Ag Connection
Your link to the Universities for ag extension and research information


Volume 7, Number 3
March 2001
 

 

This Month in Ag Connection

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[This Month in Ag Connection] [Ag Connection - Other Issues Online]

Effect of Sorting and Mixing Strategy on Pig Growth Performance

An often misunderstood swine management practice affecting swine performance is the social environment or interaction of pigs within and between pens. Social environment in a building is difficult to change because pig flow was determined by the facility's original design. Typically, pigs have been sorted in an attempt to optimize growth rate, make efficient use of available space, ensure pig health, and reduce pen weight variation.

Sorting By Weight
A Canadian study evaluated weight variation at market of weaning pigs which were sorted into either a high weight variation (20 lbs.) or a low weight variation (10 lbs.) treatment. The results indicate that the low weight variation in a pen was not maintained through finishing. The social strife in a pen appears to be the greatest between pigs of similar weight because the hierarchy structure of the pen is possibly pushed to increase variation until social order is established.

Sorting By Sex
Producers have begun sorting pigs by sex to reduce feed costs and better match nutrient supply with requirements. Barrows grow faster, eat more and have higher nutrient requirements than gilts. While research has shown split sex feeding does not impact market weight variation in a pen, it does decrease cost of gain.

Sorting By Litter
It is known that mixing pigs results in more aggression, which ultimately affects the productivity for at least the following 2 weeks. One way to maintain familiarity is to keep litters of pigs together at weaning. However, studies have shown no differences in performance due to the number of pigs coming from the same litter within the same pen.

The data suggests that the wean-to-finish response is a nursery phase response with no difference in growth performance between the housing (wean-to-finish) and mixing during the growing-finishing phase. Those pigs housed in a wean-to-finish building did have a lower coefficient of variation at market weight or when the first pig was removed from the pen, which could result in better market premiums or less sort loss applied by the packer.

Wean-to-Finish Technology
The objective behind the development of wean-to-finish facilities was to minimize the moving and resorting of the growing pigs between the nursery and finishing phase. Earlier wean–to–finish research has only looked at the impact during the nursery period on growth performance. The research concluded that pigs housed in wean-to-finish housing systems were slightly heavier in body weight at the end of the 8 week nursery period compared to pigs weaned into a conventional nursery. However additional research has shown little improvement in subsequent grow-finish performance.

An experiment was conducted evaluating the following four housing treatments:

1) Wean–to-Finish (WF) into 2.4 x 4.3 m pens (15 pigs/pen)
2) Double stock wean-to-finish (Same pen)
3) Double stock wean-to-finish (Move to new pen)
4) Nursery (N)

Table 1
Effect of Wean-to-Finish
Housing Systems on Growth Performance

Item Wean-to
Finish
DS –
Same
DS –
Move
Nursery
Initial wt. (lb.)

63.14

59.18

59.18

60.94

ADG (lb/d)

1.87

1.89

1.84

1.85

ADFI (lb/d)

5.07

5.04

5.00

5.04

FE

.812

.823

.812

.810

% Lean

51.5

51.6

51.3

51.6

CV within pen

9.3

10.4

11.3

10.5

Conclusion

The research referenced indicates the best method to sort or mix a group of pigs at weaning is whatever minimizes labor requirements and maximizes the pig flow through facilities. There appears to be no lasting impact of mixing or sorting on nursery or grower pig performance. Sorting by sex can improve feed efficiency and reduce feed costs. Regrouping pigs for the finishing phase should be avoided.

(Author: Marcia S. Carlson, State Swine Nutrition Specialist, University of Missouri Columbia) 


[This Month in Ag Connection] [Ag Connection - Other Issues Online]

Taxation Tidbits:
Financing Retirement for Farmers and Other Small Business Owners

Everyone knows it is best to begin funding retirement accounts early in life, however, financial planning for retirement is one of those topics that gets more lip service than action. Too frequently, the funds for investments into retirement accounts just aren’t available. School loans must be paid off, investments to be made in the business, the family needs to replace a car or house, and the expenses of helping the children with their college education. Suddenly, at about 50 years of age with retirement looming in the future, people begin to seriously invest for retirement. The obvious limitation is the short investment time frame. The IRS Code contains two investment vehicles that farmers and other small business owners should consider: 1) SEP “Simplified Employee Pension” and 2) SIMPLE “Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employers”. Both of these retirement investment vehicles provide for greater tax-deductible contributions than traditional IRAs (Individual Retirement Arrangements).

  SEP “Simplified Employee Pension”

This is a plan under which the employer makes contributions directly to IRA accounts for employees and themselves. However, the contribution limits are significantly greater than with a traditional IRA.

Employees who must be covered by the plan:

attained age 21,

performed service for the employer during at least 3 of the immediately 
preceding 5 years, and

received at least $450 in compensation for the current year (2000).

Contributions:

are the lesser of $30,000 or 15% of compensation
(adjusted net income for the self-employed) and

only the employer can contribute to this account.

Other important considerations:

While distributions from this plan must begin when participants 
reach the age of 70, sole proprietors, partners, and 
corporate employees can continue making contributions regardless of age.

The deadline for establishing and funding a SEP is the due date 
of the employer’s income tax return, including extensions.

  SIMPLE “Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employers”

This retirement vehicle provides for substantial salary reduction of employees. SIMPLEs may be established by employers with 100 or fewer employees who earned compensation of $5,000 or more in the prior year.

Employees who must be covered by the plan:

employees that received at least $5,000 in compensation during any two 
preceding years and

are reasonably expected to receive at least $5,000 compensation during 
the current year.

Contributions:

Employee can voluntarily put up to 100% of their compensation into the 
plan up to a maximum of $6,000 per year.

Employer must match employee contribution dollar for dollar up to 3% of
compensation for employees who elect to participate in the plan. Or the 
employer can elect to contribute 2% of compensation to all eligible 
employees.

Maximum total contribution to employee account is $12,000 per year.

Other important considerations:

A SIMPLE plan must be established before October 1st for the contributions 
in the current year.

Employer has flexibility of reducing the eligibility “length of employment” 
and “income level”.

A SIMPLE plan offers medium income earners the ability to contribute a 
greater dollar amount to their account since the salary reduction is not 
based on a percentage of compensation.

A SIMPLE plan avoids high percentage employer matching cost 
responsibility while providing employees with substantial latitude for 
contributing toward their retirement.

(Author: Parman R. Green, UO&E Farm Business Mgmt. Specialist)


[This Month in Ag Connection] [Ag Connection - Other Issues Online]

Variation in Feed Nutrient Levels

All feedstuffs can have considerable variation in actual nutrient levels versus book values. The chart below illustrates this variation for by-product feeds. You should have a nutrient analysis of your feed if significant amounts of by-product feeds are going to be included in a diet.

The cause for concern is that there is no one particular feedstuff, traditional or by-product, that is balanced in all nutrients. For example, corn gluten feed is known for being low in calcium and high in sulfur. This imbalance can cause a condition referred to as induced polio. In the chart below, the local sample was considerably higher in sulfur than was listed in book value (local sample Ca =0.03; S = 0.45 vs. NRC Ca = 0.36; S = 0.23 percent). In this case you would need to feed more calcium or feed less of the corn gluten feed.

    

Ca
%
P
ppm
Mg
%
Na Fe Zn Cu Mn S Cl Ash
  
Brewers grains, dry 
Sample 0.23 0.63 0.25   0.36 0.02  123.40  93.90 17.40  48.70 0.24  0.11 4.50
NRC 0.33 0.55 0.16 0.09 0.23  266.00 30.00 23.00 40.00 0.32 0.17 4.80
  
Corn gluten feed, wet   
Sample 0.03  0.84  0.36  1.24  0.05  121.50  56.40  3.60  19.00  0.45  0.19  5.77
NRC 0.36  0.82   0.36 0.64  0.15  471.00 72.00  52.00  26.00 0.23 0.25 7.50 
  
Distillers dried grains           
Sample 0.07 0.80 0.35 1.01  0.06 175.80 52.80 2.40 39.00 0.57 0.16 4.70
NRC   0.15 0.71 0.18 0.44  0.44 259.00 ** 58.00 25.00 0.33 0.18 4.80
  
Soybean hulls        
Sample 0.60 0.13 0.25 1.32 0.01 523.00 38.00  6.70 21.90   0.10 0.02  5.33
NRC  0.49  0.21  ** 1.27 0.01 324.00  24.00  18.00 11.00  0.09 ** 5.10


  Bold
values indicate a minerals and feeds with substantial difference between the samples collected and NRC values

  Sample – collected in California by American Registry of Professional Animal Science members and analyzed by an independent lab in New York

  NRC – National Research Council book values

Of the feeds reported above, distillers dried grains, and soybean hulls had the most variation in mineral content

Notice that some of the values are very different than that reported by NRC.

Trace mineral, magnesium, potassium, and sulfur values of feeds that are markedly different than NRC values are highlighted.

(Author: Mark Stewart, Livestock Specialist)


[This Month in Ag Connection] [Ag Connection - Other Issues Online]

AgriExpo 2001
March 20-21, Capitol Plaza Hotel, Jefferson City, MO

Day One offers fundamentals for starting a value-added business. Day Two provides in-depth look at guiding entrepreneurs to success. Sessions include marketing on the Internet, advertising, using demographics, cross-marketing and networking for success.

One day registration is $20 or two days for $35, including lunch, before March 6. After March 6, the fees are $30 and $45. For more information call 877-ValuADD (825-8233). AgriExpo 2001 is sponsored by University of Missouri Outreach and Extension, Missouri Dept. of Agriculture and USDA Rural Development.

Click here for more information on the Value-Added Agriculture Program.


[This Month in Ag Connection] [Ag Connection - Other Issues Online]


University Outreach and ExtensionAg Connection - March 2001
http://outreach.missouri.edu/agconnection/newsletters/is-03-01.htm -- Revised: September 30, 2002
daydr@missouri.edu