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 RANKCOMPANY# SOWS 1BRASIL FOODS AURORA (COOP) MARFRIG/SEARA DOUX FRANGOSUL PAMPLONA MASTER AGROPECUARIA COOP CASTROLANDA COSUEL COOPERCAMPOS COPAGRIL10.000

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Master Agropecuária – Overview Founded: April, 29 th 1994 (Family Company) Business: production of pigs for reproduction and slaughter in partnership Company structure sows (6 farms) - 2 boar studs (150 boars) - 2 feed mills partners employees Target for 2011: wean pigs (28,4 P/S/Y)

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Business point of view - BTW

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 VAR % PART Wean Pig (1 U$ = 1,7 R$)U$ 25,93 27,536,2%100,0% FeedU$ 12,99 14,088,4%51,1% Depreciation (facilities + animals)U$ 3,90 3,48-10,9%12,6% Med + VaccinU$ 1,89 3,1566,3%11,4% LaborU$ 3,12 2,91-6,6%10,6% General Production CostU$ 1,81 1,70-6,5%6,2% Environmental costU$ 0,65 0,673,9%2,4% SemenU$ 0,56 0,6313,0%2,3% Received costU$ 0,68 0,59-12,9%2,2% Feed + semen transportationU$ 0,32 0,31-0,7%1,1% Sow feed / wean pig (kg)KG 7,2 6,8-5,3% Number of pigs weanedCAB ,1% Average wean weightKG 5,8 6,04,3% Kg weaned ,9%

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Cost of production VAR % PART Wean Pig (1 U$ = 1,7 R$)U$ 25,93 27,536,2%100,0% FeedU$ 12,99 14,088,4%51,1% Depreciation (facilities + animals)U$ 3,90 3,48-10,9%12,6% Med + VaccinU$ 1,89 3,1566,3%11,4% LaborU$ 3,12 2,91-6,6%10,6% General Production CostU$ 1,81 1,70-6,5%6,2% Environmental costU$ 0,65 0,673,9%2,4% SemenU$ 0,56 0,6313,0%2,3% Received costU$ 0,68 0,59-12,9%2,2% Feed + semen transportationU$ 0,32 0,31-0,7%1,1% Sow feed / wean pig (kg)KG 7,2 6,8-5,3% Number of pigs weanedCAB ,1% Average wean weightKG 5,8 6,04,3% Kg weaned ,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 culled40,9 Value to depreciate - U$/sow$72,65 Gilt cost$238,00 Sow value$209,44 Value to be depreciated per sow culled$15,57 Value to be added per death sow$24,00 Value 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)

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Born alive vs. parity ( farrows)

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Today distribution per parity 38% 42% 20%

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Objective (improve 0,3 to 0,4 PSY) 38% >50% <10%

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Throughput CostProductivity Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Throughput VAR % Number of pigs weanedCAB ,1% Average wean pig weightKG 5,8 6,04,3% Kg weaned ,9% Number of pigs weaned per week

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Throughput

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN OP 1 OP 5 Adotados de OP 5 Biológicos de OP 1 Biológicos de OP 5 Adotados de OP h 1,2 - 1,6 kg Performance according to parity Bierhals et al. Non published data

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN Performance according parity ParityPigletsFostering7 d14 d18 d 1Adopted1434,5 a2528,6 a4072,0 a5051,7 a 1N adopted1423,7 a2558,6 a4078,6 a5061,9 a 5Adopted1443,3 a2845,5 b4803,4 b5900,9 b 5N adopted1450,8 a2819,6 b4782,2 b6047,0 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 age Involuntary: 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, –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 274 litters 7 culled 1525 gilts Weight at birth class Light ( g) Medium ( g) Heavy ( g) Litter size class Small (7 a 11 pigs) Medium (12 a 13 pigs) Large (14 a 19 pigs) 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 birthBirth weight, g Birth weight, g/d 1417 ± 7,9A1400 ± 6,5AB1393 ± 6,3B1013 ± 8,3a1411 ± 5,2b1787 ± 7,0c GR, g/d 184,9 ± 2,9188,3 ± 2,5187,6 ± 2,3174,9 ± 3,2a188,4 ± 1,9b197,4 ± 2,5c Nursery GR, g/d420,8 ± 4,4423,1 ± 3,7418,4 ± 3,6406,8 ± 4,9a421,3 ± 2,9b434,1 ± 3,8c Finisher GR, g/d876,0 ± 8,2887,6 ± 6,5883,8 ± 6,5850,2 ± 9,0a892,9 ± 5,1b904,2 ± 6,7b Age at select, d158,5 ± 0,5158,6 ± 0,4157,6 ± 0,4161,0 ± 0,6a157,7 ± 0,3b156,0 ± 0,4c GR at select, g/d627,4 ± 4,8634,1 ± 3,9632,0 ± 3,8605,1 ± 5,3a637,8 ± 3,0b650,7 ± 4,0c BF at select, mm11,4 ± 0,1611,4 ± 0,13 11,5 ± 0,1711,5 ± 0,1011,3 ± 0,13 B.Exp-puberty, d17,3 ± 0,816,7 ± 0,618,7 ± 0,715,8 ± 0,9a17,9 ± 0,5ab18,9 ± 0,7b

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN 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 ± 8,3a1411 ± 5,2b1787 ± 7,0c

PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN 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 sizeP value 7≤x≤1111<x≤13x>13 NV+NAT 110,02a12,31b15,42c<0,0001 NV+NAT 211,3211,6811,44NS 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 – EBVTotal Born# Farrows <3110, a 4011, a 5012, a 6012, a 7013,5407 >7014,8261 Average12,13518 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.