Landwirtschaftliches Wochenblatt, 2008
1
Warentest(comparing test) of the fattening pigs
from 7 different breeding lines
Pig farms of the hybrid and crossing type.
Origin
BHZP
DanBred
Hülsenberger
JSR
LRS
PIC
TOPIGS
Boar
Piétrain
Piétrain
Rheinhybrid
Piétrain
Camborough23
Piétrain
db-Naima
Piétrain
Hülsenberger
LW x LL
Piétrain
Sow
Piétrain
Danhybrid
Gena 90
TOPIGS20
2 Results of the tested breeding lines
Effectiveness of the fattening and parameters of carcasses in Warentest (comparative test)
Origine
BHZP
Dan- HülsenBred berger
JSR
LRS
PIC TOPIGS
Average
2.1 Effectiveness of the fattening
Daily gain
g
877
942
906
851
875
875
878
614
659
633
604
623
615
619
624
2,58
2,43
2,51
2,58
2,56
2,55
2,58
2,54
Consumption of feed per 1 kg growth,net kг 3,68
Daily gain, net
кг
Consumption of feed per 1 kg growth
3,48
3,59
3,64
3,60
3,63
3,66
3,61
2,25
2,28
2,26
2,19
2,23
2,22
2,26
2,24
% 77,5
77,4
77,4
78,3
78,4
77,7
77,8
77,8
кг
Daily usage of the feed
887
2.2 Carcass values
Slaughter weight
Layer of the fat on the back
2,2
2,2
2,2
2,2
2,2
2,2
2,2
2,2
cm2 55,7
55,4
55,8
57,8
57,4
54,7
53,5
55,8
1 : 0,31
0,3
0,31
0,29
0,31
0,31
0.34
0,31
Proportion of the muscle meat by Autofom
58,6
A pure gammon of bacon by Autofom %
кг 18,2
58,9
58,7
59,4
58,5
58,3
57,2
58,5
18,3
18,1
18,4
18,1
18,0
17,7
18,1
Area of the dorsal(back) muscles
cm
Proportion of fat to meat
Rump steak by Autofom
кг
7,0
7,0
7,0
7,1
7,0
6,9
6,8
7,0
Доля мяса брюшины (формула Gruber)
% 57,4
57,4
57,9
58,8
57,5
57,5
56,3
57,5
2.3 Parts of the carcass in the under the relevant system boundaries by Autofom (%)
Rump steak (кг) – Westfleisch
< 6,2
6,2–7,8
> 7,8
4
4
3
3
1
9
12
5
93
93
94
91
92
90
87
92
3
3
3
6
7
1
1
3
Rump steak (кг) – Tönnies / Vion
< 6,2
4
4
3
3
1
9
12
5
≥ 6,2
96
96
97
97
99
91
88
95
A pure gammon of bacon (кг) – Westfleisch
< 16
16–20
> 20
5
3
7
3
8
6
7
5
87
90
87
88
87
89
93
89
8
7
6
9
5
5
0
6
A pure gammon of bacon (кг) – Tönnies
< 15
2
0
0
1
4
1
3
2
15–19
70
67
78
70
69
77
85
73
> 19
28
33
22
29
27
22
12
25
2
0
0
1
4
1
3
2
15–19,5
83
83
88
80
82
85
92
84
> 19,5
15
17
12
19
15
14
5
14
A pure gammon of bacon (кг) Vion
< 15
A pure gammon of bacon (%) Westfleisch
< 47
9
5
7
7
14
11
17
10
47–52,99
38
43
36
31
34
33
49
38
≥ 53
53
52
57
62
52
56
34
52
A pure gammon of bacon (%) Tönnies/Vion
< 45
5
3
1
4
8
7
11
5
45–50,99
23
19
31
20
25
21
35
25
≥ 51
72
78
68
76
67
72
54
70
2.4 Index point/kg Slaughter weight by Autofom
Without taking into account system boundaries
Westfleisch 1/08
1,042 1,044
1,041
1,048 1,040 1,035
1,022
1,039
Westfleisch 1/08
0,993 1,001
0,998
1,002 0,990 0,988
0,967
0,991
Tönnies 1/08
1,000 1,005
1,003
1,006 0,998 0,992
0,976
0,997
Vion 2007
0,990 0,993
0,989
0,993 0,988 0,985
0,971
0,987
Taking into account system boundaries
3 Meat quality
Quality of the content of the meat showed as average number in the origin, according as share quantity of
the animals in one spesial class and comparative results to resistant to stress.
BHZP
DanBred
Hülsenberger
JSR
LRS
PIC
TOPIGS
Average
6,64
96
3,1
% 91
%
90
% 2,08
0,99
6,60
93
3,2
90
88
2,85
1,00
6,62
94
3,2
93
92
2,13
1,06
6,47
81
3,6
88
77
3,21
0,92
6,56
87
3,3
94
86
2,65
1,09
6,62
96
2,9
99
95
2,26
1,07
6,64
93
2,9
98
93
2,08
1,07
6,59
92
3,3
93
89
2,47
1,02
77
27
0
79
25
0
64
37
3
78
25
0
87
17
0
544
176
3
Origin
Of meat quality
pH1-value
Share with pH1 ≥ 6,2
LF24- value
Share with LF24 < 5
Share with pH1 ≥ 6,2 и LF24 < 5
Losses of the meat juice
Intamuscular fat content %
%
Resistant by MHS-results (amount of the animals)
NN- homozygous stable
76
83
NP- heterozygous stable
24
21
PP- homozygous sensitive
0
0
4 Parameters of the productivity during fattening
Results of the productivity during fattening in tested pig farms
Hülsenberger
DanBred
JSR
LRS
PIC
TOPIGS
Average
Origin
BHZP
Quantity of alive born piglets
11,74 13,63
11,70 11,75 11,43 11,80 12,31
12,05
Quantity of dead born/litter
праFerkelverluste/Прасило
Weaned piglets/ litter
1,71 1,86
10,03 11,04
1,55
1,74 1,52
10,04 10,14 9,96
1,69
10,27
1,99
9,93
1,48
10,74
5 How farmers are satisfired ?
Results of the interview
Origin
BHZP
Supply of the young pigs
2,2
25 %*
Quality of the young pigs 50 %* 2,1
Claims
15 %* 2,1
Services
10 %* 2,1
Total
100 %* 2,14
*
DanBred
Hülsenberger
JSR
LRS
PIC TOPIGS
2,3
1,9
2,2
1,6
2,2
1,9
2,0
2,0
2,2
2,3
2,12
2,0
2,0
1,6
1,94
2,2
2,3
2,3
2,22
2,1
2,0
1,8
1,93
2,2
2,0
1,9
2,13
2,0
1,9
1,9
1,98
2,1
2,1
2,0
2,06
Average
part in the total amount
6 Calculation of profitability
Calculation of profitability (without system borders), model Westfleisch, Level, January 2008), in €/animal
Dan- HülsenBred berger
Origin
BHZP
Surplus of the feed costs
Plusses/minuses* for feeding days
Pluses/minuses* for meat composition
65,54 69,72
–0,29 1,21
–1,20 3,84
4,49 4,42
67,37 67,44 66,82 65,45
0,40 –0,73 –0,15 –0,31
–0,69 –1,17 –1,39 –1,95
4,60 3,87 4,32 4,75
63,48
–0,18
1,51
4,66
Total exceeding (according to feeding days)
without meat composition without productivity
with meat composition with productivity
without meat composition with productivity
with meat composition without производительности
65,25
68,54
64,05
69,74
67,77
71,68
67,08
72,37
63,30
69,47
64,81
67,96
Plusses-/minuses* for effective production
* Ca l cul a t ed wi t h m or e pr eci s e n um ber than sh owed i n th e ta bl e
70,93
79,19
74,77
75,35
JSR
66,71
69,41
65,54
70,58
LRS
66,67
69,60
65,28
70,99
PIC
65,14
67,94
63,19
69,89
TOPIGS
8 Advantages and disadvantages
Grade tested product on individual parameters and the overall assessment
Origin
BHZP
DanBred
Hülsenberger
JSR
LRS
PIC
TOPIGS
Satisfactory +
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good +
Good
Satisfactory
Separated parameters
Daily gain
Good
Feed use
Carcass
Resistant to stress
сссстрессу
стрессу
Meat composition
productivity
Satisfaction of clients
Good
Very good
хорошо
Very
good
Good о +
Good
Good +
Good +
Good
Very good
Very good –
Good +
Good –
Very good
Good
Good
Good +
Good
Good
Very good
хорошо
Good
Satisfactory
Good
Very good
Very good
хорошо
Good – –
Satisfactory +
Good
Very good
Very good
Good –
Satisfactory
Good –
Good
Good +
Good –
Good +
Good
Good +
Good (2,0)
Good (1,9)
Good (2,2)
Good (2,2)
Good (2,0)
Good (2,1)
Good (2,2)
Good (2,0)
Good (2,2)
An overall assessment
Without production/
Without clients
consideration
Good (2,0)
With production/
With clients consideration
Good (2,0)
With production/
Without clients
consideration
Good (2,1)
Very good –
Good + (1,7)
Good (1,8)
(1,3)
Very good –
Good (1,8)
Good (2,0)
(1,3)
Very good –
(1,3)
Good (1,9) Good
(1,9)