” he said. For most companies, this means having to prioritize solutions that are already being used successfully in real-world environments. A third major component is data infrastructure and quality. AI is only as effective as the data it uses. Without reliable, high-quality data streams, even the most advanced algorithms can’t deliver meaningful or accurate insights. “To use AI, you’ve got to be able to point those software tools at large data sets—you need that always-on data capability,” related Allen. Technologies that automate data collection—such as sensors and monitoring systems—are essential for unlocking AI’s full potential. The underlying software behind an AI-based technology must also be robust, scalable, and continuously improving. Allen says operators should evaluate not just what a system does today, but how it will evolve for them. Ultimately, the success of any AI initiative comes down to results. Technology should always make operations faster, more reliable, and more cost-effective. “Enterprise value is about doing the work faster and more reliably and more accurately than ever before,” BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 5 WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM
said Allen. “But if you can’t see clear, measurable improvements, then that solution might not be the right fit.” BUILDING MOMENTUM + THE PATH FORWARD One of the most effective ways to adopt AI is to build momentum with small targeted applications, prove value, and then roll out the solution at scale. This iterative strategy allows organizations to effectively minimize risk while significantly maximizing impact, often achieving full corporate implementations in less than 12 months from start to finish. “Early wins create confidence, which, in turn, drives adoption,” Allen commented. “It’s not about trying to make AI successful, it’s about making your business successful.” The animal protein industry has always been defined by its ability to adapt—whether through genetics, nutrition, or management practices. AI represents the next evolution in that journey. For operators and executives, the question is no longer whether or not AI will play a role, but how quickly and effectively it can be integrated into the operations. The companies that move decisively—focusing on practical applications, choosing the right partners, and aligning technology with business goals—are already seeing the benefits. And as Allen’s observations suggest, the gap between those companies and their competitors is only going to grow. “In a landscape where efficiency, precision, and scalability are critical, AI is not just an advantage,” he summed up. “It is becoming a necessity.” WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 6 Ben is an expert on how AI, data analytics and agtech are transforming the animal feed supply chain, which moves over US $500B worth of animal feed each year globally. Ben joined BinSentry as Chief Executive Officer in 2022. Under his leadership, the company is revolutionizing how feed mills and poultry and swine producers run their operations, replacing “guesstimates” and ineffective manual processes with advanced 3D sensors and user-friendly software for precise, real-time inventory data and decision making. BEN ALLEN BinSentry PigCHAMP Online brings you all the features of PigCHAMP without the need for software installation or updates. Your entire database is securely stored and remains accessible via remote connection, allowing you the flexibility to manage your operation from anywhere you can connect to the internet.
WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 7 For more than 20 years, PigCHAMP benchmarking has provided producers, veterinarians, nutritionists, and industry partners with a trusted, consistent look at sow‑farm performance across North America. Over that time, production systems, genetics, health pressures, and management philosophies have evolved dramatically—and yet there is one principle that has remained unchanged: accurate, standardized data is essential for making informed decisions. As we celebrate our anniversary, this retrospective examines what two decades of benchmarking reveal when performance is evaluated across hundreds of farms and weighted over time. By focusing on mean values and long‑term trend lines, rather than isolated highs or lows, these results tell a clear story of sustained progress—balanced by important biological and management trade-offs. REPRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY: STEADY GAINS BUILT ON FUNDAMENTALS One of the most consistent improvements over the past 20 years has been reproductive efficiency. Farrowing rate increased from 77.4% in 2006 to consistently above 83% in recent years, reaching peaks above 84% in multiple periods (Figure 1). At the same time, repeat services declined by more than 50%, falling from nearly 13% of services in the mid‑2000s to approximately 5–6% today. These two measures move together and reflect steady improvement in: • Heat detection and breeding management; • Semen handling and quality; • Gilt development programs; • Data‑driven troubleshooting. More importantly, these gains have been maintained over time, even as herd size, litter size, and health challenges increased— highlighting that foundational management still matters. LITTER SIZE: AN INDUSTRY SUCCESS STORY Perhaps the most striking change over the past two decades is the sustained increase in litter size. Over the past 20 years: • Total pigs born per litter increased from 12.0 to over 16.2. • Liveborn pigs per litter rose from 10.7 to more than 14.4. This represents a growth of roughly 35%, reflecting long‑term genetic progress supported by observing improvements in nutrition, gilt development, and sow longevity management. However, the data also highlight the biological cost of having an increased prolificacy: • Stillborn pigs per litter increased from approximately 0.9 to just over 1.1. • Mummified pigs per litter more than doubled, rising steadily across the period (Figure 2). These increases represent a tradeoff rather than a failure when production pushes biological limits, highlighting areas now receiving renewed focus through farrowing management, sow condition, and gestation health strategies. PIGLETS WEANED: PRODUCTIVITY GAINS CONTINUE Despite larger litters and increased complexity at farrowing, weaned pig output has steadily increased, reflecting effective post‑farrow management across the industry. Over the 20‑year window: • Piglets weaned per litter increased from 9.3 to 12.7. • Piglets weaned per sow per year increased from 21.5 to over 28. • Piglets weaned per female per year improved from ~20.3 to nearly 27. These gains demonstrate that while bigger litters introduce risk, improved post‑farrow management, nutrition, and technology have allowed producers to convert genetic potential into usable performance. Notably, the fastest gains in piglets weaned per sow occurred after 2012, coinciding with accelerated genetic gains. These trends show that producers have been able to convert genetic potential into usable performance, even as piglet survival challenges increased. PRE-WEANING MORTALITY: A PERSISTENT INDUSTRY CHALLENGE While many key performance indicators show clear improvement, pre‑weaning mortality remains an area of ongoing concern. 20 YEARS OF BENCHMARKING WHAT TWO DECADES OF PIGCHAMP DATA TELL US ABOUT PROGRESS, TRADEOFFS, AND OPPORTUNITIES. by Jayne Jackson
Across the benchmarking period: • P re‑weaning mortality increased from approximately 12% in the mid‑2000s to the mid‑to‑high teens in recent years. • Year‑to‑year variability widened, indicating sensitivity to health events, litter size, and labour consistency (Figure 3). Importantly, linear trend analysis shows that mortality has not increased at the same pace as litter size, suggesting that management improvements have partially offset biological pressure—but not eliminated it. As litter size continues to rise, piglet survival represents one of the largest remaining opportunities for future gains. CULLING AND SOW MORTALITY: PRODUCTIVITY VS. DURABILITY Culling and sow mortality trends provide an essential context for understanding long‑term efficiency gains across the industry. Over the past 20 years, annual culling rates have gradually declined, falling from above 50% to the low‑to‑mid 40% range. At face value, this decline might suggest improved sow retention and greater output per animal; however, the broader data tell a more complex story. During the same period, sow mortality increased steadily, rising from below 9% in the mid‑2000s to the low‑to‑mid teens as a percentage of inventory (Figure 4). When evaluated together, these opposing trends underscore a critical reality: reductions in culling have not been driven solely by improved durability, but increasingly by higher involuntary losses. As productivity per sow has increased, the biological and economic cost of sow loss has also intensified. Each involuntary removal eliminates both future production potential and cull revenue, amplifying the impact of elevated mortality. Looking forward, sustained progress will depend not only on output gains, but also on improving sow durability to rebalance voluntary and involuntary removals. Future gains will be driven by focused attention to: • Structural soundness and feet and leg integrity; • Longevity‑focused gilt selection and development; • Health resilience throughout the production cycle. The past two decades of benchmarking make one point clear: true efficiency is achieved when productivity gains are supported by improved survivability, allowing producers to make proactive culling decisions rather than reactive ones. WHAT 20 YEARS OF DATA MAKES CLEAR Two decades of PigCHAMP Benchmarking have helped reinforce several key truths: • Productivity gains are real, measurable, and sustained. • Genetic progress must be matched by constant management precision. • Tradeoffs are inevitable—but can be very manageable with informed decisions. • Long‑term trends carry far more value than single‑year results. As the industry looks ahead, the role of benchmarking remains unchanged: helping producers turn accurate data into meaningful insight. After 20 years, the compiled data clearly show that progress happens whenever performance is measured, understood, and acted upon over time. PigCHAMP remains committed to helping producers turn accurate data into meaningful insight—just as it has for the past 20 years. WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 8 FIGURE 1 Jayne Jackson is the Product and Sales Manager for PigCHAMP, Inc. in Ames, Iowa, bringing more than 34 years of experience in swine management systems and product development. In her role, she works closely with producers to design new PigCHAMP features that deliver practical value and meet evolving industry needs. JAYNE JACKSON PigCHAMP, Inc.
WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 9 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4
Litter size in the US is increasing. However, sow colostrum production is not related to litter size, so as litter size increases, this does not mean the sow will produce more colostrum. This results in reduced and unequal colostrum intake among piglets in a litter. Because colostrum intake has a large impact on the lifetime survival of pigs, management practices are being utilized to ensure adequate colostrum intake. Split-suckling is a management practice that is implemented on a farm in an attempt to ensure that all pigs within a litter consume adequate colostrum to reduce pre- and postweaning mortality. Two potential split‑suckling protocols were explored. In one protocol, a portion of the litter is temporarily separated from the sow so the remaining pigs can nurse with less competition to consume colostrum. In the second protocol, the firstborn or heaviest pigs are temporarily removed from the sow to prioritize colostrum intake for laterborn or light-weight pigs. Split-suckling protocols vary across farms, and research does not indicate one best strategy that leads to the greatest reduction in pre- or post-weaning mortality. Due to differences in split-suckling protocols utilized on farms and in research, further research is needed using a large sample size to evaluate the effect of split-suckling in a commercial setting. A large-scale commercial study including a total of 1,513 sows (average parity 3.6; Line 241: DNA) and their litters (22,800 pigs) was conducted to evaluate the effect of two different split-suckling protocols. Three treatments were evaluated: control, no split-suckling, and two split-suckling treatments. The splitsuckling protocols were based on pig birth order or birth weight, and only litters with 10 or more pigs were included in the study. Split-suckle treatments were applied within three hours of the end of farrowing if a sow farrowed during the day, and within 18 hours of the start of farrowing if a sow farrowed overnight. For litters split-suckled based on birth order, the first eight pigs born were marked with livestock paint as the sow was in the process of actively farrowing. When the sow was done farrowing, the first eight pigs born were removed from the sow and placed under a heat lamp in the crate for 45 minutes. After that time, the first eight pigs born were placed back with the sow, and the later-born pigs were removed from the sow for 45 minutes. Then, all pigs were placed with the sow, and the split-suckle treatment was complete. If farrowing was not attended and birth order could not be recorded, the eight heaviest piglets were removed first, followed by the lighter piglets. For litters split-suckled based on body weight, the eight heaviest pigs were removed from the sow and placed under a heat lamp in the crate for 90 minutes after the completion of farrowing. After 90 minutes, the eight heaviest pigs were returned to the sow, and the split-suckling protocol was complete. Individual pig weights were taken before any split-suckling, and these pigs were given an ear tag for individual identification. Day 1 of the trial was defined as the day split-suckling occurred. After pig weights were taken and splitsuckling treatments were applied, pigs were cross-fostered within treatment. Cross-fostering occurred within 24 hours after the completion of farrowing. Fallback pigs, defined as small and gaunt pigs that were too small to compete with littermates, were identified between days 2 and 12 post-farrowing. Fallback pigs were removed from the litter and placed with a nurse sow. Individual pig weights were recorded again on the day before weaning (average day 20). The reason and date for all pre-weaning mortalities were recorded. Preweaning mortality included only pigs that were weighed and tagged and does not include pigs that were removed and placed with a nurse sow. Litter size was recorded at the time of split-suckling, after litters were equalized, and at weaning. Did split-suckling have an impact on pre-weaning growth performance or mortality? Litter and pig weight at REVISITING FARROWING MANAGEMENT THE EFFECT OF SPLIT-SUCKLING STRATEGIES ON PIGLET PRE- AND POST-WEANING PERFORMANCE AND LIVABILITY. Researchers: Mikayla Spinler, Jason Woodworth, Mike Tokach, Robert Goodband, Joel DeRouchey, Katelyn Gaffield, Ashley Hartman, and Jordan Gebhardt WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 10
weaning were not different among treatments. Pre-weaning mortality was not different among treatments, indicating that split-suckling did not impact pre-weaning survivability. These results are in agreement with five of seven split-suckle trials published from 1996 to 2023. Pre-weaning mortality was also analyzed by birth weight, less than 2.7 lb, 2.7-3.2 lb, and greater than 3.2 lb. Split-suckling did not impact pre-weaning mortality differently based on piglet birth weight (Figure 1). Blood samples were collected from all piglets in 45 litters per treatment, 24 hours after the birth of the first piglet in the litter. Blood samples were used to determine immunocrit ratio, which measures the amount of immunoglobulin G in the serum of piglets. The immunocrit ratio is used as an indicator of colostrum intake, with a higher immunocrit ratio indicating higher colostrum intake. No differences in immunocrit ratio were observed among treatments, showing that the split-suckle treatment applied did not impact colostrum intake. A subset of pigs, 2,208, were followed into the nursery, and 882 pigs were followed into the finisher to track post-weaning growth performance and mortality. No differences in ADG (average daily gain), ADFI (average daily feed intake), F/G (Feed-to-Gain Ratio), or mortality were observed among treatments in the nursery and the finisher. Split-suckling did not impact the lifetime mortality of pigs. If split‑suckling had no effect in the overall study population, is there a subset of pigs that will benefit from split suckling? To answer this question, a subset of the population was used to determine if split-suckling was different based on sow parity, timing of split-suckling, and sow functional teat count. The response to split-suckling was not different based on sow parity. Timing of split-suckling, splitsuckling the same day as farrowing vs the following morning for litters that were born in the evening or overnight, did not impact preweaning mortality. Sows were broken down into two functional teat count groups: 14 or fewer vs 15 or more, and no differences in mortality were observed among treatments. In litters where litter size at splitsuckling was greater than functional teat count, litters that were not splitsuckled had increased mortality from the time of split-suckling to day 2 compared to litters split-suckled based on birth order. In this population, litters that were not split-suckled had a higher percentage of pigs laid on. However, in litters that had more piglets than functional teats at split-suckling, there was no difference in overall mortality from split-suckling to weaning. The split-suckling strategies evaluated in this study did not impact pre- or post-weaning growth performance or mortality. The results of this study and past research trials show that the effectiveness of splitsuckling is variable and does not show consistent reductions in preweaning mortality. Caretakers should focus on investing time in other strategies to reduce pre-weaning mortality and set the wean pig up for success. Are there better ways to invest time to improve piglet livability? KEY TAKEAWAYS: 1 S plit-suckling by birth order or body weight did not impact pre- or post-weaning survivability. 2 C aretakers should invest time in strategies to reduce pre-weaning mortality, such as: • Assisting sows during the farrowing process. • Encouraging piglets to consume colostrum. • Ensuring proper environmental temperatures and conditions for both the sow and piglet. This project was supported by the National Pork Board (PR-005981) and the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 11 WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM Dr. Mikayla Spinler is a Swine Technical Sales and Service Nutritionist at Vita Plus. She completed her PhD in swine nutrition with the Applied Swine Nutrition team at Kansas State University in December 2026. DR. MIKAYLA SPINLER Effect of split-suckle treatment on pre-weaning mortality by birth weight (Spinler et al. 2025). Control litters were not split-suckled. In the split-suckling treatment based on birth order, the first eight pigs born were removed from the sow for 45 minutes, then placed back with the sow, and the remaining pigs were removed for 45 minutes. In the split-suckling treatment based on birth weight, the eight heaviest piglets were removed from the sow for 90 minutes before being returned. FIGURE 1
The modern sow is capable of raising larger, heavier litters than ever before, placing greater demands on lactation performance. While increasing feed intake remains a key focus, feed intake alone doesn’t tell the whole story. When daily feed intake falls short, sows often compensate by mobilizing body reserves to meet the demands of a vigorous litter and compromise future reproductive performance. This raises an important question: Are we measuring lactation feed efficiency (LFE) the right way? Traditional LFE, calculated as feed intake divided by litter weight gain, can paint a misleading picture because it doesn’t account for the biological reality of a sow’s body composition changing. To explore this gap, PIC (Pig Improvement Company), in collaboration with Brenneman Pork and JYGA Technologies—makers of Gestal feeding systems—developed a new framework for evaluating LFE that incorporates milk energy output and sow body composition changes.1 This approach aims to deliver a more complete and accurate view of true sow efficiency while also generating early management and genetic selection implications. ACCOUNTING FOR BODY CATABOLISM Data was collected from 899 sows (481 gilts and 418 sows) housed in a 10,000-head commercial sow farm in Iowa. The farm was equipped with Gestal Quattro Opti automated lactation feeders, with individual feed deliveries recorded daily, along with a scale to collect body weights, calipers, and an ultrasound to capture body condition and composition. Changes in body weight, backfat thickness, and loin depth were measured from farrowing to weaning, along with other essential sow and piglet datapoints. A sow’s major energy inputs during lactation are her feed intake and the mobilization of body reserves. Her output is the amount of energy translated to piglet growth through milk production. Using the data collected, various methods were tested to quantify energy pools and accurately represent energy efficiency. Initial equations used from NRC 2012 and Dourmad et al. 1999, 2008 estimated:2-4 • Metabolizable Energy (ME) Intake: Average Daily Feed Intake (ADFI) and ME per kg of feed; • ME for milk production: Depends on litter size and litter weight gain; • ME from Body Lipid (BL) and Body Protein (BP) mobilization: Depend on sow body weight and backfat. Using project data, estimations were compared with actual measurements to verify the approach. Results indicate: • Strong correlation exists between estimated BL change during lactation and the measured backfat change. • Weak correlation between estimated BP change in lactation and measured loin depth change. This likely reflects differences in body composition of modern sows, which are leaner and have less adipose tissue, compared with the females when the original equations were developed. • Equations used to estimate body protein changes may not accurately reflect muscle tissue mobilization from modern sows. Lactation bodyweight change was also evaluated against measured backfat and loin depth changes and showed a slightly better correlation. However, many sows gaining loin depth during lactation still lost body A NOVEL WAY TO MEASURE MODERN SOW EFFICIENCY INCORPORATING BODY COMPOSITION CHANGES INTO THE LACTATION FEED EFFICIENCY EQUATION CAN PROVIDE A MORE COMPLETE, ACCURATE PICTURE OF SOW EFFICIENCY. WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 12 by Carine Vier, PhD, and Justin Holl, PhD
weight during this timeframe. This indicates body weight change alone is not a reliable estimator of body composition changes in modern females. REPRESENTING THE MISSING FACTOR Taking a different approach, individuals were categorized into four different groups based on milk production and catabolism (with catabolism being based on the actual backfat and loin depth measurements). Milk energy output was averaged within parity; females below average were considered low producing, and above average were considered high producing. Additionally, females that maintained or gained either backfat or loin depth, or both, in lactation were considered low catabolism. Females losing both tissues were considered to have high catabolism. The four LFE groups were described per Table 1. KEY DATA AND CATEGORIZATION TAKEAWAYS Wide individual variation exists in feed intake, body composition changes, and milk output, highlighting the potential for precision feed management for different sow efficiency profiles. Using this framework, a minority of females were identified as truly efficient (9% of gilts and 17% of sows). There were fewer females in the Super category than in any of the other three categories, showing room for progress. Gilts were identified as most at risk, with nearly 80% of total gilts falling into the Inefficient or Martyr categories, mobilizing their body reserves at a potential cost. Martyr females lost significantly more weight and body tissue compared to their Inefficient and Selfish counterparts. Martyrs may have been falsely identified as “highly efficient” based on the traditional LFE calculation, without factoring in body reserve mobilization. Both Inefficient and Selfish sows produced less litter growth even though their feed intake was not markedly low. Selfish sows preserved more body tissue while Inefficient sows mobilized their reserves, suggesting poorer overall energy utilization in the inefficient group. Despite all categories starting with the same litter size after crossfostering, Martyr and Super females achieved increased litter growth and piglet survival from cross-fostering to weaning compared to Inefficient and Selfish counterparts. Catabolism didn’t lead to shortterm reproductive failures. There was no evidence of significant differences in subsequent reproductive performance. Longer-term impacts remain unknown. NUTRITION MANAGEMENT AND GENETIC SELECTION IMPLICATIONS While more research is needed to validate this approach to LFE and its repeatability across multiple lactation cycles, farms, and nutritional programs, the short- and long-term implications are exciting. One of the shorter-term implications is refining nutrition and management. Research done in partnership with Kansas State University has shown that gestation feeding significantly impacts lactation performance.5 Sows underfed during gestation— sows that either don’t gain weight or even lose weight from breeding to 48 hours post-farrowing—show compensatory growth during lactation at the expense of milk BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 13 WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM TABLE 1 Low Catabolism High Catabolism Low Milk “Selfish” Sow Not optimizing milk yield Below-average milk output Maintained/gained backfat or loin depth “Inefficient” Sow Least desirable Below-average milk output Lost backfat and loin depth High Milk “Super” Sow Most desirable, highly efficient Above-average milk output Maintained/gained backfat or loin depth “Martyr” Sow Milking at own expense Above-average milk output Lost backfat and loin depth TABLE 2 Distributions are from an exploratory analysis of a single farm and one lactation cycle using a novel methodology that incorporates body composition. They are intended to illustrate the approach and do not represent the overall PIC sow population. % of Gilts in LFE Group % of Sows in LFE Group
Justin is the Product Development Senior Director at PIC, where he drives global efforts to advance both terminal and maternal genetics. He leads a team focused on driving genetic progress through breeding program direction, data-driven analysis, and innovative technologies to ultimately improve customer success. Carine is a Nutrition Specialist with PIC, where she develops nutrition recommendations to improve performance and support producers in achieving their production goals. She brings a science-based, data-driven approach to nutrition that supports herd productivity. JUSTIN HOLL, PHD PIC CARINE VIER, PHD PIC production. These sows start prioritizing themselves and see compensatory weight gains during lactation at a cost to milk production and the litter. This supports observations of the Selfish females and highlights the importance of evaluating performance across the full period from gestation through lactation. Additional research on feeding and nutrition management is in progress to see how we can affect the different categories. While the new LFE category approach is still in its beginning stage, the early results and how they could shape genetics are exciting to think about. PIC is already working on a new trait for body composition, looking at how body composition changes during lactation. Pairing that trait with feed intake can help deliver a fuller picture of how a sow moves resources through her body and transitions them to her litter. Long-term, learnings could be used for genetic selection of an easier-to-manage sow. For example, using the LFE categories, we could someday target a Super sow and identify and select for families that are genetically more prone to be in that category. Learn more about ongoing research into sow lactation efficiency and body composition. Contact your technical service representative or email Carine Vier at carine.vier@ genusplc.com. WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 14 REFERENCES: 1 Veldhuizen, T., Frobose, H., Robertson, J., Higbie, L., Obermier, D., Wilson-Wells, D., Zaragoza, L. E., Spath, I. T., Hamilton, D., Altfillisch, J., Vier, C. M., & Orlando, W. A. 2026. Defining lactation feed efficiency classifications through milk production and sow body composition dynamics in modern gilts and sows. Midwest American Society of Animal Science Annual Meeting Abstract. Abstract 186. 2 National Research Council. 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th rev. ed. Washington (DC): Natl. Acad. Press. 3 Dourmad, J. Y., J. Noblet, M. C. P.re, and M. Etienne. 1999. Mating, pregnancy and prenatal growth. Pp. 129-152 in Quantitative Biology of the Pig, I. Kyriazakis, ed. Wallingford, UK: CABI. 4 Dourmad, J. Y., M. .tienne, A. Valancogne, S. Dubois, J. van Milgen, and J. Noblet. 2008. InraPorc: A model and decision support tool for the nutrition of sows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143:372386. 5 Navales, R., Orlando, W., Guo, J., et al. 2025. The effect of sow body weight change during gestation on sow body weight change and litter average daily gain during lactation. Kansas State University Swine Day Abstract. TABLE 3 Effects of lactation feed efficiency classifications through milk energy output and body composition dynamics in modern gilts and sows
pic.com Per m . Your success isn’t by chance. Neither is our innovation. It takes groundbreaking advancements and continuously improving genetics to produce measurable on-farm results. Our steps forward amplify your success now and in the future. One Step Ahead Redefining the boundaries of possible.
Modern sows require greater metabolic demands to produce larger litters and heavier weaned pigs. However, during the transition period—a week before farrowing through the first three to five days of lactation—sows undergo several metabolic changes, which happens to lead to reduced feed intake during lactation, constipation at farrowing, and ultimately, an increase in preweaning mortality. Because of this, pig researchers and nutritionists are actively exploring nutritional strategies to help sows move through farrowing more smoothly and support pig health. One approach is the strategic use of fermentable fiber in sow diets, which can improve gut motility, reduce constipation, shorten farrowing duration, and better support pig viability through increased energy availability. Because fermentable fiber sources can be limited in the United States, a stimbiotic (i.e., xylanase in combination with xylooligosaccharides) has been used to enhance fiber utilization by shifting the intestinal microbiome to favour fiber fermentation, resulting in improved energy use and digestive efficiency during late gestation and lactation. Although both fiber supplementation and stimbiotic may be strategies to support sows during the transition period, their combined potential to enhance farrowing outcomes is not known. Therefore, a recent study was conducted at a commercial farm to determine the impact of fiber and stimbiotic supplementation from late gestation through lactation in the farrowing performance, litter outcomes, and pig viability. A total of 860 mixed parity sows (25% parity 1, 38% parity 2-3, 37% parity 4+) were used in the study from day 113 of gestation until weaning began. Sows were housed in farrowing stalls and assigned to one of four dietary top-dress treatments in a 2 by 2 factorial arrangement with parity balanced across treatments. The treatments included: a corn-based control top dress with (CON+) or without (CON-) a stimbiotic (Signis, AB Vista, Marlborough, UK), and a fiber top dress, comprised of an equal blend of soybean hulls and wheat middlings, with (FIB+) or without (FIB-) a stimbiotic. The top‑dress treatments were hand-fed twice daily on top of the standard lactation diet, beginning approximately 4.0 ± 1.5 days before farrowing and continuing for 17.9 ± 1.4 days after farrowing. Sows were hand-fed a lactation diet ad libitum from day 3 post-farrowing until the onset of weaning. For each litter, the total born, number born alive, stillborn, and mummies were recorded. Crossfostering was allowed within treatment groups during the first 24 hours, and all pig movements were also recorded. At weaning, the number and age of pigs weaned were recorded, and pre‑weaning mortality was calculated. Sow body condition was measured at placement and weaning, and daily feed refusals were recorded throughout the study. Constipation was evaluated daily from day 1 until three days post-farrowing on a scale of zero to four, while pig viability was assessed in each litter at both 24 and 72 hours post-farrow using a fourpoint scale. In the context of this study, a viable pig is considered to be a pig that did not appear to have excessive health challenges, good vigor exhibiting typical behaviour, and was expected to survive to weaning began. The study results indicated that feed refusals during the transition period were not influenced by sows fed dietary treatments. However, sows receiving the FIB treatment had less constipation both before and after farrowing. Figure 1 shows the proportion of constipation scores pre- and post-farrowing over time. On day 1 before farrowing, constipation scores between sows fed CON and FIB treatments were not different, with most classified as score 1 (yellow bar, dry, pellet‑like feces) or score 2 (green bar, dry to normal feces). On day 2, a greater proportion of sows fed FIB had scores 2 and 3 (blue bar, normal to soft feces), whereas CON sows remained predominantly score 1. This trend continued on days 3 and 4, with sows fed FIB sows showing greater proportions of score FIBER AND STIMBIOTICS BOOST FARROWING PERFORMANCE IN MODERN SOWS A COMMERCIAL‑FARM STUDY SHOWS THAT TARGETED FIBER AND STIMBIOTIC SUPPLEMENTATION DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD REDUCES CONSTIPATION AND IMPROVES PIG VIABILITY. by Jessica P. Acosta, Rachel Self, and Amy Petry WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 16
2 and 3, while sows fed CON showed increasing proportions of score 0 (orange bar, absence of feces) and score 1. On day 1 post-farrowing, more than 70% of sows displayed score 0 regardless of treatment. But on days 2 and 3, sows fed FIB again demonstrated greater proportions of score 2 and 3, while CON sows remained more frequently classified as score 0 or 1. These results indicate that fiber supplementation reduced pre‑farrowing constipation incidence by 27%, and post‑farrowing constipation by 22%, indicating that fiber is considered to be efficient to alleviate constipation but requires two to three days of supplementation, while fiber transits to the intestine, impacting gut motility. Supplementing sows with fiber or stimbiotic increased the number of pigs born alive and reduced stillborns (Table 1). These effects were influenced by the parity of sows, as for parity 1 sows, both fiber and stimbiotic supplementation increased the number of pigs born alive, whereas in parities 2+, only fiber increased the number of pigs born alive. Stimbiotic reduced stillborns and increased pig viability by about 32% at 24 hours and 23% at 72 hours, regardless of parity and diet. Similarly, parity 1 sows fed the CON+ weaned the most pigs, followed by the FIB+ treatment, whereas parities 2 and 3 fed the CON+ weaned the most pigs. However, pre-weaning mortality was decreased only in sows fed CON+. The positive effects associated with fiber, such as increased gut motility, reduced constipation, and therefore, decreased obstruction of the birth canal, along with the additional energy obtained through fiber fermentation, combined with the stimbiotic capacity to modulate the gut microbiome and enhance immune function, may support the sow energy requirements during farrowing, allowing the sow to support her litter through milk. However, the greater benefit observed in younger parity sows may reflect differences in energy utilization, as these sows continue to allocate nutrients toward their own growth and possess a less mature and less stable gut microbiota compared with older sows. In conclusion, fiber supplementation in diets for sows in the transition period can reduce constipation, and fiber or stimbiotics improved farrowing performance and early pig viability. However, young sows responded more favourably to both strategies, suggesting greater potential benefits for herds with a high proportion of parities 1 to 3 sows. These findings highlight practical nutritional interventions that can be a valuable opportunity to enhance pig survival and sow comfort in commercial systems. BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 17 WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM Constipation scores pre- and post-farrowing FIGURE 1 Jessica P. Acosta, from Bogotá, Colombia, earned her B.S. in Animal Science from the National University of Colombia and her M.S. (2022) and PhD (2025) in Nutritional Sciences from the University of Illinois. Currently, she is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Monogastric Nutrition Laboratory at the University of Missouri. JESSICA P. ACOSTA University of Missouri TABLE 1 Diet Control Fiber Stimbiotic - + - + Total Born per litter, n Parity 1 14.0b 14.4a 14.3a 14.3a Parity 2 and 3 14.1b 14.0b 14.4a 14.5a Parity 4+ 13.6b 13.5b 14.0a 13.9a Stillborn per litter, n 1.04a 0.83b 0.75b 0.84b Mummies per litter, n 0.56 0.57 0.49 0.52 Pigs weaned per litter, n Parity 1 11.1c 12.0a 11.4bc 11.6b Parity 2 and 3 11.0b 11.6a 11.4ab 10.9b Parity 4+ 11.3 11.3 11.0 11.3 Preweaning mortality, % Parity 1 11.6a 8.9b 13.1a 11.6a Parity 2 and 3 16.5a 12.0b 13.3ab 15.4a Parity 4+ 14.4 14.6 15.5 14.2 Reproductive performance of sows a, b, c Means within a row without a common superscript differ.
When Tom McAdams talks about Crystal Spring Hog Equipment, he doesn’t sound like a man selling feeders. He sounds like someone who has spent decades watching how pigs behave, how barns function, and how small design decisions ripple through an entire production system. His explanations are plainspoken, grounded, and often disarmingly simple—like comparing pig feeding behaviour to kids rushing through a bowl of cereal before school. But simplicity is deceptive. Crystal Spring’s wet/dry feeding system, now used in more than 36 countries, is the product of nearly 50 years of incremental refinement, field observation, and manufacturing discipline applied consistently. What began as a practical solution to a local feeding challenge has become one of the most influential feeder designs in modern hog production worldwide today. The company’s origins trace back to a small Hutterite community in southern Manitoba, Canada, where early versions of the wet/ dry feeder were first built. Crystal Spring’s ownership structure includes members of the nearby farming community, but McAdams was quick to emphasize that the business has long served customers and partners around the world. The early innovation was straightforward: create a feeder that allows pigs to eat dry feed or mix it with water directly in the trough. That flexibility mimicked the performance benefits of traditional slop feeding— high palatability, faster intake, and reduced stress—while fitting into modern bulk‑feed systems. The design worked. Producers saw pigs eating more in less time, gaining weight faster, and wasting less feed. Academic researchers in the US Midwest and Canada began studying the system in the 1980s and 1990s, validating what barns were already showing. As the research spread, so did the feeders. Today, Crystal Spring has customers and partners using and selling their equipment across North and South America, parts of Europe, and select regions in Asia and Africa. The company’s core business remains within the western hemisphere, but it is committed to serving its customers no matter where they are in the world. INDUSTRY CHANGES SHAPED THE FEEDER The pigs of the 1970s were not the pigs of today. Back then, they grew more slowly, started heavier, and were raised in smaller, farmer‑managed barns. “There was a willingness to pursue marginal gains at high effort,” McAdams recalled to Benchmark, adding that producers tinkered, adjusted, and customized equipment HOW A SIMPLE IDEA RESHAPED MODERN HOG FEEDING CRYSTAL SPRING’S WET/DRY SYSTEM CONTINUES TO INFLUENCE GLOBAL PIG PERFORMANCE BY PAIRING BEHAVIOURAL INSIGHT WITH DURABLE, PRECISION BUILT ENGINEERING. WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 18 by Andrew Joseph
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQyMDk=