yearbook - ahdb pork · 2016-2017 (£’000) rd & ke market development export development...

YEARBOOK2015-2016

Key industry statistics, pig performance data and details of knowledge transfer, research and development activity.

Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................................ 02

AHDB Pork Board ............................................................................................................ 03

Strategy and budget ...................................................................................................... 04

Pork promotion ............................................................................................................... 06

Export ................................................................................................................................. 08

AHDB Pork by numbers ................................................................................................. 10

Industry statistics ...........................................................................................................12

International cost of pig production ....................................................................... 18

Cost of production ......................................................................................................... 22

Technical performance data ....................................................................................... 24

Knowledge exchange

Farm reviews ................................................................................................................. 36

Skills and training ......................................................................................................... 36

Study tours .................................................................................................................... 39

Events .............................................................................................................................. 41

Research and innovation

Health ............................................................................................................................. 44

Welfare ........................................................................................................................... 46

Environment and buildings ....................................................................................... 48

Pork safety and product quality .............................................................................. 52

Productionefficiency ................................................................................................. 53

Field trials ....................................................................................................................... 54

AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 1

‘A growing English pig production and primary processing industry’Vision

‘To help English pig production and processing businesses become more competitive and profitable’Mission

2 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 3

Atfarmlevel,profitabilityhasencouragedmuch-needed

investment which in turn has helped improve productivity

and output. This has resulted in pig meat production in 2015

reaching the highest level since 2000. While there is still work

to be done to close the productivity gap with our competitors,

especiallyinbreedingherdperformance,wehavedefinitely

been on the Road to Recovery.

“This has resulted in pig meat production in 2015 reaching the highest level since 2000.”

Fifteen years ago, we experienced the vicious circle of

decline with low prices leading to a lack of investment which

undermined performance and increased costs, resulting

inalackofconfidence.Inrecentyears,thischangedintoa

virtuous circle of better returns, more investment, improved

productivityandanexpandingindustry.Iftheindustryis

to come out of the other side of this trough and regain its

momentum, the whole chain needs to appreciate the mutual

benefitsofaviableandsustainablepigproductionbaseand

act accordingly.

ThepastyearhasbeenextremelydifficultfortheBritishpig industry, particularly since the turn of the year. The pressure from lower EU pig prices had been felt throughout 2015 but this eventually took its toll from Christmas onwards.

Thepricedifferentialhashalvedandstoodatjust15p/kg in

the spring of 2016. Despite feed prices also falling, this meant

producers were losing an average of £16 perfinishedpig.

This position is obviously not sustainable and a number

of producers have decided to cease either temporarily or

permanently. However, it looks at the moment as if the

majoritywillremaininbusiness.

The challenge cannot be underestimated. Continental EU

prices are weak because of the struggles to replace demand

lost when the export market to Russia was closed due to

AfricanSwineFever.Itseemsunlikelythepositionwillchange

in the near future.

Demand for pork and pork products in the UK is facing

considerable competition from other meats and from changes

in the promotional strategies used by retailers. They are

moving more towards regular lower prices rather than special

offers.Theperceptionsofmeatasbeingmodern,convenient

and healthy is also being challenged on a number of fronts.

“…results show 8 of the 10 supermarkets in Great Britain sell 100% British fresh pork…”

Nevertheless, there are positives factors. Porkwatch results

show 8 of the 10 supermarkets in Great Britain sell 100%

BritishfreshporkandasignificantamountofBritishsausages,

baconandham.InadditiontheresultsofthePulledPork

campaign,aspartofthestrategytorejuvenatetheimage

of pork, show it can stimulate sales and impact positively on

consumerattitudes.DemandforUKporkandoffalonexport

markets is also growing, adding valuable revenue to the

industry. Markets such as China are leading the way but further

opportunities exist in South East Asia, Africa and the Americas.

Preface

The AHDB Pork Board

Meryl Ward, MBE Chairwoman

Ermine Farms Ltd

Andrew Saunders Tulip UK

William de Klein KARRO Food Group

Iain Wylie

Alistair Butler Blythburgh Free

Range Pork

Simon Watchorn Earsham Park Farm

Rob Mercer Packington Pork

Marcus Cheale Cheale Meats of Brentwood

Barry Lock Cranswick

Robert Shepherd Allenford Farms

Ian Smith Bedfordia Farms

Richard Hooper Harper Adams

University College

The AHDB Pork Board meets six times each year to determine the English pig industry strategy and to ensure

thatEnglishpiglevypayer’smoneyisefficientlydeployedinlinewiththeAHDBPorkstrategy.

The AHDB Pork Board for the period 2015-2016 comprised the following Directors, appointed by Defra.

Producers

Processors

Independent

Mick Sloyan Strategy Director, AHDB Pork


Strategy & budgetVision: ‘A growing English pig production and primary processing industry’. Mission: ‘To help English pig production and processing businesses become more competitiveandprofitable’.

In2014,theAHDBPorkBoardagreedthe‘GoingforGrowth’

strategy. This refocused the technical work of AHDB Pork

into a single team, operating in four strategic areas of activity.

The marketing strategy was also developed to focus more

onrejuvenatingtheimageofporkasameanstostimulating

demand and maintaining the premium for English pigs.

This yearbook reviews the delivery of the strategy and the

business plan during 2015-16.

The five point plan

The 5-Point Plan was detailed in the 2013-2014 Yearbook and is

availableontheAHDBPorkwebsite.Insummary,itfocuseson

the following key areas of activity:

Close the gap1.

Objective: To narrow the technical performance gap between

English pig producers and competitors.

• Establishafieldtrialsprogramme

• Identifyinnovationfromaroundtheworldanddisseminate

to pig producers

• Develop skills under the banner ‘Recruit, Retain, Reward’,

recognisingprofessionaldevelopmentofstaffand

demonstrating a skilled and attractive career path

• Minimise the risks from endemic and exotic disease by

establishingeffectivebiosecuritytoolsandtechnologies

• Set up regional technical forum

Protect the environment2.

Objective: Help pig producers and processors comply with

existing and emerging legislation and achieve recognition for

progress made.

Budget allocation in 2016-2017 (£’000)

RD & KE

Market development

Export development

Market intelligence

Digital services

Communications

Total support

Total spend (including non-levy income) is £9.84 million

• Set up a business support service to advise on reducing

environmental impact, compliance with planning rules

and environmental regulations

• Monitor, interpret and help to inform environmental policy

and regulations in both the UK and EU

• Capture the progress made by the English pig industry and

helptoensurethisiscommunicatedeffectively

Enhance pig welfare3.

Objective: Help pig producers comply with existing

and emerging legislation and achieve recognition for

progress made.

• Establish the measurement and recording of welfare

outcome measures by trained vets

• Develop the communication of welfare measures

to producers and vets

• Develop support packages to help producers and vets

enhance pig welfare

• Monitor, interpret and seek to inform developments

inwelfareregulationsinconjunctionwithindustry

representative organisations

Encourage safe and traceable pork4.

Objective: Help producers and processors produce pork that

continuestobesafeandwhichconsumerscanhaveconfidence

isfullytraceablefromfarmtofinishedproduct.

• Support the pig meat supply chain in producing wholesome

pork products with safety, provenance and integrity, from

farm to fork

• PromotetheuseofisotopetracingusingSIRA(Stable

IsotopeReferenceAnalysis)toolthroughthesupplychain

• Work with RUNA and the PVS to reduce the need

to use antimicrobials

• Set up a technical processor forum on food safety

and traceability

Resources: AHDB Pork’s resources are almost exclusively provided from the levy on producers and processors, which remains at 85p a pig for producers and 20p a pig for processors, applied to pigs slaughtered in England.

Help to sell more pork5.

Objective: Stimulate the demand for pork through

communicationofthebenefitsofchoosingporkandsecuring

and developing export markets.

• Rejuvenatetheimageofpork

• Differentiatefromthecompetition

• Communicatethehealthbenefitsofpork

• Communicate pork as an environmentally sustainable food

Monitoring the progress of strategy

The AHDB Pork board assesses the progress in achieving the

strategy on a regular basis concentrating on a number of

target areas, including:

• ImprovementsinKeyPerformanceIndicators(KPIs)

• Reducing the industry’s carbon footprint

• Monitoring the progress of Real Welfare

• DevelopingtheuseofSIRAtoenhancethetraceability of pork

• Increasingtheconsumption,particularlyamonglight

and medium users

• Tracking levy-payer feedback, particularly with regard

to delivering value for money

• Continuing to expand our export markets.

£3,005

£3,330£703

£763

£1,132

£544

£363


Pork promotionThe AHDB Pork marketing team continues to focus itseffortstohelpsellmorepork.Heavilyaffectedbya number of external factors, including the Russian ban leading to over-supply in Europe and changes to supermarket price promotions, it has never been more important to communicate the relevance and value of pork to today’s consumer.

Pulled pork campaign

The pulled pork campaign in May 2015 provided a much

needed boost to the industry. The campaign, which was

independently evaluated, showed some excellent results,

including an uplift in sales of shoulder of 19.2% volume sales

and 21.4% value sales, as 206,000 more households bought

fresh pork shoulder during the campaign (an increase of

14.9%).Inaddition,thecampaignalsocreatedasignificant

haloeffectonthewiderporkcategory,stimulatingafurther

£7.8 million of incremental fresh pork sales.

Followingfirstburstofthepulledporkcampaign,another

programme of activity took place at the beginning of 2016,

timed to coincide with notable calendar events such as

Valentine’sDay,Mother’sDayandthefirstMaybankholiday.

World Health Organisation

InOctober,thepreliminaryfindingsbytheWorldHealth

Organisation (WHO) concluded that red meat probably causes

cancer and processed meat causes cancer.

“...red meat plays a valuable role in the diet...”

The AHDB Pork marketing team took the lead in responding to

thefindingsbyprovidingabalancedresponseonbehalfofthe

red meat industry.

Thestrategywastoinjectcontextintothestory,which,

according to an independent evaluation, was achieved, as the

message ‘red meat plays a valuable role in the diet’ was seen

by more than three-quarters (77%) of the population

at least seven times during the media coverage around the

WHO announcement.

The team has continued to work with secondary schools

through the Meat and Education programme, providing

food technology teachers with free teaching resources to

helpcommunicatethebenefitsofredmeatinthedietto

11-16-year-olds.

One of the many resources available is a programme of free

teacher workshops, undertaken on Saturdays, to make it easier

for teachers to attend. Teachers were given the opportunity

to receive a curriculum and knowledge update and were then

put through their paces with a practical lesson. This work is set

to continue as the need to instil positive messages around red

meat to younger people remains vital in order to educate the

next generation of shoppers.

“Making pork more inspiring will continue to be the focus of our future campaigns and promotional activity through 2016 and beyond.”

Making pork more inspiring will continue to be the focus of our

future campaigns and promotional activity through 2016 and

beyond. Changes to LovePork.co.uk continue with new recipe

ideas, search engine optimised content and new additions.

This has enabled the team to be regularly attracting anywhere

from 20,000 to 50,000 consumer visitors to the website each

month.Workinginconjunctionwiththesocialchannels,the

aim is to keep reminding consumers that pork is delicious,

versatile and should feature regularly as part of the family

meal repertoire.

British Sausage Week

InNovember,the18thBritishSausageWeektookplace

with Michelin starred chef Michel Roux Jr taking the lead

as this year’s ambassador. The competition attracted

more than 500sausages,includingentriesfromallmajor

supermarkets, processors and hundreds of butchers

across the country, vying to win one of the prestigious

Banger Awards.

19.2% increase of

shoulder sales

£7.8mincremental fresh pork sales

21.4% value sales

206,000 households bought fresh pork shoulder an increase of 14.9%

A record number of butcher’s point of sale kits were

ordered (1,040) to support the campaign, and a survey

conducted after the Week revealed that more than half

(53%) of butchers said they sold more sausages during

British Sausage Week. The team also secured headlines

by creating the world’s most expensive sausage. The

story appeared in national newspapers, featured in TV

and radio reports and was even tweeted by Dragon,

Peter Jones. Engaging content aimed at the younger

generation was created, with a video of TV’s poshest

person, Mark Francis from ‘Made in Chelsea’, educating

consumersonthejoysofBritishsausages.

ExportThe Export team

With the high value of Sterling making British pork much more expensive on foreign markets, it is reassuring that the UK maintained, and even slightly grew, export volumes in 2015;...

AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016 | 98 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016

...this was not to the detriment of the British premium

paidtopigproducers.Inshort,exportshavemadea

positive contribution to producers’ revenues against a

background of tough, international market conditions

and lower domestic pig consumption.

With pork consumption and prices lacklustre in Europe,

export growth for EU pork is taking place in China

and Japan, helped by the current low prices and the

favourable exchange rate against the US Dollar. The

UK remains the sixth largest pork exporter to China, a

considerable feat, given the relatively small size of the

sector in Europe. The good news is that exporters are

steadily increasing sales in China and have plans to add

valuetotheiroffer.Lastyear,thevalueoftheexports

of pork to China even overtook that of Scotch whisky.

“Last year, the value of the exports of pork to China even overtook that of Scotch whisky.”

Inagrowingmarket,suchasChina,tradefairsstill

have an essential role to bring buyers together from all

corners of the country. AHDB Pork is present at four

showsinChina,includingthelargestexhibition,SIAL,

in Shanghai. Due to the importance of Chinese pig

production, there is also representation at the CAHE

fair with pig genetics.

China is a huge market for pork. However, the AHDB

Pork export team looks beyond the Far East and led

commercial missions to Japan and sub-Saharan Africa

during the last 12 months. The aim is to maximise the

value of every pig produced in Britain; the UK is not

onlysellingcommoditypork.In2015,therewasalso

asignificantbreakthroughintheUSA,withhigh-

welfare British pork going into the demanding US

food service sector.

Peter Hardwick Head of Livestock Exports Trade Development

Jean-Pierre Garnier Head of AHDB Exports

Jonathan Eckley Senior Export Manager

Susana Morris Export Manager


Pork by numbers

183 farm visits by KT team

392 delegates attended conferences

150 pig clubs around the country

3,347 people attended pig clubs

13,248 training hours delivered

489 new twitter followers

5 PhD students sponsored by AHDB Pork

7 scholarship placements awarded

4,367 publications and on-farm tools requested

1,040 butcher’s point of sale kits sent out during British Sausage Week

206,000 more households bought fresh pork shoulder during the first pulled pork campaign

Improvements in pigs weaned over the last 12 months: +0.28 (indoor) +0.24 (outdoor)

Change in FCR over the last 12 months: +0.18 (rearing) +0.02 (finishing)

Change in DLWG over the last 12 months: -39g (rearing) -16g (finishing)


50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Jan 16Jul 15Jan 15Jul 14Jan 14Jul 13Jan 13

Soya meal

Feed wheat

100

120

140

160

180

200

DAPP/APP

Average COP

Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: AHDB MarketIntelligence

Pri

ce/k

g

Industry statisticsTheobjectiveofAHDBMarketIntelligence(MI)istoproviderelevant, useful, accurate and timely market information to the English pig and allied industries. This should support them in understanding the market and making decisions that maximise their competitiveness and sustainability and also improve supply chain transparency.

ActivitiesundertakenbytheMarketIntelligencefunction

focus on both the supply and demand sides of the industry

and include the following:

• Collection and calculation of weekly pig meat and other red

meat price data and market information

• Production of accurate market forecasts of meat

production and consumption

• Collection and provision of average pig production costs

and performance measurement

• Publication of relevant market information and analysis

from the UK, EU and beyond through regular free

publications, the AHDB Pork website and other media

• Collation and publication of international cost and physical

performance comparisons, which are addressed through

theInterPIGproject

• Enabling AHDB Pork marketing activity to be based on

a sound knowledge and understanding of the market

and consumers from research provided by the Market

Intelligencefunction.

The following sections of the report aim to summarise some

of the key market statistics and performance trends from

the last year.

The cost of production£AccordingtothedatafromInterPIG,thecostofpigmeat

production in Great Britain decreased by 13% in 2014, to

£1.39/kg. This was almost entirely due to the reduction in

feed costs. The average cost of production in the EU was

£1.34/kg deadweight.

This was also a 13% decrease on the previous year, again

mainly due to the reduction in feed costs. GB production

costs have been decreasing throughout 2015 and, based on

provisionalestimates,arelikelytobesignificantlylowerthan

2014. Once again, this has mainly been driven by the reduction

in feed costs.

GB pig prices have been falling throughout 2014 and 2015,

after peaking in late 2013 at over 170p/kg, to a near eight-year

low in February 2016. The GB All Pig Price (APP) ended 2015 at

127.68p/kg, and has continued to decrease into 2016. Despite

the falling cost of production, the decrease in the APP has

meant that most producers were making small losses on a full

economic basis. Once non-cash costs, such as depreciation and

family labour, are removed, most producers would still have

beenmakingacashprofitthroughoutmostof2015.However,

thelatestprovisionalfiguresshowthatthismayhavechanged

for the end of 2015 and into 2016, with the pig price falling

sharply, while feed costs have remained relatively stable and

moved many more producers into the red.

Fig. 2: Average compound feed prices, GB

200

250

300

2015 Q42015 Q32015 Q22015 Q1201420132012

Source: Defra

£/to

nne 265

278

249

237 234237

218

Fig. 3: Prices for feed wheat and soya meal

Source: AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds

£/to

nne

This fall mirrored the decline seen in prices for the main feed ingredients (Figure 3).

Record production during 2014 and 2015 contributed to this and prices ended the year

at around £114/tonne, almost £20 below a year earlier. However, prices have largely

stabilised in the last quarter of 2015.

Soya meal prices have been decreasing steadily throughout 2015, impacted by record

SouthAmericanandUScropsandproduction,withsupplybeingsignificantlyahead

of demand. After peaking at over £420/tonne in the summer of 2013, the UK price for

Braziliansoyamealended2015atjustover£250/tonne, around £85 below a year earlier.

Average quarterly compound feed prices have fallen steadily since their peak in Q1 2013

and,bythefinalquarterof2015,theaveragestoodat£218/tonne, the lowest level seen

since Q3 2010 and 25% below the 2013 peak.

Fig. 1: Total cost of pig production compared with pig prices


British pig herd performance trends

Key annual trends in physical performance for the British breeding, rearing

and feeding herds from 2011 to 2015 are shown in Table 1. The average of

InterPIGEUcountriesisalsodisplayedforthe2014calendaryear.

Performance continued to improve across many of the physical

performance measures in 2015, but still trailed or matched EU counterparts.

For example, the number of pigs weaned per sow per year increased by

0.3 pigs, but was still over 2 pigs behind the EU average. The fact that

over 40%ofGBsowsarekeptoutdoors,unlikemostInterPIGmembers

(whichpredominantlyhousebreedingsowsindoors),willreducethisfigure,

as average performance of outdoor kept sows is lower. However, even

comparing indoor kept sows in GB with the EU average, the GB average is

still lower.

"…over 40% of GB sows are kept outdoors, unlikemostInterPIGmembers…"

Feed conversion ratios worsened slightly for both the rearing herd and the

finishingherd.Dailyliveweightgainfellmodestlyintherearingherdbut

increased in the feeding herd.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2014

Breeding herd EU avg.Sow mortality (%) 3.2 3.6 4.5 4.6 5.4 5.8

Litters per sow per year 2.26 2.26 2.29 2.27 2.27 2.30

Pigs born alive per litter 11.39 11.54 11.87 12.12 12.26 13.22

Mortality of pigs born alive (%) 12.4 12.7 13.0 12.6 12.2 12.9

Pigs weaned per litter 9.98 10.07 10.33 10.59 10.76 11.52

Pigs weaned per sow per year 22.56 22.80 23.63 24.09 24.38 26.53

Average weaning age (days) 27 27 26 26 26 27

Rearing herd

Weight of pigs at start (kg) 7.6 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.0 7.5

Weight of pigs produced (kg) 36.8 35.9 35.6 37.1 36.9 30.0

Mortality (%) 2.6 2.5 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.7

Feed conversion ratio 1.71 1.77 1.75 1.71 1.89 1.83

Daily live weight gain (g) 489 489 495 502 463 419

Feeding herdWeight of pigs produced (kg) 102.6 102.7 104.3 105.4 106.2 118.5

Mortality (%) 2.9 2.5 2.8 3.2 2.7 2.6

Feed conversion ratio 2.82 2.72 2.78 2.67 2.69 2.85

Daily live weight gain (g) 784 822 816 801 817 793

Table 1: Performance trends in Great Britain

Source:AgrosoftLtd,InterPIG

Industry trends

Table 2 shows changes in pig carcases between 2013 and

2015. The long-term upwards trend in carcase weight

continued into 2015, with the average weight reaching 81kg.

A continued reduction in feed costs helped this increase,

alongside favourable growing conditions for the year. Probe

measurements have increased year on year for similar reasons,

buthavenotchangedsignificantly.Therefore,thenetresult

is that the lean meat percentage has shown little change,

remainingatjustover 61% of the carcase for the last decade.

In2010,justover10% of clean pigs slaughtered had dressed

carcase weights of less than 70kg. By 2015, that percentage

had fallen to 8%. 2015 saw 57% of pigs slaughtered having

a carcase weight of over 80kg, compared with 45% in 2010,

and over 14% had a carcase weight of over 90kg. This was an

increase of almost six percentage points on 2010.

"A continued reduction in feed costs helped this increase, alongside favourable growing conditions for the year. Probe measurements have increased year on year for similar reasons, buthavenotchangedsignificantly."

Table 2: Average abattoir results

† An average predicted lean meat percentage based on the following equation:Lean meat % = (66.5-(0.95 x P2)+(0.068 x carcase weight))

2013 2014 2015Back fat (P2, mm) 11.0 11.1 11.3

Lean meat (%) † 61.4 61.4 61.3

Carcase weight (kg) 78.8 80.6 81.0

Weight range (kg)

Fig. 4: Carcase weight distribution 2010 – 2015

2015

2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

90+80-89.970-79.9Under 70

Source:AHDBMarketIntelligence

% o

f sa

mp

le

10.52%8.50%

44.75%

7.97%

14.23%

34.62%36.22%

43.18%


TheUKproducedmoreporkthanbeefin2015forthefirsttime

since 2003. UK clean pig slaughterings increased by almost 4%,

withatotalofjustover10.6 million head, the highest since

2000.IncreasesinslaughteringswererecordedinEngland,

NorthernIrelandandScotland,althoughthelatterwasata

more subdued rate. The increase in production levels, by over

4% to 899 thousand tonnes, was largely driven by increases in

clean pig slaughtering numbers.

Sowcullingsfor2015increased,byjustunder1% to 244

thousand head, on the previous year. Volumes were lower

than normal in late 2014 and early 2015, in response to the

low cull sow price.

Levels subsequently rose throughout 2015, but stayed

within the normal range and at a level that was not

indicative of a shrinking breeding herd. They were certainly

much lower than volumes seen in 2012, when high feed

pricesdidhitproducers’profitabilityandthebreedingherd

size did decline.

Cwe=carcaseweightequivalent.*Notsurveyresults.Basedonrelationshipbetweenadjustedcleanpigslaughter(slaughteringsminusliveimports plus live exports). **Production as % of consumption. Source:AHDBMarketIntelligence,Defra

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

UK breeding herd (000 head)

June 432 425 421 406 408

December 409 400 398 390 401

UK sow productivity*

Pigs per sow 21.6 22.5 23.0 23.9 25.3

Pig meat per sow (kg) 1,692 1,761 1,824 1,933 2,062

UK production and consumption

Clean pig slaughter (000 head) 9,813 10,035 10,050 10,227 10,607

Total pig meat production (000 tonnes) 806 825 833 863 899

UK trade (000 tonnes)

Imports(cwe) 960 942 928 948 966

(Fresh/frozen) 410 387 392 396 410

(Bacon) 328 302 292 300 294

(Processed) 223 254 244 252 262

Exports (cwe) 206 203 229 233 235

Total pig meat consumption (000 tonnes) 1,559 1,564 1,532 1,578 1,628

Per capita consumption (kg/head) 24.6 24.6 23.9 24.4 25.0

Self-sufficiencyinpigmeat** 52% 53% 54% 55% 55%

Table 3: Industry Trends

In2015,theUKimportedmorepork,sausages,processedpig

meatandoffalthanthepreviousyear.Porkandprocessed

pig meat imports only recorded modest growth, despite

thesignificantpricegapbetweenUKandEUproducts,

exacerbated by the strength of the pound against the Euro.

Sausageandoffalimportssawagreaterpercentagegrowth,

although absolute volumes were smaller. While imported pork

volumes grew 4% in 2015, this was at the expense of value,

which fell by 12% over the same period. Denmark, Belgium and

Spain all increased their shipments to the UK throughout 2015.

ImportvolumesfromtheNetherlandslargelyremainedstatic,

while volumes from Germany fell.

Exportsofpork,baconandoffalgrewthroughout2015on

the year earlier, while volumes of sausages and processed pig

meats fell. Pork exports grew by 2% in volume, largely driven

byincreasesinshipmentstoIrelandandChina.However,the

value of these exports declined by 6% over the same period,

illustrating the depreciation of UK pork to remain competitive

ontheglobalmarket.Baconandoffalexportsrecorded

significantpercentagegrowth,albeitinsmallervolumes.

OffalexportgrowthwaslargelydrivenbyshipmentstoChina,

which grew by 59% in 2015.

Table 4: Trends in retail pig meat purchases

Source: Kantar Worldpanel

Retail pig meat purchases

Retail data from Kantar Worldpanel (Table 4) shows that,

in the 52-week period ended 3 January 2016, purchases of

fresh and frozen pork declined by over 5% from the same

period a year earlier. There were declines across the board in

allporkcuts,withlegroastingjointsandporkbellyshowing

the sharpest decreases of -11% and -9% respectively. Value

declined even more sharply – by over 10% for fresh and frozen

pork and almost 22%forlegroastingjoints.Allothercuts

recordeddecreasesinvalueinexcessofvolumedeclines.In

other words, despite pork products being cheaper on the

shelves, consumers are still not purchasing them.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

000 tonnes

Fresh and frozen pork

187.8 182.2 178.7 177.4 167.8

Pork belly 19.0 21.5 19.5 19.0 17.3

Pork frying/ grilling chops

30.7 28.0 25.8 25.2 22.3

Pork frying/ grilling steak

48.3 44.5 45.3 41.7 40.7

Pork leg roastingjoint

27.4 23.2 22.6 23.3 20.7

Pork loin roasting 12.3 15.1 15.9 16.0 15.3

Pork shoulder roastingjoint

30.4 28.6 26.4 28.0 27.3

Pork mince 5.3 5.6 7.2 8.7 8.4

Bacon 225.6 227.6 218.1 216.5 212.2

Pork sausages 175.1 172.5 165.9 166.5 163.0

Sliced cooked meats (Pork and Ham)

130.3 133.8 136.7 136.4 135.1

"Over 2015, pork fared worse than other fresh meats, with volume sales of lamb remaining largely stable and beef falling only very slightly."

Processed and cured pig meat products fared a little better

than their fresh counterparts, in as much as their declines in

volume and value were not as great. Bacon and sausages both

experienced retail purchase declines of -2% in 2015, while

sliced cooked meat sales fell by -1%. As with fresh pork, value

for all three products fell at a greater rate than volume, as

prices were also cheaper in the processed market.

Over 2015, pork fared worse than other fresh meats, with

volume sales of lamb remaining largely stable and beef falling

only very slightly. Poultry meat sales increased by 4% year on

year in the 52 weeks to 3 January 2016. The decline in pork

sales was despite prices being driven down more sharply across

pork products than for poultry, beef or lamb.

Pig pocketbook

The annual pocketbook provides easy access to a

range of key statistics about the pig and poultry

sectors, including industry structure, production,

prices,internationaltradeandconsumption.Itcanbe

downloaded from: http://pork.ahdb.org.uk/prices-stats/published-reports/


International cost of pig production This report examines the relative costs of production inselectedcountries.Thisisajointprojectcurrentlyinvolving 15 countries, which are known collectively asInterPIG.

SummaryoftheKeyfindings:

• The cost of pig meat production in Great Britain reduced

by nearly 16% in 2014, to £1.39/kg. The average cost of

production in the EU was £1.34/kg deadweight, a 14%

decrease in sterling terms compared to 2013.

• All EU countries experienced a decrease in the costs of

production (in sterling terms) compared to 2013.

• Average producer prices were also lower in 2014 than in

2013, with only four EU countries having production costs

below the EU average reference price.

• Average feed prices were lower in 2014 than in 2013, falling

by 16% on average across the EU countries.

• In2014asawhole,EUfeedcostsperkgfellby17%

compared with a year earlier, in sterling terms. The fall in

Great Britain was 19% , one of the greatest falls in the EU.

AllInterPIGmembercountriesexperiencedafallinfeed

costs compared to 2013.

• The overall average number of pigs weaned per sow per

yearintheEuropeanInterPIGcountriesshoweda2%

increase in 2014, up from 26.06 in 2013 to 26.53, with

Denmark achieving 30.0 for a second time. There was a 2%

increase in pigs weaned per sow in Great Britain to 24.09

overall.Indoorsowproductionachieved25.7, an increase of

3% compared to 2013.

• The main reason Great Britain has a below average number

of pigs weaned per sow lies in the number of pigs born

alive per litter, with Great Britain still performing below

the EU average of 13.2. The 2014 Great Britain average at

12.1 (indoor sows 12.6, outdoor sows 11.2) was an increase

compared to 11.87 in 2013.

• TheaveragenumberofpigsfinishedpersowinGreat

Britain again increased in 2014. At 22.7 pigs per sow (indoor

sows 24.2, outdoor sows 20.5), average performance

was 0.47 pigs higher than in 2013 but lower than the EU

average of 25.13.

• Great Britain produced 1.82 tonnes of carcase meat per

sow in 2014, 3% higher than in 2013 due to a combination

oftheincreaseinthenumberofpigsfinishedpersowand

anincreaseinfinishingweight.

Table 5: Average costs of production in 2008 - 2014 (€/kg deadweight)

Source:InterPIG

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20142014/13 %

change

CountryAustria 1.45 1.60 1.67 1.78 1.79 1.65 -8

Belgium 1.41 1.48 1.61 1.73 1.74 1.56 -10

Brazil (MT) na 1.02 1.18 1.17 1.13 1.04 -8

Brazil (SC) 0.99 1.10 1.35 1.46 1.33 1.28 -3

Canada 1.03 1.11 1.29 1.45 1.41 1.21 -14

Czech. Rep 1.65 1.76 1.79 1.86 1.83 1.67 -9

Denmark 1.42 1.41 1.59 1.68 1.68 1.53 -9

France 1.37 1.37 1.60 1.66 1.71 1.56 -9

Germany 1.54 1.53 1.76 1.82 1.82 1.63 -10

Great Britain 1.46 1.64 1.74 1.91 1.89 1.74 -8

Ireland 1.48 1.52 1.72 1.80 1.91 1.77 -7

Italy 1.74 1.79 1.95 1.98 2.01 1.96 -3

Netherlands 1.46 1.43 1.62 1.68 1.77 1.64 -7

Spain 1.44 1.42 1.60 1.64 1.64 1.49 -9

Sweden 1.47 1.72 1.96 2.13 2.12 1.86 -12

USA 1.10 1.12 1.27 1.40 1.49 1.21 -19

EU 1.49 1.56 1.72 1.81 1.83 1.67 -8

Source:InterPIG

GB EU

Feed 0.85 0.83

Other variable costs 0.22 0.22

Total variable costs 1.07 1.05

Labour 0.14 0.12

Building,financeandmisc 0.18 0.17

Total fixed costs 0.31 0.29

Total costs 1.39 1.34

Table 6: Summary of Financial Performance 2014 (£/kg deadweight)

More details

The full report is published each autumn and is free to

English levy payers and can be obtained from AHDB

MarketIntelligence.Fornon-levypayers,thereporthas

a cover price of £160. An electronic version is available

free on the AHDB Pork website.


0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

USASWESPANLITAIREGBGERFRADENCZCANBRA(SC)

BRA(MT)

BELAUS

2014

2013

£/kg

Countries

Fig. 6: Feed Costs

Source:InterPIG

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

InterPIGAvg.

EUAvg.

USASWESPANLITAIREGBGERFRADENCZ CANBRA(SC)

BRA(MT)

BELAUS

Depreciation and financeLabourOther variable costsFeed EU avg. priceUK avg. price

£/kg

Countries

Fig. 5: Costs of production in selected countries, 2014 (cold weight)

Source:InterPIG

0.79 0.84 0.56 0.80 0.65 0.77 0.74 0.77 0.76 0.85 0.95 1.07 0.77 0.84 0.81 0.62 0.83 0.80

0.20

0.11

0.15

0.22

0.12

0.17

0.13

0.12

0.100.22

0.15

0.31

0.16

0.07

0.11

0.26

0.13

0.160.20

0.14

0.16

0.21

0.10

0.15

0.22

0.14

0.18

0.24

0.12

0.18

0.19

0.12

0.17

0.21

0.11

0.17

0.38

0.09

0.11

0.13

0.12

0.08

0.100.060.06

0.15

0.050.06

0.16

0.10

0.22

0.11

0.200.15

600

700

800

900

1000


BRA(MT)

BELAUS

2014

2013

gra

ms/

day

Countries

Fig. 8: Daily liveweight gain (finishing herds)

Source:InterPIG

+1%

+3%

0%0%

-1%

+3%

+2%

+1% +1% -2%

+1%

0%

+1%

+1%

-1%

+2%

2014

2013

20

22

24

26

28

30


BRA(MT)

BELAUS

No.ofpigsfinished

persow

Countries

Fig. 7: Number of pigs finished per sow

Source:InterPIG

+2%

+1%

+3% +1%

-1%

+7%

+1%

+0% +2%

+2%

+1%

+1%

+0%

+2%+1%

-1%

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

201420132012201120102009

kg/y

ear

Countries

Fig. 9: GB carcase meat per sow per year

Source:InterPIG

1643 1626

16871707

1769

1823


The following table indicates the change in Cost of Production

(p/kg)forachangeinDLWGfordifferentfeedingperiods.

Cost of productionThe following tables report the relationship between physical production performance and feed prices and totalcosts.Alltablesusefiguresfortheperiodfrom1January 2015 to 31 December 2015 inclusive.

ThephysicalperformancefiguresaretakenfromAgrosoftdata

relating to the twelve months ending 31 December 2015. Cost

of production is estimated using the model operated by AHDB

MarketIntelligenceandtakeaccountofarangeoffinancial

cost estimations for 2015.

The Cost of Production estimations are expressed in pence

percarcasekilogramandincludevariableandfixedcosts.

An explanation of the Cost of Production model can be found

on the AHDB Pork website under Prices and Stats: Costings

and Herd Performance.

Table 7: Change in Cost of Production (CoP) for change in feed price (£ per tonne)

The average Cost of Production was estimated at 139.0p per

kg of carcase weight. The following table indicates how much

an increase in each of these feed prices would change the Cost

of Production estimate.

Table 8: Change in Cost of Production (CoP) for change in pigs weaned per sow per year

The number of pigs weaned per sow per year is a result of

threedifferentelements:

• Pigs born alive per litter

• Litters per sow per year

• Pre-weaning mortality


fordifferentnumbersofpigsweanedpersowperyear.

The Agrosoft average, bottom third and top third are based on

all farms included in the Agrosoft database. The model average

is based on weighting the average performance of indoor and

outdoor sows, using a weighting of 60% indoor

and 40% outdoor.

The relationship between FCR and the CoP is direct and

impacts on the quantity, and therefore cost, of feed consumed

in producing each carcase kilogram of pig meat. FCR relates to

feedefficiencybutusinglessfeedcanresultinlowerDLWG

andalongerfeedingperiod.Itis,therefore,importantfor

farms to optimise their FCR and DLWG according to their farm

situation and system.

"Itis,therefore,importantforfarmstooptimise their FCR and DLWG according to their farm situation and system."

The following tables (Tables 9 – 10) indicate various levels of

performance for FCR and DLWG, on the assumption that, by

varying one trait, there is no change in the other. All farms are

represented in the average, but the farms in the top third for

FCR may not be the same farms in the top third for DLWG as

thesefigureshavebeenindependentlycalculatedforeachtrait.


(p/kg)forachangeinFCRfordifferentfeedingperiods.

Bottom third – Agrosoft

avg.Model

avg. – Top third –

Pigs weaned per sow per year

20.89 22.51 24.12 24.38 25.76 27.39 29.03

CoP (p/kg) 146.3 142.6 139.4 139.0 136.6 134.2 132.0

Feed priceBase CoP

(p/kg) +£5 +£10 +£15 +£20

Sow feed 139.0 139.4 139.8 140.2 140.6

Rearing feed 139.0 139.3 139.7 140.1 140.4

Finishing feed 139.0 140.1 141.3 142.5 143.6

Bottom third – Average – Top

third –

Rearing FCR 2.20 2.05 1.89 1.71 1.53 1.35

CoP (p/kg) 142.0 140.5 139.0 137.2 135.5 133.7

Finishing FCR 2.99 2.84 2.69 2.56 2.42 2.29

CoP (p/kg) 144.4 141.7 139.0 136.6 134.2 131.8

Combined FCR 2.76 2.60 2.43 2.27 2.10 1.93

CoP* (p/kg) 148.7 144.2 139.7 135.0 130.4 125.7

*NotallrearingandfinishingunitsareusedintheCombinedaverageperformancedata,resultinginadifferentbaseCoP

Table 9: Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR)

Bottom third – Average – Top

third –

Rearing DLWG (g/day)

322 393 463 521 578 635

CoP (p/kg) 140.6 139.6 139.0 138.6 138.2 138.0

Finishing DLWG (g/day)

678 748 817 889 961 1033

CoP (p/kg) 140.2 139.5 139.0 138.5 138.1 137.8

Combined DLWG (g/day)

549 607 665 721 777 833

CoP* (p/kg) 141.2 140.1 139.2 138.4 137.8 137.2

*NotallrearingandfinishingunitsareusedintheCombinedaverageperformancedata,resultinginadifferentbaseCoP

Table 10: Daily Liveweight Gain (DLWG)


Technical performance dataTable 11: Distribution of herd size in Agrosoft recorded breeding herds, 2007 – 2015 Table 13: Results for all breeding herds, year ended Dec 2015

Table 12: Trends in weaning age 2005-2015

Average * Top 1/3 * Top 10% *

Herd structure

Average number sows and gilts 697 725 590

Average number unserved gilts 53 70 62

Replacement rate (%) 50.79 54.38 55.56

Sow sales and deaths (%) 58.70 61.49 64.77

Sow mortality (%) 5.23 6.21 4.30

Sow performance

Successful services (%) 82.53 85.53 87.77

Litters per sow per year ** 2.26 2.34 2.38

Non-productive days per litter ## 20.03 13.68 11.47

Pigs born per litter

alive 12.16 13.07 13.80

dead 0.58 0.67 0.77

mummified 0.19 0.20 0.20

total 12.84 13.88 14.70

Pigs born alive per sow per year 27.53 30.65 32.84

Pre-weaning mortality (%) 12.39 10.51 10.59

Pigs weaned per litter 10.65 11.69 12.33

Pigs weaned per sow per year ** 24.12 27.39 29.33

Average weight of weaned pig (kg) 7.06 7.21 6.99

Average weaning age (days) 26.37 26.46 26.53

Feed usage #

Sow feed per sow per year (t) 1.466 1.342 1.396

Feed per pig weaned (kg) 59.94 48.82 47.52

No sows % herds

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

100-249 12 9 15 16 14 11 10 13 11

250-499 12 25 32 26 26 25 26 23 26

500-749 17 26 32 29 28 29 25 29 27

750-999 25 24 12 15 17 18 20 10 13

1000-1500 21 14 8 12 11 13 17 20 19

1500-3000 13 2 1 2 4 4 2 5 4

>3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100 100 100 101 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Agrosoft Pig Recording System

Age at weaning (days) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

(% of herds)

<19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 – 25 49 37 28 31 30 29 27 29 49 37 34

26 – 32 45 62 70 65 66 68 69 68 48 60 63

33 – 39 6 1 0 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 3

>39 0 0 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 0 0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100



Note: Totals in tables 11 and 12 may not add up due to rounding.

Note: * Selected on the basis of pigs weaned per sow per year.** Per sow data excludes unserved gilt. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts

## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval.


Table 14: Trends in performance and feed costs in the breeding herd, 2005-2015

Table 15: Breeding herd results by herd size, year ended Dec 2015

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Herd structure

Average number sows and gilts

571 662 631 583 545 605 682 580 591 714 697

Sow sales and deaths (%) 44.7 44.6 41.6 46.5 46.0 49.2 47.6 51.5 53.3 51.6 58.7

Sow mortality (%) 4.7 5.8 3.4 4.3 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.6 4.6 4.5 5.2

Sow performance

Litters per sow per year * 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

Pigs born alive per litter 10.9 11.7 11.1 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.4 11.5 11.8 12.1 12.2

Pre-weaning mortality (%) 10.9 13.3 12.6 12.6 12.5 12.7 12.6 12.7 13.1 12.7 12.4

Pigs weaned per litter 9.7 9.5 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.8 10.0 10.1 10.3 10.5 10.7

Pigs weaned per sow per year * 21.5 21.5 21.6 22.1 22.2 22.1 22.5 22.9 23.5 23.9 24.1

Average weaning age (days) 26 26 27 27 27 26.7 26.4 26.7 26.4 26.3 26.4

Sow feed

Sow feed per sow per year(t) # 1.339 1.338 1.343 1.456 1.278 1.230 1.169 1.280 1.529 1.401 1.466

Sow feed cost per tonne (£) ## 105.22 102.40 131.08 155.14 178.49 162.87 207.63 207.72 238.02 199.60 184.77


Number of sows 100-249 250-499 500-749 750-999 1K - 1.5K 1.5K+

Herd structure

Average number sows and gilts 174 361 626 853 1178 2063

Average number in-pig gilts 30 67 111 145 181 436

Average number unserved gilts 16 30 58 88 101 166

Replacement rate (%) 45.07 51.70 51.17 50.71 49.68 53.74

Sow sales and deaths (%) 56.91 59.13 58.74 53.95 58.85 64.85

Sow mortality (%) 5.55 6.13 6.18 5.58 4.80 5.51

Sow performance

Successful services (%) 80.70 82.17 83.35 80.84 83.20 82.29

Non-productive days per litter ## 21.95 21.11 20.27 19.42 20.05 18.90

Litters per sow per year * 2.19 2.24 2.27 2.26 2.26 2.28

Pigs born per litter:

alive 12.05 12.52 12.31 11.70 12.04 12.38

dead 0.85 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.55 0.58

mummified 0.13 0.24 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.18

total 12.95 13.43 13.02 12.18 12.68 13.05

Pigs born alive per sow per year 26.43 28.14 27.95 26.55 27.18 28.38

Pre-weaning mortality (%) 11.42 11.35 11.35 12.36 13.59 12.75


Pigs weaned per sow per year * 23.11 24.93 24.76 23.27 23.51 24.76

Average weight of weaned pig (kg) 8.15 7.29 7.21 6.63 7.05 6.68

Average weaning age (days) 30.15 26.92 26.26 26.33 26.14 25.78

Feed usage #

Sow feed per sow per year (t) 1.421 1.436 1.421 1.737 1.511 1.283

Feed per pig weaned (kg) 60.56 55.79 56.32 76.22 64.17 47.73


Note: *Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts from 2013.

## Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.

Note: * Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts.

## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval. Data includes both indoor and outdoor herds


Table 16: Breeding herd results by age at weaning, year ended Dec 2015

Table 17: Comparison of results for outdoor and indoor breeding herds, year ended Dec 2015

Age at weaning < 26 days 26 days+

Top 10% Top third Average Top 10% Top third Average

Herd structure

Average number sows and gilts 604 888 859 485 625 610

Average number in-pig gilts 132 184 163 87 110 103

Average number unserved gilts 38 108 77 58 63 47

Replacement rate (%) 56.83 54.86 50.17 54.35 54.45 51.17

Sow sales and deaths (%) 64.01 54.83 60.13 64.48 65.68 56.23

Sow mortality (%) 7.38 5.55 5.15 4.90 6.37 5.11

Sow performance

Successful services (%) 84.23 83.67 81.47 88.42 86.83 83.26

Non-productive days per litter ## 11.24 14.36 19.57 11.59 13.21 20.37

Litters per sow per year * 2.41 2.36 2.28 2.36 2.34 2.25


alive 13.38 12.85 12.10 13.88 13.24 12.21

dead 0.78 0.68 0.56 0.78 0.69 0.61

mummified 0.19 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.18

total 14.32 13.65 12.75 14.82 14.10 12.90

Pigs born per sow per year 32.36 30.43 27.65 32.84 30.97 27.45

Pre-weaning mortality (%) 9.42 10.65 12.65 10.18 10.84 12.20


Pigs weaned per sow per year * 29.29 27.15 24.15 29.46 27.58 24.08

Average weight of weaned pig (kg) 7.18 7.04 6.95 7.26 7.30 7.14

Average weaning age (days) 24.33 24.49 24.84 27.33 27.36 27.45

Feed usage #

Sow feed per sow per year (t) 1.326 1.319 1.490 1.383 1.345 1.445

Feed per pig weaned (kg) 45.45 47.69 62.78 47.00 48.86 57.39

Outdoor herds Indoor herds

Herd structure

Average number sows and gilts 867 592

Average number in-pig gilts 139 107

Average number unserved gilts 30 28

Replacement rate(%) 48.86 52.37

Sow sales and deaths (%) 54.71 62.28

Sow mortality (%) 4.19 6.19

Sow performance

Successful services (%) 81.52 83.45

Non-productive days per litter ## 22.95 17.39

Litters per sow per year * 2.22 2.29


alive 11.47 12.79

dead 0.43 0.72

mummified 0.06 0.22

total 11.91 13.68

Pigs born per sow per year 25.49 29.38

Pre-weaning mortality (%) 13.41 11.46

Pigs weaned per litter 9.92 11.31

Pigs weaned per sow per year * 22.06 25.99

Average weight of weaned pig (kg) 6.85 7.17

Average weaning age (days) 26.36 26.38

Feed usage #

Sow feed per sow per year (t) 1.666 1.353

Feed per pig weaned (kg) 75.48 51.20

Feed costs #

Sow feed cost per tonne (£) 182.72 186.15



Note: * Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a

6-day weaning to service interval. Data includes both indoor and outdoor herds

Note: * Per sow data excludes unserved gilts. # Per sow data includes unserved gilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval.




Note: * Selected on basis of pigs weaned per sow per year. ** Excludes unserved gilts. ***Includesmummifiedpigsborn.#Persowdataincludesunservedgilts.##Non-productivedaysexcludesgestation,

lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval. ### Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014. Note:*Selectedonbasisofpigsweanedpersowperyear.**Excludesunservedgilts.***Includesmummifiedpigsborn.#Persowdataincludesunservedgilts. ## Non-productive days excludes gestation, lactation and a 6-day weaning to service interval. ### Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.

Table 18: Comparative results for INDOOR breeding herds, 2005-2015

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Top third *

Top third *

Herd structure


406 482 501 548 440 492 586 481 549 598 644 592 611

Average number unserved gilts

38 n/a 22 54 36 95 37 37 85 36 35 28 38

Sow replacements (%) 47.1 49.5 47.7 45.5 49.2 47.6 49.2 51.8 53.0 52.89 54.70 52.37 55.79

Sow sales and deaths (%)

43.8 49.2 46.7 47.2 47.5 41.5 47.9 52.9 55.4 53.98 54.17 62.28 65.23

Sow mortality (%) 4.9 6.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 1.4 2.9 3.2 5.2 5.15 5.57 6.19 6.84

Sow performanceNon-productive days per litter ##

32.0 21.0 21.0 44.0 20.2 19.9 20.8 18.9 16.2 16.85 11.51 17.39 12.16

Litters per sow per year **

2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.30 2.38 2.29 2.37


alive 11.1 11.2 11.4 11.5 11.5 11.6 11.9 12.1 12.4 12.63 13.25 12.79 13.41

dead *** 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.68 0.65 0.72 0.71

total 12.1 12.0 12.4 13.1 12.5 12.6 12.9 13.1 13.2 13.46 14.01 0.22 0.21

Pre-weaning mortality (%)

11.8 12.9 13.0 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.8 12.4 12.3 11.53 10.75 11.46 10.48

Pigs weaned per litter 9.8 9.7 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11.16 11.82 11.31 11.99

Pigs weaned per sow per year **

22.1 22.0 22.4 22.9 22.8 23.0 23.4 24.1 24.9 25.71 28.08 25.99 28.40

Average weight of weaned pig (kg)

7.2 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.13 7.18 7.17 7.27

Average weaning age (days)

27.0 26.1 27.1 27.0 26.9 27.0 27.0 26.9 26.9 26.56 26.59 26.38 26.51

Feed usage #Sow feed per sow per year (t)

1.265 1.367 1.362 1.334 1.256 1.168 1.059 1.217 1.476 1.345 1.353 1.353 1.367

Feed per pig weaned (kg)

61.0 63.3 66.0 62.3 60.2 51.2 46.1 49.8 50.2 47.27 43.72 51.20 47.97

Feed costs ###Sow feed cost per tonne (£)

102.96 102.22 127.73 164.99 180.59 164.32 215.23 210.28 212.31 201.94 n/a 186.15 n/a

Table 19: Comparative results for OUTDOOR breeding herds, 2005-2015

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Top third *

Top third *

Herd structure


820 806 783 777 645 735 771 676 932 928 774 867 845

Average number unserved gilts

66 n/a 21 80 57 45 84 70 66 55 63 30 42

Sow replacements (%) 45.9 57.6 45.8 46.4 46.0 39.2 52.4 51.3 52.9 50.96 52.46 48.86 50.27

Sow sales and deaths (%)

45.2 42.6 36.9 45.6 43.8 38.6 47.0 49.1 46.7 48.51 47.34 54.71 51.91

Sow mortality (%) 5.6 5.4 3.1 4.6 3.8 1.1 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.84 3.58 4.19 4.91

Sow performanceNon-productive days per litter ##

41.0 19.0 25.0 45.6 20.4 19.2 21.0 19.9 19.4 21.47 15.77 22.95 16.01

Litters per sow per year **

2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.24 2.32 2.22 2.32


alive 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.7 10.8 11.0 11.1 11.36 11.98 11.47 12.03

dead *** 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.47 0.53 0.43 0.54

total 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.7 11.5 11.3 11.4 11.6 11.6 11.85 12.54 11.91 12.60

Pre-weaning mortality (%)

10.5 13.6 12.3 12.9 12.6 13.1 12.4 13.0 14.0 14.18 13.60 13.41 12.61

Pigs weaned per litter 9.6 9.3 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.3 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.75 10.34 9.92 10.50

Pigs weaned per sow per year **

21.2 21.1 20.9 21.3 21.6 21.0 21.3 21.7 21.7 21.82 23.99 22.06 24.32

Average weight of weaned pig (kg)

7.3 8.1 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.0 7.9 7.7 7.0 7.02 7.32 6.85 6.84

Average weaning age (days)

27.0 26.0 26.5 27.0 26.5 26.0 27.0 26.5 25.8 26.08 26.05 26.36 26.06

Feed usage #Sow feed per sow per year (t)

1.402 1.298 1.296 1.584 1.300 1.330 1.345 1.365 1.601 1.547 1.589 1.666 1.559

Feed per pig weaned (kg)

73.0 68.0 70.2 79.0 72.9 64.5 63.0 64.3 76.1 72.46 68.93 75.48 64.62

Feed costs ###Sow feed cost per tonne (£)

110.03 102.63 133.36 180.72 153.53 160.34 194.44 204.31 226.82 196.10 n/a 182.72 n/a



Note: *Selected on feed conversion ratio.

Table 20: Overall rearing herd results, year ended Dec 2015

Top 10% * Top 1/3 * Average

Herd structure

Average number of pigs 1188 2259 2983

Pig performance

Average weight of pigs at start (kg) 7.3 7.4 7.6

Average weight of pigs produced (kg) 27.8 33.0 36.9

Rearing mortality (%) 1.9 2.9 2.8

Feed conversion ratio 1.32 1.53 1.89

Daily gain (g) 550 482 463

Days in herd 38 53 66


Note: *Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.

Table 21: Trends in performance and feed costs in the rearing herd 2005-2015

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Herd structure

Average number of pigs 1782 1377 1192 1994 2083 3345 1984 2237 2607 2523 2983

Pig performance

Average weight of pigs at start (kg)

7.3 7.2 7.4 7.7 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.57

Average weight of pigs produced (kg)

36.3 35.1 35.3 38.5 36.6 34.6 36.8 35.9 31.45 37.1 36.85

Rearing mortality (%) 3.4 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.8 2.79

Feed conversion ratio 1.70 1.71 1.82 1.73 1.80 1.75 1.71 1.77 1.84 1.71 1.89

Daily gain (g) 509 493 453 478 492 486 489 489 479 502 463

Feed usage and costs *

Feed cost per tonne (£) 183.22 192.04 213.63 272.83 277.40 297.11 261.95 346.89 352.17 282.15 252.56


Note: 1Rearing; Feeding; and Combined Rearing and Feeding do not necessarily directly correspond.

Table 22: Overall herd results ranked on Daily Liveweight Gain, year ended Dec 2015

Rearing Feeding Combined Rearing/Feeding¹

Top 10%

Top Third

AverageTop 10%

Top Third

AverageTop 10%

Top Third

Average

Herd structure

Average number of pigs 2187 3003 3007 1977 1688 1828 4750 3915 4278

Pig performance


7.9 8.1 7.6 39.6 41.0 37.2 7.7 7.8 7.7


43.8 43.5 36.9 111.2 110.7 107.9 109.3 105.2 105.5

Mortality (%) 2.1 2.0 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.6 3.5 4.3

Feed conversion ratio 1.81 1.80 1.90 2.53 2.47 2.69 2.26 2.28 2.43

Daily gain (g) 633 572 461 1030 960 817 796 766 660

Days in herd 57 62 67 69 73 109 127 127 151

Table 23: Overall finishing herd results, year ended Dec 2015

Top 10% * Top 1/3 * Average

Herd structure

Average number of pigs 1977 1688 1828

Pig performance

Average weight of pigs at start (kg) 39.6 41.0 37.2

Average weight of pigs produced (kg) 111.2 110.7 107.9

Finishing mortality (%) 2.5 2.6 2.7

Feed conversion ratio 2.53 2.47 2.69

Daily gain (g) 1030 960 817

Days in herd 69 73 109


Note: *Selected on feed conversion ratio.



Note: *Per tonne compound feed cost from AHDB since 2014.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Herd structure

Average number of pigs 1841 1992 2016 1811 1881 1788 2066 1764 1660 1733 1828

Pig performance


25.9 27.2 26.6 35.9 38.8 38.0 39.8 38.4 38.9 35.0 37.23


96.9 98.2 98.8 101.6 103.3 103.9 103.0 102.7 99.4 106.1 107.85

Finishing mortality (%) 6.5 5.6 4.8 3.3 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.5 3.1 3.2 2.74

Feed conversion ratio 2.74 2.75 2.73 2.87 2.77 2.95 2.82 2.72 2.80 2.67 2.69

Daily gain (g) 639 655 673 757 819 766 784 822 786 801 817

Feed usage and costs *

Feed cost per tonne (£) 119.69 119.87 132.75 184.12 183.99 177.46 261.83 241.52 248.06 231.70 205.56

Table 24: Trends in performance and feed costs in the finishing herd, 2005 to 2015

Table 26: Analysis of total services and returns by parity, year ended Dec 2015

Parity % of TotalFarrowing

Rate%Re-Service

Rate%Farrowing

IndexPercentage Share of Dead & Culled

Gilt 23.6 83.5 9.3 163.6 14.9

2 20.9 80.7 10.0 163.5 14.4

3 17.1 83.5 8.1 160.9 12.1

4 13.4 84.2 7.4 159.9 11.8

5 10.5 83.9 7.2 161.3 13.6

6 7.5 83.0 7.2 163.4 15.4

7 4.1 82.2 6.3 165.7 10.0

8 1.9 80.4 7.5 171.9 5.1

9 0.7 79.0 6.7 178.6 1.8

10 0.3 77.4 7.7 182.8 0.6

11< 13 0.1 71.8 15.0 202.1 0.3


Table 25: Analysis of pigs born, weaned and re-service rate by parity, year ended Dec 2015

Parity % of TotalBorn Alive per litter

Born Dead per litter

Total Born incl. Mummified

Weaned per litter

Weaned per Sow per Year

Gilt 23.6 11.7 0.5 12.2 10.8 24.4

2 20.9 12.1 0.5 12.6 10.9 24.7

3 17.1 12.7 0.6 13.3 10.9 24.8

4 13.4 12.8 0.7 13.5 10.7 24.5

5 10.5 12.6 0.7 13.5 10.5 24.0

6 7.5 12.3 0.8 13.2 10.2 23.0

7 4.1 11.9 0.8 12.8 10.0 22.3

8 1.9 11.3 0.8 12.2 9.7 20.9

9 0.7 10.8 0.7 11.6 9.4 19.7

10 0.3 10.1 0.7 10.9 9.0 18.6

11< 13 0.1 9.4 1.0 10.2 9.0 17.4



The AHDB Pork 5-Point Plan in the 2014-2018 Going for Growth strategy was developed to help deliveramorecompetitiveandprofitablepigproduction and processing industry. This includes working to narrow the technical performance gap between English pig producers and competitors through a number of workstreams.

Workstreams include:

• Establishingafieldtrialsprogramme

• Identifyinginnovationfromaroundtheworldanddisseminating it to pig producers

• Developing skills under the banner ‘Recruit, Retain, Reward’

recognisingprofessionaldevelopmentofstaff

and demonstrating a skilled and attractive career path

• Setting up regional technical forums.

This chapter outlines some of the key activity in which the

AHDB Pork research, development and knowledge transfer

team has been involved over the past year and looks at some

of the plans for the upcoming year.

Farm reviews

The knowledge transfer managers conducted 183 farm reviews

during the year with the aim of looking at how producers can

achieve, where applicable, AHDB Pork’s industry targets:

• +1 weaned pigs

• -0.1 FCR

• +50g DLWG

Within the farm visits, the team have addressed a number of

key areas, including:

• Indoorandoutdoorserviceareareviewstolookatimproving conception rates through management changes,

such as timing, stocking, feeding and pen layout

• On-farm training, using the AHDB Pork Practical Pig app,

onspecifictopicstohelppeoplegrowinconfidenceand

assistbusinessesthatarestrugglingtofindtimetorelease

people to go on training courses

• Farrowing house routines with the aim of reducing

mortality, improving weaning weights, sow condition

and the general environment

• Ventilation, for example, to improve pig lying patterns

• Pigflow

• Target setting

The farm reviews provide an excellent opportunity for face-to-

faceengagementwithproducersandenablebusiness-specific

information to be discussed, with the goal of measuring and

improving on-farm productivity.

Skills and training

TheAHDBPorkskillsandtrainingofferhascontinued

to develop during the year, with continued interest and

engagementfromlevypayers.Theimportanceandbenefit

of knowledge acquisition and skills development within

individual businesses is growing, with businesses committing

toongoingtrainingandprogressionofstaff.

Knowledge exchange “AHDB Pork provides training for stockpeople, supervisors, unit managers, production managers and business owners.”

The pig industry skills strategy ‘Recruit, Retain, Reward’

outlines the steps needed to ensure the industry remains

sustainableandprofitable.

The aims of the strategy are:

• Recruit: Provide and promote an attractive environment

for a progressive career within allied industries

• Retain: Promote skills development as vital to business

improvement

• Reward: Promote recognition of achievement to

motivatestaff

13,248 training hours delivered

51 scholarship applications across...

...8 scholarship companies

7 scholarships secured

Student feedback

“Iwasabletotakealotofpracticalideas from the stockman training to implement at work.”

Phil Thatcher, Stockperson Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme Exeter 2015;

Stockman Plus Exeter 2016

“ThefirststockmanplussessionIattended following completion of the previous course was the best so far. The speaker was brilliant and pitched the session at the right level and included the whole group.”

Ruth Thomas, Breeding Herd Manager Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme East 2014-15;

Stockman Plus East 2015-16

“Oncompletingthetraining,Ifeel whatIhavelearnedishelpingmetoachievemyaimsonthefarm.IbelievetrainingisthefutureforthenewstaffdevelopmentinthepigindustryandIamcurrentlysendingnewemployees on the courses.”

Thomas Bradshaw, Unit Manager Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme North; Stockman Plus

North; Technical Manager’s Scheme North

“These training sessions have given me up-to-date knowledge of indoor pig productionand,asaresult,Ihavebeenconfidenttosuggestmuchneedednewideasonmyunit.TheknowledgeIhavegained has helped me progress from stockman to assistant manager to pig unit manager, in three years.”

Darren Kent, Unit Manager Course(s): Stockman Development Scheme; Stockman Plus;

Leadership and Team Skills Award Awards: Trainee of The Year Winner 2015

Decision tree

Certificates of

Competence

Stockman Development

Scheme

Stockman Plus

Technical Managers

Scheme

Leadership Development

Scheme

Professional Manager

Development Scheme


AHDB Pork training review and update

Following a successful year of training delivery in 2015, a

review of the training courses, learning material and course

contentwascompleted.Subsequently,thetrainingofferwas

developed during the summer of 2015 ready for the start of

autumn training activities. Areas developed include:

• Upskilling training deliverers

• Reviewing and updating session content and session briefs

• Developing methods for trainee feedback

• Developing learning materials.

This work is ongoing with a focus on ensuring quality feedback

and measuring the impact of the training sessions.

Pig industry scholarship

ThePigIndustryScholarshipSchemehasgrowntoachieve

a successful third year of securing companies and scholars.

InAugust2015,eightcompaniesregisteredtooffer

scholarships to Harper Adams’ students. The eight companies

provided a diverse representation of the career opportunities

in the pig industry.

Following the scholarship fair in October, the enthusiasm

and interest from students was demonstrated by an increase

from 47 applications in 2014 to 51applicationsin2015.InNovember, seven scholars were secured across six of the

sponsoring companies. To date, 15 scholarships have been

awarded since the scheme was launched in 2013, with

twofinalyearstudentssecuringemploymentwiththeir

sponsoring company post-graduation.

PIPR review:In2015,AHDBPorkembarkedonareviewofthePigIndustryProfessionalRegister(PIPR).Theregisterwaslaunchedin2007andtherehas been a steady growth in membership; a review was planned to look at how the scheme could be developed to stimulate membership growth.

Feedback on the scheme was collected in 2015 via key account meetings, training and knowledge transfer(KT)meetings.InDecember2015,representatives from across the industry were invitedtoareviewmeetingtodiscusshowPIPRcould be developed to add value to members andimprovefunctionality.InFebruary2016,a consultation was launched to gain industry feedbackonwhetherPIPRshouldcontinueandhowit should be developed to provide increased value. The outcome of the consultation will be available during spring 2016, after which the next steps and course of action will be discussed.

AHDB Pork runs a number of study tours every year, both in the UK and overseas. The tours are aimed at looking at new technologies and/or production systems and are usually 50% funded by AHDB Pork, with the remaining 50% coming from a commercial company. Producers who are interested in viewing a particular system or technology overseas, or have an idea for a study tour, can contact their knowledge transfer manager to discuss possibilities.

Ireland

Activity:Visitslookingatdifferentbuildingtypes(hoopbuildings)

Who: A small group of four producers along with AHDB Pork

Sponsored by: AHDB Pork

Denmark

Activity: A trip to look at environmental and buildings issues,

includingreducingemissions,increasingprofitsandcomplying

with legislation at the same time

Who: Producers representing a large proportion of the pigs

reared in England, vets, nutritionists, researchers and the

Environment Agency


Study toursDenmark

Activity: Visits to a breeding herd to look at large litter

managementandalsotoabrandnewfinisherherdtoseehow

it manages gilt selection and to look at slurry management.

Business management was also a topic of much discussion.

Participants also visited Jyden Animal Housing to look at

differentfarrowingsystems.

Who:AgroupoffiveproducersalongwithAHDBPork


Feedback from participants:

“TheinformationIreceivedhasmademefeelmoreconfidentaboutsettingupmy own breeding herd and has answered alotofdoubtsIpreviouslyhad.”

“The visit to Jyden has shown me what methods we currently have in place when sows farrow in the freedom pens that should be changed, which will help with lowering mortality. We were closing in the sows before farrowing and releasing two days later, where we should let them farrow before closing in for two days.”


“A very good trip, a lot of information on how to reduce farrowing house mortality, especially with a high born alive, and we intend to use this information to improve the pigs per sow produced in our herd.”

Germany

Activity: VisitstotwohighperformingunitsusingRFID

technologytoimproveefficienciesandalookatfactors

influencingperformance:0.1 FCR, +1 weaned and 50g/day.

Participants also visited the Education and Research Centre

Futterkamptolookattheresearchprojectstakingplace,as

well as the Anhalt University of Applied Sciences where they

heard about their research work.

Who: AHDB Pork knowledge transfer team

Sponsored by: Purespekt and AHDB Pork

Australia

Activity: Visits to 11 farms covering a range of agricultural

sectors.ParticipantsmetwithkeyfiguresintheAustralian

agricultural industry to discuss how they cope with legislation,

labour, climate and water usage. A number of good ideas and

practices were observed on both pig units as well as beef, dairy,

arable, sheep and free-range chicken farms.

Who:Amixtureoffiveindependentproducersandamajor

corporate; included within the group were NPA and AHDB Pork

board members

Sponsored by: Fram Farmers

Holland

Activity: An introduction to the Dutch pig industry through

a visit to a 1,100 sow breeding unit and a day at the Swine

InnovationCentreinSterksel.Itprovidedparticipantswith

an opportunity to widen their knowledge as well as discuss

topical issues with others in similar roles.

Who: A group of seven head stockman and unit managers who

had completed the Technical Manager’s Scheme


Events

A wide range of events were held during the year, providing owners and farm managers, stock people, vets and associated trade, with up-to-date information and knowledgeonarangeofsubjects.

Pig clubs and workshops

Pig clubs provide one of the main opportunities that AHDB Pork

hastoinformandinfluenceproducers.Duringtheyear,150

pig clubs and workshops were held across the country. These

events, usually held in the evenings, attracted 3,347 producers

during the course of the year, with discussions covering a wide

range of topics, along with some benchmarking.

150 pig clubs and workshops were held across the country... 3,347 producers during the course of the year...

visit pork.ahdb.org.uk/events for more info

Regional forum

These meetings take place twice a year around the country.

They are a means of listening to the wider industry and enable

members to provide direct input into proposed AHDB Pork

technical activity and feedback on the quality and relevance

ofAHDBPork’s work.Moreinformationabouttheregional

forums, as well as summaries of the October 2015 meetings,

can be found online at:

pork.ahdb.org.uk/about-ahdb-pork/regional-forums

Innovation conference: A glance into the future

The2015InnovationConferenceshowcasedcuttingedge

technologytosafeguardpighealth.Itwasaimedatforward-

thinking owners and farm managers, vets and the allied

industry and attracted 225 delegates. Topics covered included:

• Breakthroughs in

electronicidentification

for pigs

• Novel diagnostics in the

animal sector

• Novel diagnostics in the

horticulture industry:

what can we learn?

• Outdoor innovations

• Indoorinnovations

• Innovationsinthe supply chain

• Alternative treatments:

Using viruses to diagnose

and treat bacterial

infections

• Probiotics and

autogenous vaccines

Presentations and videos from the event are available from:

pork.ahdb.org.uk/events/conferences/ 2015/innovation-conference/


Practical pig events

Six events, aimed at farm managers and stock people, were held

across England during November and December 2015, providing

practical advice to achieve a marketable pig, as well as guidance

on land and health management. The events attracted 167

delegates,themajorityofwhichbeingproducers.

The events attracted 167 delegates, themajorityofwhichbeingproducers

Programmes were tailored to the regions based on feedback

from the regional forums. Topics covered include:

• AHDB Pork – an update from the consumer marketing team

• Effectiveselectionofpigsforslaughter• Variationinfinishingpigs–whataretheproblems,howcan

they be managed?

• Thebenefitsofelectronictagging• AHDBPorkfieldtrials• Water for the outdoor unit

• Water: Where does it come from?

• Land management and legislation

• PRRS control

The presentations and videos from the event can

be downloaded from: pork.ahdb.org.uk/events/conferences/2015/practical-pig-events/

Getting through tough times

Five regional meetings for pig producers, focused on practical

ways to manage input costs were run by AHDB Pork during

March. With the industry facing tough times due to low prices,

the aim of the special meetings was to help producers

re-evaluate their units and get ideas on simple changes that

could strengthen their businesses.

...ideas on simple changes that could strengthen their businesses.

The events provided an opportunity to hear from key

industryfiguresandproducers,askquestionsandwork

through some ‘what if’ calculations to help decide how to

influencecostofproduction.

A full suite of information to help producers can be found

online at: pork.ahdb.org.uk/pig-production/ getting-through-tough-times/



The aim of research and field trials is to generate new knowledge about pig production and demonstrate this new knowledge in commercial environments…

…toremovesomefinancialriskswheninvestingon

farm. Work is aimed at optimising pig production

efficiency,enhancingpighealthandwelfare,

protecting the environment and maintaining safe

and traceable pork that is ultimately appetising to

the end consumer.



Health

Restructure of the Pig Health and Welfare Council

2015 saw the restructured Pig Health and Welfare Council (PHWC) delivering outputs from all of its subgroups in linewiththenewmilestonesandobjectivesofthosegroups. However, the broader remit of the 20:20 vision has still been maintained and remains a focus for the main council. Focus remains in four key areas, which are ofsignificantimportancetotheindustry,whileremainingcapable of being adapted to any unforeseen changes.

The PHWC subgroups now cover the following areas:

• Welfare: Enhancing pig welfare

• Pig Meat Food Safety: Enhancing pig meat food safety

• DiseaseSurveillance:Improvingpreparedness

for exotic and emerging diseases

• Antimicrobials: Reducing antimicrobial

use in pig production.

Disease Surveillance

The disease surveillance subgroup of the PHWC has been

actively involved in the development of an industry-wide

contingency plan against the highly pathogenic strains of

Porcine Epidemic Diarrhoea virus (PEDv). The contingency plan,

which is available from the AHDB Pork website, is the result

ofacollaborativeeffortbetweenanumberofpigindustry

groups and organisations.

“The delivery of an industry-led, government assisted, approach has been unique within the agricultural sector…”

As a result of the contingency plan, the Disease Surveillance

subgroup has worked hard, alongside Government, to make

PEDvnotifiableinEngland(sinceDecember2015)andtoassist

Scotlandinmakingthediseasenotifiable(sinceJanuary2016).

The delivery of an industry-led, government assisted, approach

hasbeenuniquewithintheagriculturalsectorandisreflective

of the hard work and close relationships within the pig industry.

“The disease surveillance subgroup is now focusing on the delivery of effectivesurveillancemethodologieswithin the UK.”

The disease surveillance subgroup is now focusing on the

deliveryofeffectivesurveillancemethodologieswithinthe

UK, looking at potential approaches that can be taken, as well

as the opportunities that data sharing may bring to produce a

moreeffectivemethodofmeasuringandcontrollingdisease.

A round-table discussion on syndromic surveillance is planned

for the autumn of 2016.

Measuring Antibiotics

Antimicrobial resistance has continued to increase in

importance throughout 2015, with elevated political and

mediaattentioninthisfield.

There has been much discussion of the topic in the context of

‘One Health’ and there is now increasing pressure on the pig

industry to be more accountable for its use of antibiotics.

“AHDB Pork aims to deliver tools and resources to producers and the wider industry which assist in achieving the aim of improving pig health and reducing antibiotic use by the UK pig sector. ”

Draft EU legislation proposes a requirement for total

usage data of antibiotics, by member state, and the PHWC

antimicrobials subgroup has been leading the development of

adatacollectionsysteminconjunctionwiththeVMD.

The group has also been looking at research into new areas

ofmanagementtoallowformorejudiciousantibioticuseand

also delivery of evidence-based best practice to help minimise

the dependency on antibiotics.

The disease surveillance subgroup delivered the following in 2015:

• Notifiablediseasestatusachievedwithin England and Scotland

• A completed set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) as a guide in the eventuality of a PEDv outbreak

• Continued testing and monitoring of all porcine diarrhoea samples through APHA for suspect PEDv

• Delivery of an epidemiological database in the event of a PEDv outbreak

• The completion of a fully functioning disease charter within Pig Hub

• Maintaining open, global communication channels, to promote exchange of knowledge and to ensure the latest understanding of the disease situation.

The antimicrobials subgroup plans to deliver the

following in 2016:

• A data collection system - electronic Medicine Book

for Pigs (eMB-Pigs) - launched in April 2016

• Appliedresearchtrialstoassistinamorejudicious

approach to antibiotic use as well as identifying gaps

in the current research

• Advice in the form of practical steps which can be used

to reduce reliance upon antibiotics while maintaining

productivity and mitigating additional costs.

AHDB Pork aims to deliver tools and resources to producers

and the wider industry which assist in achieving the aim of

improving pig health and reducing antibiotic use by the UK

pig sector. These resources need to be practical and not

burdensome to the producer, and AHDB Pork will continue to

work with key producer groups and consult the wider industry

throughout the process.

https://emb-pigs.ahdb.org.uk

for more info


Identifying the current knowledge relevant to the development of low atmosphere pressure stunning (LAPS) as a humane commercial system for slaughtering pigs.

Research partner: Silsoe Livestock Systems

Sponsor: AHDB Pork Duration: 2016

Aims and objectives:

• ToinvestigatethecurrentstageofknowledgeaboutLAPSandrelatedfields(suchastheuseofinertgaseswithpigs,poultry and rodents) by the study of the key published and grey literature sources and discussions with the current

researchersinthisfield

• Toinvestigatetheavailablerelevantknowledgeaboutdepressurisationintheaerospaceindustryanditseffectsonpilots, through a study of the literature and arranged meetings with key researchers

• To investigate the potential carcase and meat quality issues and identify potential control measures through study of

published and grey literature

• IndustrialvisitsandmeetingstoinvestigatethepracticalandlogisticrequirementsoftheUKpigindustryincluding

those of obtaining EU approval for LAPS.

The research, although on-track, had not been completed at the time of writing.

Welfare

AHDB Pork has committed to enhancing welfare in the EnglishPigindustry.Itsaiminthisareaistohelppigproducers comply with existing and emerging legislation and achieve recognition for progress made.

The welfare activities in 2015-2016 continued to centre on

supportforwelfareoutcomeassessments.InJuly,AHDBPork,

together with AHDB Dairy, was asked to appear as a hearing

expert to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), sharing

our collective knowledge on the use of animal-based measures

to assess welfare.

ItwastestamenttotheprogressivenessintheEnglishpig

industry as no other country, nor industry, has embraced the

conceptmore.Itwasclearthatanimal-basedmeasures,such

as those used in Real Welfare, are likely to play an increasingly

important role in risk assessments on a European level.

“Itwastestamenttotheprogressiveness in the English pig industry as no other country, nor industry, has embraced the concept more.”

Closer to home, the main focus of day-to-day activities has

continued to be on the Real Welfare Assessment Scheme.

Just under 10% of all individual pigs slaughtered in the UK

are being assessed under this scheme.

Ithasbeenoperationalforthreeyears,anditisexcitingto

have reached a stage where a solid baseline can be reported.

This has real value in supporting the industry, particularly as a

tool in export negotiations, given the demand for high welfare

pork from abroad and the natural focus to Britain.

“AHDB Pork trains new vets in the Real Welfare protocols and an online refresher training…”

AHDB Pork trains new vets in the Real Welfare protocols and

an online refresher training, for those trained three years ago,

is being rolled out.

Through the Pig Health and Welfare Council welfare subgroup,

AHDBPorkisalsoinvolvedinfindingsolutionstofreedom

around farrowing, good practice in on-farm euthanasia and

provision of water for piglets over two weeks of age. The latter

can be a challenge for outdoor producers in particular, and the

welfare team is working closely with both the KE managers

and the NPA to support development of a workable solution

where needed.

Beyond the farm gate, AHDB Pork commissioned exploratory

research into the commercial application of a potential new

stunning system for pigs: low atmosphere pressure stunning

(LAPS). LAPS essentially simulates induction to a high altitude,

low oxygen environment, which has the potential to humanely

induceinsensibilitybeforeslaughter.Initiallydevelopedfor

poultry and in commercial use in the USA, it looks promising

foruseinthepigindustryinthefuture,subjecttosubstantial

development and regulatory approval.

While, if borne out, this method may have welfare

advantages, it is important that other industry requirements,

such as line speed and meat quality, are fully taken into

account at the earliest opportunity. This is why AHDB Pork

commissioned the review.

Prevention of tail biting and associated tail management are integral to the work of AHDB Pork and,inthepastyear,wehavejoinedforceswithanumber of industry partners to further knowledge onthistopic.Inparticular,AHDBPorkandtheRSPCA administered a survey to pig farmers on their opinion of risk factors to tail biting.

The questionnaire was written by Professor Anna Valros from the University of Helsinki, Finland, and simultaneously sent out to Finnish pig farmers. Tail docking is prohibited by law in Finland, therefore, it is hoped that comparing opinions of farmers in both countries will yield useful information.

Early in 2016, the Finns hosted a delegation from the European commission to showcase their whole-tail husbandry methods.


Environmental Impacts and Sustainability of the English Pig Industry

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Greenhouse Gas Action Plan (GHGAP) sets out how

the agricultural industry in England is responding to the

challengeofreducingitsgreenhousegasemissions.It

shows a commitment to tackling climate change by reducing

greenhouse gas emissions by three million tonnes of CO2

equivalent per year from 2018-2022.

“The GHGAP is one of a range of initiatives already helping farming produce more while impacting less on the environment.”

Organisations from across the industry have been involved in

developing the GHGAP, including AHDB. Further work on this

important strategic area will include various activities with

which AHDB Pork is already engaged and which contribute to

resourceefficiencyacrosslevy-payersbusinesses.

Resource efficiency

Furtherworkonresourceefficiencyforlevypayershas

included collaboration with the Waste and Resources

Action Programme (WRAP), the Co-operative Food and its

porksupplier,Tulip,onaprojecttoidentifysavingsinthe

pork supply chain. Whole chain collaboration has delivered

significantsavings.Theaimoftheprojectwastopinpoint

hotspots of material use, greenhouse gas emissions, water and

waste,andthentofindwaysofusingfewerresourceswithout

compromising commercial performance. A case study has been

producedwhichfocusesonfiveofthehotspotsidentifiedand

highlights successes and good practices.

Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock

Growing populations, income gains and urbanisation have

made livestock one of the fastest growing sub-sectors of

agriculture. Ensuring that the continuing demand for livestock

products does not increase pressure on natural resources

and contributes to socially desirable outcomes, however, will

requirefurtheradjustmentsandimprovementsinsector

policies, governance and investments.

AHDB Pork has also been involved in discussions

regarding the update of the BREF (Best Available Techniques)

reference document. The draft has been approved and will

becomelegallybindingduringthefirsthalfof2016.Thenext

stage will be to develop training activities to explain the key

aspects to the industry.

Environment and buildings

Activity continues to be based upon the key aspects of the AHDB Pork business plan as follows:

• Running a business support service to advise on aspects

relating to buildings and the environment in order to

reduce environmental impact and to comply with relevant

environmental legislation and planning

• Monitoring, interpreting and helping to inform

environmental policy and regulations in both the UK and EU

• Capturing the progress made by the English pig industry

with regard to sustainability of the industry and

contribution to the Government’s greenhouse gas and

ammonia emission targets.

Environmental Permitting (EPR/IPPC)

The Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) [formerly the

IntegratedPollutionPreventionandControl(IPPC)Directive]

aim to reduce pollution from industrial activity by controlling

emissions. This means that indoor pig keepers with over 2,000

finisherpigplaces(above30kg) or 750 sow places (including

served gilts) on a site are required to obtain a permit from the

Environment Agency (EA).

AHDB Pork continues to provide:

• Bespoke on-farm workshops for farm managers

and stock workers to help them understand their

responsibilities and how to avoid non-compliances

andfines.Theworkshopscoversubjectssuchastypical

permit breaches, site and accident management plans

and how to deal with odour complaints

• Support to complete the application form,

including supplying templates for all the

necessary supporting documentation

• Guidance in helping producers understand the EA’s

ammonia screening tool outputs and how to design

buildings/production systems to be able to operate

below the new set limits.

Feedback

“The training was worthwhile – can we pay you for it? The EA were impressed that we had organised such an event and we are sure it helped with our inspection”.

Anonymous producer

Ventilation

As part of the support package for producers,

AHDB Pork has produced a series of ventilation

videos for the Practical Pig App. Narrated and

demonstrated by a ventilation specialist, the videos

show practical management techniques related to

maintaining ventilation systems, with the aim of

optimising pig production.

Other available resources include:

• Providing pigs with good ventilation in straw-bedded

general purpose buildings (booklet)

• Ventilation factsheet (Action for Productivity 21)

• Ventilating Pig Buildings Guide: an in-depth guide to

understanding the principles of ventilation, including

farm case studies demonstrating how to overcome

typical problems.

A Global Agenda, led by the Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nation (FAO) in Rome, focuses on the

improvementofresourceuseefficiencyinthegloballivestock

sector to support livelihoods, long-term food security and

economic growth, while safeguarding other environmental

andpublichealthoutcomes,factoringinregionaldifferences

and linking to other related initiatives as appropriate.

AHDB Pork has been contributing to this work by highlighting

thesuccessoftheEnglishPigIndustryintermsofdriving

sustainability and reducing its impact on the environment,

asreportedinthe‘EnvironmentalImpactsofEnglishPork

Production – The 2011 Roadmap ‘Advancing Together’’ and

the updated version ‘Advancing Together’ (January 2014). The

lattershowsasignificantimprovementintheimpactsofpig

production on the environment.

pork.ahdb.org.uk

Ventilating Pig Buildings Providing optimum living conditions for pigs

K11300_Pigs building pages-v6.indd 1 18/02/2016 10:36


Reducing ammonia and odour emissions

AHDB Pork is looking for ways to ensure English pig producers are equipped with the knowledge and technology they need to comply with new reduction targets for ammonia emissions. One such system is pH reduction of slurry, which is being used on farm in Denmark and formed part of an AHDB Pork-funded study tour programme.

TheDanishpigindustryhasbeensubjecttosomeofthe

strictest environmental legislation in Europe since the mid-

1980s.Theserulesincludefixedlimitsonthenumberof

animals which can be kept in relation to the land available for

slurry spreading, in addition to detailed rules on slurry storage

and its application. As a result of these regulations, about 75

of the 3,800 pig units, and 72 dairy farms, in Denmark have

installed systems to reduce the pH of slurry, helping to lower

odour and ammonia levels. The technique is based on proven

science and can reduce ammonia emissions by up to 65% and

odour by up to 43%.

“The systems contribute to a 65% reduction in ammonia emissions and 43% reduction in odour from pig housing.”

The system adds sulphuric acid to separated slurry until the pH

stabilises at 5.5.Itthengetspumpedbackintothepitwhich

is located in the pig house to a depth of 180mm, where it

remains for 1-2 days while the pigs dung into the pit. The pH is

never allowed to rise above 6.0. The slurry is then let out of the

pit and, in cases where additional odour reduction is required,

goes through a slurry separator, or alternatively, goes back

to the tank for more acid to be added so that the process can

begin again.

Itistheregularflushingofthepitswhichisfundamentaltothe

reduction of emissions. The entire system is run by a computer

and, therefore, requires no additional labour input once it is set

up and working.

Otherbenefitsofthesysteminclude:

• The reduced level of ammonia released from the slurry

means that the ammonia within the pig buildings is

depleted,whichhasbothhealthandproductivitybenefits

forboththelivestockandthestaffworkinginthebuildings

• Thenumberoffliesisoftenreducedwhichcanhelp

with biosecurity

• Asignificantreductioninammoniaandodourbeing

released from slurry stores. Danish producers claim that

they achieve emissions of only 1%, which means that

slurry stores do not need to be covered, this results in

substantial cost savings

• Available nitrogen and phosphorus in the slurry is increased

and the addition of sulphuric acid means there is a sulphur

benefit,solessfertiliserisrequiredforuseonarablecrops.

Seven articles have been published in the farming press as a

result of the study tour organised by AHDB Pork and a photo

story is available on the website.

AHDB Environmental and Agricultural Resource Efficiency Tool (EAgRET)

Project duration: 2013 - 2015


• To develop a calculator to build awareness and

understanding of how physical performance and farm

management decisions on the use of resources (including

land), determine environmental impacts and associated

economic impacts

• To show how a user-friendly, computer-based Calculator

can be used in AHDB’s interactions with UK farming and

supply chain businesses, to investigate the outcomes from

possible changes that might be made to farming systems

• To commission the development of the tool to better

understand and, thereby, inform discussions with

Government departments and other important stakeholders.

The tool:

• Isbasedonalibraryofdefaultdataanduser-modifications,allowinguserstoexploretheeffectonresourceuse

efficiencyofchangesinfarmingpracticethatmightarise

from government strategy or technical innovation

• Enables comparisons of scenarios by a trained user

• Provides outputs in a form that can be easily used to explain

theeffectsofthescenariostonon-technicalaudiences.

Itisnotexpectedthatthetoolwillenableindividualfarm

businesses to make management decisions, but does provide

an indication.

ThetoolwillbeusedbyspecificallytrainedAHDBstaffto

provideoutputsofbenefittogovernmentpolicymakers,

strategic decision-makers in businesses throughout the

agri-food chain, and farmers, through interpretation by a

knowledge transfer agent (e.g. AHDB knowledge exchange

teams). The tool is in the process of being tested across

the sectors.

Solubles (W-DDGS) and other co-products

• To identify the limitations associated

with feeding W-DDGS

• To identify routes to improving nutritional

value of DDGS

• TotestthemodifiedandimprovedDDGSproducts

using ruminant and non-ruminant species

• ToquantifytheoverallbenefitsofDDGSproductiononreducingdiffusepollutantsandenhancing

home-grown protein production.

Findings to date: The results of the work indicate

that w-DDGS may be used at up to 300g/kg (30%) in

balanced,pelleteddiets,forgrowingandfinishingpigs

from 40kg liveweight to slaughter, without adversely

affectingpigperformanceorcarcasequality

• W-DDGS is a potential home-grown substitute

for other protein sources, such a soya bean meal,

rapeseedmealandsunflowermeal

• While the bulk of this work concentrated mainly on

pelleteddiets,thew-DDGSneedstobefinelyground

to ensure homogeneous mixing when used in meals

• Itisvitalthatthequalityofthematerial,intermsof

its digestible nutrient content, is known and that this

information is fully utilised in the diet formulation

process to balance amino acid levels

• W-DDGS production could substitute 389kt of soya

bean meal and, therefore, spare 150kha of land area.

A conference entitled ‘The Future of Feed – New

Advances in Co-products For Pigs’ was held in April 2015

todisseminatethefindingsofthisproject.

Environmental and nutritional benefits of bioethanol co-products (ENBBIO)

TheENBBIOLINKprojectwasacollaboration

involving 25 industry and academic partners,

sponsored by Defra through the Sustainable

LivestockProductionLINKprogramme.

Project duration: 2010-2015

Aims and objectives: To quantify the chemical

composition of UK wheat Dried Distillers Grains with


Pork safety and product quality

There are many regulations that govern general food hygiene in abattoirs and cutting plants, but there are further rules and regulations for meat. Food business operators must also comply with strict animal health and welfare regulations.

The fourth point of the AHDB Pork 5-Point Plan addresses the

area of Safe and Traceable pork. We aim to help farmers and

processors produce pork that continues to be safe and which

consumersareconfidentaboutthetraceabilityfromfarmto

finishedproduct.

AHDB Pork aims to:

• Support the pig meat supply chain in producing wholesome

pork products with safety, provenance and integrity along

the whole chain

• PromotetheuseoftheSIRA(StableIsotopeReference

Analysis) tracing tool through the meat supply chain

• Work with RUMA and PVS to encourage responsible

use of antimicrobials, and improve the on-farm

recording of such use

• Help industry implement the changing Trichinella

testing regime, and ultimately, seek ‘negligible risk’

status for England

• Provide the Secretariat for the Pig Health and Welfare

Council’s Food Safety group

• Challenge government to meet their obligations regarding

providing post-mortem data to producers, and work with

themtofindthebestmethodtodothis

• Work closely with government departments to understand

and address levels of zoonosis in the pig herd

• Communicateresearchfindingsandupdatestotheend

user, via workshops, seminars and newsletters.

Development of novel technology for boar taint detection to assist with the production of taint-free pork

Research partners: University of the West of England

Sponsors: AHDB Pork-funded studentship

(Kelly Westmacott), JSR Genetics

Duration: 2014-2018


To fully characterise a UWE patented measurement

system for abattoir use, which will be able to

simultaneously determine the taint compounds

• To provide rapid results

to prevent tainted meat

reaching the consumer

• To assist research

into taint prevention

methods:

• Genetic selection

• Vaccination

• Dietary manipulation

• Other potential

strategies

• To ultimately improve

customer satisfaction

and increase

competitiveness of the

UK pig industry.

Findings to date:

• Good progress towards the validation of a novel

technology to measure boar taint compounds has been

achieved with fresh and frozen pork samples obtained

from both a breeding company and British retailers

• Skatole and androstenone concentrations in adipose

tissue were determined using both the novel sensor

and the validation method (gas chromatography)

• The concentrations of the two compounds measured

by gas chromatography correlate well with those

obtained using the novel sensor

• Regular updates are published in the Pig Abattoir

Newsletterandfindingstodatewillbepublishedlater

in 2016.

• The impending 2018 EU voluntary ban on castration

will result in more entire male pigs on the market,

therefore this technology remains vital to prevent

consumer dissatisfaction.

Validation of automated screening for pathologies at abattoir

Research partner: Tulip Ltd

Sponsor: AHDB Pork

Duration: 2014-2017


Tovalidateanddevelopeffectiveknowledgeexchangeforthe

outputsfromaparallelprojectwhichwill:

• Develop and deploy multi-camera recording infrastructure

that enables capture of images

of carcases

• Acquire image data sets and have experts annotate

pathologies in these images

• Developandrefinealgorithms/softwarethatcan

automatically recognise pathologies

• Validate these algorithms on large-scale datasets and

disseminate results to relevant users.

Findings to date:

• The computer programme has been ‘taught’ to recognise

differentpathologiesthatcanbepresentonoffal

• Theprogrammecanmapoffalanddistinguishbetween

differentparts

• Additional cameras are being added to provide a 360º view

ofoffalandcarcasesandtoimprovepicturequality.

Production efficiency

The English pig industry has a variety of production systems, including indoor and outdoor units, straw-based and slatted accommodation. This makes the industry quitedifferentfromourglobalcounterpartsandAHDBPork aims to narrow the technical performance gap between English pig producers and our competitors.

The contribution of oocytes and follicular fluid to pig fertility

Research partners: TheRoslinInstitute, University of Edinburgh

Sponsors: AHDB Pork-funded studentship

(Selene Jarrett)

Duration: 2014-2018


• Toidentifydifferencesinthemolecularcomposition

offollicularfluidasaresultofahighfibrediet

• To identify nutrition dependent molecular

mechanisms involved in blastocyst development

• To optimise oocyte maturation environment in vitro

and in vivo.

Findings to date:

• Studieswerecarriedouttoidentifydifferencesintheproteincontentoffluidsfrompigsfedacontrol

dietandpigsfedahighfibrediet,andonfluidsfrom

fertile and non-fertile pigs

• Over 140differentiallyexpressedproteinsweredetectedbetween thecontroland highfibreporcine

follicularfluidsamples,indicatinganutritional

influenceonproteincomposition

• Severaloftheseproteinswerealsodifferentiallyexpressed in the fertile versus non-fertile analyses,

suggesting that nutritionally altered porcine follicular

fluidproteincompositionmayaffectlaterfertility.

Itishopedthattheoutputsfromthisworkcould

influenceandrefinethefeedingregimensoffemalepigs

on commercial units prior to mating, to improve their

reproductive performance.


Sorting pigs at weaning in order to reduce variability and improve the efficiency of pig production systems

Research partners: Newcastle University

Sponsors: AHDB Pork-funded studentship (Anne Huting)

Duration: 2014-2018


• To reduce variability within pig groups through

managementandbydoingsoimprovetheefficiency

of production systems

• Toinvestigatetheconsequencesofdifferent management strategies on lifetime performance

of light, normal and heavy pigs

• Todevelopcost-effectivefeedingregimes.

Limited results are available at present, however, initial findings suggest that:

• Piglets that are born small perform better in uniform litters,

whereas piglets that are born heavy perform better in

mixed litters

• Creep feed supplementation does not contribute to an

improved performance pre-weaning

• Creep feed consumption is highly variable, both between

and within litters.

Field Trials

TheAHDBPorkfieldtrialsprogrammeisaseries of on-farm experiments aimed at solving herd performance problems.

Theyareprotocol-based,scientificallyrobustandaredriven

by adaptation of global knowledge. Some smaller-scale trials

are run as proof of concepts or initial investigations into new

technologies/best practice.

“Field trials are run on several farms foreachproblemareaidentifiedandarefunded 100% by AHDB Pork.”

Topicsforfieldtrialsarelargelyproposedbytheregional

forums, whose role it is to inform AHDB Pork of current and

future production issues on farm. However, applications from

individuals are welcome and should be submitted via their

regional AHDB Pork KE manager.

Thetrialsarerunacrossarangeofdifferentfacilities,

from large commercial production sites to dedicated

university and college research farms. This allows data to be

captured from both commercial, real world environments and

also more sensitive trials to be run in dedicated trial facilities. .

Outdoor farrowing tent

Aims and objectives: To increase the production potential of outdoor farrowing by providing more control at farrowing time.

The trial: Threeoutdoorunitshavebeenusingdifferingdesignsofafarrowingtent.Thedesignsvaryfromatentwithdedicated

farrowing pens incorporated into the design, to one tent overarching 12 traditional farrowing arcs. Sows had individual

farrowing paddocks for outdoor access and were individually fed.

Findings: Thefirstroundofthetrialisnearcompletion,withasecondgenerationdesigninprogress.Theaimistohavethis

tentonfarmbeforeSeptember2016withthegoalofsolvingissuesthathavebeenidentifiedinthefirstgeneration

designs. Physical performance results are being analysed and will be available soon for areas such as weaning weight

and weight gain. More pros and cons are highlighted below.

Completed field trials

Optimising the potential of the small pig through the implementation of best practice in the farrowing house

Aims and objectives: Toexaminethecost/benefitofbestpracticefarrowing

house management on a large, commercial site.

Findings: Earlyindicationsarethat,inthecurrentfinancialclimate,

thereislittlesignificantbenefitfrombestpractice

routines,suchasemployingadditionalstafftomonitor

and intervene in farrowings overnight. A full report,

including costings, will be published once the output has

been more thoroughly analysed

Pros Cons

Producers report reduced straw usage.Storing straw in the tents could attract rats, although this hasn’t caused any issues to date.

Staffenjoyworkinginthetentsinthewinter/harsherweatherasthey are out of the elements.

Thetentsaredifficultandtime-consumingtomove.

The tents with the individual farrowing pens could make providing creep, and/or water, to piglets far easier than in conventional arcs, pending some design alterations.

When tents are moved, the farrowing paddocks have to be taken down and moved individually for each sow space. As the shape and size of these can vary, this can make fencing with traditional materials time-consuming.

Once a standard operating procedure Was put in place and tailored to the tent, producers reported reduced mortality.

Ifanindividualfarrowingpenwithinatentbecomesflooded,thesow has to be moved, rather than simply moving the arc as would happen in a conventional system.

Producers report that it is safer to work with piglets in the farrowing tents than in traditional outdoor systems as the sows can be shut out.

Weaning is quicker as sows can be shut out and piglets collected into a passageway for removal.

Thetentshaveproventobesignificantlycoolerinthesummerandwarmer in the winter than traditional farrowing arcs (both painted and unpainted).

Asignificantincreaseinbothweaningweightandweightgain in the tents vs conventional arcs has been demonstrated on several occasions.


Investigating the effects of varying space allowance on the performance of growing-finishing pigs

Aims and objectives:Toinvestigatetheeffectofincreasedspace allowance for growth.

The trial: The trial was conducted at a university research

site.Pigswerehousedatdifferentstockingdensitiesusing

three varying space allowances: 0.68, 0.77 and 0.85m2. Pigs

weremonitoredoverfivebatchesfromnineweeksthrough

to slaughter.

Findings:Therewasnosignificantimpactofthevaryingspace

allowances on performance as a whole. However, Table 27 showsthesignificantvariationbetweenthesmallestspace

allowance (0.68m2) and the largest space allowance (0.85m2)

during two-week periods.

Table 27: Variation in daily liveweight gain (DLWG) of pigs housed at different stocking densities

The pigs housed at the lower stocking density (0.85m2 per pig)

experiencedagrowthbenefitofapproximately2kg; the value

of this additional growth is £45.16 per pen of 20 pigs (February

2016 prices).

At the higher stocking density (0.68m2 per pig) the pen

finishesanadditionalfivepigsperbatch,meaningthatfor

the £45.16 gain in revenue at the lower stocking rate, there

is a £588 loss in revenue per pen per batch by providing the

additionalspace.Thereis,therefore,nofinancialnetgainfrom

providing additional space in this case. The trial is scheduled to

run on a large-scale commercial site in spring/summer 2016.

Age (weeks)

DLWG increase (g/day)

Total additional growth (g)

9-11 11.13 156

11-13 NS* NS*

13-15 31.63 443

15-17 30.99 434

17-19 NS* NS*

19-20 67.90 951

Total 1,983

Note:*NSmeanstherewasnosignificantdifferenceinDLWGduringthattimeframe.

“Thereis,therefore,nofinancialnetgain from providing additional space in this case. The trial is scheduled to run on a large-scale commercial site in spring/summer 2016.”

Investigation of the effect of allocating 50% and 100% more feeder space on the performance of weaner/grower – finisher pigs

Aims and objectives: Toinvestigatetheeffectofdoublingfeeding space for growth.

The trial: The trial has been run on two dedicated research

sites,onewithflat-deckweaneraccommodationandonewith

slattedgrower-finisheraccommodation,allowing600, 900 and

1,200mm of trough space per pen of 25 pigs.

Findings: Nosignificantimpactwasobservedonproduction

parameters(DLWGandFCR)intheflat-decksystem.No

significantimpactonDLWGwasobservedintheslatted

accommodation either during the whole period from nine

weeks of age through to slaughter, nor between any individual

weighing (every two weeks during this period).

On-going Field Trials

Supplementation with omega-3 PUFA and effects on reproductive performance of sows

Aims and objectives: To address seasonal infertility and

increase piglet viability.

The trial: This is a long-term (>12 months) trial running

across two dedicated research facilities. There are two

groups of sows, control and treatment. The treatment sows

will be supplemented with a commercially available source

of omega-3 for one full gestation and lactation period.

All sows are being monitored throughout the period of

supplementation (both treatment and control) and during the

following gestation and lactation, to determine whether there

isanycarry-overeffectofthesupplementation.

Expected benefits: The goal of this study is to improve

numbers born alive and increase piglet survivability by 2%.

Findings to date: One unit has farrowed all sows through

thefirstpartofthetrial(thesupplementedphase);thenext

stage is to farrow sows in the carry-over stage of the trial. The

secondunitisduetofinishfarrowingthesupplementedsows

inlatespring2016.Aninterimreportontheinitialfindingswill

be produced and published late spring/early summer 2016.

The effect of different metabolic status of sows during gestation and lactation on subsequent performance of sows and piglets

Aims and objectives: To address variable weights and body

condition at farrowing and to improve sow longevity and

lifetimeperformance.Theaimistofindaquickandeasy

method of quantifying a sow’s metabolic status on farm.

The trial: The trial has been delayed due to issues sourcing

a unit with the necessary facilities, however, the intention

istorunthisprojectfortwomonthsinsummer2016and

to have completed a report by early autumn. The trial will

focusontheuseofeasilyappliedtools(flanktapesandasow

calliper) for measuring metabolic status, weight and P2. These

measurements will be compared and any correlations between

them reported upon.

Expected benefits: A 10%increaseinsowefficiency.

Evaluation of ultra-high frequency (UHF) electronic ear tags to optimise marketing strategies on farm

Aims and objectives: To undertake a feasibility analysis

to test the practicalities of using UHF technology on farm,

integrating this data into existing management systems (on

farm and at the abattoir) and using this data to inform better

management decisions.

The trial: The trial is looking at individual tagging of piglets

so that performance data can be tracked on a pig-by-pig basis

throughouttheproductionsystem.Crucially,theprojecthas

also involved co-operation with a large-scale abattoir in which

a UHF tag reader has been installed. This allows slaughter data

to be sent back to the farm and attributed to individual pigs.

Expected benefits: The development of a low cost tagging

system, allowing the integration of both on-farm and abattoir

data, could mean that, for farms running day-to-day trial

work,suchascomparingrations,performancefromdifferent

buildings or vaccination programmes, the data could be easily

and automatically collected and assimilated into one place.

The easier collection and assessment of data and the ability to

attributeittospecificanimalswouldmakecarryingouton-farm

costbenefitanalysisarelativelysimpleandpowerfulexercise.

ThebenefitsofUHFtagsoveralternative,readilyavailable,

tags include:

• Considerably reduced cost (30p vs £1.40)

• Easier to read in bulk, i.e. scanning a group of pigs will

return all tag numbers

• Easier to read from a further distance.

Findings to date: A standard operating procedure (SOP)

has been developed for using the system, the key

features of this include:

• Tagging should be carried out when the

pigletsarefirstprocessed,i.e.day1or2

• The same ear should be tagged for all pigs

• The male part of the tag should

be positioned on the outside

of the ear for improved

retention rates.

By following the SOP, more

than 95% of tags have been

retained and were readable

at the abattoir.


Establishing ammonia emission factors for straw-based and slatted finishing pig buildings and evaluating improved ventilation systems

Aims and objectives: To collect and evaluate data for ammonia

emission levels within pig sheds.

The trial: Ammonia concentration in the inlet and exhaust air

isbeingmeasuredusinganammoniaanalyser.Inaddition,the

number of pigs, weights, feed intake, protein content of diets,

ventilation rates, external and internal temperatures and

relative humidity are also being recorded.

Expected benefits:Moreaccuratelyquantifiedammonia

emissions will assist producers in obtaining consents

and permissions for new buildings and in making

investment decisions.

Findings to date:

• Anoptimumspecificationforafieldworkanalyser

has been determined

• Asecondammoniaanalyser,basedonthespecification,

has been developed and deployed on farm

• A robust SOP for installing sensitive equipment onto farms

has been developed.

Evaluation of a carcase cooling container

Aims: To evaluate the operation and performance of cooling

containers for the on-farm storage of dead pigs (fallen stock)

in England.

The trial: Two carcase cooling containers have been installed ontrialsites.Thecarcasecoolingcontainersarefittedwitha

mains-powered refrigeration unit, connected with a 16amp plug.

The temperature inside and outside the container is recorded to

monitorperformanceandeachofthecontainershasbeenfitted

with a meter to monitor the exact energy consumption.

Expected benefits: Potentially improved biosecurity and

carcase quality for enhanced marketable yield of products

derived from rendered material following storage.

Findings to date:

• Sincetheinitialfindings,whichshowedthatthecoolingcontainers kept the contents of the bin between 2 - 7°C,

even when the external temperature reached 30°C, the

variation in temperature has been reduced by 45%

• Fewer collections are necessary due to the fact that

producers on the trial farms are using a bigger bin than

previously and because the bins do not get as smelly

• Producers,theirstaffandthecollectorsapproveofthebinsastheyarelesssmellyandhavefewerflies

• Electricity use was in the region of 80p per day during the

summer period and less during cooler times of the year.

Further information: http://pork.ahdb.org.uk/environment-buildings/fallen-stock/carcase-cooling/

Blue lighting

Aims: To look at the impact of predominantly blue light,

producedbyLEDs,onpigsingrower/finisher

and weaner accommodation.

The trial: Oneweanerroomandonegrower/finisherroom

were equipped with commercially available blue LED light

panels and pig performance was monitored.

Findings to date: Performance data has been variable; one

of the batches with LEDs performed better than average for

the unit while another batch performed less well. While the

amount of data available from this small-scale trial does not

allowforanysignificantrelationshipstobeestablished,itis

evident that the blue lights do not negatively impact the pigs.

“…it is evident that the blue lights do not negatively impact the pigs.”

Staffworkingwiththepigshaveindicatedthatthosehoused

in the rooms with LEDs appear relaxed and more humanised,

asaresulttheycanbemoredifficulttomove.

Expected benefits: This topic is likely to be a focus for

the innovation team in the future as it could represent an

opportunity for low cost, easily installed, technology which

can have a positive impact on farm.

Future Field Trials

Environmental Particle Ionisation

Environmentalparticleionisation(EPI)hasbeendevelopedin

the USA. A high voltage, low amperage, current is connected

to a corona bar, this imparts a charge to microbial, gas and

dust particles in the atmosphere, causing them to fall to the

ground where they are no longer available for inhalation by

stockorstaff.

The trial: ThetrialwillinvolveinstallingtheEPIequipment

inonefinishingroom(fullyslated)onacommercialscale

research unit and monitoring environmental microbial

pathogens (E.coli and Salmonella), dust and ammonia,

alongside some odour sampling. Pig performance (DLWG and

FCR) will also be monitored on a pen level basis. The trial will

run from March to September 2016.

Expected benefits:Shouldthetechnologyproveeffective,itcouldleadtoanimprovementinbothlivestockandstaff

respiratoryhealthandpigperformance.Itmayalsooffera

morecost-effectivealternativetoairscrubbingequipment;

the cost of air scrubbing is in the region of £2.50 per pig

produced, based on the equipment having a working life of

15years.ByusingEPI,thecostisreducedtoaround24p per

pig produced, over the same time period. Figures will vary

depending on the size and throughput of installations.

Notes

60 | AHDB Yearbook 2015-2016

‘A growing English pig production and primary processing industry’Vision

‘To help English pig production and processing businesses become more competitive and profitable’Mission

While the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, operating through its AHDB Pork division, seeks to ensure that the information contained within this document is accurate at the time of printing, no warranty is given in respect thereof and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board accepts to liability for loss, damage or injury howsoever caused

(including that caused by negligence) or suffered directly or indirectly in relation to information and opinions contained in or omitted from this document. © Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) 2016. All rights reserved.

AHDB Pork is a division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.

For more information and advice contact: AHDB, Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, CV8 2TL Telephone: 0247 647 8792, email: [email protected] or visit www.ahdborg.uk

yearbook - ahdb pork · 2016-2017 (£’000) rd & ke market development export development...

Documents