Dr. Ken Stalder - Industry Productivity Analysis

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department 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 and
National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA 50325
2013 Pork Academy
Des Moines, IA
June 5 & 6 , 2013

Data Description
Production data obtained from a large U.S.
data record keeping organization
Agreement 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 organization
Agreement 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 evaluation
Linear 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 phase
Nursery 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
a
More 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 evaluated
Results 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:
Employee
Financial
Health
Nutritional
Genetic
Some combination

Benchmarking - What is it?
Definition of benchmark:
a standard of excellence, achievement, etc., against which similar
things must be measured or judged
(Dictionary.com)
Definition of benchmarking:
the process of using benchmarks to identify areas for
improvement, strategies to achieve improvement and
implementation of those processes
(Common Industry)

Why do we do it?
Compare with other businesses
Within species
Across species
Compare herd performance
Within company
Within country
Etc.
Set goals for improving herd
For a specific trait or several traits

Overall Averages

Key productivity indicators
Sow farm KPIs
Pigs/mated sow/ year
Litters/mated sow/year
Total born
Still born and mummies
Number born alive
Number weaned
Pre-weaning mortality %
Weaning weight
Weaning age

Key productivity indicators cont’
Nursery KPIs
Nursery mortality %
Nursery out weight
Days in nursery
Nursery feed conversion

Key productivity indicators cont’
Conventional finishers and wean-to-finish
facilities KPIs
Finisher (wean-to-finish) mortality %
Finishing weight
Days 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)
a
All farms were given equal weighting.
b
Feed 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)
a
b

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)
a
b

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)
a

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 time
Average 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 period
Most of the improvement in PSY is a result of improved
litter size
Some of the PSY increase is greater stillborns and
mummies
Number weaned has increased by 0.8 pigs

Overall data summary cont’
Percent pre-weaning mortality has increased.
Represents lost opportunity
Easy 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 lines
Overall average represented by black lines
Bottom 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

Figure summary cont’
Examples:
2. Percent finisher mortality variation among the 3 groups
has changed substantially across the 2007 to 2012 time
period for the three groups.
 Result from increased importance or focus placed on reducing
mortality by owners, barn managers, and barn workers
 New vaccines
 Better herd health status

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.

Seasonality graph cont’
In general lowest finishing performance was
seen during the summer months
Sow farms had the lowest production during
winter months (sows experience hot weather
and then express the effects during the winter
months).
Except for nursery mortality, seasonality has
less impact on nursery performance relative to
other production phases.

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?

Dr. Ken Stalder - Industry Productivity Analysis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Similar to Dr. Ken Stalder - Industry Productivity Analysis

Similar to Dr. Ken Stalder - Industry Productivity Analysis (20)

More from John Blue

More from John Blue (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dr. Ken Stalder - Industry Productivity Analysis