Swine nutrition and management systems that alter productivity and carcass traits Mike Tokach Extension specialist and swine nutritionist Kansas State University mtokach@ksu.edu; 785-532-2032 www.ksuswine.org
Swine Industry Changes Genetic changes and increased litter size (ramifications on muscle fiber development and meat quality). Increased feeding of ethanol byproducts (ex. DDGS and fiber). The use of carcass modifiers and approval of immunological castration. Expectations of different processers results in different costs of production for production systems. We will focus on these industry changes and potential ramification on producer profitability and downstream carcass traits.
Production Efficiency Since 1930, the U.S. has reduced sow inventory by over 40% and annual pork production has increased by 230% Source: Ron Plain
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Head 25 Pigs Per Sow Per Year, 1930-2011 USDA Hogs & Pigs Reports 20 15 10 5 0
Genetic changes Three breed rotations and home-raised gilts are gone Maternal line sows (F-1 Landrace x Yorkshire) Terminal boars Predominant = Pietran- or Duroc-based lines Less common = Hampshire-based lines
Rapid increases in litter size in last 15 years due to genetic selection Canadian purebred records
Changes in swine productivity from 2005 to 2010 Averages 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Slope R 2 Sow productivity Pigs weaned per litter 9.30 9.39 9.55 9.72 9.98 10.08 0.16 0.97 Preweaning mortality, % 13.7 14.1 14.0 14.2 14.0 14.8 0.15 0.62 Pigs per mated female 21.5 21.9 22.4 22.9 23.4 23.6 0.44 0.99 Finisher, 50 to 260 lb Mortality, % 6.67 6.28 7.12 5.95 5.42 5.23-0.31 0.65 Exit weight, lb 259.5 257.7 259.7 259.9 261.9 264.3 1.1 0.74 Average daily gain, lb 1.62 1.68 1.76 1.73 1.76 1.76 0.03 0.69 Feed efficiency 2.83 2.77 2.77 2.80 2.74 2.75-0.01 0.56 Caloric efficiency, kcal/kg 9,403 9,361 9,233 9,220 9,259 9,467 0.18 0.00 Knauer and Hostetler, 2012
Impact of litter size on meat quality??? Litter size = Lower and more variable birth weight (Foxcroft et al., 2006) Light weight pigs = Slower growth and less feed efficient (Gondret et al., 2004; Nissen et al., 2004; Berard et al., 2008) Lower number of myofibers, % muscle tissue, total protein, total fat and semitendinosus weight Higher percentage of internal organs, skin, bone, and total water (Rehfeldt et al., 2004) Larger myofibers and greater longissimus drip loss (Rehfeldt et al., 2004) and tenderness (Gondret et al., 2004).
Birth weight or litter size effect?? Berard et al., 2008; Beaulieu et al., 2010 Litter size = Decreased birth weight Slower growth and less feed efficient No major impact on meat quality Negative impact of birthweight: May only be with smallest pigs in the litter May be genotype dependent
Foxcroft et al., 2012
Foxcroft et al., 2012
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Weight, lb 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 Average U.S. Hog Carcass Weight
Steve Meyer, Paragon Economics
Increased use of byproducts Corn processing byproducts DDGS, corn germ, etc Bakery byproducts Wheat byproducts Middlings, bran, etc. Increased unsaturated fat and fiber in diets
Changes in feed cost in last 5 years Prices 2006 2011 2011 Diet 2006 2006 2011 Expected FG 2.6 2.6 2.9 $/ton $129.76 $349.16 $267.87 $/pig $40.49 $108.94 $93.22 Difference from 2006 -- $68.45 $52.73 Diet Diff w/2011 Prices -- -- ($15.72) Continued feeding of 2006 diets in 2011 would have cost an extra $15.72 per pig Dritz et al., 2012
Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb) ADG, lb 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.95 1.98 1.99 Duration P>0.36 Level P=0.83 SEM 0.02 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.8 1.7 d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High Asmus et al., 2011
Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb) 3.2 3.1 Duration P=0.004 Level P=0.96 SEM 0.03 Feed/gain 3.0 2.9 2.90 2.92 2.92 3.00 3.00 3.02 2.8 d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High Asmus et al., 2011
Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb) Yield, % 75 74 73 72 73.2 72.9 71.6 73.0 Duration P=.002 Level P= 0.001 SEM 0.26 72.4 71.7 71 70 d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High Asmus et al., 2011
Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb) Carcass weight, lb 197 195 193 191 194.3 195.8 193.7 195.5 Duration P>.38 SEM 2.54 193.5 191.4 189 d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High Asmus et al., 2011
Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb) Full large intestine, lb 10 9 8 7 6 Duration P<0.01 Level P< 0.05 SEM 0.46 6.6 7.1 8.2 6.7 7.5 8.7 5 d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High Asmus et al., 2011
Effect of DDGS (0, 15, 30%) and Midds (0, 9.5, 19%) on pig performance (90 to 270 lb) Jowl iodine value 85 80 75 70 Duration P<0.001 Level P< 0.001 SEM 0.94 68.4 70.6 75.8 74.8 76.6 78.5 65 d 0 to 43: Low High High High High High d 43 to 67: Low Low Med High High High d 67 to 90: Low Low Med Low Med High Asmus et al., 2011
Ractopamine Increased growth rate and feed efficiency Increased lean deposition, dressing percentage, loin muscle are and FFLI Increased unsaturation of fatty acids IV increases by 2 to 3 mg/g with greater response in backfat than fatty acids in loin muscle response with feeding duration Minimal, but variable influence on fresh pork color, firmness, or water holding capacity (increased WBSF) Apple et al., 2007
Influence of Ractopamine feeding level and duration on net return
Influence of feed prices and Ractopamine feeding duration on net return
Ractopamine Alters heart rate, catecholamine profile, and makes pigs more difficult to handle (Marchant-Forde et al., 2003). Increases susceptibility to handling and transport stress Has increased focus on handling training for on-farm and trucking employees Increased feeding duration and dose highlight need for continual focus on handling.
Immunological castration (Immunized male barrow) Effect SED P < Studies ADG, lb 0.33 0.03 0.001 10 ADFI, lb 0.24 0.09 0.011 9 F/G -0.35.031 0.001 8 Live wt, lb 4.9 1.33 0.001 11 Carcass wt, lb 1.0 1.19.41 10 Dressing % -1.63.148 0.001 8 Backfat, mm -2.59.297 0.001 9 Dunshea et al., 2011
Immunological castration (Immunized male barrow) Carcass traits depend on feeding duration Feed intake increases dramatically after second vaccination Similar fatty acid profile Increased primal cut yield Thinner, less firm bellies Boler et al., 2012
Processor requirements Iodine value Lower DDGS and oil to hit target No limits Results in $2.50 to 4/pig difference in feed cost Genetic source requirement May cost $2 to 5/pig due to differences in live production (mortality) Ractopamine requirements ($2 to 4/pig) Optimal market weight differences
Optimal market weight for different pork processors Maximum facility utilization 85% 95%
Impact of wide weight window on production Increased pigs marketed on initial loads Fewer marketing events (improved biosecurity) Greater percentage of pigs in primary market Increased facility utilization Increased market weight Lower labor and trucking cost (fewer partial loads) Lower cost of production
Conclusion The swine industry continues to undergo rapid changes that impact production costs and the quality of pork delivered to the processor. Litter size is increasing at 0.13 pigs per litter each year. Use of ethanol byproducts (ex. DDGS) = fat quality concerns Higher feed cost = increased ractopamine dose and duration Immunological castration = new challenge to capture value Pork processors purchasing programs and specifications regarding ideal carcass weight ranges have led to major differences in barn utilization, feed cost, and cost of production for different swine producers.
Thank You!
Influence of Paylean Level on Margin $/pig greater than controls $4 $3 $0.38 $0.54 $0.67 $2 $1 $2.17 $2.14 $2.53 Lean Weight $0 4.5 6.8 9.0 Paylean, g/ton Main et al., 2001
Weight, lb Advantage in weight gain during each week after initiation of feeding Paylean 4 3 2 (pounds above the control within each week) 4.0 2.9 1.8 2.6 1.9 Paylean, g/ton 4.5 9.0 1 1.0 0.3 0 1 2 3 4 Week on Paylean Summary of 12 experiments
Changes in Pig Performance from 1980 to 2005 Adapted from Fix, 2007
$4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 US Cash Corn $7.00 $- Jan-08 Jan-18 Jan-28 Jan-38 Jan-48 Jan-58 Jan-68 Jan-78 Jan-88 Jan-98 Jan-08 Source: USDA, WF Ag Economics
$60 Historic Hog Prices $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 1909-1942 34 years Avg 8.41 $0 1909 1916 1923 1930 1937 1944 1943-1972 30 years Avg $18.07 1951 1958 1965 1972 1979 1986 1993 2000 1973-2006 34 years Avg $44.92