Emphasis on Profitability in Pig Production

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume 95, Issue 6, 16 December 1957, Page 575

Emphasis on Profitability in Pig Production

1957 Pig Carcass Competitions

SOME outstandingly high-quality teams were again exhibited in the North Island Porker and Baconer Carcass Competitions in 1957. The number of entries was somewhat lower, in keeping with reduced killings, but over-all quality was well maintained and the entries from the Wellington Province were markedly improved. In this review by A. Longwill, Superintendent, Pig Industry, Department of Agriculture, Wellington, it is emphasised that those who have continued to interest themselves in the growth-rate section of the competitions are, on the whole, demonstiating a high level of efficiency of production. EDUCED entries but a high level of quality in the prizewinning pigs, an increased proportion of those entering in the growth-rate section who. were able to achieve the qualifying standards, and some particularly good performances of teams from the pumice country were features of the 1957 series of pig carcass competitions sponsored by Messrs. W. & R. Fletcher (N.Z.) Ltd. The entries comprised groups of 4 pigs, each carcass being individually appraised and team points allotted on the following scale: TABLE I—POINTS SYSTEM USED IN COMPETITIONS Maximum points Porkers Baconers Measurement Body length . . .. 20 20 . ■ Backfat: Shoulder .. 10 10 Loin . . .. 15 20 Balance of side ..5 5 Eye appraisal Hams .. .. .. 15 15 Shoulders .... 10 10 Development of loin . . 10 10 Belly thickness .. 5 5 Marketing points .. 10 5 Total carcass points .. 100 100 Team points Evenness of weight ..10 10 Conformation .... 10 10 Total carcass points (4 carcasses) .. .. 400 400 Carcass quality max. per team .... .. 420 420 Growth-rate, points per team .. .. .. 100 100 Max. points for growthrate section .. .. 520 520 Excellent Quality The leading teams in the competitions were again of excellent quality with the champion baconer team from

Messrs. Hooper Bros., Gisborne, scoring a record 369 for carcass. The best porker teams were not quite up to the exceptional standard of last year’s champion team. Trends over recent years as evidenced by the points

scored by the best team in each section are shown in Table 2. It is evident that further progress is likely to be slow and will probably depend on the market offering more incentive to the production of quality carcasses. Profitable Production Until this happens it will certainly be more profitable to the individual producer to concentrate his selection of breeding stock more on the farm performance characteristics of prolificacy and litter production, growthrate, and efficiency of conversion of feed to meat.

TABLE 2—POINTS SCORED BY BEST TEAMS Carcass-quality only Growth-rate section Porkers Baconers Combined Porkers Baconers 1951 .. 342 347 680 409 405 1952 .. 343 348 678 441 429 1953 .. 350 349 674 447 398 1954 .. 353 353 686 433 442 1955 .. 352 367 696 443 463 1956 .. 373 361 730 463 454 1957 .. 360 369 711 453 452

It is significant that a higher proportion than ever of the teams entered in the growth-rate section achieved the high standard required for publication. Table 3 sets out the number of teams in each category of the growth-rate section and the percentage in each case which has qualified for publication of results which are given in Table 4. TABLE 3—ANALYSIS OF RESULTS IN GROWTH-RATE SECTION Porkers Baconers Total No. of teams entered 58 25 83 No. of teams reaching merit standard 41 14 55 Percentage of teams in section reaching this standard 71 56 66 Particulars of the breeding, date of birth, age and weight at slaughter, carcass points, total points, and percentage of possible points are given in Table 4 for the 41 porker and 14 baconer teams which qualified.

Efficient Use of Food The results included in Table 4 contain a great deal of food for thought when the profitability of production of different teams comes under consideration. Leaving out. any complications that would be introduced by different levels of meal feeding, which would not be appreciable after the weaning stage in any case, the difference in profitability can be estimated from an examination of the food required to grow pigs of average efficiency at the different rates involved. Table 5 sets out in detail the amount of food used by a pig growing at the standard rate laid down (left half of table) and by the slowest-grown teams included in Table 4. The slow-growth schedule given in the table is based on the slowest-grow-ing porker team included in Table 4 (but not the slowest-grown entry) up to 1161 b. liveweight and continued from this stage at a slower rate to reach 2001 b. at 40 weeks of age, whicTi was the performance of the slowestgrown baconer team in Table 4. This is the type of growth pattern which would be likely to promote the best possible carcass in a pig of this age, as it would result in reasonably good lean-meat development up to porker weight and avoid overfattening in the later stages of growth. However, restricting growth to the rate shown clearly results in unprofitable use of food. To reach 761 b. porker weight from the 401 b. liveweight weaner stage the normal pig uses 196 food units; the

slow-grown pig requires 269 food units from 301 b. liveweight to the same pork weight. On this basis of food use the amount and value of pigmeat which would be produced on a given amount of food and under the same housing conditions would be about: —

' £ S. d. Normal litter of 8 pigs: 6001 b. of pork @ Is. 9d. .. 52 10 0 Slow litter of 8 pigs: 4361 b. of pork @ Is. 9d. .. 38 3 0 Loss on slow growth . . 14 7 0

TABLE 4—TEAMS GAINING 70 PER CENT. OR MORE OF TOTAL POINTS IN GROWTH-RATE SECTION

The details below are given in the following order: Exhibitor; breeding of pigs; age (in days) at slaughter; average deadweight (in pounds) of 4 pigs; Carcass points; total points; total points as percentage of possible points (520). PORKERS Mrs. A. E. Wood, Whakatane; L.W.; 2/1/57; 111; 72; 354; 453; 87 A. P. Roe, Mamaku; B. x L.W.; 10/1/57; 111; 74; 340; 440; 84 N. H. Ford, Rotorua; L.W.; 6/12/56; 110; 74; 330; 430; 83 *L. F. Eustace, Hawera; L.W. x (L.W. x B.); 3/12/56; 120; 74; 359; 428 * 82 R. J. Bent, Otorohanga; L.W. x B.; 23/12/56; 114; 74; 321; 421; 81 H. E. Johnson & Co., Whangarei; L.W.; 26/1/57; 116; 75; 327; 420; 81 A. D. Aiken, Waverley; L.W. x B.; 13/2/57; 119; 76; 320; 420; 81 W. G. Bell, Ardmore; L.W.; 26/12/56; 133; 78; 347; 418 80 I. Billington, Eketahuna; L.W.; 2/12/56; 123; 93; 318; 418; 80 N. J. Alexander, Nuhaka; T. x B.; 15/2/57; 117; 76; 324; 417; 80 N. J. Alexander, Nuhaka; T. x B.; 25/11/56; 122; 77; 324; 416; 80 H. J. Billington, Eketahuna; L.W.; 1/12/56; 124; 87; 315; 415; 80 T. H. Jackson, Inglewood; L.W. x B.; 20/12/56; 118; 84; 315; 415; 80 *R. A. Julian, Kakaramea; L.W.; 8/10/56; 137; 88; 322; 412; 79 A. D. Aiken, Waverley; L.W. x B.; 7/2/57; 118; 74; 321; 411; 79 A. E. Wood, Whakatane; L.W.; 15/11/56; 131; 75; 345; 410 J; 79 A. E. Wood, Whakatane; L.W.; 6/12/56; 130; 75; 341; 408 J; 79 K. W. Jackson, Inglewood; L.W. x B.; 6/12/56; 118; 87; 307; 407; 78 H. H. Ford, Rotorua; L.W.; 6/12/56; 110; 76; 307; 406|; 78 W. G. Bell, Ardmore; L.W.; 26/12/56; 13-3; 71; 356; 406 J; 78 J. G. Black, Whakatane; L.W. x B.; 1/1/57; 133; 77; 336; 405; 78 R. G. Underwood, Puahue; L.W. x (L.W. x B.); 24/12/56; 109; 64; 316; 405; 78 A. P. Roe, Mamaku; B. x L.W. ; 9/1/57; 112; . 73; 305 ; 404 J; 78 P. Darby, Bombay; L.W. x B.; 25/11/56; 131; 74; 340; 403; 78 - J. Todd. Cambridge; L.W. x B.; 17/10/56; 124; 84; 304 ; 4014; 77 V. D. Griffin, Hexton; L.W. x (L.W. x B.); 27/10/56; 109; 93; 300; 400; 77 Hastie Bros., Te Puke; L.W. x B.; 22/10/56; 133; 75; 334; 3964; 76 D. W. Mclntosh. .Pokeno; L.W.; 23/10/56; 134; 77; 328; 394; 76 *J. W. Latham, Stratford; T. x B.; 18/12/56; 100; 73; 294; 394; 76

V. D. Griffin, Hexton; L.W. x (L.W. x B.); 27/10/56; 109; 95; 290 390’ 75 ■ Mrs. N. K. Topp, Ormond; L.W. x B.; 13/11/56; 148; 81; 340; 387; 74 I. Billington, Eketahuna; L.W.; 20/1/57; 116; 98; 285; 385; 74 D. W. Mclntosh, Pokeno; L.W.; 23/10/56; 155; 86; 340; 384; 74 H. J. Billington, Eketahuna; L.W.; 27/12/56; 126; 94; 282; 382; 73 Hastie Bros., Te Puke; L.W. x B.; 22/10/56; 142; 74; 340 ; 380 J; 73 H. A. and A. D. Aiken, Waverley; L.W. x B.; 19/1/57; 122; 70; 308 ; 380 * 73 R. J. Bent, Otorohanga; L.W. x B.; 12/12/56; 112; 74; 280; 377; 73 . Powell Bros., Howick; L.W. x B.; 8/1/57; 148; 76; 341; 372; 72 P. Darby, Bombay; L.W. x B.; 8/10/56; 142; 72; 335; 370; 72 Powell Bros., Howick; L.W. x B.; 8/1/57; 151; 77; 339; 3684; 71 B. R. Green, Turua; T. x B.; 11/10/56; 146; 105; 268; 364;.70 BACONERS H. E. Johnson and Co., Whangarei; L.W.; 28/11/56; 175; 148; 352; 452; 87 Mrs. S. E. Edwards, Dannevirke; L.W. x L.B. ; 30/6/56; 193; 152; 333; 433 ' 83 H. A. and D. A. Aiken, Waverley; L.W. x B.; 20/8/56; 171; 148; 319; 419; 81 *L. F. Eustace, Hawera; L.W. x; 3/12/56; 190; 135; 332; 409; 79 I. Billington, Eketahuna; L.W.; 16/8/56; 175; 137; 309; 408; 78 N. J. Alexander, Nuhaka; T. x B.; 7/9/56; 201; 146; 325; 406; 78 H. A. and D. A. Aiken, Waverley; L.W. x B.; 10/8/56; 181; 139; 308; 405; 78 W. G. Bell, Ardmore; L.W.; 29/8/56 ; 210; 139; 349; 404; 78 K. Edwards, Dannevirke; L-W. x B.; 28/8/56; 172; 150; 301; 401; 77 A. D. Aiken, Waverley; L.W. x B.; 1/8/56; 183; 149; 299; 399; 77 I. . Billington, Eketahuna; L.W.; 16/8/56; 175; 145; 295; 395; 76 G. Edwards, Dannevirke; L.W. x L. 8.; 30/6/56; 187; 157; 284; 384; 74 Fowell Bros., Howick; L.W.; 1/7/56; 213; 145; 315; 375; 72 Hooper Bros., Muriwai; L.W. x T.; 22/8/56 ; 280; 143; 369; 369; 71 ' * Whey feeder.

When the extra labour and overheads associated with slow growth are taken into consideration the true loss with the slow litter compared with the normal would be about £2 per pig.

For the very slowly grown baconer team taken as an example the uneconomic use of food is even more serious. At slaughter this team was 3 months older than standard. On a given food supply which would produce 10001 b. of pigmeat from a litter on the normal growth-rate a litter grown at the slow rate would produce only 6451 b. This arises from the fact that as the animal grows the food required merely for maintenance of body-weight, exercise, and vital functions increases. If weight gains are small, the food cost of these gains is large, because the maintenance requirements of the pig loom too large in the total feed intake.

At the other extreme too-rapid fattening is undesirable because it results in the production of too much fat in proportion to lean in the carcass. The advantage of profitable conversion of food to meat in the more rapid growth, at least up to the level of the standard growth-rate, will be seen from the following calculation: — £ s. d. 10001 b. of pigmeat @ Is. Bd. 83 6 8 6451 b. of pigmeat @ Is. Bd. 53 15 0 Loss on slow growth .. 29 11 8 Under faster than normal growth it is possible that 1001 b. extra carcass weight could t be produced from the same food supply. The value of this, if all prime grade, would be £8 6s. Bd. If, however, in achieving this rapid growth all the pigs of the litter were graded down, with a penalty of 2d. per pound, the advantage would be wiped out. However, a good type of baconer pig should be able to achieve normal growth-rate without becoming overfat. From what has been said in this section it is clear that the failure of the trade generally to find a method of paying premiums for quality leaves the logical, businesslike farmer no

The details below are given in the following order: Exhibitor; breeding of pigs; points (possible: baconers and porkers 420 each, combined 840). BACONERS W. G. Bell, Ardmore; L.W.; 355 B. Bolstad, Pahiatua; L.W.; 354 E. Russell, Waiuku; L.W.; 351 R. K. Robb, Woodville; B. x L.W.; 343 Cook Hospital, Gisborne; L.W. x; 340 Mrs. B. Bolstad, Pahiatua; L.W.; 336 PORKERS L. M. and R. J. Harper, Reporoa, L.W.; 360

option but to concentrate on selecting and managing his pigs to secure more rapid growth-rate and to place carcass

TABLE CARCASS QUALITY POINTS ONLY. TEAMS SCORING 80 PER CENT. OR MORE OF POSSIBLE POINTS AND COMBINED TEAMS SCORING 75 PER CENT. OR MORE OF AGGREGATE POINTS

W. D. Hope, Te Puke; B.; 350 R. J. Mountford; L.W.; 348 Mrs. N. K. Topp, Gisborne; L.W. x B.; 340 Hooper Bros., Gisborne; L.W. x T.; 336 COMBINED W. G. Bell, Ardmore; L.W.; 711 Hooper Bros., Gisborne; L'.W. x T.; 705 *L. E. Eustaee, Hawera; L.W. x; 691 H. E. Johnson and Co., Whangarei; L.W. ; 679 B. Bolstad, Pahiatua; L.W. ; 670 *R. A. Julian, Kakaramea; L.W.; 640 * Whey feeder. quality on a much lower level of priority. Under such market conditions carcass competitions which do not take farm profitability into account have little value in encouraging improvement in farming efficiency. For this reason the competitions under review are valuable, as the information obtained from the growth-rate section entries proves that efficient feed conversion and carcass quality (which together make up efficiency in pig production) can be combined by good commercial management. Weight Suitability It has been pointed out in previous reviews of carcass competitions that throughout the baconer weight range there is a tendency for carcasses as they increase in weight to become overfat. Conversely the lighter carcasses tend to score better on length. Optimum weights ranged from 1361 b. to 1501 b. in the competition under review, but for the coming year this has been revised to 1261 b. to 1501 b. in sympathy with the preference expressed in commercial price schedules for lightweight baconers. The author considers the change undesirable for the following reasons: —

1. There is some evidence from a small - scale consumer - preference survey that, offered the choice of the same proportion of lean to fat in rashers from heavy (1501 b. and light (1381 b. baconer carcasses, the majority of consumers preferred rashers from the heavier side. 2. Curing costs per pound are higher on the lighter sides. 3. Encouragement given to the production of the lighter carcass, both by the present commercial schedules and the lowering of the optimum weight range for competition points, will undermine breeders’ and industry leaders’ efforts to produce better bacon-type pigs. Carcass Only Results Table 6 contains particulars of teams which achieved a score of 80 per cent, of the possible points for carcass, but on which it is not possible to make any comments regarding the merit of the performance because no information is available on farm performance and there is therefore no knowledge of whether or not pigs were profitable to the producer.

401b. Weaner 301b. Weaner Live- Live301b. Weaner Equivalent Food dead- units for Average liveweight Live- gain Equivalent Food dead- units for Average liveweight gain LiveFood Equivalent units for deadAverage Equivalent liveweight dead- gain Average liveweight Food gain units for Age weeks weight weight Ib./day period weight weight Ib./day period 10 .. ‘ 55 1.1 30 40 0.71 23 12 71 1.1 40 51 0.79 25 14 .. 88 58 1.2 48 63 0.86 35 16 . . 106 71 . 1.3 56 76 0.93 42 18 . . 124 85 1.3 ' 62 89 59 0.93 48 20 . . 143 100 1.4 68 102 68 0.93 52 22 . . 162 115 1.4 73 116 79 1.0 55 24 . . 181 130 . 1.4 77 128 88 0.86 57 . 26 . . 200 145 1.4 82 140 97 0.86 59 28 150 105 0.71 60 30 158 111 0.60 60 32 166 118 0.60 61 31 175 125 0.60 62 35 184 132 0.60 63 38 192 139 0.60 64 40 200 .. 145 0.60 65 Total food units .. . 536 831

TABLE 5—FOOD REQUIREMENTS OF PIGS OF AVERAGE GROWTH ABILITY FED ON A NORMAL AND A LOW PLANE OF NUTRITION