Why Do Many Pig Farms Have “Complete Equipment” but Still Struggle With Low Management Efficiency?

Introduction: When Equipment Is in Place, but Efficiency Is Still Stuck on People

In many small and medium-sized pig farms, it is common to see facilities that look well equipped: slatted floors, automatic feeding lines, ventilation fans, cooling pads, and feed silos are all in place. On paper, the farm appears “modernized.” However, in daily operation, management efficiency often shows little real improvement—labor remains tight, problems occur frequently, and farm owners still need to monitor almost every detail themselves.

This raises a common question: If the equipment is already installed, why doesn’t efficiency improve?
In most cases, the problem is not whether equipment exists, but how it is selected, integrated, and used to support management objectives.

Equipment Is Installed, but System Logic Is Missing

During farm construction or renovation, many producers follow a “fill the gaps” approach: if others install automatic feeding systems, they do the same; if solid–liquid separators seem useful, they purchase one as well. The result is often a collection of isolated devices rather than an integrated system.

For example, feeding lines may be automated, but feeding schedules and feed quantities are still adjusted purely by experience. Manure handling equipment may be installed, but without coordination with in-house cleaning routines, increasing maintenance workload instead of reducing it.

The core issue is that equipment does not work together as a system—it functions as scattered tools.

Automation Does Not Automatically Mean Fewer Workers

Another common misconception is that installing equipment will immediately reduce labor. In small and medium-sized pig farms, semi-automation is fundamentally about human–machine collaboration, not full labor replacement.

If management processes remain unchanged—such as:

• Feeding routines still relying on manual inspections,

• No standardized procedures for equipment malfunctions,

• No operational data being recorded or reviewed,

then even advanced equipment only changes how work is done, not how efficiently it is managed.

In practice, farms that see real efficiency gains usually redesign their daily workflows first, then integrate equipment into those workflows accordingly.

Improper Equipment Selection Can Reduce Efficiency

Over-configuration is another frequent issue in small and medium-scale operations.

Common examples include:

• Installing complex multi-line automatic feeding systems in farms with fewer than 500 pigs,

• Using high-power, large-capacity ventilation fans in buildings not designed for them,

• Choosing equipment that requires high maintenance or advanced technical skills.

These systems are not inherently bad, but they are often unsuited to the farm’s scale and management capacity. The result can be idle equipment, higher failure rates, and additional labor for maintenance.

From an investment perspective, smaller farms benefit more from simple, stable, and manually adjustable semi-automatic equipment.

Lack of Data Feedback Keeps Management Experience-Based

Another key reason efficiency remains low is the absence of data utilization.

For example:

• Feed silos without weighing or inventory monitoring rely on rough estimates of feed consumption,

• Environmental control systems operate only in “on/off” mode without recording temperature or humidity,

• When problems occur, there is no data to trace causes—only experience-based judgments.

In these cases, equipment serves only as an execution tool rather than a management aid. Even basic data—such as daily feed usage or temperature ranges—can significantly improve management control.

Two Practical Recommendations to Avoid Common Pitfalls

First, calculate labor efficiency before buying equipment.
Focus not on the purchase price alone, but on whether the equipment reduces workload in specific positions or lowers management risk.

Second, avoid “one-step full automation” thinking.
For farms with 300–3,000 pigs, gradual semi-automation upgrades are often safer, more controllable, and more cost-effective than large one-time investments.

Conclusion: Real Efficiency Comes From Systems, Not Equipment Stacking

Having complete equipment but low efficiency is not unusual. The real difference lies in whether a farm has built a clear management logic: equipment supports processes, and processes support management goals.

For small and medium-sized pig farms, rational upgrading does not mean buying the most advanced machines. It means building a stable, scalable semi-automation system based on actual farm size and management capacity—turning equipment investment into real, sustainable efficiency gains and taking the first practical step toward long-term improvement.