Page 4 - APN March 2017

Turbulent time in US and global pork markets
Kym 0439 066 054 kym@nationalfeedsolutions.com.au
Luke 0439 066 006 luke@nationalfeedsolutions.com.au
Bill 0499 009 293 bill@nationalfeedsolutions.com.au
☛ from P3
men additives are used in Australia and previous research tended to show positive outcomes gener- ally only in ‘underper- forming’ herds.
This study was con- ducted in what the au- thors termed an average performing herd in Bra- zil and the control results tend to confirm this.
While the results sug- gest using one of these might be worth investigat- ing, it’s probably best to discuss with your semen supplier and veterinarian.
There were no interac- tions with parity or sea- son.
Lactation length
We are all aware of the effects of weaning weight on pig performance to sale, but we tend to for- get the ‘natural’ variation in lactation length, which occurs within a weekly production system and how this might contribute to variation in lifetime pig performance.
Researchers in Spain in- vestigated this in a study to observe the effect of the lactation length of sows (belonging to the same batch) on the subsequent performance of piglets at weaning and at 165 days of age.
Seven hundred and two male and female cross-
breed piglets [Pietrain x (Landrace x Large White)] from 70 multipa- rous sows (parity ranging from 2 to 10) were used and individually weighed every three weeks (from birth to slaughter).
Lactation length within the group ranged from 18to22daysandhada considerable effect on the weight pigs were weaned and their weight at 165 days of age.
Results are shown be- low.
The outcome is not so surprising and the differ- ence in sale weight would be reduced if all pigs were sold at the same age, which is encompassed in the close-out strategies used by producers.
The results, however, suggest that technologies such as Ovugel and oth- ers to synchronise ovula- tion after weaning would help reduce this variation in weaning and sale age and weight, which occurs within production sys- tems.
Reproduction targets
There were several pres- entations on gestation and lactation studies, general- ly conducted within com- mercial operations.
I will report later on what new technologies were tested, but in this APN column I just want
to highlight the levels of performance being achieved.
The Danes reported the results of a study on di- etary protein levels in lac- tation on sow and piglet performance.
Sows started with 14 piglets and weaned 13.
Sow weight loss and pig- let growth performance were affected by dietary protein, as was subsequent litter size.
Subsequent total born averaged 18.5, with born alive around 16.5 – a tar- get I think is way beyond us and not necessarily de- sirable.
For US herds, total born was around 15, with born alive about 14-14.5, which I think might be achiev- able.
Sow studies
Results of one large study to monitor feed intake, growth rate and feed efficiency in group housed pregnant sows is shown in Table 3.
The study involved 712 PIC Line 1050 sows mixed on day five after mating, housed in dynam- ic groups of 260 and fed from ESFs (six per pen).
Sow weight was re- corded as sows exited the ESFs.
Gilts were offered 2kg/ day feed through to day 112 of gestation.
Older sows were offered 2.26kg/day during the same period – no sows were bump fed during gestation.
Thin sows (12 in total) were allowed 3kg feed/ day.
Feed intake, growth rate and feed efficiency were measured over different periods of gestation.
During gestation all sows failed to consume their allocated feed allow- ance during the first 10 days after mixing, but ran along their allocated al- lowance thereafter.
I will include these re- sults in my producer sum- mary of the meetings.
Feed intake in gesta- tion had little effect on lactation performance, al- though there was a small but significant positive effect of weight gain in gestation on litter size and a small significant nega- tive effect in parity three and older sows between P2 gain in gestation and litter size.
The performance of sows during gestation and lactation, as summarised in Table 3, was generally excellent and something we should aim for.
The NZ herd in our benchmarking project us- es US genetics and reports 15 total born in sows and 13.45 in gilts.
The corresponding born alive figures in 2015 were 13.73 and 12.3 respective- ly, so quite a large dif-
ference in litter size of gilts (gilt total born in the US herd was 14.8) and the BA/TB ratio between the US and NZ herds, but clearly opportunities for improvement in NZ and Australian herds.
I understand a num- ber of Australian herds achieve 14 born alive, so there is hope.
COP bashing
So, it’s an interesting time in Australia and globally and you can nev- er take things for granted.
The pursuit of efficien- cy and cost reduction is ongoing and may be in need of acceleration in Australia.
The summary of the US meetings will be with you soon.
Meanwhile, I remind all producers, once again, to keep working at reducing COP.
www.porkcrc.com.au
Variations in feed costs and additives significantly impact cost of production.
Trait
Mean
Range
Parity:
2.3
1-6
Feed intake (kg/sow in gestation)
228
181-310
Body weight gain (kg)
56.8
8-116
P2 at day 5 (mm)
16.1
8-26
P2 at day 112 (mm)
16.6
7-28
Farrowing rate (%)
95.0
0-100
Total born
14.9
1-25
Born alive
14.2
1-23
Number weaned at 23 days
13.3
0-17

new

Table 3
Lactation length (d)
18
19
20
21
22
Probability
Weight at weaning (kg)
4.54b
5.31a
5.50a
5.64a
5.53a
0.001
Weight at 15 days (kg)
93.2b
96.5ab
96.8a
98.0a
100.1a
0.004
Table 2
Changes to gestation stall standards
THE 10-year anniver- sary of the endorsement of the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs has a direct impact on pro- ducers in 2017.
The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs in- cludes one standard that is only activated after a decade.
Under the systems guidelines in the code, 4.1.5 states that ‘from 10 years after the endorse- ment of the Code, a sow must not be confined in a stall for more than six weeks of any gestation period’.
An exception is noted – any individual sows that are under veteri- nary advice or special care by a competent stockperson.
The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs has been ratified through NSW, Western Austral- ian, Queensland, Victo- rian, South Australian,
and Tasmanian legisla- tion.
This means that the standard around gesta- tion stalls will be a le- gal obligation for all pig producers from April 20, 2017.
The exception is for NSW, where it will be- come a legal obligation on July 1, 2017.
Some states and terri- tories have already leg- islated these provisions or provisions requiring even shorter confine- ment times in stalls for gestating sows.
The delayed activation of this standard was in- cluded to ensure that pro- ducers had enough time to alter their production systems to comply.
Twenty-four percent of commercial sow sites, which cover 71 percent of all commercial sows, are already meeting the optional APIQP Gesta- tion Stall Free standard and Customer Specifi- cations for supply stand- ards (confined in a stall
for no longer than 24 hours).
This standard requires gestation stalls to be used for no longer than five days after last mat- ing.
For more information on APIQP standards and certification, visit apiq.com.au
Sixty-four percent of sites and around 24 percent of commercial sows need to be aware that the legal expecta- tions around gestation stalls have changed and they may not be com- pliant.
A review of the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs is commencing in 2017.
For further informa- tion about the change or if you have any con- cerns, contact Deb Kerr, General Manager Policy at Australian Pork Lim- ited on 02 6270 8803 or email deb.kerr@aus tralianpork.com.au Meaghan Clack
Page 4 – Australian Pork Newspaper, April 2017
www.porknews.com.au