2026 | SPRING EDITION $12 APPLIED SCIENCE FOR RESILIENT, HIGH-PERFORMING, SWINE SYSTEMS 20 YEARS OF BENCHMARKING 7
Now, you see it. you see it. Our A. I.-powered sensors deliver real-time, highly-accurate 3D visibility into your feed inventories. So now, you can: Reduce out-of-feed events and improve animal performance in every turn Streamline feed planning, ordering and deliveries Keep workers safe from climbing bins More than 80 leading companies across North America trust us to monitor 55,000+ bins daily. For more information or to book a demo: sales@binsentry.com +1 (226) 910 -1110 www.binsentry.com The time for swinging mallets, climbing ladders and working on spreadsheets is over. With ProSense Feed from BinSentry, you get true visibility and line of sight across your feed supply chain.
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 labor. 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 Intermittent mode is NOT available for iOS. MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE. The 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. FEATURES › In-barn data validation › Optional intermittent connectivity › Bluetooth-enabled RFID function › Bar code scanning › Real-time data
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 labor 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
Pig breeding has traditionally achieved great success in improving production and feed efficiency through selection for improved feed conversion ratio, reduced backfat, increased lean meat percentage, and high growth. Over the past six decades, continuous genetic improvements have dramatically enhanced overall feed efficiency. While these advances have significantly improved how efficiently pigs convert feed into meat, they do not fully capture how well nutrients are absorbed in the intestines. The next step in improving feed efficiency is coming from a more efficient use of nutrients, low maintenance requirements, and optimized gut health. PROTEIN DIGESTIBILITY AS A NEW SELECTION TRAIT Research conducted by Topigs Norsvin in collaboration with the Norwegian University of Life Sciences has identified protein digestibility as a new and promising trait. This trait captures the pig’s ability to absorb and better utilize the proteins in feed, enabling a more precise approach to improving nutrient efficiency. Using Near-Infrared Spectroscopy, the nutrient content of feces can be measured in a cost-effective and scalable way. By combining feed composition with fecal nutrient data, it is possible to estimate how efficiently nutrients are absorbed in the intestine. Studies have shown that protein digestibility is heritable, with genetics explaining approximately 20% of the variation in this trait. In addition, favorable correlations have been identified with traits currently included in the Topigs Norsvin breeding goal for feed efficiency. This enables selection for improved protein digestibility. IMPACT OF PROTEIN EFFICIENCY Efficient protein utilization has a significant impact across the production system: • Reduced feed consumption lowers production costs. • Improved resource utilization reduces the overall PROTEIN EFFICIENCY: THE NEXT FRONTIER IN FEED EFFICIENCY BECAUSE PROTEIN DIGESTIBILITY IS HERITABLE, IT REPRESENTS A PROMISING NEW TRAIT FOR FUTURE INCLUSION IN BREEDING PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE RESOURCE UTILIZATION, STRENGTHEN PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, AND REDUCE SWINE-RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. by Kristine Hov Martinsen, PhD WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 10 FIGURE 1
environmental footprint. • Lower nitrogen excretion reduces emissions from manure. • The development of more robust pigs with stable and consistent growth performance. In pork production, feed accounts for approximately 75% of production costs and around 80% of climate impact. As a result, even small improvements in protein utilization can deliver substantial benefits, such as for production efficiency, environmental sustainability, and animal performance. FROM PROTEIN TO EMISSIONS Protein in feed is a primary source of nitrogen. It consists of amino acids, which are broken down in the intestine and absorbed for use in biological processes such as growth and protein deposition. Not all proteins are utilized efficiently. Undigested amino acids are excreted in feces, while excess absorbed nitrogen is excreted via urine (primarily as urea). As a result, a significant proportion of nitrogen ends up in manure, which is used as natural fertilizer in crop production. During manure storage and application, nitrogen compounds are converted through biological processes. Ammonium (NH4) can be transformed into nitrate (NO3), releasing nitrous oxide (N2O) as a byproduct. Nitrous oxide is a highly potent greenhouse gas, approximately 300 times more impactful than CO2 per molecule. Emissions from pigs account for around 20% of total emissions in pork production and include both methane and nitrous oxide. Methane originates from digestion and represents a smaller share, while nitrous oxide is the primary concern, arising from undigested and excess protein excreted in manure. Better protein utilization in pigs leads to reduced nitrogen excretion in manure, lowering nitrous oxide emissions. At the same time, it reduces the need for imported protein sources such as soy and rapeseed, lowers feed costs, and increases the opportunity to use locally sourced feed ingredients. GENETIC IMPACT ON PROTEIN UTILIZATION Through the Topigs Norsvin breeding program, improving protein digestibility by 2.2% (one genetic standard deviation) is predicted to increase the proportion of protein absorbed in the intestine, resulting in approximately 1.3 kg (2.87 lbs) less protein required per slaughter pig. This improvement is also expected to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by around 0.8%, primarily through reduced nitrous oxide emissions from housing, manure storage, and manure application. IMPLICATIONS FOR FEED FORMULATION AND COST When protein digestibility increases by 2.2%, a larger proportion of dietary protein is absorbed and utilized by the animal. Assuming that nutrient requirements for maintenance, growth, and protein deposition are met, the protein content in feed can be reduced by approximately five grams per kilogram (~0.08 ounces per pound). This improved efficiency enables greater use of locally sourced feed ingredients, such as barley, while reducing reliance on imported protein sources like soy and canola. Protein-rich raw materials are among the most expensive components of feed and they vary by region, this creates clear opportunities to lower feed costs. ABOUT THE RESEARCH Topigs Norsvin participated in the research project, which was owned by NMBU and financed through the Research Council of Norway’s funding for the agriculture and food industry. Nofima contributed with method calibration. Participants from Topigs Norsvin included researchers Kristine Hov Martinsen and Eli Gjerlaug Enger. BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 11 WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM Kristine Hov Martinsen is a researcher in the Health & Behavior Platform and Nutrition Platform at Topigs Norsvin. Holding a PhD in Quantitative Genetics, she focuses on animal behavior and feed efficiency, working at the intersection of genetics and phenotyping. Her research contributes to a deeper understanding of how genetic factors shape behavioral traits and resource utilization in pigs. KRISTINE HOV MARTINSEN, PHD Topigs Norsvin FIGURE 2
WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 13 Essential oils (EO) are phytogenic feed additives used in pig diets primarily to support health. The term “essential” refers to the plant’s essence or characteristic aroma and should not be confused with “essential” as used for nutrients such as amino acids. They are plantderived extracts (e.g., black pepper, thyme, rosemary, garlic) containing bioactive compounds such as phenols (e.g., thymol, carvacrol, eugenol) and related terpenes (e.g., p-cymene). These compounds have been widely studied for antibacterial activity and antioxidant effects, in part through membrane disruption and free radical scavenging (Zhai et al., 2018; Burt, 2004). Emerging evidence also suggests EO may influence immune function via interactions with gut microbiota, supporting reported improvements in growth performance and livability (Zhai et al., 2018). In a review of 402 peer-reviewed studies spanning 14 feed additive categories in grow-finish pigs, Z.X. Rao et al. (2023) identified 20 studies evaluating EO. Across these, EO improved ADG (average daily gain) and feed efficiency by an average of 5.8% versus controls. Approximately 80% of EO studies reported positive performance responses, with 45% statistically significant and an additional 35% showing a trend or numerical improvement. Although Rao et al. (2023) did not differentiate responses by specific essential oil blends (EOB), the Alltech Pork R&D team has recently conducted a series of commercialscale trials evaluating a novel EOB (essential oil blend) (Olerix; Alltech, Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky) to better define its application in nursery and grow-finish pigs. In the first nursery study, presented at the 2026 ASAS Midwest Section Meeting (Soto et al., 2026), 1,008 pigs weaned at 13.2 lb were used in a 43-day trial. Pigs were placed in pens with 28 pigs each and allotted to one of four dietary treatments with nine replicates per treatment. Dietary treatments consisted of increasing EOB levels (0, 200, 400, and 600 ppm). Pigs were fed a commercial nursery program, formulated to meet or exceed the nutrient requirements of the NRC (National Research Council) (2012). From day 0 to 21, pigs fed increasing levels of EOB improved (linear, P < 0.030) ADG and feed efficiency, with marginally (linear, P = 0.079) higher ADFI. From d 21 to 43, feed efficiency was improved (linear, P = 0.001). Overall (d 0 to 43), pigs fed increasing levels of EOB improved ADG (linear, P = 0.030, Figure 1), feed efficiency (quadratic, P = 0.040, Figure 2), and final BW (quadratic, P = 0.050). Furthermore, removals tended (linear, P = 0.057) to decrease as EOB inclusion increased. Full value pigs by the end of the nursery, numerically (linear, P = 0.112, Figure 3) increased by >2% for pigs fed increasing levels of EOB compared to the control. NOVEL ESSENTIAL OIL BLEND FOR NURSERY AND GROW-FINISH PIGS A LOOK AT THE RECENT FINDINGS FROM ALLTECH RESEARCHERS. by Morgan Hart and Dr. Jamil Faccin Overall nursery average daily gain (d 0 to 43) of pigs fed increasing levels of EOB. FIGURE 1 ADG, lb/d
Following observed EOB benefits on health outcomes, a followup study was conducted using nursery pigs naturally infected with PRRS (Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome) from the sow farm. Due to several abortions and death losses, the farrowing sow group was reduced, resulting in pigs being weaned at an older age. Upon arrival at the nursery, pigs averaged 18.0 lb and tested positive for PRRS with a Ct (cycle threshold) value of 23.2, indicating a high viral load. Pigs were placed in pens of 28 pigs each and allotted to one to four dietary treatments with nine replicates per treatment. Treatments for this consisted of 1) control, 2) control + mannanrich fraction (MRF is a proprietary technology of Alltech, Inc.), 3) control + EOB at 400 ppm, and 4) control + MRF + EOB. Experimental diets were fed for the first 19 days post-weaning, followed by a common diet for all pigs. Although the overall growth performance did not differ among treatments (P > 0.10), total mortality (and therefore full-value pigs) showed an interesting response. Pigs fed EOB had numerically lower mortality than pigs fed the control diet (1.14% vs 2.65%, P = 0.130, Figure 4). Notably, most mortality occurred later in the trial while the pigs were receiving the common diet. This data suggests a potential carryover protective effect in pigs challenged with PRRS and common secondary diseases. The consistency of the nursery research described above, together with additional internal nursery evaluations, supports evaluating the EOB during the grow-finish period, where most of the feed cost in pig production resides. In a study conducted in the EU, 1,024 pigs (49 lb initial BW (body weight)) were placed in pens with 16 pigs each and allotted to one to four dietary treatments with 16 replicates per treatment. Treatments for this consisted of 1) control diet, 2) control diet + EU EOB (100 ppm), 3) control diet + US EOB (100 ppm), 4) control diet + US EOB (200 ppm). The EU and US EOB versions were highly similar, with minor composition differences to comply with regional regulations. Over 114 days, no differences were observed for ADG or ADFI (P > 0.10). However, the combination of numerically greater gain and lower intake resulted in a tendency (P = 0.056, Figure 5) for improved feed efficiency in pigs fed the EOB at any inclusion level or version compared with control pigs. This response corresponds to an estimated 10 lb/pig reduction in feed use over the study period. In an economic analysis, the US EOB at 100 ppm yielded a 2.96 ROI. A key question was whether the EOB response could be replicated in a second grow-finish study in the US. To address this issue, 2,171 pigs (85.5 lb initial BW) were placed 22 per pen and allotted to one of six dietary treatments with 16 replicates per treatment. Treatments consisted of 1) WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 14 Overall nursery feed efficiency (d 0 to 43) of pigs fed increasing levels of EOB. FIGURE 2 Nursery percentage of full value pigs fed increasing levels of EOB. FIGURE 3 Nursery percentage mortality of naturally contaminated PRRS pigs fed yeast cell wall, EOB, or a combination of both feed technologies. FIGURE 4 Overall feed efficiency of grow-finishing pigs fed different EOB versions and inclusions versus a control diet. FIGURE 5 F/G, d 0-114 MORTALITY, % FULL VALUE PIGS, % F/G
WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 15 negative control (no feed additives), 2) positive control (200 ppm copper as TBCC), 3–4) two pilot technologies unrelated to EOB, 5) EOB (100 ppm), and 6) EOB (200 ppm). Although the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.301), pigs that were fed 100 ppm EOB or high copper were numerically 1 lb heavier at the end of the trial compared with pigs fed the negative control and other treatments. From a health perspective, a tendency (P = 0.058, Figure 6) for greater full value pigs was observed, with pigs fed 100 ppm EOB having greater survivability than control, technology A, and EOB 200 ppm pigs, with high copper and technology B being intermediate. In an economic analysis, 100 ppm EOB generated a 2.89 ROI relative to the negative control and was more cost-effective than increasing copper inclusion in the grow-finish phase. Across four controlled evaluations in nursery and grow-finish pigs, Olerix demonstrated consistent value through improvements in feed efficiency, throughput, and, in most cases, survivability-related outcomes. Given that variability is one of the main concerns when adopting feed additives in diet programs, this level of consistency is particularly relevant. Collectively, these results support positioning Olerix as a reliable nutritional tool in pig production, delivering measurable improvements in feed efficiency, full-value pigs, and return on investment. Percentage of full value pigs in the marketing day according to different feed additive strategies. FIGURE 6 REFERENCES: Burt, S. Essential oils: Their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods—A review. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2004, 94, 223–253. Rao Z.X., Tokach M.D., Woodworth J.C., DeRouchey J.M., Goodband R.D., and Gebhardt J.T. Effects of Various Feed Additives on Finishing Pig Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics: A Review. Animals (Basel). 2023.13(2):200. Soto J.A., Hart M.D., Cemin H.S., Faccin J.E.G., Hansen S.A., and Hansen E.L. Evaluation of a novel essential oil blend in nursery pig performance and health outcomes. Journal of Animal Science (Abs). 2026. Zhai H.; Liu H.; Wang S.; Wu J.; Kluenter A.M. Potential of essential oils for poultry and pigs. Animal Nutrition, 2018, 4, 179–186. MORGAN HART Hubbard Feeds Morgan Hart is a Swine Nutritionist for the Swine Technical Team at Hubbard Feeds, an Alltech company. Dr. Jamil Elias Ghiggi Faccin is a Pig Technical and Nutrition Specialist at Alltech. DR. JAMIL ELIAS GHIGGI FACCIN Alltech FULL VALUE PIGS, % MORE PERFORMANCE. MORE RELIABILITY. NO UNEXPECTED COSTS. In a market full of movement, PigCHAMP remains a constant you can rely on. SALES@PIGCHAMP.COM EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITIES.
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 16
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 17 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
Feed delivery is one of the most critical—and often underestimated— systems in a sow farm. While most producers recognize the importance of avoiding completely empty feeders, the true cost of feed delivery failures extends far beyond any of the obvious “out-offeed” events. Subtle disruptions in feed flow, inconsistent delivery, and installation oversights can quietly erode sow performance, litter quality, and overall herd productivity. THE PARTIAL MEAL PROBLEM In gestation barns, feeding precision is essential. Most sows are fed once per day, typically receiving around five pounds of feed. However, when feed delivery is compromised—whether due to restricted flow, bridging, or partial blockages in feed boxes—the impact can be significant. A sow may still appear to have feed in her box, but instead of receiving her full ration, she may only consume one or two pounds. Over time, this shortfall leads to loss of body condition and can result in lighter pigs at birth. These outcomes create a cascade of challenges. Sows that lose body cover are more difficult to maintain through gestation and lactation, often requiring additional nutritional support to recover condition. They may struggle with rebreeding efficiency, extending non-productive days, and increasing overall herd costs. Reduced body condition can also impact milk production, limiting the sow’s ability to support her litter after farrowing. At the same time, smaller piglets at birth present their own set of issues. They are typically less vigorous, slower to nurse, and more susceptible to chilling and early-life mortality. These pigs often require increased labor and are more likely to fall behind in growth performance, leading to greater variability at weaning and through the production system. Ultimately, this affects uniformity, market weights, and overall throughput. None of these issues is caused by a single obvious failure. Instead, they stem from small, repeated inconsistencies in feed delivery. FEED FLOW RESTRICTIONS AT THE BIN One of the most common causes of feed delivery issues originates at the bin. Feed bridging or plugging can significantly restrict flow into the system, often without being immediately obvious. A frequent contributing factor is running the bin slide too tightly. While this may be intended to control flow, it can eventually lead to plugging and inconsistent feed delivery. When feed enters the system too slowly, the end control may time out and shut down the feeding cycle before the entire line is filled. To maintain a consistent flow, it is important to allow the bin slide to operate more openly, provided the system is properly configured with appropriate baffles and bearing restrictors. This balance helps ensure steady feed movement without overloading the system. INSTALLATION DETAILS THAT MATTER Next, feed system performance is heavily influenced by installation quality, particularly in long gestation feeding lines. Standard practice involves drilling round holes in feed tubes to allow feed to drop into individual feeders. These round openings typically allow feed to fill several feeders at a time as it moves down the line. However, challenges arise near the end of the line. If the final five to eight drop points are not configured as “total clean-out” drops with oblong openings instead of round ones, feed will continue past those feeders, WHEN FEED FAILS THE HIDDEN COSTS OF FEED DELIVERY FAILURES IN SOW OPERATIONS. by Chris Elvidge WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 18
rather than fully emptying into them. As a result, the end control feeder may fill and shut off the system before the last feeders have been adequately filled. This leaves those sows consistently shorted on their daily ration. Because the system appears to be functioning normally, identifying the issue requires a skilled herdsman who recognizes that the final feeders are not receiving complete fills. SMARTER FEEDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY Thankfully, modern systems can help combat out-of-feed events and other feed delivery issues. For instance, recirculating systems like flex augers or chain discs offer significant advantages. Instead of terminating at a final feeder, the system loops, giving each drop box multiple opportunities to fill before the system shuts off. Additionally, technologies like PigTek’s automatic boot slide actuators, when paired with bin level sensors, provide producers with complete control over bin usage, eliminating the need for on-site labor. From a smartphone, a producer can open or close tandem bin sliders, monitor bin fill levels in real time, and avoid bin switching delays that cause pigs to run out of feed. This simple upgrade prevents one of the most common and costly feed outages: tandem bins running empty over the weekend or overnight, simply because no one was there to flip the gate. Producers using these tools report fewer emergencies, less guesswork, and better peace of mind. THE BOTTOM LINE Feed delivery failures, whether they’re problems with partial feeding or outof-feed events, have a significant impact on sow performance. Addressing these challenges, however, does require a combination of proper system design, correct installation practices, and the use of modern technologies. By focusing on these areas, producers can reduce variability in feed delivery, protect sow condition, and ultimately improve productivity across the herd. BENCHMARK 2026 SPRING EDITION 19 WWW.PIGCHAMP.COM HERE FOR YOU™ For All Your Hog Equipment Needs GESTATION & FARROWING STALLS HERO® FANS PIGCENTRAL® & CENTRO™ CONTROLS CHAIN DISC FEEDING SYSTEM Chris Elvidge is the COO and Lead Engineer at PigTek. CHRIS ELVIDGE PigTek
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQyMDk=