production management that delivers results

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN

Production management that delivers results

Rafael Kummer, Phd.Master Company - Brazil


Brazilian Top 10 players

RANK COMPANY # SOWS1 BRASIL FOODS 450.0002 AURORA (COOP) 150.0003 MARFRIG/SEARA 115.0004 DOUX FRANGOSUL 33.0005 PAMPLONA 25.0006 MASTER AGROPECUARIA 21.0007 COOP CASTROLANDA 15.0008 COSUEL 12.0009 COOPERCAMPOS 12.00010 COPAGRIL 10.000


Master Agropecuária – Overview

• Founded: April, 29th 1994 (Family Company)

• Business: production of pigs for reproduction and slaughter in partnership

• Company structure- 21.000 sows (6 farms)- 2 boar studs (150 boars)- 2 feed mills- 190 partners- 270 employees

• Target for 2011: 600.000 wean pigs (28,4 P/S/Y)


Business point of view - BTW

Site I21%

Síte II17%Síte III

62%


Throughput

CostProductivity

Managing BTW


Throughput

CostProductivity

Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime


Cost of production 2010 2011 VAR % % PART Wean Pig (1 U$ = 1,7 R$) U$ 25,93 27,53 6,2% 100,0%Feed U$ 12,99 14,08 8,4% 51,1%Depreciation (facilities + animals) U$ 3,90 3,48 -10,9% 12,6%Med + Vaccin U$ 1,89 3,15 66,3% 11,4%Labor U$ 3,12 2,91 -6,6% 10,6%General Production Cost U$ 1,81 1,70 -6,5% 6,2%Environmental cost U$ 0,65 0,67 3,9% 2,4%Semen U$ 0,56 0,63 13,0% 2,3%Received cost U$ 0,68 0,59 -12,9% 2,2%Feed + semen transportation U$ 0,32 0,31 -0,7% 1,1%

Sow feed / wean pig (kg) KG 7,2 6,8 -5,3% Number of pigs weaned CAB 133.188 146.644 10,1% Average wean weight KG 5,8 6,0 4,3% Kg weaned 772.290 887.191 14,9%


Sow depreciation

((Value per gilt bred – Value per sow culled) + added cost) / Wean pigs per sow culled

Average sow parity at culling 3,6 Wean pigs per farrow 11,2 Wean pigs per sow culled 40,9

Value to depreciate - U$/sow $72,65Gilt cost $238,00Sow value $209,44Value to be depreciated per sow culled $15,57Value to be added per death sow $24,00Value to be added per gilt not bred $4,52

Depreciation per wean pig $1,78


Throughput

CostProductivity



Productivity – PSY (system monthly average)

mai-10 jun-10 jul-10 ago-10 set-10 out-10 nov-10 dez-10 jan-11 fev-1124.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0


1 2 3 4 5 6 711.2

11.4

11.6

11.8

12.0

12.2

12.4

11.93 11.96

12.19

12.3012.21

11.79

11.60

Born alive vs. parity (49.305 farrows)


Today distribution per parity

1 2 3 4 5 6 711.2

11.4

11.6

11.8

12.0

12.2

12.4

11.93 11.96

12.19

12.3012.21

11.79

11.60

38% 42% 20%


Objective (improve 0,3 to 0,4 PSY)

1 2 3 4 5 6 711.2

11.4

11.6

11.8

12.0

12.2

12.4

11.93 11.96

12.19

12.3012.21

11.79

11.60

38% >50% <10%


Throughput

CostProductivity



Throughput 2010 2011 VAR %

Number of pigs weaned CAB 133.188 146.644 10,1% Average wean pig weight KG 5,8 6,0 4,3% Kg weaned 772.290 887.191 14,9%

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 678000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

Number of pigs weaned per week


Throughput


OP 1 OP 5

Adotados de OP 5Biológicos de OP 1

Biológicos de OP 5

Adotados de OP 1

8 - 24 h

1,2 - 1,6 kg

Performance according to parity

Bierhals et al. Non published data


Performance according parity

Parity Piglets Fostering 7 d 14 d 18 d

1 Adopted 1434,5 a 2528,6 a 4072,0 a 5051,7 a

1 N adopted 1423,7 a 2558,6 a 4078,6 a 5061,9 a

5 Adopted 1443,3 a 2845,5 b 4803,4 b 5900,9 b

5 N adopted 1450,8 a 2819,6 b 4782,2 b 6047,0 b

Bierhals et al. Non published data


Throughput

Source: C. Moore, 2005 – London Swine Conference


Parity retention importance

• Decrease cost of production

• Increase productivity

• Increase throughput

• Improve pig quality at weaning


What do we want as a system

1. > 50% of sows from P3 to P5.

2. Reduce replacement rate to 43-47%.

3. We need to improve voluntary culling vs. involuntary.


How do we manage

1. Looking at retention per parity.– Select to breed > 90%– Breed to P1 > 95%– P1 to P2 > 90%– P2 to P3 > 90%

2. Looking at voluntary vs. involuntary culling.Voluntary: productivity or ageInvoluntary: all other reasons


What are big challenges

Birth – Selection – Breed – P1 – Breed – P2 – Breed – P3

>70%


What are the key points we believe

• Have the right boars on boar stud;

• Have the right number of gilts available to select;

• Have a specialist doing selection;

• Do a good job on puberty stimulation;

• Breed gilts by weight;

• Feed based on body condition score - avoid fat animals;

• Watch for food and water during first lactation;

• Have 1 person responsible for culling;

• Make groups in gestation of problem animals every 2 weeks;


Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.

• Farm Master VII:– 5.500 animals.– 2.500 L02 females.– Internal nursery and grower – no animals entering

the unit from outside.– Genetic improvement through boars



• When we should start selecting the replacement gilt?

• Should we not tag low birth weight animals?

• Does parity of the mother sow impact subsequent performance?

• Can we manipulate diet during growth to improve sow longevity?



• Project A:– Start: December, 2009.

– Identified 1525 L02 gilts at birth – EBV, boar/sow, sow parity, litter information.

– Individual weight at birth, weaning, end of nursery and selection 155 d.

– Record information off test – culling/death.

– Objective: to follow these animals up to parity 3.



Liter size at birth Birth weight, g

7-11 12-13 14-19 530-1200 1205-1600 1605-2535

Birth weight, g/d 1417 ± 7,9A 1400 ±

6,5AB

1393 ±

6,3B

1013 ± 8,3a 1411 ± 5,2b 1787 ± 7,0c

GR, g/d 184,9 ± 2,9 188,3 ± 2,5 187,6 ± 2,3 174,9 ±

3,2a

188,4 ±

1,9b

197,4 ± 2,5c

Nursery GR, g/d 420,8 ± 4,4 423,1 ± 3,7 418,4 ± 3,6 406,8 ±

4,9a

421,3 ±

2,9b

434,1 ± 3,8c

Finisher GR, g/d 876,0 ± 8,2 887,6 ± 6,5 883,8 ± 6,5 850,2 ±

9,0a

892,9 ±

5,1b

904,2 ±

6,7b

Age at select, d 158,5 ± 0,5 158,6 ± 0,4 157,6 ± 0,4 161,0 ±

0,6a

157,7 ±

0,3b

156,0 ± 0,4c

GR at select, g/d 627,4 ± 4,8 634,1 ± 3,9 632,0 ± 3,8 605,1 ±

5,3a

637,8 ±

3,0b

650,7 ± 4,0c

BF at select, mm 11,4 ± 0,16 11,4 ± 0,13 11,4 ± 0,13 11,5 ± 0,17 11,5 ± 0,10 11,3 ± 0,13

B.Exp-puberty, d 17,3 ± 0,8 16,7 ± 0,6 18,7 ± 0,7 15,8 ± 0,9a 17,9 ±

0,5ab

18,9 ± 0,7b


Peso ajustado 22 d, kg (n=1379)



0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

4,9±0,07a

26,5± 0,27a

94,9± 0,78a

5,6±0,04b

28 ± 0,16b

99,8 ± 0,44b

6,1±0,06c

29,3 ± 0,21c

101,8± 0,58c

530-1200 1205-1600 1605-2535


22 d weight (n=1379) 75 d weight (n=1198) 155 d weight (n=940)

1013 ± 8,3a 1411 ± 5,2b 1787 ± 7,0c


530-1200 1205-1600 1605-2535 150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

170 ± 0,8a

166,9± 0,4b165,1± 0,6c

185,8± 1,2 184,9± 0,6183,4± 0,9

Idade de estímulo com macho, d (n=569) Idade da puberdade, d (n=504)


Age at boar exposure (n=569) Age at puberty (n=504)


Variável Litter size P value7≤x≤11 11<x≤13 x>13

NV+NAT 1 10,02a 12,31b 15,42c <0,0001NV+NAT 2 11,32 11,68 11,44 NS



Project 1 – preliminary results

• There is a lower chance that a low birth weight L02 will reach selection;

• No impact on selection rate;

• There is NO correlation between birth weight and puberty age and birth weight and anestrous rate;

• Evaluating subsequent performance and retention up to P3.


Conclusions

• Everything we do is to get closer to genetic potential!

Sow L02 – EBV Total Born # Farrows<31 10,0 743

31 a 40 11,5 67441 a 50 12,4 81151 a 60 12,8 62261 a 70 13,5 407>70 14,8 261

Average 12,1 3518

L02 total born according to Estimated Breeding Value at breeding – Master 7 (2010)


Take home messages

• There is no improvement without EBV management;

• Parity retention is key for cost, productivity and throughput;

• Sow replacement rate > 50% is not the future;

• Manage looking at retention by parity and voluntary vs. involuntary culling reason;

• Make the things easy in a routine base or will not get fully implemented.

production management that delivers results

Documents

sow lifetimepic symposium

sow value

farrowspic symposium

tnpic symposium

sow feed

psy pic symposium

sow culledaverage sow

sow culled40