Iowa Swine Day 2018, Brad Belstra – Reduce sperm per female & deliver sexed semen: Are we there yet?
Articles Blog

Iowa Swine Day 2018, Brad Belstra – Reduce sperm per female & deliver sexed semen: Are we there yet?

October 24, 2019


MODERATOR MATT SCHULTE: All right everyone, we’re gonna get this afternoon session started. So I’d like to start by introducing our speaker, Dr.
Brad Belstra. He obtained his master’s from Purdue University and his PhD from
North Carolina State University in the area of reproductive physiology with an
emphasis on swine reproduction. Recently Dr. Belstra has overseen the boar
stud operations for a large integrated pork producer and prior to that he
managed the technical services business of an artificial insemination supply
company. All right, I’ll turn the floor over to Brad. PRESENTER BRAD BELSTRA: Thanks very much everybody, really honored to be here today. I want to thank Dr. Patience and Dr. Ross for
inviting me. It’s been a great session so far. I know it’s been educational for me
and I hope this topic is interesting for you and you find something in here that, uh, changes your thinking. With that we’ll go through a little bit of an outline
here, talk a little bit about the history of swine breeding, kind of where we came
from and where we are today. A little bit about sex chromosomes and sperm sorting
based on sex chromosomes. A little bit of the history of that; where it came from,
where at what level it’s reached today. Also a little bit about, you know, the
dairy industry, which seems strange to talk about but that’s where this
technology was kind of applied on a large scale first so there’s some
lessons there for probably what will happen as we seek to apply it in the
swine industry. You know, and then a little bit about fertilization. What are
some of the factors that affect it since that’s kind of the beginning of making a
litter. A few words about barrows versus gilts versus boars. If we could control
sex in our litters on a large scale what what kind of ramifications might that
have for our industry? Also kind of the transition which ties back in the
history of the swine industry of kind of getting from talking about billions of
sperm to millions of sperm is kind of where we need to head. And then finally, hopefully we wrap up kind of what’s the on the horizon, when
are we going to deliver this and be able to do this on on a larger scale? So with that, why did we get into the
hundred percent AI business in the first place? It’s common in a lot of animal
industries, maybe let’s stop and think back why? Why did we stop natural mating? Well
it’s pretty much for economic reasons, right? The goal is always to leverage
that one high indexing sire across as many females as possible,
you know that’s the name of the game. It hasn’t changed, we’re just continuing to
try to find ways to do that on a larger scale. So I put a few numbers there that
are just some round numbers to kind of give you an idea of one boar may be
collected once a week, a mature boar anyway could produce close to a hundred
billion sperm cells, so we’re blessed with an animal that has tremendous
amount, more than many many other mammals. If the industry average dose is
somewhere around two and a half billion, that means that that boar could make
maybe 40 doses a week if we AI-ed sows twice so he could cover 20 females a
week. Pretty soon times 52 weeks in a year we got a little over a thousand
females a year, 90 percent farrowing rate, maybe we get a little over 900 females
pregnant times 12 pigs weaned. So we’re influencing about 11,000 market
pigs. I don’t have a table of what would that look like if instead of a hundred
billion sperm at two-and-a-half billion we got it down to 500 or a half a
billion, 500 million, we’d have five times as many pigs and you can go from there.
That the more we reduce that dose the more pigs we influence, the better boar
we can use, and that’s really the biggest incentive for reducing the doses. The
economics of leveraging that boar’s high index using better boars over more
females. Other reasons that we got in the AI business, initially when we started
was well we’re going to be able to screen animals for fertility and get rid
of sub-fertile animals, that sounded good. We were, it gives us flexibility for sure
to change direction genetically, pretty easy to change semen
source or change boars whether you’re buying semen or owning boars. You know just the ratio of males to females. It’s an easier population to change quickly.
Some health benefits may be that there’s less risk to AI in terms
of disease transfer and finally labor specialization. You know, we’ll talk here on the next slide a little bit about kind of the history of how this
evolved. So if we look kind of from left to right of where do we get started in
the ’80s with pen or hand mating, not sure if any of you remember that. I remember
doing that, this is before the days of AI and we can see, you know, a boar didn’t
go very far in those days for sure. You can see, you know, we’re talking about 90
to 70 billion sperm. We didn’t get to breed very many sows a week with that
one boar, boar to sow ratios, maybe one to 25 or somewhere around in there. We went through a period in the ’90s kind of where we had on-farm AI. We started
to ease into artificial insemination. We’d follow it up with a natural service,
that was a period where we had on-farm AI labs. Doses were pretty large,
somewhere around 5 billion sperm per dose. We were breeding sows, you know,
multiple times but we are starting to reject some ejaculate so maybe get rid
of some sub-par boars. Period around 2000, somewhere in that region, where we get
into more specialized boar studs for the reduction of the dose, we start to uh, we
start to go uh, to a different site of deposition in the next phase going inner
uterine instead of cervical and basically what’s happened in recent
history is is we’ve kind of had bigger boar studs, fewer boar studs. We didn’t
need as many boars. Working with smaller and smaller doses, the industry may be
somewhere around two and a half billion on average today. Which you can see this
boar to sow ratio just keeps going up and what does the future look like? More of
that. We’re still in the same business. We’re still doing the same sort of thing.
What sort of things might need to change? More screening of boars earlier for
fertility, site of deposition of where we put the sperm might change. We might go, we’re
kind of already in an era of going from 2 AIs to 1 AI with synchronization
products that are available. And the sperm dose just keeps getting smaller
and we get more ejaculates out of that boar and need fewer of them. So that’s
just the nature of the game. Not anything you didn’t know but just kind of
a recap of where swine insemination was and kind of where it got to today. So
these fuzzy caterpillars here that are kind of hard to see are chromosomes. So
this is a boar Karyotype and what we’re going to talk about a little bit, our sex
chromosomes here. So we have 38 chromosomes, 36 of them being autosomes and 2 allosomes. This is a somatic cell so it’s diploid so it’s got the full
full complement. The wonderful thing about meiosis is is that we cut this in
half so we can get to a haploid cell so we can make gametes so sperm either get
an X or a Y and you know geneticists always joke with me and tell me these
chromosomes look how tiny they are, they aren’t very important but in terms of
controlling sex they’re they’re definitely where it’s at. And that’s
something that we would like to do and definitely has value. So a little bit
about sorting, kind of the physics of sorting, the only real difference we have
between x and y bearing sperm cells are that amount of chromatin or amount of
DNA. So it’s a pretty small difference but with the right kind of equipment we
can separate those cells at a relatively high speed. So we apply dye to
those cells, a very, very large dilution and when they’re excited with a laser, we
can take readings depending on the orientation of those cells as they flow
through the flow cytometer and find out how much they fluoresce. This differential fluorescence we can apply a positive or negative charge to
those droplets as they’re coming down through the machine. And then down
at the very bottom of the machine we have plates that are positively and
negatively charged and we can actually take that big line of very fast-moving
droplets and pull them one direction or the other. And that’s where sorting
happens. So that’s very simplistic. This is Dr. Larry Johnson’s at the USDA’s old
diagram and it’s still definitely relevant today even though we’ve changed
a lot of things, the physics of sorting and kind of the concept is very much the
same. So we talked a little bit about numbers of sperm cells in the previous
slide. How fast can we sort sperm cells today? Never fast enough, but 40,000
events per second, it’s kind of unbelievable that’s really fast to me,
depending on whether we’re looking for the X bearing or the Y bearing sperm. We
can set up gates and we can pick up depending on the boar and the
orientation, maybe 7000 sperm per second which is pretty fast, but when you
multiply that by 60 and 60 again and get to an hourly basis that’s only 25
million sperm per hour. So 25 million is a big number but when you put that into
relation that kind of doses we use in the swine industry today, you need a lot
of hours of sorting to make a dose with with two and a half million for example. So even though this is rate limiting, the rate of sorting, it’s not really the
biggest part of the problem. To me, those numbers are just amazing how fast we can
do this. So back to that small difference between the X and the Y bearing sperm,
one thing we’re blessed with and lucky about is the boar it’s about a 3.6
percent difference, a bull is about 3.8, we’re lucky we don’t have to deal with
humans or possums, much smaller, but you can see in these peak to valley ratio
charts here what we’re showing is the X bearing and the Y bearing sperm and how
much overlap there is in the middle. So an animal like the chinchilla has a huge
difference here, good resolution between those two peaks, very easy to sort but an
animal like opossum very very difficult to sort those populations with any
purity because there’s a lot of overlap there. So the boar he’s kind of in the
middle, close to the bull, and you can see some other species like the horse up
here so that’s not really an issue. We’re pretty lucky with boars, it could be a lot
worse. So current sorters today, what does this software look like? It’s not too
different from that diagram from from Larry Johnson’s lab. We have those two
detectors: the forward one and the side one. One at zero degrees and one at 90
degrees. And what we’re doing here is showing dead cells which we can gate off
and get rid of, but up here is the two X and Y populations and we’re setting a
box around them of the cells that are oriented. Oriented to those detectors so
we can get a good signal and figure out who might be X bearing and who might be
Y bearing. Down here on the bottom, another plot with the axis is reversed. I
always look at these as like two comets basically side by side kind of trailing
each other. This is just another orientation of the view of them but
we’re setting up the gates on the X bearing sperm that we’re gonna capture. If we drag this gate down this way into this other population we’ll start to pick
up more and more Y bearing sperm. We’ll reduce the purity of our sort. Vice versa
we could drag that gate back, close it in more, and increase our purity. But by
doing that we get fewer cells per second and fewer cells per hour, so it’s all
about how you set your gates for achieving a purity. The third plot over
here is what we call our peak to valley ratio showing those X and Y. So this area
where they overlap in the middle, very difficult to tell who’s X and Y bearing
where they overlap but if we stay kind of in the areas where the peaks are we
could sort X and we could sort Y simultaneously if we wanted to. So
that’s kind of what a sorter looks like today. So one of the ways to overcome this
limitation of not having enough sperm per second or sperm per hour as well, you
have lots of sorters and lots of heads going in parallel. So this is um, our lab
in Texas actually, these people are working with bull sperm not boar sperm
but you can see each one of these machines, the newest machine that we use actually has three heads and three channels on it.
Three screens and they set them up in a horseshoe pattern called the pod. So you
have one, two, three, four, and five machines in a pod. And this lab actually
has, I think, 3 of those horseshoes set up so you got 45 heads there in this
lab that could be working all at the same time. So sorters have come a long
way since the advent of this technology. They’re more automated. They’re more
user-friendly. Easier to work with. Faster, smaller
footprint; everything good, but um you know they they still can only generate so
many sperm per second, and they still, you know, are pretty technical to operate but getting easier. So a little backup and recap on history. We mentioned Larry
Johnson’s lab at USDA. So some other early people in the ’60s and ’70s kind of
did the pioneering work on what are sex chromosomes and what is different
about them and studied them. Larry’s group at USDA East in Maryland
picked up on this work and started to bring it to fruition and apply it. And
they actually were managed to generate sperm that were viable after sorting. First did in rabbits and then pigs but they were able to change the sex ratio
and demonstrate that it worked and that resulted in some patents that they filed. Those patents were subsequently bought around 1991 by a company called XY that
was in partnership with the Colorado State University Research Foundation and a
company called Cytomation that built flow cytometers. So they were kind of the
first ones to try to commercialize this technology. A lot of really bright people. They made some great advances but ultimately it didn’t really get to where
it needed to be. Probably the biggest hurdle they could not overcome was they
couldn’t match conventional fertility with with sorted sperm. They could get
70% maybe, and the industry kind of told them that’s good, but that’s that’s not
good enough, to be applied and and have value for us. In 2003 sexing technologies
in Texas actually had a license from X Y and set up a sorting lab in 2004. So they made a lot of improvements to the technology and
were working with it. And kind of around this period, around 2007, they actually
bought XY and all its licenses so they decided to give it a go. So that was a
pretty big risk. You had something that people were working very hard on they
hadn’t really brought it to fruition and made it work, but, um, you know that was kind
of a big gamble. You had to believe that can we make this commercially viable.?There’s a market for this, but can we make it work? So they they took that risk
and actually today if we look at the recent history, it’s become not
commonplace but pretty common in the dairy industry for sure for generating
replacement heifers. So they took XY’s legacy technology –
the way that they were processing and sorting sperm – and they began to make
improvements to it to make a better sperm cell that was more viable, and kind
of tweak the process. In doing that they picked up some conception rate and then
subsequently followed that up with a trial to look at what if we changed the
sperm per dose. They were using 2 million sperm for straw they got a nice response
by increasing to 4 million. Which seems kind of counter intuitive but they
decided that was really the way to go to bring performance nearly equaling what
you could achieve with 15 million conventional frozen thawed sperm in the
dairy industry. So this work was all on heifers but very impressive that they
could get it to that level of performance. Finally the kind of parent
company of ST bought its swine genetics company FAST from High Life in 2015 with
the idea of the next thing on the horizon is maybe to apply this
technology to the swine industry and what better way to do it then then start
with the genetics company and and go from there. So that’s just kind of a
recap of where sorting was and kind of where it got to today. A little bit of an
advertisement for the 4M Ultra project but basically this is what I was talking
about that using the old technology they got about a 4 or 5 percent increase in
non-return rate on heifers which was great. They did manage to improve it some.
That’s at two million sperm per straw but as they
started to increase they found that at four million sperm per straw we
can pretty much equal or get very, very close to conventional frozen thawed non
sorted sperm cells at fifteen million. So that was really kind of the aspiration
from the beginning to someday get there. So to get close to that is really really
kind of amazing and it shows what’s possible and probably build some
confidence with people that not only does this technology work, I can get
really get pretty good performance with it. On par with what I could do
conventionally. So that’s very valuable. So a couple comments on how are sorted
sperm different. You saw a little bit of how the process looks. One thing that we
should talk about is that the removal of dead sperm and sperm with missing or
extra chromosomes. They don’t end up in the sorted sample. That’s a good thing. We
have a more homogeneous population of sperm which does make them different but
probably pay some dividends. What are the big stressors of the sorting process? Dilution. You have to dilute those cells out and spread them out a lot because
the goal is to get one sperm cell in every droplet that flows through that
machine. So you have to make a really massive dilution and boar sperm don’t
don’t like that dilution very much. So media and how you do it are key. The
other one is the pressure and sheer forces of forcing, you know, that stream
of droplets through the flow cytometer. That’s a big one of the stressors of the
process for sperm. And also, finally when you get to the end of the process you
need to centrifuge the sperm to concentrate them back down and make
doses. So those are the big stressors of the process. So what did they do to make
sperm cells compete better? They are kind of in a pseudo-capacitated state. They
don’t bind to the oviductal epithelium as well which is the sperm reservoir
where the sperm are thought to hang out and kind of wait for fertilization. So you
know insemination timing closer to ovulation gets better results and there
may be some other things that we can do to improve results. When I think about fertilization I kind of think of it as a three-way
interaction between what kind of sperm are you putting there, how many, what kind
of state are they in? What’s the fertility of the boar you’re using and
since we’re talking about sorting, some boar tolerate the sort process
better than others. So all those things are part of the sperm dose. The synchrony,
so that’s the timing. When you put the sperm in the animal, how much time do we
have till she ovulates and certainly we have some products available today to
help synchronize ovulation in swine. The site so that’s about where do you put
the sperm. Are you’re going to put them in the uterine body as we do today with
a PCAI or in uterine AI? Or are you going to put them further in the
reproductive tract and is that valuable for reducing the sperm dose? Finally, there may be some other factors related to the female that that we need
to study to understand how we can optimize this interaction. So to put it
in real basic terms, you know we can, these three things and their interaction may change based on how many sperm and the quality of sperm. We may be able to
make that up with some synchrony but really the sperm dose and what kind of
shape they’re in is kind of the king in this interaction. So to switch gears a
little bit why might we want to do this in in multiplication. We mentioned dairy
heifer replacement. We might want to do this in multiplication of gilts. Adding
gilts to a litter would sure be a nice thing. They have more value than a
market barrow surely in multiplication. And just using a base of a 12-pig litter,
we don’t do any sorting we get six gilts as we, what I’m showing over here
is the purity of the sort we mentioned 90 percent is certainly achievable;
90-plus and that would get us to a litter of 10.8 females in the
litter and adding almost 4.8 gilts 4 selects, and you can see
the value multiplied. So the point I wanted to make here is we may not need
to have 90 percent purity. It’s how many gilts do we need to add to that
litter and what’s their value and what’s the cost of doing that? So it may not
require 90 percent gilts. 70 or 80 percent adding 2 or 3 to the
litter may be a nice in-between. The final thing I wanted to make on this
slide was that the overall value of that kind of depends on your system and what
you do overall. If we could bring this on a large scale that might allow you to
reduce the number of sows you have in your multiplication system. Make more
gilts from a smaller footprint. You might focus on more efficient sites. Also,
another option might be to reduce your number of multiplication sows and then
there be some other options for what kind of advantages there might be there.
So it all sounds great. There’s some other reasons we might want to change or
other things that might be good about changing the sex ratio of the litter. There’s some evidence that androgen exposure when we have heavily dominated
male litters is not very good for replacement gilts. There’s also a sex
bias on kind of prenatal and postnatal growth and survival that gilts, female
placenta, are smaller than males. We also see that in the birth weights of the
pig. So when it comes down to stresses during gestation we see that boars are
more effective than gilts and interestingly there’s even some evidence
that preweaning mortality may be a bit greater for boars even independent of
castration. So male pigs, bigger placenta, bigger birth weight but not necessarily
better survival but clearly there’s some data to show that the mother and the sow
invest more in those pigs. Final one is more about finishing but we know that
barrows tend to grow a little less efficiently when they hit high body
weights and put on more fat and also we have this issue looming kind of
castration which has become a big issue in Europe. So some reasons why skewing
the sex ratio of litters might be important. How we’re using sex sperm
today in our nucleus herd and d-ends and multipliers in Saskatchewan
were our fastest pace. Just a quick, uh, the genetic change in deviations per year.
Delta G where does sex semen affect that? It affects it in selection intensity,
genomics, which a lot of people are using today, affects selection accuracy, and
finally down here on the bottom kind of, what are those things worth maybe on
maternal and terminal lines? How much boost in Delta G or the genetic change do we do
we get from that? So clearly you know control of sex in nucleus operations making
predominantly female or predominantly male litters in some cases could be
could be useful for genetic improvement. What kind of results can we get? Some
work from University of Mercy in Spain showing conventional 3 billion, deep
uterine insemination; 6 billion both with non-sorted sperm pretty comparable
results. But when they move to a surgical insemination with just 6 million sperm
and these are sorted sperm the level is okay, but this one here, I’m the negative
signs here I’m subtracting the top line from the bottom line so we have a little
bit of a loss of production. We would see something similar when we do work on
field trials that we’ve done very similar kind of thing. And we also see
that we get pretty good performance but not 100 percent of conventional. So
today we do maybe 30 to 35 sows per week with sexed semen in our herds. One
fixed time insemination about 4.4 to 4.5 billion sperm and
the results aren’t 100 percent of conventional. They’re around 20 to
25 percent lower on average. I’m going to skip this one but some
things we might be able to change to improve results. One would be identifying
boars that are more fertile. Certainly there’s some old data and this may be
not be from 2014 it may be older but for Flowers that certainly as we reduce the
dose, some boars have a pretty good decline in their
fecundity; others stay relatively flat. So clearly identifying more fertile boars
may be one way that we might be able to increase results with a low sperm dose. Synchronization: we do a lot of work
looking at time of ovulation. Looking at synchronization we’re blessed to have
some products on the market to do that. Probably the take home that I wanted to
get to you on this one is that we’d love it if every single cow ovulated exactly
40 hours after the treatment and everybody was in this category, but
there’s always some variation and that variation exists not because the
products don’t work. It’s because every sow is different and her status is
different. So there’s two ways we could approach that. One would be screening
animals and picking those that are going to be the best responders. The other way
we might approach it is by actually doing the work earlier in lactation to kind of even sows out and make them have a more
uniform response post-weaning. Side of deposition, which I mentioned as one of
the things, the three things that interact. So we’ve done some work looking
at deep insemination and one of the things kind of currently under
developing is can we design a catheter that we can get both up the right uterine
horn and up the left uterine horn. So this is ink deposition showing that you
didn’t get all the way to the end of the uterine horn but you did get in the left
and the right side and relatively far up the reproductive tract. So site of
deposition could be a tool to help us get to lower sperm doses. This is
actually from a couple different studies but it kind of shows you the trend of
what happens when you reduce sperm dose. So this is non-sorted sperm. One fixed-time AI on animals about 16 hours before ovulation. Conception rate in blue stays
relatively flat until you get kind of below 0.15, so that’s 150 million to 100 million sperm is where it starts to slope off. Then viable embryos,
these are animals that didn’t farrow but are about 25 to 30 days of gestation. What’s interesting there is that kind of starts to increase or decrease from the get-go
as you start to reduce sperm dose here. So we drove this all the way to 10
million sperm which is very low. Didn’t quite drive things to zero but
obviously varied when you put dairy cattle kind of
numbers of sperm into the uterus of sows you kind of get dairy cattle kind of
performance. But it’s not impossible. So here’s an animal that got ten million
sperm and somehow she has 7 embryos at day 25 to 30. So how
did that happen? Was that luck or was there something special about this sow? Is she hyperfertile? Is there something we can learn about her reproductive
history? She’s not alive anymore obviously but you know how did that
happen? Was that just an accident or was something more at work there. If we look
at the literature on sperm per dose from 2001 to 2017, these are all different
studies. Like colors mean that they’re from the same study. If they only had 2
sperm dose levels I went ahead and left it as black. But I wanted to just pile
all this data together even though some of these sows are synchronized, some of
them are bred multiple times on estrus the way we would do it in the industry. What we see is this hockey-stick of this asymptotic drop off. That when we
get down into this region here below 500 million sperm that’s where things really
start to drive to zero. So kind of encouraging that it’s this flat in this
area but this is the area we want to work in and understand better for sure. So what are the take-homes? Sorting works. You can change the sex ratio of litters. The sorting speed keeps getting faster and faster as we improve that technology
but that’s not really the big issue. It’s never going to be fast enough. We’ve got
to do things to get from billions to millions in terms of the size of our
dose. It may require advances in several areas. It also may require a real
revolutionary innovation so we’ve got some ideas about things that we need to
try to see if they’re difference makers. The obvious initial application would be
on multiplication gilts. The encouraging thing is the dairy industry has found a
way to get there. It took a little while but with 4 million sex sorted cells
they can basically equal the performance of a conventional dose. And if you put
those in numbers, it’s about a quarter of a dose, 4 versus 15, and they can get
pretty good reproductive performance. Today with sex sorted sperm in pigs or
maybe at a fifth of industry standard dose and we can get
around 75 to 80 percent of conventional performance, but it’s variable and we’d
obviously like to improve that. Some of the issues we can learn from the dairy
industry and probably make some of the same improvements they did. Some are
going to be pig specific issues we’re going to have to solve, but I think if we
keep making better sperm and find a way that we can get there and with that I’d
be happy to take any questions any of you might have. [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE] Do we have time, Matt, for a quick question? Sure. MODERATOR MATT SCHULTE: Any questions for Brad? [inaudible audience member] PRESENTER BRAD BELSTRA: Good question. So the question
was about as we, maybe in that big slide where I showed what happens over a big
continuum of reducing sperm dose, were they at the same volume? So the
answer is yes. With kind of the model we use there instead of making that
dilution in the dose which would change the concentration of sperm in the dose,
what we did is we basically used embryo transfer syringes to put
the semen in so the amount that was in the syringe would just get smaller and
smaller and smaller. And then we would chase that with extender at the same
temperature. So we’re kind of doing the dilution in the uterus of the sow
temporarily to equalize that volume back to one constant. So 20 mLs was the
constant for the deep insemination. So as we reduce the size of the dose, it’s
the same concentration just smaller volume of semen put in, we’d follow it up
with extender to get it back to an equal total volume. Does that make sense? That’s one way to do it there’s other ways you could do it. [inaudible audience member] Yeah, yeah that was kind of our model for
doing that. [inaudible audience member] PRESENTER BRAD BELSTRA: Sure. [inaudible audience member] PRESENTER BRAD BELSTRA: No that’s a that’s a really good comment and we think a lot about that. That we may never be able to get or it
may be very difficult to get to 100 percent of conventional and at
least for some of these genetic applications you, maybe you don’t need, to to derive that value. [inaudible audience member] PRESENTER BRAD BELSTRA: Yeah, it’s kind of an aspirational thing to
someday do kind of what the dairy industry has done. Is that if we could ever
get it you know all the way to conventional
then you’re kind of at a commercial application where anybody can do it. And, and, because we asked producers well we can add three gilts to your litters in
multiplication but you’re gonna have to give up two or three in total litter
size. You know what their reaction is gonna be, “That’s not what we want
Brad, we want the gilts and we don’t want you to change litter size and
farrowing rate. You know or could you at least give us 90% of what we have today.” So there’s a compromise that’s gonna have to be made there but yeah it’ll all come
down to value. Cost and value. But a very good comment. MODERATOR MATT SCHULTE: All right, we are pretty much out of time so let’s give Brad another round of applause. AUDIENCE APPLAUSE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *