I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science U.S. 2007 – 2012 Pork Industry Productivity Analysis C. E. Abell 1, C. Hostetler 2, and K. J. Stalder.

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYDepartment of Animal Science

U.S. 2007 – 2012 Pork Industry Productivity Analysis

C. E. Abell1, C. Hostetler2, and K. J. Stalder1

1Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3150 andNational Pork Board, Des Moines, IA 50325

2013 Swine Educators In-ServiceAtlanta, GA

October 2nd, 2013


Data Description

Production data obtained from a large U.S. data record keeping organizationAgreement with the National Pork Board to share limited

information.Uses: 1. Quantify the annual production levels and variation

associated for several key productivity indicators

2. Establish industry benchmarks for all swine production phases Breeding herd Nursery Wean – to – finish Conventional finishing


Data Description

Production data obtained from a large U.S. data record keeping organizationAgreement with the National Pork Board to share limited

information.Uses: 3. Quantify seasonal affects associated with the key productivity

indicators

4. Identify research opportunities that would improve the U.S. pork industry production efficiency


Data description

Statistical process Industry Trends

Raw means and standard deviations were used

Seasonality evaluationLinear model was used

Fixed effects Company Month Year

Covariates – for nursery, grow-finish, and wean-to-finish Start age Start days Days in facility

Covariates – Sow farm Weaning age


Data description cont’

Data (records) reported monthly for each production phaseNursery and finishing data –

Monthly averages are based on animals exiting the facility that month

Sow farm data –Monthly averages are based on litters weaned in that month


Table 1. Number of companies and farms used in analysis for each facility type by year.a

Year Conventional Finisher Wean-to-Finish Nursery Sow

2007 Companies 29 17 29 31 Farms 849 251 398 507 2008 Companies 46 23 41 39 Farms 1339 385 719 708 2009 Companies 49 20 41 40 Farms 1376 334 679 683 2010 Companies 43 19 36 33 Farms 1350 527 571 526 2011 Companies 44 21 35 33 Farms 1382 775 594 564 2012 Companies 50 28 45 40 Farms 1744 830 796 766 aMore than one farm can be managed by the same company. A farm represents a single production site.


Company / farm summary

Increase in the number of companies and farms represented Tremendous increase in the data volume evaluatedResults in improved information and interpretations that

can be made

Companies becoming much more data driven in their decision making process


Company / farm summary

Grow-finish and wean-to-finish becoming farms becoming more like their sow farm counterparts Farm level decisions much more data driven

Continue greater use of data when guiding company decision process regarding: EmployeeFinancialHealthNutritionalGeneticSome combination


Use the Data to Benchmark

Compare with other businessesWithin speciesAcross species

Compare herd performanceWithin companyWithin countryEtc.

Set goals for improving herdFor a specific trait or several traits


Overall Averages


Key productivity indicators

Sow farm KPIsPigs/mated sow/ yearLitters/mated sow/yearTotal bornStill born and mummiesNumber born aliveNumber weanedPre-weaning mortality %Weaning weightWeaning age


Key productivity indicators cont’

Nursery KPIsNursery mortality %Nursery out weightDays in nurseryNursery feed conversion


Key productivity indicators cont’

Conventional finishers and wean-to-finish facilities KPIsFinisher (wean-to-finish) mortality %Finishing weightDays in finisher (wean-to-finish)Finisher feed conversion (wean-to-finish)


Key Productivity Indicator Averages

Means and standard deviations across all farms and operations.Sow, nursery, wean-to-finish, and conventional grow-

finish data

Developed to examine yearly trends across the U.S. Swine industry.

Operations can compare one or a number of KPIs to see if they are above or below average


Table 2. Conventional finisher average (±standard deviation) productivity from 2007 to 2012a

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Percent Mortality 6.98 (±5.61) 6.29 (±4.60) 5.12 (±3.44) 4.70 (±3.05) 4.48 (±2.49) 5.03 (±3.30) Finishing Weight (lbs) 260.1 (±17.0) 261.2 (±16.1) 265.0 (±14.9) 268.7 (±13.4) 271.5 (±12.8) 269.2 (±14.1) Days in Finisher 124.2 (±11.0) 125.7 (±11.0) 124.3 (±11.4) 124.6 (±10.3) 122.7 (±9.7) 121.5 (±10.8) Average Daily Gain (lbs) 1.71 (±0.16) 1.69 (±0.16) 1.75 (±0.15) 1.76 (±0.14) 1.81 (±0.14) 1.81 (±0.15) Feed Conversionb 2.75 (±0.26) 2.82 (0.32) 2.76 (±0.27) 2.77 (±0.25) 2.71 (±0.24) 2.68 (±0.23) aAll farms were given equal weighting. bFeed conversion is defined as feed to gain.


Table 3. Wean-to-finish average (±standard deviation) productivity from 2007 to 2012a

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Percent Mortality 8.25 (±4.64) 7.92 (±4.91) 7.61 (±4.79) 6.30 (±3.55) 6.33 (±3.96) 6.39 (±4.79) Finishing Weight (lbs) 262.2 (±12.5) 261.7 (±12.5) 264.2 (±11.0) 270.5 (±13.5) 273.6 (±12.8) 270.1 (±12.9) Days in Finisher 161.5 (±10.8) 162.5 (±11.4) 164.2 (±10.7) 167.9 (±10.3) 166.4 (±9.0) 164.3 (±9.9) Average Daily Gain (lbs) 1.55 (±0.12) 1.54 (±0.13) 1.54 (±0.11) 1.54 (±0.11) 1.57 (±0.10) 1.57 (±0.11) Feed Conversionb 2.52 (±0.17) 2.51 (±0.17) 2.54 (±0.18) 2.52 (±0.20) 2.50 (±0.20) 2.50 (±0.18) aAll farms were given equal weighting. bFeed conversion is defined as feed to gain.


Table 4. Nursery average (±standard deviation) productivity from 2007 to 2012a

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Percent Mortality 4.42 (±4.12) 5.82 (±5.71) 4.68 (±4.41) 4.12 (±3.62) 4.32 (±4.32) 3.80 (±3.01) Exit Weight 48.0 (±7.5) 49.0 (±9.2) 49.4 (±8.4) 50.7 (±9.1) 50.3 (±9.3) 50.7 (±8.4) Days in Nursery 47.1 (±5.0) 47.4 (±6.8) 46.2 (±5.4) 46.2 (±5.5) 46.0 (±6.1) 46.0 (±5.1) Average Daily Gain (lbs) 0.76 (±0.12) 0.78 (±0.14) 0.80 (±0.13) 0.82 (±0.14) 0.81 (±0.14) 0.82 (±0.13) Feed Conversionb 1.51 (±0.23) 1.54 (±0.30) 1.53 (±0.29) 1.52 (±0.28) 1.53 (±0.25) 1.48 (±0.19) aAll farms were given equal weighting. bFeed conversion is defined as feed to gain.


Table 5. Sow farm average (±standard deviation) productivity from 2007 to 2012a

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pigs/Mated Sow/Year 22.6 (±2.8) 22.8 (±2.9) 23.2 (±3.0) 23.5 (±2.7) 24.1 (±3.1)

23.9 (±2.8)

Litters/Mated Sow/Year 2.36 (±0.22) 2.35 (±0.23) 2.34 (±0.21) 2.33 (±0.20) 2.33 (±0.22) 2.31 (±0.22) Total Born 12.3 (±0.9) 12.5 (±0.9) 12.8 (±0.9) 13.0 (±1.0) 13.4 (±1.1) 13.4 (±1.0) Stillborn and Mummies 1.19 (±0.42) 1.23 (±0.49) 1.20 (±0.46) 1.22 (±0.48) 1.24 (±0.49) 1.17 (±0.46) Number Born Alive 11.1 (±0.8) 11.3 (±0.8) 11.6 (±0.9) 11.8 (±0.9) 12.1 (±1.0) 12.3 (±0.9) Number Weaned 9.5 (±0.7) 9.7 (±0.7) 9.9 (±0.8) 10.0 (±0.7) 10.2 (±0.7) 10.3 (±0.7) Pre-weaning Mortality % 14.2 (±5.6) 14.2 (±5.5) 14.5 (±5.6) 14.6 (±5.8) 15.5 (±5.9) 15.5 (±5.7) Weaning Weight (lbs) 12.3 (±1.3) 12.4 (±1.3) 12.8 (±1.5) 13.0 (±1.4) 13.1 (±1.4) 13.2 (±1.6) Weaning Age (d) 19.5 (±1.7) 19.7 (±1.8) 20.5 (±2.0) 20.8 (±2.1) 20.9 (±2.5) 21.5 (±2.8) aAll farms were given equal weighting.


Overall data summary

Finishing mortality has declined over time while market weight has continued to increase Improving mortality by 2% for a 1000 hd. finishing facility

would be equivalent to adding $3,240 each barn turn assuming 270 lb. market hog and $60/cwt.

Days in the finisher have remained relatively constant over timeAverage daily gain has increased slightly over time

Feed conversion has improved slightly across both finishing facility types


Overall data summary cont’

Nursery performance has change little across the reporting time period

Pigs/mated sow/ year has increased by almost 2 pigs from 2007 to 2012.

Litters/mated sow/year has changed little during the time periodMost of the improvement in PSY is a result of improved

litter sizeSome of the PSY increase is greater stillborns and

mummiesNumber weaned has increased by 0.8 pigs


Overall data summary cont’

Percent pre-weaning mortality has increased.Represents lost opportunityEasy to improve??

Weaning age has increased by 2 days from 2007 to 2012. Weaning weight has increased by 1 lb.


Plots of Averages


Description of figures

Figures 1 -24 graphically depict the change for the top 25%, overall, and bottom 25% for each KPI for the 2007 to 2012 time period.Top 25% represented by red linesOverall average represented by black linesBottom 25% represented by blue lines

More easily view the rate of change for each KPI across the 2007 to 2012 time period










Figure summary

KPIs are changing at the same direction for all three groups Each group slope or rate of change may slightly differ

Examples:1. Litter size averages have increased at almost the same

rate across the top 25%, overall average, and bottom 25%.

Litter size limit not reached yet for any group


Seasonality Estimates


Seasonality graph description

Least squares means were used to obtain the month estimates using the model previously described.




Seasonality graph

Graphs clearly show the months when decreased performance occurs for each KPI

Decreased performance represents substantial productivity and economic losses for the US swine industry

Identifying causes and methods to mitigate seasonality effects on the KPIs would have a large economic impact on the entire swine industry.


Summary The US swine industry has been successful at

improving production efficiency Some traits (mortality) still represent future opportunities

Increasing the pounds of pork produced in a given period of time and reduced finishing mortality has improved finishing throughput.

Combining improved litter size and pounds of pork produced, the throughput of the US swine industry has increased as a whole.


Summary Key productivity indicator trait improvements may be

the result of – Better genetics Improved health Superior management Other

The results from this analysis can be used to determine when management practices need to be improved and/or maintained to ensure optimal performance level for each swine production phase.


Thank you for your time and attention !

Do you have any questions or comments?

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science U.S. 2007 – 2012 Pork Industry Productivity Analysis C. E. Abell 1, C. Hostetler 2, and K. J. Stalder.

Documents

finish slide

process slide

month slide

average slide

combination slide

data volume

conventional finishing

conventional grow finish