Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 May 19;13(1):8154.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35430-y.

Comparative analysis of productive performance and fattening efficiency of commercial pigs in China for two consecutive years

Affiliations

Comparative analysis of productive performance and fattening efficiency of commercial pigs in China for two consecutive years

Ran Guan et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

(1) propose an evaluation indicator of the fattening efficiency of commercial pigs (Yorkshire × Landrace × Duroc)-fattening efficiency index (FEI). (2) Analyze the correlation to find the main productive factors affecting the FEI. (3) Compare and analyze the yearly/monthly/different piglets' sources of productive performance in 2020 and 2021. The data included 2592 commercial pig batches in 2020 and 3266 in 2021, with a total of 6,134,234 commercial pigs. Descriptive statistics and difference analysis were carried out on 16 productive factors of a whole year and single/multiple sources for two consecutive years. The same period difference between the monthly data and the annual average were also analyzed. The top six productive factors correlated with FEI were average daily gain (ADG) (0.8080), feed conversion rate (FCR) (- 0.7203), survival rate (SR) (0.6968), number of deaths (- 0.4103), feeding days (- 0.3748) and body weight (BW) of marketing pigs (0.3369). The overall productive performance in 2021 was lower than that in 2020, which was reflected in more piglet sources and a lower BW of piglets, more deaths, a lower SR, longer feeding days, a lower ADG, a higher FCR and a lower FEI. The productive performance of a single source was better than that of multiple ones. The contrastive results of monthly data in 2020 and 2021 showed significant differences in most factors except for the number of marketing pigs, the number of piglets and feed consumption. The monthly trend of 15 factors for two consecutive years revealed similar trends only in the month of piglets purchasing, number of piglets sources, number of deaths and ADG. Compared with the annual average, the ADG significantly increased in May. The FEI of multiple sources was markedly lower than that of a single source. FEI may be suitable for evaluating the fattening efficiency of commercial pigs. The annual and monthly productive performance and fattening efficiency in 2021 were significantly lower than those in 2020. Single source was represented better productive performance and fattening efficiency than multiple ones.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The distribution proportion of the batches in 2020 (A) and 2021 (B) in China’s seven major geographical regions. The darker the color, the higher the proportion.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Monthly analysis of productive performance of 2592 batches of commercial pigs in 2020 and 3266 batches in 2021. The green dotted line indicated the average value in 2020 (n = 2592). The red dotted line indicated the average value in 2021 (n = 3266). The asterisk of 2020 was marked above the error line, and the asterisk of 2021 was marked below the error line. Values represented mean ± SE. BW body weight, SR survival rate, ADG average daily gain, FCR feed conversion rate, FEI fattening efficiency index. Compared with the average value of the same year, *indicated P < 0.05; **indicated P < 0.01; ***indicated P < 0.001; ****indicated P < 0.0001.

References

    1. FAOSTAT. 2020. https://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#home. Accessed 24 Feb 2022.
    1. Villavicencio-Gutiérrez MR, Rogers-Montoya NA, Martínez-Campos R, Gómez-Tenorio G, Martínez-Castañeda FE. The environmental performance of different pork production scenarios: A life cycle assessment study. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2022;54:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11250-022-03045-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhou X, Guan R, Cai H, Wang P, Yang Y, Wang X, et al. Machine learning based personalized promotion strategy of piglets weaned per sow per year in large-scale pig farms. Porcine Health Manag. 2022;8:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s40813-022-00280-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhang X, Rong X, Li J, Fan M, Wang Y, Sun X, et al. Modeling the outbreak and control of African swine fever virus in large-scale pig farms. J. Theor. Biol. 2021;526:110798. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110798. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ma M, Wang HH, Hua Y, Qin F, Yang J. African swine fever in China: Impacts, responses, and policy implications. Food Policy. 2021;102:102065. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102065. - DOI

Publication types