A summary of 51 swine herds in the western cornbelt that used PigCHAMP as their reproductive record system during 1994 was completed. This summary documents the wide range in performance that existed among herds. Using 10th and 90th percentiles, farrowing rate ranged from 69.1% to 88.1%, pigs weaned per litter from 8.1 to 9.8, and litters per mated female from 1.76 to 2.36. Overall reproductive performance, reported as pigs weaned per mated female per year, ranged from 14.8 to 22.4 with a 50th percentile value of 19.3. These results can be used for planning and decision making purposes in individual swine enterprises

Baysinger, Angela

Brumm, Mike

Cox, Barbara B.

Dewey, Cate

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Nebraska Swine Reports Animal Science Department 
1996 
PigCHAMP Summary of 1994 Reproductive Herd Performance 
Mike Brumm 
University of Nebraska, mbrumm@hickorytech.net 
Cate Dewey 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
Barbara B. Cox 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, bcox2@unl.edu 
Angela Baysinger 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/coopext_swine 
 Part of the Animal Sciences Commons 
Brumm, Mike; Dewey, Cate; Cox, Barbara B.; and Baysinger, Angela, "PigCHAMP Summary of 1994 
Reproductive Herd Performance" (1996). Nebraska Swine Reports. 199. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/coopext_swine/199 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Swine Reports by 
an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
13
Table 1. Carcass information for the two workshops.
Standard
Trait Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum
First Workshop (50 hogs)
Hot carcass wt, lb 166.6 7.6 154 186
Tenth rib fat, in 1.08 0.24 0.6 1.78
Loin muscle area, sq in 5.45 0.65 4.12 6.65
Second Workshop (50 hogs)
Hot carcass wt, lb 171.9 7.4 153 193
Tenth rib fat, in 0.90 0.32 0.48 1.98
Loin muscle area, sq in 5.99 1.03 3.55 7.95
standard deviations of prediction,
standard deviations of the difference
and the bias, which is the average
difference between live and carcass
measurements. The standards for
these statistics were:
Standard deviation of prediction.
Tenth rib backfat 0.15 in.
Loin muscle area,
tenth rib 0.50 sq. in.
Standard deviation of the difference.
Tenth rib backfat 0.10 in.
Loin muscle area,
tenth rib 0.40 sq. in.
Burson and Brian Demos, Graduate
Research Assistant.
Certification was granted to tech-
nicians who meet specified criteria
for prediction of carcass data, repeat-
ability of ultrasound measurements,
bias and if they demonstrated pro-
ficient knowledge concerning the
use of ultrasound and performance
data.
The statistics used to evaluate a
technician’s ability to predict carcass
measurements and repeatability of
ultrasonic measurements were the
Bias.
Tenth rib backfat 0.15 in.
Loin muscle area,
tenth rib 0.05 sq. in.
Results
The carcass information for the
pigs used in the two workshops are
listed in Table 1. Both workshops were
conducted with pigs that were market
weight and varied in backfat and loin
muscle area.
A total of twenty-three individu-
als participated in the two workshops.
Nine individuals were granted certifi-
cation for both backfat and loin muscle
area and eight individuals were granted
certification for backfat only. Six indi-
viduals did not meet the certification
requirements.
1Doyle Wolverton is an Extension Youth
Specialist and Dennis E. Burson is an Extension
Meat Specialist in the Animal Science Department.
Thomas E. Socha is Manager of the Nebraska SPF
Swine Accrediting Agency, Lincoln, NE.
tiles, farrowing rate ranged from 69.1%
to 88.1%, pigs weaned per litter from
8.1 to 9.8, and litters per mated female
from 1.76 to 2.36. Overall reproduc-
tive performance, reported as pigs
weaned per mated female per year,
ranged from 14.8 to 22.4 with a 50th
percentile value of 19.3. These results
can be used for planning and decision
making purposes in individual swine
enterprises.
Introduction
PigCHAMP is a swine production
records software program developed
at the University of Minnesota. Al-
though there are many other excellent
computer software programs for pro-
ducer use, PigCHAMP remains one of
the most widely used programs by in-
dustry advisors.
A challenge for individual pro-
ducers and their advisors is interpreta-
tion of the various reports generated by
a record system. The “Performance
Monitor” is the most widely used re-
port from PigCHAMP, giving produc-
ers and advisors a one-page overview
Mike Brumm
Cate Dewey
Barb Cox
Angela Baysinger1
Summary and Implications
A summary of 51 swine herds in
the western cornbelt that used
PigCHAMP as their reproductive record
system during 1994 was completed.
This summary documents the wide range
in performance that existed among
herds. Using 10th and 90th percen-
PigCHAMP Summary of 1994 Reproductive
Herd Performance
(Continued on next page)
14
of the biological performance of the
reproductive herd. While advisors and
producers use individual herd perfor-
mance records to solve problems and
set production targets, there is a need
for summary information across a num-
ber of herds keeping records on the
same system.
Advisors, lenders, and others as-
sociated with the swine industry are
often faced with the challenge of esti-
mating “normal” or “realistic” pro-
duction for situations such as cash-
flow projections and pig-flow projec-
tions. In many situations, producers,
investors, and advisors are interested
not only in the “normal” or average
values, but also what a producer can
expect if everything goes right, or what
a producer can expect if disaster strikes.
Data Collection
Veterinarians in Nebraska, Iowa,
Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and South
Dakota who were members of the
American Association of Swine Prac-
titioners were contacted in late May,
1995 for the names and addresses of
producers using PigCHAMP for sow
productivity records. Producers iden-
tified in this manner were individually
contacted for permission to use data
from the 1994 production year. As of
September 15, 1995, 61 herds had sub-
mitted data files for inclusion in the
data set (Table 1).
After conversion to PigCHAMP
v3.05, the data from each herd were
examined for accuracy and complete-
ness. Herds were excluded from the
data summary if:
1) ending female inventory dif-
fered from average female
inventory by 20% or more
2) farrowing rates were 100%
for three consecutive months
3) the weaning to first service
interval was less than four
days
4) the percent of females mated
by seven days postweaning was
greater than 96%
have lower values for the production
parameter and 25 herds have higher
values.
The average value is the mean for
all 51 herds and may differ from the
50th percentile if the data are skewed
or if there are a few outlying data
points. An example is the wean-to-
first-service interval. While the 50th
percentile is 7.0 days, the mean of 7.6
days reflects at least one herd that
appeared to skip an estrus cycle for all
females at weaning when rebreeding
(28.6 day interval) and two herds that
appeared to skip an estrus cycle for
first parity females (14.7 and 12.2 day
intervals).
Many producers submitting data
did not record gilt entry dates. In many
cases, females were not entered into
herd inventories until a breeding (ser-
vice) occurred. Therefore, the data pre-
sented in Table 2 are per mated female,
not per inventoried female, which is
the method used for the Nebraska Swine
Enterprise Record results which ap-
pear elsewhere in this publication.
Litters per mated female per year
was quite variable among the herds in
this data set. The average number of
litters per mated female was 2.12, with
a range of 1.76 to 2.36.
For herds in this data set, females
averaged 10.2 pigs born live per litter
farrowed in 1994 with 80% of the
herds (10th to 90th percentile) report-
ing 9.4 to 11.1 live born pigs. Pigs
weaned per litter was 8.9 with a range
5) preweaning mortality was less
than 5%
6) female culling rate was not
between 20 and 80%
These culling rate and inventory
criteria were established to avoid in-
cluding herds in the data set that had
recently repopulated or herds that were
expanding and had a large percentage
of gilts in the female inventory.
Results
The 10th and 90th percentile val-
ues are reported in Table 2, rather than
minimum and maximum values. The
10th and 90th percentiles give an indi-
cation of the best or worst values for a
production parameter, depending on
whether a high or low value is desir-
able, and minimizes the impact of out-
lying data points on the values re-
ported. The 50th percentile value rep-
resents the median value for the 51
herds in the data set. Twenty-five herds
Table 1. Geographic distribution of herd data
bases evaluated.
No. Herds
State Submitted Included
Colorado   4   3
Iowa 19 17
Kansas 23 19
Missouri   1   0
Nebraska 14 12
Total 61 51
Table 2. Rankings of 1994 reproductive performance from 51 herds using PigCHAMP.
Percentile
Itema 10th 50th 90th Average
Litters weaned, no. 301 822 2013
Parity of farrowed sows, no. 2.0 3.3 4.1 3.2
Farrowing rate, % 69.1 77.7 88.1 77.3
Pigs born live/litter farrowed, no. 9.4 10.1 11.1 10.2
Preweaning mortality, % 7.6 12.5 17.1 12.2
Pigs weaned/litter farrowed, no. 8.1 8.9 9.8 8.9
Age at weaning, days 18.4 21.2 26.2 21.6
Pigs weaned/mated female/yr, no. 14.8 19.3 22.4 18.9
Litters/mated female/yr, no. 1.76 2.20 2.36 2.12
Wean to first service interval, days 5.1 7.0 9.8 7.6
aEach item sorted independently of all other items.
15
of 8.1 to 9.8 pigs.
The combination of litter size and
litters per year is reported as pigs weaned
per mated female per year and is often
considered the single best measure of
reproductive biological efficiency. While
the average was 18.9 pigs per mated
female, the range was 14.8 to 22.4 pigs
(10th to 90th percentile).
These results verify the great varia-
tion in biological performance that
exists in swine herds in the western
cornbelt. Possible causes of this varia-
tion include such items as genetic source,
facilities, planned production sched-
ules, disease, and management. The
use of 10th and 90th percentiles is not
meant to imply that producers should
strive at all costs to attain the better
reproductive efficiency these values
represent. Rather, producers are en-
couraged to consider these values as
reasonable performance limits with the
understanding that optimal financial
efficiency may mean less than maxi-
mum reproductive efficiency.
1Mike Brumm is a Professor of Animal Science
and an Extension Swine Specialist at the Northeast
Research and Extension Center, Concord; Cate
Dewey was an Assistant Professor Epidemiology,
and Barb Cox was a Research Technologist,
Veterinary Science at the Great Plains Veterinary
Educational Center, Clay Center; Angela Baysinger
is an Extension Swine Veterinarian, Department of
Veterinary Science at the University of Nebraska,
Lincoln.
1995 Nebraska Swine Enterprise Records
Program Results
Dale Kabes
Michael Brumm
Larry Bitney1
Summary and Implications
Data from cooperators partici-
pating in the Nebraska Swine Enter-
prise Records and Analysis Program
were summarized for the period Janu-
ary to June 1995 and July 1, 1994 to
June 30, 1995. Results continue to
show significant variability in pro-
duction and financial parameters
among individual swine enterprises.
The results indicate that efficient,
well managed swine enterprises can
be profitable and competitive in a
dynamic industry.
Average values of several produc-
tion and financial parameters for far-
row-to-finish, and farrow-to-feeder pig
enterprises for the first six months of
1995 are given in Tables 1 and 2. Also
included in the far right column of
each table is annual data from July 1,
1994 through June 30, 1995. In addi-
tion to the overall averages for each
enterprise type, averages for the high
1/3 profit group and low 1/3 profit
group are listed for the farrow-to-
Table 1. Selected items for farrow-to-finish enterprises.
January 1 to June 30, 1995
July 1, 1994
High 1/3 Low 1/3 to
Item Average profit profit June 30, 1995
Number of farms 37 12 12 20
Profit/cwt pork produced $4.75 $11.32 -$2.07 -$1.22
Total cost/cwt pork produced $40.99 $36.63 $44.20 $39.69
Total variable cost/cwt pork produced $35.76 $33.24 $38.46 $35.52
Fixed cost/cwt of pork produced $5.24 $3.39 $5.74 $4.17
Total feed expense/cwt pork produced $24.27 $23.12 $25.47 $24.05
Average cost of diets/cwt $6.61 $6.38 $6.79 $6.44
Feed/cwt pork produced, lb 368 362 377 373
Pigs weaned/female/year, no. 17.9 18.3 16.3 17.6
Pigs weaned/crate/year, no. 78.4 81.3 79.2 76.6
Table 2. Selected items for farrow-to-feeder pig enterprises.
January 1 to June 30, 1995
July 1, 1994
High 1/3 Low 1/3 to
Item Average profit profit June 30, 1995
Number of farms 11 4 4 8
Profit/cwt pork produced $2.61 $13.38 -$7.55 -$10.24
Total cost/cwt pork produced $63.16 $60.39 $64.87 $66.56
Total variable cost/cwt pork produced $53.16 $51.32 $55.44 $54.56
Fixed cost/cwt of pork produced $10.00 $9.07 $9.43 $12.00
Total feed expense/cwt pork produced $30.80 $27.05 $34.41 $30.64
Average cost of diets/cwt $7.91 $7.61 $8.20 $8.34
Feed/cwt pork produced, lb 389 357 419 368
Pigs weaned/female/year, no. 17.2 18.7 15.3 18.2
Pigs weaned/crate/year, no. 89.6 98.5 81 100.3
Average weight of feeder pig sold, lb 50.2 53.9 46.5 49.8
(Continued on next page)


PigCHAMP Summary of 1994 Reproductive Herd Performance

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Swine Reports Animal Science Department 1996 PigCHAMP Summary of 1994 Reproductive Herd Performance Mike Brumm University of Nebraska, mbrumm@hickorytech.net Cate Dewey University of Nebraska-Lincoln Barbara B. Cox University of Nebraska-Lincoln, bcox2@unl.edu Angela Baysinger University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/coopext_swine  Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Brumm, Mike; Dewey, Cate; Cox, Barbara B.; and Baysinger, Angela, "PigCHAMP Summary of 1994 Reproductive Herd Performance" (1996). Nebraska Swine Reports. 199. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/coopext_swine/199 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Swine Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 13Table 1. Carcass information for the two workshops.StandardTrait Mean Deviation Minimum MaximumFirst Workshop (50 hogs)Hot carcass wt, lb 166.6 7.6 154 186Tenth rib fat, in 1.08 0.24 0.6 1.78Loin muscle area, sq in 5.45 0.65 4.12 6.65Second Workshop (50 hogs)Hot carcass wt, lb 171.9 7.4 153 193Tenth rib fat, in 0.90 0.32 0.48 1.98Loin muscle area, sq in 5.99 1.03 3.55 7.95standard deviations of prediction,standard deviations of the differenceand the bias, which is the averagedifference between live and carcassmeasurements. The standards forthese statistics were:Standard deviation of prediction.Tenth rib backfat 0.15 in.Loin muscle area,tenth rib 0.50 sq. in.Standard deviation of the difference.Tenth rib backfat 0.10 in.Loin muscle area,tenth rib 0.40 sq. in.Burson and Brian Demos, GraduateResearch Assistant.Certification was granted to tech-nicians who meet specified criteriafor prediction of carcass data, repeat-ability of ultrasound measurements,bias and if they demonstrated pro-ficient knowledge concerning theuse of ultrasound and performancedata.The statistics used to evaluate atechnician’s ability to predict carcassmeasurements and repeatability ofultrasonic measurements were theBias.Tenth rib backfat 0.15 in.Loin muscle area,tenth rib 0.05 sq. in.ResultsThe carcass information for thepigs used in the two workshops arelisted in Table 1. Both workshops wereconducted with pigs that were marketweight and varied in backfat and loinmuscle area.A total of twenty-three individu-als participated in the two workshops.Nine individuals were granted certifi-cation for both backfat and loin musclearea and eight individuals were grantedcertification for backfat only. Six indi-viduals did not meet the certificationrequirements.1Doyle Wolverton is an Extension YouthSpecialist and Dennis E. Burson is an ExtensionMeat Specialist in the Animal Science Department.Thomas E. Socha is Manager of the Nebraska SPFSwine Accrediting Agency, Lincoln, NE.tiles, farrowing rate ranged from 69.1%to 88.1%, pigs weaned per litter from8.1 to 9.8, and litters per mated femalefrom 1.76 to 2.36. Overall reproduc-tive performance, reported as pigsweaned per mated female per year,ranged from 14.8 to 22.4 with a 50thpercentile value of 19.3. These resultscan be used for planning and decisionmaking purposes in individual swineenterprises.IntroductionPigCHAMP is a swine productionrecords software program developedat the University of Minnesota. Al-though there are many other excellentcomputer software programs for pro-ducer use, PigCHAMP remains one ofthe most widely used programs by in-dustry advisors.A challenge for individual pro-ducers and their advisors is interpreta-tion of the various reports generated bya record system. The “PerformanceMonitor” is the most widely used re-port from PigCHAMP, giving produc-ers and advisors a one-page overviewMike BrummCate DeweyBarb CoxAngela Baysinger1Summary and ImplicationsA summary of 51 swine herds inthe western cornbelt that usedPigCHAMP as their reproductive recordsystem during 1994 was completed.This summary documents the wide rangein performance that existed amongherds. Using 10th and 90th percen-PigCHAMP Summary of 1994 ReproductiveHerd Performance(Continued on next page)14of the biological performance of thereproductive herd. While advisors andproducers use individual herd perfor-mance records to solve problems andset production targets, there is a needfor summary information across a num-ber of herds keeping records on thesame system.Advisors, lenders, and others as-sociated with the swine industry areoften faced with the challenge of esti-mating “normal” or “realistic” pro-duction for situations such as cash-flow projections and pig-flow projec-tions. In many situations, producers,investors, and advisors are interestednot only in the “normal” or averagevalues, but also what a producer canexpect if everything goes right, or whata producer can expect if disaster strikes.Data CollectionVeterinarians in Nebraska, Iowa,Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and SouthDakota who were members of theAmerican Association of Swine Prac-titioners were contacted in late May,1995 for the names and addresses ofproducers using PigCHAMP for sowproductivity records. Producers iden-tified in this manner were individuallycontacted for permission to use datafrom the 1994 production year. As ofSeptember 15, 1995, 61 herds had sub-mitted data files for inclusion in thedata set (Table 1).After conversion to PigCHAMPv3.05, the data from each herd wereexamined for accuracy and complete-ness. Herds were excluded from thedata summary if:1) ending female inventory dif-fered from average femaleinventory by 20% or more2) farrowing rates were 100%for three consecutive months3) the weaning to first serviceinterval was less than fourdays4) the percent of females matedby seven days postweaning wasgreater than 96%have lower values for the productionparameter and 25 herds have highervalues.The average value is the mean forall 51 herds and may differ from the50th percentile if the data are skewedor if there are a few outlying datapoints. An example is the wean-to-first-service interval. While the 50thpercentile is 7.0 days, the mean of 7.6days reflects at least one herd thatappeared to skip an estrus cycle for allfemales at weaning when rebreeding(28.6 day interval) and two herds thatappeared to skip an estrus cycle forfirst parity females (14.7 and 12.2 dayintervals).Many producers submitting datadid not record gilt entry dates. In manycases, females were not entered intoherd inventories until a breeding (ser-vice) occurred. Therefore, the data pre-sented in Table 2 are per mated female,not per inventoried female, which isthe method used for the Nebraska SwineEnterprise Record results which ap-pear elsewhere in this publication.Litters per mated female per yearwas quite variable among the herds inthis data set. The average number oflitters per mated female was 2.12, witha range of 1.76 to 2.36.For herds in this data set, femalesaveraged 10.2 pigs born live per litterfarrowed in 1994 with 80% of theherds (10th to 90th percentile) report-ing 9.4 to 11.1 live born pigs. Pigsweaned per litter was 8.9 with a range5) preweaning mortality was lessthan 5%6) female culling rate was notbetween 20 and 80%These culling rate and inventorycriteria were established to avoid in-cluding herds in the data set that hadrecently repopulated or herds that wereexpanding and had a large percentageof gilts in the female inventory.ResultsThe 10th and 90th percentile val-ues are reported in Table 2, rather thanminimum and maximum values. The10th and 90th percentiles give an indi-cation of the best or worst values for aproduction parameter, depending onwhether a high or low value is desir-able, and minimizes the impact of out-lying data points on the values re-ported. The 50th percentile value rep-resents the median value for the 51herds in the data set. Twenty-five herdsTable 1. Geographic distribution of herd databases evaluated.No. HerdsState Submitted IncludedColorado   4   3Iowa 19 17Kansas 23 19Missouri   1   0Nebraska 14 12Total 61 51Table 2. Rankings of 1994 reproductive performance from 51 herds using PigCHAMP.PercentileItema 10th 50th 90th AverageLitters weaned, no. 301 822 2013Parity of farrowed sows, no. 2.0 3.3 4.1 3.2Farrowing rate, % 69.1 77.7 88.1 77.3Pigs born live/litter farrowed, no. 9.4 10.1 11.1 10.2Preweaning mortality, % 7.6 12.5 17.1 12.2Pigs weaned/litter farrowed, no. 8.1 8.9 9.8 8.9Age at weaning, days 18.4 21.2 26.2 21.6Pigs weaned/mated female/yr, no. 14.8 19.3 22.4 18.9Litters/mated female/yr, no. 1.76 2.20 2.36 2.12Wean to first service interval, days 5.1 7.0 9.8 7.6aEach item sorted independently of all other items.15of 8.1 to 9.8 pigs.The combination of litter size andlitters per year is reported as pigs weanedper mated female per year and is oftenconsidered the single best measure ofreproductive biological efficiency. Whilethe average was 18.9 pigs per matedfemale, the range was 14.8 to 22.4 pigs(10th to 90th percentile).These results verify the great varia-tion in biological performance thatexists in swine herds in the westerncornbelt. Possible causes of this varia-tion include such items as genetic source,facilities, planned production sched-ules, disease, and management. Theuse of 10th and 90th percentiles is notmeant to imply that producers shouldstrive at all costs to attain the betterreproductive efficiency these valuesrepresent. Rather, producers are en-couraged to consider these values asreasonable performance limits with theunderstanding that optimal financialefficiency may mean less than maxi-mum reproductive efficiency.1Mike Brumm is a Professor of Animal Scienceand an Extension Swine Specialist at the NortheastResearch and Extension Center, Concord; CateDewey was an Assistant Professor Epidemiology,and Barb Cox was a Research Technologist,Veterinary Science at the Great Plains VeterinaryEducational Center, Clay Center; Angela Baysingeris an Extension Swine Veterinarian, Department ofVeterinary Science at the University of Nebraska,Lincoln.1995 Nebraska Swine Enterprise RecordsProgram ResultsDale KabesMichael BrummLarry Bitney1Summary and ImplicationsData from cooperators partici-pating in the Nebraska Swine Enter-prise Records and Analysis Programwere summarized for the period Janu-ary to June 1995 and July 1, 1994 toJune 30, 1995. Results continue toshow significant variability in pro-duction and financial parametersamong individual swine enterprises.The results indicate that efficient,well managed swine enterprises canbe profitable and competitive in adynamic industry.Average values of several produc-tion and financial parameters for far-row-to-finish, and farrow-to-feeder pigenterprises for the first six months of1995 are given in Tables 1 and 2. Alsoincluded in the far right column ofeach table is annual data from July 1,1994 through June 30, 1995. In addi-tion to the overall averages for eachenterprise type, averages for the high1/3 profit group and low 1/3 profitgroup are listed for the farrow-to-Table 1. Selected items for farrow-to-finish enterprises.January 1 to June 30, 1995July 1, 1994High 1/3 Low 1/3 toItem Average profit profit June 30, 1995Number of farms 37 12 12 20Profit/cwt pork produced $4.75 $11.32 -$2.07 -$1.22Total cost/cwt pork produced $40.99 $36.63 $44.20 $39.69Total variable cost/cwt pork produced $35.76 $33.24 $38.46 $35.52Fixed cost/cwt of pork produced $5.24 $3.39 $5.74 $4.17Total feed expense/cwt pork produced $24.27 $23.12 $25.47 $24.05Average cost of diets/cwt $6.61 $6.38 $6.79 $6.44Feed/cwt pork produced, lb 368 362 377 373Pigs weaned/female/year, no. 17.9 18.3 16.3 17.6Pigs weaned/crate/year, no. 78.4 81.3 79.2 76.6Table 2. Selected items for farrow-to-feeder pig enterprises.January 1 to June 30, 1995July 1, 1994High 1/3 Low 1/3 toItem Average profit profit June 30, 1995Number of farms 11 4 4 8Profit/cwt pork produced $2.61 $13.38 -$7.55 -$10.24Total cost/cwt pork produced $63.16 $60.39 $64.87 $66.56Total variable cost/cwt pork produced $53.16 $51.32 $55.44 $54.56Fixed cost/cwt of pork produced $10.00 $9.07 $9.43 $12.00Total feed expense/cwt pork produced $30.80 $27.05 $34.41 $30.64Average cost of diets/cwt $7.91 $7.61 $8.20 $8.34Feed/cwt pork produced, lb 389 357 419 368Pigs weaned/female/year, no. 17.2 18.7 15.3 18.2Pigs weaned/crate/year, no. 89.6 98.5 81 100.3Average weight of feeder pig sold, lb 50.2 53.9 46.5 49.8(Continued on next page)

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=coopext_swine

PigCHAMP Summary of 1994 Reproductive Herd Performance

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska