dr. ken stalder - pork industry productivity analysis

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYDepartment of Animal Science

U.S. 2008 – 2013 Pork Industry Productivity Analysis

J. Stock1, C. E. Abell1, C. Hostetler2, and K. J. Stalder1

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

2014 Pork AcademyDes Moines, IAJune 4, 2014


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

2008 Companies 46 23 41 39 Farms 1339 385 719 7082009 Companies 49 20 41 40 Farms 1376 334 679 6832010 Companies 43 19 36 33 Farms 1350 527 571 5262011 Companies 44 21 35 33 Farms 1382 775 594 5642012 Companies 50 28 45 40 Farms 1744 830 796 7662013 Companies 44 26 41 45 Farms 1561 886 616 774aMore 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


Benchmarking - Why do it?

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 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 2008 to 2013a

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Percent Mortality 6.29 (±4.60) 5.12 (±3.44) 4.70 (±3.05) 4.48 (±2.49) 5.03 (±3.30) 5.04 (±3.07) Finishing Weight (lbs) 261.2 (±16.1) 265.0 (±14.9) 268.7 (±13.4) 271.5 (±12.8) 269.2 (±14.1) 272.1 (±17.2) Days in Finisher 125.7 (±11.0) 124.3 (±11.4) 124.6 (±10.3) 122.7 (±9.7) 121.5 (±10.8) 122.8 (±13.0) Average Daily Gain (lbs) 1.69 (±0.16) 1.75 (±0.15) 1.76 (±0.14) 1.81 (±0.14) 1.81 (±0.15) 1.81 (±0.16) Feed Conversionb 2.82 (0.32) 2.76 (±0.27) 2.77 (±0.25) 2.71 (±0.24) 2.68 (±0.23) 2.66 (±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 2008 to 2013a

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Percent Mortality 7.92 (±4.91) 7.61 (±4.79) 6.30 (±3.55) 6.33 (±3.96) 6.39 (±4.79) 6.88 (±4.66) Finishing Weight (lbs) 261.7 (±12.5) 264.2 (±11.0) 270.5 (±13.5) 273.6 (±12.8) 270.1 (±12.9) 274.0 (±14.5) Days in Finisher 162.5 (±11.4) 164.2 (±10.7) 167.9 (±10.3) 166.4 (±9.0) 164.3 (±9.9) 165.3 (±10.4) Average Daily Gain (lbs) 1.54 (±0.13) 1.54 (±0.11) 1.54 (±0.11) 1.57 (±0.10) 1.57 (±0.11) 1.58 (±0.11) Feed Conversionb 2.51 (±0.17) 2.54 (±0.18) 2.52 (±0.20) 2.50 (±0.20) 2.50 (±0.18) 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 2008 to 2013a

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Percent Mortality 5.82 (±5.71) 4.68 (±4.41) 4.12 (±3.62) 4.32 (±4.32) 3.80 (±3.01) 3.87 (±3.38) Exit Weight 49.0 (±9.2) 49.4 (±8.4) 50.7 (±9.1) 50.3 (±9.3) 50.7 (±8.4) 50.9 (±8.7) Days in Nursery 47.4 (±6.8) 46.2 (±5.4) 46.2 (±5.5) 46.0 (±6.1) 46.0 (±5.1) 45.4 (±5.7) Average Daily Gain (lbs) 0.78 (±0.14) 0.80 (±0.13) 0.82 (±0.14) 0.81 (±0.14) 0.82 (±0.13) 0.83 (±0.13) Feed Conversionb 1.54 (±0.30) 1.53 (±0.29) 1.52 (±0.28) 1.53 (±0.25) 1.48 (±0.19) 1.48 (±0.18) aAll farms were given equal weighting. bFeed conversion is defined as feed to gain.


Table 5. Sow farm average (±standard deviation) productivity from 2008 to 2013a

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

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

23.9 (±2.9) 23.7 (±4.3)

Litters/Mated Sow/Year 2.35 (±0.23) 2.34 (±0.21) 2.33 (±0.20) 2.33 (±0.22) 2.31 (±0.22) 2.30 (±0.26) Total Born 12.5 (±0.9) 12.8 (±0.9) 13.0 (±1.0) 13.4 (±1.1) 13.4 (±1.0) 13.6 (±1.1) Stillborn and Mummies 1.23 (±0.49) 1.20 (±0.46) 1.22 (±0.48) 1.24 (±0.49) 1.17 (±0.46) 1.14 (±0.42) Number Born Alive 11.3 (±0.8) 11.6 (±0.9) 11.8 (±0.9) 12.1 (±1.0) 12.3 (±0.9) 12.4 (±1.0) Number Weaned 9.7 (±0.7) 9.9 (±0.8) 10.0 (±0.7) 10.2 (±0.7) 10.3 (±0.7) 10.2 (±1.3) Pre-weaning Mortality % 14.2 (±5.5) 14.5 (±5.6) 14.6 (±5.8) 15.5 (±5.9) 15.5 (±5.7) 17.3 (±10.9) Weaning Weight (lbs) 12.4 (±1.3) 12.8 (±1.5) 13.0 (±1.4) 13.1 (±1.4) 13.2 (±1.6) 13.4 (±1.7) Weaning Age (d) 19.7 (±1.8) 20.5 (±2.0) 20.8 (±2.1) 20.9 (±2.5) 21.5 (±2.8) 21.9 (±2.9) aAll farms were given equal weighting.


Overall data summary

Finishing mortality has declined over timeAcross all data conventional finishing mortality was

similar in 2012 and 2013 Wean –to- finish mortality increased slightly in the same

time period - initial effects of PED??

Market weight continues to increase Increased by 4 pounds in both conventional finishing

269.2 lbs. (2012) and 272.1 (2013) and wean – to - finish summaries 270.1 lbs. (2012) to 274.0 lbs. (2013).

Days in the finisher has remained relatively constant over last 3 to 4 years


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 2008 to 2013.

Pigs/mated sow/ year was essentially the same between 2012 and 2013.No improvement since 2011Why ?? First signs of PED??

Again, litters/mated sow/year has changed little during the time period


Overall data summary cont’

Percent pre-weaning mortality has increased. Increased in 2013 to 17.3% from 15.5% in 2012

Early signs of PED??

Represents lost opportunityEasy to improve??

Weaning age has increased by 2 days from 2008 to 2013. 19.7 days in 2008 to 21.9 days in 2013 Weaning weight has increased by 2 lb.


Table descriptions

Tables 6-9 and 14-17 have the average and standard deviation for each key productivity indicator by top 10% and bottom 25% of farms in each production stage, respectively.

Farms in each percentile were determined for each KPIFarms in each percentile were not the same for each

production indicator

The top and bottom were defined as desirable or undesirable for each trait (rather than higher or lower)


Top 10%


Top 10% summary

Separate out to understand performance levels attained by the very best operations for each KPI.

Demonstrates at least what potential is

Top 10% farms pigs/mated sow/ year was 28.5Where are the 30 PSY herdsDemonstrates how difficult it is to achieve and sustain

the outstanding performance for any of the KPIs

Recognize that top performance can contribute to reduced trait variation


Top 10% summary

Performance is what sets producers / operations apartReduced variation can also be important

Caution – by definition variation (standard deviation) should be smaller when the overall group is divided into subgroups.

– variation or standard deviation more comparable when

comparing two subclasses with each other.


Table 6. Conventional finisher average (±standard deviation) productivity from 2008 to 2013 for farms in the top 10% for each production indicatora

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013



Table 7. Wean-to-finish average (±standard deviation) productivity from 2008 to 2013 for farms in the top 10% for each production indicatora

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013



Table 8. Nursery average (±standard deviation) productivity from 2008 to 2013 for farms in the top 10% for each production indicatora

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Percent Mortality 1.06 (±0.36) 0.93 (±0.31) 0.95 (±0.34) 0.91 (±0.31) 0.94 (±0.28) 0.84 (±0.29) Exit Weight 68.7 (±8.5) 66.1 (±7.4) 68.5 (±9.1) 69.0 (±9.4) 65.8 (±4.2) 66.1 (±5.9) Days in Nursery 36.6 (±3.9) 37.3 (±3.4) 38.3 (±3.9) 35.8 (±4.2) 36.3 (±3.3) 34.8 (±3.9) Average Daily Gain (lbs) 1.05 (±0.11) 1.05 (±0.08) 1.09 (±0.09) 1.08 (±0.11) 1.04 (±0.06) 1.07 (±0.09) Feed Conversionb 1.07 (±0.19) 1.11 (±0.18) 1.08 (±0.21) 1.16 (±0.15) 1.16 (±0.16) 1.18 (±0.16) aAll farms were given equal weighting. bFeed conversion is defined as feed to gain.


Table 9. Sow farm average (±standard deviation) productivity from 2008 to 2013 for farms in the top 10% for each production indicatora

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Pigs/Mated Sow/Year 27.5 (±1.4) 27.6 (±1.2) 27.7 (±1.2) 29.2 (±3.1) 28.5 (±2.0) 29.5 (±3.9) Litters/Sow/Year 2.71 (±0.14) 2.67 (±0.13) 2.64 (±0.14) 2.69 (±0.17) 2.65 (±0.11) 2.74 (±0.24) Total Born 14.1 (±0.7) 14.2 (±0.4) 14.7 (±0.5) 15.3 (±0.6) 15.1 (±0.4) 15.3 (±0.9) Stillborn and Mummies 0.59 (±0.14) 0.60 (±0.12) 0.62 (±0.10) 0.61 (±0.11) 0.55 (±0.13) 0.50 (±0.14) Number Born Alive 12.6 (±0.3) 12.9 (±0.4) 13.3 (±0.5) 13.9 (±0.6) 13.8 (±0.4) 14.0 (±0.8) Number Weaned 10.9 (±0.3) 11.0 (±0.3) 11.2 (±0.4) 11.4 (±0.3) 11.5 (±0.3) 11.7 (±0.3) Pre-weaning Mortality % 5.2 (±3.4) 5.8 (±2.9) 4.6 (±4.3) 5.8 (±2.2) 5.6 (±3.5) 5.4 (±2.9) Weaning Weight (lbs) 14.9 (±1.5) 15.7 (±0.9) 15.5 (±1.1) 15.5 (±0.7) 16.2 (±0.8) 16.7 (±0.9) Weaning Age (d) 22.9 (±1.3) 24.7 (±1.3) 24.9 (±1.1) 25.4 (±1.4) 27.0 (±1.6) 27.8 (±1.8) aAll farms were given equal weighting.


Top 10% summary

Separate out to understand performance levels attained by the very best operations for each KPI.

Demonstrates at least what potential is

Recognize that top performance can contribute to reduced trait variation


Top 10% summary

Represents above average performance for each KPI.

Does not describe the relationship with other KPIs and ability to maintain all at top 10%.

Can use this to establish goals for certain KPIsBe sure that when setting goals they are attainable and

are achievable in a reasonable time frame.Realistic if you are in the bottom 25% to expect top 10%

performance within 6 months of establish new goalsGoals that are set too high are not seen as incentives by barn

workers


Top 10% Summary cont’

HighlightsConventional market weight tops 300lbs for top 10% for

the first time in 2013Same value for wean-to-finish was 297 in 2013

Days to market, ADG, and Feed Conversion essentially unchanged from 2008 through 2013 in conventional and wean-to-finishing operations

Nursery performance KPIs similar from 2012-2013Pigs per mated female per year reached 29.5 in the top

10% in 2013Pre-weaning mortality remains just above 5% for 2013


Bottom 25%


Comparison of Top 10% vs Bottom 25%

Conventional Finishing Huge difference in mortality Top 10% < 2% vs Bottom 25% >10%

average across 6 yearsBottom 25% moving in right direction in recent years

Below 9% 3 most recent years

Bottom 25% sell at much light weight than Top 10%Bottom 25% 254.2 vs Top 10% 298.7Net 46 lb. difference at 0.84$/lb. live results in 38.64 for every pig

marketed in additional gross income Bottom 25% have more days in the finisher than the Top 10%

Bottom 25% = 140 vs. Top 10% = 103 Indicates the bottom 25% growing slower 1.56 vs. 2.00 lbs.

Top 10% has much better feed conversion when compared to the bottom 25%.Top 10% 2.37 vs. Bottom 25% 3.08


Comparison of Top 10% vs. Bottom 25%

Wean-to-Finish Finishing Early years data may be biased due to small sample number Huge difference in mortality Top 10% 2.5% vs. Bottom 25% >12%

average across 6 years Finishing weight Top 10% 288 lbs. vs. Bottom 25% 251 lbs. Bottom 25% averaged over 3 week more days in the finisher

Top 10% 147.1 vs. Bottom 25% 177.5Consequently ADG differed between the groups

Bottom 25% 1.62 vs. Top 10% at 2.10 Top 10% feed conversion was 2.34 while the bottom 25% was 2.98



NurseryAgain substantial mortality differences

Top 10% less than 1% (0.84) Bottom 25% 7.90 %Top 10% nursery exit weight 66.1 lbs. while the Bottom 25%

was 39.9 lbs.Days in the Nursery Top 10% 34.8 vs. Bottom 25% 51.7Nursery Average Daily Gain Top 10% 1.07 lbs. /d vs. Bottom

25% 0.67 lbs./dFeed conversion Top 10% 1.18 vs. Bottom 25% 1.69


Comparison of Top 10% vs Bottom 25%

Sow FarmTrait Top 10% Bottom 25% Diff.

Pigs/Mated Sow/ Year 29.5 18.7 10.8

Litters/Mated Sow/ Year 2.74 2.00 0.74

Total born 15.3 12.1 3.2

Still born and mummies 0.50 1.67 1.17

Number born alive 14.0 11.2 1.8

Number weaned 11.7 8.8 2.9

Pre-weaning mortality 5.4 29.1 23.7

Weaning weight 16.7 11.5 5.2

Weaning age 27.8 18.6 9.2



Important to examine variation (standard deviations) between groupsMortality variation always lower for better performing

herdsMay be near biological minimum and have less room to improve

Other traits where variation is greater among poorer performing herds

Nursery, Grow-Finish & Wean-to-FinishFeed conversion

Sow farmStill born and mummiesNumber weanedBoth traits correlated with each other



Important to examine variation (standard deviations) between groupsOther traits where variation is greater among better

performing herdsSow farm

Weaning weightWeaning ageBoth traits correlated with each other


Additional information available

Plots of averagesTop 25%AverageBottom 25%Examine rate of change over time across relative

productivity levels

Seasonality estimatesMonthly averages across time using a more sophisticated

statistical modelSeasonality estimates tables – sets one month to average

0 and compares other months relative to the average month

Seasonality summary


Full Report

The full report can be found at:

www.pork.org/animalscience

http://www.pork.org/animalscience


Thank you for your time and attention !

Do you have any questions or comments?

dr. ken stalder - pork industry productivity analysis

Business

data volume

conventional grow finish

finish nursery sow

greater use of data

number of companies

production phase nursery

national pork board

days days