I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science U.S – 2012 Pork Industry Productivity Analysis C. E. Abell 1, C. Hostetler 2, and K. J. Stalder 1 1 Iowa State University, Ames, IA and National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA Pork Academy Des Moines, IA June 5 & 6, 2013

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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)

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Overall Averages

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Key productivity indicators cont’  Nursery KPIs  Nursery mortality %  Nursery out weight  Days in nursery  Nursery feed conversion

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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)

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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  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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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  Weaning weight has increased by 1 lb.

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Plots of Averages

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Description of figures  Figures 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Seasonality Estimates

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Seasonality graph description  Least squares means were used to obtain the month estimates using the model previously described.

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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.

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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.

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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.

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science 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.

I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Thank you for your time and attention ! Do you have any questions or comments?