Throughput

Transcrição

Throughput

Production management that delivers results
Rafael Kummer, Phd.
Master Company - Brazil
PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Brazilian Top 10 players
RANK
COMPANY
# SOWS
1
BRASIL FOODS
450.000
2
AURORA (COOP)
150.000
3
MARFRIG/SEARA
115.000
4
DOUX FRANGOSUL
33.000
5
PAMPLONA
25.000
6
MASTER AGROPECUARIA
21.000
7
COOP CASTROLANDA
15.000
8
COSUEL
12.000
9
COOPERCAMPOS
12.000
10
COPAGRIL
10.000
1
Master Agropecuária – Overview
•  Founded: April, 29th 1994 (Family Company)
•  Business: production of pigs for reproduction and slaughter in partnership
•  Company structure
-  21.000 sows (6 farms)
-  2 boar studs (150 boars)
-  2 feed mills
-  190 partners
-  270 employees
• Target for 2011: 600.000 wean pigs (28,4 P/S/Y)
Business point of view - BTW
Site I
21%
Síte III
62%
Síte II
17%
2
Managing BTW
Throughput
Productivity
Cost
Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime
Throughput
Productivity
Cost
3
Throughput
Productivity
Cost
Cost of production
2010 2011 25,93 12,99 3,90 1,89 3,12 1,81 0,65 0,56 0,68 0,32 27,53 14,08 3,48 3,15 2,91 1,70 0,67 0,63 0,59 0,31 Wean Pig (1 U$ = 1,7 R$) Feed DepreciaDon (faciliDes + animals) Med + Vaccin Labor General ProducDon Cost Environmental cost Semen Received cost Feed + semen transportaDon U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ Sow feed / wean pig (kg) Number of pigs weaned Average wean weight Kg weaned KG 7,2 CAB 133.188 KG 5,8 772.290 VAR % 6,8 146.644 6,0 887.191 6,2% 8,4% -‐10,9% 66,3% -‐6,6% -‐6,5% 3,9% 13,0% -‐12,9% -‐0,7% % PART 100,0% 51,1% 12,6% 11,4% 10,6% 6,2% 2,4% 2,3% 2,2% 1,1% -‐5,3% 10,1% 4,3% 14,9% PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
4
Cost of production
2010 2011 25,93 12,99 3,90 1,89 3,12 1,81 0,65 0,56 0,68 0,32 27,53 14,08 3,48 3,15 2,91 1,70 0,67 0,63 0,59 0,31 Wean Pig (1 U$ = 1,7 R$) Feed DepreciaDon (faciliDes + animals) Med + Vaccin Labor General ProducDon Cost Environmental cost Semen Received cost Feed + semen transportaDon U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ U$ Sow feed / wean pig (kg) Number of pigs weaned Average wean weight Kg weaned KG 7,2 CAB 133.188 KG 5,8 772.290 VAR % 6,8 146.644 6,0 887.191 % PART 6,2% 8,4% -‐10,9% 66,3% -‐6,6% -‐6,5% 3,9% 13,0% -‐12,9% -‐0,7% 100,0% 51,1% 12,6% 11,4% 10,6% 6,2% 2,4% 2,3% 2,2% 1,1% -‐5,3% 10,1% 4,3% 14,9% PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Sow depreciation
((Value per gilt bred – Value per sow culled) + added cost) / Wean pigs per sow culled
Average sow parity at culling Wean pigs per farrow Wean pigs per sow culled Value to depreciate -‐ U$/sow Gilt cost Sow value Value to be depreciated per sow culled Value to be added per death sow Value to be added per gilt not bred DepreciaDon per wean pig 3,6 11,2 40,9 $72,65 $238,00 $209,44 $15,57 $24,00 $4,52 $1,78 PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
5
Throughput
Productivity
Cost
Productivity – PSY (system monthly average)
30.0
29.0
28.0
27.0
26.0
25.0
24.0
May-14
Jun-14
Jul-14
Aug-14
Sep-14
Oct-14
Nov-14
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
6
Born alive vs. parity (49.305 farrows)
12.4
12.30
12.2
12.0
12.21
12.19
11.93
11.96
11.79
11.8
11.60
11.6
11.4
11.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Today distribution per parity
12.4
12.30
12.2
12.0
12.21
12.19
11.93
11.96
11.79
11.8
11.60
11.6
38%
11.4
42%
20%
11.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
Objective (improve 0,3 to 0,4 PSY)
12.4
12.30
12.2
12.0
12.21
12.19
11.93
11.96
11.79
11.8
11.60
11.6
38%
11.4
>50%
<10%
11.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Throughput
Productivity
Cost
8
Throughput
2010 Number of pigs weaned Average wean pig weight Kg weaned CAB 133.188 KG 5,8 772.290 2011 146.644 6,0 887.191 VAR % 10,1% 4,3% 14,9% 13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67
Number of pigs weaned per week
Throughput
9
Performance according to parity
OP 1
OP 5
Adotados de OP 5
Biológicos de OP 1
8 - 24 h
Adotados de OP 1
1,2 - 1,6 kg
Biológicos de OP 5
Bierhals et al. Non published data
Performance according parity
Parity
Piglets
Fostering
7d
14 d
18 d
1
Adopted
1434,5 a
2528,6 a
4072,0 a
5051,7 a
1
N adopted
1423,7 a
2558,6 a
4078,6 a
5061,9 a
5
Adopted
1443,3 a
2845,5 b
4803,4 b
5900,9 b
5
N adopted
1450,8 a
2819,6 b
4782,2 b
6047,0 b
Bierhals et al. Non published data
10
Throughput
Source: C. Moore, 2005 – London Swine Conference
Parity retention importance
•  Decrease cost of production
•  Increase productivity
•  Increase throughput
•  Improve pig quality at weaning
11
What do we want as a system
1.  > 50% of sows from P3 to P5.
2.  Reduce replacement rate to 43-47%.
3.  We need to improve voluntary culling vs. involuntary.
How do we manage
1.  Looking at retention per parity.
– 
– 
– 
– 
Select to breed > 90%
Breed to P1 > 95%
P1 to P2 > 90%
P2 to P3 > 90%
2. Looking at voluntary vs. involuntary culling.
Voluntary: productivity or age
Involuntary: all other reasons
12
What are big challenges
Birth – Selection – Breed – P1 – Breed – P2 – Breed – P3
>70%
What are the key points we believe
•  Have the right boars on boar stud;
•  Have the right number of gilts available to select;
•  Have a specialist doing selection;
•  Do a good job on puberty stimulation;
•  Breed gilts by weight;
•  Feed based on body condition score - avoid fat animals;
•  Watch for food and water during first lactation;
•  Have 1 person responsible for culling;
•  Make groups in gestation of problem animals every 2 weeks;
13
Project: improving performance
selecting the right pure line animals.
•  Farm Master VII:
–  5.500 animals.
–  2.500 L02 females.
–  Internal nursery and grower – no animals entering
the unit from outside.
–  Genetic improvement through boars
•  When we should start selecting the replacement gilt?
•  Should we not tag low birth weight animals?
•  Does parity of the mother sow impact subsequent performance?
•  Can we manipulate diet during growth to improve sow longevity?
14
•  Project A:
–  Start: December, 2009.
–  Identified 1525 L02 gilts at birth – EBV, boar/sow, sow
parity, litter information.
–  Individual weight at birth, weaning, end of nursery and
selection 155 d.
–  Record information off test – culling/death.
–  Objective: to follow these animals up to parity 3.
274 litters
7 culled
1525 gilts
Litter size
class
Weight at birth
class
Light
Medium
Heavy
Small
Medium
Large
(530-1200 g)
(1205-1600 g)
(1605-2535 g)
(7 a 11 pigs)
(12 a 13 pigs)
(14 a 19 pigs)
15
Liter size at birth Birth weight, g 7-11 12-13 14-19 530-1200 1205-1600 1605-2535 Birth weight, g/d
1417 ± 7,9A 1400 ±
GR, g/d
184,9 ± 2,9 188,3 ± 2,5 187,6 ± 2,3 174,9 ± 3,2a 188,4 ± 1,9b 197,4 ± 2,5c Nursery GR, g/d 420,8 ± 4,4 423,1 ± 3,7 418,4 ± 3,6 406,8 ± 4,9a 421,3 ± 2,9b 434,1 ± 3,8c Finisher GR, g/d 876,0 ± 8,2 887,6 ± 6,5 883,8 ± 6,5 850,2 ± 9,0a 892,9 ± 5,1b 904,2 ± 6,7b Age at select, d 158,5 ± 0,5 158,6 ± 0,4 157,6 ± 0,4 161,0 ± 0,6a 157,7 ± 0,3b 156,0 ± 0,4c GR at select, g/d 627,4 ± 4,8 634,1 ± 3,9 632,0 ± 3,8 605,1 ± 5,3a 637,8 ± 3,0b 650,7 ± 4,0c BF at select, mm 11,4 ± 0,16 11,4 ± 0,13 11,4 ± 0,13 11,5 ± 0,17 11,5 ± 0,10 11,3 ± 0,13 B.Exp-puberty, d 17,3 ± 0,8 16,7 ± 0,6 18,7 ± 0,7 15,8 ± 0,9a 17,9 ± 0,5ab 18,9 ± 0,7b 1393 ± 6,3B 1013 ± 8,3a 1411 ± 5,2b 1787 ± 7,0c 6,5AB PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
105 90 75 60 45 30 15 0 Peso justado 22 (n=1379)
d, kg (n=1379) 75
Peso d
ajustado 75 d, (n=1198)
kg (n=1198) Peso 155 d, k(n=940)
g (n=940) 22
daweight
weight
155ajustado d weight
530-‐1200 1205-‐1600 1605-‐2535 1013 ± 8,3a 1411 ± 5,2b 1787 ± 7,0c PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
16
190 185,8± 1,2
184,9± 0,6
185 183,4± 0,9
180 175 170 170 ± 0,8a
166,9± 0,4b
165,1± 0,6c
165 160 155 150 530-‐1200 1205-‐1600 Agedat
boar exposure
Idade e esLmulo com macho, (n=569)
d (n=569) 1605-‐2535 Agedat
puberty d(n=504)
Idade a puberdade, (n=504) PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
Variável NV+NAT 1 NV+NAT 2 7≤x≤11 10,02a 11,32 Li_er size 11<x≤13 12,31b 11,68 P value x>13 15,42c 11,44 <0,0001 NS PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
17
Project 1 – preliminary results
•  There is a lower chance that a low birth weight L02 will reach
selection;
•  No impact on selection rate;
•  There is NO correlation between birth weight and puberty age
and birth weight and anestrous rate;
•  Evaluating subsequent performance and retention up to P3.
Conclusions
•  Everything we do is to get closer to genetic potential!
L02 total born according to Estimated Breeding Value at breeding – Master 7 (2010)
Sow L02 – EBV <31 31 a 40 41 a 50 51 a 60 61 a 70 >70 Average Total Born 10,0 11,5 12,4 12,8 13,5 14,8 12,1 # Farrows 743 674 811 622 407 261 3518 PIC Symposium 2011 | Nashville, TN
18
Take home messages
•  There is no improvement without EBV management;
•  Parity retention is key for cost, productivity and throughput;
•  Sow replacement rate > 50% is not the future;
•  Manage looking at retention by parity and voluntary vs. involuntary culling
reason;
•  Make the things easy in a routine base or will not get fully implemented.
19

Throughput

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

Livestock and Poultry: Estrus Synchronization