Chapter Seven: SPLIT-SEX AND PHASE FEEDING

Transcription

1 Chapter Seven: SPLIT-SEX AND PHASE FEEDING T. R. Cline, Kenneth Foster, Chris Hurt, and Jeffrey Hale The Technology Consumers want leaner pork, and feed costs dominate total costs of production. Each of these issues provides strong arguments for split-sex and phased feeding, and combined their argument is very powerful. The purpose of this chapter is to explore two options for implementing split-sex and phase feeding in smaller operations. Split-Sex Feeding Male and female pigs develop differently after reaching 50 to 70 pounds of weight. Barrows tend to overconsume on energy. Therefore, barrows usually gain weight faster than gilts. However, they tend to gain muscle, or lean, at a slower rate than littermate gilts. For that reason, barrows require lower levels of amino acids (protein) in the diet than gilts to optimize lean growth. This is demonstrated in Figure 7-1, where the lysine requirement of gilts is shown to be about 10% higher than littermate barrows. % Lysine Lysine Requirements for Barrows and Gilts Gilts Barrows Weight Figure 7-1 In order to have the most efficient whole-herd feed conversion, it is recommended that market hogs be separated by sex by the time they reach seventy pounds and fed different diets. It is further recommended that in order to reduce stress the pigs actually be separated at weaning if facilities allow. However, separate nursery feeds are not required. Barrows of different genotypes consume between 4 and 16% more than littermate gilts. In order to determine the correct diets to feed, carcass data needs to be collected on the market herd in order to calculate the exact diets and quantity of feed required. On average gilts need to be fed diets with 14 to 15% higher lysine to calorie ratios. Since farrows tend to over-consume energy, fat should not be added to their diets beyond 200 pounds of weight. 101

2 Phase Feeding On each day of a pig s life, the protein requirement of that pig is different from the day before or the day after. This fact is illustrated in Figure 7-1, where the lysine requirement is shown as a line that is downward sloping for both barrows and gilts. While lysine is illustrated, other nutrient requirements change in a similar fashion. Changing the diets fed to hogs each day would be cost prohibitive. However, changing the diet several times in the course of the hog s life in order to better match nutritional requirements to the specific sex and to the specific nutritional needs will improve the efficiency of lean gain. Implementation It is assumed in this analysis that the maximum improvement in feed conversion possible, when a split-sex and phase feeding program, or SSPF, is implemented, is 12%. For example, if the current feed efficiency is 3.5 pounds feed per pound gain, then 3.08 is the most efficient ratio possible with the implementation of SSPF technology. The two scenarios presented in this chapter are designed to provide examples of both what requirements to add SSPF in a smaller operation and some possible economic gains from implementation. Also explored in these models are the costs associated with SSPF adoption. The basis for the alternatives presented in this chapter is the 150 sow low technology system, presented in Chapter 6. The 150 sow low technology system is assumed to be designed with the capacity to feed only one diet to all hogs in the finishing stage of production. This technology constraint is illustrated in Figure 7-2. In the figure, one bin and only one feed distribution system are modeled. 150 Sow Low Technology: Finishing Feed System Existing Feed Feed Disrtibution Tube FINISHER Switching from feeding one diet to multiple diets requires modification of the feed delivery system. The two models presented in this chapter represent different levels of investment in the conversion and consequently different levels of performance adjustment. Details concerning the two models, called SSPF 66 and SSPF 90, are presented in the next several paragraphs. Figure

3 The SSPF 66 Model - Three Diets The first split-sex and phase feeding model, SSPF 66, provides the ability to feed three diets in finishing. This is accomplished by adding a second feed bin to the existing one, splitting the feed distribution tube, and connection all four with a sorting box. The splitting of the feed distribution tube allows each side of the room to be fed different diets, barrows fed on one side, gilts on the other. The sorting box is designed to couple the two bins with the two distribution tubes, and to provide the ability to switch which bin feeds into each distribution tube. The feed system modification is shown in Figure 7-3. It is estimated that the addition of this equipment and the ability to feed three diets will provide 66% of the possible 12% change in feed efficiency. This 8% improvement changes the feed efficiency from 3.5 pounds of feed per pound of gain in the 150 sow low technology system to 3.25 in the SSPF 66 model. Sort Box Additional Equipment Required for SSPF 66 Existing Feed Feed Figure 7-3 Feed Disrtibution Tube FINISHER In order to capture the feed efficiency improvement outlined above, the additional equipment described earlier must be purchased. Table 7-1 outlines the number of items required and cost of the equipment required for the adoption of the SSPF 66 model. Table 7-1: Equipment Required for the Conversion to SSPF 66 Quantity Cost Investment Six Ton Feed 1 $900 $900 boot 1 $150 $150 Concrete Pad 1 $150 $150 Power Unit 1 $300 $300 Sort Box 1 $100 $100 Auger (per foot) 15 $10 $150 Total $1,

4 The SSPF 90 Model - Four Diets The second split-sex and phase feeding model, SSPF 90, allows the producer to convert the 150 sow low technology system to feed four diets to the pigs in the finishing stage of production. This is made possible by the addition of three feed bins, a sort box, and distribution tubes. The ability to feed four diets is assumed to provide the operation with 90% of the possible 12% improvement, or a 10.8% change in feed efficiency. The original feed efficiency was 3.5; after the improvement the assumed feed Table 7-2: Assumed Feed Efficiencies 150 Sow Low Tech System SSPF 66 SSPF efficiency is pounds feed per pound of gain. A side-by-side comparison of the feed efficiencies for the 150 sow low technology system, SSPF 66, and SSPF 90 is shown in Table 7-2. Additional Equipment Required for SSPF 90 Current Feed Feed Distribution Tube Sort Box FINISHER Figure 7-4 A graphical depiction of the conversion of the 150 sow low technology system to SSPF 90 is presented in Figure 7-4. In the figure, those lines represented with dashes signify existing equipment. Table 7-3 presents the quantities and costs of the equipment required to make the SSPF 90 conversion. 104

5 Table 7-3: Equipment Required for the Conversion to SSPF 90 Quantity Cost Investment Six Ton Feed 3 $900 $2,700 Boot 3 $150 $450 Concrete Pad 3 $150 $450 Power Unit 3 $300 $900 Sort Box 1 $100 $100 Auger (per foot) 54 $10 $540 Total $5,140 Results Shown in Table 7-4 are the costs of production figures for the 150 sow low technology system and the two SSPF models. Both of the models where the SSPF technology was adopted lowered the cost of production when compared with the 150 low technology model. The SSPF 66 alternative lowered cost by $1.42 per hundredweight, and the SSPF 90 alternative by $1.79 per hundredweight. Table 7-4: Comparison of Estimated Cost of Production ($/cwt) 150 Sow Low Technology SSPF 66 SSPF 90 Direct Cost $25.33 $23.78 $23.38 Indirect Cost $22.55 $22.52 $22.52 SSPF Investment $0.00 $.06 $0.19 Total Cost $47.88 $46.36 $46.09 Cost Lowering Versus Base $1.52 $1.79 With this reduction in cost, how long would it take to recover the initial investment? Assuming marketing hogs at 245 pounds, it would require about 500 head marketed to recover the initial investment of the SSPF alternative. The more costly conversion to the four-diet system in SSPF 90 would require about 1,200 hogs marketed. These relatively small numbers indicate a quick potential pay back. In fact, given these returns, producers would want to make the investment in the three-diet, SSPF 66 alternative. This can be quickly demonstrated with an example. Assume a 1,000 head finishing building with three turns per year. Further assume that the equipment needed to move to multiple diets would last at least five years. The feed cost savings in the SSPF 66 alternative would be $55,860 ($1.52 lower cost * 2.45 cwt * 15,000 hogs). The return above the initial cost of the equipment conversion is $54,160 ($55,860 - $1,700). 105

6 Alternatively, for the conversion to the four-diets, SSPF 90 alternative, the reduction in the cost of feed in five years would be $65,782 ($1.79 lower cost * 2.45 cwt * 15,000 hogs). The return over the initial cost of equipment conversion is $60,642. While this is an incomplete financial analysis, it points to selecting the alternative which will lower costs of production the most. However, this may not be true for small operations marketing 100 to 200 hogs per year. Budgets for the two split sex and phase feeding alternatives are shown in Table 7-5 and Table 7-6. Table 7-5: Cost of Production for SSPF 66 Item Unit Quantity Price Value/ltr Value/cw Value/hd t Direct Charges: Corn bu Soybean Meal ton Other Feed cwt TOTAL FEED Herd Health dol Fuel & Utilities dol Marketing dol Miscellaneous dol Mortality Disposal dol TOTAL DIRECT Indirect Costs: Investment Charge Market Inventory dol % Breeding Inventory dol % Equipment dol % Buildings dol % Land dol Labor dol. 30, Management dol. 7, TOTAL INDIRECT SSPF Renovations dol % TOTAL COST

7 Table 7-6: Cost of Production for SSPF 90 Item Unit Quantity Price Value/ltr Value/cw Value/hd t Direct Charges: Corn bu Soybean Meal ton Other Feed cwt TOTAL FEED Herd Health dol Fuel & Utilities dol Marketing dol Miscellaneous dol Mortality Disposal dol TOTAL DIRECT Indirect Costs: Investment Charge Market Inventory dol % Breeding Inventory dol % Equipment dol % Buildings dol % Land dol Labor dol. 30, Management dol. 7, TOTAL INDIRECT SSPF Renovations dol % TOTAL COST