June, 2004  Vol. 7, No. 6
PEAK OF PERFORMANCE NEWS                        
 
General Manager Comments
 
Higher market hog prices! May through August is looking quite good in terms of cash and forward pricing/futures. Feed costs continue to be a limitation to profitability.

A research project to estimate the impact of meat advertising (generic, brand and restaurant) and media coverage of food safety issues on the demand for meat in Canada was conducted by scientists at the University of Alberta. Pork generic advertising significantly increases pork consumption. Although beef generic advertising does not possess own significant effects, it significantly decreases chicken consumption. Brand advertising has own positive effects for the three meats, indicating that advertising undertaken by processors increases consumption of the individual meat being advertised. Beef fast food restaurant advertising significantly increases own consumption.

Beef food safety information impacted beef consumption, and chicken food safety news decreased own chicken consumption. Beef safety index has cross effects on both pork and chicken, suggesting that an increased number of newspaper articles linking beef with food safety increase pork and chicken consumption.

Jose Lomeli, Poster Presentation, AAEA annual meeting, Red Deer 

 
PEAK Growth Summit
 
GROWTH in Marketing Consistency

Larry Jakubec’s load of fifteen (primarily) barrows March 22 to OLYMEL was measured with the following outstanding performance:

Average Carcass Weight

91.1 kg

Average Hog Index

113.4

Average Fat Measurement

17.4 mm

Percentage Hogs in 85-95 kg Range

67%

Average Lean Incentive/head (60-66 mm)

47%

 
Clients Choose PEAK Swine Genetics
 
Minburn Colony has ordered Summit gilts as replacement stock.

We recognize and thank all our regular clients!

 
PEAK Book Of World Records
 
Larry Jakubec’s Landrace boar JAKE 4303L has improved his EBV index to 160, after performance data from 75 progeny were calculated. The boar has not lost the 12 index points/year from his EBV of 163 that it was after he was probed: genetic performance improvements will improve 10 days on growth rate, 0.2 mm lower backfat and add 2.0 mm greater loin depth. His breeding adds $51 value to his offspring. This boar will stand at stud at Magnum Swine Genetics.

Hutterville Colony weaned 24 sows in the week of April 5, where the 25 day-old pigs weighed an average of 21 lbs (9.5 kg).

Three gilts at Hutterville Colony weaned 13 piglets/litter in the week that 24 sows weaned an average of 11.6 piglets.

 
Finishing Herd Efficiency, Part 7
Factors Affecting Feed Intake:  The Role of Management
Dr. Frank Aherne, Pig Industry Consultant
 
Pig weight

Many aspects of how we mange our grow-finish pigs will influence feed intake and growth rate. When comparing the feed intake of your pigs to that of other producers, or some set target level, it is important to take account of entry and exit weights of the pigs. Feed intake increases with age. Therefore pigs of heavier entry and exit weights will have higher feed intakes than that of lighter pigs in or out.

For pigs fed a diet containing 3.25 Mcal DE/kg, feed intake at different weights might be that shown in Table 1.

Handling the pigs

In general, any management practice that stresses the pigs or disrupts their social group will depress feed intake. Some genotypes appear to be very hyperactive and panic when humans enter the barn. For these genotypes, it is difficult to maintain calm conditions in the barn. Indeed, shouting, hitting or kicking pigs should be avoided. Also, moving and mixing pigs should be minimized.

It has been shown that mixing finishing pigs will reduce feed intake by as much as 50% for 4 or 5 days and by about 10% over a 4-week period. The negative effect of mixing pigs on feed intake is even worse if the pigs are relocated at the time of mixing.

Table 2. Recommended pen floor space for growing-finishing pigs

Fully-slatted Partially-slatted

Wt., kg

Square metres

Square feet

Square metres

Square feet

20

0.26

2.8

0.29

3.1

50

0.48

5.2

0.53

5.7

75

0.62

6.7

0.70

7.5

90

0.70

7.5

0.78

8.4

100

0.75

8.2

0.84

9.0

110

0.80

8.7

0.89

9.6

 

Stocking density

There is no one recommended group size. Group sizes of 15 to 30 pigs per pen are still most common. But there is increasing interest in large group sizes of 70 pigs/pen or greater. With group size of 15 to 30, the pigs will fight for 2 to 3 days before a stable social group is formed. With large groups (> 70), pigs don’t try to form a stable group and fighting is therefore minimal.

(1) In large group pens, ill or lame pigs are more evident than in small groups because there is more room available for them to separate from other pigs. (2) It is also claimed that pigs from large groups are easier to move and load on a truck and (3) they fight less when mixed and transported.

The major disadvantage of large pens is the greater time and effort needed to remove individual pigs from the pen.

One big advantage of larger pens is that as the number of pigs in a pen increases, the space required per pig decreases. Therefore, in large groups you can decrease space per pig by about 10% below the requirement levels shown.

A guide to space allowances for small groups (15-30) under different flooring conditions is shown in Table 2. A commonly used rule of thumb is to allow one square foot of space per 25 lb of pig.

Don’t overcrowd, in that overcrowded pigs are more prone to disease and leg problems and feed intake and growth rate are reduced.

 

Table 1. Feed intake by weight

Pig Weight,
kg

Feed Intake,
kg/day

20

1.20

30

1.66

40

2.05

50

2.37

60

2.64

70

2.87

80

3.06

90

3.22

100

3.20

110

3.10

120

3.10

 
Territory Managers
 
For more information, contact:
 
  Manager Territory Cell Telephone
Les Robinson Southern & Central Alberta (250) 833-6196
Paul Klingeman Pacific Northwest  (509) 989-1347
Mike Miller Saskatchewan and Montana (403) 317-0543
 
Recent Issues
 
2007 2006 2005 2004
January (Vol. 10, No.1) January (Vol. 9, No.1) January (Vol. 8, No.1) January (Vol. 7, No.1)
February

(Vol. 10, No.2)

February

(Vol. 9, No.2)

February

(Vol. 8, No.2)

February

(Vol. 7, No.2)

    March

(Vol. 9, No.3,
No.3a)

March

(Vol. 8, No.3,
No.3a)

March

(Vol. 7, No.3,
No.3a)

    April

(Vol. 9, No. 4)

April

(Vol. 8, No. 4)

April

(Vol. 7, No. 4)

    May

(Vol. 9, No. 5)

May

(Vol. 8, No. 5)

May

(Vol. 7, No. 5)

    June

(Vol. 9, No. 6)

June

(Vol. 8, No. 6)

June

(Vol. 7, No. 6)

    July (Vol. 9, No. 7) July

(Vol. 8, No. 7)

July

(Vol. 7, No. 7)

    August

(Vol. 9, No. 8)

August

(Vol. 8, No. 8)

August

(Vol. 7, No. 8)

    September

(Vol. 9, No. 9)

September

(Vol. 8, No. 9)

September

(Vol. 7, No. 9)

    October (Vol. 9, No. 10) October (Vol. 8, No. 10) October (Vol. 7, No. 10)
    November (Vol. 9, No. 11) November (Vol. 8, No. 11) November (Vol. 7, No. 11)
    December (Vol. 9, No. 12) December (Vol. 8, No. 12) December (Vol. 7, No. 12)
 
 

Site Design:  Summit Solutions Ltd.