Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T07:59:01.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carcass gain per kg feed intake: developing a stakeholder-driven benchmark for comparing grow-finishing pig performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2020

I. ChantziarasOpen the ORCID record for I. Chantziaras[Opens in a new window],
J. Van Meensel,
I. Hoschet,
F. Leen,
L. Messely,
D. Maes and
S. Millet
I. Chantziaras*
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Burgemeester Van Gansberghelaan 92 bus 1, 9820Merelbeke, BelgiumFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium
J. Van Meensel
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Burgemeester Van Gansberghelaan 92 bus 1, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium
I. Hoschet
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium
F. Leen
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Burgemeester Van Gansberghelaan 92 bus 1, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium
L. Messely
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Burgemeester Van Gansberghelaan 92 bus 1, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium
D. Maes
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium
S. Millet
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Burgemeester Van Gansberghelaan 92 bus 1, 9820Merelbeke, Belgium
*
†E-mail: Ilias.Chantziaras@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
Get access

Abstract

Feed conversion ratio (FCR) in grow-finishing pigs is one of the most important determinants of pig farm profitability and production efficiency. In its simplest form, FCR represents the amount of feed used per unit weight gain of the pig. Yet, this approach entails various limitations hampering its practical applicability such as availability of accurate data and large variation in ways to adapt FCR values for different starting and end weight as well as mortality rates. Various stakeholders are using their own formulas to determine FCR creating a ‘definition nonconformity’ when comparing FCRs among farms. This study aimed to optimize the calculation of FCR through the use of participatory qualitative research. A multidisciplinary research group of 9 persons (animal scientists, veterinarians and agricultural economists) and a consulting group of 31 stakeholders (representing the Flemish primary sector, feed industry, pharma, genetic companies, large retailers, academia and policy institutions) were involved. The decision problem analysis started with a literature review, followed by 25 in-depth interviews and their analyses (NVivo 11™). This led to an additional literature review and the formation of focus (expert) groups that helped to formulate preliminary FCR formulas. Revision rounds between the research team and the stakeholders further fine-tuned the formulas with the final result being two distinct complimentary formulas that are fit for purpose. Both refer to carcass gain per kg feed intake (plain (CGF) and standardized (CGFstandardized)). The first formula (CGF), namely ${{{\it{number \, delivered \, pigs}} \times {\it{average \, warm \, carcass \, weight}} - {\it{number \, stocked \, piglets}} \times {\it{average \, piglet \, weight}} \times {\it{piglet \, carcass \, yield}}} \over {{\it{feed \, consumption}}}}$ is an objective representation of the animals’ performance. The second formula (CGFstandardized) was developed for farm benchmarking, incorporating a seven-step standardization process that corrects for mortality and ‘standardizes’ for a fixed (yet fictive) live weight trajectory of 25 to 115 kg. This second formula allows to compare farms (or batches of fattening pigs) with different weight trajectories and different mortality rates. A webtool was designed to ease this standardization process (https://varkensloket.be/tools/CGF).

Keywords

feed efficiencyparticipatory researchfarm managementstandardized formulapig production

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 12 , December 2020, pp. 2609 - 2618
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Animal Consortium

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agostini, P, Fahey, A, Manzanilla, E, O’Doherty, J, De Blas, C and Gasa, JJA 2014. Management factors affecting mortality, feed intake and feed conversion ratio of grow-finishing pigs. Animal 8, 1312–1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AHDB Pork 2020. EU Carcass weights. Retrieved on 28 March 2020 from https://pork.ahdb.org.uk/prices-stats/production/eu-carcase-weightsGoogle Scholar
Berry, D and Pryce, J 2014. Feed efficiency in growing and mature animals. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 17–22 August 2014, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Creswell, JW, Plano Clark, VL, Gutmann, ML and Hanson, W 2003. An expanded typology for classifying mixed methods research into designs. In Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (ed. Tashakkori, A and Teddlie, C), pp 209–240. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Dritz, SS 2012. Influence of health on feed efficiency. In Feed efficiency in swine (ed. Patience, JF), pp. 225–237, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunham, RB 1998. Nominal group technique: a users’ guide. Retrieved on 21 September 2019 from ’https://sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/DUNHAM 1998 Nominal Group Technique - A Users’ Guide.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2020. Pig: monthly remainders methodology. Retrieved on 28 March 2020 from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/pig-remainders-methodology_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gispert, M, Font I Furnols, M, Gil, M, Velarde, A, Diestre, A, Carrión, D, Sosnicki, A and Plastow, G 2007. Relationships between carcass quality parameters and genetic types. Meat Science 77, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonçalves, MAD, Dritz, SS and Tokach, MD 2017. Fact sheet – feed efficiency adjustments to compare group close-outs in finishing pigs. Journal of Swine Health and Production 25, 73–75.Google Scholar
Haxsen, G 2008. Calculating costs of pig production with the InterPIG network. Retrieved on 21 September 2019 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:253-200909-dk040131-1Google Scholar
Hoste, R 2017. International comparison of pig production costs 2015; Results of Inter PIG. Wageningen Economic Research, Den Haag, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Latorre, M, Lázaro, R, Valencia, D, Medel, P and Mateos, G 2004. The effects of gender and slaughter weight on the growth performance, carcass traits, and meat quality characteristics of heavy pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 526–533.Google ScholarPubMed
Leen, F, Van den Broeke, A, Aluwé, M, Lauwers, L, Millet, S and Van Meensel, J 2016. Patterns of mortality in the finishing stage on 3 experimental pig farms. In Proceedings of the 24th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, 7–10 June 2016, Dublin, Ireland, p. 326.Google Scholar
Leen, F, Van den Broeke, A, Aluwé, M, Lauwers, L, Millet, S and Van Meensel, J 2018. Optimising finishing pig delivery weight: participatory decision problem analysis. Animal Production Science 58, 1141–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LV Vlaanderen (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Flanders) 2020. Landbouwcijfers (Agriculture numbers). Retrieved on 28 March 2020 from https://lv.vlaanderen.be/nl/voorlichting-info/publicaties-cijfers/landbouwcijfers (in Dutch).Google Scholar
Martin, G 2015. A conceptual framework to support adaptation of farming systems - development and application with Forage Rummy. Agricultural Systems 132, 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messely, L, Rogge, E and Dessein, J 2013. Using the rural web in dialogue with regional stakeholders. Journal of Rural Studies 32, 400–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, J, Serrano, M, Cámara, L, Berrocoso, J, López, J and Mateos, G 2013. Growth performance and carcass quality of immunocastrated and surgically castrated pigs from crossbreds from Duroc and Pietrain sires. Journal of Animal Science 91, 3955–3964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, DL 1998. Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research 8, 362–376.Google ScholarPubMed
Patience, JF, Rossoni-Serao, MC and Gutierrez, NA 2015. A review of feed efficiency in swine: biology and application. Journal of Animal Science Biotechnology 6, 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, MQ 2002. Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: a personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work 1, 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierozan, CR, Agostini, PS, Gasa, J, Novais, AK, Dias, CP, Santos, RSK, Pereira, M Jr, Nagi, JG, Alves, JB and Silva, CA 2016. Factors affecting the daily feed intake and feed conversion ratio of pigs in grow-finishing units: the case of a company. Porcine Health Management 2, 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quan, J, Cai, G, Ye, J, Yang, M, Ding, R, Wang, X, Zheng, E, Fu, D, Li, S, Zhou, S, Liu, D, Yang, J and Wu, Z 2018. A global comparison of the microbiome compositions of three gut locations in commercial pigs with extreme feed conversion ratios. Scientific Reports 8, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogge, E, Dessein, J and Verhoeve, A 2013. The organisation of complexity: A set of five components to organise the social interface of rural policy making. Land Use Policy 35, 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saintilan, R, Brossard, L, Vautier, B, Sellier, P, Bidanel, J, van Milgen, J and Gilbert, H 2015. Phenotypic and genetic relationships between growth and feed intake curves and feed efficiency and amino acid requirements in the growing pig. Animal 9, 18–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Wal, PG, Engel, B, van Beek, G and Veerkamp, CH 1995. Chilling pig carcasses: effects on temperature, weight loss and ultimate meat quality. Meat Science 40, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Meensel, J, Lauwers, L and Van Huylenbroeck, G 2010. Communicative diagnosis of cost-saving options for reducing nitrogen emission from pig finishing. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 2370–2377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Meensel, J, Lauwers, L, Kempen, I, Dessein, J and Van Huylenbroeck, G 2012. Effect of a participatory approach on the successful development of agricultural decision support systems: the case of Pigs2win. Decision Support Systems 54, 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voinov, A and Bousquet, F 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software 25, 1268–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, J, Schinckel, A, Chen, W, Forrest, J and Coe, B 1999. Analysis of body composition changes of swine during growth and development. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1442–1466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, H, Huang, X, Fang, S, He, M, Zhao, Y, Wu, Z, Yang, M, Zhang, Z, Chen, C and Huang, L 2017. Unraveling the fecal microbiota and metagenomic functional capacity associated with feed efficiency in pigs. Frontiers in Microbiology 8, 1555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Chantziaras et al. supplementary material

Chantziaras et al. supplementary material

Download Chantziaras et al. supplementary material(File)
File 50.8 KB