Production and Management Featured Articles
Maximizing Performance, Reducing Production Costs
By Marcia S. Carlson and Thomas J Fangman, University of Missouri - As prices of corn and soybeans have increased and market hog prices continue to drop, swine producers are forced to find additional ways to reduce total production costs. The first place to focus is on growth performance (average daily gain, and feed efficiency) and the management factors that impact performance. If growth performance is poor then less profit or more losses will occur during these times of low market prices.This article will try to provide some helpful tips to ensure that maximum performance can be achieved in order to minimize profit losses during these times of small profit margins.
This article will try to provide some helpful tips to ensure that maximum performance can be achieved in order to minimize profit losses during these times of small profit margins.
First, one must look at feed quality. All pork producers have participated in
the Pork Quality Assurance program sponsored by the National Pork Board;
however, a feed quality assurance program should be implemented as well. Feed
quality issues that need to be monitored include grinding or particle size, diet
formulations, feeder adjustment, and storage.
Feed costs can be as much as 70%
of the total production costs and when market prices are low, profitability
depends on minimizing feed costs. Anything that improves feed efficiency will be
more economical in times of high feed costs.
Producers should monitor particle
size and keep the average size at 700 to 800 microns with less than 5 %
variability. Many times, if particle size is not determined frequently, it will
creep up to 1,000 microns as the grinder screens wear. This may increase feed
cost for a producer by $.50 to $1.00 per pig due to poorer feed efficiency.
Producers may want to evaluate dietary formulations and make sure that they are
not overfeeding any nutrients unnecessarily. Lysine is often overfed during the
late finisher period (after 230 lbs). If a producer lowers the lysine
concentration by a tenth of a percent, feed costs can be reduced by
approximately $3.00/ton. However, do not reduce nutrients inclusion rates so far
the performance is impacted.
Heat stress, disease and crowding do not increase
the pig's lysine requirement; in fact, those stressors that decrease feed intake
decrease lysine requirement as well as performance. Therefore, environmental
stressors should be minimized as much as possible.
With increasing feed costs, producers might want to think about feeding to
lighter weights, which will increase feed efficiency. Today's average market
weight exceeds 260 lbs and continues to increase.
The main reason for the
increase market weights could be packers emphasizing the importance of larger
pigs as more pounds of pork per given shackle space, producers maximizing pounds
of pork produced per square foot and cheap feed costs. Figure 1 demonstrated
that additional revenue is generated from the net gain of pigs grown an
additional 50 pounds with $40.00/cwt and a 3.8 feed efficiency even when feed
costs approach $130.00/ton.
| Figure 1. Advantage of feeding a hog from 230-280 lbs if feed efficiency is 3.8 and value is $40.00/cwt | ||||||
| Cost/ton of feed | ||||||
| $ 80 | $ 90 | $ 100 | $ 110 | $ 120 | $ 130 | |
| Added feed cost, $ | 7.60 | 8.55 | 9.50 | 10.45 | 11.40 | 12.35 |
| Net Gain/Head, $ | 12.40 | 11.45 | 10.50 | 9.55 | 8.60 | 7.65 |
A more realistic scenario for today's market is shown in Figure 2 when market price received begins to drop below the cost of production at a time when feed prices begin to rise.
| Figure 2. Advantage of feeding a hog from 230-280 lbs if feed efficiency is 3.8 and value is $25.00/cwt | ||||||
| Cost/ton of feed | ||||||
| $ 80 | $ 90 | $ 100 | $ 110 | $ 120 | $ 130 | |
| Added feed cost, $ | 7.60 | 8.55 | 9.50 | 10.45 | 11.40 | 12.35 |
| Net Gain/Head, $ | 4.90 | 3.95 | 3.00 | 2.05 | 1.10 | 0.15 |
In this example, when pigs are $25.00/cwt, as feed costs approach $110 per ton the net gain of feeding to 280 lbs is only $2.05, but if feed costs approach $130/ton the additional revenue of marketing at 280 lbs is lost. Therefore, producers may want to evaluate if pigs should be marketed at a lighter weight with high feed costs and low markets prices, which would allow for more time between groups and potentially more time for clean up or repairs before the next group of pigs.
Old versus new corn can often be a contributor to poor performance.
Mycotoxins need to be tested in both old and new corn. Mycotoxins, such as
aflatoxin, will reduce growth performance if concentrations are above 200 ppb
and zeolite or clays might want to be used. In addition, if you have been
feeding a 13 % moisture corn and suddenly begin using a 15% corn, feed intake
and ultimately feed efficiency will be affected as it will take more corn to get
the same dry matter nutrient intake, which results in about 1 lb extra feed
intake per pig per week.
In conclusion, it is probably a good time to fine tune feed management
practices on the farm, such as the grain quality, grinding efficiency, diet
formulations, and feeder adjustments. A slight alteration in feed quality and
formulations can dramatically impact growth performance resulting in $.50 to
$3.00 drop in feed costs per pig. Additionally, producers might also want to
consider a price signal on feed cost and market price as to when they need to
start selling hogs at lighter weights.
Helpful Hints to Minimize Feed Costs:
- Monitor grain quality (particle size, mycotoxins, etc.)
- Adjust feeders properly.
- Make adjustments with old versus new grain.
- Evaluate market weights based on feed costs.
Written by:
| Marcia S. Carlson, PhD State Swine Nutrition Specialist University of Missouri S133 Animal Sciences Center Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 882-7859 carlsonm@missouri.edu |
Thomas J Fangman, DVM, MS, Dipl-SHM
Extension Swine Veterinarian University of Missouri A331 Clydesdale Hall Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 882-7848 fangmant@missouri.edu |
Source: AgEBB, Swine Production News, September 2002









