British pig expert John Gadd took a hard look at
North American hog production, made comparisons
with farms in the U.K., Holland and Denmark, and
concluded that European producers could not stay in
business. The advent of U.S. food corporations,
massive pig enterprises buttressed by British
genetics and know-how plus cheap corn and soybeans
gave American production an immense competitive
edge. 
Or did it? Renowned for his optimism, Gadd went to
work on a mountain of statistics and found that
competition at a profit was possible assuming
current input costs were cut at least 20 per cent,
preferably 30 per cent. From this bench mark he
matched calculations against records collected from
his clients. 
Throwing conventional wisdom to the wind, he made a
startling discovery: those ultra-large litters were
no guarantee of success. Two producers averaging
29.7 market pigs a year, nudging the astronomical
30, averaged a profit of nine per cent. But there
was a better return of 11 per cent for several
clients reporting 27 pigs. And as the number
dropped below this point, profit actually climbed.
Thus, hundreds of clients averaging 25.1 had by far
the best bottom line: 15 per cent. Those at 22 per
sow dropped quickly to one per cent, while
tail-enders at 17 probably will be out of business,
he predicted. 
At a meeting at Thames Bend Farms in Oxford county,
Gadd lamented that the experts have their
priorities wrong. The goal is not pigs per sow but
profits per sow, and those going into the
stratosphere of 30 face the economic law of
diminishing returns. Commercial family farmers
cannot live on the glory of huge numbers; only
profits feed the family and please the bank
manager.
Why this apparent contradiction? Those with 27-plus
offspring spent too much time with the mothers and
their offspring - at the expense of growing hogs.
Gadd's analysis found that drug costs were high,
especially in the area of curbing respiratory
sniffles, while gradings tended to yield slightly
lower quality bonus points.
He concludes that producers seeking
super-productivity (more than 25 a year) have
become "breeding junkies," while forgetting the
real cost of saleable meat per tonne of feed. Their
output flow tended to be cyclical, so there were
occasional unused farrowing crates plus
over-crowding when weanings peaked. "That's why
profits were only nine per cent... but that's a lot
better than breaking even or losing money."
Cutting costs by 20 per cent is not a dream, he
stressed. The goal in Europe is weaning 24 piglets
per litter and a 2.4 feed conversion in finishing
barns. Some of his clients already are doing this,
and studies show that with the latest genetics
commercial herds can reach 220 pounds in 120 days.
"This is done under near-perfect conditions but pig
company animals or young sows from top Ontario
breeders go to market in 140 days... So I'm not
talking eyewash."
His own North American observations conclude that
most farmers "fritter away" 55 per cent of their
genetic potential as a result of poor barn
ventilation, using "cheap" feed that does not match
nutrition values to the animal's real needs, and
unnecessary health costs. "Just solving these - and
usually it's no more than a simple adjustment -
gives you your 20 per cent." 
What of other cost-cutting measures? There is a
difference of 70 pounds of feed between Ontario's
top one-third and the lower two-thirds.
Additionally, four per cent of the average feed
wastage can be trimmed to 1.8 merely by using
new-type feeders. Theoretically, there can be an
18-per-cent cost reduction by using home-mixed
rations but careless formulations cut this to an
average one per cent. "Maybe it's not worth taking
this route."
Adopting phase- and split-sex feeding chops four
per cent from the feed bill, and with Ontario's
"pretty terrible" nurseries a dramatic improvement
would give "unbelievable responses." 
Gadd notes British studies show that drugs stored
at recommended temperatures and in the right area,
total barn costs - assuming they have not lost
their potency in clearing up health problems - are
shaved 1.5 per cent; it's a better return than
routine veterinarian visits at one per cent. Full
use of artificial insemination (AI) lowers costs
two per cent.
 Wet feeding weaners shaves another one per cent,
feeder rations another one per cent, and 0.03 from
lactating sow feed. Again, elementary networking
clips another 0.5 per cent from costs. "And I've
not included the benefits of SEW in barns with
deteriorating minimal disease standards," said
Gadd.
When management is tightened in all these areas,
production costs have been slashed 35 per cent.
"And I've met good farmers who say they can't do
much better... A lot of rubbish. Think how much
better they could do."  - JP

   

back