Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 190, Issue 1, pp 271–287 | Cite as

An integer programming model for optimal pork marketing

Article

Abstract

Pork producers must determine when to sell pigs, which and how many pigs to sell, and to which packer(s) to sell them. We model the decision-making problem as a linear mixed-integer program that determines the marketing strategy that maximizes expected annual profit. By discretizing the barn population into appropriate weight and growth categories, we formulate an mixed-integer program that captures the effect of stocking space and shipping disruption on pig growth. We consider marketing to multiple packers via shipping policies reflecting operational sorting constraints. Utilizing data from Cargill Animal Nutrition, we implement the model to obtain solutions that characterize significant strategic departures from commonly-implemented industry rules-of-thumb and that possess the potential to increase profitability in an industry characterized by narrow profit margins.

Keywords

OR in agriculture Livestock economics Integer programming 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bates, R., & Newcomb, M. (1997). Removal of market ready pen mates improved growth of remaining pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 75 (Suppl. 1), 247. Google Scholar
  2. Boland, M., Preckel, P., & Schinckel, A. (1993). Optimal hog slaughter weights under alternative pricing systems. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 25(2), 148–163. Google Scholar
  3. Boland, M., Foster, K., & Preckel, P. (1999). Nutrition and the economics of swine management. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 31(1), 83–96. Google Scholar
  4. Boys, K. A., Li, N., Preckel, P. V., Schinckel, A. P., & Foster, K. A. (2007). Economic replacement of a heterogeneous herd. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89, 24–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chavas, J., Kliebenstein, J., & Crenshaw, T. (1985). Modeling dynamic agricultural production response: The case of swine production. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67(3), 636–646. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cisneros, F., Ellis, M., McKeith, F., McCaw, J., & Fernando, R. (1996). Influence of slaughter weight on growth and carcass characteristics, commercial cutting and curing yields, and meat quality of barrows and gilts from two genotypes. Journal of Animal Science, 74(5), 925–933. Google Scholar
  7. Craig, B., & Schinckel, A. (2001). Nonlinear mixed effects model for swine growth. The Professional Animal Scientist, 17, 256–260. Google Scholar
  8. DeDecker, J. (2002). Effects of space allowance in a wean-to-finish system and pig removal strategies at market on the growth performance and variation in performance of pigs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois. Google Scholar
  9. DeDecker, J., Ellis, M., Wolter, B., Corrigan, B., & Curtis, S. (2002). Effect of removing pigs from a pen at slaughter weight on the growth performance of the remaining animals. In Proceedings from the 2002 British society of animal science meetings (p. 160). York, England. Google Scholar
  10. DeDecker, J., Ellis, M., Wolter, B., Corrigan, B., Curtis, S., & Hollis, G. (2005a). Effect of stocking rate on pig performance in a wean-to-finish production system. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 85(1), 1–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeDecker, J., Ellis, M., Wolter, B., Corrigan, B., Curtis, S., Parr, E., & Webel, D. (2005b). Effects of proportion of pigs removed from a group and subsequent floor space on growth performance of finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 83(2), 449. Google Scholar
  12. Fourer, R., Gay, D., & Kernighan, B. (2003). AMPL: A modeling language for mathematical programming (2nd edn.) Thomson Brooks/Cole. Google Scholar
  13. Hamilton, D., Ellis, M., Wolter, B., Schinckel, A., & Wilson, E. (2003). The growth performance of the progeny of two swine sire lines reared under different floor space allowances. Journal of Animal Science, 81(5), 1126. Google Scholar
  14. ILOG (2003). ILOG AMPL CPLEX System 9.0—User’s guide. ILOG S.A., Gentilly, France. Google Scholar
  15. Jørgensen, E. (1993). The influence of weighing precision on delivery decisions in slaughter pig production. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A—Animal Science, 43, 181–189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keeler, G. L., Tokach, M. D., Goodband, R. D., Nelssen, J. L., & Langemeier, M. R. (1994). Assisting swine producers to maximize marketing returns. Journal of Extension, 32(1). Google Scholar
  17. Kure, H. (1997). Optimal slaughter pig marketing. In Dutch/Danish symposium on animal health and management economics. Google Scholar
  18. Law, A. (2007). Simulation modeling and analysis (4th edn.) New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  19. Li, N., Preckel, P., Foster, K., & Schinckel, A. (2003a). Analysis of economically optimal nutrition and marketing strategies for Paylean® usage in hog production. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 28(2), 272–286. Google Scholar
  20. Li, N., Schinckel, A., Preckel, P., & Richert, B. (2003b). Using a stochastic model to evaluate swine production management with Paylean I: Model development and optimal management strategies (Swine research report). Departments of Agricultural Economics and Animal Sciences, Purdue University. Google Scholar
  21. Li, N., Schinckel, A., Preckel, P., & Richert, B. (2003c). Using a stochastic model to evaluate swine production management with Paylean II: Investigating optimal Paylean onset time (Swine research report). Departments of Agricultural Economics and Animal Sciences, Purdue University. Google Scholar
  22. Li, N., Schinckel, A., Preckel, P., & Richert, B. (2003d). Using a stochastic model to evaluate swine production management with Paylean III: Fixed schedule environment (Swine research report). Departments of Agricultural Economics and Animal Sciences, Purdue University. Google Scholar
  23. Li, N., Schinckel, A., Preckel, P., & Richert, B. (2003e). Using a stochastic model to evaluate swine production management with Paylean® IV: Return of accurate sorting for marketing (Swine research report). Departments of Agricultural Economics and Animal Sciences, Purdue University. Google Scholar
  24. McBride, W. D., & Key, N. (2003). Economic and structural relationships in US hog production. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
  25. Morgan, M., & Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Niemi, J. (2006). A dynamic programming model for optimising feeding and slaughter decisions regarding fattening pigs. Agricultural and Food Science, 15 (Suppl. 1), 1–121. Google Scholar
  27. Plà, L. (2007). Review of mathematical models for sow herd management. Livestock Science, 106(2–3), 107–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ritter, M., Ellis, M., Brinkmann, J., DeDecker, J., Keffaber, K., Kocher, M., Peterson, B., Schlipf, J., & Wolter, B. (2006). Effect of floor space during transport of market-weight pigs on the incidence of transport losses at the packing plant and the relationships between transport conditions and losses. Journal of Animal Science, 84(10), 2856. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ritter, M., Ellis, M., Bertelsen, C., Bowman, R., Brinkmann, J., DeDecker, J., Keffaber, K., Murphy, C., Peterson, B., Schlipf, J., & Wolter, B. (2007). Effects of distance moved during loading and floor space on the trailer during transport on losses of market weight pigs on arrival at the packing plant. Journal of Animal Science, 85(12), 3454–3461. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schinckel, A., & Craig, B. (2002). Evaluation of alternative nonlinear mixed effects models of swine growth. The Professional Animal Scientist, 18, 219–226. Google Scholar
  31. Schinckel, A., & de Lange, C. (1996). Characterization of growth parameters needed as inputs for pig growth models. Journal of Animal Science, 74(8), 2021–2036. Google Scholar
  32. Schinckel, A., Li, N., Preckel, P., & Miller, D. (2002). Use of a stochastic model to evaluate alternate marketing strategies (Swine research report). Departments of Agricultural Economics and Animal Sciences, Purdue University. Google Scholar
  33. Schinckel, A., Li, N., & Preckel, P. (2003a). Effect of increased average daily gain after removal of pigs on the optimal management of ractopamine (Swine research report). Departments of Agricultural Economics and Animal Sciences, Purdue University. Google Scholar
  34. Schinckel, A., Pas, N. L., Preckel, P., Einstein, M., & Miller, D. (2003b). Development of a stochastic pig compositional growth model. The Professional Animal Scientist, 19, 255–260. Google Scholar
  35. Scroggs, L., Kattesh, H., Morrow, J., Stalder, K., Dailey, J., Roberts, M., Schneider, J., & Saxton, A. (2002). The effects of split marketing on the physiology, behavior, and performance of finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science, 80(2), 338–345. Google Scholar
  36. Woodworth, J., Dritz, S., Tokach, M., Goodband, R., & Nelssen, J. (2000). Examination of the interactive effects of stocking density and marketing strategies in a commercial production environment. Journal of Animal Science, 78(Suppl. 2), 56. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management SciencesUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations