Dr. John Patience - Growth and development implications of marketing pigs at heavier weights
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
3 gostaram•1,027 visualizações
1. The document discusses trends in pork production from 1975-2009 showing increases in sow productivity, litter size, and market weight. Using 2009 production levels, it would require 8.7 million additional sows compared to 1975 to produce the same amount of pork. 2. It reviews changes in US market hog live weights, dressed weights, and dressing percentages over time as weights have increased from 1974 to present. Body composition, growth rates, and feed efficiency are also influenced by heavier market weights. 3. The author concludes that while heavier weights reduce unit costs, they impact many production aspects and require support from genetics, nutrition, and management improvements. Current economic conditions may put pressure on market weights but this will change over
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (7)
Semelhante a Dr. John Patience - Growth and development implications of marketing pigs at heavier weights
Semelhante a Dr. John Patience - Growth and development implications of marketing pigs at heavier weights (20)
Mais de John Blue
Mais de John Blue (20)
Dr. John Patience - Growth and development implications of marketing pigs at heavier weights
- 1. GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS OF MARKETING PIGS AT HEAVIER WEIGHTS John F. Patience Applied Swine Nutrition Dept. of Animal Science Iowa State University IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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/yr IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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 lb IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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 UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 5. WORLD’S BIGGEST HOG! IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 6. WORLD’S BIGGEST HOG! FAKE!! IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 7. THE ULTIMATE HEAVY HOG: PROSCIUTTO HAM – 160 KG LIVEWEIGHT (355 LB) IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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 2010 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION NPB, 2012
- 9. DRESSED WEIGHTS BY NATION, 2010 250 200 Dressed wt., lb 150 100 50 0 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION FAOSTAT, 2012
- 10. CHANGES IN U.S. MARKET HOG DRESSED WEIGHTS 210 200 Dressed wt., lb 190 180 170 160 150 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION NPB, 2012
- 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 68.0 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION NPB, 2012
- 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 68.0 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION NPB, 2012
- 13. INCREASING MARKET WEIGHTS: ISSUES • Impact on unit costs – Packer – Breeding herd IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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 additives IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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 capacity IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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 UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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 efficiency IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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 efficiency IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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, lb IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Source: Landgraf et al., 2006 APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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, lb IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Source: Landgraf et al., 2006 APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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, lb IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Source: Landgraf et al., 2006 APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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, lb IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Source: Landgraf et al., 2006 APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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, lb IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: Wagner et al., 1999
- 24. GROWTH CURVE FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb ME = 1.3 Mcal/lb 325 275 Weight, 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 Week IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: PIC, undated
- 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 Week IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: PIC, undated
- 26. DAILY GAIN FOR CAMBOROUGH 29 GILTS FED LOW OR HIGH ENERGY DIETS ME = 1.5 Mcal/lb ME = 1.3 Mcal/lb 2.0 1.9 ~180 lb ~235 lb ADG, 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 Week IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: PIC, undated
- 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 4.00 Feed 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 UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: PIC, undated
- 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 < 0.05 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION Source: Elsbernd et al., 2012
- 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 UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
- 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 time IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION
Notas do Editor
- 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