Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Bruce Livingston’s “world’s best” reputation comes from a 2016 Successful Farming profile of Livingston Enterprises, not from a verified worldwide ranking. The story portrays a producer who began with a few gilts, built a large farrow-to-finish business, and attributed unusually high output to careful sow-level management, records, benchmarking and a strong workforce.
How Bruce Livingston built Livingston Enterprises
Betsy Freese’s profile, published by Successful Farming on September 15, 2016, traces Livingston’s start to childhood. It says his father and uncle gave him two breeding gilts when he was eight, and that he later won another gilt in a 4-H judging contest. By his high-school graduation in 1987, the article says, he owned a 150-sow farrow-to-finish operation.
Livingston Enterprises had reached 25,000 sows by the time of the 2016 profile, when Livingston made his first appearance on Successful Farming’s Pork Powerhouses list. The company’s current History & Expansion page gives a different origin account—six gilts—and says the business grew to 35,000 sows. Other current company pages report 36,000. Those statements describe different sources and time frames, so they should not be merged into one precise origin story.
Scale then and now
| Measure | Figure | What it represents |
|---|---|---|
| Sows in the 2016 profile | 25,000 | Figure reported by Successful Farming in 2016 |
| Current sow count | Roughly 35,000–36,000 | Company-reported figures; its pages differ, and the discrepancy is not explained |
| Current annual output | Over 1.2 million weaned pigs | Reported on the company’s current homepage and About Us page |
| Current workforce | More than 200 team members | Reported on the company’s About Us page |
How does he achieve high sow productivity?
The profile attributes Livingston’s results to more than simply producing a large number of piglets. He said the operation focused on raising pigs successfully as well as having many pigs born, treated each sow as an individual, tracked feed and sow records, and benchmarked individual units against one another.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →#1 Best Overall
“You can’t measure records you don’t keep,” Livingston told the magazine.
For the preceding year, Livingston reported a company-wide average of more than 30 pigs weaned per sow per year. He said one unit exceeded 35 pigs weaned per sow in July. The article contrasts those figures with the 20-to-25 pigs-weaned-per-sow range it gives for most U.S. sow farms. These are reported figures and an article-level comparison, not an independent performance audit or a guarantee that any one management practice produces the same result elsewhere.
The management ideas behind the numbers
- Individual sow attention: Staff assessed and managed sows as individual animals rather than relying only on herd averages.
- Recorded decisions: Feed use and sow performance were tracked so managers could identify differences and act on them.
- Unit benchmarking: Results from separate farms were compared to locate stronger performance and problems.
- Efficiency as a discipline: “You’ve got to be efficient,” Livingston said in the profile.
The benchmarking database mentioned in the article, Swine Management Services, contained more than 900 farms and 1.5 million sows at the time. Livingston’s stated results therefore sat within a broader industry comparison, but the profile does not establish a formal global ranking.
What the 2016 business model looked like
Most pigs were sold as weaned pigs at 20 days old under contract to The Maschhoffs, according to the profile. Livingston retained ownership of up to 10% of weaned pigs for further growth. Those arrangements describe the business in 2016; the sources do not establish that the contract terms remain unchanged.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11The article also describes a 7,300-sow unit already operating and another in the permitting process. The barns were located within 22 miles of Fairbury, and each sow unit had staff around the clock in farrowing.
Why people limited expansion
Livingston identified hiring and retaining employees as the company’s greatest challenge. In his account, the availability of key people—not simply barn capacity—limited how large the operation could grow. His oldest son, Connor, had joined the company and was taking on responsibilities, illustrating the family succession element alongside professional staffing.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Biosecurity and facility practices
The feature describes several measures Livingston Enterprises used to reduce operational risks:
- Shower-in/shower-out procedures for barns.
- Equipment for washing and heating trailers.
- Secured rodent bait stations around barns.
- Manure pits beneath barns and lagoons for storage.
These are practices reported in the profile, not a complete safety standard or proof that any single measure caused the reported productivity.
A fire the system could not prevent
A sow-farm fire on March 22, 2015 killed livestock, although no one was injured. The exact cause was never determined, according to the article. Livingston said the rebuilt barns used a different electrical-wiring system intended to make them less prone to fire. The account is a reminder that biosecurity and operational controls reduce risks without eliminating every failure mode.
How manure was moved and applied
Connor Livingston managed a Puck Custom Enterprises manure-pumping system. Bruce Livingston said it could apply manure up to four miles away. The company’s Animal Nutrients page describes hose or dragline application and identifies Puck equipment in its pumping setup; Puck’s current site describes liquid-transfer equipment such as manure pumps, hoses and couplings.
These references provide equipment context, not an independent product test or endorsement. They also do not establish specifications, performance guarantees or an affiliate relationship.
Quick Recap
What readers should—and should not—take from the profile
What the story supports
- A producer can use sow-level care, consistent records and internal benchmarking to manage a very large operation.
- Labor availability can become a hard ceiling on expansion, even when new units are planned.
- Large-scale production combines animal care with biosecurity, staffing, fire prevention and manure logistics.
- Performance figures need a date and source: Livingston’s 2016 numbers are historical reports.
What it does not prove
- It does not verify that Livingston was objectively the best pig producer in the world.
- It does not show that one piece of equipment or one husbandry practice alone produced the results.
- It does not establish current contract terms, current productivity, or a complete safety program.
- It does not make a commercial-scale setup appropriate for a smallholder or pet-pig keeper.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
