1. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science U.S. 2008 – 2013 Pork Industry Productivity Analysis J. Stock 1, C. E. Abell 1, C. Hostetler 2, and K. J. Stalder 1 1 Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3150 and National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA 50325 2014 Pork Academy Des Moines, IA June 4, 2014

2. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Data Description  Production data obtained from a large U.S. data record keeping organization  Agreement with the National Pork Board to share limited information.  Uses: 1. Quantify the annual production levels and variation associated for several key productivity indicators 2. Establish industry benchmarks for all swine production phases  Breeding herd  Nursery  Wean – to – finish  Conventional finishing

3. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Data Description  Production data obtained from a large U.S. data record keeping organization  Agreement with the National Pork Board to share limited information.  Uses: 3. Quantify seasonal affects associated with the key productivity indicators 4. Identify research opportunities that would improve the U.S. pork industry production efficiency

4. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Data description  Statistical process  Industry Trends  Raw means and standard deviations were used  Seasonality evaluation  Linear model was used  Fixed effects  Company  Month  Year  Covariates – for nursery, grow-finish, and wean-to-finish  Start age  Start days  Days in facility  Covariates – Sow farm  Weaning age

5. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Data description cont’  Data (records) reported monthly for each production phase  Nursery and finishing data –  Monthly averages are based on animals exiting the facility that month  Sow farm data –  Monthly averages are based on litters weaned in that month

6. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Table 1. Number of companies and farms used in analysis for each facility type by year. a Year Conventional Finisher Wean-to- Finish NurserySow 2008Companies46234139 Farms1339385719708 2009Companies49204140 Farms1376334679683 2010Companies43193633 Farms1350527571526 2011Companies44213533 Farms1382775594564 2012Companies50284540 Farms1744830796766 2013Companies44264145 Farms1561886616774 a More than one farm can be managed by the same company. A farm represents a single production site.

7. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Company / farm summary  Increase in the number of companies and farms represented  Tremendous increase in the data volume evaluated  Results in improved information and interpretations that can be made  Companies becoming much more data driven in their decision making process

8. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Company / farm summary  Grow-finish and wean-to-finish becoming farms becoming more like their sow farm counterparts  Farm level decisions much more data driven  Continue greater use of data when guiding company decision process regarding:  Employee  Financial  Health  Nutritional  Genetic  Some combination

9. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Benchmarking - Why do it?  Compare with other businesses  Within species  Across species  Compare herd performance  Within company  Within country  Etc.  Set goals for improving herd  For a specific trait or several traits

10. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Overall Averages

11. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Key Productivity Indicator Averages  Means and standard deviations across all farms and operations.  Sow, nursery, wean-to-finish, and conventional grow- finish data  Developed to examine yearly trends across the U.S. Swine industry.  Operations can compare one or a number of KPIs to see if they are above or below average

12. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

13. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

14. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

15. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

16. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Overall data summary  Finishing mortality has declined over time  Across all data conventional finishing mortality was similar in 2012 and 2013  Wean –to- finish mortality increased slightly in the same time period - initial effects of PED??  Market weight continues to increase  Increased by 4 pounds in both conventional finishing 269.2 lbs. (2012) and 272.1 (2013) and wean – to - finish summaries 270.1 lbs. (2012) to 274.0 lbs. (2013).  Days in the finisher has remained relatively constant over last 3 to 4 years

17. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Overall data summary cont’  Nursery performance has change little across the reporting time period  Pigs/mated sow/ year has increased by almost 2 pigs from 2008 to 2013.  Pigs/mated sow/ year was essentially the same between 2012 and 2013.  No improvement since 2011  Why ?? First signs of PED??  Again, litters/mated sow/year has changed little during the time period

18. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Overall data summary cont’  Percent pre-weaning mortality has increased.  Increased in 2013 to 17.3% from 15.5% in 2012  Early signs of PED??  Represents lost opportunity  Easy to improve??  Weaning age has increased by 2 days from 2008 to 2013.  19.7 days in 2008 to 21.9 days in 2013  Weaning weight has increased by 2 lb.

19. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Table descriptions  Tables 6-9 and 14-17 have the average and standard deviation for each key productivity indicator by top 10% and bottom 25% of farms in each production stage, respectively.  Farms in each percentile were determined for each KPI  Farms in each percentile were not the same for each production indicator  The top and bottom were defined as desirable or undesirable for each trait (rather than higher or lower)

20. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Top 10%

21. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Top 10% summary  Separate out to understand performance levels attained by the very best operations for each KPI.  Demonstrates at least what potential is  Top 10% farms pigs/mated sow/ year was 28.5  Where are the 30 PSY herds  Demonstrates how difficult it is to achieve and sustain the outstanding performance for any of the KPIs  Recognize that top performance can contribute to reduced trait variation

22. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Top 10% summary  Performance is what sets producers / operations apart  Reduced variation can also be important  Caution – by definition variation (standard deviation) should be smaller when the overall group is divided into subgroups. – variation or standard deviation more comparable when comparing two subclasses with each other.

23. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

24. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

25. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

26. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science

27. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Top 10% summary  Separate out to understand performance levels attained by the very best operations for each KPI.  Demonstrates at least what potential is  Recognize that top performance can contribute to reduced trait variation

28. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Top 10% summary  Represents above average performance for each KPI.  Does not describe the relationship with other KPIs and ability to maintain all at top 10%.  Can use this to establish goals for certain KPIs  Be sure that when setting goals they are attainable and are achievable in a reasonable time frame.  Realistic if you are in the bottom 25% to expect top 10% performance within 6 months of establish new goals  Goals that are set too high are not seen as incentives by barn workers

29. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Top 10% Summary cont’  Highlights  Conventional market weight tops 300lbs for top 10% for the first time in 2013  Same value for wean-to-finish was 297 in 2013  Days to market, ADG, and Feed Conversion essentially unchanged from 2008 through 2013 in conventional and wean-to-finishing operations  Nursery performance KPIs similar from 2012-2013  Pigs per mated female per year reached 29.5 in the top 10% in 2013  Pre-weaning mortality remains just above 5% for 2013

30. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Bottom 25%

31. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Comparison of Top 10% vs Bottom 25%  Conventional Finishing  Huge difference in mortality Top 10% 10% average across 6 years  Bottom 25% moving in right direction in recent years  Below 9% 3 most recent years  Bottom 25% sell at much light weight than Top 10%  Bottom 25% 254.2 vs Top 10% 298.7  Net 46 lb. difference at 0.84$/lb. live results in 38.64 for every pig marketed in additional gross income  Bottom 25% have more days in the finisher than the Top 10%  Bottom 25% = 140 vs. Top 10% = 103  Indicates the bottom 25% growing slower 1.56 vs. 2.00 lbs.  Top 10% has much better feed conversion when compared to the bottom 25%.  Top 10% 2.37 vs. Bottom 25% 3.08

32. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Comparison of Top 10% vs. Bottom 25%  Wean-to-Finish Finishing  Early years data may be biased due to small sample number  Huge difference in mortality Top 10% 2.5% vs. Bottom 25% >12% average across 6 years  Finishing weight Top 10% 288 lbs. vs. Bottom 25% 251 lbs.  Bottom 25% averaged over 3 week more days in the finisher  Top 10% 147.1 vs. Bottom 25% 177.5  Consequently ADG differed between the groups  Bottom 25% 1.62 vs. Top 10% at 2.10  Top 10% feed conversion was 2.34 while the bottom 25% was 2.98

33. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Comparison of Top 10% vs. Bottom 25%  Nursery  Again substantial mortality differences  Top 10% less than 1% (0.84) Bottom 25% 7.90 %  Top 10% nursery exit weight 66.1 lbs. while the Bottom 25% was 39.9 lbs.  Days in the Nursery Top 10% 34.8 vs. Bottom 25% 51.7  Nursery Average Daily Gain Top 10% 1.07 lbs. /d vs. Bottom 25% 0.67 lbs./d  Feed conversion Top 10% 1.18 vs. Bottom 25% 1.69

34. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Comparison of Top 10% vs Bottom 25%  Sow Farm TraitTop 10%Bottom 25%Diff. Pigs/Mated Sow/ Year29.518.710.8 Litters/Mated Sow/ Year2.742.000.74 Total born15.312.13.2 Still born and mummies0.501.671.17 Number born alive14.011.21.8 Number weaned11.78.82.9 Pre-weaning mortality5.429.123.7 Weaning weight16.711.55.2 Weaning age27.818.69.2

35. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Comparison of Top 10% vs. Bottom 25%  Important to examine variation (standard deviations) between groups  Mortality variation always lower for better performing herds  May be near biological minimum and have less room to improve  Other traits where variation is greater among poorer performing herds  Nursery, Grow-Finish & Wean-to-Finish  Feed conversion  Sow farm  Still born and mummies  Number weaned  Both traits correlated with each other

36. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Comparison of Top 10% vs. Bottom 25%  Important to examine variation (standard deviations) between groups  Other traits where variation is greater among better performing herds  Sow farm  Weaning weight  Weaning age  Both traits correlated with each other

37. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Additional information available  Plots of averages  Top 25%  Average  Bottom 25%  Examine rate of change over time across relative productivity levels  Seasonality estimates  Monthly averages across time using a more sophisticated statistical model  Seasonality estimates tables – sets one month to average 0 and compares other months relative to the average month  Seasonality summary

38. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Full Report  The full report can be found at: www.pork.org/animalscience

39. I OWA S TATE U NIVERSITY Department of Animal Science Thank you for your time and attention ! Do you have any questions or comments?