dr. john patience - growth and development implications of marketing pigs at heavier weights

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS OF MARKETING PIGS AT HEAVIER WEIGHTS

John F. PatienceApplied Swine NutritionDept. of Animal Science

Iowa State University

http://www.varkensenzo.nl/EN/index.php?file_id=11


Tremendous Industry Success

• In 1975, the average sow produced 1,585 lb pork per year).

• In 2009, the average sow produced 4,004 lb pork/yr


Tremendous Industry Success

• In 1975, the average sow produced 1,585 lb pork per year).


• Litter size increased by 40% to 9.62 pigs/litter

• Market wt. increased by 12% to 271 lb


Tremendous Industry Success• In 1975, the average sow produced 1,585 lb pork per year).


• In 2009, the U.S. produced 23.02 billion lb of pork, from about 5.8 million sows.

• Using 1975 productivity, it would require 14.5 million sows, an increase of 8.7 million, to produce 2009 quantities of pork

• At an average sow feed cost of $336/sow/yr, the added cost of these sows – just for feed – would be $2.95 billion per year, adding $26 to the cost of each pig sold.


WORLD’S BIGGEST HOG!


WORLD’S BIGGEST HOG!

FAKE!!


THE ULTIMATE HEAVY HOG: PROSCIUTTO HAM – 160 KG LIVEWEIGHT (355 LB)


CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG LIVE WEIGHTS

19741976

19781980

19821984

19861988

19901992

19941996

19982000

20022004

20062008

2010210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

Live

wt.,

lb

NPB, 2012


DRESSED WEIGHTS BY NATION, 2010

Australi

a

Mexic

oChina

Japan

United Kingd

omSp

ain

France

Canad

aUSA

Netherla

nds

German

yBraz

il0

50

100

150

200

250

Dre

ssed

wt.,

lb

FAOSTAT, 2012


CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG DRESSED WEIGHTS

19771979

19811983

19851987

19891991

19931995

19971999

20012003

20052007

20092011

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

Dre

ssed

wt.,

lb

NPB, 2012


CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG WEIGHTS DRESSING PERCENT

19771979

19811983

19851987

19891991

19931995

19971999

20012003

20052007

20092011

68.0

69.0

70.0

71.0

72.0

73.0

74.0

75.0

76.0

Dre

ssin

g pe

rcen

t

NPB, 2012


CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG WEIGHTS DRESSING PERCENT

19771979

19811983

19851987

19891991

19931995

19971999

20012003

20052007

20092011

68.0

69.0

70.0

71.0

72.0

73.0

74.0

75.0

76.0

Dre

ssin

g pe

rcen

t

NPB, 2012

?


INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES

• Impact on unit costs– Packer– Breeding herd



• Impact on unit costs• Supported by:– Rapid improvement in genetics– Evolution of feeding program design and implementation – Increasing growth rates– Feed additives



• Impact on unit costs• Supported by genetics, nutrition & management• Marginal cost of additional weight– Feed cost– Floor and feeder space– Trucking capacity



• Impact on unit costs• Supported by genetics, nutrition & management• Marginal cost of additional weight• Acceptance by marketplace– Fabrication of new pork products?– Fabricating of existing pork products in different ways?



• Impact on unit costs• Supported by genetics, nutrition & management• Marginal cost of additional weight• Acceptance by marketplace• Understanding the biology of the pig

• Body composition• Growth rate• Feed efficiency


INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES• Positive impact on unit costs

– Packer– Breeding herd

• Supported by:– Rapid improvement in genetics– Evolution of feeding program design and implementation – Increasing growth rates

• Marginal cost of additional weight– Feed cost– Floor and feeder space– Trucking capacity

• Acceptance by marketplace– New product development?

• Understanding the biology of the pig– Impact of market weight on

• Body composition• Growth rate• Feed efficiency


CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY COMPOSITION AS THE PIG GROWS

45 70 140 210 275 3250%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ash Protein Water Fat

Live weight, lb

Perc

ent o

f em

pty

body

Source: Landgraf et al., 2006


CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY PROTEIN CONTENT AS THE PIG GROWS

45 70 140 210 275 32502468

1012141618202224262830

15.917.3 17.2 16.6 16.1 15.9

Live weight, lb

Perc

ent o

f em

pty

body



CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY FAT CONTENT AS THE PIG GROWS

45 70 140 210 275 3250

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

7.08.4

17.4

21.522.9

29.8Protein Fat

Live weight, lb

Perc

ent o

f em

pty

body



CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY FAT AND WATER CONTENT AS THE PIG GROWS

45 70 140 210 275 3250

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

7.0 8.4

17.421.5 22.9

29.8

74.07 71.33

62.3558.9 60.7

52.87

Fat Water

Live weight, lb

Perc

ent o

f em

pty

body



MASS OF COMPONENTS OF EMPTY BODY WEIGHT IN BARROWS FROM 55 TO 335 KG

Series10.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

Protein, lb Lipid, lb Moisture, lb Ash, lb

Live weight, lb

Com

pone

nt w

eigh

t, lb

55 99 141 185 220 251 284 335

Source: Wagner et al., 1999


GROWTH CURVE FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2975

125

175

225

275

325

ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb ME = 1.3 Mcal/lb

Week

Wei

ght,

lb

Source: PIC, undated


ME INTAKE FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2935

40

45

50

55

60

65

70ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb ME = 1.3 Mcal/lb

Week

ME,

Mca

l/w

k



DAILY GAIN FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 291.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0 ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb ME = 1.3 Mcal/lb

Week

AD

G, l

b/d

~180 lb ~235 lb



FEED EFFICIENCY FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 292.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50 ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb ME = 1.3 Mcal/lb

Week

Feed

Con

vers

ion Mean = 3.14

Mean = 2.85



PERFORMANCE OF 4 GENDERS ON TEST FOR 98 DAYS FROM 75 LB

Gilts Barrows Boars Vaccinated Boars

SEM

Initial wt., lb 86.6a 86.4a 87.9b 87.9b 0.009

Final wt., lb 305.7c 313.0bc 334.8a 325.1ab 0.002

ADG, lb 2.31b 2.36b 2.60a 2.53a 0.004

ADF, lb 6.41c 6.96a 6.46b 6.70ab 0.066

Feed:gain 2.64b 2.76a 2.36d 2.50c 0.036

Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P < 0.05

Source: Elsbernd et al., 2012


CONCLUSIONS

1. The trend to heavier market weights is encouraged by reducing unit costs, is possible due to genetics, nutrition and management but will influence many aspects of production (see next presentation)

2. While live and dressed weights have increased more or less linearly since 1978, dressing percent has flattened over the past 5 years

3. As weight increases, % protein changes in a small way, but fat and water change substantially – and in different directions. Actual changes depend on genotype.


CONCLUSIONS

4. As weight increases, rate of gain declines after reaching a peak between 180 and 240 lb, energy intake increases but at a declining rate and feed conversion rises (get worse) in an essentially linear fashion.

5. Current market conditions of high feed costs and low market prices will put pressure on market weights, but this will change over time

dr. john patience - growth and development implications of marketing pigs at heavier weights

Documents

lbiowa state universitysource

market weights

pig impact of market

lbiowa state university

live weight

average sow feed cost

market hog dressedweights

issues impact