Dr. Josh Flohr - Estimating the Impact of Floor Space Allowance on Late-Finishing Pig Performance

J. R. Flohr, PhD NutriQuest, Mason City, IA

Leman Conference September, 2016

Introduction• Kornegay and Notter (1983) were the first to develop

prediction equations for the effect of floor space on growth.

• Powell et al. (1993) published updated equations based on additional data from the NCR-89 committee (1993).

• Gonyou et al. (2006) developed floor space prediction equations for ADG and ADFI. Recognized as the most widely used predictor of floor space effects on pig growth.

Gonyou et al. 2006

Marketing Events• Increases in available resources for those pigs

remaining in pens (trough space, water space, floor space).

• Alterations in the social hierarchy of the pen.• Does removing the heaviest pig(s) change the social

hierarchy?

• Average BW is reduced and the variation in within pen BW is reduced as well.

Introduction

• Other social factors have been implicated with floor space as influencers of growth performance.• Group size (number of pigs per pen)• Feeder space• Water space (number of pigs per waterer)• Floor type• Genotype• Temperature• Gender

Database development• Data from both refereed and non-refereed publications

were included.• Studies evaluating floor space effects on growth

performance and papers evaluating floor space effects after pigs were removed from the pen.

• Inclusion criteria included:• Contained information on study length, initial BW, final BW, ADG,

ADFI, G:F, feeder space, water space, group size, and floor type.• Studies had to report SE or SD terms for treatment mean

estimates.

• Papers conducted in WF facilities were not included.

Papers Experiments EU, ADG EU, ADFI and G:FDatabase 30 40 112 107

Publication dates from 1983 to 2014

Predictor variables• k (0.016 to 0.052)• Floor space, m2 (0.21 to 1.39 m2)• Study length, d (10 to 133)• Initial BW, kg (18 to 118 kg)• Final BW, kg (45 to 141 kg)• Feeder space (pigs per feeder hole, 2 to 12)• Water space (pigs per waterer, 4 to 28)• Group size (pigs per pen, 3 to 52)• Floor type (totally slatted or partially slatted)• Gender

Final Models BICADG, g =337.57+(16,468 × k)-(237,350 × k2)-(3.1209 ×

Initial BW, kg)+(2.5690 × Final BW,

kg)+(71.6918 × k × Initial BW, kg)

1,183

ADFI, g =833.41+(24,785 × k)-(388,998 × k2)-(3.0027 ×

Initial BW, kg)+(11.2460 × Final BW,

kg)+(187.61 × k × Initial BW, kg)

1,317

G:F = Predicted ADG/Predicted ADFI 758

806813 816

807

828

847

750

800

850

0.60 0.65 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.70

ADG,

gComparing ADG across weight ranges

Space, m2:

25 to 80 kg 80 to 130 kg

Comparing ADFI effects across weight ranges

25 to 80 kg 80 to 130 kg

2202 2212 2216

2765 2805 2843

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

0.60 0.65 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.70

Pred

icte

d AD

FI, g

Comparing GF effects across weight ranges

25 to 80 kg 80 to 130 kg

0.366 0.367 0.368

0.292 0.295 0.298

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

0.60 0.65 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.70

Pred

icte

d G:

F

Conclusions

• Assembled a robust database with published papers spanning the last 31 years.

• General linear mixed models conclude that increasing kincreases ADG and ADFI, but with diminishing returns (k2); additionally ADG and ADFI are impacted by pig initial and final BW.

• G:F models fit their respective databases suggesting floor space does impact feed efficiency.

Intercept adjustment

• Discrepancies in health, genetics, and other environmental factors can influence growth.

• To adjust the prediction equations developed herein to specific farm performance the y-intercept can be adjusted by calculating the difference in predicted vs. actual growth at a known floor space allowance.

Space calculator (www.KSUswine.org)

Predicted Growth (240-300)Average pig wt at

Marketing,lbOverall Period 1 and 2

(240-300 lbs)240 260 ADG ADFI F/G

Pigs marketed, n0 0 1.87 6.53 3.490 2 1.91 6.63 3.470 4 1.97 6.75 3.430 6 2.03 6.88 3.392 0 1.94 6.68 3.442 2 1.99 6.79 3.412 4 2.05 6.93 3.38

J. R. Flohr1*, M. D. Tokach1, S. S. Dritz1, R. D. Goodband1, J. M. DeRouchey1, J. F. Patience2, and G. Gourley3

1Kansas State University, Manhattan2Iowa State University, Ames

3Gourley Research Group, LLC, Webster City, IA

This project was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no.

2014-68004-30336 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Objective

• Evaluate initial stocking density and marketing removal strategies on the growth of finishing pigs up to 310 lb.

• Validate the efficacy of Gonyou et al. (2006) and Flohr et al. (2015) prediction equations for the effects of floor space allowance on growth performance.

Materials and Methods

• A total of 1,092 pigs (PIC 359 × Genetiporc F25; initially 80.0 lb) were used in a 117-d study.

• Pigs were allotted to pens at weaning based on gender and at initiation of the study (approximately 8 wk postweaning) pens were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 experimental treatments in a generalized randomized block design.

Materials and Methods

• Experimental Treatments• 1. Initial floor space allowance of 9.8 ft2 (15 pigs/pen)

with no pigs removed until 310 lb (Pos Control).• 2. Initial floor space allowance of 7.0 ft2 (21 pigs/pen)

and 2 pigs removed on d 64, 76, and 95 (2:2:2).• 3. Initial floor space allowance of 7.0 ft2 (21 pigs/pen)

and 2 pigs removed on d 76 and 4 pigs removed on d 105 (2:4).

• 4. Initial floor space allowance of 7.0 ft2 (21 pigs/pen) and 6 pigs removed on d 105 (6).

Materials and Methods• For pens stocked at 9.8 ft2 (15 pigs per pen), 1 hole

per feeder was blocked providing linear trough space of 2.3 to 2.4 in/pig for all pigs.

• In case of removals from pens, front gates were adjusted to maintain the experimental floor space allowance.

• Pigs were fed common corn-soybean meal based diets with 20% DDGS and 3% added fat. Diets were fed in 4 consecutive phases and were formulated to meet or exceed NRC 2012 requirements.

TreatmentInitial floor space,

ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6

Day of studyd 64 --- 2 (10%) --- ---d 76 --- 2 (10%) 2 (10%) ---d 95 --- 2 (10%) --- ---d 105 --- --- 4 (20%) 6 (30%)d 117 15 15 15 15

Total pigs marketed 15 21 21 21

Timeline of marketing events

15 vs. 21 pigs per pen

15 21

Effect of initial stocking density and marketing strategy on ADG

floor space, ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6ADG, %d 0 to 64 100% 97% 95% 95%d 64 to 76 100% 101% 91% 95%d 76 to 95 100% 94% 90% 89%d 95 to 105 100% 107% 103% 87%d 105 to 117 100% 102% 105% 104%Bold values are periods following a marketing event

Effect of initial Stocking density and marketing strategy on ADFI

Bolded values are periods following a marketing event

Floor space, ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6

ADFI, %d 0 to 64 100% 95% 94% 95%d 64 to 76 100% 96% 92% 94%d 76 to 95 100% 93% 91% 93%d 95 to 105 100% 100% 97% 91%d 105 to 117 100% 95% 95% 93%

d 0 to 117 ADG, lb

2.04

1.99

1.951.92

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0

--- 2:2:2 2:4 6

ADG

, lb

SEM = 0.02a

a,b

b,c

c

Space, ft2:

Marketing strategy:

d 0 to 117 ADFI, lb

5.69

5.28 5.26 5.28

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0

--- 2:2:2 2:4 6

ADFI

, lb

SEM = 0.05a

b bb

Space, ft2:

Marketing strategy:

d 0 to 117 F/G

2.79

2.65

2.70

2.75

2.60

2.75

2.90

9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0

--- 2:2:2 2:4 6

F/G

SEM = 0.02c

a

a,b

b,c

Space, ft2:

Marketing strategy:

Average BW of pigs marketed, kgTreatment

Floor space, ft2 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6

BW, lbd 64 --- 236.1 --- ---d 76 --- 253.5 264.9 ---d 95 --- 288.9 --- ---d 105 --- --- 309.5 308.5d 117 319.3 305.1 298.7 297.6

Weighted average 319.3a 291.6c 297.4b,c 301.1b

a,b within row, P < 0.05

d 0 to 117 Adjusted F/G

2.75 2.742.77

2.79

2.60

2.75

2.90

9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0

--- 2:2:2 2:4 6

Adju

sted

F/G

SEM = 0.02

Space, ft2:

Marketing strategy:

CV of BW within penTreatment

Floor space, ft2 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6

d 0 16 15 15 14d 64 (Before) 13 11 12 12d 64 (After) --- 10 --- ---d 76 (Before) 12 9 11 11d 76 (After) --- 9 10 ---d 95 (Before) 10 8 9 9d 95 (After) --- 7 --- ---d 105 (Before) 9 7 8 9D 105 (After) --- --- 7 7d 117 9 7 7 7

Economic FactorsTreatment

Floor space, ft2: 9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0Marketing strategy: --- 2:2:2 2:4 6

Fixed inventory: 15 21 21 21 SEMTotal wt gain/pen, lb 3,534a 4,479a 4,592a 4,578a 60Total wt gain/pig, lb 243a 220c 227b,c 231b 2Feed usage/pen, lb 10,003c 11,793b 12,271a 12,271a 102Feed usage/pig, lb 667a 562c 584b 602b 5Morbidity & Mortality, % 2.9 2.9 3.6 5.4 1.3

Economic Assumptions

Fixed inventory/penFixed Yield= 75.0%

Average diet cost = $0.10 or $0.13/lb($4.00 vs $7.00 corn)

Facility cost= $0.11/7.0ft2/dayBase carcass price of $0.60 or $0.80/lb

Premium/discount, $/Cwt, kg = 0.00012*HCW, kg3 –0.0517*HCW, kg2 + 6.39716*HCW, kg – 257.5824

152

391 399 386

0100200300400500

--- 2:2:2 2:4 6

9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0

IOFF

C, $

/Pen

Low Revenue, High Feed Cost

452

745 767 765

300400500600700800

--- 2:2:2 2:4 6

9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0

IOFF

C, $

/Pen

Low Revenue, Low Feed Cost

690

1,059 1,083 1,082

600700800900

10001100

--- 2:2:2 2:4 6

9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0

IOFF

C, $

/Pen

High Revenue, High Feed Cost

990

1,412 1,451 1,461

900

1100

1300

1500

--- 2:2:2 2:4 6

9.8 7.0 7.0 7.0

IOFF

C, $

/Pen

High Revenue, Low Feed Cost

• Alleviating stocking density pressure by marketing pigs prior to dumping the barn may be a helpful tool to increase revenue due to feed savings and improved performance of pigs remaining in the pen.

• In this study, it appeared that the use of one or two marketing points were the most economically relevant strategies.

• However, additional labor and transport cost should be considered with the additional marketing points.

Conclusions