View
29
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Production management that delivers results. Rafael Kummer, Phd . Master Company - Brazil. Brazilian Top 10 players. Master Agropecuária – Overview. Founded : April , 29 th 1994 ( Family Company ) Business: production of pigs for reproduction and slaughter in partnership - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Production management that delivers results
Rafael Kummer, Phd.Master Company - Brazil
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Brazilian Top 10 players
RANK COMPANY # SOWS1 BRASIL FOODS 450.0002 AURORA (COOP) 150.0003 MARFRIG/SEARA 115.0004 DOUX FRANGOSUL 33.0005 PAMPLONA 25.0006 MASTER AGROPECUARIA 21.0007 COOP CASTROLANDA 15.0008 COSUEL 12.0009 COOPERCAMPOS 12.00010 COPAGRIL 10.000
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Master Agropecuária – Overview
• Founded: April, 29th 1994 (Family Company)
• Business: production of pigs for reproduction and slaughter in partnership
• Company structure- 21.000 sows (6 farms)- 2 boar studs (150 boars)- 2 feed mills- 190 partners- 270 employees
• Target for 2011: 600.000 wean pigs (28,4 P/S/Y)
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Business point of view - BTW
Site I21%
Síte II17%Síte III
62%
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Throughput
CostProductivity
Managing BTW
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Throughput
CostProductivity
Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Throughput
CostProductivity
Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Cost of production 2010 2011 VAR % % PART Wean Pig (1 U$ = 1,7 R$) U$ 25,93 27,53 6,2% 100,0%Feed U$ 12,99 14,08 8,4% 51,1%Depreciation (facilities + animals) U$ 3,90 3,48 -10,9% 12,6%Med + Vaccin U$ 1,89 3,15 66,3% 11,4%Labor U$ 3,12 2,91 -6,6% 10,6%General Production Cost U$ 1,81 1,70 -6,5% 6,2%Environmental cost U$ 0,65 0,67 3,9% 2,4%Semen U$ 0,56 0,63 13,0% 2,3%Received cost U$ 0,68 0,59 -12,9% 2,2%Feed + semen transportation U$ 0,32 0,31 -0,7% 1,1%
Sow feed / wean pig (kg) KG 7,2 6,8 -5,3% Number of pigs weaned CAB 133.188 146.644 10,1% Average wean weight KG 5,8 6,0 4,3% Kg weaned 772.290 887.191 14,9%
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Cost of production 2010 2011 VAR % % PART Wean Pig (1 U$ = 1,7 R$) U$ 25,93 27,53 6,2% 100,0%Feed U$ 12,99 14,08 8,4% 51,1%Depreciation (facilities + animals) U$ 3,90 3,48 -10,9% 12,6%Med + Vaccin U$ 1,89 3,15 66,3% 11,4%Labor U$ 3,12 2,91 -6,6% 10,6%General Production Cost U$ 1,81 1,70 -6,5% 6,2%Environmental cost U$ 0,65 0,67 3,9% 2,4%Semen U$ 0,56 0,63 13,0% 2,3%Received cost U$ 0,68 0,59 -12,9% 2,2%Feed + semen transportation U$ 0,32 0,31 -0,7% 1,1%
Sow feed / wean pig (kg) KG 7,2 6,8 -5,3% Number of pigs weaned CAB 133.188 146.644 10,1% Average wean weight KG 5,8 6,0 4,3% Kg weaned 772.290 887.191 14,9%
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Sow depreciation
((Value per gilt bred – Value per sow culled) + added cost) / Wean pigs per sow culled
Average sow parity at culling 3,6 Wean pigs per farrow 11,2 Wean pigs per sow culled 40,9
Value to depreciate - U$/sow $72,65Gilt cost $238,00Sow value $209,44Value to be depreciated per sow culled $15,57Value to be added per death sow $24,00Value to be added per gilt not bred $4,52
Depreciation per wean pig $1,78
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Throughput
CostProductivity
Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Productivity – PSY (system monthly average)
mai-10 jun-10 jul-10 ago-10 set-10 out-10 nov-10 dez-10 jan-11 fev-1124.0
25.0
26.0
27.0
28.0
29.0
30.0
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
1 2 3 4 5 6 711.2
11.4
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.2
12.4
11.93 11.96
12.19
12.3012.21
11.79
11.60
Born alive vs. parity (49.305 farrows)
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Today distribution per parity
1 2 3 4 5 6 711.2
11.4
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.2
12.4
11.93 11.96
12.19
12.3012.21
11.79
11.60
38% 42% 20%
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Objective (improve 0,3 to 0,4 PSY)
1 2 3 4 5 6 711.2
11.4
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.2
12.4
11.93 11.96
12.19
12.3012.21
11.79
11.60
38% >50% <10%
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Throughput
CostProductivity
Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Throughput 2010 2011 VAR %
Number of pigs weaned CAB 133.188 146.644 10,1% Average wean pig weight KG 5,8 6,0 4,3% Kg weaned 772.290 887.191 14,9%
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 678000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
Number of pigs weaned per week
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Throughput
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
OP 1 OP 5
Adotados de OP 5Biológicos de OP 1
Biológicos de OP 5
Adotados de OP 1
8 - 24 h
1,2 - 1,6 kg
Performance according to parity
Bierhals et al. Non published data
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Performance according parity
Parity Piglets Fostering 7 d 14 d 18 d
1 Adopted 1434,5 a 2528,6 a 4072,0 a 5051,7 a
1 N adopted 1423,7 a 2558,6 a 4078,6 a 5061,9 a
5 Adopted 1443,3 a 2845,5 b 4803,4 b 5900,9 b
5 N adopted 1450,8 a 2819,6 b 4782,2 b 6047,0 b
Bierhals et al. Non published data
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Throughput
Source: C. Moore, 2005 – London Swine Conference
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Parity retention importance
• Decrease cost of production
• Increase productivity
• Increase throughput
• Improve pig quality at weaning
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
What do we want as a system
1. > 50% of sows from P3 to P5.
2. Reduce replacement rate to 43-47%.
3. We need to improve voluntary culling vs. involuntary.
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
How do we manage
1. Looking at retention per parity.– Select to breed > 90%– Breed to P1 > 95%– P1 to P2 > 90%– P2 to P3 > 90%
2. Looking at voluntary vs. involuntary culling.Voluntary: productivity or ageInvoluntary: all other reasons
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
What are big challenges
Birth – Selection – Breed – P1 – Breed – P2 – Breed – P3
>70%
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
What are the key points we believe
• Have the right boars on boar stud;
• Have the right number of gilts available to select;
• Have a specialist doing selection;
• Do a good job on puberty stimulation;
• Breed gilts by weight;
• Feed based on body condition score - avoid fat animals;
• Watch for food and water during first lactation;
• Have 1 person responsible for culling;
• Make groups in gestation of problem animals every 2 weeks;
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.
• Farm Master VII:– 5.500 animals.– 2.500 L02 females.– Internal nursery and grower – no animals entering
the unit from outside.– Genetic improvement through boars
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.
• When we should start selecting the replacement gilt?
• Should we not tag low birth weight animals?
• Does parity of the mother sow impact subsequent performance?
• Can we manipulate diet during growth to improve sow longevity?
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.
• Project A:– Start: December, 2009.
– Identified 1525 L02 gilts at birth – EBV, boar/sow, sow parity, litter information.
– Individual weight at birth, weaning, end of nursery and selection 155 d.
– Record information off test – culling/death.
– Objective: to follow these animals up to parity 3.
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.
Liter size at birth Birth weight, g
7-11 12-13 14-19 530-1200 1205-1600 1605-2535
Birth weight, g/d 1417 ± 7,9A 1400 ±
6,5AB
1393 ±
6,3B
1013 ± 8,3a 1411 ± 5,2b 1787 ± 7,0c
GR, g/d 184,9 ± 2,9 188,3 ± 2,5 187,6 ± 2,3 174,9 ±
3,2a
188,4 ±
1,9b
197,4 ± 2,5c
Nursery GR, g/d 420,8 ± 4,4 423,1 ± 3,7 418,4 ± 3,6 406,8 ±
4,9a
421,3 ±
2,9b
434,1 ± 3,8c
Finisher GR, g/d 876,0 ± 8,2 887,6 ± 6,5 883,8 ± 6,5 850,2 ±
9,0a
892,9 ±
5,1b
904,2 ±
6,7b
Age at select, d 158,5 ± 0,5 158,6 ± 0,4 157,6 ± 0,4 161,0 ±
0,6a
157,7 ±
0,3b
156,0 ± 0,4c
GR at select, g/d 627,4 ± 4,8 634,1 ± 3,9 632,0 ± 3,8 605,1 ±
5,3a
637,8 ±
3,0b
650,7 ± 4,0c
BF at select, mm 11,4 ± 0,16 11,4 ± 0,13 11,4 ± 0,13 11,5 ± 0,17 11,5 ± 0,10 11,3 ± 0,13
B.Exp-puberty, d 17,3 ± 0,8 16,7 ± 0,6 18,7 ± 0,7 15,8 ± 0,9a 17,9 ±
0,5ab
18,9 ± 0,7b
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Peso ajustado 22 d, kg (n=1379)
Peso ajustado 75 d, kg (n=1198)
Peso ajustado 155 d, kg (n=940)
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
4,9±0,07a
26,5± 0,27a
94,9± 0,78a
5,6±0,04b
28 ± 0,16b
99,8 ± 0,44b
6,1±0,06c
29,3 ± 0,21c
101,8± 0,58c
530-1200 1205-1600 1605-2535
Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.
22 d weight (n=1379) 75 d weight (n=1198) 155 d weight (n=940)
1013 ± 8,3a 1411 ± 5,2b 1787 ± 7,0c
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
530-1200 1205-1600 1605-2535 150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
170 ± 0,8a
166,9± 0,4b165,1± 0,6c
185,8± 1,2 184,9± 0,6183,4± 0,9
Idade de estímulo com macho, d (n=569) Idade da puberdade, d (n=504)
Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.
Age at boar exposure (n=569) Age at puberty (n=504)
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Variável Litter size P value7≤x≤11 11<x≤13 x>13
NV+NAT 1 10,02a 12,31b 15,42c <0,0001NV+NAT 2 11,32 11,68 11,44 NS
Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Project 1 – preliminary results
• There is a lower chance that a low birth weight L02 will reach selection;
• No impact on selection rate;
• There is NO correlation between birth weight and puberty age and birth weight and anestrous rate;
• Evaluating subsequent performance and retention up to P3.
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Conclusions
• Everything we do is to get closer to genetic potential!
Sow L02 – EBV Total Born # Farrows<31 10,0 743
31 a 40 11,5 67441 a 50 12,4 81151 a 60 12,8 62261 a 70 13,5 407>70 14,8 261
Average 12,1 3518
L02 total born according to Estimated Breeding Value at breeding – Master 7 (2010)
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Take home messages
• There is no improvement without EBV management;
• Parity retention is key for cost, productivity and throughput;
• Sow replacement rate > 50% is not the future;
• Manage looking at retention by parity and voluntary vs. involuntary culling reason;
• Make the things easy in a routine base or will not get fully implemented.
Recommended