Practical ways to produce key information to enable process control in a pig finishing system

Profitability of finishing pig production is determined by relatively small differences in physical performance of Key Profit Determining factors together with market prices of inputs and output. Many producers – at best have batch performance data – this is derived too late for positive interventions to be made to influence performance. What is required is derivation of meaningful data during the production of a batch of pigs enabling corrective appropriate action to be taken.

An 1800-finisher pig place straw-bedded, naturally ventilated (ACNV) house managed on an all in-all out basis comprising 20 pens housing either 90 gilts or boars on a split-sex basis. Pigs entered at approximately 53kg and were sold at 112kg live weight. Pigs were fed ad libitum, 2 sample pens were weight monitored at weaning, on entry to finishing and weekly for the last 8 weeks of the finishing period. One such pen had an in-pen auto weigher (Schippers Ltd) enabling sample weighings on a daily basis to be made. Two bulk feed bins supplying feed to 20 pens were also monitored via load cells; water usage was monitored daily using electric pulse meters. This study examined the practicalities of deriving process control data in a commercial pig finishing facility.

Pigs entered the 2 test pens at a mean weight of 56.2kg SD 8.6kg (31.5-86.5kg) and 15% coefficient of variation. Pigs were sold over a period of 44 days and 7 sales draws / pen to optimise mean sale weight at 110.5kg. Auto-weigher: pig usage rate varied between batches, daily mean visits ranged between 32 and 121 pig visits / day / batch. Higher visit rate improved accuracy of weighings which ranged from 97-106% of actual pig weighings, compared to 92-106% of actual weight for lower frequency visits. With high usage rates approximately 75% visited the weigher daily. Bulk feed bin weigher use enabled daily feed intake (DFI) to be monitored, use of a rolling 7 day average daily intake proved to be less erratic than daily intake data. A mean daily feed intake of 3.1kg day at a mean live weight of 85kg resulted in a DFI of 3.6% of body weight. Water intake monitoring: daily intake was more variable than anticipated; again a rolling 7 day mean is advised. Water intake was 2.4 times that of feed intake and 8.6% of body weight.

The equipment used to measure input and performance was reliable though daily data needs to be interpreted with caution, rolling 7 day averages are preferable. Once several batches are completed a comparative benchmark can be utilised to highlight deviations in daily performance.

Disclosure of Interest: J. Richardson

Conflict with: Consultant.