This last month I was again reminded of the confusion and frustration that can emerge when people use the same words and phrases to describe subtly different realities. For instance, ‘share’ to a four-year-old may mean, ‘my brother needs to give me the toy whenever I want to play with it,’ while to the mother, ‘share’ means that the children need to either find a way to play together or take turns. Similarly, the sow farm manager told that his/her unit isn’t ‘making any money’ may feel that the efforts to produce quality pigs are unappreciated, while the owner would recognize that operating the sow herd as a “cost center” will prevent the sow unit from ever technically making money.
The nature of our communication is that misunderstandings will occur from time to time. The consequences of such misunderstandings are noteworthy when they affect financial and production decisions. Amidst the buzzwords and phrases of our industry, many of these problems can be avoided by (1) establishing the language and (2) defining the vocabulary.
‘Establish the language’ translates into, ‘determine the record-keeping system.’ Comparing pigs per sow per year across record systems is often a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Some calculations are subject to population dynamics—increasing or decreasing herd size even through normal culling and gilt introduction programs. Others are subject to farrowing house practices, i.e., pigs weaned per litter instead of the total number of pigs weaned. As sow inventories shrink to accommodate the current production realities, the old comparisons lose their meaning. Furthermore, the herd may not achieve the productivity promised in the sales pitch if the sales pitch “promises” were made in a different language.
‘Define the vocabulary’ should be self-explanatory, but there is a tendency to overlook details when calculations are involved. One of the variables that I frequently see misused is the percent of sows bred within seven days (“% sows bred by 7 days” or some similar variation). Contrary to popular belief, this variable usually answers the question, “Of the sows bred within the time period, how many were weaned within 7 days of the breed event?” instead of, “Of the sows weaned within the time period, how many were bred within 7 days of the wean event?”
For a system trying to employ a management-by-specification approach focused on improving the quality of sows coming out of the farrowing house, this difference is huge. In fact, the percent-sows-bred metric reveals little about farrowing house management. Rather, it is a more appropriate performance predictor for the breeding cohort, since a higher percentage indicates a lower proportion of late weaners and recycles—unless, of course, cycles are being deliberately skipped.
Because some expectations are simply met or missed on the basis of language or vocabulary, time spent up front doing a little “reality” clarification can make a big difference in the long run.
Editor’s Note: This commentary is sponsored by Elanco Animal Health. For more information, go to: www.elanco.com. To visit with the author, send her an e-mail at: rutt0011@umn.edu
This commentary is for informational purposes only. The opinions and comments expressed herein represent the opinions of the author--they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Farms.com. This commentary is not intended to provide individual advice to anyone. Farms.com will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information, or for any damages or losses in any way related to this commentary.