GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENTIMPLICATIONS OF MARKETING PIGSAT HEAVIER WEIGHTS                             John F. Patience       ...
Tremendous Industry Success    • In 1975, the average sow produced 1,585 lb      pork per year).    • In 2009, the average...
Tremendous Industry Success• In 1975, the average sow produced 1,585 lb pork  per year).• In 2009, the average sow produce...
Tremendous Industry Success    • In 1975, the average sow produced 1,585 lb pork per      year).    • In 2009, the average...
WORLD’S BIGGEST HOG!IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
WORLD’S BIGGEST HOG!                          FAKE!!IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
THE ULTIMATE HEAVY HOG: PROSCIUTTO    HAM – 160 KG LIVEWEIGHT (355 LB)IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG LIVE    WEIGHTS                    280                    270                    260     Live w...
DRESSED WEIGHTS BY NATION, 2010                       250                       200     Dressed wt., lb                   ...
CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG DRESSED    WEIGHTS                       210                       200     Dressed wt., lb     ...
CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG WEIGHTS    DRESSING PERCENT                        76.0                        75.0            ...
CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG WEIGHTS    DRESSING PERCENT                        76.0                        75.0            ...
INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES    • Impact on unit costs         – Packer         – Breeding herdIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYA...
INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES    • Impact on unit costs    • Supported by:         –   Rapid improvement in genetics  ...
INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES  • Impact on unit costs  • Supported by genetics, nutrition & management  • Marginal cos...
INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES    •   Impact on unit costs    •   Supported by genetics, nutrition & management    •   ...
INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES    •   Impact on unit costs    •   Supported by genetics, nutrition & management    •   ...
INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES    •   Positive impact on unit costs         – Packer         – Breeding herd    •   Sup...
CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY COMPOSITION    AS THE PIG GROWS                                         Ash   Protein   Water        ...
CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY PROTEIN    CONTENT AS THE PIG GROWS                             30                             28    ...
CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY FAT CONTENT AS    THE PIG GROWS                             30               Protein    Fat          ...
CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY FAT AND WATER    CONTENT AS THE PIG GROWS                             80                   Fat     Wa...
MASS OF COMPONENTS OF EMPTY BODY    WEIGHT IN BARROWS FROM 55 TO 335 KG                                         Protein, l...
GROWTH CURVE FOR CAMBOROUGH 29             GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS                               ME = 1.5 Mcal/...
ME INTAKE FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS               FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS                                ME = 1.5 Mcal/...
DAILY GAIN FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTSFED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS                              ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb     ME = 1.3 ...
FEED EFFICIENCY FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS                                    ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb  ...
PERFORMANCE OF 4 GENDERS ON TEST    FOR 98 DAYS FROM 75 LB                          Gilts      Barrows          Boars     ...
CONCLUSIONS    1. The trend to heavier market weights is encouraged       by reducing unit costs, is possible due to genet...
CONCLUSIONS    4. As weight increases, rate of gain declines after       reaching a peak between 180 and 240 lb, energy   ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dr. John Patience - Growth and development implications of marketing pigs at heavier weights

726 views

Published on

Growth and development implications of marketing pigs at heavier weights - Dr. John Patience, Iowa State University, from the 2012 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, September 15-18, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2012-leman-swine-conference-material

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
726
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
29
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • For most of you, this will be the first time you have heard me speak. So, I’ll take a minute to explain my approach, which is to begin my talk with a discussion on background information and basic principles. This is because we know that there are tremendous differences among farmsThe same pig will perform differently in different barns, in different seasons, under different health conditionsWe are also dealing with different pigs as well, among genotypes and within genotypesTherefore, and I can be accused of being too cautious, I am reluctant to make recommendations on nutrition that will apply under all conditions, because I know they will not.However, as I progress, I will move from principles to applications, hoping that you can then interpret my suggestions in the context of your own operationIn the interest of time, I am going to skip over some slides; you have them in your binder and therefore can get more details if you want themI would like to preserve my available time to focusing on the most important points
  • Sow gestation diet costs $265/ton; lactation costs $300/ton. Total hog slaughter in 2009 was 114 million head
  • Sow gestation diet costs $265/ton; lactation costs $300/ton. Total hog slaughter in 2009 was 114 million head
  • Sow gestation diet costs $265/ton; lactation costs $300/ton. Total hog slaughter in 2009 was 114 million head
  • Dr. John Patience - Growth and development implications of marketing pigs at heavier weights

    1. 1. GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENTIMPLICATIONS OF MARKETING PIGSAT HEAVIER WEIGHTS John F. Patience Applied Swine Nutrition Dept. of Animal Science Iowa State UniversityIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    2. 2. 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/yrIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    3. 3. 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• Litter size increased by 40% to 9.62 pigs/litter• Market wt. increased by 12% to 271 lbIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    4. 4. 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 • 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.IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    5. 5. WORLD’S BIGGEST HOG!IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    6. 6. WORLD’S BIGGEST HOG! FAKE!!IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    7. 7. THE ULTIMATE HEAVY HOG: PROSCIUTTO HAM – 160 KG LIVEWEIGHT (355 LB)IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    8. 8. CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG LIVE WEIGHTS 280 270 260 Live wt., lb 250 240 230 220 210 1974 1984 1994 2004 1976 1978 1980 1982 1986 1988 1990 1992 1996 1998 2000 2002 2006 2008 2010IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION NPB, 2012
    9. 9. DRESSED WEIGHTS BY NATION, 2010 250 200 Dressed wt., lb 150 100 50 0IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION FAOSTAT, 2012
    10. 10. CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG DRESSED WEIGHTS 210 200 Dressed wt., lb 190 180 170 160 150IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION NPB, 2012
    11. 11. CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG WEIGHTS DRESSING PERCENT 76.0 75.0 74.0 Dressing percent 73.0 72.0 71.0 70.0 69.0 68.0IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION NPB, 2012
    12. 12. CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG WEIGHTS DRESSING PERCENT 76.0 75.0 ? 74.0 Dressing percent 73.0 72.0 71.0 70.0 69.0 68.0IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION NPB, 2012
    13. 13. INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES • Impact on unit costs – Packer – Breeding herdIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    14. 14. INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES • Impact on unit costs • Supported by: – Rapid improvement in genetics – Evolution of feeding program design and implementation – Increasing growth rates – Feed additivesIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    15. 15. INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES • Impact on unit costs • Supported by genetics, nutrition & management • Marginal cost of additional weight – Feed cost – Floor and feeder space – Trucking capacityIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    16. 16. INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES • 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?IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    17. 17. INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES • 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 efficiencyIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    18. 18. 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 efficiencyIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    19. 19. CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY COMPOSITION AS THE PIG GROWS Ash Protein Water Fat 100% 80% Percent of empty body 60% 40% 20% 0% 45 70 140 210 275 325 Live weight, lbIOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Source: Landgraf et al., 2006APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    20. 20. CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY PROTEIN CONTENT AS THE PIG GROWS 30 28 26 24 Percent of empty body 22 20 17.3 17.2 16.6 18 15.9 16.1 15.9 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 45 70 140 210 275 325 Live weight, lbIOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Source: Landgraf et al., 2006APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    21. 21. CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY FAT CONTENT AS THE PIG GROWS 30 Protein Fat 27 29.8 24 Percent of empty body 21 22.9 21.5 18 15 17.4 12 9 6 8.4 7.0 3 0 45 70 140 210 275 325 Live weight, lbIOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Source: Landgraf et al., 2006APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    22. 22. CHANGE IN EMPTY BODY FAT AND WATER CONTENT AS THE PIG GROWS 80 Fat Water 70 74.07 71.33 Percent of empty body 60 62.35 60.7 58.9 50 52.87 40 30 29.8 20 22.9 21.5 17.4 10 7.0 8.4 0 45 70 140 210 275 325 Live weight, lbIOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Source: Landgraf et al., 2006APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    23. 23. MASS OF COMPONENTS OF EMPTY BODY WEIGHT IN BARROWS FROM 55 TO 335 KG Protein, lb Lipid, lb Moisture, lb Ash, lb 160.0 140.0 Component weight, lb 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 55 99 141 185 220 251 284 335 Live weight, lbIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: Wagner et al., 1999
    24. 24. GROWTH CURVE FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb ME = 1.3 Mcal/lb 325 275Weight, lb 225 175 125 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 WeekIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: PIC, undated
    25. 25. ME INTAKE FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb ME = 1.3 Mcal/lb 70 65 60 ME, Mcal/wk 55 50 45 40 35 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 WeekIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: PIC, undated
    26. 26. DAILY GAIN FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTSFED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb ME = 1.3 Mcal/lb 2.0 1.9 ~180 lb ~235 lbADG, lb/d 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 WeekIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: PIC, undated
    27. 27. FEED EFFICIENCY FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb ME = 1.3 Mcal/lb 4.50 4.00Feed Conversion Mean = 3.14 3.50 Mean = 2.85 3.00 2.50 2.00 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Week IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: PIC, undated
    28. 28. PERFORMANCE OF 4 GENDERS ON TEST FOR 98 DAYS FROM 75 LB Gilts Barrows Boars Vaccinated SEM Boars 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 < 0.05IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: Elsbernd et al., 2012
    29. 29. 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.IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
    30. 30. 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 timeIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYAPPLIED SWINE NUTRITION

    ×