Swine Dy 1997 FOREWORD It is with gret plesure tht we present to you the 1997 Swine Industry Dy Report of Progress. This report contins updtes nd summries of pplied nd bsic reserch conducted t Knss Stte University during the pst yer. We hope tht the informtion will be of benefit, s we ttempt to meet the needs of the Knss swine industry. Editors, 1997 Swine Dy Report of Progress, Bob Goodbnd Mike Tokch Steve Dritz ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT ADG = verge dily gin g = grm(s) ml = cc (cubic ADFI = verge dily gl = gllon(s) centimeters) feed intke GE = gross energy mo = month(s) vg = verge h = hour(s) Fg = microgrm(s) BW = body weight in = inch(es) =.001 mg cm = centimeter(s) IU = interntionl N = nitrogen CP = crude protein unit(s) ng = nnogrm(s) CV = coefficient of kg = kilogrm(s) =.001 Fg vrition Kcl = kiloclorie(s) no. = number cwt = 100 lb lb = pound(s) ppm = prts per million d = dy(s) Mcl = megclorie(s) sec = second(s) DM = dry mtter ME = metbolizble wk = week(s) EF = Fhrenheit energy wt = weight(s) F/G = feed efficiency meq = milliequivlent(s) yr = yer(s) ft = foot(feet) min = minute(s) 2 ft = squre foot(feet) mg = milligrm(s) KSU VITAMIN AND TRACE MINERAL PREMIXES Diets listed in this report contin the following vitmin nd trce minerl premixes unless otherwise specified. Trce minerl premix: ech lb of premix contins 12 g Mn, 50 g Fe, 50 g Zn, 5 g Cu, 90 mg I, nd 90 mg Se. Vitmin premix: ech lb of premix contins vitmin A, 2,000,000 IU; vitmin D, 200,000 IU; vitmin E, 3 8,000 IU; mendione, 800 mg; riboflvin, 1,500 mg; pntothenic cid, 5,200 mg; nicin, 9,000 mg; choline, 30,000 mg; nd vitmin B, 6 mg. 12 Sow dd pck: ech lb of premix contins choline, 70,000 mg; biotin, 40 mg; nd folic cid, 300 mg. NOTICE Trde nmes re used to identify products. No endorsement is intended, nor is ny criticism implied of similr products not nmed. Some of the reserch reported here ws crried out under specil FDA clernces tht pply only to investigtionl uses t pproved reserch institutions. Mterils tht require FDA clernces i
Swine Dy 1997 CONTENTS Wste Mngement Lgoon Seepge Through Soil Liners...1 Economics of Swine Production Historicl Economic Returns to Alterntive Swine Enterprises in Knss...5 Trends in the Swine Industry: Opertions nd Mrketings...8 Trends in the Swine Industry: Productivity Mesures... 14 Summry of Knss Stte University Swine Enterprise Record... 19 Gesttion, Breeding, nd Frrowing Mngement Fetl nd Mternl Responses to High Feed Intke from Dy 29 to 45 of Gesttion... 24 Effects of Incresed Feed Intke or Additionl Corn from Dy 30 to 50 of Gesttion on Performnce of Sows nd Growth Performnce nd Crcss Chrcteristics of Offspring... 27 Effects of L-Crnitine on Performnce of Gestting nd Lctting Sows... 31 Effects of Additionl L-Crnitine during Lcttion on Sow nd Litter Performnce of First Prity Gilts... 38 Puberty Induction in Young Gilts: Ovrin, Uterine, nd Pregnncy Responses... 41 Segregted Erly Wening Influence of Dietry Tryptophn Levels on the Growth Performnce of Segregted Erly-Wened Pigs (10 to 20 lb)... 45 Determining the Optiml Tryptophn:Lysine Rtio for the Segregted Erly-Wened Pigs (25 to 50 lb)... 48 The Interctive Effects mong Diet Complexity, Zinc Oxide, nd Feed Grde Antibiotic on Performnce of Segregted Erly-Wened Pigs... 52 Effect of Time of Introduction nd Level of Soyben Mel on Performnce of Segregted Erly-Wened Pigs... 57 Effects of Tetrcycline on Shedding of Susceptible nd Resistnt Slmonell spp. Experimentlly Inoculted into Pigs... 62 ii
Nursery Mngement Pyridoxine, But Not Thimin, Improves Growth Performnce of Wenling Pigs... 66 Effects of Added Choline on Performnce of Wenling Pigs... 70 Effects of Source nd Level of Added Chromium on Growth Performnce of Strter Pigs... 72 Effects of Sorghum Genotype nd Processing Method on Production Chrcteristics nd Growth Performnce of Nursery Pigs... 75 Effects of Strch Geltiniztion on Wenling Pig Performnce... 79 Effects of High Protein, Whey Protein Concentrte nd Spry-Dried Animl Plsm on Growth Performnce of Wenling Pigs... 82 Growing-Finishing Mngement Effects of Low-Protein, Amino Acid-Fortified Diets, Formulted on Net Energy Bsis, on the Growth Performnce nd Crcss Chrcteristics of Finishing Pigs... 85 Effect of Dietry Energy Density nd Lysine:Clorie Rtio on the Growth Performnce of Growing Pigs nd Subsequent Finishing Performnce... 90 Effects of Poultry Ft nd Choice White Grese on Finishing Pig Growth Performnce, Generl Crcss Chrcteristics, nd Pork Longissimus Muscle Qulity... 93 List of Key Words... 97 Acknowledgements... 98 Livestock nd Met Industry Council... 99 iii
BIOLOGICAL VARIABILITY AND CHANCES OF ERROR Vribility mong individul nimls in n experiment leds to problems in interpreting the results. Animls on tretment X my hve higher verge dily gins thn those on tretment Y, but vribility within tretments my indicte tht the differences in production between X nd Y were not the result of the tretment lone. Sttisticl nlysis llows us to clculte the probbility tht such differences re from tretment rther thn from chnce. In some of the rticles herein, you will see the nottion "P<.05." Tht mens the probbility of the differences resulting from chnce is less thn 5%. If two verges re sid to be "significntly different," the probbility is less thn 5% tht the difference is from chnce or the probbility exceeds 95% tht the difference resulted from the tretments pplied. Some ppers report correltions or mesures of the reltionship between trits. The reltionship my be positive (both trits tend to get lrger or smller together) or negtive (s one trit gets lrger, the other gets smller). A perfect correltion is one (+1 or -1). If there is no reltionship, the correltion is zero. In other ppers, you my see n verge given s 2.5 ±.1. The 2.5 is the verge;.1 is the "stndrd error." The stndrd error is clculted to be 68% certin tht the rel verge (with unlimited number of nimls) would fll within one stndrd error from the verge, in this cse between 2.4 nd 2.6. Mny nimls per tretment, replicting tretments severl times, nd using uniform nimls increse the probbility of finding rel differences when they exist. Sttisticl nlysis llows more vlid interprettion of the results, regrdless of the number of nimls. In ll the reserch reported herein, sttisticl nlyses re included to increse the confidence you cn plce in the results. Contents of this publiction my be freely reproduced for eductionl purposes. All other rights reserved. In ech cse, give credit to the uthor's, nme of work, Knss Stte University, nd the dte the work ws published. iv
Swine Dy 1997 LAGOON SEEPAGE THROUGH SOIL LINERS 1 1 J. P. Murphy nd J. P. Hrner Summry bcteri produce byproducts tht ccumulte t the soil-wter interfce nd reinforce the Most compcted soils cn be used for sel. As orgnic mteril is metbolized, the lgoon liners to chieve seepge guidelines soil structure lso cn be ltered. Chemicls estblished by the Knss Deprtment of in niml wste, such s slts, cn disperse Helth nd Environment. soil, which my be beneficil in reducing seepge. Under these conditions, reserchers (Key Words: Lgoon Seepge, Permebility, hve reported tht the permebility of the soil Soil Lgoon Liner.) cn be decresed severl orders of mgnitude in few weeks following contct with n Introduction niml wste storge pond or tretment lgoon. This rticle is condensed drft of the new Nturl Resources Conservtion Ser- The physicl clogging of the soil is convice s (NRCS) Technicl Note 716. Infor- sidered to be function of the type of wste, mtion contined in this drft should not be the percent totl solids in the wste, nd the considered s finl NRCS dt until the drft permebility nd the size nd geometry of soil is formlly pproved nd distributed. pores. Until recently, reserch hs focused on totl solids of the wste s the most imporbly The protection of surfce nd ground- tnt fctor in the physicl seling process. wter nd the utiliztion or disposl of niml Reserch published in the lte 1980's convincwste re the primry functions of wste ingly showed tht soil's equivlent pore size storge ponds nd tretment lgoons. Seepge computed s function of prticle size distrifrom these structures cretes risks of pollution bution nd porosity is probbly the more of surfce wter nd underground quifers. importnt prmeter in the physicl seling The permebility of the soil in the boundries mechnism. Reserch hs shown tht mnure of constructed wste tretment lgoon or seling will cuse reduction in permebility wste storge pond strongly ffects the poten- of 1 to 3 orders of mgnitude for ll soils. til for downwrd or lterl seepge of the However, for soils with very high initil stored wstes. permebility, this reduction lone will prob- not provide enough protection ginst Reserch hs shown tht mny nturl excessive seepge nd groundwter contmisoils on the boundries of wste tretment ntion. Other reserch hs demonstrted tht lgoons nd wste storge ponds will sel t for soils with cly content exceeding 5 lest prtilly s result of physicl, chemi- percent for ruminnt or 15 percent for cl, nd biologicl processes. Suspended monogstric niml mnure, finl permesolids settle out of suspension nd physiclly -6-7 bility of 10 to 10 cm/sec usully results clog the pores of the soil mss. Anerobic from mnure seling. 1Deprtment of Biologicl nd Agriculturl Engineering. 1
Cly content is defined s the percent by dry weight of soil tht is smller thn 2 microns (0.002 mm). Site Investigtion A site investigtion for wste storge structure is importnt to scertin the potentil risk posed by the stored niml wste. Evluting soils, bedrock, groundwter, climtic conditions, nd locl wter uses provides insight into the potentil impct of the site on groundwter resources. Prior to n onsite investigtion, you should consult vilble geology or groundwter mps, published county soil surveys, previous designs in the sme physiogrphic re, nd ny other informtion tht ids your ssessment of the site. Dt should include the presence of ny wter wells or ny other wter supply sources, depth to the sesonl high wter tble, generl groundwter grdient, generl geology of the site, nd depth to bedrock, if pplicble. Fetures such s sole source quifers or importnt quifers underlying the proposed site must be noted, becuse they crete specil concern over the impct site could hve. An onsite investigtion lwys should be conducted t proposed lgoon or storge pond loction. Determining the intensity of ny detiled site investigtion is the joint responsibility of the designer nd the person who hs uthority to pprove the engineering job. The intensity of investigtion required depends on the experience in given re, the types of soils nd vribility of the soil deposits, the size of the structure, the environmentl sensitivity, nd n ssessment of the ssocited risks involved. Stte nd locl lws should be followed in ll cses. The subsurfce investigtion cn employ uger holes, dozer pits, or bckhoe pits. The investigtion should extend to t lest 2 feet. below the plnned bottom of the excvtion. A site investigtion cn include field permebility testing or tking smples for lbortory testings, or it cn be limited to field clssifiction of the soils. Records from site investigtions re importnt, nd the informtion should be documented nd included in the design documenttion. When logging soils from uger holes, lwys consider tht the ugering cn obscure the presence of clener snd or grvel lenses by mixing soil lyers. Pits nd trenches expose more of the foundtion, which is helpful in detecting smll, but importnt, lenses of permeble soil. Alwys use sfety rules round trenches. Soil Properties The NRCS soil mechnics lbortories hve dtbse of permebility tests performed on over 1,100 compcted soil smples. Experienced NRCS engineers hve nlyzed these dt nd correlted permebility rtes with soil index properties nd degree of compction of the smples. Bsed on this nlysis, Tble 1 hs been developed to provide generl guidnce on the probble permebility chrcteristics of soils. The grouping of soils is bsed on the percent fines (percent by dry weight finer thn the #200 sieve), Atterberg limits, nd degree of compction of the soils. Tble 2 summrizes totl of 1,161 tests. Where tests re shown t 85 to 90 percent of mximum density, the vst mjority of the tests were t 90 percent. Where 95 percent is shown, dt includes both 95 nd 100 percent degree of compction tests, with the mjority of the tests performed t 95 percent of mximum density. The following generl sttements then cn be mde for the four soil groups.
Tble 1. Grouping of Foundtion Soils According to Their Estimted Permebility Group Description I II III IV Soils tht hve less thn 20% pssing no. 200 sieve nd hve plsticity index (PI) less thn 5. Soils tht hve 20 to 100% pssing no. 200 sieve nd hve plsticity index (PI) less thn or equl to 15. Also included in this group re soils with less thn 20% pssing the no. 200 sieve with fines hving plsticity index (PI) of 5 or greter. Soils tht hve 20 to 100% pssing no. 200 sieve nd hve plsticity index (PI) of 16 to 30. Soils tht hve 20 to 100% pssing No. 200 Sieve nd hve Plsticity Index (PI) of more thn 30. Note: Tble 1 is revised from the tble shown in NRCS Technicl Note 716. Additionl permebility test dt provided the bsis for the revised grouping of soils. A plsticity index (PI) of 16 or higher is required for Group III in the new tble, compred to vlue of 11 in the originl tble. Soils with PI s from 11 to 16 tht were in Group III re now in Group II. Tble 2. Summry of Permebility Test Dt from Soil Mechnics Lbortories Percent of Permebility Medin K ASTM D698 Number of Soil Group Dry Density Observtions cm/sec inch/dy inch/yer I 85-90 27 7.2 x 1O -4 24 8760 I 95 16 3.5 x 10-4 12 4380 II 85-90 376 4.8 x 10-6.17 62 II 95 244 1.5 x 10-6.048 18 III 85-90 226 8.8 x 10-7.030 11 III 95 177 2.1 x 10-7.0072 2.6 IV 85-90 41 4.9 x 10-7.0168 6.1 IV 95 54 3.5 x 10-8.0012.44 Group I - Generlly, these soils hve the highest permebility nd, in their nturl stte, could llow excessive seepge losses. Becuse the soils hve low cly content, the finl permebility vlue will exceed 10-6 to 10-7 cm/sec. Group II - These soils generlly re less permeble thn the Group I soils but lck sufficient cly to be included in Group III. Group III - These soils generlly hve very low permebility, good structurl fe- 3
initil seepge be less thn.25 inches per dy. the excvted grde by discing, wtering, nd The inch/dy permebility column in Tble 2 compcting them to suitble thickness. shows tht most ll soils in groups II, III, nd Soils with suitble properties mke excellent IV cn be seled dequtely. Remember tht mterils for liners, but the liners must be the permebility vlues represented re medi- designed nd instlled correctly. Soil hs n n vlues, so some soils in ll the groups my dded benefit in tht it provides n ttenution hve excessive seepge. Testing of existing medium for the pollutnts. soils is recommended to ssess locl conditions. Of the 1,160 soil tests in this tble, Those onsite soils in Groups I considered only the medin permebilities in Group I (43 to be unsuitble usully cn be treted with soil tests) did not meet KDHE regultions. bentonite to produce stisfctory soil liner. The second column of Tble 2 indictes the Additives such s bentonite or soil dispersnts degree of compction of the soil (the higher should be dded nd mixed well into soil the percent dry density, the greter the prior to compction. compction of the soil). The four different soil types hve been tested t two different Using high qulity sodium bentonite with compction rtes. The dt indicte tht good swell properties is importnt for this dditionl compction of the sme soil reduces ppliction. The highest qulity bentonite is the permebility by fctor of 2 to 13. mined in Wyoming nd Montn. NRCS soil mechnics lbortories hve noted the imporfcility Liners re reltively impervious brriers tnce of using the sme type nd qulity of used to reduce seepge losses to n cceptble bentonite in the mixtures for lb tests tht will level. A liner for wste storge pond cn be be used t the lgoon construction site. Both constructed in severl wys. When soil is the qulity of the bentonite nd how finely used s liner, it often is clled "cly bln- ground the product is prior to mixing with the ket" or "impervious blnket." One method of soil ffect the finl permebility rte of the providing liner for wste storge structure mixture. You should work closely with is to improve the soils t bentonite suppliers nd your soil testing to ensure understnding of these fctors. A soil liner cn be constructed by compcting imported cly from nerby source onto the bottom nd sides of the storge pond. This is often the most economicl method of constructing cly liner if suitble soils re vilble nerby. Liners lso cn be mde from concrete or synthetic mterils such s geosynthetic cly nd geomembrnes. In ll cses, liners should provide reduction in seepge from the storge/tretment pond nd diminish the potentil for contmintion of groundwter. 4
Swine Dy 1997 HISTORICAL ECONOMIC RETURNS TO ALTERNATIVE SWINE ENTERPRISES IN KANSAS R. Jones nd M. R. Lngemeier 1 Summry hogs, sows, milo, soyben mel, nd other feed ingredients were obtined from vrious This study exmines historicl net returns publictions of the Knss Agriculturl Sttisto verge Knss swine producers over the tics Service nd the United Sttes Deprtment pst 16 yers. Swine production hs been of Agriculture, Agriculturl Mrketing Serprofitble enterprise. As expected, verge vice (AMS). Feeder pig prices for 45 lb returns per hed hve been higher for frrow- feeder pigs lso were collected from AMS. to-finish producers thn for feeder pig finish- Feeder pig prices from southern Missouri ers, nd frrow-to-finish producers hve were used erly in the smple period, nd nerly lwys been ble to t lest cover prices from St. Joseph, Missouri were used vrible costs of production. lter in the smple period. Other vrible costs were obtined from representtive ver- (Key Words: Net Returns, Vrible Costs, ge Knss frrow-to-finish nd feeder pig Totl Costs.) finishing budgets developed by Extension Agriculturl Economists t Knss Stte Introduction University for the respective time periods. Vrible costs include milo, soyben mel, An investigtion of the historicl econom- vitmins nd minerls, pig strter, feed proic returns nd other mesures ffecting the cessing, lbor, veterinry nd supply costs, profitbility of lterntive griculturl enter- mrketing, utilities, repirs, miscellneous prises is informtive for both long- nd short- costs, nd interest on operting expenses. run plnning. For exmple, expnsion or The lbor cost includes n opportunity chrge contrction decisions should be bsed on long- for opertor lbor. Dt from ctul Knss term expected profitbility. Long-term histor- swine enterprises in the Knss Frm Mnicl mens nd distributions of importnt gement Associtions were used to obtin cost economic fctors provide t lest some indic- estimtes. These costs vry with the level of tion of future results. Using this informtion, production. An dditionl vrible cost producers re ble to compre lterntive incurred by feeder pig finishers is the cost of enterprises nd mke effective strtegic plns. the feeder pig itself. The fixed costs of swine production include nnul chrges Procedures needed to recover the investment in buildings, equipment, nd breeding stock, nd the insur- Dt regrding verge mrket hog prices, nce nd txes on buildings nd equipment. sow prices, feeder pig prices, feed costs, nd These costs were clculted bsed on estiother vrible costs were obtined for 64 mted investments nd were converted to per clendr qurters from Jnury 1981 through pig mesures. The fixed costs re incurred December of 1996. Mesures of fixed costs even if no hogs re produced. for swine enterprises were clculted for the sme time period. Csh prices for mrket 1Deprtment of Agriculturl Economics. 5
Net returns per hed for frrow-to-finish ble to cover ll costs over two thirds of the nd feeder pig finishing re estimted for ech time in recent yers. A comprison of the qurter by subtrcting costs from gross re- first hlf of the dt set with the lst hlf turns obtined through mrket hog nd cull revels tht returns per hed were on verge sow sles. Two mesures of net returns re slightly higher in the erly period thn in clculted; returns bove vrible costs nd more recent times, s illustrted in Figure 1. returns bove totl costs. As long s returns This suggests tht some increse in enterprise re bove vrible costs, producers cn re- size my be needed over time to mintin min vible in the short run. In the long run, constnt level of overll enterprise profits. ll costs (vrible nd fixed) need to be covered. Chrges for mngement nd risk re The estimted distribution of returns over not included in either mesure, so the esti- vrible costs for trditionl feeder pig finmted return distributions represent the re- ishers in Knss is presented in Tble 1 s turns to mngement nd risk ssocited with well. Producers hve verged $11.79 per hog production. hed over vrible costs, rnging from minimum of $-12.52 in the fourth qurter of The return distributions clculted here 1994 to mximum of $42.76 per hed in the represent trditionl swine production systems fourth qurter of 1986. Returns filed to in Knss. Historicl dt for reltively new cover vrible costs bout 16% of the time. technologies such s SEW swine production The estimted distribution of returns over re not yet vilble. Preliminry cost nd totl costs for trditionl feeder pig finishers return estimtes for 1997 suggest tht net in Knss revels tht even fter ccounting returns per hed re slightly higher for SEW for fixed costs, n verge net return per hed swine producers s result of improved feed of $3.33 hs been relized. Returns per hed efficiency, especilly during periods of high were below the brekeven needed to cover feed costs. totl costs bout 37.5% of the time. A comprison of the first hlf of the dt set with the Results nd Discussion lst hlf revels no difference in verge returns over vrible costs between the two The estimted distribution of returns over periods, s illustrted in Figure 2. vrible costs for verge trditionl Knss frrow-to-finish swine producers from 1981 These results suggest tht Knss swine through 1996 is presented in Tble 1. Re- production hs been profitble for verge turns verged $26.27 per hed produced nd producers in recent yers. As expected, rnged from low of $-13.61 per hed in the potentil returns per hed re higher for fourth qurter of 1994 to high of $69.48 per frrow-to-finish producers thn for feeder pig hed in the third qurter of 1987. Revenues finishers. However, frrow-to-finish producfiled to cover vrible costs only bout 3% tion is more cpitl intensive nd requires of the time. The estimted distribution of different set of mngement skills. Prelimreturns over totl costs for verge trditionl inry estimtes suggest tht the sme reltive Knss frrow-to-finish swine producers lso reltionships between frrow-to-finish nd is presented. Even fter ccounting for fixed feeder pig finishing continue to hold for SEW costs, producers still verged return of swine production, though the bsolute returns $7.56 per hed. Averge Knss frrow-to- to ech enterprise my be slightly higher. finish swine producers hve been 6
Tble 1. Estimted Distribution of Qurterly Hog Production Returns in Knss from 1981-1996 Frrow-to-Finish Production Feeder Pig Finishing Returns over Returns over Returns over Returns over Item Vrible Costs Totl Costs Vrible Costs Totl Costs Averge, $/hed $26.27 7.56 11.79 3.33 Mximum, $/hed 69.48 51.36 42.76 34.25 Minimum, $/hed -13.61-29.83-12.52-20.14 Qurters less thn 0 2 (3%) 20 (31%) 10 (16%) 24 (38%) Figure 1. Estimted Qurterly per Hed Returns over Totl Cost for Frrow-to-Finish Hog Production in Knss. Figure 2. Estimted Qurterly per Hed Returns over Totl Cost for Feeder Pig Finishing Hog Production in Knss.. 7
Swine Dy 1997 TRENDS IN THE SWINE INDUSTRY: OPERATIONS AND MARKETINGS 1 1 J. L. Prcell nd K. C. Dhuyvetter Summry number nd size of swine opertions nd hog mrketings for Knss nd the U.S. Trends in the size of swine opertions in Knss nd the U.S. re towrd fewer nd Procedures lrger opertions. The number of opertions in Knss nd the U.S. continues to decline; Number of swine opertions, hogs mrhowever, the number of hogs mrketed hs keted nnully, nnul mrketings per operincresed becuse of n increse in opertion tion, nd inventory by size of opertion for size. Knss producers hve incresed oper- Knss nd the U.S. were obtined from tion size t slower rte compred to U.S. vrious issues of the United Sttes Deprtment producers. Knss rnks tenth ntionlly in of Agriculture (USDA) Hogs nd Pigs report. hogs mrketed. A migrtion of swine pro- Hog mrketings by stte were obtined from duction from estern, centrl, nd northern vrious issues of the USDA's Met Animls Knss to southwest Knss hs occurred in Production, Disposition, nd Income report. the pst 5 yers. Knss pig crop dt were obtined from Knss Frm Fcts (Knss Deprtment of (Key Words: Swine Opertions, Hog Mr- Agriculture). ketings, Trends.) Number nd Size of Opertions Introduction The number of swine opertions hs The Knss nd the U.S. swine industries declined substntilly over the lst 15 yers hve undergone numerous structurl chnges for Knss nd the U.S. (Tble 1 nd Figure in the pst 15 yers. Structurl chnge is 1). From 1980 to the present, Knss hs motivted by profitbility. Swine opertions, experienced 71% decline in the number of lrge or smll, locte in res where they cn opertions, nd the number of U.S. hog receive the highest rte of return nd where opertions hs declined by 77%. These re the rte of return to swine production is lrger nnul declines of 7.4% nd 8.7% for Knss thn tht of lterntive enterprises. nd the U.S., respectively. The nnul decline in swine opertions hs decresed for Producers in Knss need to be wre of Knss nd incresed for the U.S., nd over where they rte reltive to U.S. production the pst 6 yers, the number of opertions hs nd mrketing trends. Determining if Knss declined t nnul rtes of 6.2% in Knss swine production is expnding, contrcting, nd 8.9% in the U.S. However, the number or stble nd in wht loctions of the stte of hogs mrketed per opertion during this chnges re occurring is importnt for pro- time hs incresed drmticlly to ultimtely duction, mrketing, nd policy decisions. increse the totl number of hogs mrketed The focus of this report is on trends in the nnully (Tble 1 nd Figure 2). This in- crese hs been lrger for the U.S. thn Kn- 11 Deprtment of Agriculturl Economics. 2 Northest Are Extension Office. 8
ss during the pst 5 yers; however, these over the previous 5 yers nd not to decline vlues converged in 1996. Thus, Knss in the number of hogs mrketed in Knss. producers re becoming lrger t slower rte Two sttes stnd out s growing rpidly, compred to other producers in the U.S. North Crolin nd Oklhom. Although However, Knss producers hve historiclly North Crolin hs experienced substntil been lrger, which decreses their potentil growth during the pst 10 yers, Oklhom is rte of expnsion. only beginning to experience growth. Tble 2 indictes how opertion size hs Tble 4 shows the mrket shre of U.S. grown in Knss nd for selected sttes in the hog mrketings for selected sttes from 1980 U.S. The generl trend hs been towrd through 1996. Similrly, Figures 3 nd 4, opertions lrger thn 1000 hed. In Knss, respectively, plot the mrket shre of hogs not much chnge hs occurred in the distri- mrketed for Knss compred to neighboring bution of opertions, but mjor chnge hs sttes to the south nd west nd neighboring occurred in inventories. This increse in sttes to the north nd est (Iow ws not opertion size is relted directly to the econo- included becuse of the lrge mrket shre). mies of scle (i.e., decresing verge cost by becoming lrger) nd mrketing dvntges of Oklhom nd Colordo hve ech expelrge-scle swine production. This hs forced rienced incresed mrket shre with the openmedium nd smll producers to become lrger ing of the Sebord hog processing plnt in to compete in the mrketplce to tke dvn- Guymn, Oklhom. How much these sttes tge of genetics, helth risks, nd mrketing will continue to increse mrket shre is methods. uncertin. Clerly, the Knss swine industry hs not experienced the sme growth pttern Sttes not hving lws to deter corporte s these sttes. hog frming re incresing the percent of inventory for lrge opertions t stggering Missouri nd Nebrsk hve experienced rte. For instnce, lrger opertions in lrge fluctutions in mrket shre. Recently, Oklhom ccount for 95% of the inventory Missouri hs overtken Nebrsk, primrily within the stte. This structurl chnge coin- becuse of expnsions in Premium Stndrd cided with the opening of the Sebord hog Frms, Murphy Fmily Frms, nd Contiprocessing plnt in Guymn, Oklhom. nentl Grin. The 5-yer trend in Nebrsk is These chnges in opertion size hve influ- declining mrket shre. Missouri hs expeenced the level nd loction of swine produc- rienced much more mrket shre vribility tion in the U.S. during the pst 5 yers. Hog Mrketings Figures 5 nd 6 summrize the geogrphic distribution of the Knss pig crops for 1991 Tble 3 shows the rnkings of the 10 nd 1996, respectively. Pig production hs lrgest hog-producing sttes nd their shres shifted from estern, centrl, nd northern of the U.S. mrket for 1996. Also shown is Knss to southwest Knss. Since 1991, the ech stte's rnk nd shre in 1991. This mrket shre of the Knss pig crop in the indictes in which sttes hog production hs southwest hs incresed from 11% to 36% or incresed nd decresed becuse of expnsion, from 255,000 to 927,000 ( 263% increse). reloction, entries, nd exits. Knss hs This increse coincides with the opening of mintined the rnk of tenth. The smll loss the Sebord plnt in Guymn, Oklhom. of mrket shre is due to the increse in the number of hogs mrketed in the U.S. 9
Tble 1. Numbers of Swine Opertions nd Mrketings in Knss nd U.S. Number of Hogs Mrketed Mrketings per Yer Knss U.S. Knss U.S. Knss U.S. 1980 14,000 674,800 3,300 100,651 236 149 1985 8,300 391,000 2,636 86,731 318 222 1990 6,000 275,440 2,476 89,373 413 324 1995 4,300 181,750 2,203 102,684 512 565 1996 4,100 157,450 2,553 101,809 623 647 Source: USDA Hogs nd Pigs. Tble 2. Percent of Opertions nd Inventory by Inventory Size * 1-99 Hed 100-499 Hed 500-999 Hed 1000+ Hed Stte Yer Oper Inv Oper Inv Oper Inv Oper Inv KS 1985 60.9 8.9 30.7 37.7 6.8 53.4!! 1990 51.0 7.5 40.0 36.5 5.7 16.0 3.5 40.0 1995 53.5 5.0 35.0 22.0 6.3 15.0 5.2 58.0 1996 58.5 4.5 29.0 18.0 7.6 15.0 4.9 62.5 NC 1985 88.3 10.4 7.8 12.5 3.9 77.1!! 1990 83.0 4.2 8.0 5.3 3.0 5.6 6.0 87.0 1995 67.7 1.0 7.1 1.5 4.0 2.5 21.2 95.0 1996 66.7 0.5 5.2 1.0 3.2 1.5 25.0 97.0 NE 1985 44.3 6.3 42.9 37.1 12.8 56.5!! 1990 36.0 4.0 47.0 33.0 11.4 23.0 5.6 40.0 1995 32.0 3.0 47.0 27.0 13.0 21.5 8.0 48.5 1996 32.5 3.0 43.8 23.0 13.8 20.0 10.0 54.0 IA 1985 30.7 3.9 49.8 39.4 21.0 56.7!! 1990 26.0 2.5 47.0 31.0 18.5 32.5 8.5 34.0 1995 20.4 1.5 44.0 22.0 22.8 28.0 12.8 48.5 1996 21.9 1.0 41.9 18.0 21.9 25.0 14.3 56.0 MO 1985 65.9 14.8 28.3 44.7 5.8 40.5!! 1990 62.0 10.0 29.5 39.0 6.0 23.5 2.5 27.5 1995 51.7 3.5 31.7 16.5 10.0 16.0 6.5 64.0 1996 51.4 2.0 32.9 12.0 10.0 12.0 5.7 74.0 OK 1985!!!!!!!! 1990!!!!!!!! 1995 94.1 2.5 2.9 3.0 0.6 2.0 2.4 92.5 1996 94.1 2.0 2.4 2.0 0.6 1.0 2.9 95.0 U.S. 1985 73.8 10.3 19.5 34.2 6.7 55.5!! 1990 64.7 6.5 25.0 28.0 6.5 23.5 3.8 42.0 1995 59.4 3.5 25.0 18.0 8.6 17.5 6.9 61.0 1996 61.0 3.0 23.0 15.0 8.5 15.0 7.6 67.0 * In 1990 lrger size clss of producers with inventory of 1000 plus ws dded. Source: USDA Hogs nd Pigs. 10
Tble 3. Hog Mrketings of Leding Sttes 1996 1996 1991 1996 1991 Hogs Mrketed Shre of U.S. Shre of U.S. Rnk Rnk Stte (1000 Hed) (%) (%) 1 1 Iow 22,190 21.80 24.71 2 6 N. Crolin 14,234 13.98 6.19 3 3 Minnesot 9,097 8.94 8.50 4 2 Illinois 8,315 8.17 10.21 5 7 Missouri 6,718 6.60 5.18 6 4 Indin 6,634 6.52 7.93 7 5 Nebrsk 6,453 6.34 7.92 8 8 Ohio 3,117 3.06 3.66 9 22 Oklhom 2,836 2.79 0.45 10 10 Knss 2,553 2.51 2.68 Source: USDA Met Animls Production, Disposition, nd Income. Tble 4. Shre of Annul Hog Mrketings, Selected Sttes (1980-1996) Yer KS NC NE IA OK CO MO 1980 3.28 3.85 6.56 23.26 0.54 0.72 7.23 1981 3.20 3.79 6.40 24.30 0.54 0.48 6.85 1982 3.17 3.53 6.92 26.85 0.35 0.61 6.01 1983 3.09 3.96 6.76 25.40 0.29 0.56 6.89 1984 2.99 4.15 6.76 25.52 0.38 0.52 6.71 1985 3.04 4.32 6.49 26.30 0.34 0.36 6.55 1986 2.98 4.57 7.33 25.76 0.34 0.41 5.91 1987 2.72 4.93 7.53 24.87 0.37 0.36 5.73 1988 2.76 5.01 7.36 24.87 0.38 0.38 5.64 1989 2.81 5.62 7.62 24.35 0.46 0.42 5.17 1990 2.77 5.64 7.74 24.61 0.48 0.47 5.02 1991 2.68 6.19 7.92 24.71 0.45 0.61 5.22 1992 2.54 7.08 7.72 25.67 0.44 0.72 4.91 1993 2.52 8.27 7.65 24.64 0.60 0.84 5.20 1994 2.33 9.78 7.29 24.66 1.01 1.08 5.81 1995 2.15 11.97 6.98 22.86 1.57 0.99 6.84 1996 2.51 13.98 6.34 21.80 2.79 1.35 6.60 Source: USDA Met Animls Production, Disposition, nd Income. 11
Figure 1. Number of Swine Opertions, Figure 2. Numbers of Hogs Mrketed Knss nd U.S. per Opertion, Knss nd U.S. Figure 3. Shres of Mrketings for Figure 4. Shres of Mrketings for Colordo, Knss, nd Knss, Missouri, nd Oklhom. Nebrsk. 12
Figure 5. Geogrphic Distribution of Pig Crop in Knss, 1991. (Totl = 2.3 million hed) Figure 6. Geogrphic Distribution of Pig Crop in Knss, 1996. (Totl = 2.6 million hed) 13
Swine Dy 1997 TRENDS IN THE SWINE INDUSTRY: PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES 1 2 K. C. Dhuyvetter nd J. L. Prcell Summry Sttes Deprtment of Agriculture (USDA) Hogs nd Pigs report. Live weight, dressed Productivity hs been trending up in the weight, nd pork production dt for the U.S. swine industry over the lst 15 yers. Much were obtined from vrious issues of USDA's of the incresed productivity is due to in- Livestock Slughter report. All dt collected cresed pigs/litter nd incresed mrket were for the 1980 through 1996 time period. weights. The efficiency of the breeding herd (litters/sow/yer) hs been trending up in the Inventory dt re bsed on vlues re- U.S. but hs remined reltively constnt in ported s of the first of the qurter. Qurters Knss. re defined s (1) Dec-Feb, (2) Mr-My, (3) Jun-Aug, nd (4) Sep-Nov. In the first qurfor (Key Words: Industry Trends, Productivity, ter, Dec refers to the previous yer. Prior to Breeding Herd Efficiency.) 1988, U.S. inventory dt were reported only the first nd third qurters, i.e., Dec nd Introduction Jun. The swine industry hs undergone some Number of Sows Frrowing mjor chnges in the lst 15 yers with respect to productivity nd the number nd size The number of sows frrowing in the of opertions (see relted rticle). Although U.S. declined during the first hlf of the we cn rgue tht the incresed concentrtion 1980s nd then stbilized during the lst hlf led to incresed productivity, we lso cn of the 1980s nd erly 1990s (Figure 1). rgue tht the potentil for increses in pro- Frrowings in Knss declined t firly ductivity led to incresed concentrtion. stedy rte from 1980 through 1995. Knss Regrdless of wht cused these chnges, the frrowings reched n ll-time low in the result is tht the swine industry hs seen third qurter of 1995 nd then incresed significnt improvements in production effi- shrply through 1996. Frrowings were highciency. est during the Mr-My qurter of the yer (Tble 1). However, sesonlity in frrowings This rticle highlights trends in the swine hs been declining over the lst 15 yers. industry since 1980 of vrious productivity mesures t the ggregte level for both Frrowings decresed 22.8% nd 12% Knss nd the U.S. from 1981 to 1996 in Knss nd the U.S., respectively. However, Knss frrowings Procedures incresed in 1996 compred to 1995 (22.1%), while the U.S. frrowings declined (-5.6%). Frrowings, pigs/litter, nd breeding herd Even though Knss frrowings were up inventories dt for Knss nd the U.S. were significntly in 1996, they still represented obtined from vrious issues of the United only bout 3% of the totl U.S. frrowings. 1Northest Are Extension Office. 2 Deprtment of Agriculturl Economics. 14
Pigs/Litter pigs/litter nd utilizing the breeding herd more efficiently, i.e., litters/sow/yer. In the The number of pigs wened/litter is n U.S., increses in production efficiency hve importnt mesure of sow productivity. been due to increses in pigs/litter nd lit- Pigs/litter hs been incresing t constnt ters/sow/yer. rte since 1980 (Figure 2). Averge pigs/litter incresed 13.2% nd 15.1% from 1981 to Live nd Dressed Weights 1996 in Knss nd the U.S., respectively (Tble 2). In the fourth qurter of 1996 nd Another wy producers cn increse the first two qurters in 1997, verge productive efficiency is to increse the weight pigs/litter in Knss reched nd exceeded t which they mrket hogs. Live nd crcss nine for the first time ever. This coincides weights hve been incresing t stedy rte with the strtup of severl lrge opertions in since 1980 (Figure 4). Averge live weight Knss. for ll hogs slughtered in 1996 ws 254 lb compred to 243 lb in 1981 (4.6% increse). Breeding Herd Efficiency Similrly, verge crcss weight in 1996 ws 185 lb, which ws n increse of 13 lb (7.8%) In ddition to incresing the number of from 15 yers erlier (Tble 4). pigs/litter, producers lso cn increse their frrowing efficiency by wening more pigs/ Pork Production sow/yer. This is function of both litter size nd litters/sow/yer. Dt re not reported to The ultimte mesure in productivity is llow pigs/sow/yer to be clculted; how- the mount of pork produced. Figure 5 shows ever, using the number of totl frrowings nnul pork production nd verge breeding long with breeding herd inventories, n herd inventory in the U.S. The ntionl estimte of breeding herd efficiency cn be breeding herd nd totl pork production clculted. This vlue will be lower thn declined during the first hlf of the 1980s. litters/sow/yer, becuse the breeding herd However, since then the breeding herd hs inventory will include bors nd replcement been reltively constnt t round 7 million gilts. However, this vlue will revel if the hed nd production hs been incresing. breeding herd is being used more efficiently over time. Pork production per niml in the breeding herd hs been incresing stedily since Figure 3 shows the number of 1980 (Figure 6). Pork production in 1996 ws frrowings/niml in the breeding herd. This 8.7% nd 22% higher thn 1981 nd 1986 vlue gives n indiction s to trends in lit- levels, respectively (Tble 5). In 1996, the ters/sow/yer. Frrowings/breeding herd verge breeding herd inventory ws down niml in the U.S. hve been trending up 10.9% nd 1% from levels 15 nd 10 yers since 1980, indicting tht breeding herds re erlier, respectively. This higher totl producbeing utilized more efficiently. No discernble tion long with smller breeding herd result trend occurred in Knss over this time pe- in 1996 vlues forpork production/breeding riod; however, the Knss breeding herd herd niml tht were 22% nd 23.3% higher efficiency vlue ws bove the U.S. vlue thn those 15 nd 10 yers erlier, respecuntil 1994. tively. This lrge increse in pork production efficiency/breeding herd niml is the result The size of the 1996 pig crop in Knss of increses in pigs/litter, pigs/sow/yer, nd ws 12.4% less thn the size 15 yers erlier, mrket weights. but the size of the breeding herd ws 21.1% less, indicting n improvement in production efficiency (Tble 3). However, this improvement in efficiency ws the result of more 15
Tble 1. Annul nd Qurterly Number os Sows Frrowing in Knss nd U.S. Percent Chnge Are nd Period 1981 1986 1991 1995 1996 96/95 96/91 96/86 96/81 Knss Dec-Feb 82 76 74 61 62 1.6% -16.2% -18.4% -24.4% Mr-My 115 80 77 64 70 9.4% -9.1% -12.5% -39.1% Jun-Aug 95 72 74 62 81 30.6% 9.5% 12.5% -14.7% Sep-Nov 94 72 73 57 85 49.1% 16.4% 18.1% -9.6% Annul totl 386 300 298 244 298 22.1% 0.0% -0.7% -22.8% U.S. Dec-Feb 2,914 2,450 2,707 2,886 2,745-4.9% 1.4% 12.1% -5.8% Mr-My 3,526 2,803 3,281 3,170 2,964-6.5% -9.7% 5.7% -15.9% Jun-Aug 3,197 2,743 3,104 2,976 2,761-7.2% -11.1% 0.7% -13.6% Sep-Nov 3,071 2,697 2,967 2,815 2,717-3.5% -8.4% 0.7% -11.5% Annul totl 12,708 10,693 12,059 11,847 11,187-5.6% -7.2% 4.6% -12.0% Source: USDA Hogs nd Pigs Report. Tble 2. Annul nd Qurterly Numbers of Pigs/Litter in Knss nd U.S. Percent Chnge Are nd Period 1981 1986 1991 1995 1996 96/95 96/91 96/86 96/81 Knss Dec-Feb 7.42 7.50 7.90 8.10 8.20 1.2% 3.8% 9.3% 10.5% Mr-My 7.82 7.90 7.90 7.95 8.40 5.7% 6.3% 6.3% 7.4% Jun-Aug 7.55 7.55 7.85 8.20 8.80 7.3% 12.1% 16.6% 16.6% Sep-Nov 7.60 7.75 7.81 8.30 9.00 8.4% 15.2% 16.1% 18.4% Annul verge 7.60 7.68 7.87 8.14 8.60 5.7% 9.3% 12.1% 13.2% U.S. Dec-Feb 7.22 7.58 7.87 8.27 8.40 1.6% 6.7% 10.8% 16.3% Mr-My 7.53 7.81 7.96 8.32 8.47 1.8% 6.4% 8.5% 12.5% Jun-Aug 7.37 7.76 7.89 8.34 8.57 2.8% 8.6% 10.4% 16.3% Sep-Nov 7.39 7.73 7.89 8.34 8.52 2.2% 8.0% 10.2% 15.3% Annul verge 7.38 7.72 7.90 8.32 8.49 2.1% 7.4% 10.0% 15.1% Source: USDA Hogs nd Pigs Report. 16
Tble 3. Annul Pig Crop nd Size nd Efficiency of Breeding Herd in Knss nd U.S. Percent Chnge Vrible nd Are 1981 1986 1991 1995 1996 96/95 96/91 96/86 96/81 Annul Pig Crop (000) Knss 2,938 2,304 2,344 1,984 2,574 29.7% 9.8% 11.7% -12.4% U.S. 93,853 82,571 95,315 98,516 94,972-3.6% -0.4% 15.0% 1.2% Averge Breeding Herd Inventory (000)* Knss 227 190 176 149 179 20.2% 1.4% -5.9% -21.1% U.S. 8,101 6,563 7,239 6,979 6,765-3.1% -6.5% 3.1% -16.5% Sows Frrowing/Averge Breeding Herd Inventory Knss 1.70 1.71 1.69 1.64 1.67 1.6% -1.4% -2.8% -2.2% U.S. 1.57 1.63 1.67 1.70 1.65-2.6% -0.7% 1.5% 5.4% Annul Pig Crop/Averge Breeding Herd Inventory Knss 13.0 13.2 13.3 13.3 14.4 8.0% 8.3% 9.4% 11.0% U.S. 11.6 12.6 13.2 14.1 14.0-0.6% 6.6% 11.6% 21.2% *Averge is bsed on Jun nd Dec inventories prior to 1988 nd on Mr, Jun, Sep, nd Dec inventories since 1988. Source: USDA Hogs nd Pigs Report. Tble 4. Commercil Hog Slughter Live nd Dressed Weights in the U.S. Percent Chnge Vrible 1981 1986 1991 1995 1996 96/95 96/91 96/86 96/81 Live weight, lb 243 246 252 256 254-0.8% 0.8% 3.2% 4.6% Dressed weight, lb 172 176 181 185 185-0.0% 2.3% 5.2% 7.8% Dressed/live weight 70.7% 71.5% 71.8% 72.3% 72.9% 0.8% 1.4% 1.9% 3.0% Source: USDA Livestock Slughter. Tble 5. Pork Production nd Size nd Efficiency of Breeding Herd in U.S. Percent Chnge Vrible 1981 1986 1991 1995 1996 96/95 96/91 96/86 96/81 Pork production, million lb Averge breeding herd inventory, (000)* 15,717 13,998 15,948 17,811 17,081-4.1% 7.1% 22.0% 8.7% 7,629 6,865 7,287 6,843 6,794-0.7% -6.8% -1.0% - 10.9% Pork production/verge breeding herd inventory, lb 2,060 2,039 2,188 2,603 2,514-3.4% 14.9% 23.3% 22.0% *Averge inventory is lgged 6 months (bsed on Jun nd Dec inventories prior to 1988 nd on Mr, Jun, Sep, nd Dec inventories since 1988). Source: USDA Hogs nd Pigs Report nd Livestock Slughter. 17
Figure 1. Qurterly Numbers of Sows Frrowing. Figure 4. Hog Live nd Crcss Weight in the U.S. Figure 2. Qurterly Numbers of Pigs/ Figure 5. Annul Pork Production/ Litter. Averge Breeding Herd. Figure 3. Annul Numbers of Sows Frrowing/Averge Breeding Herd. Figure 6. U.S. Pork Production/ Averge Breeding Herd. 18
SwineDy1997 SUMMARY OF KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY SWINE ENTERPRISE RECORD 1 R.D. Goodbnd, M.L.Lngemeier 2, 3 M.D. Tokch,nd J.L.Nelssen Summry opertion(e.g.,whetherbuyinghigherqulity breedingstockwillpyforitself). The Knss Swine Enterprise Record Progrm evlutes biologicl nd economic Knss Stte University joined the Uniperformnce nd is prt of coopertive re- versity of Nebrsk nd South Dkot Stte cord-keepingprojectwithextensionpersonnel University in coopertive record-keeping nd swine producers in Knss, Nebrsk, progrm in Jnury 1991. This progrm nd South Dkot. From Jnury 1 to compiles individulproducerrecordsofpro- December 31, 1996, profit per cwt of pork duction nd finncil fctors into stte nd producedbytheseproducers(13semi-nnul regionl summries. Enterprise summries nd 18 nnul dt) verged $10.62 for the re provided for frrow-to-finish, feeder pig lst6monthsof1996nd$8.08fortheentire producing, feeder pig finishing,combintion yer. Producersinthetopone-thirdinterms (less thn 70% of pigs sold s either mrket of profitbility hdvergeprofitsof$15.11 hogs or feeder pigs), nd seedstock operpercwt,wheresproducersinthebottomone- tions. Mnyoftheitemsrerecordedonthe third hd verge profits of $.73 per cwt for bsisofpercwtofporkproduced. Recording theyer. Criticlfctorsseprtinglow-nd costs on this bsis fcilittes comprisons high-profit producers included feed costs, mongproducersofvrioussizes. unpidlbor,fixedcosts,nddethloss. RegionlGroupSummry (KeyWords: Enterprise,Records,Anlysis, Profitbility.) Individul producers collect dt on hog inventories, hog sles, hog purchses, feed Introduction inventories,feedpurchses,opertingexpenses, lbor, fixed expenses, nd herd perforducers Production nd finncil records hve mnce. Thesedtfromindividulproducer become essentil mngement tools of mny dt were used by Extension personnel to swineproducers. Productionrecords mesure compilethe1996regionl(ks, NE,ndSD) the productivity of n opertion. Finncil group summries for frrow-to-finish operrecords mesureeconomicperformnce. An tions reported in Tble 1. Records of 13 ccurte set of records llows producers to producers re summrized for the lst 6 compre their efficiency levels with those of monthsof1996,ndrecordsof18producers otherproducersndtotrckperformnceover re summrized for the 12-month period time. Records re prticulrly useful when JnurytoDecember1996. Profitpercwtof mking cpitl purchses of buildings nd pork produced on neconomiclifedepreciequipment nd in evluting chnge in n tion bsis (Line 20) is used to seprte pro- into top nd bottom one-third profit 11 The uthors thnk Mike Brumm nd Al Prosch, University of Nebrsk, for their ssistncewiththeprogrm. 2 DeprtmentofAgriculturlEconomics. 3 NorthestAreExtensionOffice. 19
groups. Thus, ll other items represent the Vrible costs per cwt (Line 10) cn be mens for tht prticulr profit group. The broken down into four ctegories: feed costs informtion in Tble 1 llows producers to (Line 5), other operting expenses (Line 6), compre the performnce of their opertion to interest costs on operting cpitl (Line 9), tht of other opertions in the progrm. nd unpid lbor nd mngement (Line 38). Totl costs per cwt include these vrible Profit per cwt of pork produced verged costs, plus interest chrges on investments in well bove brekeven ($10.62 per cwt) over buildings nd equipment (Line 12) nd ecothe lst 6 months of 1996. However, profits nomic life deprecition, txes, nd insurnce vried substntilly mong producers. For costs (Line 13). Producers in the top onethe lst 6 months of 1996, producers in the third profit group hd lower costs for ech of top one-third in terms of profitbility hd the vrible ($40.70) nd totl ($44.96) cost verge profits per cwt of $18.93. Producers ctegories compred to the verge producers' in the bottom one-third hd verge losses of vrible ($46.34) nd totl ($50.71) costs per $.47 per cwt. Profit differences remined cwt of pork produced. A $12.68 per cwt similr between these two groups for the yer difference in totl costs existed between ($15.11 vs $.73), but the verge profit producers in the top nd bottom one-third mrgin ws lower for the whole yer becuse profit groups for the pst yer. of low mrket hog prices nd high feed costs during the first 6 months of 1996. Feed costs per cwt ccounted for $4.86 or 38.3% of the difference in totl costs for the Notice tht returns over csh costs (Line two profit groups. The top one-third 2) were positive for ll three profit groups for producers were ble to purchse their feed for the lst 6 months nd the whole yer despite $.93/cwt less (line 52) for the yer. A 5% the negtive profits of the low one-third profit improvement in feed efficiency occurred begroup during the lst 6 months. Typiclly, tween producers in the top vs bottom onemost producers cn cover csh costs, even third profit groups for the whole yer. when prices re reltively low. All producers were ble to cover unpid lbor nd fixed Other operting expenses include utilities, costs for the entire yer; thus, their return to hired lbor, supplies, repirs, veterinrin mngement ws positive (line 3) for the yer. costs, nd professionl dues. Other operting Although mrket conditions were excellent expenses (Line 6) nd interest costs on cpitl this pst yer, the rnge in profits mong (Line 9) ccounted for 54% nd 6% of the similr sized opertions is drmtic. This difference in totl costs between producers in indictes need to develop some mngement the high- nd low-profit groups, respectively. options tht will improve the profitbility of the bottom one0third of producers in the More efficient use of vilble lbor cn future. be key difference in producer profitbility. However, unpid lbor nd mngement were Line 4 presents the nnul rte of return only $.26 per cwt higher for producers in the on cpitl invested in the swine opertion. low-profit group thn for producers in the This rte should be compred to the rtes tht high-profit group for the pst yer. This cn be erned on other investments (e.g., difference ccounted for only 2% of the bnks, stocks). The return on cpitl for difference in totl costs per cwt between the producers in the high one-third profit group two groups. ws 49.5%, which ws substntilly more thn the verge return on cpitl for ll 18 producers for the entire yer. Note tht the return on cpitl for producers in the bottom one-third profitbility group ws 6.64% for the entire yer. 20
Differences in fixed costs per cwt (Line Finlly, swine enterprise records serve 17 to Line 10) were very similr between s useful mngement tool for individul producers in the high- nd low-profit groups producers to monitor their individul herd's for the yer ($4.26 vs $4.21, respectively). production nd economic performnce over the previous 6 months nd for the yer. As As suggested by the similr fixed costs, swine production becomes more competitive, producers in the top one-third group hd the the identifiction of good or problem res of sme litters per sow per yer (line 25) com- n opertion becomes incresingly essentil pred with those in the bottom one-third for producers to mintin profitbility. By (1.98). However, producers in the top one- compring n individul's records to the third group wened slightly more pigs per group summry, key economic criteri cn be litter (line 28), nd, therefore, produced more identified nd mngement strtegies implepigs per crte (line 30). Producers in the top mented to improve profitbility. The KSU one third hd lower prewening, finishing, Swine Enterprise Record progrm is n nd sow deth losses (lines 32, 33, nd 34). integrl prt of the swine extension service of- The high deth loss of wening to finishing fered by Knss Stte University. pigs by producers in the bottom one-third (11.82 vs 3.71) is mjor fctor contributing to their low profitbility. 21