op-mizing&stocking&density&in& wean8to8finish&barns& · 2014. 12. 29. ·...
TRANSCRIPT
12/29/14
1
Thank you for par-cipa-ng in PorkBridge 2012-‐2013.
To start the presenta-on, advance one slide by pressing “enter” or the down arrow or right arrow key.
Op-mizing Stocking Density in Wean-‐to-‐Finish Barns
Mike Ellis Department of Animal Sciences
University of Illinois Phone: 217 333 6455
Email: [email protected]
Focus of Presenta-on
• Focus will be on “managing stocking density in Wean-‐to-‐Finish barns
• OpQmum “stocking density” is likely to be system/situaQon specific
• Review research results that illustrate some “basic principles”
• These need to be adapted to each system/situaQon
2
Research-based program to address swine production and management issues
University of Illinois Integrated Swine Research Program
3
Objec-ve for Op-mizing Stocking Density in Wean-‐to-‐Finish Barns
• ObjecQve is not to maximize individual pig performance
• ObjecQve is to: – Maximize total weight of full-‐value pigs produced from the facility
– At minimum feed inputs
4
What is Stocking Density? • Number of animals per unit area: – Cows per acre – Pigs per square foot
• Live weight of pigs per unit area: – Pounds/square foot
• Unit area per animal – Square feet/pig
5
12/29/14
2
Increasing Stocking Density • Increasing stocking density under commercial condiQons is normally achieved by increasing the number of pigs/pen
• Reduces floor space/pig • Reduces amount of other resources/pig
– Feeder space – Drinker space – VenQlaQon rate
• PresentaQon will focus mainly on effects of floor space – Assume that other resources are not limiQng pig performance
6
Recommended Floor Spaces (Brumm, 2006) Live weight, lb Recommended floor
space, T2/pig Floor space to produce a 5% reduc-on in ADG, T2/pig
50 2.9 2.5
100 4.6 3.9
150 6.1 5.2
200 7.3 6.2
250 8.5 7.2
300 9.6 8.2
Floor space for maximum growth rate Commercial floor spaces in finishing 7.2 <2/pig
Range 6.8 to 8.0 <2/pig (Brumm et al., 2004) 7
Recommended Floor Spaces • SubstanQal amount of research already carried out to establish these recommendaQons • Why do we need to revisit this area?
• Historical research carried out under much different condiQons than those that apply in the industry today
– Carried out in typical University research environment • Two-‐ or Three-‐stage producQon • Smaller group sizes
– Most research is outdated – Lihle research evaluaQng effects of floor space:
• Across the enQre Wean-‐to-‐Finish period • In the nursery period
Live weight, lb
Recommended floor space, T2/pig
50 2.9
100 4.6
150 6.1
200 7.3
250 8.5
300 9.6
8
Why Re-‐visit Floor Space Allowances in Commercial Wean-‐to-‐Finish Systems?
• Do pigs in wean-‐to-‐finish systems respond differently to floor space levels than those in convenQonal nursery and grow-‐finish systems? – Pigs in large groups may respond differently to floor space levels than those in small groups • “Free (Shared) space”
• “Wasted-‐space” early in the growth period for single-‐stocked pigs
9
• Study carried out from week 10 post-‐weaning (100 lb) to 265 lb live weight
• Used 3240 pigs in 108 groups of 30 animals
• Floor Space treatments – 5.0 i2/pig – 5.5 i2/pig – 6.0 i2/pig – 6.5 i2/pig – 7.0 i2/pig – 7.5 i2/pig
Effects of Floor Space in Grow-‐Finish (Shull, 2012)
10
Effect of Floor Space on Grow-‐Finish Performance (Shull, 2012)
11
12/29/14
3
Effect of Floor Space on Fat-‐O-‐Meter® Backfat Depth (Shull, 2012)
12
Effect of Floor Space on Total Live Weight Produced from the Facility (Shull, 2012)
13
Conclusions – Floor Space Effects in Grow-‐Finish
• Reducing floor space reduced: – Growth rate – Feed intake – Feed efficiency
• Reducing floor space increased: – Carcass leanness – Total live weight produced from the facility
• Rate of reducQon in performance was greater below 6.5 i2/pig
• Is the minimum space for maximum growth rate in commercial faciliQes lower than historical recommendaQons?
14
Live weight, lb
Recommended floor space, T2/pig
50 2.9
100 4.6
150 6.1
200 7.3
250 8.5
300 9.6
• What is the link between floor space at different stages of the Wean-‐to Finish period?
• Study carried out from weaning to week 10 post-‐weaning (100 lb)
– Used 3240 pigs in 108 groups of 30 animals
– Floor space treatments • Restricted (3.3 i2/pig) • Unrestricted (7.6 i2/pig)
– Floor space in grow-‐finish 6.3 i2/pig
Effects of Floor Space in Nursery on Wean-‐to-‐Finish Performance (Shull, 2012)
15
Effect of Nursery Floor Space on Nursery Performance (Shull, 2012)
-‐5.9%
-‐5.4%
0.5%
Restricted 3.3 T2/pig Unrestricted 7.6 T2/pig
16
Effect of Nursery Floor Space on Grow-‐Finish Performance (Shull, 2012)
+1.2%
0.0%
-‐1.2%
Restricted 3.3 T2/pig Unrestricted 7.6 T2/pig
17
12/29/14
4
Effect of Nursery Floor Space on Overall Wean-‐to-‐Finish Growth Performance (Shull, 2012)
-‐1.0%
-‐0.9%
0.1%
Restricted 3.3 T2/pig Unrestricted 7.6 T2/pig
18
Impact of Overstocking in the Nursery Period on Wean-‐to-‐Finish Performance
• We have carried out a number of studies evaluaQng the impact of double-‐stocking in the nursery period on Wean-‐to-‐Finish performance
• Double stocking resulted in: – Reduced growth performance in the nursery period – Increased growth performance in grow-‐finish – No impact on overall Wean-‐to-‐Finish performance
19
Effect of Double-‐stocking in the Nursery Period on Wean-‐to-‐Finish Performance (Wolter et al.,
2002) • Study carried out from weaning to week 24 post-‐weaning (250 lb
live weight)
• Treatments: – Single stocked
• 52 pigs/pen • Floor space 7 i2/pig • Feeder space 1.6 inches
– Double stocked • 104 pigs/pen • Floor space 3.5 i2/pig • Feeder space 0.8 inches
• Double stocking was for 10 weeks post-‐weaning (90 lb live weight)
• Aier week 10, all pigs were kept in groups of 52 at floor space of 7 i2/pig and feeder space of 1.6 inches
20
Results (Wolter et al., 2002)
21
Compensatory Gain • Aier a period of growth restricQon, when the factor(s)
restricQng growth are removed, pigs will (compared to unrestricted animals): – Grow faster – Have improved feed efficiency – Reach the same size as unrestricted pigs
• Pigs have incredible potenQal to recover from even very severe periods of growth restricQon
• Growth RestricQon and Compensatory Growth can occurs “intenQonally” (and someQmes “unintenQonally”) in swine producQon systems
• OpportuniQes to “exploit” compensatory growth to increase output &/or reduce costs on commercial operaQons 22 23
12/29/14
5
Caveat
• Not suggesQng that producers should “inten-onally” restrict the growth of the pig just to exploit compensatory gain
• There are instances where restricQng “early growth” (when feed is relaQvely expensive) and exploiQng compensatory gain later in the growth period (when feed in cheaper) makes sound economic sense and can reduce costs and/or increase output
24
How Long Can You Double Stock Before You Limit Overall Performance?
• Depends on the severity of the growth restricQon during and the condiQons aier double stocking
• Wolter et al. (2003) kept pigs at floor and feeder spaces equivalent to double stocking for 14 weeks post weaning and found no effect on: – Live weight at 25 weeks post weaning – Wean-‐to-‐finish growth rate, feed intake, or feed efficiency
25
Conclusions – Overstocking of Pigs in Nursery Period of Wean-‐to-‐Finish
• Not all producers can use overstocking as a “tool” to increase facility output and/or reduce costs
• FaciliQes can be “double/overstocked” for a considerable part of the Wean-‐to-‐Finish period without compromising overall growth performance
• The greater the growth reducQon due to overstocking (i.e., the lower the floor space/pig) the longer Qme it will take for full recovery of growth performance
26
Impact of Wean-‐to-‐Finish Floor Space on Feed Efficiency & Carcass Leanness
• RelaQvely limited research carried out
• General conclusion is that pigs reared at floor spaces that restrict growth rate: – Have similar or reduced feed efficiencies? – Produce leaner carcasses
27
Pig Marke-ng Strategy
• Another opportunity to exploit floor space effects comes at the end of finishing when pigs are being removed from the pen for harvest
• Removing pigs from a group has a major impact on the performance of the pigs remaining in the pen: – Increased growth rate and feed intake – Improved feed efficiency – Reduced sort loss
28
Effect of Propor-on of Pigs Removed from a Pen on Subsequent Performance (DeDecker et al.,
2005) • Pens of 52 pigs at Qme of pig removal (250 lb) – Floor space prior to removal 7 i2/pig
• 19 day study period aier pig removal
Performance of Pigs Remaining in the Pens with Pigs Removed (expressed as a percentage of the performance of pens with no pigs removed).
Trait 25% Removed 50 % Removed 50% Removed – Reduced Floor Space
Average daily gain +26 +27 +14
Feed efficiency +8 +17 +8
Total live weight produced +0.3 -‐3.1 -‐3.5
Total feed intake -‐15 -‐52 -‐49 29
12/29/14
6
Pig Marke-ng Strategy
• RelaQvely limited research has been carried out in this area
• We don’t know the effects on overall growth performance of – More frequent removals – Time between pig removal – ProporQon of pigs removed at each “removal”
30
Conclusions • Current recommendaQons may overesQmate the minimum floor
space that maximizes growth performance under commercial condiQons
• Pigs ability to compensate aier a period of growth restricQon can be exploited to increase Wean-‐to-‐Finish output and/or reduce costs: – “Overstocking” in nursery period – Pig removal strategy at markeQng
• The opQmum stocking density for Wean-‐to-‐Finish is likely to be: – System/situaQon specific – Vary over the Wean-‐to-‐Finish period – Change over Qme
• Ideally decisions need to be based on data from studies carried out in specific systems
31
32