yearbook - ahdb pork · 2016-2017 (£’000) rd & ke market development export development...
TRANSCRIPT
YEARBOOK2015-2016
Key industry statistics, pig performance data and details of knowledge transfer, research and development activity.
Contents
Preface ................................................................................................................................ 02
AHDB Pork Board ............................................................................................................ 03
Strategy and budget ...................................................................................................... 04
Pork promotion ............................................................................................................... 06
Export ................................................................................................................................. 08
AHDB Pork by numbers ................................................................................................. 10
Industry statistics ...........................................................................................................12
International cost of pig production ....................................................................... 18
Cost of production ......................................................................................................... 22
Technical performance data ....................................................................................... 24
Knowledge exchange
Farm reviews ................................................................................................................. 36
Skills and training ......................................................................................................... 36
Study tours .................................................................................................................... 39
Events .............................................................................................................................. 41
Research and innovation
Health ............................................................................................................................. 44
Welfare ........................................................................................................................... 46
Environment and buildings ....................................................................................... 48
Pork safety and product quality .............................................................................. 52
Productionefficiency ................................................................................................. 53
Field trials ....................................................................................................................... 54
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 1
‘A growing English pig production and primary processing industry’Vision
‘To help English pig production and processing businesses become more competitive and profitable’Mission
2 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 3
Atfarmlevel,profitabilityhasencouragedmuch-needed
investment which in turn has helped improve productivity
and output. This has resulted in pig meat production in 2015
reaching the highest level since 2000. While there is still work
to be done to close the productivity gap with our competitors,
especiallyinbreedingherdperformance,wehavedefinitely
been on the Road to Recovery.
“This has resulted in pig meat production in 2015 reaching the highest level since 2000.”
Fifteen years ago, we experienced the vicious circle of
decline with low prices leading to a lack of investment which
undermined performance and increased costs, resulting
inalackofconfidence.Inrecentyears,thischangedintoa
virtuous circle of better returns, more investment, improved
productivityandanexpandingindustry.Iftheindustryis
to come out of the other side of this trough and regain its
momentum, the whole chain needs to appreciate the mutual
benefitsofaviableandsustainablepigproductionbaseand
act accordingly.
ThepastyearhasbeenextremelydifficultfortheBritishpig industry, particularly since the turn of the year. The pressure from lower EU pig prices had been felt throughout 2015 but this eventually took its toll from Christmas onwards.
Thepricedifferentialhashalvedandstoodatjust15p/kg in
the spring of 2016. Despite feed prices also falling, this meant
producers were losing an average of £16 perfinishedpig.
This position is obviously not sustainable and a number
of producers have decided to cease either temporarily or
permanently. However, it looks at the moment as if the
majoritywillremaininbusiness.
The challenge cannot be underestimated. Continental EU
prices are weak because of the struggles to replace demand
lost when the export market to Russia was closed due to
AfricanSwineFever.Itseemsunlikelythepositionwillchange
in the near future.
Demand for pork and pork products in the UK is facing
considerable competition from other meats and from changes
in the promotional strategies used by retailers. They are
moving more towards regular lower prices rather than special
offers.Theperceptionsofmeatasbeingmodern,convenient
and healthy is also being challenged on a number of fronts.
“…results show 8 of the 10 supermarkets in Great Britain sell 100% British fresh pork…”
Nevertheless, there are positives factors. Porkwatch results
show 8 of the 10 supermarkets in Great Britain sell 100%
BritishfreshporkandasignificantamountofBritishsausages,
baconandham.InadditiontheresultsofthePulledPork
campaign,aspartofthestrategytorejuvenatetheimage
of pork, show it can stimulate sales and impact positively on
consumerattitudes.DemandforUKporkandoffalonexport
markets is also growing, adding valuable revenue to the
industry. Markets such as China are leading the way but further
opportunities exist in South East Asia, Africa and the Americas.
Preface
The AHDB Pork Board
Meryl Ward, MBE Chairwoman
Ermine Farms Ltd
Andrew Saunders Tulip UK
William de Klein KARRO Food Group
Iain Wylie
Alistair Butler Blythburgh Free
Range Pork
Simon Watchorn Earsham Park Farm
Rob Mercer Packington Pork
Marcus Cheale Cheale Meats of Brentwood
Barry Lock Cranswick
Robert Shepherd Allenford Farms
Ian Smith Bedfordia Farms
Richard Hooper Harper Adams
University College
The AHDB Pork Board meets six times each year to determine the English pig industry strategy and to ensure
thatEnglishpiglevypayer’smoneyisefficientlydeployedinlinewiththeAHDBPorkstrategy.
The AHDB Pork Board for the period 2015-2016 comprised the following Directors, appointed by Defra.
Producers
Processors
Independent
Mick Sloyan Strategy Director, AHDB Pork
4 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 5
Strategy & budgetVision: ‘A growing English pig production and primary processing industry’. Mission: ‘To help English pig production and processing businesses become more competitiveandprofitable’.
In2014,theAHDBPorkBoardagreedthe‘GoingforGrowth’
strategy. This refocused the technical work of AHDB Pork
into a single team, operating in four strategic areas of activity.
The marketing strategy was also developed to focus more
onrejuvenatingtheimageofporkasameanstostimulating
demand and maintaining the premium for English pigs.
This yearbook reviews the delivery of the strategy and the
business plan during 2015-16.
The five point plan
The 5-Point Plan was detailed in the 2013-2014 Yearbook and is
availableontheAHDBPorkwebsite.Insummary,itfocuseson
the following key areas of activity:
Close the gap1.
Objective: To narrow the technical performance gap between
English pig producers and competitors.
• Establishafieldtrialsprogramme
• Identifyinnovationfromaroundtheworldanddisseminate
to pig producers
• Develop skills under the banner ‘Recruit, Retain, Reward’,
recognisingprofessionaldevelopmentofstaffand
demonstrating a skilled and attractive career path
• Minimise the risks from endemic and exotic disease by
establishingeffectivebiosecuritytoolsandtechnologies
• Set up regional technical forum
Protect the environment2.
Objective: Help pig producers and processors comply with
existing and emerging legislation and achieve recognition for
progress made.
Budget allocation in 2016-2017 (£’000)
RD & KE
Market development
Export development
Market intelligence
Digital services
Communications
Total support
Total spend (including non-levy income) is £9.84 million
• Set up a business support service to advise on reducing
environmental impact, compliance with planning rules
and environmental regulations
• Monitor, interpret and help to inform environmental policy
and regulations in both the UK and EU
• Capture the progress made by the English pig industry and
helptoensurethisiscommunicatedeffectively
Enhance pig welfare3.
Objective: Help pig producers comply with existing
and emerging legislation and achieve recognition for
progress made.
• Establish the measurement and recording of welfare
outcome measures by trained vets
• Develop the communication of welfare measures
to producers and vets
• Develop support packages to help producers and vets
enhance pig welfare
• Monitor, interpret and seek to inform developments
inwelfareregulationsinconjunctionwithindustry
representative organisations
Encourage safe and traceable pork4.
Objective: Help producers and processors produce pork that
continuestobesafeandwhichconsumerscanhaveconfidence
isfullytraceablefromfarmtofinishedproduct.
• Support the pig meat supply chain in producing wholesome
pork products with safety, provenance and integrity, from
farm to fork
• PromotetheuseofisotopetracingusingSIRA(Stable
IsotopeReferenceAnalysis)toolthroughthesupplychain
• Work with RUNA and the PVS to reduce the need
to use antimicrobials
• Set up a technical processor forum on food safety
and traceability
Resources: AHDB Pork’s resources are almost exclusively provided from the levy on producers and processors, which remains at 85p a pig for producers and 20p a pig for processors, applied to pigs slaughtered in England.
Help to sell more pork5.
Objective: Stimulate the demand for pork through
communicationofthebenefitsofchoosingporkandsecuring
and developing export markets.
• Rejuvenatetheimageofpork
• Differentiatefromthecompetition
• Communicatethehealthbenefitsofpork
• Communicate pork as an environmentally sustainable food
Monitoring the progress of strategy
The AHDB Pork board assesses the progress in achieving the
strategy on a regular basis concentrating on a number of
target areas, including:
• ImprovementsinKeyPerformanceIndicators(KPIs)
• Reducing the industry’s carbon footprint
• Monitoring the progress of Real Welfare
• DevelopingtheuseofSIRAtoenhancethetraceability of pork
• Increasingtheconsumption,particularlyamonglight
and medium users
• Tracking levy-payer feedback, particularly with regard
to delivering value for money
• Continuing to expand our export markets.
£3,005
£3,330£703
£763
£1,132
£544
£363
6 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 7
Pork promotionThe AHDB Pork marketing team continues to focus itseffortstohelpsellmorepork.Heavilyaffectedbya number of external factors, including the Russian ban leading to over-supply in Europe and changes to supermarket price promotions, it has never been more important to communicate the relevance and value of pork to today’s consumer.
Pulled pork campaign
The pulled pork campaign in May 2015 provided a much
needed boost to the industry. The campaign, which was
independently evaluated, showed some excellent results,
including an uplift in sales of shoulder of 19.2% volume sales
and 21.4% value sales, as 206,000 more households bought
fresh pork shoulder during the campaign (an increase of
14.9%).Inaddition,thecampaignalsocreatedasignificant
haloeffectonthewiderporkcategory,stimulatingafurther
£7.8 million of incremental fresh pork sales.
Followingfirstburstofthepulledporkcampaign,another
programme of activity took place at the beginning of 2016,
timed to coincide with notable calendar events such as
Valentine’sDay,Mother’sDayandthefirstMaybankholiday.
World Health Organisation
InOctober,thepreliminaryfindingsbytheWorldHealth
Organisation (WHO) concluded that red meat probably causes
cancer and processed meat causes cancer.
“...red meat plays a valuable role in the diet...”
The AHDB Pork marketing team took the lead in responding to
thefindingsbyprovidingabalancedresponseonbehalfofthe
red meat industry.
Thestrategywastoinjectcontextintothestory,which,
according to an independent evaluation, was achieved, as the
message ‘red meat plays a valuable role in the diet’ was seen
by more than three-quarters (77%) of the population
at least seven times during the media coverage around the
WHO announcement.
The team has continued to work with secondary schools
through the Meat and Education programme, providing
food technology teachers with free teaching resources to
helpcommunicatethebenefitsofredmeatinthedietto
11-16-year-olds.
One of the many resources available is a programme of free
teacher workshops, undertaken on Saturdays, to make it easier
for teachers to attend. Teachers were given the opportunity
to receive a curriculum and knowledge update and were then
put through their paces with a practical lesson. This work is set
to continue as the need to instil positive messages around red
meat to younger people remains vital in order to educate the
next generation of shoppers.
“Making pork more inspiring will continue to be the focus of our future campaigns and promotional activity through 2016 and beyond.”
Making pork more inspiring will continue to be the focus of our
future campaigns and promotional activity through 2016 and
beyond. Changes to LovePork.co.uk continue with new recipe
ideas, search engine optimised content and new additions.
This has enabled the team to be regularly attracting anywhere
from 20,000 to 50,000 consumer visitors to the website each
month.Workinginconjunctionwiththesocialchannels,the
aim is to keep reminding consumers that pork is delicious,
versatile and should feature regularly as part of the family
meal repertoire.
British Sausage Week
InNovember,the18thBritishSausageWeektookplace
with Michelin starred chef Michel Roux Jr taking the lead
as this year’s ambassador. The competition attracted
more than 500sausages,includingentriesfromallmajor
supermarkets, processors and hundreds of butchers
across the country, vying to win one of the prestigious
Banger Awards.
19.2% increase of
shoulder sales
£7.8mincremental fresh pork sales
21.4% value sales
206,000 households bought fresh pork shoulder an increase of 14.9%
A record number of butcher’s point of sale kits were
ordered (1,040) to support the campaign, and a survey
conducted after the Week revealed that more than half
(53%) of butchers said they sold more sausages during
British Sausage Week. The team also secured headlines
by creating the world’s most expensive sausage. The
story appeared in national newspapers, featured in TV
and radio reports and was even tweeted by Dragon,
Peter Jones. Engaging content aimed at the younger
generation was created, with a video of TV’s poshest
person, Mark Francis from ‘Made in Chelsea’, educating
consumersonthejoysofBritishsausages.
ExportThe Export team
With the high value of Sterling making British pork much more expensive on foreign markets, it is reassuring that the UK maintained, and even slightly grew, export volumes in 2015;...
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 98 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
...this was not to the detriment of the British premium
paidtopigproducers.Inshort,exportshavemadea
positive contribution to producers’ revenues against a
background of tough, international market conditions
and lower domestic pig consumption.
With pork consumption and prices lacklustre in Europe,
export growth for EU pork is taking place in China
and Japan, helped by the current low prices and the
favourable exchange rate against the US Dollar. The
UK remains the sixth largest pork exporter to China, a
considerable feat, given the relatively small size of the
sector in Europe. The good news is that exporters are
steadily increasing sales in China and have plans to add
valuetotheiroffer.Lastyear,thevalueoftheexports
of pork to China even overtook that of Scotch whisky.
“Last year, the value of the exports of pork to China even overtook that of Scotch whisky.”
Inagrowingmarket,suchasChina,tradefairsstill
have an essential role to bring buyers together from all
corners of the country. AHDB Pork is present at four
showsinChina,includingthelargestexhibition,SIAL,
in Shanghai. Due to the importance of Chinese pig
production, there is also representation at the CAHE
fair with pig genetics.
China is a huge market for pork. However, the AHDB
Pork export team looks beyond the Far East and led
commercial missions to Japan and sub-Saharan Africa
during the last 12 months. The aim is to maximise the
value of every pig produced in Britain; the UK is not
onlysellingcommoditypork.In2015,therewasalso
asignificantbreakthroughintheUSA,withhigh-
welfare British pork going into the demanding US
food service sector.
Peter Hardwick Head of Livestock Exports Trade Development
Jean-Pierre Garnier Head of AHDB Exports
Jonathan Eckley Senior Export Manager
Susana Morris Export Manager
10 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 11
Pork by numbers
183 farm visits by KT team
392 delegates attended conferences
150 pig clubs around the country
3,347 people attended pig clubs
13,248 training hours delivered
489 new twitter followers
5 PhD students sponsored by AHDB Pork
7 scholarship placements awarded
4,367 publications and on-farm tools requested
1,040 butcher’s point of sale kits sent out during British Sausage Week
206,000 more households bought fresh pork shoulder during the first pulled pork campaign
Improvements in pigs weaned over the last 12 months: +0.28 (indoor) +0.24 (outdoor)
Change in FCR over the last 12 months: +0.18 (rearing) +0.02 (finishing)
Change in DLWG over the last 12 months: -39g (rearing) -16g (finishing)
12 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 13
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Jan 16Jul 15Jan 15Jul 14Jan 14Jul 13Jan 13
Soya meal
Feed wheat
100
120
140
160
180
200
DAPP/APP
Average COP
Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: AHDB MarketIntelligence
Pri
ce/k
g
Industry statisticsTheobjectiveofAHDBMarketIntelligence(MI)istoproviderelevant, useful, accurate and timely market information to the English pig and allied industries. This should support them in understanding the market and making decisions that maximise their competitiveness and sustainability and also improve supply chain transparency.
ActivitiesundertakenbytheMarketIntelligencefunction
focus on both the supply and demand sides of the industry
and include the following:
• Collection and calculation of weekly pig meat and other red
meat price data and market information
• Production of accurate market forecasts of meat
production and consumption
• Collection and provision of average pig production costs
and performance measurement
• Publication of relevant market information and analysis
from the UK, EU and beyond through regular free
publications, the AHDB Pork website and other media
• Collation and publication of international cost and physical
performance comparisons, which are addressed through
theInterPIGproject
• Enabling AHDB Pork marketing activity to be based on
a sound knowledge and understanding of the market
and consumers from research provided by the Market
Intelligencefunction.
The following sections of the report aim to summarise some
of the key market statistics and performance trends from
the last year.
The cost of production£AccordingtothedatafromInterPIG,thecostofpigmeat
production in Great Britain decreased by 13% in 2014, to
£1.39/kg. This was almost entirely due to the reduction in
feed costs. The average cost of production in the EU was
£1.34/kg deadweight.
This was also a 13% decrease on the previous year, again
mainly due to the reduction in feed costs. GB production
costs have been decreasing throughout 2015 and, based on
provisionalestimates,arelikelytobesignificantlylowerthan
2014. Once again, this has mainly been driven by the reduction
in feed costs.
GB pig prices have been falling throughout 2014 and 2015,
after peaking in late 2013 at over 170p/kg, to a near eight-year
low in February 2016. The GB All Pig Price (APP) ended 2015 at
127.68p/kg, and has continued to decrease into 2016. Despite
the falling cost of production, the decrease in the APP has
meant that most producers were making small losses on a full
economic basis. Once non-cash costs, such as depreciation and
family labour, are removed, most producers would still have
beenmakingacashprofitthroughoutmostof2015.However,
thelatestprovisionalfiguresshowthatthismayhavechanged
for the end of 2015 and into 2016, with the pig price falling
sharply, while feed costs have remained relatively stable and
moved many more producers into the red.
Fig. 2: Average compound feed prices, GB
200
250
300
2015 Q42015 Q32015 Q22015 Q1201420132012
Source: Defra
£/to
nne 265
278
249
237 234237
218
Fig. 3: Prices for feed wheat and soya meal
Source: AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds
£/to
nne
This fall mirrored the decline seen in prices for the main feed ingredients (Figure 3).
Record production during 2014 and 2015 contributed to this and prices ended the year
at around £114/tonne, almost £20 below a year earlier. However, prices have largely
stabilised in the last quarter of 2015.
Soya meal prices have been decreasing steadily throughout 2015, impacted by record
SouthAmericanandUScropsandproduction,withsupplybeingsignificantlyahead
of demand. After peaking at over £420/tonne in the summer of 2013, the UK price for
Braziliansoyamealended2015atjustover£250/tonne, around £85 below a year earlier.
Average quarterly compound feed prices have fallen steadily since their peak in Q1 2013
and,bythefinalquarterof2015,theaveragestoodat£218/tonne, the lowest level seen
since Q3 2010 and 25% below the 2013 peak.
Fig. 1: Total cost of pig production compared with pig prices
14 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 15
British pig herd performance trends
Key annual trends in physical performance for the British breeding, rearing
and feeding herds from 2011 to 2015 are shown in Table 1. The average of
InterPIGEUcountriesisalsodisplayedforthe2014calendaryear.
Performance continued to improve across many of the physical
performance measures in 2015, but still trailed or matched EU counterparts.
For example, the number of pigs weaned per sow per year increased by
0.3 pigs, but was still over 2 pigs behind the EU average. The fact that
over 40%ofGBsowsarekeptoutdoors,unlikemostInterPIGmembers
(whichpredominantlyhousebreedingsowsindoors),willreducethisfigure,
as average performance of outdoor kept sows is lower. However, even
comparing indoor kept sows in GB with the EU average, the GB average is
still lower.
"…over 40% of GB sows are kept outdoors, unlikemostInterPIGmembers…"
Feed conversion ratios worsened slightly for both the rearing herd and the
finishingherd.Dailyliveweightgainfellmodestlyintherearingherdbut
increased in the feeding herd.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2014
Breeding herd EU avg.Sow mortality (%) 3.2 3.6 4.5 4.6 5.4 5.8
Litters per sow per year 2.26 2.26 2.29 2.27 2.27 2.30
Pigs born alive per litter 11.39 11.54 11.87 12.12 12.26 13.22
Mortality of pigs born alive (%) 12.4 12.7 13.0 12.6 12.2 12.9
Pigs weaned per litter 9.98 10.07 10.33 10.59 10.76 11.52
Pigs weaned per sow per year 22.56 22.80 23.63 24.09 24.38 26.53
Average weaning age (days) 27 27 26 26 26 27
Rearing herd
Weight of pigs at start (kg) 7.6 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.0 7.5
Weight of pigs produced (kg) 36.8 35.9 35.6 37.1 36.9 30.0
Mortality (%) 2.6 2.5 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.7
Feed conversion ratio 1.71 1.77 1.75 1.71 1.89 1.83
Daily live weight gain (g) 489 489 495 502 463 419
Feeding herdWeight of pigs produced (kg) 102.6 102.7 104.3 105.4 106.2 118.5
Mortality (%) 2.9 2.5 2.8 3.2 2.7 2.6
Feed conversion ratio 2.82 2.72 2.78 2.67 2.69 2.85
Daily live weight gain (g) 784 822 816 801 817 793
Table 1: Performance trends in Great Britain
Source:AgrosoftLtd,InterPIG
Industry trends
Table 2 shows changes in pig carcases between 2013 and
2015. The long-term upwards trend in carcase weight
continued into 2015, with the average weight reaching 81kg.
A continued reduction in feed costs helped this increase,
alongside favourable growing conditions for the year. Probe
measurements have increased year on year for similar reasons,
buthavenotchangedsignificantly.Therefore,thenetresult
is that the lean meat percentage has shown little change,
remainingatjustover 61% of the carcase for the last decade.
In2010,justover10% of clean pigs slaughtered had dressed
carcase weights of less than 70kg. By 2015, that percentage
had fallen to 8%. 2015 saw 57% of pigs slaughtered having
a carcase weight of over 80kg, compared with 45% in 2010,
and over 14% had a carcase weight of over 90kg. This was an
increase of almost six percentage points on 2010.
"A continued reduction in feed costs helped this increase, alongside favourable growing conditions for the year. Probe measurements have increased year on year for similar reasons, buthavenotchangedsignificantly."
Table 2: Average abattoir results
† An average predicted lean meat percentage based on the following equation:Lean meat % = (66.5-(0.95 x P2)+(0.068 x carcase weight))
2013 2014 2015Back fat (P2, mm) 11.0 11.1 11.3
Lean meat (%) † 61.4 61.4 61.3
Carcase weight (kg) 78.8 80.6 81.0
Weight range (kg)
Fig. 4: Carcase weight distribution 2010 – 2015
2015
2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
90+80-89.970-79.9Under 70
Source:AHDBMarketIntelligence
% o
f sa
mp
le
10.52%8.50%
44.75%
7.97%
14.23%
34.62%36.22%
43.18%
16 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 17
TheUKproducedmoreporkthanbeefin2015forthefirsttime
since 2003. UK clean pig slaughterings increased by almost 4%,
withatotalofjustover10.6 million head, the highest since
2000.IncreasesinslaughteringswererecordedinEngland,
NorthernIrelandandScotland,althoughthelatterwasata
more subdued rate. The increase in production levels, by over
4% to 899 thousand tonnes, was largely driven by increases in
clean pig slaughtering numbers.
Sowcullingsfor2015increased,byjustunder1% to 244
thousand head, on the previous year. Volumes were lower
than normal in late 2014 and early 2015, in response to the
low cull sow price.
Levels subsequently rose throughout 2015, but stayed
within the normal range and at a level that was not
indicative of a shrinking breeding herd. They were certainly
much lower than volumes seen in 2012, when high feed
pricesdidhitproducers’profitabilityandthebreedingherd
size did decline.
Cwe=carcaseweightequivalent.*Notsurveyresults.Basedonrelationshipbetweenadjustedcleanpigslaughter(slaughteringsminusliveimports plus live exports). **Production as % of consumption. Source:AHDBMarketIntelligence,Defra
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
UK breeding herd (000 head)
June 432 425 421 406 408
December 409 400 398 390 401
UK sow productivity*
Pigs per sow 21.6 22.5 23.0 23.9 25.3
Pig meat per sow (kg) 1,692 1,761 1,824 1,933 2,062
UK production and consumption
Clean pig slaughter (000 head) 9,813 10,035 10,050 10,227 10,607
Total pig meat production (000 tonnes) 806 825 833 863 899
UK trade (000 tonnes)
Imports(cwe) 960 942 928 948 966
(Fresh/frozen) 410 387 392 396 410
(Bacon) 328 302 292 300 294
(Processed) 223 254 244 252 262
Exports (cwe) 206 203 229 233 235
Total pig meat consumption (000 tonnes) 1,559 1,564 1,532 1,578 1,628
Per capita consumption (kg/head) 24.6 24.6 23.9 24.4 25.0
Self-sufficiencyinpigmeat** 52% 53% 54% 55% 55%
Table 3: Industry Trends
In2015,theUKimportedmorepork,sausages,processedpig
meatandoffalthanthepreviousyear.Porkandprocessed
pig meat imports only recorded modest growth, despite
thesignificantpricegapbetweenUKandEUproducts,
exacerbated by the strength of the pound against the Euro.
Sausageandoffalimportssawagreaterpercentagegrowth,
although absolute volumes were smaller. While imported pork
volumes grew 4% in 2015, this was at the expense of value,
which fell by 12% over the same period. Denmark, Belgium and
Spain all increased their shipments to the UK throughout 2015.
ImportvolumesfromtheNetherlandslargelyremainedstatic,
while volumes from Germany fell.
Exportsofpork,baconandoffalgrewthroughout2015on
the year earlier, while volumes of sausages and processed pig
meats fell. Pork exports grew by 2% in volume, largely driven
byincreasesinshipmentstoIrelandandChina.However,the
value of these exports declined by 6% over the same period,
illustrating the depreciation of UK pork to remain competitive
ontheglobalmarket.Baconandoffalexportsrecorded
significantpercentagegrowth,albeitinsmallervolumes.
OffalexportgrowthwaslargelydrivenbyshipmentstoChina,
which grew by 59% in 2015.
Table 4: Trends in retail pig meat purchases
Source: Kantar Worldpanel
Retail pig meat purchases
Retail data from Kantar Worldpanel (Table 4) shows that,
in the 52-week period ended 3 January 2016, purchases of
fresh and frozen pork declined by over 5% from the same
period a year earlier. There were declines across the board in
allporkcuts,withlegroastingjointsandporkbellyshowing
the sharpest decreases of -11% and -9% respectively. Value
declined even more sharply – by over 10% for fresh and frozen
pork and almost 22%forlegroastingjoints.Allothercuts
recordeddecreasesinvalueinexcessofvolumedeclines.In
other words, despite pork products being cheaper on the
shelves, consumers are still not purchasing them.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
000 tonnes
Fresh and frozen pork
187.8 182.2 178.7 177.4 167.8
Pork belly 19.0 21.5 19.5 19.0 17.3
Pork frying/ grilling chops
30.7 28.0 25.8 25.2 22.3
Pork frying/ grilling steak
48.3 44.5 45.3 41.7 40.7
Pork leg roastingjoint
27.4 23.2 22.6 23.3 20.7
Pork loin roasting 12.3 15.1 15.9 16.0 15.3
Pork shoulder roastingjoint
30.4 28.6 26.4 28.0 27.3
Pork mince 5.3 5.6 7.2 8.7 8.4
Bacon 225.6 227.6 218.1 216.5 212.2
Pork sausages 175.1 172.5 165.9 166.5 163.0
Sliced cooked meats (Pork and Ham)
130.3 133.8 136.7 136.4 135.1
"Over 2015, pork fared worse than other fresh meats, with volume sales of lamb remaining largely stable and beef falling only very slightly."
Processed and cured pig meat products fared a little better
than their fresh counterparts, in as much as their declines in
volume and value were not as great. Bacon and sausages both
experienced retail purchase declines of -2% in 2015, while
sliced cooked meat sales fell by -1%. As with fresh pork, value
for all three products fell at a greater rate than volume, as
prices were also cheaper in the processed market.
Over 2015, pork fared worse than other fresh meats, with
volume sales of lamb remaining largely stable and beef falling
only very slightly. Poultry meat sales increased by 4% year on
year in the 52 weeks to 3 January 2016. The decline in pork
sales was despite prices being driven down more sharply across
pork products than for poultry, beef or lamb.
Pig pocketbook
The annual pocketbook provides easy access to a
range of key statistics about the pig and poultry
sectors, including industry structure, production,
prices,internationaltradeandconsumption.Itcanbe
downloaded from: http://pork.ahdb.org.uk/prices-stats/published-reports/
18 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 19
International cost of pig production This report examines the relative costs of production inselectedcountries.Thisisajointprojectcurrentlyinvolving 15 countries, which are known collectively asInterPIG.
SummaryoftheKeyfindings:
• The cost of pig meat production in Great Britain reduced
by nearly 16% in 2014, to £1.39/kg. The average cost of
production in the EU was £1.34/kg deadweight, a 14%
decrease in sterling terms compared to 2013.
• All EU countries experienced a decrease in the costs of
production (in sterling terms) compared to 2013.
• Average producer prices were also lower in 2014 than in
2013, with only four EU countries having production costs
below the EU average reference price.
• Average feed prices were lower in 2014 than in 2013, falling
by 16% on average across the EU countries.
• In2014asawhole,EUfeedcostsperkgfellby17%
compared with a year earlier, in sterling terms. The fall in
Great Britain was 19% , one of the greatest falls in the EU.
AllInterPIGmembercountriesexperiencedafallinfeed
costs compared to 2013.
• The overall average number of pigs weaned per sow per
yearintheEuropeanInterPIGcountriesshoweda2%
increase in 2014, up from 26.06 in 2013 to 26.53, with
Denmark achieving 30.0 for a second time. There was a 2%
increase in pigs weaned per sow in Great Britain to 24.09
overall.Indoorsowproductionachieved25.7, an increase of
3% compared to 2013.
• The main reason Great Britain has a below average number
of pigs weaned per sow lies in the number of pigs born
alive per litter, with Great Britain still performing below
the EU average of 13.2. The 2014 Great Britain average at
12.1 (indoor sows 12.6, outdoor sows 11.2) was an increase
compared to 11.87 in 2013.
• TheaveragenumberofpigsfinishedpersowinGreat
Britain again increased in 2014. At 22.7 pigs per sow (indoor
sows 24.2, outdoor sows 20.5), average performance
was 0.47 pigs higher than in 2013 but lower than the EU
average of 25.13.
• Great Britain produced 1.82 tonnes of carcase meat per
sow in 2014, 3% higher than in 2013 due to a combination
oftheincreaseinthenumberofpigsfinishedpersowand
anincreaseinfinishingweight.
Table 5: Average costs of production in 2008 - 2014 (€/kg deadweight)
Source:InterPIG
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20142014/13 %
change
CountryAustria 1.45 1.60 1.67 1.78 1.79 1.65 -8
Belgium 1.41 1.48 1.61 1.73 1.74 1.56 -10
Brazil (MT) na 1.02 1.18 1.17 1.13 1.04 -8
Brazil (SC) 0.99 1.10 1.35 1.46 1.33 1.28 -3
Canada 1.03 1.11 1.29 1.45 1.41 1.21 -14
Czech. Rep 1.65 1.76 1.79 1.86 1.83 1.67 -9
Denmark 1.42 1.41 1.59 1.68 1.68 1.53 -9
France 1.37 1.37 1.60 1.66 1.71 1.56 -9
Germany 1.54 1.53 1.76 1.82 1.82 1.63 -10
Great Britain 1.46 1.64 1.74 1.91 1.89 1.74 -8
Ireland 1.48 1.52 1.72 1.80 1.91 1.77 -7
Italy 1.74 1.79 1.95 1.98 2.01 1.96 -3
Netherlands 1.46 1.43 1.62 1.68 1.77 1.64 -7
Spain 1.44 1.42 1.60 1.64 1.64 1.49 -9
Sweden 1.47 1.72 1.96 2.13 2.12 1.86 -12
USA 1.10 1.12 1.27 1.40 1.49 1.21 -19
EU 1.49 1.56 1.72 1.81 1.83 1.67 -8
Source:InterPIG
GB EU
Feed 0.85 0.83
Other variable costs 0.22 0.22
Total variable costs 1.07 1.05
Labour 0.14 0.12
Building,financeandmisc 0.18 0.17
Total fixed costs 0.31 0.29
Total costs 1.39 1.34
Table 6: Summary of Financial Performance 2014 (£/kg deadweight)
More details
The full report is published each autumn and is free to
English levy payers and can be obtained from AHDB
MarketIntelligence.Fornon-levypayers,thereporthas
a cover price of £160. An electronic version is available
free on the AHDB Pork website.
20 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
USASWESPANLITAIREGBGERFRADENCZCANBRA(SC)
BRA(MT)
BELAUS
2014
2013
£/kg
Countries
Fig. 6: Feed Costs
Source:InterPIG
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
InterPIGAvg.
EUAvg.
USASWESPANLITAIREGBGERFRADENCZ CANBRA(SC)
BRA(MT)
BELAUS
Depreciation and financeLabourOther variable costsFeed EU avg. priceUK avg. price
£/kg
Countries
Fig. 5: Costs of production in selected countries, 2014 (cold weight)
Source:InterPIG
0.79 0.84 0.56 0.80 0.65 0.77 0.74 0.77 0.76 0.85 0.95 1.07 0.77 0.84 0.81 0.62 0.83 0.80
0.20
0.11
0.15
0.22
0.12
0.17
0.13
0.12
0.100.22
0.15
0.31
0.16
0.07
0.11
0.26
0.13
0.160.20
0.14
0.16
0.21
0.10
0.15
0.22
0.14
0.18
0.24
0.12
0.18
0.19
0.12
0.17
0.21
0.11
0.17
0.38
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.08
0.100.060.06
0.15
0.050.06
0.16
0.10
0.22
0.11
0.200.15
600
700
800
900
1000
USASWESPANLITAIREGBGERFRADENCZCANBRA(SC)
BRA(MT)
BELAUS
2014
2013
gra
ms/
day
Countries
Fig. 8: Daily liveweight gain (finishing herds)
Source:InterPIG
+1%
+3%
0%0%
-1%
+3%
+2%
+1% +1% -2%
+1%
0%
+1%
+1%
-1%
+2%
2014
2013
20
22
24
26
28
30
USASWESPANLITAIREGBGERFRADENCZCANBRA(SC)
BRA(MT)
BELAUS
No.ofpigsfinished
persow
Countries
Fig. 7: Number of pigs finished per sow
Source:InterPIG
+2%
+1%
+3% +1%
-1%
+7%
+1%
+0% +2%
+2%
+1%
+1%
+0%
+2%+1%
-1%
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
201420132012201120102009
kg/y
ear
Countries
Fig. 9: GB carcase meat per sow per year
Source:InterPIG
1643 1626
16871707
1769
1823
22 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 23
The following table indicates the change in Cost of Production
(p/kg)forachangeinDLWGfordifferentfeedingperiods.
Cost of productionThe following tables report the relationship between physical production performance and feed prices and totalcosts.Alltablesusefiguresfortheperiodfrom1January 2015 to 31 December 2015 inclusive.
ThephysicalperformancefiguresaretakenfromAgrosoftdata
relating to the twelve months ending 31 December 2015. Cost
of production is estimated using the model operated by AHDB
MarketIntelligenceandtakeaccountofarangeoffinancial
cost estimations for 2015.
The Cost of Production estimations are expressed in pence
percarcasekilogramandincludevariableandfixedcosts.
An explanation of the Cost of Production model can be found
on the AHDB Pork website under Prices and Stats: Costings
and Herd Performance.
Table 7: Change in Cost of Production (CoP) for change in feed price (£ per tonne)
The average Cost of Production was estimated at 139.0p per
kg of carcase weight. The following table indicates how much
an increase in each of these feed prices would change the Cost
of Production estimate.
Table 8: Change in Cost of Production (CoP) for change in pigs weaned per sow per year
The number of pigs weaned per sow per year is a result of
threedifferentelements:
• Pigs born alive per litter
• Litters per sow per year
• Pre-weaning mortality
The following table indicates the change in Cost of Production
fordifferentnumbersofpigsweanedpersowperyear.
The Agrosoft average, bottom third and top third are based on
all farms included in the Agrosoft database. The model average
is based on weighting the average performance of indoor and
outdoor sows, using a weighting of 60% indoor
and 40% outdoor.
The relationship between FCR and the CoP is direct and
impacts on the quantity, and therefore cost, of feed consumed
in producing each carcase kilogram of pig meat. FCR relates to
feedefficiencybutusinglessfeedcanresultinlowerDLWG
andalongerfeedingperiod.Itis,therefore,importantfor
farms to optimise their FCR and DLWG according to their farm
situation and system.
"Itis,therefore,importantforfarmstooptimise their FCR and DLWG according to their farm situation and system."
The following tables (Tables 9 – 10) indicate various levels of
performance for FCR and DLWG, on the assumption that, by
varying one trait, there is no change in the other. All farms are
represented in the average, but the farms in the top third for
FCR may not be the same farms in the top third for DLWG as
thesefigureshavebeenindependentlycalculatedforeachtrait.
The following table indicates the change in Cost of Production
(p/kg)forachangeinFCRfordifferentfeedingperiods.
Bottom third – Agrosoft
avg.Model
avg. – Top third –
Pigs weaned per sow per year
20.89 22.51 24.12 24.38 25.76 27.39 29.03
CoP (p/kg) 146.3 142.6 139.4 139.0 136.6 134.2 132.0
Feed priceBase CoP
(p/kg) +£5 +£10 +£15 +£20
Sow feed 139.0 139.4 139.8 140.2 140.6
Rearing feed 139.0 139.3 139.7 140.1 140.4
Finishing feed 139.0 140.1 141.3 142.5 143.6
Bottom third – Average – Top
third –
Rearing FCR 2.20 2.05 1.89 1.71 1.53 1.35
CoP (p/kg) 142.0 140.5 139.0 137.2 135.5 133.7
Finishing FCR 2.99 2.84 2.69 2.56 2.42 2.29
CoP (p/kg) 144.4 141.7 139.0 136.6 134.2 131.8
Combined FCR 2.76 2.60 2.43 2.27 2.10 1.93
CoP* (p/kg) 148.7 144.2 139.7 135.0 130.4 125.7
*NotallrearingandfinishingunitsareusedintheCombinedaverageperformancedata,resultinginadifferentbaseCoP
Table 9: Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR)
Bottom third – Average – Top
third –
Rearing DLWG (g/day)
322 393 463 521 578 635
CoP (p/kg) 140.6 139.6 139.0 138.6 138.2 138.0
Finishing DLWG (g/day)
678 748 817 889 961 1033
CoP (p/kg) 140.2 139.5 139.0 138.5 138.1 137.8
Combined DLWG (g/day)
549 607 665 721 777 833
CoP* (p/kg) 141.2 140.1 139.2 138.4 137.8 137.2
*NotallrearingandfinishingunitsareusedintheCombinedaverageperformancedata,resultinginadifferentbaseCoP
Table 10: Daily Liveweight Gain (DLWG)
24 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 25
Technical performance dataTable 11: Distribution of herd size in Agrosoft recorded breeding herds, 2007 – 2015 Table 13: Results for all breeding herds, year ended Dec 2015
Table 12: Trends in weaning age 2005-2015
Average * Top 1/3 * Top 10% *
Herd structure
Average number sows and gilts 697 725 590
Average number unserved gilts 53 70 62
Replacement rate (%) 50.79 54.38 55.56
Sow sales and deaths (%) 58.70 61.49 64.77
Sow mortality (%) 5.23 6.21 4.30
Sow performance
Successful services (%) 82.53 85.53 87.77
Litters per sow per year ** 2.26 2.34 2.38
Non-productive days per litter ## 20.03 13.68 11.47
Pigs born per litter
alive 12.16 13.07 13.80
dead 0.58 0.67 0.77
mummified 0.19 0.20 0.20
total 12.84 13.88 14.70
Pigs born alive per sow per year 27.53 30.65 32.84
Pre-weaning mortality (%) 12.39 10.51 10.59
Pigs weaned per litter 10.65 11.69 12.33
Pigs weaned per sow per year ** 24.12 27.39 29.33
Average weight of weaned pig (kg) 7.06 7.21 6.99
Average weaning age (days) 26.37 26.46 26.53
Feed usage #
Sow feed per sow per year (t) 1.466 1.342 1.396
Feed per pig weaned (kg) 59.94 48.82 47.52
No sows % herds
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
100-249 12 9 15 16 14 11 10 13 11
250-499 12 25 32 26 26 25 26 23 26
500-749 17 26 32 29 28 29 25 29 27
750-999 25 24 12 15 17 18 20 10 13
1000-1500 21 14 8 12 11 13 17 20 19
1500-3000 13 2 1 2 4 4 2 5 4
>3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 101 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Age at weaning (days) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
(% of herds)
<19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 – 25 49 37 28 31 30 29 27 29 49 37 34
26 – 32 45 62 70 65 66 68 69 68 48 60 63
33 – 39 6 1 0 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 3
>39 0 0 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Note: Totals in tables 11 and 12 may not add up due to rounding.
Note: * Selected on the basis of pigs weaned per sow per year.** Per sow data excludes unserved gilt. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts
## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval.
26 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 27
Table 14: Trends in performance and feed costs in the breeding herd, 2005-2015
Table 15: Breeding herd results by herd size, year ended Dec 2015
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Herd structure
Average number sows and gilts
571 662 631 583 545 605 682 580 591 714 697
Sow sales and deaths (%) 44.7 44.6 41.6 46.5 46.0 49.2 47.6 51.5 53.3 51.6 58.7
Sow mortality (%) 4.7 5.8 3.4 4.3 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.6 4.6 4.5 5.2
Sow performance
Litters per sow per year * 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Pigs born alive per litter 10.9 11.7 11.1 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.4 11.5 11.8 12.1 12.2
Pre-weaning mortality (%) 10.9 13.3 12.6 12.6 12.5 12.7 12.6 12.7 13.1 12.7 12.4
Pigs weaned per litter 9.7 9.5 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.8 10.0 10.1 10.3 10.5 10.7
Pigs weaned per sow per year * 21.5 21.5 21.6 22.1 22.2 22.1 22.5 22.9 23.5 23.9 24.1
Average weaning age (days) 26 26 27 27 27 26.7 26.4 26.7 26.4 26.3 26.4
Sow feed
Sow feed per sow per year(t) # 1.339 1.338 1.343 1.456 1.278 1.230 1.169 1.280 1.529 1.401 1.466
Sow feed cost per tonne (£) ## 105.22 102.40 131.08 155.14 178.49 162.87 207.63 207.72 238.02 199.60 184.77
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Number of sows 100-249 250-499 500-749 750-999 1K - 1.5K 1.5K+
Herd structure
Average number sows and gilts 174 361 626 853 1178 2063
Average number in-pig gilts 30 67 111 145 181 436
Average number unserved gilts 16 30 58 88 101 166
Replacement rate (%) 45.07 51.70 51.17 50.71 49.68 53.74
Sow sales and deaths (%) 56.91 59.13 58.74 53.95 58.85 64.85
Sow mortality (%) 5.55 6.13 6.18 5.58 4.80 5.51
Sow performance
Successful services (%) 80.70 82.17 83.35 80.84 83.20 82.29
Non-productive days per litter ## 21.95 21.11 20.27 19.42 20.05 18.90
Litters per sow per year * 2.19 2.24 2.27 2.26 2.26 2.28
Pigs born per litter:
alive 12.05 12.52 12.31 11.70 12.04 12.38
dead 0.85 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.55 0.58
mummified 0.13 0.24 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.18
total 12.95 13.43 13.02 12.18 12.68 13.05
Pigs born alive per sow per year 26.43 28.14 27.95 26.55 27.18 28.38
Pre-weaning mortality (%) 11.42 11.35 11.35 12.36 13.59 12.75
Pigs weaned per litter 10.51 11.10 10.91 10.25 10.40 10.81
Pigs weaned per sow per year * 23.11 24.93 24.76 23.27 23.51 24.76
Average weight of weaned pig (kg) 8.15 7.29 7.21 6.63 7.05 6.68
Average weaning age (days) 30.15 26.92 26.26 26.33 26.14 25.78
Feed usage #
Sow feed per sow per year (t) 1.421 1.436 1.421 1.737 1.511 1.283
Feed per pig weaned (kg) 60.56 55.79 56.32 76.22 64.17 47.73
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Note: *Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts from 2013.
## Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.
Note: * Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts.
## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval. Data includes both indoor and outdoor herds
28 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 29
Table 16: Breeding herd results by age at weaning, year ended Dec 2015
Table 17: Comparison of results for outdoor and indoor breeding herds, year ended Dec 2015
Age at weaning < 26 days 26 days+
Top 10% Top third Average Top 10% Top third Average
Herd structure
Average number sows and gilts 604 888 859 485 625 610
Average number in-pig gilts 132 184 163 87 110 103
Average number unserved gilts 38 108 77 58 63 47
Replacement rate (%) 56.83 54.86 50.17 54.35 54.45 51.17
Sow sales and deaths (%) 64.01 54.83 60.13 64.48 65.68 56.23
Sow mortality (%) 7.38 5.55 5.15 4.90 6.37 5.11
Sow performance
Successful services (%) 84.23 83.67 81.47 88.42 86.83 83.26
Non-productive days per litter ## 11.24 14.36 19.57 11.59 13.21 20.37
Litters per sow per year * 2.41 2.36 2.28 2.36 2.34 2.25
Pigs born per litter:
alive 13.38 12.85 12.10 13.88 13.24 12.21
dead 0.78 0.68 0.56 0.78 0.69 0.61
mummified 0.19 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.18
total 14.32 13.65 12.75 14.82 14.10 12.90
Pigs born per sow per year 32.36 30.43 27.65 32.84 30.97 27.45
Pre-weaning mortality (%) 9.42 10.65 12.65 10.18 10.84 12.20
Pigs weaned per litter 12.12 11.48 10.56 12.46 11.80 10.72
Pigs weaned per sow per year * 29.29 27.15 24.15 29.46 27.58 24.08
Average weight of weaned pig (kg) 7.18 7.04 6.95 7.26 7.30 7.14
Average weaning age (days) 24.33 24.49 24.84 27.33 27.36 27.45
Feed usage #
Sow feed per sow per year (t) 1.326 1.319 1.490 1.383 1.345 1.445
Feed per pig weaned (kg) 45.45 47.69 62.78 47.00 48.86 57.39
Outdoor herds Indoor herds
Herd structure
Average number sows and gilts 867 592
Average number in-pig gilts 139 107
Average number unserved gilts 30 28
Replacement rate(%) 48.86 52.37
Sow sales and deaths (%) 54.71 62.28
Sow mortality (%) 4.19 6.19
Sow performance
Successful services (%) 81.52 83.45
Non-productive days per litter ## 22.95 17.39
Litters per sow per year * 2.22 2.29
Pigs born per litter:
alive 11.47 12.79
dead 0.43 0.72
mummified 0.06 0.22
total 11.91 13.68
Pigs born per sow per year 25.49 29.38
Pre-weaning mortality (%) 13.41 11.46
Pigs weaned per litter 9.92 11.31
Pigs weaned per sow per year * 22.06 25.99
Average weight of weaned pig (kg) 6.85 7.17
Average weaning age (days) 26.36 26.38
Feed usage #
Sow feed per sow per year (t) 1.666 1.353
Feed per pig weaned (kg) 75.48 51.20
Feed costs #
Sow feed cost per tonne (£) 182.72 186.15
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Note: * Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a
6-day weaning to service interval. Data includes both indoor and outdoor herds
Note: * Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval.
30 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 31
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Note: * Selected on basis of pigs weaned per sow per year. ** Excludes unserved gilts. ***Includesmummifiedpigsborn.#Persowdataincludesunservedgilts.##Non-productivedaysexcludesgestation,
lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval. ### Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014. Note:*Selectedonbasisofpigsweanedpersowperyear.**Excludesunservedgilts.***Includesmummifiedpigsborn.#Persowdataincludesunservedgilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval. ### Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.
Table 18: Comparative results for INDOOR breeding herds, 2005-2015
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Top third *
Top third *
Herd structure
Average number sows and gilts
406 482 501 548 440 492 586 481 549 598 644 592 611
Average number unserved gilts
38 n/a 22 54 36 95 37 37 85 36 35 28 38
Sow replacements (%) 47.1 49.5 47.7 45.5 49.2 47.6 49.2 51.8 53.0 52.89 54.70 52.37 55.79
Sow sales and deaths (%)
43.8 49.2 46.7 47.2 47.5 41.5 47.9 52.9 55.4 53.98 54.17 62.28 65.23
Sow mortality (%) 4.9 6.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 1.4 2.9 3.2 5.2 5.15 5.57 6.19 6.84
Sow performanceNon-productive days per litter ##
32.0 21.0 21.0 44.0 20.2 19.9 20.8 18.9 16.2 16.85 11.51 17.39 12.16
Litters per sow per year **
2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.30 2.38 2.29 2.37
Pigs born per litter:
alive 11.1 11.2 11.4 11.5 11.5 11.6 11.9 12.1 12.4 12.63 13.25 12.79 13.41
dead *** 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.68 0.65 0.72 0.71
total 12.1 12.0 12.4 13.1 12.5 12.6 12.9 13.1 13.2 13.46 14.01 0.22 0.21
Pre-weaning mortality (%)
11.8 12.9 13.0 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.8 12.4 12.3 11.53 10.75 11.46 10.48
Pigs weaned per litter 9.8 9.7 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11.16 11.82 11.31 11.99
Pigs weaned per sow per year **
22.1 22.0 22.4 22.9 22.8 23.0 23.4 24.1 24.9 25.71 28.08 25.99 28.40
Average weight of weaned pig (kg)
7.2 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.13 7.18 7.17 7.27
Average weaning age (days)
27.0 26.1 27.1 27.0 26.9 27.0 27.0 26.9 26.9 26.56 26.59 26.38 26.51
Feed usage #Sow feed per sow per year (t)
1.265 1.367 1.362 1.334 1.256 1.168 1.059 1.217 1.476 1.345 1.353 1.353 1.367
Feed per pig weaned (kg)
61.0 63.3 66.0 62.3 60.2 51.2 46.1 49.8 50.2 47.27 43.72 51.20 47.97
Feed costs ###Sow feed cost per tonne (£)
102.96 102.22 127.73 164.99 180.59 164.32 215.23 210.28 212.31 201.94 n/a 186.15 n/a
Table 19: Comparative results for OUTDOOR breeding herds, 2005-2015
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Top third *
Top third *
Herd structure
Average number sows and gilts
820 806 783 777 645 735 771 676 932 928 774 867 845
Average number unserved gilts
66 n/a 21 80 57 45 84 70 66 55 63 30 42
Sow replacements (%) 45.9 57.6 45.8 46.4 46.0 39.2 52.4 51.3 52.9 50.96 52.46 48.86 50.27
Sow sales and deaths (%)
45.2 42.6 36.9 45.6 43.8 38.6 47.0 49.1 46.7 48.51 47.34 54.71 51.91
Sow mortality (%) 5.6 5.4 3.1 4.6 3.8 1.1 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.84 3.58 4.19 4.91
Sow performanceNon-productive days per litter ##
41.0 19.0 25.0 45.6 20.4 19.2 21.0 19.9 19.4 21.47 15.77 22.95 16.01
Litters per sow per year **
2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.24 2.32 2.22 2.32
Pigs born per litter:
alive 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.7 10.8 11.0 11.1 11.36 11.98 11.47 12.03
dead *** 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.47 0.53 0.43 0.54
total 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.7 11.5 11.3 11.4 11.6 11.6 11.85 12.54 11.91 12.60
Pre-weaning mortality (%)
10.5 13.6 12.3 12.9 12.6 13.1 12.4 13.0 14.0 14.18 13.60 13.41 12.61
Pigs weaned per litter 9.6 9.3 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.3 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.75 10.34 9.92 10.50
Pigs weaned per sow per year **
21.2 21.1 20.9 21.3 21.6 21.0 21.3 21.7 21.7 21.82 23.99 22.06 24.32
Average weight of weaned pig (kg)
7.3 8.1 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.0 7.9 7.7 7.0 7.02 7.32 6.85 6.84
Average weaning age (days)
27.0 26.0 26.5 27.0 26.5 26.0 27.0 26.5 25.8 26.08 26.05 26.36 26.06
Feed usage #Sow feed per sow per year (t)
1.402 1.298 1.296 1.584 1.300 1.330 1.345 1.365 1.601 1.547 1.589 1.666 1.559
Feed per pig weaned (kg)
73.0 68.0 70.2 79.0 72.9 64.5 63.0 64.3 76.1 72.46 68.93 75.48 64.62
Feed costs ###Sow feed cost per tonne (£)
110.03 102.63 133.36 180.72 153.53 160.34 194.44 204.31 226.82 196.10 n/a 182.72 n/a
32 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 33
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Note: *Selected on feed conversion ratio.
Table 20: Overall rearing herd results, year ended Dec 2015
Top 10% * Top 1/3 * Average
Herd structure
Average number of pigs 1188 2259 2983
Pig performance
Average weight of pigs at start (kg) 7.3 7.4 7.6
Average weight of pigs produced (kg) 27.8 33.0 36.9
Rearing mortality (%) 1.9 2.9 2.8
Feed conversion ratio 1.32 1.53 1.89
Daily gain (g) 550 482 463
Days in herd 38 53 66
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Note: *Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.
Table 21: Trends in performance and feed costs in the rearing herd 2005-2015
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Herd structure
Average number of pigs 1782 1377 1192 1994 2083 3345 1984 2237 2607 2523 2983
Pig performance
Average weight of pigs at start (kg)
7.3 7.2 7.4 7.7 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.57
Average weight of pigs produced (kg)
36.3 35.1 35.3 38.5 36.6 34.6 36.8 35.9 31.45 37.1 36.85
Rearing mortality (%) 3.4 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.8 2.79
Feed conversion ratio 1.70 1.71 1.82 1.73 1.80 1.75 1.71 1.77 1.84 1.71 1.89
Daily gain (g) 509 493 453 478 492 486 489 489 479 502 463
Feed usage and costs *
Feed cost per tonne (£) 183.22 192.04 213.63 272.83 277.40 297.11 261.95 346.89 352.17 282.15 252.56
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Note: 1Rearing; Feeding; and Combined Rearing and Feeding do not necessarily directly correspond.
Table 22: Overall herd results ranked on Daily Liveweight Gain, year ended Dec 2015
Rearing Feeding Combined Rearing/Feeding¹
Top 10%
Top Third
AverageTop 10%
Top Third
AverageTop 10%
Top Third
Average
Herd structure
Average number of pigs 2187 3003 3007 1977 1688 1828 4750 3915 4278
Pig performance
Average weight of pigs at start (kg)
7.9 8.1 7.6 39.6 41.0 37.2 7.7 7.8 7.7
Average weight of pigs produced (kg)
43.8 43.5 36.9 111.2 110.7 107.9 109.3 105.2 105.5
Mortality (%) 2.1 2.0 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.6 3.5 4.3
Feed conversion ratio 1.81 1.80 1.90 2.53 2.47 2.69 2.26 2.28 2.43
Daily gain (g) 633 572 461 1030 960 817 796 766 660
Days in herd 57 62 67 69 73 109 127 127 151
Table 23: Overall finishing herd results, year ended Dec 2015
Top 10% * Top 1/3 * Average
Herd structure
Average number of pigs 1977 1688 1828
Pig performance
Average weight of pigs at start (kg) 39.6 41.0 37.2
Average weight of pigs produced (kg) 111.2 110.7 107.9
Finishing mortality (%) 2.5 2.6 2.7
Feed conversion ratio 2.53 2.47 2.69
Daily gain (g) 1030 960 817
Days in herd 69 73 109
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Note: *Selected on feed conversion ratio.
34 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 35
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Note: *Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Herd structure
Average number of pigs 1841 1992 2016 1811 1881 1788 2066 1764 1660 1733 1828
Pig performance
Average weight of pigs at start (kg)
25.9 27.2 26.6 35.9 38.8 38.0 39.8 38.4 38.9 35.0 37.23
Average weight of pigs produced (kg)
96.9 98.2 98.8 101.6 103.3 103.9 103.0 102.7 99.4 106.1 107.85
Finishing mortality (%) 6.5 5.6 4.8 3.3 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.5 3.1 3.2 2.74
Feed conversion ratio 2.74 2.75 2.73 2.87 2.77 2.95 2.82 2.72 2.80 2.67 2.69
Daily gain (g) 639 655 673 757 819 766 784 822 786 801 817
Feed usage and costs *
Feed cost per tonne (£) 119.69 119.87 132.75 184.12 183.99 177.46 261.83 241.52 248.06 231.70 205.56
Table 24: Trends in performance and feed costs in the finishing herd, 2005 to 2015
Table 26: Analysis of total services and returns by parity, year ended Dec 2015
Parity % of TotalFarrowing
Rate%Re-Service
Rate%Farrowing
IndexPercentage Share of Dead & Culled
Gilt 23.6 83.5 9.3 163.6 14.9
2 20.9 80.7 10.0 163.5 14.4
3 17.1 83.5 8.1 160.9 12.1
4 13.4 84.2 7.4 159.9 11.8
5 10.5 83.9 7.2 161.3 13.6
6 7.5 83.0 7.2 163.4 15.4
7 4.1 82.2 6.3 165.7 10.0
8 1.9 80.4 7.5 171.9 5.1
9 0.7 79.0 6.7 178.6 1.8
10 0.3 77.4 7.7 182.8 0.6
11< 13 0.1 71.8 15.0 202.1 0.3
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Table 25: Analysis of pigs born, weaned and re-service rate by parity, year ended Dec 2015
Parity % of TotalBorn Alive per litter
Born Dead per litter
Total Born incl. Mummified
Weaned per litter
Weaned per Sow per Year
Gilt 23.6 11.7 0.5 12.2 10.8 24.4
2 20.9 12.1 0.5 12.6 10.9 24.7
3 17.1 12.7 0.6 13.3 10.9 24.8
4 13.4 12.8 0.7 13.5 10.7 24.5
5 10.5 12.6 0.7 13.5 10.5 24.0
6 7.5 12.3 0.8 13.2 10.2 23.0
7 4.1 11.9 0.8 12.8 10.0 22.3
8 1.9 11.3 0.8 12.2 9.7 20.9
9 0.7 10.8 0.7 11.6 9.4 19.7
10 0.3 10.1 0.7 10.9 9.0 18.6
11< 13 0.1 9.4 1.0 10.2 9.0 17.4
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
36 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 37
The AHDB Pork 5-Point Plan in the 2014-2018 Going for Growth strategy was developed to help deliveramorecompetitiveandprofitablepigproduction and processing industry. This includes working to narrow the technical performance gap between English pig producers and competitors through a number of workstreams.
Workstreams include:
• Establishingafieldtrialsprogramme
• Identifyinginnovationfromaroundtheworldanddisseminating it to pig producers
• Developing skills under the banner ‘Recruit, Retain, Reward’
recognisingprofessionaldevelopmentofstaff
and demonstrating a skilled and attractive career path
• Setting up regional technical forums.
This chapter outlines some of the key activity in which the
AHDB Pork research, development and knowledge transfer
team has been involved over the past year and looks at some
of the plans for the upcoming year.
Farm reviews
The knowledge transfer managers conducted 183 farm reviews
during the year with the aim of looking at how producers can
achieve, where applicable, AHDB Pork’s industry targets:
• +1 weaned pigs
• -0.1 FCR
• +50g DLWG
Within the farm visits, the team have addressed a number of
key areas, including:
• Indoorandoutdoorserviceareareviewstolookatimproving conception rates through management changes,
such as timing, stocking, feeding and pen layout
• On-farm training, using the AHDB Pork Practical Pig app,
onspecifictopicstohelppeoplegrowinconfidenceand
assistbusinessesthatarestrugglingtofindtimetorelease
people to go on training courses
• Farrowing house routines with the aim of reducing
mortality, improving weaning weights, sow condition
and the general environment
• Ventilation, for example, to improve pig lying patterns
• Pigflow
• Target setting
The farm reviews provide an excellent opportunity for face-to-
faceengagementwithproducersandenablebusiness-specific
information to be discussed, with the goal of measuring and
improving on-farm productivity.
Skills and training
TheAHDBPorkskillsandtrainingofferhascontinued
to develop during the year, with continued interest and
engagementfromlevypayers.Theimportanceandbenefit
of knowledge acquisition and skills development within
individual businesses is growing, with businesses committing
toongoingtrainingandprogressionofstaff.
Knowledge exchange “AHDB Pork provides training for stockpeople, supervisors, unit managers, production managers and business owners.”
The pig industry skills strategy ‘Recruit, Retain, Reward’
outlines the steps needed to ensure the industry remains
sustainableandprofitable.
The aims of the strategy are:
• Recruit: Provide and promote an attractive environment
for a progressive career within allied industries
• Retain: Promote skills development as vital to business
improvement
• Reward: Promote recognition of achievement to
motivatestaff
13,248 training hours delivered
51 scholarship applications across...
...8 scholarship companies
7 scholarships secured
Student feedback
“Iwasabletotakealotofpracticalideas from the stockman training to implement at work.”
Phil Thatcher, Stockperson Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme Exeter 2015;
Stockman Plus Exeter 2016
“ThefirststockmanplussessionIattended following completion of the previous course was the best so far. The speaker was brilliant and pitched the session at the right level and included the whole group.”
Ruth Thomas, Breeding Herd Manager Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme East 2014-15;
Stockman Plus East 2015-16
“Oncompletingthetraining,Ifeel whatIhavelearnedishelpingmetoachievemyaimsonthefarm.IbelievetrainingisthefutureforthenewstaffdevelopmentinthepigindustryandIamcurrentlysendingnewemployees on the courses.”
Thomas Bradshaw, Unit Manager Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme North; Stockman Plus
North; Technical Manager’s Scheme North
“These training sessions have given me up-to-date knowledge of indoor pig productionand,asaresult,Ihavebeenconfidenttosuggestmuchneedednewideasonmyunit.TheknowledgeIhavegained has helped me progress from stockman to assistant manager to pig unit manager, in three years.”
Darren Kent, Unit Manager Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme; Stockman Plus;
Leadership and Team Skills Award Awards: Trainee of The Year Winner 2015
Decision tree
Certificates of
Competence
Stockman Development
Scheme
Stockman Plus
Technical Managers
Scheme
Leadership Development
Scheme
Professional Manager
Development Scheme
38 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 39
AHDB Pork training review and update
Following a successful year of training delivery in 2015, a
review of the training courses, learning material and course
contentwascompleted.Subsequently,thetrainingofferwas
developed during the summer of 2015 ready for the start of
autumn training activities. Areas developed include:
• Upskilling training deliverers
• Reviewing and updating session content and session briefs
• Developing methods for trainee feedback
• Developing learning materials.
This work is ongoing with a focus on ensuring quality feedback
and measuring the impact of the training sessions.
Pig industry scholarship
ThePigIndustryScholarshipSchemehasgrowntoachieve
a successful third year of securing companies and scholars.
InAugust2015,eightcompaniesregisteredtooffer
scholarships to Harper Adams’ students. The eight companies
provided a diverse representation of the career opportunities
in the pig industry.
Following the scholarship fair in October, the enthusiasm
and interest from students was demonstrated by an increase
from 47 applications in 2014 to 51applicationsin2015.InNovember, seven scholars were secured across six of the
sponsoring companies. To date, 15 scholarships have been
awarded since the scheme was launched in 2013, with
twofinalyearstudentssecuringemploymentwiththeir
sponsoring company post-graduation.
PIPR review:In2015,AHDBPorkembarkedonareviewofthePigIndustryProfessionalRegister(PIPR).Theregisterwaslaunchedin2007andtherehas been a steady growth in membership; a review was planned to look at how the scheme could be developed to stimulate membership growth.
Feedback on the scheme was collected in 2015 via key account meetings, training and knowledge transfer(KT)meetings.InDecember2015,representatives from across the industry were invitedtoareviewmeetingtodiscusshowPIPRcould be developed to add value to members andimprovefunctionality.InFebruary2016,a consultation was launched to gain industry feedbackonwhetherPIPRshouldcontinueandhowit should be developed to provide increased value. The outcome of the consultation will be available during spring 2016, after which the next steps and course of action will be discussed.
AHDB Pork runs a number of study tours every year, both in the UK and overseas. The tours are aimed at looking at new technologies and/or production systems and are usually 50% funded by AHDB Pork, with the remaining 50% coming from a commercial company. Producers who are interested in viewing a particular system or technology overseas, or have an idea for a study tour, can contact their knowledge transfer manager to discuss possibilities.
Ireland
Activity:Visitslookingatdifferentbuildingtypes(hoopbuildings)
Who: A small group of four producers along with AHDB Pork
Sponsored by: AHDB Pork
Denmark
Activity: A trip to look at environmental and buildings issues,
includingreducingemissions,increasingprofitsandcomplying
with legislation at the same time
Who: Producers representing a large proportion of the pigs
reared in England, vets, nutritionists, researchers and the
Environment Agency
Sponsored by: AHDB Pork
Study toursDenmark
Activity: Visits to a breeding herd to look at large litter
managementandalsotoabrandnewfinisherherdtoseehow
it manages gilt selection and to look at slurry management.
Business management was also a topic of much discussion.
Participants also visited Jyden Animal Housing to look at
differentfarrowingsystems.
Who:AgroupoffiveproducersalongwithAHDBPork
Sponsored by: AHDB Pork
Feedback from participants:
“TheinformationIreceivedhasmademefeelmoreconfidentaboutsettingupmy own breeding herd and has answered alotofdoubtsIpreviouslyhad.”
“The visit to Jyden has shown me what methods we currently have in place when sows farrow in the freedom pens that should be changed, which will help with lowering mortality. We were closing in the sows before farrowing and releasing two days later, where we should let them farrow before closing in for two days.”
40 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 41
“A very good trip, a lot of information on how to reduce farrowing house mortality, especially with a high born alive, and we intend to use this information to improve the pigs per sow produced in our herd.”
Germany
Activity: VisitstotwohighperformingunitsusingRFID
technologytoimproveefficienciesandalookatfactors
influencingperformance:0.1 FCR, +1 weaned and 50g/day.
Participants also visited the Education and Research Centre
Futterkamptolookattheresearchprojectstakingplace,as
well as the Anhalt University of Applied Sciences where they
heard about their research work.
Who: AHDB Pork knowledge transfer team
Sponsored by: Purespekt and AHDB Pork
Australia
Activity: Visits to 11 farms covering a range of agricultural
sectors.ParticipantsmetwithkeyfiguresintheAustralian
agricultural industry to discuss how they cope with legislation,
labour, climate and water usage. A number of good ideas and
practices were observed on both pig units as well as beef, dairy,
arable, sheep and free-range chicken farms.
Who:Amixtureoffiveindependentproducersandamajor
corporate; included within the group were NPA and AHDB Pork
board members
Sponsored by: Fram Farmers
Holland
Activity: An introduction to the Dutch pig industry through
a visit to a 1,100 sow breeding unit and a day at the Swine
InnovationCentreinSterksel.Itprovidedparticipantswith
an opportunity to widen their knowledge as well as discuss
topical issues with others in similar roles.
Who: A group of seven head stockman and unit managers who
had completed the Technical Manager’s Scheme
Sponsored by: AHDB Pork
Events
A wide range of events were held during the year, providing owners and farm managers, stock people, vets and associated trade, with up-to-date information and knowledgeonarangeofsubjects.
Pig clubs and workshops
Pig clubs provide one of the main opportunities that AHDB Pork
hastoinformandinfluenceproducers.Duringtheyear,150
pig clubs and workshops were held across the country. These
events, usually held in the evenings, attracted 3,347 producers
during the course of the year, with discussions covering a wide
range of topics, along with some benchmarking.
150 pig clubs and workshops were held across the country... 3,347 producers during the course of the year...
visit pork.ahdb.org.uk/events for more info
Regional forum
These meetings take place twice a year around the country.
They are a means of listening to the wider industry and enable
members to provide direct input into proposed AHDB Pork
technical activity and feedback on the quality and relevance
ofAHDBPork’s work.Moreinformationabouttheregional
forums, as well as summaries of the October 2015 meetings,
can be found online at:
pork.ahdb.org.uk/about-ahdb-pork/regional-forums
Innovation conference: A glance into the future
The2015InnovationConferenceshowcasedcuttingedge
technologytosafeguardpighealth.Itwasaimedatforward-
thinking owners and farm managers, vets and the allied
industry and attracted 225 delegates. Topics covered included:
• Breakthroughs in
electronicidentification
for pigs
• Novel diagnostics in the
animal sector
• Novel diagnostics in the
horticulture industry:
what can we learn?
• Outdoor innovations
• Indoorinnovations
• Innovationsinthe supply chain
• Alternative treatments:
Using viruses to diagnose
and treat bacterial
infections
• Probiotics and
autogenous vaccines
Presentations and videos from the event are available from:
pork.ahdb.org.uk/events/conferences/ 2015/innovation-conference/
42 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 43
Practical pig events
Six events, aimed at farm managers and stock people, were held
across England during November and December 2015, providing
practical advice to achieve a marketable pig, as well as guidance
on land and health management. The events attracted 167
delegates,themajorityofwhichbeingproducers.
The events attracted 167 delegates, themajorityofwhichbeingproducers
Programmes were tailored to the regions based on feedback
from the regional forums. Topics covered include:
• AHDB Pork – an update from the consumer marketing team
• Effectiveselectionofpigsforslaughter• Variationinfinishingpigs–whataretheproblems,howcan
they be managed?
• Thebenefitsofelectronictagging• AHDBPorkfieldtrials• Water for the outdoor unit
• Water: Where does it come from?
• Land management and legislation
• PRRS control
The presentations and videos from the event can
be downloaded from: pork.ahdb.org.uk/events/conferences/2015/practical-pig-events/
Getting through tough times
Five regional meetings for pig producers, focused on practical
ways to manage input costs were run by AHDB Pork during
March. With the industry facing tough times due to low prices,
the aim of the special meetings was to help producers
re-evaluate their units and get ideas on simple changes that
could strengthen their businesses.
...ideas on simple changes that could strengthen their businesses.
The events provided an opportunity to hear from key
industryfiguresandproducers,askquestionsandwork
through some ‘what if’ calculations to help decide how to
influencecostofproduction.
A full suite of information to help producers can be found
online at: pork.ahdb.org.uk/pig-production/ getting-through-tough-times/
Research and innovation
42 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 43
The aim of research and field trials is to generate new knowledge about pig production and demonstrate this new knowledge in commercial environments…
…toremovesomefinancialriskswheninvestingon
farm. Work is aimed at optimising pig production
efficiency,enhancingpighealthandwelfare,
protecting the environment and maintaining safe
and traceable pork that is ultimately appetising to
the end consumer.
44 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 45
Research and innovation
Health
Restructure of the Pig Health and Welfare Council
2015 saw the restructured Pig Health and Welfare Council (PHWC) delivering outputs from all of its subgroups in linewiththenewmilestonesandobjectivesofthosegroups. However, the broader remit of the 20:20 vision has still been maintained and remains a focus for the main council. Focus remains in four key areas, which are ofsignificantimportancetotheindustry,whileremainingcapable of being adapted to any unforeseen changes.
The PHWC subgroups now cover the following areas:
• Welfare: Enhancing pig welfare
• Pig Meat Food Safety: Enhancing pig meat food safety
• DiseaseSurveillance:Improvingpreparedness
for exotic and emerging diseases
• Antimicrobials: Reducing antimicrobial
use in pig production.
Disease Surveillance
The disease surveillance subgroup of the PHWC has been
actively involved in the development of an industry-wide
contingency plan against the highly pathogenic strains of
Porcine Epidemic Diarrhoea virus (PEDv). The contingency plan,
which is available from the AHDB Pork website, is the result
ofacollaborativeeffortbetweenanumberofpigindustry
groups and organisations.
“The delivery of an industry-led, government assisted, approach has been unique within the agricultural sector…”
As a result of the contingency plan, the Disease Surveillance
subgroup has worked hard, alongside Government, to make
PEDvnotifiableinEngland(sinceDecember2015)andtoassist
Scotlandinmakingthediseasenotifiable(sinceJanuary2016).
The delivery of an industry-led, government assisted, approach
hasbeenuniquewithintheagriculturalsectorandisreflective
of the hard work and close relationships within the pig industry.
“The disease surveillance subgroup is now focusing on the delivery of effectivesurveillancemethodologieswithin the UK.”
The disease surveillance subgroup is now focusing on the
deliveryofeffectivesurveillancemethodologieswithinthe
UK, looking at potential approaches that can be taken, as well
as the opportunities that data sharing may bring to produce a
moreeffectivemethodofmeasuringandcontrollingdisease.
A round-table discussion on syndromic surveillance is planned
for the autumn of 2016.
Measuring Antibiotics
Antimicrobial resistance has continued to increase in
importance throughout 2015, with elevated political and
mediaattentioninthisfield.
There has been much discussion of the topic in the context of
‘One Health’ and there is now increasing pressure on the pig
industry to be more accountable for its use of antibiotics.
“AHDB Pork aims to deliver tools and resources to producers and the wider industry which assist in achieving the aim of improving pig health and reducing antibiotic use by the UK pig sector. ”
Draft EU legislation proposes a requirement for total
usage data of antibiotics, by member state, and the PHWC
antimicrobials subgroup has been leading the development of
adatacollectionsysteminconjunctionwiththeVMD.
The group has also been looking at research into new areas
ofmanagementtoallowformorejudiciousantibioticuseand
also delivery of evidence-based best practice to help minimise
the dependency on antibiotics.
The disease surveillance subgroup delivered the following in 2015:
• Notifiablediseasestatusachievedwithin England and Scotland
• A completed set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) as a guide in the eventuality of a PEDv outbreak
• Continued testing and monitoring of all porcine diarrhoea samples through APHA for suspect PEDv
• Delivery of an epidemiological database in the event of a PEDv outbreak
• The completion of a fully functioning disease charter within Pig Hub
• Maintaining open, global communication channels, to promote exchange of knowledge and to ensure the latest understanding of the disease situation.
The antimicrobials subgroup plans to deliver the
following in 2016:
• A data collection system - electronic Medicine Book
for Pigs (eMB-Pigs) - launched in April 2016
• Appliedresearchtrialstoassistinamorejudicious
approach to antibiotic use as well as identifying gaps
in the current research
• Advice in the form of practical steps which can be used
to reduce reliance upon antibiotics while maintaining
productivity and mitigating additional costs.
AHDB Pork aims to deliver tools and resources to producers
and the wider industry which assist in achieving the aim of
improving pig health and reducing antibiotic use by the UK
pig sector. These resources need to be practical and not
burdensome to the producer, and AHDB Pork will continue to
work with key producer groups and consult the wider industry
throughout the process.
https://emb-pigs.ahdb.org.uk
for more info
46 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 47
Identifying the current knowledge relevant to the development of low atmosphere pressure stunning (LAPS) as a humane commercial system for slaughtering pigs.
Research partner: Silsoe Livestock Systems
Sponsor: AHDB Pork Duration: 2016
Aims and objectives:
• ToinvestigatethecurrentstageofknowledgeaboutLAPSandrelatedfields(suchastheuseofinertgaseswithpigs,poultry and rodents) by the study of the key published and grey literature sources and discussions with the current
researchersinthisfield
• Toinvestigatetheavailablerelevantknowledgeaboutdepressurisationintheaerospaceindustryanditseffectsonpilots, through a study of the literature and arranged meetings with key researchers
• To investigate the potential carcase and meat quality issues and identify potential control measures through study of
published and grey literature
• IndustrialvisitsandmeetingstoinvestigatethepracticalandlogisticrequirementsoftheUKpigindustryincluding
those of obtaining EU approval for LAPS.
The research, although on-track, had not been completed at the time of writing.
Welfare
AHDB Pork has committed to enhancing welfare in the EnglishPigindustry.Itsaiminthisareaistohelppigproducers comply with existing and emerging legislation and achieve recognition for progress made.
The welfare activities in 2015-2016 continued to centre on
supportforwelfareoutcomeassessments.InJuly,AHDBPork,
together with AHDB Dairy, was asked to appear as a hearing
expert to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), sharing
our collective knowledge on the use of animal-based measures
to assess welfare.
ItwastestamenttotheprogressivenessintheEnglishpig
industry as no other country, nor industry, has embraced the
conceptmore.Itwasclearthatanimal-basedmeasures,such
as those used in Real Welfare, are likely to play an increasingly
important role in risk assessments on a European level.
“Itwastestamenttotheprogressiveness in the English pig industry as no other country, nor industry, has embraced the concept more.”
Closer to home, the main focus of day-to-day activities has
continued to be on the Real Welfare Assessment Scheme.
Just under 10% of all individual pigs slaughtered in the UK
are being assessed under this scheme.
Ithasbeenoperationalforthreeyears,anditisexcitingto
have reached a stage where a solid baseline can be reported.
This has real value in supporting the industry, particularly as a
tool in export negotiations, given the demand for high welfare
pork from abroad and the natural focus to Britain.
“AHDB Pork trains new vets in the Real Welfare protocols and an online refresher training…”
AHDB Pork trains new vets in the Real Welfare protocols and
an online refresher training, for those trained three years ago,
is being rolled out.
Through the Pig Health and Welfare Council welfare subgroup,
AHDBPorkisalsoinvolvedinfindingsolutionstofreedom
around farrowing, good practice in on-farm euthanasia and
provision of water for piglets over two weeks of age. The latter
can be a challenge for outdoor producers in particular, and the
welfare team is working closely with both the KE managers
and the NPA to support development of a workable solution
where needed.
Beyond the farm gate, AHDB Pork commissioned exploratory
research into the commercial application of a potential new
stunning system for pigs: low atmosphere pressure stunning
(LAPS). LAPS essentially simulates induction to a high altitude,
low oxygen environment, which has the potential to humanely
induceinsensibilitybeforeslaughter.Initiallydevelopedfor
poultry and in commercial use in the USA, it looks promising
foruseinthepigindustryinthefuture,subjecttosubstantial
development and regulatory approval.
While, if borne out, this method may have welfare
advantages, it is important that other industry requirements,
such as line speed and meat quality, are fully taken into
account at the earliest opportunity. This is why AHDB Pork
commissioned the review.
Prevention of tail biting and associated tail management are integral to the work of AHDB Pork and,inthepastyear,wehavejoinedforceswithanumber of industry partners to further knowledge onthistopic.Inparticular,AHDBPorkandtheRSPCA administered a survey to pig farmers on their opinion of risk factors to tail biting.
The questionnaire was written by Professor Anna Valros from the University of Helsinki, Finland, and simultaneously sent out to Finnish pig farmers. Tail docking is prohibited by law in Finland, therefore, it is hoped that comparing opinions of farmers in both countries will yield useful information.
Early in 2016, the Finns hosted a delegation from the European commission to showcase their whole-tail husbandry methods.
48 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 49
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability of the English Pig Industry
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Greenhouse Gas Action Plan (GHGAP) sets out how
the agricultural industry in England is responding to the
challengeofreducingitsgreenhousegasemissions.It
shows a commitment to tackling climate change by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by three million tonnes of CO2
equivalent per year from 2018-2022.
“The GHGAP is one of a range of initiatives already helping farming produce more while impacting less on the environment.”
Organisations from across the industry have been involved in
developing the GHGAP, including AHDB. Further work on this
important strategic area will include various activities with
which AHDB Pork is already engaged and which contribute to
resourceefficiencyacrosslevy-payersbusinesses.
Resource efficiency
Furtherworkonresourceefficiencyforlevypayershas
included collaboration with the Waste and Resources
Action Programme (WRAP), the Co-operative Food and its
porksupplier,Tulip,onaprojecttoidentifysavingsinthe
pork supply chain. Whole chain collaboration has delivered
significantsavings.Theaimoftheprojectwastopinpoint
hotspots of material use, greenhouse gas emissions, water and
waste,andthentofindwaysofusingfewerresourceswithout
compromising commercial performance. A case study has been
producedwhichfocusesonfiveofthehotspotsidentifiedand
highlights successes and good practices.
Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock
Growing populations, income gains and urbanisation have
made livestock one of the fastest growing sub-sectors of
agriculture. Ensuring that the continuing demand for livestock
products does not increase pressure on natural resources
and contributes to socially desirable outcomes, however, will
requirefurtheradjustmentsandimprovementsinsector
policies, governance and investments.
AHDB Pork has also been involved in discussions
regarding the update of the BREF (Best Available Techniques)
reference document. The draft has been approved and will
becomelegallybindingduringthefirsthalfof2016.Thenext
stage will be to develop training activities to explain the key
aspects to the industry.
Environment and buildings
Activity continues to be based upon the key aspects of the AHDB Pork business plan as follows:
• Running a business support service to advise on aspects
relating to buildings and the environment in order to
reduce environmental impact and to comply with relevant
environmental legislation and planning
• Monitoring, interpreting and helping to inform
environmental policy and regulations in both the UK and EU
• Capturing the progress made by the English pig industry
with regard to sustainability of the industry and
contribution to the Government’s greenhouse gas and
ammonia emission targets.
Environmental Permitting (EPR/IPPC)
The Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) [formerly the
IntegratedPollutionPreventionandControl(IPPC)Directive]
aim to reduce pollution from industrial activity by controlling
emissions. This means that indoor pig keepers with over 2,000
finisherpigplaces(above30kg) or 750 sow places (including
served gilts) on a site are required to obtain a permit from the
Environment Agency (EA).
AHDB Pork continues to provide:
• Bespoke on-farm workshops for farm managers
and stock workers to help them understand their
responsibilities and how to avoid non-compliances
andfines.Theworkshopscoversubjectssuchastypical
permit breaches, site and accident management plans
and how to deal with odour complaints
• Support to complete the application form,
including supplying templates for all the
necessary supporting documentation
• Guidance in helping producers understand the EA’s
ammonia screening tool outputs and how to design
buildings/production systems to be able to operate
below the new set limits.
Feedback
“The training was worthwhile – can we pay you for it? The EA were impressed that we had organised such an event and we are sure it helped with our inspection”.
Anonymous producer
Ventilation
As part of the support package for producers,
AHDB Pork has produced a series of ventilation
videos for the Practical Pig App. Narrated and
demonstrated by a ventilation specialist, the videos
show practical management techniques related to
maintaining ventilation systems, with the aim of
optimising pig production.
Other available resources include:
• Providing pigs with good ventilation in straw-bedded
general purpose buildings (booklet)
• Ventilation factsheet (Action for Productivity 21)
• Ventilating Pig Buildings Guide: an in-depth guide to
understanding the principles of ventilation, including
farm case studies demonstrating how to overcome
typical problems.
A Global Agenda, led by the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nation (FAO) in Rome, focuses on the
improvementofresourceuseefficiencyinthegloballivestock
sector to support livelihoods, long-term food security and
economic growth, while safeguarding other environmental
andpublichealthoutcomes,factoringinregionaldifferences
and linking to other related initiatives as appropriate.
AHDB Pork has been contributing to this work by highlighting
thesuccessoftheEnglishPigIndustryintermsofdriving
sustainability and reducing its impact on the environment,
asreportedinthe‘EnvironmentalImpactsofEnglishPork
Production – The 2011 Roadmap ‘Advancing Together’’ and
the updated version ‘Advancing Together’ (January 2014). The
lattershowsasignificantimprovementintheimpactsofpig
production on the environment.
pork.ahdb.org.uk
Ventilating Pig Buildings Providing optimum living conditions for pigs
K11300_Pigs building pages-v6.indd 1 18/02/2016 10:36
50 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 51
Reducing ammonia and odour emissions
AHDB Pork is looking for ways to ensure English pig producers are equipped with the knowledge and technology they need to comply with new reduction targets for ammonia emissions. One such system is pH reduction of slurry, which is being used on farm in Denmark and formed part of an AHDB Pork-funded study tour programme.
TheDanishpigindustryhasbeensubjecttosomeofthe
strictest environmental legislation in Europe since the mid-
1980s.Theserulesincludefixedlimitsonthenumberof
animals which can be kept in relation to the land available for
slurry spreading, in addition to detailed rules on slurry storage
and its application. As a result of these regulations, about 75
of the 3,800 pig units, and 72 dairy farms, in Denmark have
installed systems to reduce the pH of slurry, helping to lower
odour and ammonia levels. The technique is based on proven
science and can reduce ammonia emissions by up to 65% and
odour by up to 43%.
“The systems contribute to a 65% reduction in ammonia emissions and 43% reduction in odour from pig housing.”
The system adds sulphuric acid to separated slurry until the pH
stabilises at 5.5.Itthengetspumpedbackintothepitwhich
is located in the pig house to a depth of 180mm, where it
remains for 1-2 days while the pigs dung into the pit. The pH is
never allowed to rise above 6.0. The slurry is then let out of the
pit and, in cases where additional odour reduction is required,
goes through a slurry separator, or alternatively, goes back
to the tank for more acid to be added so that the process can
begin again.
Itistheregularflushingofthepitswhichisfundamentaltothe
reduction of emissions. The entire system is run by a computer
and, therefore, requires no additional labour input once it is set
up and working.
Otherbenefitsofthesysteminclude:
• The reduced level of ammonia released from the slurry
means that the ammonia within the pig buildings is
depleted,whichhasbothhealthandproductivitybenefits
forboththelivestockandthestaffworkinginthebuildings
• Thenumberoffliesisoftenreducedwhichcanhelp
with biosecurity
• Asignificantreductioninammoniaandodourbeing
released from slurry stores. Danish producers claim that
they achieve emissions of only 1%, which means that
slurry stores do not need to be covered, this results in
substantial cost savings
• Available nitrogen and phosphorus in the slurry is increased
and the addition of sulphuric acid means there is a sulphur
benefit,solessfertiliserisrequiredforuseonarablecrops.
Seven articles have been published in the farming press as a
result of the study tour organised by AHDB Pork and a photo
story is available on the website.
AHDB Environmental and Agricultural Resource Efficiency Tool (EAgRET)
Project duration: 2013 - 2015
Aims and objectives:
• To develop a calculator to build awareness and
understanding of how physical performance and farm
management decisions on the use of resources (including
land), determine environmental impacts and associated
economic impacts
• To show how a user-friendly, computer-based Calculator
can be used in AHDB’s interactions with UK farming and
supply chain businesses, to investigate the outcomes from
possible changes that might be made to farming systems
• To commission the development of the tool to better
understand and, thereby, inform discussions with
Government departments and other important stakeholders.
The tool:
• Isbasedonalibraryofdefaultdataanduser-modifications,allowinguserstoexploretheeffectonresourceuse
efficiencyofchangesinfarmingpracticethatmightarise
from government strategy or technical innovation
• Enables comparisons of scenarios by a trained user
• Provides outputs in a form that can be easily used to explain
theeffectsofthescenariostonon-technicalaudiences.
Itisnotexpectedthatthetoolwillenableindividualfarm
businesses to make management decisions, but does provide
an indication.
ThetoolwillbeusedbyspecificallytrainedAHDBstaffto
provideoutputsofbenefittogovernmentpolicymakers,
strategic decision-makers in businesses throughout the
agri-food chain, and farmers, through interpretation by a
knowledge transfer agent (e.g. AHDB knowledge exchange
teams). The tool is in the process of being tested across
the sectors.
Solubles (W-DDGS) and other co-products
• To identify the limitations associated
with feeding W-DDGS
• To identify routes to improving nutritional
value of DDGS
• TotestthemodifiedandimprovedDDGSproducts
using ruminant and non-ruminant species
• ToquantifytheoverallbenefitsofDDGSproductiononreducingdiffusepollutantsandenhancing
home-grown protein production.
Findings to date: The results of the work indicate
that w-DDGS may be used at up to 300g/kg (30%) in
balanced,pelleteddiets,forgrowingandfinishingpigs
from 40kg liveweight to slaughter, without adversely
affectingpigperformanceorcarcasequality
• W-DDGS is a potential home-grown substitute
for other protein sources, such a soya bean meal,
rapeseedmealandsunflowermeal
• While the bulk of this work concentrated mainly on
pelleteddiets,thew-DDGSneedstobefinelyground
to ensure homogeneous mixing when used in meals
• Itisvitalthatthequalityofthematerial,intermsof
its digestible nutrient content, is known and that this
information is fully utilised in the diet formulation
process to balance amino acid levels
• W-DDGS production could substitute 389kt of soya
bean meal and, therefore, spare 150kha of land area.
A conference entitled ‘The Future of Feed – New
Advances in Co-products For Pigs’ was held in April 2015
todisseminatethefindingsofthisproject.
Environmental and nutritional benefits of bioethanol co-products (ENBBIO)
TheENBBIOLINKprojectwasacollaboration
involving 25 industry and academic partners,
sponsored by Defra through the Sustainable
LivestockProductionLINKprogramme.
Project duration: 2010-2015
Aims and objectives: To quantify the chemical
composition of UK wheat Dried Distillers Grains with
52 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 53
Pork safety and product quality
There are many regulations that govern general food hygiene in abattoirs and cutting plants, but there are further rules and regulations for meat. Food business operators must also comply with strict animal health and welfare regulations.
The fourth point of the AHDB Pork 5-Point Plan addresses the
area of Safe and Traceable pork. We aim to help farmers and
processors produce pork that continues to be safe and which
consumersareconfidentaboutthetraceabilityfromfarmto
finishedproduct.
AHDB Pork aims to:
• Support the pig meat supply chain in producing wholesome
pork products with safety, provenance and integrity along
the whole chain
• PromotetheuseoftheSIRA(StableIsotopeReference
Analysis) tracing tool through the meat supply chain
• Work with RUMA and PVS to encourage responsible
use of antimicrobials, and improve the on-farm
recording of such use
• Help industry implement the changing Trichinella
testing regime, and ultimately, seek ‘negligible risk’
status for England
• Provide the Secretariat for the Pig Health and Welfare
Council’s Food Safety group
• Challenge government to meet their obligations regarding
providing post-mortem data to producers, and work with
themtofindthebestmethodtodothis
• Work closely with government departments to understand
and address levels of zoonosis in the pig herd
• Communicateresearchfindingsandupdatestotheend
user, via workshops, seminars and newsletters.
Development of novel technology for boar taint detection to assist with the production of taint-free pork
Research partners: University of the West of England
Sponsors: AHDB Pork-funded studentship
(Kelly Westmacott), JSR Genetics
Duration: 2014-2018
Aims and objectives:
To fully characterise a UWE patented measurement
system for abattoir use, which will be able to
simultaneously determine the taint compounds
• To provide rapid results
to prevent tainted meat
reaching the consumer
• To assist research
into taint prevention
methods:
• Genetic selection
• Vaccination
• Dietary manipulation
• Other potential
strategies
• To ultimately improve
customer satisfaction
and increase
competitiveness of the
UK pig industry.
Findings to date:
• Good progress towards the validation of a novel
technology to measure boar taint compounds has been
achieved with fresh and frozen pork samples obtained
from both a breeding company and British retailers
• Skatole and androstenone concentrations in adipose
tissue were determined using both the novel sensor
and the validation method (gas chromatography)
• The concentrations of the two compounds measured
by gas chromatography correlate well with those
obtained using the novel sensor
• Regular updates are published in the Pig Abattoir
Newsletterandfindingstodatewillbepublishedlater
in 2016.
• The impending 2018 EU voluntary ban on castration
will result in more entire male pigs on the market,
therefore this technology remains vital to prevent
consumer dissatisfaction.
Validation of automated screening for pathologies at abattoir
Research partner: Tulip Ltd
Sponsor: AHDB Pork
Duration: 2014-2017
Aims and objectives:
Tovalidateanddevelopeffectiveknowledgeexchangeforthe
outputsfromaparallelprojectwhichwill:
• Develop and deploy multi-camera recording infrastructure
that enables capture of images
of carcases
• Acquire image data sets and have experts annotate
pathologies in these images
• Developandrefinealgorithms/softwarethatcan
automatically recognise pathologies
• Validate these algorithms on large-scale datasets and
disseminate results to relevant users.
Findings to date:
• The computer programme has been ‘taught’ to recognise
differentpathologiesthatcanbepresentonoffal
• Theprogrammecanmapoffalanddistinguishbetween
differentparts
• Additional cameras are being added to provide a 360º view
ofoffalandcarcasesandtoimprovepicturequality.
Production efficiency
The English pig industry has a variety of production systems, including indoor and outdoor units, straw-based and slatted accommodation. This makes the industry quitedifferentfromourglobalcounterpartsandAHDBPork aims to narrow the technical performance gap between English pig producers and our competitors.
The contribution of oocytes and follicular fluid to pig fertility
Research partners: TheRoslinInstitute, University of Edinburgh
Sponsors: AHDB Pork-funded studentship
(Selene Jarrett)
Duration: 2014-2018
Aims and objectives:
• Toidentifydifferencesinthemolecularcomposition
offollicularfluidasaresultofahighfibrediet
• To identify nutrition dependent molecular
mechanisms involved in blastocyst development
• To optimise oocyte maturation environment in vitro
and in vivo.
Findings to date:
• Studieswerecarriedouttoidentifydifferencesintheproteincontentoffluidsfrompigsfedacontrol
dietandpigsfedahighfibrediet,andonfluidsfrom
fertile and non-fertile pigs
• Over 140differentiallyexpressedproteinsweredetectedbetween thecontroland highfibreporcine
follicularfluidsamples,indicatinganutritional
influenceonproteincomposition
• Severaloftheseproteinswerealsodifferentiallyexpressed in the fertile versus non-fertile analyses,
suggesting that nutritionally altered porcine follicular
fluidproteincompositionmayaffectlaterfertility.
Itishopedthattheoutputsfromthisworkcould
influenceandrefinethefeedingregimensoffemalepigs
on commercial units prior to mating, to improve their
reproductive performance.
54 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 55
Sorting pigs at weaning in order to reduce variability and improve the efficiency of pig production systems
Research partners: Newcastle University
Sponsors: AHDB Pork-funded studentship (Anne Huting)
Duration: 2014-2018
Aims and objectives:
• To reduce variability within pig groups through
managementandbydoingsoimprovetheefficiency
of production systems
• Toinvestigatetheconsequencesofdifferent management strategies on lifetime performance
of light, normal and heavy pigs
• Todevelopcost-effectivefeedingregimes.
Limited results are available at present, however, initial findings suggest that:
• Piglets that are born small perform better in uniform litters,
whereas piglets that are born heavy perform better in
mixed litters
• Creep feed supplementation does not contribute to an
improved performance pre-weaning
• Creep feed consumption is highly variable, both between
and within litters.
Field Trials
TheAHDBPorkfieldtrialsprogrammeisaseries of on-farm experiments aimed at solving herd performance problems.
Theyareprotocol-based,scientificallyrobustandaredriven
by adaptation of global knowledge. Some smaller-scale trials
are run as proof of concepts or initial investigations into new
technologies/best practice.
“Field trials are run on several farms foreachproblemareaidentifiedandarefunded 100% by AHDB Pork.”
Topicsforfieldtrialsarelargelyproposedbytheregional
forums, whose role it is to inform AHDB Pork of current and
future production issues on farm. However, applications from
individuals are welcome and should be submitted via their
regional AHDB Pork KE manager.
Thetrialsarerunacrossarangeofdifferentfacilities,
from large commercial production sites to dedicated
university and college research farms. This allows data to be
captured from both commercial, real world environments and
also more sensitive trials to be run in dedicated trial facilities. .
Outdoor farrowing tent
Aims and objectives: To increase the production potential of outdoor farrowing by providing more control at farrowing time.
The trial: Threeoutdoorunitshavebeenusingdifferingdesignsofafarrowingtent.Thedesignsvaryfromatentwithdedicated
farrowing pens incorporated into the design, to one tent overarching 12 traditional farrowing arcs. Sows had individual
farrowing paddocks for outdoor access and were individually fed.
Findings: Thefirstroundofthetrialisnearcompletion,withasecondgenerationdesigninprogress.Theaimistohavethis
tentonfarmbeforeSeptember2016withthegoalofsolvingissuesthathavebeenidentifiedinthefirstgeneration
designs. Physical performance results are being analysed and will be available soon for areas such as weaning weight
and weight gain. More pros and cons are highlighted below.
Completed field trials
Optimising the potential of the small pig through the implementation of best practice in the farrowing house
Aims and objectives: Toexaminethecost/benefitofbestpracticefarrowing
house management on a large, commercial site.
Findings: Earlyindicationsarethat,inthecurrentfinancialclimate,
thereislittlesignificantbenefitfrombestpractice
routines,suchasemployingadditionalstafftomonitor
and intervene in farrowings overnight. A full report,
including costings, will be published once the output has
been more thoroughly analysed
Pros Cons
Producers report reduced straw usage.Storing straw in the tents could attract rats, although this hasn’t caused any issues to date.
Staffenjoyworkinginthetentsinthewinter/harsherweatherasthey are out of the elements.
Thetentsaredifficultandtime-consumingtomove.
The tents with the individual farrowing pens could make providing creep, and/or water, to piglets far easier than in conventional arcs, pending some design alterations.
When tents are moved, the farrowing paddocks have to be taken down and moved individually for each sow space. As the shape and size of these can vary, this can make fencing with traditional materials time-consuming.
Once a standard operating procedure Was put in place and tailored to the tent, producers reported reduced mortality.
Ifanindividualfarrowingpenwithinatentbecomesflooded,thesow has to be moved, rather than simply moving the arc as would happen in a conventional system.
Producers report that it is safer to work with piglets in the farrowing tents than in traditional outdoor systems as the sows can be shut out.
Weaning is quicker as sows can be shut out and piglets collected into a passageway for removal.
Thetentshaveproventobesignificantlycoolerinthesummerandwarmer in the winter than traditional farrowing arcs (both painted and unpainted).
Asignificantincreaseinbothweaningweightandweightgain in the tents vs conventional arcs has been demonstrated on several occasions.
56 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 57
Investigating the effects of varying space allowance on the performance of growing-finishing pigs
Aims and objectives:Toinvestigatetheeffectofincreasedspace allowance for growth.
The trial: The trial was conducted at a university research
site.Pigswerehousedatdifferentstockingdensitiesusing
three varying space allowances: 0.68, 0.77 and 0.85m2. Pigs
weremonitoredoverfivebatchesfromnineweeksthrough
to slaughter.
Findings:Therewasnosignificantimpactofthevaryingspace
allowances on performance as a whole. However, Table 27 showsthesignificantvariationbetweenthesmallestspace
allowance (0.68m2) and the largest space allowance (0.85m2)
during two-week periods.
Table 27: Variation in daily liveweight gain (DLWG) of pigs housed at different stocking densities
The pigs housed at the lower stocking density (0.85m2 per pig)
experiencedagrowthbenefitofapproximately2kg; the value
of this additional growth is £45.16 per pen of 20 pigs (February
2016 prices).
At the higher stocking density (0.68m2 per pig) the pen
finishesanadditionalfivepigsperbatch,meaningthatfor
the £45.16 gain in revenue at the lower stocking rate, there
is a £588 loss in revenue per pen per batch by providing the
additionalspace.Thereis,therefore,nofinancialnetgainfrom
providing additional space in this case. The trial is scheduled to
run on a large-scale commercial site in spring/summer 2016.
Age (weeks)
DLWG increase (g/day)
Total additional growth (g)
9-11 11.13 156
11-13 NS* NS*
13-15 31.63 443
15-17 30.99 434
17-19 NS* NS*
19-20 67.90 951
Total 1,983
Note:*NSmeanstherewasnosignificantdifferenceinDLWGduringthattimeframe.
“Thereis,therefore,nofinancialnetgain from providing additional space in this case. The trial is scheduled to run on a large-scale commercial site in spring/summer 2016.”
Investigation of the effect of allocating 50% and 100% more feeder space on the performance of weaner/grower – finisher pigs
Aims and objectives: Toinvestigatetheeffectofdoublingfeeding space for growth.
The trial: The trial has been run on two dedicated research
sites,onewithflat-deckweaneraccommodationandonewith
slattedgrower-finisheraccommodation,allowing600, 900 and
1,200mm of trough space per pen of 25 pigs.
Findings: Nosignificantimpactwasobservedonproduction
parameters(DLWGandFCR)intheflat-decksystem.No
significantimpactonDLWGwasobservedintheslatted
accommodation either during the whole period from nine
weeks of age through to slaughter, nor between any individual
weighing (every two weeks during this period).
On-going Field Trials
Supplementation with omega-3 PUFA and effects on reproductive performance of sows
Aims and objectives: To address seasonal infertility and
increase piglet viability.
The trial: This is a long-term (>12 months) trial running
across two dedicated research facilities. There are two
groups of sows, control and treatment. The treatment sows
will be supplemented with a commercially available source
of omega-3 for one full gestation and lactation period.
All sows are being monitored throughout the period of
supplementation (both treatment and control) and during the
following gestation and lactation, to determine whether there
isanycarry-overeffectofthesupplementation.
Expected benefits: The goal of this study is to improve
numbers born alive and increase piglet survivability by 2%.
Findings to date: One unit has farrowed all sows through
thefirstpartofthetrial(thesupplementedphase);thenext
stage is to farrow sows in the carry-over stage of the trial. The
secondunitisduetofinishfarrowingthesupplementedsows
inlatespring2016.Aninterimreportontheinitialfindingswill
be produced and published late spring/early summer 2016.
The effect of different metabolic status of sows during gestation and lactation on subsequent performance of sows and piglets
Aims and objectives: To address variable weights and body
condition at farrowing and to improve sow longevity and
lifetimeperformance.Theaimistofindaquickandeasy
method of quantifying a sow’s metabolic status on farm.
The trial: The trial has been delayed due to issues sourcing
a unit with the necessary facilities, however, the intention
istorunthisprojectfortwomonthsinsummer2016and
to have completed a report by early autumn. The trial will
focusontheuseofeasilyappliedtools(flanktapesandasow
calliper) for measuring metabolic status, weight and P2. These
measurements will be compared and any correlations between
them reported upon.
Expected benefits: A 10%increaseinsowefficiency.
Evaluation of ultra-high frequency (UHF) electronic ear tags to optimise marketing strategies on farm
Aims and objectives: To undertake a feasibility analysis
to test the practicalities of using UHF technology on farm,
integrating this data into existing management systems (on
farm and at the abattoir) and using this data to inform better
management decisions.
The trial: The trial is looking at individual tagging of piglets
so that performance data can be tracked on a pig-by-pig basis
throughouttheproductionsystem.Crucially,theprojecthas
also involved co-operation with a large-scale abattoir in which
a UHF tag reader has been installed. This allows slaughter data
to be sent back to the farm and attributed to individual pigs.
Expected benefits: The development of a low cost tagging
system, allowing the integration of both on-farm and abattoir
data, could mean that, for farms running day-to-day trial
work,suchascomparingrations,performancefromdifferent
buildings or vaccination programmes, the data could be easily
and automatically collected and assimilated into one place.
The easier collection and assessment of data and the ability to
attributeittospecificanimalswouldmakecarryingouton-farm
costbenefitanalysisarelativelysimpleandpowerfulexercise.
ThebenefitsofUHFtagsoveralternative,readilyavailable,
tags include:
• Considerably reduced cost (30p vs £1.40)
• Easier to read in bulk, i.e. scanning a group of pigs will
return all tag numbers
• Easier to read from a further distance.
Findings to date: A standard operating procedure (SOP)
has been developed for using the system, the key
features of this include:
• Tagging should be carried out when the
pigletsarefirstprocessed,i.e.day1or2
• The same ear should be tagged for all pigs
• The male part of the tag should
be positioned on the outside
of the ear for improved
retention rates.
By following the SOP, more
than 95% of tags have been
retained and were readable
at the abattoir.
58 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 59
Establishing ammonia emission factors for straw-based and slatted finishing pig buildings and evaluating improved ventilation systems
Aims and objectives: To collect and evaluate data for ammonia
emission levels within pig sheds.
The trial: Ammonia concentration in the inlet and exhaust air
isbeingmeasuredusinganammoniaanalyser.Inaddition,the
number of pigs, weights, feed intake, protein content of diets,
ventilation rates, external and internal temperatures and
relative humidity are also being recorded.
Expected benefits:Moreaccuratelyquantifiedammonia
emissions will assist producers in obtaining consents
and permissions for new buildings and in making
investment decisions.
Findings to date:
• Anoptimumspecificationforafieldworkanalyser
has been determined
• Asecondammoniaanalyser,basedonthespecification,
has been developed and deployed on farm
• A robust SOP for installing sensitive equipment onto farms
has been developed.
Evaluation of a carcase cooling container
Aims: To evaluate the operation and performance of cooling
containers for the on-farm storage of dead pigs (fallen stock)
in England.
The trial: Two carcase cooling containers have been installed ontrialsites.Thecarcasecoolingcontainersarefittedwitha
mains-powered refrigeration unit, connected with a 16amp plug.
The temperature inside and outside the container is recorded to
monitorperformanceandeachofthecontainershasbeenfitted
with a meter to monitor the exact energy consumption.
Expected benefits: Potentially improved biosecurity and
carcase quality for enhanced marketable yield of products
derived from rendered material following storage.
Findings to date:
• Sincetheinitialfindings,whichshowedthatthecoolingcontainers kept the contents of the bin between 2 - 7°C,
even when the external temperature reached 30°C, the
variation in temperature has been reduced by 45%
• Fewer collections are necessary due to the fact that
producers on the trial farms are using a bigger bin than
previously and because the bins do not get as smelly
• Producers,theirstaffandthecollectorsapproveofthebinsastheyarelesssmellyandhavefewerflies
• Electricity use was in the region of 80p per day during the
summer period and less during cooler times of the year.
Further information: http://pork.ahdb.org.uk/environment-buildings/fallen-stock/carcase-cooling/
Blue lighting
Aims: To look at the impact of predominantly blue light,
producedbyLEDs,onpigsingrower/finisher
and weaner accommodation.
The trial: Oneweanerroomandonegrower/finisherroom
were equipped with commercially available blue LED light
panels and pig performance was monitored.
Findings to date: Performance data has been variable; one
of the batches with LEDs performed better than average for
the unit while another batch performed less well. While the
amount of data available from this small-scale trial does not
allowforanysignificantrelationshipstobeestablished,itis
evident that the blue lights do not negatively impact the pigs.
“…it is evident that the blue lights do not negatively impact the pigs.”
Staffworkingwiththepigshaveindicatedthatthosehoused
in the rooms with LEDs appear relaxed and more humanised,
asaresulttheycanbemoredifficulttomove.
Expected benefits: This topic is likely to be a focus for
the innovation team in the future as it could represent an
opportunity for low cost, easily installed, technology which
can have a positive impact on farm.
Future Field Trials
Environmental Particle Ionisation
Environmentalparticleionisation(EPI)hasbeendevelopedin
the USA. A high voltage, low amperage, current is connected
to a corona bar, this imparts a charge to microbial, gas and
dust particles in the atmosphere, causing them to fall to the
ground where they are no longer available for inhalation by
stockorstaff.
The trial: ThetrialwillinvolveinstallingtheEPIequipment
inonefinishingroom(fullyslated)onacommercialscale
research unit and monitoring environmental microbial
pathogens (E.coli and Salmonella), dust and ammonia,
alongside some odour sampling. Pig performance (DLWG and
FCR) will also be monitored on a pen level basis. The trial will
run from March to September 2016.
Expected benefits:Shouldthetechnologyproveeffective,itcouldleadtoanimprovementinbothlivestockandstaff
respiratoryhealthandpigperformance.Itmayalsooffera
morecost-effectivealternativetoairscrubbingequipment;
the cost of air scrubbing is in the region of £2.50 per pig
produced, based on the equipment having a working life of
15years.ByusingEPI,thecostisreducedtoaround24p per
pig produced, over the same time period. Figures will vary
depending on the size and throughput of installations.
Notes
60 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
‘A growing English pig production and primary processing industry’Vision
‘To help English pig production and processing businesses become more competitive and profitable’Mission
While the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, operating through its AHDB Pork division, seeks to ensure that the information contained within this document is accurate at the time of printing, no warranty is given in respect thereof and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board accepts to liability for loss, damage or injury howsoever caused
(including that caused by negligence) or suffered directly or indirectly in relation to information and opinions contained in or omitted from this document. © Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) 2016. All rights reserved.
AHDB Pork is a division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.
For more information and advice contact: AHDB, Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, CV8 2TL Telephone: 0247 647 8792, email: [email protected] or visit www.ahdborg.uk