YEARBOOK 2015-2016
Key industry statistics, pig performance data and details of knowledge transfer, research and development activity.
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 1
‘A growing English pig production and primary processing industry’ Vision
Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................. 02 AHDB Pork Board............................................................................................................. 03 Strategy and budget ....................................................................................................... 04 Pork promotion ................................................................................................................ 06 Export .................................................................................................................................. 08 AHDB Pork by numbers.................................................................................................. 10
‘To help English pig production and processing businesses become more competitive and profitable’ Mission
Industry statistics ............................................................................................................12 International cost of pig production ........................................................................ 18 Cost of production .......................................................................................................... 22 Technical performance data ........................................................................................ 24 Knowledge exchange Farm reviews .................................................................................................................. 36 Skills and training .......................................................................................................... 36 Study tours ..................................................................................................................... 39 Events ............................................................................................................................... 41 Research and innovation Health .............................................................................................................................. 44 Welfare ............................................................................................................................ 46 Environment and buildings ........................................................................................ 48 Pork safety and product quality ............................................................................... 52 Production efficiency .................................................................................................. 53 Field trials........................................................................................................................ 54
2 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 3
Preface The past year has been extremely difficult for the British pig industry, particularly since the turn of the year. The pressure from lower EU pig prices had been felt throughout 2015 but this eventually took its toll from Christmas onwards. The price differential has halved and stood at just 15p/kg in the spring of 2016. Despite feed prices also falling, this meant producers were losing an average of £16 per finished pig. This position is obviously not sustainable and a number of producers have decided to cease either temporarily or permanently. However, it looks at the moment as if the majority will remain in business. The challenge cannot be underestimated. Continental EU prices are weak because of the struggles to replace demand lost when the export market to Russia was closed due to African Swine Fever. It seems unlikely the position will change in the near future. Demand for pork and pork products in the UK is facing considerable competition from other meats and from changes in the promotional strategies used by retailers. They are moving more towards regular lower prices rather than special offers. The perceptions of meat as being modern, convenient and healthy is also being challenged on a number of fronts.
At farm level, profitability has encouraged much-needed investment which in turn has helped improve productivity and output. This has resulted in pig meat production in 2015 reaching the highest level since 2000. While there is still work to be done to close the productivity gap with our competitors, especially in breeding herd performance, we have definitely been on the Road to Recovery.
“This has resulted in pig meat production in 2015 reaching the highest level since 2000.” Fifteen years ago, we experienced the vicious circle of decline with low prices leading to a lack of investment which undermined performance and increased costs, resulting in a lack of confidence. In recent years, this changed into a virtuous circle of better returns, more investment, improved productivity and an expanding industry. If the industry is to come out of the other side of this trough and regain its momentum, the whole chain needs to appreciate the mutual benefits of a viable and sustainable pig production base and act accordingly.
The AHDB Pork Board The AHDB Pork Board meets six times each year to determine the English pig industry strategy and to ensure that English pig levy payer’s money is efficiently deployed in line with the AHDB Pork strategy. The AHDB Pork Board for the period 2015-2016 comprised the following Directors, appointed by Defra.
Producers
Meryl Ward, MBE Chairwoman Ermine Farms Ltd
Alistair Butler Blythburgh Free Range Pork
Robert Shepherd Allenford Farms
Ian Smith Bedfordia Farms
Processors
“…results show 8 of the 10 supermarkets in Great Britain sell 100% British fresh pork…” Richard Hooper Harper Adams University College
Nevertheless, there are positives factors. Porkwatch results show 8 of the 10 supermarkets in Great Britain sell 100% British fresh pork and a significant amount of British sausages, bacon and ham. In addition the results of the Pulled Pork campaign, as part of the strategy to rejuvenate the image of pork, show it can stimulate sales and impact positively on consumer attitudes. Demand for UK pork and offal on export markets is also growing, adding valuable revenue to the industry. Markets such as China are leading the way but further opportunities exist in South East Asia, Africa and the Americas.
Simon Watchorn Earsham Park Farm
Rob Mercer Packington Pork
Marcus Cheale Cheale Meats of Brentwood
Independent
Mick Sloyan Strategy Director, AHDB Pork
Barry Lock Cranswick
Andrew Saunders Tulip UK
William de Klein KARRO Food Group
Iain Wylie
4 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 5
Strategy & budget Vision: ‘A growing English pig production and primary processing industry’. Mission: ‘To help English pig production and processing businesses become more competitive and profitable’. In 2014, the AHDB Pork Board agreed the ‘Going for Growth’ strategy. This refocused the technical work of AHDB Pork into a single team, operating in four strategic areas of activity. The marketing strategy was also developed to focus more on rejuvenating the image of pork as a means to stimulating demand and maintaining the premium for English pigs. This yearbook reviews the delivery of the strategy and the business plan during 2015-16.
• Set up a business support service to advise on reducing environmental impact, compliance with planning rules and environmental regulations
• Monitor, interpret and help to inform environmental policy and regulations in both the UK and EU
Budget allocation in 2016-2017 (£’000)
£1,132 £544
RD & KE
£3,005
£363
Market development Export development Market intelligence
£763
Digital services
• Capture the progress made by the English pig industry and help to ensure this is communicated effectively
3. Enhance pig welfare Objective: Help pig producers comply with existing and emerging legislation and achieve recognition for progress made.
Communications
£703
Total support
£3,330
Total spend (including non-levy income) is £9.84 million
• Establish the measurement and recording of welfare The five point plan The 5-Point Plan was detailed in the 2013-2014 Yearbook and is available on the AHDB Pork website. In summary, it focuses on the following key areas of activity:
outcome measures by trained vets
• Develop the communication of welfare measures to producers and vets
• Develop support packages to help producers and vets enhance pig welfare
• Monitor, interpret and seek to inform developments 1. Close the gap Objective: To narrow the technical performance gap between English pig producers and competitors.
• Establish a field trials programme • Identify innovation from around the world and disseminate to pig producers
• Develop skills under the banner ‘Recruit, Retain, Reward’, recognising professional development of staff and demonstrating a skilled and attractive career path
• Minimise the risks from endemic and exotic disease by establishing effective biosecurity tools and technologies
• Set up regional technical forum 2. Protect the environment Objective: Help pig producers and processors comply with existing and emerging legislation and achieve recognition for progress made.
in welfare regulations in conjunction with industry representative organisations
4. Encourage safe and traceable pork Objective: Help producers and processors produce pork that continues to be safe and which consumers can have confidence is fully traceable from farm to finished product.
• Support the pig meat supply chain in producing wholesome pork products with safety, provenance and integrity, from farm to fork
• Promote the use of isotope tracing using SIRA (Stable Isotope Reference Analysis) tool through the supply chain
• Work with RUNA and the PVS to reduce the need to use antimicrobials
• Set up a technical processor forum on food safety and traceability
Resources: AHDB Pork’s resources are almost exclusively provided from the levy on producers and processors, which remains at 85p a pig for producers and 20p a pig for processors, applied to pigs slaughtered in England.
5. Help to sell more pork Objective: Stimulate the demand for pork through communication of the benefits of choosing pork and securing and developing export markets.
• Rejuvenate the image of pork • Differentiate from the competition • Communicate the health benefits of pork • Communicate pork as an environmentally sustainable food
• Improvements in Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) • Reducing the industry’s carbon footprint • Monitoring the progress of Real Welfare • Developing the use of SIRA to enhance the traceability of pork
• Increasing the consumption, particularly among light and medium users
• Tracking levy-payer feedback, particularly with regard to delivering value for money
• Continuing to expand our export markets. Monitoring the progress of strategy The AHDB Pork board assesses the progress in achieving the strategy on a regular basis concentrating on a number of target areas, including:
6 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 7
Pork promotion The AHDB Pork marketing team continues to focus its efforts to help sell more pork. Heavily affected by a number of external factors, including the Russian ban leading to over-supply in Europe and changes to supermarket price promotions, it has never been more important to communicate the relevance and value of pork to today’s consumer.
British Sausage Week
Pulled pork campaign The pulled pork campaign in May 2015 provided a much needed boost to the industry. The campaign, which was independently evaluated, showed some excellent results, including an uplift in sales of shoulder of 19.2% volume sales and 21.4% value sales, as 206,000 more households bought fresh pork shoulder during the campaign (an increase of 14.9%). In addition, the campaign also created a significant halo effect on the wider pork category, stimulating a further £7.8 million of incremental fresh pork sales.
19.2%
206,000 households bought
fresh pork shoulder an increase of 14.9%
increase of shoulder sales
£7.8m
incremental fresh pork sales
21.4%
A record number of butcher’s point of sale kits were ordered (1,040) to support the campaign, and a survey conducted after the Week revealed that more than half (53%) of butchers said they sold more sausages during British Sausage Week. The team also secured headlines by creating the world’s most expensive sausage. The story appeared in national newspapers, featured in TV and radio reports and was even tweeted by Dragon, Peter Jones. Engaging content aimed at the younger generation was created, with a video of TV’s poshest person, Mark Francis from ‘Made in Chelsea’, educating consumers on the joys of British sausages.
The team has continued to work with secondary schools through the Meat and Education programme, providing food technology teachers with free teaching resources to help communicate the benefits of red meat in the diet to 11-16-year-olds.
Following first burst of the pulled pork campaign, another programme of activity took place at the beginning of 2016, timed to coincide with notable calendar events such as Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day and the first May bank holiday.
value sales
World Health Organisation In October, the preliminary findings by the World Health Organisation (WHO) concluded that red meat probably causes cancer and processed meat causes cancer.
“...red meat plays a valuable role in the diet...” The AHDB Pork marketing team took the lead in responding to the findings by providing a balanced response on behalf of the red meat industry. The strategy was to inject context into the story, which, according to an independent evaluation, was achieved, as the message ‘red meat plays a valuable role in the diet’ was seen by more than three-quarters (77%) of the population at least seven times during the media coverage around the WHO announcement.
In November, the 18th British Sausage Week took place with Michelin starred chef Michel Roux Jr taking the lead as this year’s ambassador. The competition attracted more than 500 sausages, including entries from all major supermarkets, processors and hundreds of butchers across the country, vying to win one of the prestigious Banger Awards.
One of the many resources available is a programme of free teacher workshops, undertaken on Saturdays, to make it easier for teachers to attend. Teachers were given the opportunity to receive a curriculum and knowledge update and were then put through their paces with a practical lesson. This work is set to continue as the need to instil positive messages around red meat to younger people remains vital in order to educate the next generation of shoppers.
“Making pork more inspiring will continue to be the focus of our future campaigns and promotional activity through 2016 and beyond.” Making pork more inspiring will continue to be the focus of our future campaigns and promotional activity through 2016 and beyond. Changes to LovePork.co.uk continue with new recipe ideas, search engine optimised content and new additions. This has enabled the team to be regularly attracting anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 consumer visitors to the website each month. Working in conjunction with the social channels, the aim is to keep reminding consumers that pork is delicious, versatile and should feature regularly as part of the family meal repertoire.
8 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
With the high value of Sterling making British pork much more expensive on foreign markets, it is reassuring that the UK maintained, and even slightly grew, export volumes in 2015;...
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 9
Export ...this was not to the detriment of the British premium paid to pig producers. In short, exports have made a positive contribution to producers’ revenues against a background of tough, international market conditions and lower domestic pig consumption. With pork consumption and prices lacklustre in Europe, export growth for EU pork is taking place in China and Japan, helped by the current low prices and the favourable exchange rate against the US Dollar. The UK remains the sixth largest pork exporter to China, a considerable feat, given the relatively small size of the sector in Europe. The good news is that exporters are steadily increasing sales in China and have plans to add value to their offer. Last year, the value of the exports of pork to China even overtook that of Scotch whisky.
The Export team
Peter Hardwick Head of Livestock Exports Trade Development
Jean-Pierre Garnier Head of AHDB Exports
“Last year, the value of the exports of pork to China even overtook that of Scotch whisky.” In a growing market, such as China, trade fairs still have an essential role to bring buyers together from all corners of the country. AHDB Pork is present at four shows in China, including the largest exhibition, SIAL, in Shanghai. Due to the importance of Chinese pig production, there is also representation at the CAHE fair with pig genetics. China is a huge market for pork. However, the AHDB Pork export team looks beyond the Far East and led commercial missions to Japan and sub-Saharan Africa during the last 12 months. The aim is to maximise the value of every pig produced in Britain; the UK is not only selling commodity pork. In 2015, there was also a significant breakthrough in the USA, with highwelfare British pork going into the demanding US food service sector.
Jonathan Eckley Senior Export Manager
Susana Morris Export Manager
10 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 11
Pork by numbers
183 farm visits by KT team 392 delegates attended conferences 150 pig clubs around the country
1,040 butcher’s point of sale kits sent out during British Sausage Week 206,000 more households bought fresh pork shoulder during the first pulled pork campaign
3,347 people attended pig clubs 13,248 training hours delivered 489 new twitter followers 5 PhD students sponsored by AHDB Pork 7 scholarship placements awarded 4,367 publications and on-farm tools requested
Improvements in pigs weaned over the last 12 months: +0.28 (indoor) +0.24 (outdoor) Change in FCR over the last 12 months: +0.18 (rearing) +0.02 (finishing) Change in DLWG over the last 12 months: -39g (rearing) -16g (finishing)
12 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 13
Industry statistics The objective of AHDB Market Intelligence (MI) is to provide relevant, useful, accurate and timely market information to the English pig and allied industries. This should support them in understanding the market and making decisions that maximise their competitiveness and sustainability and also improve supply chain transparency.
£
Fig. 2: Average compound feed prices, GB
The cost of production
According to the data from InterPIG, the cost of pig meat production in Great Britain decreased by 13% in 2014, to £1.39/kg. This was almost entirely due to the reduction in feed costs. The average cost of production in the EU was £1.34/kg deadweight. This was also a 13% decrease on the previous year, again mainly due to the reduction in feed costs. GB production costs have been decreasing throughout 2015 and, based on provisional estimates, are likely to be significantly lower than 2014. Once again, this has mainly been driven by the reduction in feed costs.
Collection and calculation of weekly pig meat and other red • meat price data and market information Production of accurate market forecasts of meat • production and consumption Collection and provision of average pig production costs • and performance measurement
278 £/tonne
Activities undertaken by the Market Intelligence function focus on both the supply and demand sides of the industry and include the following:
from the UK, EU and beyond through regular free publications, the AHDB Pork website and other media Collation and publication of international cost and physical • performance comparisons, which are addressed through the InterPIG project Enabling AHDB Pork marketing activity to be based on • a sound knowledge and understanding of the market and consumers from research provided by the Market Intelligence function.
265 250
249 237
GB pig prices have been falling throughout 2014 and 2015, after peaking in late 2013 at over 170p/kg, to a near eight-year low in February 2016. The GB All Pig Price (APP) ended 2015 at 127.68p/kg, and has continued to decrease into 2016. Despite the falling cost of production, the decrease in the APP has meant that most producers were making small losses on a full economic basis. Once non-cash costs, such as depreciation and family labour, are removed, most producers would still have been making a cash profit throughout most of 2015. However, the latest provisional figures show that this may have changed for the end of 2015 and into 2016, with the pig price falling sharply, while feed costs have remained relatively stable and moved many more producers into the red.
Publication of relevant market information and analysis •
Average quarterly compound feed prices have fallen steadily since their peak in Q1 2013 and, by the final quarter of 2015, the average stood at £218/tonne, the lowest level seen since Q3 2010 and 25% below the 2013 peak.
300
234
237
218 200 2012
2013
2014
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4 Source: Defra
Fig. 3: Prices for feed wheat and soya meal
This fall mirrored the decline seen in prices for the main feed ingredients (Figure 3). Record production during 2014 and 2015 contributed to this and prices ended the year at around £114/tonne, almost £20 below a year earlier. However, prices have largely stabilised in the last quarter of 2015. Soya meal prices have been decreasing steadily throughout 2015, impacted by record South American and US crops and production, with supply being significantly ahead of demand. After peaking at over £420/tonne in the summer of 2013, the UK price for Brazilian soya meal ended 2015 at just over £250/tonne, around £85 below a year earlier.
The following sections of the report aim to summarise some of the key market statistics and performance trends from the last year. 450
Fig. 1: Total cost of pig production compared with pig prices 200
Feed wheat
350 DAPP/APP Average COP
160
300 £/tonne
180
Price/kg
Soya meal
400
250 200
140 150 120
100 50
100 Q1
Q2
Q3
2010
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2011
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2012
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2013
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2014
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2015
Q4
Jan 13 Source: AHDB Market Intelligence
Jul 13
Jan 14
Jul 14
Jan 15
Jul 15
Jan 16 Source: AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds
14 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 15
British pig herd performance trends Key annual trends in physical performance for the British breeding, rearing and feeding herds from 2011 to 2015 are shown in Table 1. The average of InterPIG EU countries is also displayed for the 2014 calendar year.
Industry trends
Performance continued to improve across many of the physical performance measures in 2015, but still trailed or matched EU counterparts. For example, the number of pigs weaned per sow per year increased by 0.3 pigs, but was still over 2 pigs behind the EU average. The fact that over 40% of GB sows are kept outdoors, unlike most InterPIG members (which predominantly house breeding sows indoors), will reduce this figure, as average performance of outdoor kept sows is lower. However, even comparing indoor kept sows in GB with the EU average, the GB average is still lower.
Table 2 shows changes in pig carcases between 2013 and 2015. The long-term upwards trend in carcase weight continued into 2015, with the average weight reaching 81kg. A continued reduction in feed costs helped this increase, alongside favourable growing conditions for the year. Probe measurements have increased year on year for similar reasons, but have not changed significantly. Therefore, the net result is that the lean meat percentage has shown little change, remaining at just over 61% of the carcase for the last decade.
"…over 40% of GB sows are kept outdoors, unlike most InterPIG members…"
In 2010, just over 10% of clean pigs slaughtered had dressed carcase weights of less than 70kg. By 2015, that percentage had fallen to 8%. 2015 saw 57% of pigs slaughtered having a carcase weight of over 80kg, compared with 45% in 2010, and over 14% had a carcase weight of over 90kg. This was an increase of almost six percentage points on 2010.
Feed conversion ratios worsened slightly for both the rearing herd and the finishing herd. Daily liveweight gain fell modestly in the rearing herd but increased in the feeding herd.
"A continued reduction in feed costs helped this increase, alongside favourable growing conditions for the year. Probe measurements have increased year on year for similar reasons, but have not changed significantly." Table 2: Average abattoir results
Back fat (P2, mm)
2013
2014
2015
11.0
11.1
11.3
Lean meat (%) †
61.4
61.4
61.3
Carcase weight (kg)
78.8
80.6
81.0
† An average predicted lean meat percentage based on the following equation: Lean meat % = (66.5-(0.95 x P2)+(0.068 x carcase weight))
Table 1: Performance trends in Great Britain 2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Breeding herd
2014 EU avg.
Sow mortality (%)
3.2
3.6
4.5
4.6
5.4
5.8
Litters per sow per year
2.26
2.26
2.29
2.27
2.27
2.30
Pigs born alive per litter
11.39
11.54
11.87
12.12
12.26
13.22
Mortality of pigs born alive (%)
12.4
12.7
13.0
12.6
12.2
12.9
Pigs weaned per litter
9.98
10.07
10.33
10.59
10.76
11.52
22.56
22.80
23.63
24.09
24.38
26.53
27
27
26
26
26
27
Pigs weaned per sow per year Average weaning age (days)
Fig. 4: Carcase weight distribution 2010 – 2015
50 2015 40
Rearing herd Weight of pigs produced (kg)
7.6
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.5
36.8
35.9
35.6
37.1
36.9
30.0
Mortality (%)
2.6
2.5
3.3
2.8
2.8
2.7
Feed conversion ratio
1.71
1.77
1.75
1.71
1.89
1.83
Daily live weight gain (g)
489
489
495
502
463
419
102.6
102.7
104.3
105.4
106.2
118.5
Mortality (%)
2.9
2.5
2.8
3.2
2.7
2.6
Feed conversion ratio
2.82
2.72
2.78
2.67
2.69
2.85
Daily live weight gain (g)
784
822
816
801
817
793
43.18% 34.62%
30 % of sample
Weight of pigs at start (kg)
44.75%
2010
36.22%
20
Feeding herd Weight of pigs produced (kg)
Source: Agrosoft Ltd, Inter PIG
14.23%
10
10.52%
8.50%
7.97%
0 Under 70
70-79.9
80-89.9 Weight range (kg)
90+ Source: AHDB Market Intelligence
16 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 17
The UK produced more pork than beef in 2015 for the first time since 2003. UK clean pig slaughterings increased by almost 4%, with a total of just over 10.6 million head, the highest since 2000. Increases in slaughterings were recorded in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland, although the latter was at a more subdued rate. The increase in production levels, by over 4% to 899 thousand tonnes, was largely driven by increases in clean pig slaughtering numbers. Sow cullings for 2015 increased, by just under 1% to 244 thousand head, on the previous year. Volumes were lower than normal in late 2014 and early 2015, in response to the low cull sow price. Levels subsequently rose throughout 2015, but stayed within the normal range and at a level that was not indicative of a shrinking breeding herd. They were certainly much lower than volumes seen in 2012, when high feed prices did hit producers’ profitability and the breeding herd size did decline.
Table 3: Industry Trends
In 2015, the UK imported more pork, sausages, processed pig meat and offal than the previous year. Pork and processed pig meat imports only recorded modest growth, despite the significant price gap between UK and EU products, exacerbated by the strength of the pound against the Euro. Sausage and offal imports saw a greater percentage growth, although absolute volumes were smaller. While imported pork volumes grew 4% in 2015, this was at the expense of value, which fell by 12% over the same period. Denmark, Belgium and Spain all increased their shipments to the UK throughout 2015. Import volumes from the Netherlands largely remained static, while volumes from Germany fell. Exports of pork, bacon and offal grew throughout 2015 on the year earlier, while volumes of sausages and processed pig meats fell. Pork exports grew by 2% in volume, largely driven by increases in shipments to Ireland and China. However, the value of these exports declined by 6% over the same period, illustrating the depreciation of UK pork to remain competitive on the global market. Bacon and offal exports recorded significant percentage growth, albeit in smaller volumes. Offal export growth was largely driven by shipments to China, which grew by 59% in 2015.
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
June
432
425
421
406
408
December
409
400
398
390
401
UK breeding herd (000 head)
UK sow productivity* Pigs per sow Pig meat per sow (kg)
21.6
22.5
23.0
23.9
25.3
1,692
1,761
1,824
1,933
2,062
9,813
10,035
10,050
10,227
10,607
806
825
833
863
899
UK production and consumption Clean pig slaughter (000 head) Total pig meat production (000 tonnes)
UK trade (000 tonnes) Imports (cwe)
960
942
928
948
966
(Fresh/frozen)
410
387
392
396
410
(Bacon)
328
302
292
300
294
(Processed)
223
254
244
252
262
Exports (cwe)
206
203
229
233
235
1,559
1,564
1,532
1,578
1,628
Total pig meat consumption (000 tonnes) Per capita consumption (kg/head)
24.6
24.6
23.9
24.4
25.0
Self-sufficiency in pig meat**
52%
53%
54%
55%
55%
Cwe = carcase weight equivalent. *Not survey results. Based on relationship between adjusted clean pig slaughter (slaughterings minus live imports plus live exports). **Production as % of consumption. Source: AHDB Market Intelligence, Defra
Table 4: Trends in retail pig meat purchases
Retail pig meat purchases Retail data from Kantar Worldpanel (Table 4) shows that, in the 52-week period ended 3 January 2016, purchases of fresh and frozen pork declined by over 5% from the same period a year earlier. There were declines across the board in all pork cuts, with leg roasting joints and pork belly showing the sharpest decreases of -11% and -9% respectively. Value declined even more sharply – by over 10% for fresh and frozen pork and almost 22% for leg roasting joints. All other cuts recorded decreases in value in excess of volume declines. In other words, despite pork products being cheaper on the shelves, consumers are still not purchasing them.
Pig pocketbook The annual pocketbook provides easy access to a range of key statistics about the pig and poultry sectors, including industry structure, production, prices, international trade and consumption. It can be downloaded from: http://pork.ahdb.org.uk/pricesstats/published-reports/
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fresh and frozen pork
187.8
182.2
178.7
177.4
167.8
Pork belly
19.0
21.5
19.5
19.0
17.3
Pork frying/ grilling chops
30.7
28.0
25.8
25.2
22.3
Pork frying/ grilling steak
48.3
44.5
45.3
41.7
40.7
Pork leg roasting joint
27.4
23.2
22.6
23.3
20.7
Pork loin roasting
12.3
15.1
15.9
16.0
15.3
Pork shoulder roasting joint
30.4
28.6
26.4
28.0
27.3
Pork mince
5.3
5.6
7.2
8.7
8.4
Bacon
225.6
227.6
218.1
216.5
212.2
Pork sausages
175.1
172.5
165.9
166.5
163.0
Sliced cooked meats (Pork and Ham)
130.3
133.8
136.7
136.4
135.1
000 tonnes
Source: Kantar Worldpanel
"Over 2015, pork fared worse than other fresh meats, with volume sales of lamb remaining largely stable and beef falling only very slightly." Processed and cured pig meat products fared a little better than their fresh counterparts, in as much as their declines in volume and value were not as great. Bacon and sausages both experienced retail purchase declines of -2% in 2015, while sliced cooked meat sales fell by -1%. As with fresh pork, value for all three products fell at a greater rate than volume, as prices were also cheaper in the processed market. Over 2015, pork fared worse than other fresh meats, with volume sales of lamb remaining largely stable and beef falling only very slightly. Poultry meat sales increased by 4% year on year in the 52 weeks to 3 January 2016. The decline in pork sales was despite prices being driven down more sharply across pork products than for poultry, beef or lamb.
18 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 19
International cost of pig production This report examines the relative costs of production in selected countries. This is a joint project currently involving 15 countries, which are known collectively as InterPIG.
by nearly 16% in 2014, to £1.39/kg. The average cost of production in the EU was £1.34/kg deadweight, a 14% decrease in sterling terms compared to 2013.
• All EU countries experienced a decrease in the costs of production (in sterling terms) compared to 2013.
• Average producer prices were also lower in 2014 than in 2013, with only four EU countries having production costs below the EU average reference price.
• Average feed prices were lower in 2014 than in 2013, falling by 16% on average across the EU countries.
• In 2014 as a whole, EU feed costs per kg fell by 17% compared with a year earlier, in sterling terms. The fall in Great Britain was 19% , one of the greatest falls in the EU. All InterPIG member countries experienced a fall in feed costs compared to 2013.
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2014/13 % change
Austria
1.45
1.60
1.67
1.78
1.79
1.65
-8
Belgium
• Great Britain produced 1.82 tonnes of carcase meat per sow in 2014, 3% higher than in 2013 due to a combination of the increase in the number of pigs finished per sow and an increase in finishing weight.
Summary of the Key findings:
• The cost of pig meat production in Great Britain reduced
Table 5: Average costs of production in 2008 - 2014 (€/kg deadweight)
More details The full report is published each autumn and is free to English levy payers and can be obtained from AHDB Market Intelligence. For non-levy payers, the report has a cover price of £160. An electronic version is available free on the AHDB Pork website.
Country 1.41
1.48
1.61
1.73
1.74
1.56
-10
Brazil (MT)
na
1.02
1.18
1.17
1.13
1.04
-8
Brazil (SC)
0.99
1.10
1.35
1.46
1.33
1.28
-3
Canada
1.03
1.11
1.29
1.45
1.41
1.21
-14
Czech. Rep
1.65
1.76
1.79
1.86
1.83
1.67
-9
Denmark
1.42
1.41
1.59
1.68
1.68
1.53
-9
France
1.37
1.37
1.60
1.66
1.71
1.56
-9
Germany
1.54
1.53
1.76
1.82
1.82
1.63
-10
Great Britain
1.46
1.64
1.74
1.91
1.89
1.74
-8
Ireland
1.48
1.52
1.72
1.80
1.91
1.77
-7
Italy
1.74
1.79
1.95
1.98
2.01
1.96
-3
Netherlands
1.46
1.43
1.62
1.68
1.77
1.64
-7
Spain
1.44
1.42
1.60
1.64
1.64
1.49
-9
Sweden
1.47
1.72
1.96
2.13
2.12
1.86
-12
USA
1.10
1.12
1.27
1.40
1.49
1.21
-19
EU
1.49
1.56
1.72
1.81
1.83
1.67
-8 Source: InterPIG
• The overall average number of pigs weaned per sow per year in the European InterPIG countries showed a 2% increase in 2014, up from 26.06 in 2013 to 26.53, with Denmark achieving 30.0 for a second time. There was a 2% increase in pigs weaned per sow in Great Britain to 24.09 overall. Indoor sow production achieved 25.7, an increase of 3% compared to 2013.
Table 6: Summary of Financial Performance 2014 (£/kg deadweight) GB
EU
Feed
0.85
0.83
Other variable costs
0.22
0.22
Total variable costs
1.07
1.05
Labour
0.14
0.12
Building, finance and misc
0.18
0.17
Total fixed costs
0.31
0.29
1.39
1.34
• The main reason Great Britain has a below average number of pigs weaned per sow lies in the number of pigs born alive per litter, with Great Britain still performing below the EU average of 13.2. The 2014 Great Britain average at 12.1 (indoor sows 12.6, outdoor sows 11.2) was an increase compared to 11.87 in 2013.
• The average number of pigs finished per sow in Great Britain again increased in 2014. At 22.7 pigs per sow (indoor sows 24.2, outdoor sows 20.5), average performance was 0.47 pigs higher than in 2013 but lower than the EU average of 25.13.
Total costs
Source: InterPIG
20 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 21
Fig. 5: Costs of production in selected countries, 2014 (cold weight) 2.0
Fig. 7: Number of pigs finished per sow 1.5 0.11
£/kg
0.20
1.0
0.09
0.15
0.11
0.10
0.22
0.16 0.06 0.05
0.06 0.06 0.10
0.38
0.08
0.17 0.11 0.21
0.12
0.17 0.12 0.19
0.15
0.20
0.14 0.12
0.17
0.16
0.10
0.18
0.31
0.14
0.21 0.22
0.13 0.26
0.24
0.11 0.07 0.16
0.15
0.12
0.22
0.22
0.10
0.15 0.11 0.20
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.15
No. of pigs finished per sow
0.16 0.18
0.5
30 2014 28 26
0.84
0.56
0.80
0.65
0.77
0.74
0.77
0.76
0.85
0.95
1.07
0.77
0.84
0.81
0.62
0.83
+1% +3%
24
+2%
+0%
+7%
+1%
2013
+0%
+1% +2%
+2%
+1%
+1%
+2%
22
-1%
-1%
20 0.79
+1%
AUS
BEL
0.80
BRA (MT)
BRA (SC)
CAN
CZ
DEN
FRA
GER
GB
IRE
ITA
NL
SPA
SWE
USA
Countries Source: InterPIG
0.0 AUS
BEL
BRA (MT)
BRA (SC)
CAN
CZ
DEN
FRA
GER
GB
IRE
ITA
NL
SPA
SWE
USA
EU InterPIG Avg. Avg.
Fig. 8: Daily liveweight gain (finishing herds)
Countries
1000 Feed
Other variable costs
Labour
Depreciation and finance
UK avg. price
2014
EU avg. price
2013
Source: InterPIG
+2%
grams/day
900
Fig. 6: Feed Costs 1.2
2014
-1% -1% 0%
800
+3% +1%
0%
+1%
+1%
+1%
-2%
+2%
+1%
700
2013
+1%
+3% 0%
600
1.0
AUS
BEL
BRA (MT)
BRA (SC)
CAN
CZ
DEN
FRA
GER
GB
IRE
ITA
NL
SPA
SWE
Source: InterPIG
Fig. 9: GB carcase meat per sow per year
0.8
2000 1900 0.6 kg/year
£/kg
Countries
USA
1823 1769
1800
1707
1687
1700
1643
1626
2009
2010
1600 0.4
AUS
BEL
BRA (MT)
BRA (SC)
CAN
CZ
DEN
FRA
GER
GB
IRE
ITA
NL
SPA
SWE
USA
1500
2011
2012
2013
2014
Countries
Countries Source: InterPIG
Source: InterPIG
22 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 23
Cost of production The following tables report the relationship between physical production performance and feed prices and total costs. All tables use figures for the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 inclusive. The physical performance figures are taken from Agrosoft data relating to the twelve months ending 31 December 2015. Cost of production is estimated using the model operated by AHDB Market Intelligence and take account of a range of financial cost estimations for 2015. The Cost of Production estimations are expressed in pence per carcase kilogram and include variable and fixed costs. An explanation of the Cost of Production model can be found on the AHDB Pork website under Prices and Stats: Costings and Herd Performance.
The number of pigs weaned per sow per year is a result of three different elements:
• Pigs born alive per litter • Litters per sow per year • Pre-weaning mortality The following table indicates the change in Cost of Production for different numbers of pigs weaned per sow per year. The Agrosoft average, bottom third and top third are based on all farms included in the Agrosoft database. The model average is based on weighting the average performance of indoor and outdoor sows, using a weighting of 60% indoor and 40% outdoor.
Table 7: Change in Cost of Production (CoP) for change in feed price (£ per tonne) The average Cost of Production was estimated at 139.0p per kg of carcase weight. The following table indicates how much an increase in each of these feed prices would change the Cost of Production estimate.
The relationship between FCR and the CoP is direct and impacts on the quantity, and therefore cost, of feed consumed in producing each carcase kilogram of pig meat. FCR relates to feed efficiency but using less feed can result in lower DLWG and a longer feeding period. It is, therefore, important for farms to optimise their FCR and DLWG according to their farm situation and system.
Table 8: Change in Cost of Production (CoP) for change in pigs weaned per sow per year
Bottom third
–
Pigs weaned per sow per year
20.89
22.51
24.12
24.38 25.76 27.39 29.03
CoP (p/kg)
146.3
142.6
139.4
139.0 136.6 134.2 132.0
Agrosoft Model avg. avg.
–
Top third
–
"It is, therefore, important for farms to optimise their FCR and DLWG according to their farm situation and system." The following tables (Tables 9 – 10) indicate various levels of performance for FCR and DLWG, on the assumption that, by varying one trait, there is no change in the other. All farms are represented in the average, but the farms in the top third for FCR may not be the same farms in the top third for DLWG as these figures have been independently calculated for each trait. The following table indicates the change in Cost of Production (p/kg) for a change in FCR for different feeding periods.
+£5
+£10
+£15
+£20
Sow feed
139.0
139.4
139.8
140.2
140.6
Rearing feed
139.0
139.3
139.7
140.1
140.4
Finishing feed
139.0
140.1
141.3
142.5
143.6
Table 10: Daily Liveweight Gain (DLWG)
Rearing DLWG (g/day) CoP (p/kg)
Finishing DLWG (g/day) CoP (p/kg)
Combined DLWG (g/day) CoP* (p/kg)
Bottom third
–
Average
–
Top third
–
322
393
463
521
578
635
140.6
139.6
139.0
138.6
138.2
138.0
678
748
817
889
961
1033
140.2
139.5
139.0
138.5
138.1
137.8
549
607
665
721
777
833
141.2
140.1
139.2
138.4
137.8
137.2
Table 9: Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) *Not all rearing and finishing units are used in the Combined average performance data, resulting in a different base CoP
Feed price Base CoP (p/kg)
The following table indicates the change in Cost of Production (p/kg) for a change in DLWG for different feeding periods.
Rearing FCR CoP (p/kg)
Finishing FCR CoP (p/kg)
Combined FCR CoP* (p/kg)
Bottom third
–
Average
–
Top third
–
2.20
2.05
1.89
1.71
1.53
1.35
142.0
140.5
139.0
137.2
135.5
133.7
2.99
2.84
2.69
2.56
2.42
2.29
144.4
141.7
139.0
136.6
134.2
131.8
2.76
2.60
2.43
2.27
2.10
1.93
148.7
144.2
139.7
135.0
130.4
125.7
*Not all rearing and finishing units are used in the Combined average performance data, resulting in a different base CoP
24 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 25
Technical performance data Table 11: Distribution of herd size in Agrosoft recorded breeding herds, 2007 – 2015 No sows
Table 13: Results for all breeding herds, year ended Dec 2015
% herds
Average *
Top 1/3 *
Top 10% *
Herd structure
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
100-249
12
9
15
16
14
11
10
13
11
Average number sows and gilts
697
725
590
250-499
12
25
32
26
26
25
26
23
26
Average number unserved gilts
53
70
62
500-749
17
26
32
29
28
29
25
29
27
Replacement rate (%)
50.79
54.38
55.56
750-999
25
24
12
15
17
18
20
10
13
Sow sales and deaths (%)
58.70
61.49
64.77
1000-1500
21
14
8
12
11
13
17
20
19
Sow mortality (%)
5.23
6.21
4.30
1500-3000
13
2
1
2
4
4
2
5
4
>3000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
100
100
100
101
100
100
100
100
100
Successful services (%)
82.53
85.53
87.77
Litters per sow per year **
2.26
2.34
2.38
Non-productive days per litter ##
20.03
13.68
11.47
alive
12.16
13.07
13.80
dead
0.58
0.67
0.77
0.19
0.20
0.20
12.84
13.88
14.70
Pigs born alive per sow per year
27.53
30.65
32.84
Pre-weaning mortality (%)
12.39
10.51
10.59
Pigs weaned per litter
10.65
11.69
12.33
Pigs weaned per sow per year **
24.12
27.39
29.33
Average weight of weaned pig (kg)
7.06
7.21
6.99
Average weaning age (days)
26.37
26.46
26.53
Sow feed per sow per year (t)
1.466
1.342
1.396
Feed per pig weaned (kg)
59.94
48.82
47.52
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Table 12: Trends in weaning age 2005-2015 Age at weaning (days)
2005
2006
2007
Pigs born per litter 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
(% of herds) 39
0
0
2
2
1
2
3
2
1
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Total
Sow performance
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
mummified total
Note: Totals in tables 11 and 12 may not add up due to rounding.
Feed usage #
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Note: * Selected on the basis of pigs weaned per sow per year. ** Per sow data excludes unserved gilt. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval.
26 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 27
Table 14: Trends in performance and feed costs in the breeding herd, 2005-2015 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Average number sows and gilts
571
662
631
583
545
605
682
580
591
714
697
Sow sales and deaths (%)
44.7
44.6
41.6
46.5
46.0
49.2
47.6
51.5
53.3
51.6
58.7
Number of sows
Sow mortality (%)
4.7
5.8
3.4
4.3
4.0
3.6
3.3
3.6
4.6
4.5
5.2
Herd structure
Herd structure
Table 15: Breeding herd results by herd size, year ended Dec 2015
Sow performance
100-249
250-499
500-749
750-999
1K - 1.5K
1.5K+
Average number sows and gilts
174
361
626
853
1178
2063
Litters per sow per year *
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
Average number in-pig gilts
30
67
111
145
181
436
Pigs born alive per litter
10.9
11.7
11.1
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.4
11.5
11.8
12.1
12.2
Average number unserved gilts
16
30
58
88
101
166
Pre-weaning mortality (%)
10.9
13.3
12.6
12.6
12.5
12.7
12.6
12.7
13.1
12.7
12.4
Replacement rate (%)
45.07
51.70
51.17
50.71
49.68
53.74
9.7
9.5
9.7
9.8
9.8
9.8
10.0
10.1
10.3
10.5
10.7
Sow sales and deaths (%)
56.91
59.13
58.74
53.95
58.85
64.85
21.5
21.5
21.6
22.1
22.2
22.1
22.5
22.9
23.5
23.9
24.1
Sow mortality (%)
5.55
6.13
6.18
5.58
4.80
5.51
26
26
27
27
27
26.7
26.4
26.7
26.4
26.3
26.4
Pigs weaned per litter Pigs weaned per sow per year * Average weaning age (days)
Sow performance
Sow feed Sow feed per sow per year(t) #
1.339
1.338
1.343
1.456
1.278
1.230
1.169
1.280
1.529
1.401
1.466
Successful services (%)
80.70
82.17
83.35
80.84
83.20
82.29
Sow feed cost per tonne (£) ##
105.22
102.40
131.08
155.14
178.49
162.87
207.63
207.72
238.02
199.60
184.77
Non-productive days per litter ##
21.95
21.11
20.27
19.42
20.05
18.90
Litters per sow per year *
2.19
2.24
2.27
2.26
2.26
2.28
alive
12.05
12.52
12.31
11.70
12.04
12.38
dead
0.85
0.75
0.60
0.45
0.55
0.58
0.13
0.24
0.17
0.12
0.21
0.18
12.95
13.43
13.02
12.18
12.68
13.05
Pigs born alive per sow per year
26.43
28.14
27.95
26.55
27.18
28.38
Pre-weaning mortality (%)
11.42
11.35
11.35
12.36
13.59
12.75
Pigs weaned per litter
10.51
11.10
10.91
10.25
10.40
10.81
Pigs weaned per sow per year *
23.11
24.93
24.76
23.27
23.51
24.76
Average weight of weaned pig (kg)
8.15
7.29
7.21
6.63
7.05
6.68
Average weaning age (days)
30.15
26.92
26.26
26.33
26.14
25.78
Sow feed per sow per year (t)
1.421
1.436
1.421
1.737
1.511
1.283
Feed per pig weaned (kg)
60.56
55.79
56.32
76.22
64.17
47.73
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: *Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts from 2013. ## Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.
Pigs born per litter:
mummified total
Feed usage #
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: * Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval. Data includes both indoor and outdoor herds
28 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 29
Table 16: Breeding herd results by age at weaning, year ended Dec 2015 Age at weaning
< 26 days
26 days+
Top 10%
Top third
Average
Top 10%
Top third
Average
Average number sows and gilts
604
888
859
485
625
610
Average number in-pig gilts
132
184
163
87
110
103
Average number unserved gilts
38
108
77
58
63
47
Replacement rate (%)
56.83
54.86
50.17
54.35
54.45
Sow sales and deaths (%)
64.01
54.83
60.13
64.48
Sow mortality (%)
7.38
5.55
5.15
4.90
Table 17: Comparison of results for outdoor and indoor breeding herds, year ended Dec 2015
Herd structure
Outdoor herds
Indoor herds
Average number sows and gilts
867
592
51.17
Average number in-pig gilts
139
107
65.68
56.23
Average number unserved gilts
30
28
6.37
5.11
Replacement rate(%)
48.86
52.37
Sow sales and deaths (%)
54.71
62.28
Sow mortality (%)
4.19
6.19
Sow performance
Herd structure
Successful services (%)
84.23
83.67
81.47
88.42
86.83
83.26
Non-productive days per litter ##
11.24
14.36
19.57
11.59
13.21
20.37
Sow performance
2.41
2.36
2.28
2.36
2.34
2.25
Successful services (%)
81.52
83.45
Non-productive days per litter ##
22.95
17.39
Litters per sow per year *
2.22
2.29
Litters per sow per year *
Pigs born per litter: alive
13.38
12.85
12.10
13.88
13.24
12.21
dead
0.78
0.68
0.56
0.78
0.69
0.61
0.19
0.18
0.22
0.24
0.22
0.18
alive
11.47
12.79
14.32
13.65
12.75
14.82
14.10
12.90
dead
0.43
0.72
Pigs born per sow per year
32.36
30.43
27.65
32.84
30.97
27.45
0.06
0.22
Pre-weaning mortality (%)
9.42
10.65
12.65
10.18
10.84
12.20
11.91
13.68
Pigs weaned per litter
12.12
11.48
10.56
12.46
11.80
10.72
Pigs born per sow per year
25.49
29.38
Pigs weaned per sow per year *
29.29
27.15
24.15
29.46
27.58
24.08
Pre-weaning mortality (%)
13.41
11.46
7.18
7.04
6.95
7.26
7.30
7.14
Pigs weaned per litter
9.92
11.31
24.33
24.49
24.84
27.33
27.36
27.45
Pigs weaned per sow per year *
22.06
25.99
Average weight of weaned pig (kg)
6.85
7.17
Average weaning age (days)
26.36
26.38
Sow feed per sow per year (t)
1.666
1.353
Feed per pig weaned (kg)
75.48
51.20
182.72
186.15
mummified total
Average weight of weaned pig (kg) Average weaning age (days)
Feed usage # Sow feed per sow per year (t)
1.326
1.319
1.490
1.383
1.345
1.445
Feed per pig weaned (kg)
45.45
47.69
62.78
47.00
48.86
57.39
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: * Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval. Data includes both indoor and outdoor herds
Pigs born per litter:
mummified total
Feed usage #
Feed costs # Sow feed cost per tonne (£)
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: * Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval.
30 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 31
Table 18: Comparative results for INDOOR breeding herds, 2005-2015 2005 2006
2007 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Top third *
Top third *
Table 19: Comparative results for OUTDOOR breeding herds, 2005-2015 2005 2006
Herd structure Average number sows and gilts
406
482
501
548
440
492
586
481
549
598
644
592
611
Average number unserved gilts
38
n/a
22
54
36
95
37
37
85
36
35
28
38
2007 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Top third *
Top third *
Herd structure
Sow replacements (%)
47.1
49.5
47.7
45.5
49.2
47.6
49.2
51.8
53.0
52.89
54.70
52.37
55.79
Average number sows and gilts
Sow sales and deaths (%)
43.8
49.2
46.7
47.2
47.5
41.5
47.9
52.9
55.4
53.98
54.17
62.28
65.23
Average number unserved gilts
Sow mortality (%)
4.9
6.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
1.4
2.9
3.2
5.2
5.15
5.57
6.19
6.84
Sow replacements (%)
45.9
57.6
45.8
46.4
46.0
39.2
52.4
51.3
52.9
50.96
52.46
48.86
50.27
Sow sales and deaths (%)
45.2
42.6
36.9
45.6
43.8
38.6
47.0
49.1
46.7
48.51
47.34
54.71
51.91
Sow mortality (%)
5.6
5.4
3.1
4.6
3.8
1.1
3.5
4.0
3.4
3.84
3.58
4.19
4.91
Non-productive days per litter ##
41.0
19.0
25.0
45.6
20.4
19.2
21.0
19.9
19.4
21.47
15.77
22.95
16.01
Litters per sow per year **
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.24
2.32
2.22
2.32
alive
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.7
10.8
11.0
11.1
11.36
11.98
11.47
12.03
dead ***
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.47
0.53
0.43
0.54
total
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.7
11.5
11.3
11.4
11.6
11.6
11.85
12.54
11.91
12.60
Pre-weaning mortality (%)
10.5
13.6
12.3
12.9
12.6
13.1
12.4
13.0
14.0
14.18
13.60
13.41
12.61
Pigs weaned per litter
9.6
9.3
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.3
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.75
10.34
9.92
10.50
Sow performance Non-productive days per litter ##
32.0
21.0
21.0
44.0
20.2
19.9
20.8
18.9
16.2
16.85
11.51
17.39
12.16
Litters per sow per year **
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.30
2.38
2.29
2.37
Pigs born per litter:
820
806
783
777
645
735
771
676
932
928
774
867
845
66
n/a
21
80
57
45
84
70
66
55
63
30
42
Sow performance
alive
11.1
11.2
11.4
11.5
11.5
11.6
11.9
12.1
12.4
12.63
13.25
12.79
13.41
dead ***
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.68
0.65
0.72
0.71
total
12.1
12.0
12.4
13.1
12.5
12.6
12.9
13.1
13.2
13.46
14.01
0.22
0.21
Pre-weaning mortality (%)
11.8
12.9
13.0
12.3
12.3
12.2
12.8
12.4
12.3
11.53
10.75
11.46
10.48
Pigs weaned per litter
9.8
9.7
10.0
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.8
11.16
11.82
11.31
11.99
Pigs weaned per sow per year **
22.1
22.0
22.4
22.9
22.8
23.0
23.4
24.1
24.9
25.71
28.08
25.99
28.40
Average weight of weaned pig (kg)
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.13
7.18
7.17
7.27
21.2
21.1
20.9
21.3
21.6
21.0
21.3
21.7
21.7
21.82
23.99
22.06
24.32
Average weaning age (days)
Pigs weaned per sow per year **
27.0
26.1
27.1
27.0
26.9
27.0
27.0
26.9
26.9
26.56
26.59
26.38
26.51
Average weight of weaned pig (kg)
7.3
8.1
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.0
7.9
7.7
7.0
7.02
7.32
6.85
6.84
Average weaning age (days)
27.0
26.0
26.5
27.0
26.5
26.0
27.0
26.5
25.8
26.08
26.05
26.36
26.06
Sow feed per sow per year (t)
1.402
1.298
1.296
1.584
1.300
1.330
1.345
1.365
1.601
1.547
1.589
1.666
1.559
Feed per pig weaned (kg)
73.0
68.0
70.2
79.0
72.9
64.5
63.0
64.3
76.1
72.46
68.93
75.48
64.62
110.03
102.63
133.36
180.72
153.53
160.34
194.44
204.31
226.82
196.10
n/a
182.72
n/a
Feed usage # Sow feed per sow per year (t) Feed per pig weaned (kg)
1.265
1.367
1.362
1.334
1.256
1.168
1.059
1.217
1.476
1.345
1.353
1.353
1.367
61.0
63.3
66.0
62.3
60.2
51.2
46.1
49.8
50.2
47.27
43.72
51.20
47.97
Feed costs ### Sow feed cost per tonne (£)
102.96
102.22
127.73
164.99
180.59
164.32
215.23
210.28
212.31
201.94
n/a
186.15
n/a
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: * Selected on basis of pigs weaned per sow per year. ** Excludes unserved gilts. *** Includes mummified pigs born. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval. ### Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.
Pigs born per litter:
Feed usage #
Feed costs ### Sow feed cost per tonne (£)
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: * Selected on basis of pigs weaned per sow per year. ** Excludes unserved gilts. *** Includes mummified pigs born. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval. ### Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.
32 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 33
Table 20: Overall rearing herd results, year ended Dec 2015 Top 10% *
Top 1/3 *
Average Table 22: Overall herd results ranked on Daily Liveweight Gain, year ended Dec 2015
Herd structure Average number of pigs
1188
2259
2983
Rearing
7.3
7.4
7.6
Average weight of pigs produced (kg)
27.8
33.0
36.9
Rearing mortality (%)
1.9
2.9
2.8
Feed conversion ratio
1.32
1.53
1.89
Daily gain (g)
550
482
463
Days in herd
38
53
66
Top Third
Average
Top 10%
Top Third
Average
Top 10%
Top Third
Average
2187
3003
3007
1977
1688
1828
4750
3915
4278
Average weight of pigs at start (kg)
7.9
8.1
7.6
39.6
41.0
37.2
7.7
7.8
7.7
Average weight of pigs produced (kg)
43.8
43.5
36.9
111.2
110.7
107.9
109.3
105.2
105.5
2.1
2.0
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.7
3.6
3.5
4.3
Feed conversion ratio
1.81
1.80
1.90
2.53
2.47
2.69
2.26
2.28
2.43
Daily gain (g)
633
572
461
1030
960
817
796
766
660
Days in herd
57
62
67
69
73
109
127
127
151
Herd structure Average number of pigs
Pig performance
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: *Selected on feed conversion ratio.
Mortality (%)
Table 21: Trends in performance and feed costs in the rearing herd 2005-2015 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: Rearing; Feeding; and Combined Rearing and Feeding do not necessarily directly correspond. 1
Herd structure Average number of pigs
1782
1377
1192
1994
2083
3345
1984
2237
2607
2523
2983
Table 23: Overall finishing herd results, year ended Dec 2015
Pig performance Average weight of pigs at start (kg)
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.7
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.57
Average weight of pigs produced (kg)
36.3
35.1
35.3
38.5
36.6
34.6
36.8
35.9
31.45
37.1
36.85
Herd structure
Rearing mortality (%)
3.4
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.5
4.0
2.8
2.79
Average number of pigs
Feed conversion ratio
1.70
1.71
1.82
1.73
1.80
1.75
1.71
1.77
1.84
1.71
1.89
Daily gain (g)
509
493
453
478
492
486
489
489
479
502
463
Feed usage and costs * Feed cost per tonne (£)
Combined Rearing/Feeding¹
Top 10%
Pig performance Average weight of pigs at start (kg)
Feeding
183.22
192.04
213.63
272.83
277.40
297.11
261.95
346.89
352.17
282.15
252.56
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: *Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.
Top 10% *
Top 1/3 *
Average
1977
1688
1828
Average weight of pigs at start (kg)
39.6
41.0
37.2
Average weight of pigs produced (kg)
111.2
110.7
107.9
Finishing mortality (%)
2.5
2.6
2.7
Feed conversion ratio
2.53
2.47
2.69
Daily gain (g)
1030
960
817
Days in herd
69
73
109
Pig performance
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: *Selected on feed conversion ratio.
34 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 35
Table 24: Trends in performance and feed costs in the finishing herd, 2005 to 2015 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1841
1992
2016
1811
1881
1788
2066
1764
1660
1733
1828
Herd structure Average number of pigs
Table 26: Analysis of total services and returns by parity, year ended Dec 2015 % of Total
Farrowing Rate%
Re-Service Rate%
Farrowing Index
Percentage Share of Dead & Culled
Gilt
23.6
83.5
9.3
163.6
14.9
2
20.9
80.7
10.0
163.5
14.4
3
17.1
83.5
8.1
160.9
12.1
4
13.4
84.2
7.4
159.9
11.8
5
10.5
83.9
7.2
161.3
13.6
6
7.5
83.0
7.2
163.4
15.4
7
4.1
82.2
6.3
165.7
10.0
8
1.9
80.4
7.5
171.9
5.1
9
0.7
79.0
6.7
178.6
1.8
10
0.3
77.4
7.7
182.8
0.6
11< 13
0.1
71.8
15.0
202.1
0.3
Parity
Pig performance Average weight of pigs at start (kg)
25.9
27.2
26.6
35.9
38.8
38.0
39.8
38.4
38.9
35.0
37.23
Average weight of pigs produced (kg)
96.9
98.2
98.8
101.6
103.3
103.9
103.0
102.7
99.4
106.1
107.85
Finishing mortality (%)
6.5
5.6
4.8
3.3
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.5
3.1
3.2
2.74
Feed conversion ratio
2.74
2.75
2.73
2.87
2.77
2.95
2.82
2.72
2.80
2.67
2.69
Daily gain (g)
639
655
673
757
819
766
784
822
786
801
817
Feed usage and costs * Feed cost per tonne (£)
119.69
119.87
132.75
184.12
183.99
177.46
261.83
241.52
248.06
231.70
205.56
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System Note: *Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
Table 25: Analysis of pigs born, weaned and re-service rate by parity, year ended Dec 2015 % of Total
Born Alive per litter
Born Dead per litter
Total Born incl. Mummified
Weaned per litter
Weaned per Sow per Year
Gilt
23.6
11.7
0.5
12.2
10.8
24.4
2
20.9
12.1
0.5
12.6
10.9
24.7
3
17.1
12.7
0.6
13.3
10.9
24.8
4
13.4
12.8
0.7
13.5
10.7
24.5
5
10.5
12.6
0.7
13.5
10.5
24.0
6
7.5
12.3
0.8
13.2
10.2
23.0
7
4.1
11.9
0.8
12.8
10.0
22.3
8
1.9
11.3
0.8
12.2
9.7
20.9
9
0.7
10.8
0.7
11.6
9.4
19.7
10
0.3
10.1
0.7
10.9
9.0
18.6
11< 13
0.1
9.4
1.0
10.2
9.0
17.4
Parity
Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System
36 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 37
Knowledge exchange The AHDB Pork 5-Point Plan in the 2014-2018 Going for Growth strategy was developed to help deliver a more competitive and profitable pig production and processing industry. This includes working to narrow the technical performance gap between English pig producers and competitors through a number of workstreams.
Within the farm visits, the team have addressed a number of key areas, including: Indoor and outdoor service area reviews to look at • improving conception rates through management changes, such as timing, stocking, feeding and pen layout On-farm training, using the AHDB Pork Practical Pig app, • on specific topics to help people grow in confidence and assist businesses that are struggling to find time to release people to go on training courses
Workstreams include:
• Establishing a field trials programme Identifying innovation from around the world and •
Farrowing house routines with the aim of reducing •
disseminating it to pig producers Developing skills under the banner ‘Recruit, Retain, Reward’ • recognising professional development of staff and demonstrating a skilled and attractive career path
•
Setting up regional technical forums.
This chapter outlines some of the key activity in which the AHDB Pork research, development and knowledge transfer team has been involved over the past year and looks at some of the plans for the upcoming year.
• • •
+1 weaned pigs -0.1 FCR
Ventilation, for example, to improve pig lying patterns
•
Retain: Promote skills development as vital to business improvement
•
Reward: Promote recognition of achievement to motivate staff
Pig flow Target setting
+50g DLWG
Stockman Development Scheme
Stockman Plus
The aims of the strategy are: Recruit: Provide and promote an attractive environment for a progressive career within allied industries
The AHDB Pork skills and training offer has continued to develop during the year, with continued interest and engagement from levy payers. The importance and benefit of knowledge acquisition and skills development within individual businesses is growing, with businesses committing to ongoing training and progression of staff.
Technical Managers Scheme
The pig industry skills strategy ‘Recruit, Retain, Reward’ outlines the steps needed to ensure the industry remains sustainable and profitable.
•
Skills and training
The knowledge transfer managers conducted 183 farm reviews during the year with the aim of looking at how producers can achieve, where applicable, AHDB Pork’s industry targets:
“AHDB Pork provides training for stockpeople, supervisors, unit managers, production managers and business owners.”
mortality, improving weaning weights, sow condition and the general environment
The farm reviews provide an excellent opportunity for face-toface engagement with producers and enable business-specific information to be discussed, with the goal of measuring and improving on-farm productivity.
Farm reviews
• • •
Student feedback
Leadership Development Scheme
Professional Manager Development Scheme
Certificates of Competence Decision tree
13,248 training hours delivered 51 scholarship applications across... ...8 scholarship companies 7 scholarships secured
“I was able to take a lot of practical ideas from the stockman training to implement at work.” Phil Thatcher, Stockperson Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme Exeter 2015; Stockman Plus Exeter 2016
“The first stockman plus session I attended following completion of the previous course was the best so far. The speaker was brilliant and pitched the session at the right level and included the whole group.” Ruth Thomas, Breeding Herd Manager Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme East 2014-15; Stockman Plus East 2015-16
“On completing the training, I feel what I have learned is helping me to achieve my aims on the farm. I believe training is the future for the new staff development in the pig industry and I am currently sending new employees on the courses.” Thomas Bradshaw, Unit Manager Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme North; Stockman Plus North; Technical Manager’s Scheme North
“These training sessions have given me up-to-date knowledge of indoor pig production and, as a result, I have been confident to suggest much needed new ideas on my unit. The knowledge I have gained has helped me progress from stockman to assistant manager to pig unit manager, in three years.” Darren Kent, Unit Manager Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme; Stockman Plus; Leadership and Team Skills Award Awards: Trainee of The Year Winner 2015
38 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 39
PIPR review: In 2015, AHDB Pork embarked on a review of the Pig Industry Professional Register (PIPR). The register was launched in 2007 and there has been a steady growth in membership; a review was planned to look at how the scheme could be developed to stimulate membership growth.
Pig industry scholarship The Pig Industry Scholarship Scheme has grown to achieve a successful third year of securing companies and scholars. In August 2015, eight companies registered to offer scholarships to Harper Adams’ students. The eight companies provided a diverse representation of the career opportunities in the pig industry.
Feedback on the scheme was collected in 2015 via key account meetings, training and knowledge transfer (KT) meetings. In December 2015, representatives from across the industry were invited to a review meeting to discuss how PIPR could be developed to add value to members and improve functionality. In February 2016, a consultation was launched to gain industry feedback on whether PIPR should continue and how it should be developed to provide increased value. The outcome of the consultation will be available during spring 2016, after which the next steps and course of action will be discussed.
Study tours AHDB Pork runs a number of study tours every year, both in the UK and overseas. The tours are aimed at looking at new technologies and/or production systems and are usually 50% funded by AHDB Pork, with the remaining 50% coming from a commercial company. Producers who are interested in viewing a particular system or technology overseas, or have an idea for a study tour, can contact their knowledge transfer manager to discuss possibilities.
AHDB Pork training review and update
Following the scholarship fair in October, the enthusiasm and interest from students was demonstrated by an increase from 47 applications in 2014 to 51 applications in 2015. In November, seven scholars were secured across six of the sponsoring companies. To date, 15 scholarships have been awarded since the scheme was launched in 2013, with two final year students securing employment with their sponsoring company post-graduation.
Following a successful year of training delivery in 2015, a review of the training courses, learning material and course content was completed. Subsequently, the training offer was developed during the summer of 2015 ready for the start of autumn training activities. Areas developed include:
• • • •
Upskilling training deliverers Reviewing and updating session content and session briefs Developing methods for trainee feedback Developing learning materials.
This work is ongoing with a focus on ensuring quality feedback and measuring the impact of the training sessions.
Ireland Activity: Visits looking at different building types (hoop buildings)
Denmark Activity: Visits to a breeding herd to look at large litter management and also to a brand new finisher herd to see how it manages gilt selection and to look at slurry management. Business management was also a topic of much discussion. Participants also visited Jyden Animal Housing to look at different farrowing systems. Who: A group of five producers along with AHDB Pork Sponsored by: AHDB Pork Feedback from participants:
“The information I received has made me feel more confident about setting up my own breeding herd and has answered a lot of doubts I previously had.”
Who: A small group of four producers along with AHDB Pork Sponsored by: AHDB Pork
Denmark Activity: A trip to look at environmental and buildings issues, including reducing emissions, increasing profits and complying with legislation at the same time Who: Producers representing a large proportion of the pigs reared in England, vets, nutritionists, researchers and the Environment Agency Sponsored by: AHDB Pork
“The visit to Jyden has shown me what methods we currently have in place when sows farrow in the freedom pens that should be changed, which will help with lowering mortality. We were closing in the sows before farrowing and releasing two days later, where we should let them farrow before closing in for two days.”
40 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 41
“A very good trip, a lot of information on how to reduce farrowing house mortality, especially with a high born alive, and we intend to use this information to improve the pigs per sow produced in our herd.”
Events A wide range of events were held during the year, providing owners and farm managers, stock people, vets and associated trade, with up-to-date information and knowledge on a range of subjects.
Germany Activity: Visits to two high performing units using RFID technology to improve efficiencies and a look at factors influencing performance: 0.1 FCR, +1 weaned and 50g/day. Participants also visited the Education and Research Centre Futterkamp to look at the research projects taking place, as well as the Anhalt University of Applied Sciences where they heard about their research work.
Pig clubs and workshops Pig clubs provide one of the main opportunities that AHDB Pork has to inform and influence producers. During the year, 150 pig clubs and workshops were held across the country. These events, usually held in the evenings, attracted 3,347 producers during the course of the year, with discussions covering a wide range of topics, along with some benchmarking.
Who: AHDB Pork knowledge transfer team Sponsored by: Purespekt and AHDB Pork
Holland Activity: An introduction to the Dutch pig industry through a visit to a 1,100 sow breeding unit and a day at the Swine Innovation Centre in Sterksel. It provided participants with an opportunity to widen their knowledge as well as discuss topical issues with others in similar roles.
Australia Activity: Visits to 11 farms covering a range of agricultural sectors. Participants met with key figures in the Australian agricultural industry to discuss how they cope with legislation, labour, climate and water usage. A number of good ideas and practices were observed on both pig units as well as beef, dairy, arable, sheep and free-range chicken farms. Who: A mixture of five independent producers and a major corporate; included within the group were NPA and AHDB Pork board members
Who: A group of seven head stockman and unit managers who had completed the Technical Manager’s Scheme
150 pig clubs and workshops were held across the country... 3,347 producers during the course of the year...
visit pork.ahdb.org.uk/ events for more info
Regional forum These meetings take place twice a year around the country. They are a means of listening to the wider industry and enable members to provide direct input into proposed AHDB Pork technical activity and feedback on the quality and relevance of AHDB Pork’s work. More information about the regional forums, as well as summaries of the October 2015 meetings, can be found online at: pork.ahdb.org.uk/about-ahdb-pork/regional-forums
Sponsored by: AHDB Pork
Innovation conference: A glance into the future The 2015 Innovation Conference showcased cutting edge technology to safeguard pig health. It was aimed at forwardthinking owners and farm managers, vets and the allied industry and attracted 225 delegates. Topics covered included: Breakthroughs in • electronic identification for pigs
Sponsored by: Fram Farmers
Novel diagnostics in the • animal sector Novel diagnostics in the • horticulture industry: what can we learn?
•
Outdoor innovations
• Indoor innovations Innovations in the • supply chain Alternative treatments: • Using viruses to diagnose and treat bacterial infections Probiotics and • autogenous vaccines
Presentations and videos from the event are available from: pork.ahdb.org.uk/events/conferences/ 2015/innovation-conference/
4242 | AHDB | AHDB Yearbook Yearbook 2015-2016 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 43
Research and innovation
Practical pig events Six events, aimed at farm managers and stock people, were held across England during November and December 2015, providing practical advice to achieve a marketable pig, as well as guidance on land and health management. The events attracted 167 delegates, the majority of which being producers.
Getting through tough times Five regional meetings for pig producers, focused on practical ways to manage input costs were run by AHDB Pork during March. With the industry facing tough times due to low prices, the aim of the special meetings was to help producers re-evaluate their units and get ideas on simple changes that could strengthen their businesses.
The events attracted 167 delegates, the majority of which being producers Programmes were tailored to the regions based on feedback from the regional forums. Topics covered include: AHDB Pork – an update from the consumer marketing team • Effective selection of pigs for slaughter • Variation in finishing pigs – what are the problems, how can • they be managed? The benefits of electronic tagging • AHDB Pork field trials • Water for the outdoor unit • Water: Where does it come from? • Land management and legislation • PRRS control • The presentations and videos from the event can be downloaded from: pork.ahdb.org.uk/events/ conferences/2015/practical-pig-events/
...ideas on simple changes that could strengthen their businesses. The events provided an opportunity to hear from key industry figures and producers, ask questions and work through some ‘what if’ calculations to help decide how to influence cost of production. A full suite of information to help producers can be found online at: pork.ahdb.org.uk/pig-production/ getting-through-tough-times/
The aim of research and field trials is to generate new knowledge about pig production and demonstrate this new knowledge in commercial environments… …to remove some financial risks when investing on farm. Work is aimed at optimising pig production efficiency, enhancing pig health and welfare, protecting the environment and maintaining safe and traceable pork that is ultimately appetising to the end consumer.
44 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 45
Research and innovation “The disease surveillance subgroup is now focusing on the delivery of effective surveillance methodologies within the UK.”
Health Restructure of the Pig Health and Welfare Council 2015 saw the restructured Pig Health and Welfare Council (PHWC) delivering outputs from all of its subgroups in line with the new milestones and objectives of those groups. However, the broader remit of the 20:20 vision has still been maintained and remains a focus for the main council. Focus remains in four key areas, which are of significant importance to the industry, while remaining capable of being adapted to any unforeseen changes.
for exotic and emerging diseases Antimicrobials: Reducing antimicrobial • use in pig production.
The disease surveillance subgroup of the PHWC has been actively involved in the development of an industry-wide contingency plan against the highly pathogenic strains of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhoea virus (PEDv). The contingency plan, which is available from the AHDB Pork website, is the result of a collaborative effort between a number of pig industry groups and organisations.
“The delivery of an industry-led, government assisted, approach has been unique within the agricultural sector…” As a result of the contingency plan, the Disease Surveillance subgroup has worked hard, alongside Government, to make PEDv notifiable in England (since December 2015) and to assist Scotland in making the disease notifiable (since January 2016). The delivery of an industry-led, government assisted, approach has been unique within the agricultural sector and is reflective of the hard work and close relationships within the pig industry.
data collection system - electronic Medicine Book A for Pigs (eMB-Pigs) - launched in April 2016
https://embpigs.ahdb.org.uk for more info
Measuring Antibiotics Antimicrobial resistance has continued to increase in importance throughout 2015, with elevated political and media attention in this field.
The disease surveillance subgroup delivered the following in 2015:
•N otifiable disease status achieved within England and Scotland
Disease Surveillance
•
The disease surveillance subgroup is now focusing on the delivery of effective surveillance methodologies within the UK, looking at potential approaches that can be taken, as well as the opportunities that data sharing may bring to produce a more effective method of measuring and controlling disease. A round-table discussion on syndromic surveillance is planned for the autumn of 2016.
The PHWC subgroups now cover the following areas: Welfare: Enhancing pig welfare • Pig Meat Food Safety: Enhancing pig meat food safety • Disease Surveillance: Improving preparedness •
The antimicrobials subgroup plans to deliver the following in 2016:
•A completed set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) as a guide in the eventuality of a PEDv outbreak
•C ontinued testing and monitoring of all porcine diarrhoea samples through APHA for suspect PEDv
•D elivery of an epidemiological database in the event of a PEDv outbreak
• T he completion of a fully functioning disease charter within Pig Hub
•M aintaining open, global communication channels, to promote exchange of knowledge and to ensure the latest understanding of the disease situation.
There has been much discussion of the topic in the context of ‘One Health’ and there is now increasing pressure on the pig industry to be more accountable for its use of antibiotics.
“AHDB Pork aims to deliver tools and resources to producers and the wider industry which assist in achieving the aim of improving pig health and reducing antibiotic use by the UK pig sector. ” Draft EU legislation proposes a requirement for total usage data of antibiotics, by member state, and the PHWC antimicrobials subgroup has been leading the development of a data collection system in conjunction with the VMD. The group has also been looking at research into new areas of management to allow for more judicious antibiotic use and also delivery of evidence-based best practice to help minimise the dependency on antibiotics.
•
pplied research trials to assist in a more judicious A approach to antibiotic use as well as identifying gaps in the current research
Advice in the form of practical steps which can be used • to reduce reliance upon antibiotics while maintaining productivity and mitigating additional costs. AHDB Pork aims to deliver tools and resources to producers and the wider industry which assist in achieving the aim of improving pig health and reducing antibiotic use by the UK pig sector. These resources need to be practical and not burdensome to the producer, and AHDB Pork will continue to work with key producer groups and consult the wider industry throughout the process.
46 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
Welfare AHDB Pork has committed to enhancing welfare in the English Pig industry. Its aim in this area is to help pig producers comply with existing and emerging legislation and achieve recognition for progress made. The welfare activities in 2015-2016 continued to centre on support for welfare outcome assessments. In July, AHDB Pork, together with AHDB Dairy, was asked to appear as a hearing expert to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), sharing our collective knowledge on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare. It was testament to the progressiveness in the English pig industry as no other country, nor industry, has embraced the concept more. It was clear that animal-based measures, such as those used in Real Welfare, are likely to play an increasingly important role in risk assessments on a European level.
“It was testament to the progressiveness in the English pig industry as no other country, nor industry, has embraced the concept more.” Closer to home, the main focus of day-to-day activities has continued to be on the Real Welfare Assessment Scheme. Just under 10% of all individual pigs slaughtered in the UK are being assessed under this scheme. It has been operational for three years, and it is exciting to have reached a stage where a solid baseline can be reported. This has real value in supporting the industry, particularly as a tool in export negotiations, given the demand for high welfare pork from abroad and the natural focus to Britain.
“AHDB Pork trains new vets in the Real Welfare protocols and an online refresher training…” AHDB Pork trains new vets in the Real Welfare protocols and an online refresher training, for those trained three years ago, is being rolled out.
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 47
Through the Pig Health and Welfare Council welfare subgroup, AHDB Pork is also involved in finding solutions to freedom around farrowing, good practice in on-farm euthanasia and provision of water for piglets over two weeks of age. The latter can be a challenge for outdoor producers in particular, and the welfare team is working closely with both the KE managers and the NPA to support development of a workable solution where needed. Beyond the farm gate, AHDB Pork commissioned exploratory research into the commercial application of a potential new stunning system for pigs: low atmosphere pressure stunning (LAPS). LAPS essentially simulates induction to a high altitude, low oxygen environment, which has the potential to humanely induce insensibility before slaughter. Initially developed for poultry and in commercial use in the USA, it looks promising for use in the pig industry in the future, subject to substantial development and regulatory approval. While, if borne out, this method may have welfare advantages, it is important that other industry requirements, such as line speed and meat quality, are fully taken into account at the earliest opportunity. This is why AHDB Pork commissioned the review.
Prevention of tail biting and associated tail management are integral to the work of AHDB Pork and, in the past year, we have joined forces with a number of industry partners to further knowledge on this topic. In particular, AHDB Pork and the RSPCA administered a survey to pig farmers on their opinion of risk factors to tail biting. The questionnaire was written by Professor Anna Valros from the University of Helsinki, Finland, and simultaneously sent out to Finnish pig farmers. Tail docking is prohibited by law in Finland, therefore, it is hoped that comparing opinions of farmers in both countries will yield useful information. Early in 2016, the Finns hosted a delegation from the European commission to showcase their whole-tail husbandry methods.
Identifying the current knowledge relevant to the development of low atmosphere pressure stunning (LAPS) as a humane commercial system for slaughtering pigs. Research partner: Silsoe Livestock Systems Sponsor: AHDB Pork Duration: 2016 Aims and objectives: • To investigate the current stage of knowledge about LAPS and related fields (such as the use of inert gases with pigs, poultry and rodents) by the study of the key published and grey literature sources and discussions with the current researchers in this field
• To investigate the available relevant knowledge about depressurisation in the aerospace industry and its effects on pilots, through a study of the literature and arranged meetings with key researchers
• To investigate the potential carcase and meat quality issues and identify potential control measures through study of published and grey literature
• Industrial visits and meetings to investigate the practical and logistic requirements of the UK pig industry including those of obtaining EU approval for LAPS. The research, although on-track, had not been completed at the time of writing.
48 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 49
Environment and buildings Activity continues to be based upon the key aspects of the AHDB Pork business plan as follows:
AHDB Pork has also been involved in discussions regarding the update of the BREF (Best Available Techniques) reference document. The draft has been approved and will become legally binding during the first half of 2016.The next stage will be to develop training activities to explain the key aspects to the industry.
Running a business support service to advise on aspects • relating to buildings and the environment in order to reduce environmental impact and to comply with relevant environmental legislation and planning Monitoring, interpreting and helping to inform • environmental policy and regulations in both the UK and EU
•
Capturing the progress made by the English pig industry with regard to sustainability of the industry and contribution to the Government’s greenhouse gas and ammonia emission targets.
Environmental Permitting (EPR/IPPC) The Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) [formerly the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive] aim to reduce pollution from industrial activity by controlling emissions. This means that indoor pig keepers with over 2,000 finisher pig places (above 30kg) or 750 sow places (including served gilts) on a site are required to obtain a permit from the Environment Agency (EA).
Ventilation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As part of the support package for producers, AHDB Pork has produced a series of ventilation videos for the Practical Pig App. Narrated and demonstrated by a ventilation specialist, the videos show practical management techniques related to maintaining ventilation systems, with the aim of optimising pig production.
The Greenhouse Gas Action Plan (GHGAP) sets out how the agricultural industry in England is responding to the challenge of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. It shows a commitment to tackling climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by three million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year from 2018-2022.
Other available resources include:
“The GHGAP is one of a range of initiatives already helping farming produce more while impacting less on the environment.”
• Providing pigs with good ventilation in straw-bedded general purpose buildings (booklet)
• Ventilation factsheet (Action for Productivity 21) • Ventilating Pig Buildings Guide: an in-depth guide to understanding the principles of ventilation, including farm case studies demonstrating how to overcome typical problems.
AHDB Pork continues to provide:
•
Bespoke on-farm workshops for farm managers and stock workers to help them understand their responsibilities and how to avoid non-compliances and fines. The workshops cover subjects such as typical permit breaches, site and accident management plans and how to deal with odour complaints
•
Support to complete the application form, including supplying templates for all the necessary supporting documentation
•
G uidance in helping producers understand the EA’s ammonia screening tool outputs and how to design buildings/production systems to be able to operate below the new set limits.
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability of the English Pig Industry
Organisations from across the industry have been involved in developing the GHGAP, including AHDB. Further work on this important strategic area will include various activities with which AHDB Pork is already engaged and which contribute to resource efficiency across levy-payers businesses.
pork.ahdb.org.uk
Resource efficiency
Ventilating Pig Buildings
Further work on resource efficiency for levy payers has included collaboration with the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), the Co-operative Food and its pork supplier, Tulip, on a project to identify savings in the pork supply chain. Whole chain collaboration has delivered significant savings. The aim of the project was to pinpoint hotspots of material use, greenhouse gas emissions, water and waste, and then to find ways of using fewer resources without compromising commercial performance. A case study has been produced which focuses on five of the hotspots identified and highlights successes and good practices.
Providing optimum living conditions for pigs
Feedback
Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock
“The training was worthwhile – can we pay you for it? The EA were impressed that we had organised such an event and we are sure it helped with our inspection”. Anonymous producer
K11300_Pigs building pages-v6.indd 1
18/02/2016 10:36
Growing populations, income gains and urbanisation have made livestock one of the fastest growing sub-sectors of agriculture. Ensuring that the continuing demand for livestock products does not increase pressure on natural resources and contributes to socially desirable outcomes, however, will require further adjustments and improvements in sector policies, governance and investments.
A Global Agenda, led by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO) in Rome, focuses on the improvement of resource use efficiency in the global livestock sector to support livelihoods, long-term food security and economic growth, while safeguarding other environmental and public health outcomes, factoring in regional differences and linking to other related initiatives as appropriate. AHDB Pork has been contributing to this work by highlighting the success of the English Pig Industry in terms of driving sustainability and reducing its impact on the environment, as reported in the ‘Environmental Impacts of English Pork Production – The 2011 Roadmap ‘Advancing Together’’ and the updated version ‘Advancing Together’ (January 2014). The latter shows a significant improvement in the impacts of pig production on the environment.
50 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 51
Solubles (W-DDGS) and other co-products
Reducing ammonia and odour emissions
• To identify the limitations associated
AHDB Pork is looking for ways to ensure English pig producers are equipped with the knowledge and technology they need to comply with new reduction targets for ammonia emissions. One such system is pH reduction of slurry, which is being used on farm in Denmark and formed part of an AHDB Pork-funded study tour programme. The Danish pig industry has been subject to some of the strictest environmental legislation in Europe since the mid1980s. These rules include fixed limits on the number of animals which can be kept in relation to the land available for slurry spreading, in addition to detailed rules on slurry storage and its application. As a result of these regulations, about 75 of the 3,800 pig units, and 72 dairy farms, in Denmark have installed systems to reduce the pH of slurry, helping to lower odour and ammonia levels. The technique is based on proven science and can reduce ammonia emissions by up to 65% and odour by up to 43%.
with feeding W-DDGS
• To identify routes to improving nutritional value of DDGS
• To test the modified and improved DDGS products using ruminant and non-ruminant species
• To quantify the overall benefits of DDGS production on reducing diffuse pollutants and enhancing home-grown protein production.
It is the regular flushing of the pits which is fundamental to the reduction of emissions. The entire system is run by a computer and, therefore, requires no additional labour input once it is set up and working. Other benefits of the system include:
•
•
The reduced level of ammonia released from the slurry means that the ammonia within the pig buildings is depleted, which has both health and productivity benefits for both the livestock and the staff working in the buildings The number of flies is often reduced which can help with biosecurity
A significant reduction in ammonia and odour being • released from slurry stores. Danish producers claim that they achieve emissions of only 1%, which means that slurry stores do not need to be covered, this results in substantial cost savings
•
“The systems contribute to a 65% reduction in ammonia emissions and 43% reduction in odour from pig housing.” The system adds sulphuric acid to separated slurry until the pH stabilises at 5.5. It then gets pumped back into the pit which is located in the pig house to a depth of 180mm, where it remains for 1-2 days while the pigs dung into the pit. The pH is never allowed to rise above 6.0. The slurry is then let out of the pit and, in cases where additional odour reduction is required, goes through a slurry separator, or alternatively, goes back to the tank for more acid to be added so that the process can begin again.
Findings to date: The results of the work indicate that w-DDGS may be used at up to 300g/kg (30%) in balanced, pelleted diets, for growing and finishing pigs from 40kg liveweight to slaughter, without adversely affecting pig performance or carcase quality
• W-DDGS is a potential home-grown substitute for other protein sources, such a soya bean meal, rapeseed meal and sunflower meal
• While the bulk of this work concentrated mainly on pelleted diets, the w-DDGS needs to be finely ground to ensure homogeneous mixing when used in meals
• It is vital that the quality of the material, in terms of its digestible nutrient content, is known and that this information is fully utilised in the diet formulation process to balance amino acid levels
• W-DDGS production could substitute 389kt of soya bean meal and, therefore, spare 150kha of land area.
Aims and objectives: • To develop a calculator to build awareness and understanding of how physical performance and farm management decisions on the use of resources (including land), determine environmental impacts and associated economic impacts To show how a user-friendly, computer-based Calculator • can be used in AHDB’s interactions with UK farming and supply chain businesses, to investigate the outcomes from possible changes that might be made to farming systems To commission the development of the tool to better • understand and, thereby, inform discussions with Government departments and other important stakeholders. The tool: Is based on a library of default data and user-modifications, • allowing users to explore the effect on resource use efficiency of changes in farming practice that might arise from government strategy or technical innovation
• Enables comparisons of scenarios by a trained user Provides outputs in a form that can be easily used to explain • It is not expected that the tool will enable individual farm businesses to make management decisions, but does provide an indication.
Seven articles have been published in the farming press as a result of the study tour organised by AHDB Pork and a photo story is available on the website.
The tool will be used by specifically trained AHDB staff to provide outputs of benefit to government policy makers, strategic decision-makers in businesses throughout the agri-food chain, and farmers, through interpretation by a knowledge transfer agent (e.g. AHDB knowledge exchange teams). The tool is in the process of being tested across the sectors.
Environmental and nutritional benefits of bioethanol co-products (ENBBIO) The ENBBIO LINK project was a collaboration involving 25 industry and academic partners, sponsored by Defra through the Sustainable Livestock Production LINK programme.
Aims and objectives: To quantify the chemical composition of UK wheat Dried Distillers Grains with
Project duration: 2013 - 2015
the effects of the scenarios to non-technical audiences.
Available nitrogen and phosphorus in the slurry is increased and the addition of sulphuric acid means there is a sulphur benefit, so less fertiliser is required for use on arable crops.
Project duration: 2010-2015
AHDB Environmental and Agricultural Resource Efficiency Tool (EAgRET)
A conference entitled ‘The Future of Feed – New Advances in Co-products For Pigs’ was held in April 2015 to disseminate the findings of this project.
52 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 53
Development of novel technology for boar taint detection to assist with the production of taint-free pork Research partners: University of the West of England
Pork safety and product quality There are many regulations that govern general food hygiene in abattoirs and cutting plants, but there are further rules and regulations for meat. Food business operators must also comply with strict animal health and welfare regulations. The fourth point of the AHDB Pork 5-Point Plan addresses the area of Safe and Traceable pork. We aim to help farmers and processors produce pork that continues to be safe and which consumers are confident about the traceability from farm to finished product. AHDB Pork aims to:
•
Support the pig meat supply chain in producing wholesome pork products with safety, provenance and integrity along the whole chain
•
Promote the use of the SIRA (Stable Isotope Reference Analysis) tracing tool through the meat supply chain
•
W ork with RUMA and PVS to encourage responsible use of antimicrobials, and improve the on-farm recording of such use
• • •
Help industry implement the changing Trichinella testing regime, and ultimately, seek ‘negligible risk’ status for England P rovide the Secretariat for the Pig Health and Welfare Council’s Food Safety group C hallenge government to meet their obligations regarding providing post-mortem data to producers, and work with them to find the best method to do this
•
Work closely with government departments to understand and address levels of zoonosis in the pig herd
•
Communicate research findings and updates to the end user, via workshops, seminars and newsletters.
Sponsors: AHDB Pork-funded studentship (Kelly Westmacott), JSR Genetics Duration: 2014-2018 Aims and objectives: To fully characterise a UWE patented measurement system for abattoir use, which will be able to simultaneously determine the taint compounds
• To provide rapid results to prevent tainted meat reaching the consumer
• To assist research into taint prevention methods:
• Genetic selection • Vaccination
• Dietary manipulation • Other potential strategies
• To ultimately improve customer satisfaction and increase competitiveness of the UK pig industry.
Findings to date:
• G ood progress towards the validation of a novel technology to measure boar taint compounds has been achieved with fresh and frozen pork samples obtained from both a breeding company and British retailers
• Skatole and androstenone concentrations in adipose tissue were determined using both the novel sensor and the validation method (gas chromatography)
• T he concentrations of the two compounds measured by gas chromatography correlate well with those obtained using the novel sensor
• Regular updates are published in the Pig Abattoir Newsletter and findings to date will be published later in 2016.
• T he impending 2018 EU voluntary ban on castration will result in more entire male pigs on the market, therefore this technology remains vital to prevent consumer dissatisfaction.
Validation of automated screening for pathologies at abattoir Research partner: Tulip Ltd Sponsor: AHDB Pork Duration: 2014-2017 Aims and objectives: To validate and develop effective knowledge exchange for the outputs from a parallel project which will:
• D evelop and deploy multi-camera recording infrastructure that enables capture of images of carcases
• Acquire image data sets and have experts annotate pathologies in these images
• Develop and refine algorithms/software that can automatically recognise pathologies
• Validate these algorithms on large-scale datasets and disseminate results to relevant users. Findings to date:
• The computer programme has been ‘taught’ to recognise different pathologies that can be present on offal
• T he programme can map offal and distinguish between different parts
• A dditional cameras are being added to provide a 360º view of offal and carcases and to improve picture quality.
Production efficiency The English pig industry has a variety of production systems, including indoor and outdoor units, straw-based and slatted accommodation. This makes the industry quite different from our global counterparts and AHDB Pork aims to narrow the technical performance gap between English pig producers and our competitors.
The contribution of oocytes and follicular fluid to pig fertility Research partners: The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh Sponsors: AHDB Pork-funded studentship (Selene Jarrett) Duration: 2014-2018 Aims and objectives:
• To identify differences in the molecular composition of follicular fluid as a result of a high fibre diet
• To identify nutrition dependent molecular mechanisms involved in blastocyst development
• To optimise oocyte maturation environment in vitro and in vivo. Findings to date:
• Studies were carried out to identify differences in the protein content of fluids from pigs fed a control diet and pigs fed a high fibre diet, and on fluids from fertile and non-fertile pigs
• Over 140 differentially expressed proteins were detected between the control and high fibre porcine follicular fluid samples, indicating a nutritional influence on protein composition
• Several of these proteins were also differentially expressed in the fertile versus non-fertile analyses, suggesting that nutritionally altered porcine follicular fluid protein composition may affect later fertility. It is hoped that the outputs from this work could influence and refine the feeding regimens of female pigs on commercial units prior to mating, to improve their reproductive performance.
54 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 55
Sorting pigs at weaning in order to reduce variability and improve the efficiency of pig production systems Research partners: Newcastle University Sponsors: AHDB Pork-funded studentship (Anne Huting) Duration: 2014-2018 Aims and objectives:
•
To reduce variability within pig groups through management and by doing so improve the efficiency of production systems
•
T o investigate the consequences of different management strategies on lifetime performance of light, normal and heavy pigs
•
To develop cost-effective feeding regimes.
Limited results are available at present, however, initial findings suggest that:
•
Piglets that are born small perform better in uniform litters, whereas piglets that are born heavy perform better in mixed litters
The trials are run across a range of different facilities, from large commercial production sites to dedicated university and college research farms. This allows data to be captured from both commercial, real world environments and also more sensitive trials to be run in dedicated trial facilities. .
Completed field trials Optimising the potential of the small pig through the implementation of best practice in the farrowing house Aims and objectives: To examine the cost/benefit of best practice farrowing house management on a large, commercial site. Findings: Early indications are that, in the current financial climate, there is little significant benefit from best practice routines, such as employing additional staff to monitor and intervene in farrowings overnight. A full report, including costings, will be published once the output has been more thoroughly analysed
Outdoor farrowing tent Aims and objectives: To increase the production potential of outdoor farrowing by providing more control at farrowing time. The trial: Three outdoor units have been using differing designs of a farrowing tent. The designs vary from a tent with dedicated farrowing pens incorporated into the design, to one tent overarching 12 traditional farrowing arcs. Sows had individual farrowing paddocks for outdoor access and were individually fed. Findings: The first round of the trial is near completion, with a second generation design in progress. The aim is to have this tent on farm before September 2016 with the goal of solving issues that have been identified in the first generation designs. Physical performance results are being analysed and will be available soon for areas such as weaning weight and weight gain. More pros and cons are highlighted below.
Pros
Cons
Producers report reduced straw usage.
Storing straw in the tents could attract rats, although this hasn’t caused any issues to date.
Staff enjoy working in the tents in the winter/harsher weather as they are out of the elements.
The tents are difficult and time-consuming to move.
The tents with the individual farrowing pens could make providing creep, and/or water, to piglets far easier than in conventional arcs, pending some design alterations.
When tents are moved, the farrowing paddocks have to be taken down and moved individually for each sow space. As the shape and size of these can vary, this can make fencing with traditional materials time-consuming.
The AHDB Pork field trials programme is a series of on-farm experiments aimed at solving herd performance problems.
Once a standard operating procedure Was put in place and tailored to the tent, producers reported reduced mortality.
They are protocol-based, scientifically robust and are driven by adaptation of global knowledge. Some smaller-scale trials are run as proof of concepts or initial investigations into new technologies/best practice.
If an individual farrowing pen within a tent becomes flooded, the sow has to be moved, rather than simply moving the arc as would happen in a conventional system.
Producers report that it is safer to work with piglets in the farrowing tents than in traditional outdoor systems as the sows can be shut out.
•
Creep feed supplementation does not contribute to an improved performance pre-weaning
•
C reep feed consumption is highly variable, both between and within litters.
Field Trials
“Field trials are run on several farms for each problem area identified and are funded 100% by AHDB Pork.” Topics for field trials are largely proposed by the regional forums, whose role it is to inform AHDB Pork of current and future production issues on farm. However, applications from individuals are welcome and should be submitted via their regional AHDB Pork KE manager.
Weaning is quicker as sows can be shut out and piglets collected into a passageway for removal.
The tents have proven to be significantly cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter than traditional farrowing arcs (both painted and unpainted).
A significant increase in both weaning weight and weight gain in the tents vs conventional arcs has been demonstrated on several occasions.
56 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 57
Investigating the effects of varying space allowance on the performance of growing-finishing pigs Aims and objectives: To investigate the effect of increased space allowance for growth. The trial: The trial was conducted at a university research site. Pigs were housed at different stocking densities using three varying space allowances: 0.68, 0.77 and 0.85m2 . Pigs were monitored over five batches from nine weeks through to slaughter. Findings: There was no significant impact of the varying space allowances on performance as a whole. However, Table 27 shows the significant variation between the smallest space allowance (0.68m2) and the largest space allowance (0.85m2) during two-week periods.
Table 27: Variation in daily liveweight gain (DLWG) of pigs housed at different stocking densities
DLWG increase (g/day)
Total additional growth (g)
9-11
11.13
156
11-13
NS*
NS*
13-15
31.63
443
15-17
30.99
434
17-19
NS*
NS*
19-20
67.90
951
Age (weeks)
Total
1,983 Note: *NS means there was no significant difference in DLWG during that time frame.
The pigs housed at the lower stocking density (0.85m2 per pig) experienced a growth benefit of approximately 2kg; the value of this additional growth is £45.16 per pen of 20 pigs (February 2016 prices). At the higher stocking density (0.68m2 per pig) the pen finishes an additional five pigs per batch, meaning that for the £45.16 gain in revenue at the lower stocking rate, there is a £588 loss in revenue per pen per batch by providing the additional space. There is, therefore, no financial net gain from providing additional space in this case. The trial is scheduled to run on a large-scale commercial site in spring/summer 2016.
“There is, therefore, no financial net gain from providing additional space in this case. The trial is scheduled to run on a large-scale commercial site in spring/ summer 2016.” Investigation of the effect of allocating 50% and 100% more feeder space on the performance of weaner/grower – finisher pigs Aims and objectives: To investigate the effect of doubling feeding space for growth. The trial: The trial has been run on two dedicated research sites, one with flat-deck weaner accommodation and one with slatted grower-finisher accommodation, allowing 600, 900 and 1,200mm of trough space per pen of 25 pigs. Findings: No significant impact was observed on production parameters (DLWG and FCR) in the flat-deck system. No significant impact on DLWG was observed in the slatted accommodation either during the whole period from nine weeks of age through to slaughter, nor between any individual weighing (every two weeks during this period).
On-going Field Trials Supplementation with omega-3 PUFA and effects on reproductive performance of sows Aims and objectives: To address seasonal infertility and increase piglet viability. The trial: This is a long-term (>12 months) trial running across two dedicated research facilities. There are two groups of sows, control and treatment. The treatment sows will be supplemented with a commercially available source of omega-3 for one full gestation and lactation period. All sows are being monitored throughout the period of supplementation (both treatment and control) and during the following gestation and lactation, to determine whether there is any carry-over effect of the supplementation. Expected benefits: The goal of this study is to improve numbers born alive and increase piglet survivability by 2%. Findings to date: One unit has farrowed all sows through the first part of the trial (the supplemented phase); the next stage is to farrow sows in the carry-over stage of the trial. The second unit is due to finish farrowing the supplemented sows in late spring 2016. An interim report on the initial findings will be produced and published late spring/early summer 2016.
The effect of different metabolic status of sows during gestation and lactation on subsequent performance of sows and piglets Aims and objectives: To address variable weights and body condition at farrowing and to improve sow longevity and lifetime performance. The aim is to find a quick and easy method of quantifying a sow’s metabolic status on farm. The trial: The trial has been delayed due to issues sourcing a unit with the necessary facilities, however, the intention is to run this project for two months in summer 2016 and to have completed a report by early autumn. The trial will focus on the use of easily applied tools (flank tapes and a sow calliper) for measuring metabolic status, weight and P2. These measurements will be compared and any correlations between them reported upon. Expected benefits: A 10% increase in sow efficiency.
Evaluation of ultra-high frequency (UHF) electronic ear tags to optimise marketing strategies on farm Aims and objectives: To undertake a feasibility analysis to test the practicalities of using UHF technology on farm, integrating this data into existing management systems (on farm and at the abattoir) and using this data to inform better management decisions. The trial: The trial is looking at individual tagging of piglets so that performance data can be tracked on a pig-by-pig basis throughout the production system. Crucially, the project has also involved co-operation with a large-scale abattoir in which a UHF tag reader has been installed. This allows slaughter data to be sent back to the farm and attributed to individual pigs. Expected benefits: The development of a low cost tagging system, allowing the integration of both on-farm and abattoir data, could mean that, for farms running day-to-day trial work, such as comparing rations, performance from different buildings or vaccination programmes, the data could be easily and automatically collected and assimilated into one place. The easier collection and assessment of data and the ability to attribute it to specific animals would make carrying out on-farm cost benefit analysis a relatively simple and powerful exercise. The benefits of UHF tags over alternative, readily available, tags include:
• •
C onsiderably reduced cost (30p vs £1.40)
•
E asier to read from a further distance.
E asier to read in bulk, i.e. scanning a group of pigs will return all tag numbers
Findings to date: A standard operating procedure (SOP) has been developed for using the system, the key features of this include:
•
Tagging should be carried out when the piglets are first processed, i.e. day 1 or 2
• •
T he same ear should be tagged for all pigs The male part of the tag should be positioned on the outside of the ear for improved retention rates.
By following the SOP, more than 95% of tags have been retained and were readable at the abattoir.
58 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 59
Establishing ammonia emission factors for strawbased and slatted finishing pig buildings and evaluating improved ventilation systems Aims and objectives: To collect and evaluate data for ammonia emission levels within pig sheds.
Blue lighting Aims: To look at the impact of predominantly blue light, produced by LEDs, on pigs in grower/finisher and weaner accommodation.
The trial: Ammonia concentration in the inlet and exhaust air is being measured using an ammonia analyser. In addition, the number of pigs, weights, feed intake, protein content of diets, ventilation rates, external and internal temperatures and relative humidity are also being recorded. Expected benefits: More accurately quantified ammonia emissions will assist producers in obtaining consents and permissions for new buildings and in making investment decisions. Findings to date: An optimum specification for a fieldwork analyser • has been determined A second ammonia analyser, based on the specification, • has been developed and deployed on farm A robust SOP for installing sensitive equipment onto farms • has been developed.
The trial: One weaner room and one grower/finisher room were equipped with commercially available blue LED light panels and pig performance was monitored.
Evaluation of a carcase cooling container Aims: To evaluate the operation and performance of cooling containers for the on-farm storage of dead pigs (fallen stock) in England. The trial: Two carcase cooling containers have been installed on trial sites. The carcase cooling containers are fitted with a mains-powered refrigeration unit, connected with a 16amp plug. The temperature inside and outside the container is recorded to monitor performance and each of the containers has been fitted with a meter to monitor the exact energy consumption. Expected benefits: Potentially improved biosecurity and carcase quality for enhanced marketable yield of products derived from rendered material following storage. Findings to date: Since the initial findings, which showed that the cooling • containers kept the contents of the bin between 2 - 7°C, even when the external temperature reached 30°C, the variation in temperature has been reduced by 45% Fewer collections are necessary due to the fact that • producers on the trial farms are using a bigger bin than previously and because the bins do not get as smelly Producers, their staff and the collectors approve of the • bins as they are less smelly and have fewer flies Electricity use was in the region of 80p per day during the • summer period and less during cooler times of the year. Further information: http://pork.ahdb.org.uk/environmentbuildings/fallen-stock/carcase-cooling/
Findings to date: Performance data has been variable; one of the batches with LEDs performed better than average for the unit while another batch performed less well. While the amount of data available from this small-scale trial does not allow for any significant relationships to be established, it is evident that the blue lights do not negatively impact the pigs.
“…it is evident that the blue lights do not negatively impact the pigs.” Staff working with the pigs have indicated that those housed in the rooms with LEDs appear relaxed and more humanised, as a result they can be more difficult to move. Expected benefits: This topic is likely to be a focus for the innovation team in the future as it could represent an opportunity for low cost, easily installed, technology which can have a positive impact on farm.
Future Field Trials Environmental Particle Ionisation Environmental particle ionisation (EPI) has been developed in the USA. A high voltage, low amperage, current is connected to a corona bar, this imparts a charge to microbial, gas and dust particles in the atmosphere, causing them to fall to the ground where they are no longer available for inhalation by stock or staff. The trial: The trial will involve installing the EPI equipment in one finishing room (fully slated) on a commercial scale research unit and monitoring environmental microbial pathogens (E.coli and Salmonella), dust and ammonia, alongside some odour sampling. Pig performance (DLWG and FCR) will also be monitored on a pen level basis. The trial will run from March to September 2016. Expected benefits: Should the technology prove effective, it could lead to an improvement in both livestock and staff respiratory health and pig performance. It may also offer a more cost-effective alternative to air scrubbing equipment; the cost of air scrubbing is in the region of £2.50 per pig produced, based on the equipment having a working life of 15 years. By using EPI, the cost is reduced to around 24p per pig produced, over the same time period. Figures will vary depending on the size and throughput of installations.
60 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016
Notes ‘A growing English pig production and primary processing industry’ Vision ‘To help English pig production and processing businesses become more competitive and profitable’ Mission
While the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, operating through its AHDB Pork division, seeks to ensure that the information contained within this document is accurate at the time of printing, no warranty is given in respect thereof and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board accepts to liability for loss, damage or injury howsoever caused (including that caused by negligence) or suffered directly or indirectly in relation to information and opinions contained in or omitted from this document. © Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) 2016. All rights reserved. AHDB Pork is a division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. For more information and advice contact: AHDB, Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, CV8 2TL Telephone: 0247 647 8792, email:
[email protected] or visit www.ahdborg.uk
