9 RotecnaWorld

NUMBERNINE2008

ROTECNAWORLD

RESEARCH& DEVELOPMENT A note on piglets’ preferences for drinker types at two weaning ages

TECHNOLOGY

FUTURE

four: the fourth rotecna dispenser

benchmarking… show me the1 money!

LETTERFROMTHEEDITOR Raw materials prices are keeping the pig sector under pressure. Although prices have stabilised and even dropped some weeks, the cost of feed is still an ongoing headache for pig producers worldwide. Each country, with its own characteristics in the field of pig production, is feeling it in a different way, and making the most of its strong points.

Gener Romeu

Rotecna's President

Meanwhile, it is a good moment to pick some ideas to correct errors and learn for an uncertain future. In this edition, we include an article about benchmarking. Such a simple process as finding the weaknesses and strengths of our business, also the pig sector, to be able to diagnose beforehand the most adverse situations and correct the path. An ancestral method that does not reinvent the wheel, but in the hard times we are living in, it will surely be useful for picking up some ideas for our farm.

On the other hand, once again the idea of using by-products as a component of animal feed has raised its head again. A good way to cut costs. But this option still seems difficult to achieve, at least in the short term. While some European organism would give the allclear for the use of pig meat meal in chickens and vice versa, other authorities do not share this criterion. We shall still have to wait a few months.

On the world level, an important event is that CampofrĂ­o and Smithfield Foods have reached an agreement to merge the Spanish meat group with the European division of the American company. The result will be the leading panEuropean group in the meat product sector. Thus, Smithfield is going ahead with its expansion both at home and abroad.

SUMMARY 4

6

10

12

17

18

19

20

ROTECNA WORLD

9

JULY 2008

ISSN: L-41-2007

EDITION: Rotecna, s.a.

EDITORIAL STAFF: Montse Palau

desing: montse guerrero

Print: Imprenta barnola

Rotecna's World's editors accept no liability for contributor's opinion

ROTECNANEWS

rotecna: orientation to the client

The manufacture of our products is vital to ensure success, as is the work of our Commercial Technicians and the rest of the departments in Rotecna. The company is structured in vertical departments (Plastic Sections, Product Assembly, PVC Section and Logistics) that work independently but coordinated, and the horizontal departments (Financial Administration, Human Resources, Marketing, Systems and Quality) that provide essential support for all the company.

After 16 years working on the design, production and distribution of porcine equipments, Rotenca has become an unchallenged leader in the sector. The success of our organisation is the result of the system that combines the best of our well-trained human team and the latest generation technologies.

client. Beginning with company management and continuing with the operations area (Engineering, Production and Logistics), commercial management and the rest of the administrative departments, we have adapted to the new situations in the sector and the company.

Rotecna is orientated towards the service of the client, offering the highest possible quality. Our working directives are centred on satisfying our clients by supplying solutions that make their daily work in the world of pig production easier. Our main asset for this is our human team, whose professionalism is reflected in each of the company’s levels.

Our principal mission is our client, our best guarantee, the R+D Department that, year after year, develops products to cover all the necessities of the professional in the pig production sector, wherever they are.

Our first designs were the slats and fattening and weaning hoppers. Nowadays our range is made up of some hundred products. That is why our slogan is very explicit: Number 1 in Porcine Innovation.

As well as our orientation to the client, Rotecna has also responded to the new demands of the sector, both the requirements of the authorities and the needs of the end user. The sector is becoming progressively more specialised and technical, so companies like ours must be prepared for a new era of pig production.

Animal welfare requirements, animal health and respect for the environment have become a challenge not only for the professional pig producer but also for all those involved in this sector. In Rotecna, we have shown that we are ready for this new era.

The R+D Department is the first step of our structure, thinking up new products, which then go through the

In recent months, the livestock sector has undergone a substantial change with the enormous rise in the

Over time, the organisational structure of Rotecna has evolved at the same rhythm as our growth, without losing its essence: the orientation towards the

4

industrial process in our installations in Agramunt and are then checked by our Quality Department before dispatch. Rotecna’s investment in research and innovation reflects the importance we give to this value and also the great acceptance our products have in all corners of the world. Innovation is our most prominent trait.

prices of raw materials for animal feed, with the corresponding impact on production costs. This critical situation has also affected us negatively, but we know how to use this time to gain flexibility and continue our ongoing improvements.

Our next challenge: continue our work of innovation to maintain our competitiveness and a satisfied client backed by Rotecna.

5

RESEARCH&DEVELOPMENT

A note on

piglets’ preferences for drinker types at two

weaning ages 1. Introduction Piglets weaned younger than 3 weeks of age often exhibit excessive amounts of drinking behaviour compared to pigs weaned at later ages (Fraser et al., 1990; Gonyou et al., 1998; Worobec et al., 1999) and show a delay in the initiation of independent feeding (Bark et al., 1986; Metz and Gonyou, 1990). Early weaning of piglets is also characterized by an increase in behavioural problems such as belly nosing that appear to be related to suckling behaviour (Worobec et al., 1999). Performance of belly nosing has been negatively correlated with feeding behaviour (Li and Gonyou, 2002) and post-weaning average daily gains (Straw and Bartlett, 2001). This suggests that there is an interaction among the motivational systems for ingestive behaviour that interferes with the piglet’s ability to adapt to weaning.

Previously, we found that the presence of different drinker devices resulted in different feed intake, water usage (water released from the drinker device) and belly nosing (Torrey and Widowski, 2004). Piglets given access to a push-lever bowl drinker rather than a nipple drinker performed significantly less belly

6

Stephanie Torrey 1, Tina M. Widowski

nosing while having higher feed intake during the first 2 days after weaning, a critical period for early weaned piglets. Since most piglets experience a decrease in growth at weaning, the use of nipple drinkers may be exacerbating the problem by providing them with an easy outlet for oral behaviour, resulting in gut-fill and a decreased motivation to feed, as is the case in growing (Yang et al., 1981) and finishing pigs (Vargas Vargas et al., 1987).

Piglets of different ages may be attracted to different drinking devices because of the oral motor patterns used for drinking from them or because they provide different amounts of tactile stimulation to the snout.

This study was designed to examine individual piglet preference for drinker type when piglets were weaned at two different ages.

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Animals and housing Forty piglets were weaned at either 19.0 +/- 0.4 or 25.9 +/- 0.2 days of age (4.83 +/- 0.14 or 6.49 +/-

Piglets prefer a drinker that is easy to find. Drinking may be influenced by social facilitation.

0.20 kg, respectively) into one of three experiments (Experiment 1: 8 piglets; Experiment 2: 16 piglets; Experiment 3: 16 piglets). Pairs of littermates were weaned individually into adjacent pens (1.2 m x 1.2 m) equipped with two drinkers and one three-hole galvanized nursery feeder. In Experiments 1 and 2, pens were equipped with one standard nursery pig bite nipple drinker and one stainless steel nursery push-lever bowl drinker. In Experiment 3, pens were equipped with the push-lever bowl and a plastic automatic float bowl drinker.

Nipple and push-lever bowl drinkers were positioned approximately 10 cm above the floor. The float bowl drinker was placed directly on the floor. Height of the drinkers was not adjusted over the course of the experiments. Pens also had a rubber mat underneath a non-lightemitting heat lamp. Pen floors were fully slatted and lights remained on continuously to aid video recordings. Piglets had been given access to creep feed from day 10 of age and were offered the same diet afterweaning. Piglets did not have access to any type of drinker prior to weaning.

In Experiment 1, water was available from both drinker devices at all times. In Experiments 2 and 3, water was only available from one drinker device (bal-

anced across age) during the first 24 h after weaning.

During the subsequent 24 h, water was only available from the second drinker device. After 48 h, water was available from both drinker devices. Therefore, piglets were forced to consume water from both drinker devices, and could then choose between the two drinkers on the subsequent 8 days.

2.2. Data collection Water usage was measured at each drinker using precalibrated C-700 polymer positive displacement water meters that are designed to tally total water usage with intermittent flow. Water flow rates averaged approximately 1.0 L/min for the drinkers at the start of the experiment. Water meter readings and volumes of wasted water were recorded daily to determine water usage, intake and wastage.

Piglets were videotaped for the duration of each trial.

Two piglets from Experiment 2 were removed from the experiment because of health reasons.

Fig.1. Drinker devices used in the three experiments.

(A) Nipple drinker. This was a bite-style drinker that is activated when pigs depress the valve between their lips and/or teeth. (B) Push-lever bowl drinker. This

7

RESEARCH&DEVELOPMENT

(A)

(B)

(C)

“The three types of drinkers used to develop the study”. drinker requires piglets to press their snout against the valve in the rear of the enclosure to release water.

Pigs must create negative pressure and engage in sucking motor patterns to ingest water (Thexton et al., 1998). (C) Float bowl drinker. Accessing water does not require pressure by snout but pigs must create negative pressure and engage in sucking motor patterns to ingest water.

3. Results Preferences for drinker devices according to drinking behaviour indicates that in Experiment 2, pigs spent more time at the nipple drinker rather than the pushlever bowl (P = 0.04). Pigs in the Experiment 1 also tended to spend more time at the nipple drinker (P = 0.12). In Experiment 3, pigs weaned at 19 day spent significantly more time at the float bowl rather than the push-lever bowl P < 0.0001) but the older pigs did not have a preference. For pigs at both weaning ages, latency to contact the nipple drinker and latency to contact the float bowl drinker were shorter than the latencies to contact the push-lever bowl, respectively.

Preferences for drinker device according to water intake in the three experiments indicates that in Experiment 1, pigs tended to consume more of their daily water intake from the nipple drinker rather than the push-lever bowl (P = 0.08). In Experiment 3, pigs weaned at 19 days consumed significantly more water from the float bowl than from the push-lever bowl (P = 0.03). Pigs at both weaning ages consistently wasted more water from the nipple drinker than from the push-lever bowl.

4. Discussion In the first two experiments, piglets of both weaning ages preferred the nipple drinker rather than the

8

push-lever bowl drinker when considering drinking time and water intake together. In Experiment 1, the piglets were given free access to water from both drinkers immediately after weaning. Because latency to contact the nipple drinker was shorter and they could drink from both drinker types immediately after weaning, it was possible that the piglets were choosing the drinker that they found first for water consumption and were subsequently ‘‘trapped’’ by their first choice (Martin and Bateson, 1993).

Therefore, in Experiment 2, piglets were forced to use both drinkers alternatively over the first 2 days, and then make a choice thereafter. Even after being forced to drink from both drinker devices, piglets showed a preference for the nipple drinker. In Experiment 3, there was a clear age effect in drinker preference. Piglets weaned at 19 days preferred to drink from the float bowl while piglets weaned at 26 days exhibited no preference for a drinker device even though the float bowl was found first by piglets of both weaning ages.

This age effect may be due to the ease of finding, using and obtaining water from the float bowl drinker and is in agreement with findings in neonatal pigs (Phillips and Fraser, 1991).

Because our earlier study indicated that piglets provided a push-lever bowl performed significantly less belly nosing than piglets with nipple drinkers, we had speculated that the differences were due to differing motor patterns required for drinking from the two drinker devices (Torrey and Widowski, 2004). We presumed that piglets with the pushlever bowl received either some oropharyngeal stimulation or tactile stimulation to their snout that somehow satisfied

their motivation for suckling or nosing and consequently reduced belly nosing. If this were the case, we would expect piglets to exhibit a preference for the push-lever bowl, particularly when weaned at an earlier age. However, results of the preference tests suggest that piglets prefer a drinker that is easy to find or simply provides easier access to water. The effect of drinker device on initial feed intake and belly nosing found in our previous experiment (Torrey and Widowski, 2004) may simply have been the result of gut fill that occurred when piglets consumed water from a device through which water was more easily attained (i.e., the nipple drinker). The differences in belly nosing might have been indirectly related to drinker device through feed intake since belly nosing is associated with reduced feeding behaviour and slow growth rates after weaning.

Housing piglets individually may have influenced their drinking behaviour and water consumption.

Piglets in our experiments consumed considerably less water than the approximately 1 l/pig/day that has been previously reported for newly weaned grouphoused piglets (Brooks et al., 1984; Fraser et al., 1990; Maenz et al., 1994), although Gill et al. (1986) reported similarly lower values of water intake in newly weaned piglets.

Piglets in this experiment also spent less time engaged in drinking behaviour than has previously been reported. Overall, piglets spent less than 0.20% of their time drinking. Other studies have reported drinking behaviour to occur between 0.5 and 1.6% of the time (Fraser, 1978; Gonyou et al., 1998; Worobec et al., 1999; Torrey and Widowski, 2004).

Piglets are social animals and drinking may be influenced by social facilitation, regardless of thirst and water requirements. Newborn piglets drink more from a vessel that allows their littermates to drink simultaneously (Phillips and Fraser, 1991) and we have observed piglets queue for a drinker from which another pig is drinking. Young, inexperienced piglets begin eating more quickly and eat more when in the presence of other experienced piglets (Morgan et al., 2001) and this may also be the case for drinking.

The piglets in this experiment were also very variable in their drinking behaviour and water consumption after weaning. Some piglets consumed and wasted

large amounts of water while others used negligible amounts. Some piglets spent almost 1% of their time drinking while others were not observed to drink during the observation periods. Lack of experience with drinker devices in the farrowing environment may also have contributed to low drinking values and high variability.

In addition to animal preferences, other aspects of drinker management need to be considered. Piglets drinking from the nipple drinker wasted considerable amounts of water. Although flow rates play a large role in water usage from nipple drinkers (Nienaber and Hahn, 1984; Barber et al., 1989), the design of the drinker inherently lends itself to water wastage. Additionally, the float bowl drinker used in this experiment required daily cleaning as the piglets stood and eliminated in the drinker regularly. Piglets will not drink from an unclean vessel (Phillips and Phillips, 1999), and their preferences may have been different if the drinker was not cleaned daily.

According to both drinking behaviour and water intake, pigs preferred the nipple drinker or the float bowl drinker rather than the push-lever bowl drinker.

These results suggest that piglets prefer a drinker that is easy to find or simply provides easier access to water. Although piglets may prefer drinking from the nipple drinker or float bowl drinker rather than the push-lever bowl drinker, animals do not always choose what is best for their health and well-being (Fraser and Matthews, 1997). Providing newly weaned piglets with a preferred drinker device may result in increased water intake and hinder feed intake.

Acknowledgements Dr. Margaret Quinton for assistance with statistical analysis and the staff at Arkell Swine Research Center for their cooperation and assistance.

Amy Stanton and Emily Toth for their technical assistance. This research was funded by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

References Ask Editorial This article has been shorten, you can ask Editorial for the complete one.

9

SOMETHINGABOUT…

el camino de santiago:

beyond spirituality The “Santiago Way” is the bestknown pilgrimage and socio-cultural route in Spain. Every year, thousands of people, with or without religious convictions, choose to do the “Camino de Santiago” on foot, by bicycle or on horseback, either the full trail or a part of it, to discover, learn, live and share landscapes, peoples, cultures, etc.

History The discovery of the tomb of the apostle, Saint James the Greater at the beginning of the 9th century soon generated a dense flow of pilgrims to visit it in what is now the Galician city of Santiago de Compostela. This movement ended up forming a dense network of routes from all over Europe together known as the Saint James’ Way, Ruta de Santiago or Ruta Jacobea in Spanish.

Santiago de Compostela, although the most used is the one that begins in Roncesvalles, known as the Camino Francés, the French Way. However, there are others that set out from Portugal, in Galicia itself, in the Pyrenees in Aragon, in Catalonia, in Andalusia, etc. There is even the Camino Inglés, the English Way, which was the route for those, especially the English and Irish, who arrived by ship in the ports of Ferrol or La Coruña.

The pilgrims People of all kinds and conditions have travelled along the routes that lead to Santiago de Compostela: Pilgrims in good faith, for judicial or canonical sentence, minstrels, beggars, vagabonds, adventurers, fugitives and bandits.

In the past, the majority of pilgrims usually travelled the Way for religious convictions: some to get close to Saint James, others to fulfil a promise made if the Apostle helped them to overcome a difficult situation, or people who had been every ill.

Nowadays, most pilgrims are people who find this a good alternative for a journey on which they meet people from different parts of Spain and Europe, and see landscapes and places full of charm, and the people who live there.

La Compostela All travellers keep mementos of their journeys around the world, but the pilgrims on the Camino de Santiago keep something very special, “La Compostela”, an official certification that is given in Santiago de Compostela.

To receive this certification, which can be obtained in hostels or parishes, it is necessary to have done part of the Camino de Santiago on foot, by bicycle or on horseback and prove it on arrival. The minimum distance on foot or horse is 100 km. and 200 km. by bicycle.

The accreditation of the Way travelled is done with the Credencial del Peregrino (Pilgrim’s Passport), with stamps or signatures from the parishes, hostels, and refugios or from the representatives of the villages they cross through on their pilgrimage.

In 2006, over 100,000 pilgrims did the Santiago Way. However, the years with more visitors are the Jacobean or Compostelan Holy Years. The last two were 2003, with nearly 180,000 people, and 1999, with around 155,000 pilgrims.

Traditionally, the periods with most pilgrims and visitors on the Way coincide with the Jacobean Years, which are held every 11, 6, 5 and 6 years. The next is in 2010.

A total of 16 different routes are known, from 16 different starting points, but all with a single target: The Santiago Cathedral in Plaza do Obradoiro. Photo Archeive of S.A. de Xestión do Plan Xacobeo (Xunta de Galicia)

10

A sculpture –in Monte do Gozo- representing the pilgrims. Photo Archeive of S.A. de Xestión do Plan Xacobeo (Xunta de Galicia)

11

PIGPRODUCTIONIN…

12

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

0

FIGURE 2. SOW & BOARS SLAUGHTERED IN THE UK 1995-2006 (thousand head) 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

0 2001

During the period covered by this report feed prices were comparatively low and stable. In 2006/07 there has been a consid-

14000

2000

Census data indicates that the UK pig population has declined by 36% during the last ten years. There has been a 35% decline in pig meat production during the same period. The rate of decline has steadied in recent

Falling numbers has inevitably had a major impact on the percentage contribution made by home produced meat to total supply. Pork production as a percentage of supply has fallen from 104% in 1995-97 to 62% in 2006. Imports have increased nearly three-fold in the same time period. Bacon and ham production as a percentage of supply has fallen from 51% to 44% in the same time period. However, since 2001, this figure has been relatively stable and the level of imports has not changed dramatically during this period.

16000

1999

This report presents the results collated from those farms with pig enterprises in the 2005/06 Farm Business Survey. Typically they relate to farm businesses with financial year ends between December 2005 and April 2006. Most of the data is drawn from those farms defined as Specialist pig farms, that is, more than two-thirds of their output is derived from pigs.

years and the 2006 census data shows a slight increase in the total number of pigs compared to 2005.

FIGURE 1. CLEAN PIGS SLAUGHTERED IN THE UK 1995-2006 (thousand head)

1998

Summary

This report has presented for the first time data on net margins for pigs derived from the FBS. On the full sample of 60 Specialist Pig Farms there was a net margin of £15804. This average figure masks a huge variation in performance with 43% of farms showing a negative net margin result.

The highest net margins were recorded by those farms selling weaners. Indeed, on a per £100 output basis their net margin was four times higher than those farms selling fat pigs.

The figures for sows and boars generally match those of clean pigs except that in 2001 there was a sharp decline in slaughterings due to the impact of FMD. It is also noticeable that in 2005 there was a 16% fall in slaughterings compared to 2004 and a further fall recorded in 2006.

1997

The study presents for the first time data on net margins among years in England.

For the period 1995 to 1998 clean pig slaughterings increased but since 1998 the numbers killed has declined substantially.

Indeed, from the peak in 1998, the total number of clean pigs slaughtered has fallen by 43%. The rate of decline has fallen in recent years with 2006 slaughterings being less than 1% lower than 2005. During 2001 slaughterings were affected by the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) with some 436000 pigs slaughtered which did not enter the food chain and therefore not included in the figures.

1996

The full sample of 60 Specialist pig holdings recorded a gross margin of £135332 after deduction of variable costs amounting to £149964. Feed costs accounted for 79% of total variable costs. Fixed costs amounted to £122233 resulting in a Management and Investment Income (MII) of £13099. Net Farm Income (NFI) was £29043. There is always a great variation in profit performance between farms and it was noticeable that one-half of all farms showed a negative MII figure and one-quarter showed a negative NFI figure. The top 25% show a MII of £76872 whilst the bottom 25% show a negative MII of £30490. The high MII farms are significantly larger than the others with a pig output 77% more than the middle 50% band.

Pig slaughterings

1995

england

erable rise in cereal prices (since August 2006) which has not been fully compensated for in terms of a rise in pig prices.

1995

farm business survey in

Pig prices fluctuated considerably during the late 1990s following the typical so called ‘pigcycle’. This was followed by a period of very low prices resulting in very heavy losses in the sector and consequent decline in pig numbers. In more recent years the monthly pig price data is noticeably much more stable. In the period 2004-2006 prices have fluctuated by only a few pence on a monthly basis. The average annual price for 2004 and 2005 was 103 pence and in 2006 it was 105 pence per kg.

This has brought a period of much needed stability to the sector.

13

PIGPRODUCTIONIN… UK Pig prices During 1995-1997 prices were both high and fluctuated considerably from month to month. For the next two years there was a period of very low prices resulting in very heavy losses in the sector and consequent decline in pig numbers. In more recent years the monthly pig price data is noticeably much more stable.

In the period 2004-2006 prices have fluctuated by only a few pence on a monthly basis. The average annual price for 2004 and 2005 was 103 pence and in 2006 it was 105 pence per kg.

FIGURE 3. AVERAGE PIG PRICES 1995-2006 160 140 DEADWEIGHT PIGS

PENCE PER KG DWT

120 100 CLEAN PIGS

80 60 40 20

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

0

Classification of farms The 60 Specialist Pig farms subdivided into three EU Particular Farm Types as follows: EU PFT

NUMBER OF FARMS

DEFINITION

DESCRIPTION

5011

40

Sows>66% SGMs

Predominantly sows

5012

11

Piglets & other Pigs>66%SGMs

Predominantly growing & fattening pigs

5013

9

Others

Due to the small sample numbers results have been presented for ‘predominantly sows’ (type 5011) and ‘predominantly growing and fattening pigs’ (types 5012 and 5013 combined). Some of the farms in types 5012 and 5013 had breeding sows and in total there were 48 farms with breeding sows.

Financial Results For the full sample of 60 farms total farm output amounted to £285295. Pig output accounted for 87% of total output with miscellaneous income accounting for 10%. This was the first

14

year that Single Payment Scheme (SPS) receipts would have been included in the account.

Nevertheless average MII and NFI is higher for those farms classed as ‘predominantly growing and fattening pigs’.

The average SPS income on these farms was £4545. Many farms would have received little or no SPS income because they had no historic entitlement and occupied a very small land area.

In order to examine the influence of size on financial performance the results have been analysed in terms of Standard Gross Margins (SGMs). This is the only meaningful way to look at size factors. For instance, the size of the breeding herd cannot be used because not all pig farms have breeding herds. The sample has been divided into four groups of equal number.

These farms recorded a gross margin of £135332 after deduction of variable costs amounting to £149964. Feed costs accounted for 79% of total variable costs. Fixed costs amounted to £122233 resulting in a Management and Investment Income (MII) of £13099. Net Farm Income (NFI) was £29043. One-half of all farms showed a negative MII figure and one-quarter showed a negative NFI figure.

The top 25% show a MII of £76872 whilst the bottom 25% show a negative MII of £30490. The high MII farms are significantly larger than the others with a pig output 77% more than the middle 50% band. In contrast those farms with low MII are only 16% smaller than the middle band in terms of pig output. It should also be noted that farms with high MII figures have a higher proportion of output from crops and miscellaneous income. These two outputs combined account for 20% of total output on these farms compared to 5% for the other two bands.

The results of SGM for each size category are as one would expect with farm profitability increasing with farm size. It is noticeable that there is little difference in profitability between the first two size groups. MII is negative for both groups and is higher for the second group compared to the first. The smaller farms in terms of SGMs actually record a higher level of miscellaneous income than the second group. Indeed, it is a higher level than the very largest size category.

Margins for Pig Enterprises In the autumn of 2004 additional data was collected from a sub-set of FBS farms to enable gross and net margins to be calculated for specific enterprises. This was introduced as an alternative to the full survey

approach previously undertaken as part of the Special Studies Programme commissioned by Defra. The last full Special Studies survey concerned with Pig production was published in 2004 and related to the financial year ending September 2003 (see Shepherd 2004 at http://www.ex.ac.uk/crr). This was a comprehensive survey of over 300 farms recruited from a stratified sample.

The data presented in this section is not directly comparable to the Special Study report. This data comes from a smaller sample based on farms already participating in the FBS, no additional physical data was collected and, crucially, the methodology for calculating net margins is completely different. In the Special Studies approach fixed costs are estimated by the researcher in conjunction with the co-operator. In the FBS Margins approach, the fixed costs are allocated to different enterprises econometrically. That is to say, the total fixed costs within the account are allocated to the different enterprises according to co-efficients for each enterprise. Data on the validity of these coefficients is being accumulated with a view to improving them over time. For Specialist Pig farms, the net margins for the pig enterprise should be reasonably accurate. This is because these farms have little or no other enterprises and therefore the majority of fixed costs are rightly attributable to the pig

An analysis of the results split between businesses classed as ‘predominantly sows’ and those classed as ‘predominantly growing and fattening pigs’. There is a considerable difference in terms of output and cost structure between these two types of farms.

Crop output is significantly more for the second type of farm. This, together with higher pig output, results in a higher level of total output. However, their variable and fixed costs were also correspondingly larger with higher crop costs being an obvious component of this.

On breeder-finisher farms the net margin was £59 per sow.

15

PIGPRODUCTIONIN…

TECHNOLOGY

enterprise. However, on those farms with pig enterprises which are not Specialist Pig farms, there are problems with the econometric method of allocation. Consequently, it has not been possible to publish net margins for these farms.

with an average herd size (breeding sows) of 324 compared to 203 on the breederfinisher farms. Indeed, the weaner producing farms on their own averaged 447.

Net Margin results

On breeder-finisher farms the net margin was £59 per sow. The figures for pigs produced per sow should be taken as indicative of the annual productivity and it should be noted that this figure has not been calculated the same way as in previous pig studies.

The full sample of 60 Specialist Pig Farms recorded a net margin of £15902. This average figure masks a huge variation in performance with 43% of farms showing a negative net margin result.

The gross margins for non-specialist pig farms are the margins recorded for pigs where pigs are not the predominant enterprise. As explained earlier it has not been possible to present net margins for these enterprises because there are difficulties with the allocation of fixed costs to different enterprises. Results are presented for two types of enterprise – contract and breeder finishers. The gross margins for the latter are very much in line with those for Specialist pig farms. This is not immediately apparent when looking at Table 3.5 because the size of enterprise is inevitably smaller in these farms. Consequently both the output and margins are at a lower absolute level. However, in terms of costs and margins per £100 output the results are almost identical to that presented earlier for Specialist pig farms.

The results split into two main categories, namely breeding farms selling finished pigs and all other farms (except contract producers). There is a considerable difference in Net Margin between the two groups with the combined group recording a much higher net margin than those farms producing and selling finished pigs. It should be remembered that the combined group is comprised mainly of farms that are producing and selling weaners. This pattern of results is the same as that recorded in the 2002/03 survey by Shepherd (2004). However, it should also be noted that this combined 21 group were much larger farms

16

goodbye to the open legs

splaylegstop At birth it is common for some of the newly-born piglets to dies for various reasons. In some cases, it is impossible to save their lives, but in others, thanks to the handling and attention at the moment of birth, they can be saved. This is the case of the disease known as Splayleg.

Compared to herds producing fat pigs on Specialist pig farms, average herd size is lower and gross margins per sow are lower by £40. This is mainly due to a lower level of output. Interestingly, pigs produced per sow is lower at 17.7 pigs per sow compared to 18.4 pigs on the comparable Specialist pig farms.

The symptoms of Splayleg are very visible: these piglets are born with their legs open, which makes it difficult for them to stand up and thus, feed themselves. The final result of this handicap can be death final. To solve this problem easily, ROTECNA S.A. has included in its product range the SplaylegStop, a rubber band that helps to strengthen the musculature of the piglets’ legs.

Notes and Definitions

Fast detection of the problem is primordial. The individual handling of the farrowing can help us to detect this anomaly and put the SplaylegStop on as soon as possible to help the piglet to walk without difficulty. The product can be left on the piglet for up to 3 days. After this time, the animal must be checked to ensure that it grows correctly. It is calcu-

MII: Management and Investment Income NFI: Net Farm Income For more information or complete survey see www.farmbusinesssuvey.co.uk

lated that a week is enough time for the animal to regain its natural posture. The Splayleg is very easy to put on.

Splayleg is a deficiency in the piglet’s abductor muscles and abductors. According to some studies, it can lead to death in 50% of cases, mainly because of the immobility of the piglet which prevents it from getting to the mother to feed.

Some studies have shown that this condition is genetic in origin. Also it is much more common among males that female piglets.

With the use of the SplaylegStop, the piglets can recover in a week when it only affects the hind legs.

When it also affects the forelegs, there a fewer probabilities of full recovery.

As well as using SplaylegStop, it is important that the flooring in the farrowing pens is fitted with non-slip slats to avoid mobility problems for the piglets, whether they have Splayleg or not.

17

TECHNOLOGY

maxiwet:

wet feed for weaning In our work to find solutions for the farmers’ each and every need and especially for the welfare of the animal, ROTECNA presents a new concept of wet hopper. This is the combination of too of our tried products: a Maxi Hopper Pan and a VR-H valve.

After lactation and as a consequence of the high stress the piglet suffers when separated from its mother, the animal needs to recover its feed intake as fast as possible. It is thus very practical that during the first days, they should be given wet feed. It is usually the farmer him or herself who does the mixture of water and feed. With the Maxiwet, it is very easy for the animal itself to do the mixing.

four:

the fourth rotecna dispenser

The Maxi Hopper stores the dry feed –protected from the humidity – while the VR-H valve is the component that looks after supplying water to the plate continuously. The VR-H provides the right quantity of water continuously to form the ideal mass when it enters into contact with the feed. The outlet from the valve includes a mechanism that avoids the VR-H tube from being blocked by the feed.

The Maxiwet is a product with very easy learning, given that the animal finds the feed by placing its snout on the plate. This detail is very useful, especially in the case of recently weaned piglets, still without experience in eating certain kinds of first age plates.

Because of this, it is also advisable that during the phase of lactation they are introduced to feed through an Easy Pan, a Tecna Pan or a Mini Pan.

ADVANTAGES:

• Homogeneous mixture of water and feed.

• Ideal for beginning weaning and nurseries.

• Easy access for the animals.

• No feed wastage.

• Easy learning.

• Faster and more homogeneous growth.

18

The characteristics of the Maxi Hopper, with the rounded edges to the plate, guarantee that the animal does not waste feed. It is designed to increase the number of mouths and thus multiply the possibilities for the piglets to eat, even the weakest ones. It has the capacity to feed some 25-30 animals.

If you already have Maxi Hooper Pans on your farm, you can convert them into Maxiwets by acquiring these additional components: VR-H with 1.40m ½” anti-turn tube, clip and the unblocking bar.

The Maxiwet is a product designed for weaning pens, at the moment when the piglet switches from mainly liquid feed –the sow’s milk- to only solid feed. By achieving a more natural transition, it ensures faster and more homogeneous growth.

“Four” is the name for the new dispenser from Rotecna, S.A. which makes it the company in the sector with the widest range of feed dispensers on the market for farrowing and gestation.

After the Clutch Dispenser, the Simplex D-2 and the Dosimatic, Rotecna has developed a new feed dispenser for weaning and farrowing pens with very clear traits: robustness, functionality, ease of handling and easy disassembly for cleaning and handling.

The new dispenser stands out for the a new stainless steel slide on the side that can be moved up or down to regulate the volume of feed supplied to the animal.

The “Four” has been designed to be fitted to any standard kind of feed transport. The front and back of the dispenser are transparent to enable the quantity of feed available to be checked.

Another important characteristic is that it has a blade to open and close the fall of the feed in the “Four” in function of whether there is an animal in the gestation or farrowing place or if it is empty.

The new Rotecna dispenser has been designed for better handling in the gestation and farrowing pens, thinking especially in the importance of adjusting the feeding in both these phases to the

ADVANTAGES:

• Capacity: 7 litres • Robust • Functionality • Easy handling • Easy to dismount for cleaning • Opening for medication • Stainless Steel slide for regulate the volume of feed needs of each sow. It has also been developed bearing in mind the handling the farmer will give it, so the components can easily be disassembled with a simple click”. This way, the dispenser can be cleaned without disassembly and reassembly being tiresome or time consuming.

19

FUTURE

benchmarking… show

me the money!

Ken McEwan

University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus 120 Main Street East, Ridgetown Ontario N0P 2C0 E-mail: kmcewan@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca

abstract

benchmarking

Benchmarking is a process that has been happening since the beginning of time. It is a method used to measure one’s strengths and weaknesses against others doing the same thing. A group of farmers who get together over coffee and discuss the costs of raising pigs or prices received per pig are, essentially, benchmarking themselves against others in the group. Even this informal setting provides an environment to compare individual results and identify ways to “keep up with the Jones”.

Why Benchmark?

In agriculture, benchmarking is a method that allows comparison of variables between producers. It helps to determine who the best is and what the average is.

The result is a management tool that can be used to pinpoint what an individual enterprise is doing well and where improvements could be made. This is a learning process because if you don’t know what the average is you don’t know how you compare with others.

How to Get Started It is important to determine what you are planning to benchmark and how. Will it be only production data that is benchmarked, financial data or both? Will the results be shared in a group setting or will an unbiased third party collect the data and then disseminate results?

Benchmarking in a group setting can be beneficial to all involved as it allows an opportunity for discussion.

Producers can ask each other what they did to achieve certain results. In this situation, however, it is important to find producers who are similar to you (i.e. similar production system), and who you are comfortable sharing your information with. It is easier to start with a small committed group who are able to work together and share information openly.

Starting with a few variables first is recommended because it ensures everyone is providing data in a similar fashion, identifies any flaws in the template, and provides an opportunity for participants to determine how comfortable they are sharing data. More variables can be added when the group is ready.

Setting Up a Benchmark Template – Things to Keep in Mind

• What will be the unit that is reported? $/sow? $/ pig weaned or marketed? $/ckg pork?

• How do you account for producers that may not quite fit the group criteria? For example what if a farrow to finish producer sells some weaners? This can throw off the results because the weaners have not reached full market weight. Weaner pigs can not be considered equal to a market hog in terms of cost of feed/pig, revenue/pig and etc.

• Definition of sow/breeding female – It is important to have criteria regarding when a female is counted as part of the breeding herd because this will affect all productivity numbers.

• Allocate income and expenses at the enterprise level.

• Don’t give up after the first attempt. The key is to stick with benchmarking over time because trends are valuable tools. All farms go through cycles (i.e. disease) and comparing your results from one time period to another also provides insight into your operation.

Results for the Swine Enterprise The Ontario Data Analysis Project (ODAP) can be used as a benchmarking tool to investigate Ontario’s cost of production for raising market hogs1. This data set

Feed represents 60% of total expenses.

20

21

ROTECNANEWS contains farm level financial and production information from a group of Ontario farrow-to-finish farms. The participants consider themselves to be full-time farmers and they report little, if any, off-farm income. Most of the farms rely on family labour to fill additional labour needs.

conclusions

FIGURE 2. EXPENSES PER PIG PRODUCED

$160 $140

32

10

10

11

9

15

16

16

81

79

79

84

89

83

15

18

18

20

15

96

74

65

1999

86

1998

85

1997

$60 $40

12

23

2005

10

27

10

2004

14

12

25

2003

24

22

2002

5 10

32

2001

$80

6 10

30

2000

$100

26

1996

This discussion focuses on the swine enterprise and does not take into account other farm activities (i.e. cash cropping). Family labour has not been included in the expenses. ODAP provides analysis on a per pig produced basis2. Some of these farms had SEW or weaner pig sales as well as market hog sales.

26

28

8

1995

$/Pig Produced

$120

$20 0

The average number of pigs produced per farm in 2005 was 3,559. The average number of sows on these farms in 2005 was 212. Table 1 displays results for some production variables for 1995, 2001 and 2005.

Feed

Depreciation

Interest

Other

FIGURE 3. AVERAGE PROFIT PER PIG PRODUCED

acknowledgements

$40

9,10

9,10

9,14

3

Litters/crate

9,60

12,20

12,00

25

Litters/sow

2,24

2,33

2,31

3

Weaner mortality (%)

2,70

3,00

3,20

19

G/F mortality (%)

3,00

3,30

4,90

63

Days of market

177

170

166

-6

$200

$160

$180

$140

$160

$120

$140

$100

$120

$80

$100

$60

$80

$40

$60

Rev/Pig prod.

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

$20 1998

0 1997

$40 1996

$20

$/ckg

$180

1995

$/Pig Produced

FIGURE 1. AVERAGE REVENUE PER PIG PRODUCED

$/ckg.1998

Expenses per pig produced as shown in Figure 2 have been fairly consistent averaging $132.89 over the 11 years. Feed makes up approximately 62% of total expenses each year.

22

The resulting profit per year is shown in Figure 3 below and the average over this time period is $15.49 per pig produced.

This graph shows a trend of 3 years of increasing profits followed by a year of small to negative profits. Year to year profits are very volatile due to fluctuating market prices and rising input costs.

($5)

Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives –

($10)

Budgets, cost of production, software http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/financial/farm/ software.html

farm businesses. Some of the growth in farm assets is due to increases in livestock and building values but much of it is due to rising land prices. Table 2 shows average balance sheet values per sow for ODAP participants between 1995 and 2005.

This balance sheet summary takes into account all aspects of the farm operation. In 2005, the average total assets per sow per farm were $12,674 and the average amount of debt per sow was $4,206.

TABLE 2. AVERAGE ENDING BALANCE SHEETS ($/sow) Assets

The Balance Sheet The average total assets per farm amounted to $2.7 million in 2005 up from $1 million in 1995 indicating that these farms have invested significantly in their

additional sources of information

2005

Weaner/litter

0

2004

59

2003

212

Thanks and appreciation is extended to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for their generous financial support of the ODAP research and to the farm participants for sharing their time and information.

4 -6

2002

254

8

$5

2001

133

10

2000

Avg # of Sows

$10

15 11

10

1999

% Change 05 vs 95

$15

1998

2005

25

24

$20

1997

2001

$25

1996

1995

Depreciation expense has grown steadily from $9.61 to $19.90 during the years depicted. This is due to increased building and equipment investment that has occurred with expansion and/or renovation of these farms over time. Average interest costs were $9.19/pig during the 11 years and “other” expenses were generally in the $26/pig range each year. “Other” expenses reflect health costs, building and equipment repairs, hired labour and any other expenses associated with the swine enterprise.

35

34

$30

1995

TABLE 1. PRODUCTION VARIABLES

$35

Benchmarking measures the strengths and weaknesses against farms. $/Pig Produced

Figure 1 shows average revenue per pig produced over time3.

Also plotted on the graph is the average yearly market price ($/ ckg). Revenue/pig has fluctuated with events such as the price crash in late 1998. The average revenue for the time period of 1995 to 2005 was $148.37.

In summary, benchmarking is a tool to compare one farm against other farms as well as year-to-year comparisons for individual farms. It provides an opportunity to identify the areas a farm business does well, where improvements should be made and what the “average” is. ODAP results for the 11 years examined showed average expenses to be $132.89 per hog produced, not including family labour. Feed makes up about 62% of total expenses and depreciation has doubled reflecting investments in facilities and equipment.

Liabilities

1995

2001

2005

Market Livestock

590

542

736

Breeding Livestock

306

332

327

Buildings

1,568

2,147

2,626

Land

2,179

2,902

5,387

Other

2,912

2,415

3,598

Total Assets

7,555

8,338

12,674 1,059

Current

811

740

Medium

466

127

189

Long Term

1,488

1,891

2,958

Total Liabilities

2,764

2,758

4,206

Equity

4,791

5,580

8,468

Kansas State University – Budgets http://www.agmanager.info/farmmgt/fmg/livestock/default.asp Iowa State University – Budgets http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/livestock/ pdf/b1-21.pdf

1 Participation in ODAP varies each year.

Results are for discussion purposes and are not assumed to represent an Ontario average.

2 This is a calculated number that converts all pigs produced and sold to market hog equivalents taking into account all production and inventory changes. Weaner pigs are converted to market hog equivalents using a factor of forty percent and SEW pigs are given a factor of twenty-five percent.

3 Revenue accounts for premiums/discounts, cull pig sales, and changes in accounts receivable and inventory.

23