PIC...modern swine breeding {and management, and micro management}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pic.com/Images/Users/1/SalesPortal/Literature/GL1710_PIC_CBV_r6.pdf

http://www.pic.com/cms/USA/763.html

http://www.pic.com/Images/Users/1/SalesPortal/Products/PIC337rg/337rgmanagement1-4.pdf

My goodness, Jonken...can`t a pog make it on his own with a little hhelp from mom these days?

The swine companies use indexes to determine which boars and gilts will become the parents of the next generation. They are actually concerned about inbreeding and strive to keep it low. As shown, they do provide some data on their lines. They don't need to show pedigrees when the entire line has been selected for the same index.

I believe you will find a similar strategy in poultry companies although corn varieties have much higher inbreeding levels due to the dramatically reduced cost involved.

DF . How have these indexes benefited the commercial swine producer ?
Can you repeat why pedigrees aren't shown .
Why are they concerned about keeping inbreeding low ?

Jon

jonken wrote:

DF . How have these indexes benefited the commercial swine producer ?
Can you repeat why pedigrees aren't shown .
Why are they concerned about keeping inbreeding low ?

Jon

The commercial swine producer buys the lines to target an end product.



Inbreeding is kept low to avoid inbreeding depression.

Why a concern for inbreeding depression within lines if the commercial producer is targeting an end product ?
Why don't they show pedigrees ?

Jon

Call Pig Paul (aka Donna Pauls husband) they live in Arizona now.

if the index is almighty, won`t the inbreeding level find it`s own level without purposely avoiding inbreeding ?

The way I see it.......

the poultry industry structured as small flocks scattered throughout the US folded rather quickly when it became possible to enter a contract with companies that would take the slaughter, maketing and distribution risk. These companies started breeding programs to improve production, carcass and consistency. All in, all out became normal.

The poultry industry is generally located in warm climates and often in regions where people were having tough economic conditions. The poultry companies have selection strategies to produce an efficient bird. They know their product is not really much different than their competition so they all compete on turnover; how fast can will the bird get big enough so we can clean out the barn and replace the previous flock. The poultry producer simply receives the birds and gets them to market. Genetics and nutrition are the concerns of the parent company while the barn owner provided the labor and management. A loading crew will come to load the birds when they go to market.

Today there are a substantial number of people wanting to produce a different product and connect personally with the customers. Their production methods are often different but so are the wants and needs of thir customers.

The swine industry was the "mortgage lifter" from the standpoint it was possible to make enough money to pay for the farm and also possible to be large enough for economies of scale and make a living on the farm. Murphy farms was was able to expand by contracting production in the local area, which happen to be economically depressed. Murphy supplied the management expertise, pigs and feed while the farmer provided the day-to-day labor. Efficiencies improved under this model.

The seedstock producers relied on promotion via show winnings and their next herdsire was often based on who owned the latest grand champion, which was chosen on conformation. At a time when large scale production was increasing, seedstock producers failed to address their needs of providing a large number of genetically superior animals. Commercial producers needed a large number of gilts as well as a leaner, more muscular pig. Seedstock producers failed to increase in size to supply the gilts. In addition, the pigs were getting fatter, instead of leaner. Genetic companies, such as PIC and Dekalb, entered the seedstock business and based their breeding decisions on economic benefit of the traits of importance. Kinda redundant; any trait that effects profit is a trait of importance!

As large swine operations increased, the small producers left the business. This accelerated in 1998 when hog prices were $0.08/lb. Substantial numbers of independent and smaller producers exited the business. This also drove the seedstock producers who supplied them boars and gilts out of business. The remaining producers entered the show pig business.

Hog prices dropped again recently but had less effect on driving the small producers out as most of the small producers had already exited the business in 1998. This time the big companies would have to make the necessary changes.

My family supported the smaller seedstock producers until they went out of business. This was probably going to happen relatively soon anyway as better boars could be purchased from the large genetic companies. Pedigree is not really important to us as the company keeps records of the boars we buy and can supply unrelated boars as needed. The data is important as well as type. Boars that can't hold up and produce crappy females are a huge money sink and must be avoided. The data doesn't have to be extreme but must keep us competitive. The days of buying boars on type alone have been over for a while. We get paid on the rail, not on what they look like going into the plant.

The county fair used to be where a place the youth made a little money by showing and selling pigs they bought from their parents or from sows they raised themselves. Now it is pretty much the purchase of the "freaky" type or the "cool" type!!!!

All of you know the history of the cattle business and far be it for me to discuss it. However, I do think there are several noteworthy events that went under the radar. One of those events occured at the GV assoc when they actively promoted hybrid seedstock. When asked if there was danger of a large genetic companies stepping in as they did in the swine industry, the exec stated that as long as feeders and especially packers could get the product they wanted, it would probably not happen.

Another event was the SM assoc, in their weekly email, showed the results of extensive carcass testing and the bulls that produced the top carcasses. These results led them to highly recommend some minimum EPDs to their membership in selecting herdsires. Of course they understand the diverse environments and kept the requirments relatively loose. By the same token the SM assoc supplies EPDs and indexes to judges to help in their decisions at shows. Judges prefer to stand behind pretty animals that conform to the latest "ideal" so they probably go unused for the most part. While one of the heaviest used SM bulls is also a very low marbling bull, one of the heaviest bulls is fairly high marbling. As the number two man at ASA for many years was a pig man, he saw a need for SM breeders to continue to use data to produce the best animals possible, or risk being pushed out by larger and larger producers.

Another notable change was the creation of the Power Bull model in NE, where customers calves already have a competitive bid from feedlots. The seedstock model is based largely on SimAngus bulls but also some CE bulls specifically for heifers. While other models have failed once they achieve this level of marketing, the incentive created by bidding on their customers calves have insulated them to a certain extent, and the company continues to grow. There are reps across the Midwest ready to supply bids on calves.

The point is the swine industry has changed dramatically but the smaller, independent producers are more reliant on data to help them be competitive in a commodity business. Producers want to know how the purchase of that boar will affect their bottom line. Uniformity is important but not an overriding issue. As long as the hogs hit the acceptable range around the ideal target, things are generally good.

more later............

DF , How have and or will these indexes and epds you speak of be of benefit to the consumer of said commodities . Jon

You mean the product has to satisfy the consumer? No, that's not right. No, the producer has to satisfy the packer. THE PRODUCER HAS TO SATISFY THE PACKER! I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LA LA LA LA LA LA.

TD, sporting my new pair of cargill earmuffs.

df, I repeat "What we have here is a failure to communicate". You live in la-la land if you don't know that the current chicken, turkey and pork from commercial sources either has no taste or poor taste. And the companies that provide all of that goodness to the economically depressed farmers jerk them around like dogs on a chain. The small pork producers were forced out of business by the way they were paid at the processing plants. If the plants needed their hogs to keep the lines running they paid them what they were really worth. If there were plenty of hogs they found every discount that they could stick them with.

You can invent the history of the beef cattle industry in your next segment.

Tom D wrote:

You mean the product has to satisfy the consumer? No, that's not right. No, the producer has to satisfy the packer. THE PRODUCER HAS TO SATISFY THE PACKER! I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LA LA LA LA LA LA.

TD, sporting my new pair of cargill earmuffs.

No No Tom it is the Good Feed lot guy that is the master of the universe. The Feed Lot guy the feed lot guy

EddieM wrote:

df, I repeat "What we have here is a failure to communicate". You live in la-la land if you don't know that the current chicken, turkey and pork from commercial sources either has no taste or poor taste. And the companies that provide all of that goodness to the economically depressed farmers jerk them around like dogs on a chain. The small pork producers were forced out of business by the way they were paid at the processing plants. If the plants needed their hogs to keep the lines running they paid them what they were really worth. If there were plenty of hogs they found every discount that they could stick them with.

You can invent the history of the beef cattle industry in your next segment.

I am well aware of the taste of chicken, turkey and pork. As stated above, there are producers of chicken and pork that have opted to find their own markets. Maybe I did not make that clear when I stated above "Today there are a substantial number of people wanting to produce a different product and connect personally with the customers. Their production methods are often different but so are the wants and needs of their customers."

I did not comment on how the companies treated the economically depressed farmers.

So you agree that packing capacity was less than supply, making it possible to pay the non-integrated producers less when the packing plant was already full?

Quote :

I did not comment on how the companies treated the economically depressed farmers.

So you agree that packing capacity was less than supply, making it possible to pay the non-integrated producers less when the packing plant was already full?

I continue to comment about the people involved because people are more important than product to me. Right now I don't feel a lot like agreeing to anything because it seems to be the same old point and counterpoint arguements back and forth. You are welcomed to reread what I put in the last section of ill comments to see if you perceive that you, me or anybody agrees. But to extoll the mass production of poor tasting food at the borderline abuse and use of people is not something I neither care to nor plan to defend. df, you just keep whittling away on LL and MK and I'll just watch from a distance.

My view of this has more to do with the bigger picture of personal choice and the loss of personal freedoms that has forced a lot of these issues. If a neighbor wants to raise his hogs, kill them, cure the hams, grind the sausage and sell it directly to me from his home kitchen or backyard then he should have the right to do it. But not in the USA where federal and state officials seek to protect me from my neighbor. Drop all of that junk and the local markets would bloom. Leave them as they are and the bigger companies have the edge and will influence if not dominate the market. This is way beyond your role of shaping the cattle industry or training young minds or whatever you do in the public arena.

The over-riding principle in play here is: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

I remember the early 60s When the Farm Bureau came out with a poultry production plan in our area that was very exciting. Farmers were contracted to raise chickens-for what was considered to be a nice profit. The FB loaned folks money to build chicken houses and they would supply the chicks and the feed. So the houses were built and off everyone went. The first year or so it was one big happy family and more folks jumped in on the deal. "Year two": "Oh, I am so sorry we don't have chicks for you. We will offer to pay you 'pennies on the dollar' for your chicken house." "Year three": "Oh look! There are now chicks available.....how did that happen!!!???"

"Non-integrated", what a term there DF! The "integrated" folks have pillaged and raped our land and the farm community for everything they can and now a very few control our food supply in about every way possible. It truly saddens me.

DF , Your point in posting the links to start this thread WAS ? Jon

The original point was that I would like to see data that shows the comparison of the sires of interest to the general population so an informed buying decision can be made. Pig genetic companies do have data and show what the differences are.

I see some feathers have been ruffled with the discussion of the current poultry and swine industries. Some of you may have determined that I advocate these models. I don't think you will find that in my writing, although I can see how some might think it is so.

DF Now that we are aware of your original point , do you mind answering Hilly's question and then my questions ? thanks , Jon

Maybe not relevant to the discussion here but there is an outfit in the UK that are very progressive on the pork and crop front - JSR. They branched into beef in the mid 1990s with the intention of implementing similar strategies to what they used in pork. Their strategy was importing the LCC Stabiliser and calling it a breed. Not sure where it currently sits in terms of popularity - i've heard guys for and against them. Is this as good as the technical "pork like" approach that df proposes gets?

JSR Website - www.jsr.co.uk/about_jsrfarming.php

A link to the stabilizer beef website
www.bigbeef.co.uk/default.asp?catid=31

From my limited experience of raising and retailing hogs I think perhaps it's unfair to blame a poor consumer eating experience on the genetics when it's more environmental in my opinion. We have had good success talking hybrids out of the conventional system and rearing them outdoors. I still prefer something with more traditional genetics as they are slower growing and that seems to give a finer texture and taste. If they would just take the hogs out of the hog barns the pork wouldn't taste of hog barns. That ammonia seeping into every organ and pore of their body all their lives is just gross. We are 3 miles from some smaller scale hog barns and the smell at times is unbearable. We rear pigs in our own yard with no smell - they are such a clean animal how could humans screw up a system so badly? I guess it's the greed thing again.

The data collected by the modern mega super tastlesss bland bendoverandtakeitandlikeit, has indeed helped them achieve their goal of a pig or chicken that eats alot and gains alot and poops alot and dies alot.

I see your points on the data df, but I think what most here are concerned with or already have observed, is the unexpected or anticipated changes that occur when one thing is changed in the animal. Crazy stuff happens in the selection process to ''improve'' animals. For instance one line of chickens we had had an unsatiable appettite for the buttholes of other chickens. I doubt the index covered the "the I want to eat your butthole data field''. So then the environment changed, as in feed or light or something to counter affect the butthole eating, of which reduced feed efficiency. I could go on and on about super duper confinement chickens, and all the ills that plague them, but it gives me ulcers. My distaste for ulcers is almost as much as my distaste for watching chickens eat each others buttholes. But, indeed much data has been collected in the process of creating a chicken that won't go to roost.


Bootheel, knowing you cannot change them without changing them



and welcome to hog waller jon

Bootheel wrote:

The data collected by the modern mega super tastlesss bland bendoverandtakeitandlikeit, has indeed helped them achieve their goal of a pig or chicken that eats alot and gains alot and poops alot and dies alot.

I see your points on the data df, but I think what most here are concerned with or already have observed, is the unexpected or anticipated changes that occur when one thing is changed in the animal. Crazy stuff happens in the selection process to ''improve'' animals. For instance one line of chickens we had had an unsatiable appettite for the buttholes of other chickens. I doubt the index covered the "the I want to eat your butthole data field''. So then the environment changed, as in feed or light or something to counter affect the butthole eating, of which reduced feed efficiency. I could go on and on about super duper confinement chickens, and all the ills that plague them, but it gives me ulcers. My distaste for ulcers is almost as much as my distaste for watching chickens eat each others buttholes. But, indeed much data has been collected in the process of creating a chicken that won't go to roost.


Bootheel, knowing you cannot change them without changing them



and welcome to hog waller jon

I knew it was coming, I knew it would be good. I had no idea it would be this good.

Game, Set, Match. Bootheel the wordsmith triumphs again.

df wrote:

The original point was that I would like to see data that shows the comparison of the sires of interest to the general population so an informed buying decision can be made. Pig genetic companies do have data and show what the differences are.

I see some feathers have been ruffled with the discussion of the current poultry and swine industries. Some of you may have determined that I advocate these models. I don't think you will find that in my writing, although I can see how some might think it is so.

my feathers didn`t get ruffled until I imagined a chicken pecking at my butthole; then every part of me ruffled, shuddered, or something near that ...the PIC model/info has been posted here before by Kent I believe...I`m all for the concept; and if you can develop an index as I asked you to a couple days ago so that if I use it, I can guarantee improved fertility, calving dates, etc with your money behind my guarantee, I`ll weigh more often than the big jimmer...
All these recommendations from university professors that fail should cost the one who erred; just like farming...

Alas, it appears I am in error.

jonken asked
How have these indexes benefited the commercial swine producer ?
Can you repeat why pedigrees aren't shown .
Why are they concerned about keeping inbreeding low ?



hilly asked

So are you saying if the ADFI to ADG ratio favours the wet feed over dry in efficiency with a .15 probability but increases the backfat .04” and decrease yield and percentage lean, if all the while maintaining the ideal head space of 13”, that the resulting feed to gain ratio will help us understand why THE DIFFICULTY IS IN THE APPLICATION....not by genetic principles, but by the short sighted, self-greed/preservation of human nature

Concepts involving the value of genetic selection based on various forms of survival criteria are extremely valuable to operations such as mine. It manifests itself in animals that are healthier and do not get every single bug that comes down the road. The value to the industry aside from the value at the cow/calf/yearling level is huge. These are cattle that stay healthier in the feedlots and thus produce a better product. Much of their successful performance comes from their built in health. My only point really is this. When you doctor very few animals and certify the remainder as all natural you pass on true value to the next stage in the industry. Contrast this to various herds I know about where the cattle are sick all the time, people are out there doctoring them from birth on. I don't really care how high the marbling/carcass value number a steer might have, if he got doctored 2-3 times for pneumonia in his youth, his lungs got damaged and he'll be lucky to make it to the end of the chain. And then when you start thinking about some of the stuff Bootheel has mentioned, plus the amount of antibiotics being pumped into confinement animals of all types, it gets to be a genuine horror story.

Dennis Voss in the vicinity