Better Pork - June/July 2002
DENMARK: Green hog farms
By Norman Dunn Denmark is developing low-emission hog units, producing their own heat, power and light and designed for minimum disease and pollution burden. Green Farm Energy has teamed up with international hog equipment manufacturer Durofarm-Faaborg to design a pioneer housing and biogas production system. The first commercial unit based on this concept will go into action in southern Denmark this June.The unit consists of easy-clean hog accommodation with daily manure flushing into a fermenter producing biogas, which in turn fuels electricity generators. Ammonia collected from the hog housing and the fermentation is fixed in water to give a 25 per cent N liquid fertilizer. Phosphate also collected from the system is dried and pelleted for efficient use as manure.
Green Farm Energy researcher Soren Frandsen refused to comment on capital costs but said that there was ample proof that such a farm-based plant could pay for all investments within six to 10 years, depending on the type of biomass being fed into the fermenter. "There's no doubt about the efficiency of the system, " he adds. "Both the Danish ministry of agriculture and environment ministry are intensively encouraging development. Electricity output is from one to three MW per year and the same amount of heat energy is produced."
Frandsen says that both commodities are saleable under Danish law, with the heat conducted to communal heating distribution stations for schools, offices and private housing and the electricity fed into the national grid. Currently, farmers selling electrical power produced from more conventional biogas plants are receiving the equivalent of $0.12 Cdn per kW-hour.
The Green Farm Energy system uses waste water from the biogas system for daily flushing of the pig buildings through easy-rinse V-dung channels running beneath the slats in each pen. The concept buildings are part-slatted with heat-saving hinged covers over each lying area to create a microclimate for the hogs. Pen walls are plastic for easy cleaning.
All angles and corners in pen flooring are rounded-off with smoothly finished polyester-concrete moulding for optimum cleaning. The trough in each pen is also rounded and of the same material. Ventilation air is drawn in mainly through the eaves and expelled via the dung channels. This system along with daily flushing of manure guarantees very low ammonia content within the building, according to Green Energy Farm researchers.
Ideally, the liquid pig manure should be mixed with other agricultural biomass (poultry manure, straw-based dung, maize or fodder beet biomass) to give a higher organic matter ration for optimum fermentation, says Frandsen. After mixing, the material is sterilized by heating at 160°C at 6-bar pressure. The fermentation then takes place at 80°C over five to six days.
"The end result is an organic compost that is absolutely safe hygienically," concludes Frandsen. "Total cost of converting manure to gas, nitrogen and phosphate is about $10.50 Cdn per 1,000 litres."
© copyright 2002 AgMedia Inc..
back Will chimneys help clean up odours from barns built too close to neighbours?
Though exhaust stacks are being used to disperse odours in Western Canada, the experts are not so sure that they offer an answer for Ontarioby DON STONEMAN
A 1,200-foot-high smokestack pushes Inco's effluent into the sky, far above the city of Sudbury. Will the same solution work for pig barns built too close to neigbours' homes?
Last October, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board ordered a Perth County pork producer to build 20-metre-high stacks on two segregated early weaning barns in order to carry odours away from a neighbour's farmstead. Construction was to be completed by April 1 or the barns were to be shut down.
The pork producer, Ben Terpstra of Atwood, immediately filed an appeal to Superior Court. In early May, Terpstra still had not had his day in court and it appeared that another solution was in the works.
Bill MacMillan, rural urban interface engineer with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, says it now appears that both parties in the case would accept a bio-filter instead of the stacks. "We are working on some designs for this," MacMillan said. "The Ministry of the Environment is involved."
MacMillan said there are concerns about the practicality of the stack, which had been proposed by a consulting engineer hired by the complainants. It would be difficult to move air from four different rooms in each barn into one large chimney and several stacks might be required for each barn in order to achieve this.
There are also concerns about how to construct these stacks properly and about condensation in the winter, when warm barn air meets the sides of a cold chimney. He points out that condensation isn't a problem at Inco, which releases very hot air from its nickel refining operations. Pig barn air is typically 22 0C .
There is also the question of image. "Stacks on the barn tend to promote an industrial image," says MacMillan. "Yet these really aren't industrial buildings."
Practicalities aside, would stacks disperse pig odours anyway? Professor John Feddes, Animal Environment and Agricultural Engineering department , University of Alberta, who is known for his work on livestock odour disperse dispersal, is not so sure. Tall stacks are commonly used to disperse gases in the petroleum industry, and also in pulp mills. "The solution to pollution is dilution, right?" Feddes asks sardonically. But he can't think of anywhere that this technology has been used to disperse livestock odours.
Feddes says that odours act differently than particulate matter and gases. "Odour does strange things, " he says.
In Alberta, pig barn odours tend to be a problem in early morning and late at night, when the air is very still. A stack may do no better than regular exhaust fans. When the air is calm "the odour could just come out of the stack and fall down when the wind is calm, exposing neighbours to the odour again."
There's also the question of what is an acceptable level of odour. "We know what acceptable odours for particulate matter and hydrogen sulphide are from industries," says Feddes. "There is no such thing as zero odour from pig barns. Pig barns will always smell." If the odour coming from the stack is still unacceptable, then the stack is an unnecessary cost."
Larry D. Jacobson, a professor and extension engineer at the University of Minnesota, is likewise concerned. He told Better Pork it "gets dangerous" when jurisdictions mandate that a particular technology be used to solve a pollution problem. It's better to call for a 50 per cent reduction in emissions, he says. Of course, then the regulator has to measure the emissions, and that goes back to Feddes' point. It is easier to check if the farmer has put up the stack, regardless of whether it has any effect, Jacobson says.
Don Hilborn, a byproducts engineer with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, favours a bio-filter, which has become a standard process for odour reduction. The challenge is to build one large enough to scrub all the air. It may be enough just to scrub the lowest level of ventilation that goes on all the time. "I still think it's best to get barns properly located in the first place so that conflicting uses are kept apart," Hilborn says.
At the time of the Terpstra barns' construction in 1995, Elma Township had no minimum distance separation bylaw. So the construction was within the letter of the law, Hilborn points out. The board ruled, however, that Terpstra ordered the construction "with full knowledge that the chosen location did not meet provincial minimum distance separation guidelines and that a significant risk existed that that the applicants would be adversely affected by intensive odour."
Short stacks are installed in some pig barns to disperse odours. Mark Davis, a partner in Hay Bay Farms in Napanee, says odours around their barns improved considerably after chimneys were installed in a new farrowing barn. The chimneys are now a feature on barns Hay Bay has constructed since then.
Mehlon Frey of Frey Brothers Limited in Hawkesville says the chimney technology was developed in Holland where barns and houses are cheek by jowl. Sidewall ventilation would be impractical. Barn exhaust "would go in your neighbour's bedroom window" he says.
There is another practical reason for using the technology, says Frey. Gases are vented from the manure pit. There is better control of minimum ventilation. Air is being drawn from the top of the rooms down through the slats. "Piglets are in a warmer envelope of air" than with standard ceiling ventilation, he says.
Exhaust stacks are being used on some pig barns in Western Canada, at least partly to disperse odours. On the Prairies, there is usually plenty of room to put distance between new pig barns and residences. Eldon Mackay of Mackay Equipment Sales Ltd. in Saskatoon says one advantage is that the stacks carry exhausts up and away from the barnyard, something barn workers who park their cars near the barn appreciate.
Mackay says it isn't just a matter of moving the unpleasant smells elsewhere; the gases are dispersed and diluted. Odour can barely be detected 150 metres away from a large barn equipped with these chimneys, he says. At 250 metres distance, the barn odour can't be detected at all.
Mackay said these chimneys are typically protrude four feet above the roof of the barn . Some are 18-inches and some are 25-inches across. Mackay explained that it is essential that the air be pushed out of these chimneys at a high velocity with high-speed fans.
Barns located in humid areas, such as the Interlake region of Manitoba (where summer humidity is comparable to southern Ontario), must be equipped to move more air through its outlets than barns located in arid areas, he says. BP
© copyright 2002 AgMedia Inc..
back Can you afford the time for maximal nursing pig care?
Knowing the times each procedure takes can help you decide which is worth adding to increase piglet survival and weight gainby CATE DEWEY
In the April 2002 edition of Better Pork, I discussed a systematic approach to the care and comfort of the sow and her nursing piglets. These management techniques together increased the 16-day weights of small piglets by 200 grams. The small pigs (less than 1.1 kg at birth) were half as likely to die if they were given maximal care, compared to receiving standard care. Large pigs gained an extra 150 grams by 16 days of age if they were given maximal care. Is the extra productivity worth spending 20 minutes per litter? And do you have the time?We measured each part of the additional care to give you an idea of what it might cost in labour. Some of the management techniques, such as processing, were done only once per pig. Other jobs had to be done daily. For these, we will look at the cost in time for an 18-day lactation.
To the processing of pigs, we added spraying the castration and tail wounds with dilute iodine, using a different instrument for teeth and tails, and dipping the instruments in a container of diluted Dettol between pigs. This system added four seconds per pig or 40 seconds for a litter of 10 pigs.
Each litter was given a rubber mat under the heat lamp. Weak and cold pigs were also given shavings in the creep area. This took seven to 10 seconds per sow. The most expensive labour cost for the use of rubber mats was cleaning the mats after their use. This took 2.5 to three minutes. Cleaning time was substantially reduced if the mats were soaked for the day before they were pressure-washed. In a permanent setting, the mats would be hung on nails on a wall so that the pressure washing would be more efficient.
All maximal care litters were given electrolytes on a daily basis from birth to weaning. Cleaning and filling the jugs took 94 seconds per litter per day. This was one of the most cumbersome jobs on this farm for a number of reasons. The electrolyte containers were not properly attached to the crates, so they were difficult to remove and replace each day. The cart with the electrolyte supplies did not fit into the farrowing rooms and the rooms did not have a hose to fill the jugs.
Adaptations that would have reduced the time are as follows: the electrolyte containers come with a metal stand that can be attached to the farrowing crate partitions; powder could have been added to each container and then the container could be filled with a hose; and, finally, the piglet's nipple waterer could be put on a medicator to deliver electrolytes rather than water.
If the medicator is used, the electrolytes should not contain a sugar (such as glucose). The electrolytes in our study contained only vitamins and minerals and no sugar or energy supplement. Other than the weight gain and the reduction in mortality, the advantage of the electrolytes was that litters with diarrhea were treated quickly and efficiently by putting antibiotics in the electrolyte solution.
The manure behind the sows was scraped and removed from the room each day. This took 21 seconds per day, for a total of three minutes and 10 seconds for 18 days. This time would be doubled if the scraping was done twice a day and reduced if the manure was not removed from the room.
The obvious advantage of the scraping is to reduce the chance of diarrhea in piglets and vaginal infections in sows. This procedure also encourages the observation of the sow and her litter an extra once or twice a day. The farrowing room attendant is given a routine that lends itself to animal observation. Sows that are not defecating or piglets that are not acting normal are recognized at this time.
Sows were fed at noon, providing a third meal each day. This encouraged the sows to stand, eat and drink. The farrowing room attendant observed the sow, checked that she ate her breakfast and was willing to stand. In this herd, the extra feeding took 13 seconds or four minutes for 18 days. The feed cart did not fit in the room and the technician was giving a specific amount of feed, depending on when the sow farrowed. In other systems, this time will likely be reduced.
The whole maximal care system cost the technician an additional 68 seconds per litter per day over and above what she spent on the standard care litters. If the sow crates were scraped twice a day, she would have spent an extra 89 seconds per litter per day. For the whole 18-day lactation, this amounted to 20 minutes per litter. The time it takes for any new job on a farm will likely be the highest when the job is first begun and when the people doing the job are unfamiliar with the procedure. In our study, the technician doing the work was very familiar with farrowing room work. She was very efficient and also very thorough when completing the tasks. However, personnel will find the most efficient way to do each job on their own farm.
In our research project, jobs were done in a "temporary" manner. There were opportunities to set up this maximal care by using a more efficient system, but this was not done because the project only lasted eight weeks. The times provided in this article are to be used as a guideline for deciding which procedures to add to the farrowing room schedule to increase piglet survival and weight gain.
I appreciate the financial support of Ontario Pork, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Ontario Agri-Food Industry, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the co-operation of the participating producers and the dedication shown by Karen Richardson. BP
Cate Dewey is a professor in the Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph.
© copyright 2002 AgMedia Inc..
back Who benefits from consolidation in the U.S. meat packing industry?
Wages have gone down as plants de-unionized. But, so far, the data shows that concentration has not had important effects on meat packing profits
by KEN McEWAN
The U.S. meat packing industry has consolidated rapidly in the last two decades. Many independent packers have disappeared and today's leading firms operate very large plants. Presently, four firms (four-firm concentration ratio, or CR4) slaughter nearly 80 per cent of all cattle while just 20 years ago, the CR4 concentration ratio was less than 40 per cent.With respect to hog slaughter, four firms handled over 56 per cent of the weekly U.S. hog kill in 2000. The CR4 in hog slaughter has increased by 70 per cent between 1985 and 1997. As with other livestock species, hogs are not usually transported far to market (normally less than 150 miles) and, as a result of packer concentration, many U.S. producers have limited marketing options with usually only one or two packers in their immediate area.
Recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on survival rates for beef and pork slaughter plants with over 24 employees shows that of the facilities operating in 1963, only 2.1 per cent remained in business in 1992. For plants with less than 24 employees, only 1.9 per cent remained in operation. These statistics provide further evidence of industry turnover and concentration.
Meat packing costs and plant size. Total plant costs include costs of purchasing livestock and expenses incurred in obtaining materials, capital and labour to produce meat in slaughter plants. Typically, livestock purchases account for over 80 per cent of total costs at a large hog plant. Because livestock prices can fluctuate sharply over relatively short periods of time, analysts frequently distinguish between total costs and slaughter costs, which are the plant's costs excluding livestock purchases.
Plants can reduce average slaughter costs per head in three ways. First, some plants may be able to lower prices paid for production workers, energy, water, transportation or packaging. Second, plants can perform different operations; those that do less in-plant processing have lower costs. And, third, plants may reorganize their processes to use inputs more intensively, thereby using fewer inputs per kilogram of meat produced.
Some recent work by the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA sheds some light on pork processing costs. The USDA research used cost indexes based on individual establishment data reported in the 1992 Census of Manufactures. To ensure confidentiality, index numbers for costs were reported rather than dollars per head. Table 1 reports cost indexes for both per head slaughter costs and per head total costs (slaughter costs plus livestock purchase expenses).
From Table 1, it can be seen that slaughter costs per head at a large hog plant (four million head per year) are more than 25 per cent lower than costs per head at a mid-size plant (one million head) and nearly 40 per cent lower than costs in a small commercial plant (400,000 head). Because the analysis accounts for varying input prices and levels of processing, cost differences reflect differing intensity of input use -- larger plants realize substantial scale economies in slaughter because they are able to use labour, utilities, materials and equipment more effectively.
However, remember that livestock purchases represent a large component of total costs (80 per cent at large hog plants) and that slaughter costs are a small part of total costs. This should mean that large-scale economies in slaughter translate into small-scale economies in total costs. Indeed, the table verifies this. Total costs per head at a four-million-head hog plant are only 6.5 per cent lower than at a one-million-head plant. A key slaughter cost ingredient that has received much attention is labour. Employment relations in the U.S. meat packing industry have undergone key changes since the early 1980s, when half the workers in the meat products industry were union members. Most unionized workers belonged to the United Food and Commercial Workers union, whose base wage rate was $10.69 an hour in 1982.
In that year, many unionized firms began to press for large reductions in base wages to $8.25 an hour, consistent with what was being offered in non-unionized plants. Between 1983 and 1986, 158 work stoppages involving 40,000 workers occurred in cattle and hog slaughter plants, followed by widespread plant closings and deunionization.
By 1987, union membership in meat packing had fallen to a fifth of the workforce, where it has remained. Average wages fell sharply at slaughter plants of all sizes after 1982, and regional and size differentials virtually disappeared (see Table 2). After 1982, disappearing wage differentials reinforced expanding scale economies to provide large plants with substantial slaughter cost advantages.
Size Slaughter costs Total costs 1,000 head per year Hogs: 400 117.5 104.5 1,000 100 100 2,000 84.6 96.1 4,000 74.5 93.5 For hogs, the index value of costs is relative to costs at a one-million-head plant. Data derived from Longitudinal Research Database, U.S. Census Bureau. Economic Research Service, USDA
Plant characteristics Head/year Location 1972 1982 1992 $/hour 400,000 W. cornbelt 5.04 12.17 8.08 1 million W. cornbelt 5.54 13.61 8.22 1 million Southeast 3.64 9.15 7.81 4 million W. cornbelt 6.4 16.11 8.44 Estimated wages for production workers based on U.S. Census Bureau's Longitudinal Research Database. Economic Research Service, USDA
Implications for producers and consumers. In highly competitive industries, cost declines should be quickly passed through, either as lower prices to consumers or as higher prices for livestock producers. But in an industry that has become highly concentrated, large firms may be able to retain the cost advantage as profits. Increasing concentration in other sectors of the economy has often reflected intense competition and frequently led to falling costs and prices for the concentrating firms. But after an industry consolidates, when few firms face each other in a stable environment, competition may become less intense.
To determine whether packer scale economy gains have been passed on during a period of rapid packer concentration, farm-to-wholesale price spreads are normally used. Using packer margins (see Figure 2), it can be seen that yearly margins have remained relatively consistent with the same seasonal trends, except for the fall of 1998. Thus, it is unlikely that increased concentration had important effects on packer pricing and profits and that packer cost declines were passed onto consumers or producers. It is also important to recognize that concentration has occurred in the retail sector, which would also put price margin pressure on meat packers.
Still, the question remains whether packers will in the future successfully limit price competition among themselves and maintain high margins. Certainly, this is the fear of many independent hog producers both in the United States and Canada. Or will they continue to compete aggressively, thereby ensuring that cost reductions in meat packing are passed through? Undoubtedly these are questions that will continue to be asked in a highly concentrated industry brought on by economies of scale factors. BP
Ken McEwan is an economist at Ridgetown College, University of Guelph.
© copyright 2002 AgMedia Inc..
back