1 / 37

Production management that delivers results

Production management that delivers results. Rafael Kummer, Phd . Master Company - Brazil. Brazilian Top 10 players. Master Agropecuária – Overview. Founded : April , 29 th 1994 ( Family Company ) Business: production of pigs for reproduction and slaughter in partnership

kami
Download Presentation

Production management that delivers results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Production management thatdeliversresults Rafael Kummer, Phd. Master Company - Brazil

  2. Brazilian Top 10 players

  3. Master Agropecuária – Overview • Founded: April, 29th 1994 (FamilyCompany) • Business: productionofpigs for reproductionandslaughter in partnership • Companystructure • 21.000 sows (6 farms) • 2 boar studs (150 boars) • 2 feedmills • 190 partners • 270 employees • Target for 2011: 600.000 weanpigs (28,4 P/S/Y)

  4. Business point of view - BTW

  5. Managing BTW Throughput Productivity Cost

  6. Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime Throughput Productivity Cost

  7. Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime Throughput Productivity Cost

  8. Cost of production

  9. Cost of production

  10. Sow depreciation ((Value per gilt bred – Value per sow culled) + added cost) / Wean pigs per sow culled

  11. Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime Throughput Productivity Cost

  12. Productivity – PSY (system monthlyaverage)

  13. Born alive vs. parity (49.305 farrows)

  14. Today distribution per parity 38% 42% 20%

  15. Objective (improve 0,3 to 0,4 PSY) 38% >50% <10%

  16. Managing BTW – looking at sow lifetime Throughput Productivity Cost

  17. Throughput Number of pigs weaned per week

  18. Throughput

  19. Performance according to parity OP 1 OP 5 8 - 24 h Adotados de OP 5 Biológicos de OP 1 1,2 - 1,6 kg Adotados de OP 1 Biológicos de OP 5 Bierhals et al. Nonpublished data

  20. Performance according parity Bierhals et al. Nonpublished data

  21. Throughput Source: C. Moore, 2005 – London Swine Conference

  22. Parity retention importance • Decrease cost of production • Increase productivity • Increase throughput • Improve pig quality at weaning

  23. What do we want as a system • > 50% of sows from P3 to P5. • Reduce replacement rate to 43-47%. • We need to improve voluntary culling vs. involuntary.

  24. How do we manage • 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

  25. What are big challenges Birth – Selection – Breed – P1 – Breed – P2 – Breed – P3 >70%

  26. 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;

  27. 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

  28. Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals. • 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?

  29. Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals. • 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.

  30. Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.

  31. Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.

  32. Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals. 22 d weight (n=1379) 75 d weight (n=1198) 155 d weight (n=940)

  33. Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals. Age at puberty (n=504) Age at boar exposure (n=569)

  34. Project: improving performance selecting the right pure line animals.

  35. 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.

  36. Conclusions • Everything we do is to get closer to genetic potential! L02 total born according to Estimated Breeding Value at breeding – Master 7 (2010)

  37. 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.

More Related