Better Pork - April 2003

Disposable piglet mats mean more hygiene

by NORMAN DUNN

Disposable natural fibre mats in farrowing pens are proving real lifesavers during the first two weeks of piglet existence in trials by the Institute for Agricultural and Urban Ecological Projects (IASP) at Berlin's Humboldt University.

Researchers claim the hemp/flax mats are more stable and hygienic than straw beds or plastic mats and offer better insulation than sometimes-cold farrowing pen floors. Cross infection between litters is avoided because the mats are simply thrown away after a litter is about two weeks old and can then do without the extra insulation. Another plus for the mats is that they protect piglets from scrape wounds and subsequent infections, common where the animals lie on straw littered or bare concrete surfaces. Because they are made of natural fibres only, they can be safely thrown on the dung heap or even composted.

First trials tested the mats in 256 farrowing pens. Compared with pens where the piglets lay under heat lamps on straw or on the bare floor, the matting decreased deaths by an impressive average of 7.1 per cent.

The 60 x 80 cm mats, which can absorb several times their weight in liquid, cost around $3 Cdn and the scientists testing them reckon that even, if they only help reduce piglet mortality by one per cent per year, they are worth the expense.

The trials also showed, however, that where farrowing pens had underfloor heating as well as overhead heat lamps, there was no performance advantage in using the mats.BP

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - April 2003

More plastic wanted in hog pen construction

by NORMAN DUNN

Dutch farmers want much more plastic in hog pen construction. A national survey of producers in that country indicates that the preferred farrow pens would feature not only plastic flooring, but also plastic panel walls. Reasons included the material's easy-clean properties and its excellent insulation.

Most farmers in the survey felt, for instance, that no additional heating for sows is required where buildings are adequately insulated and pens are fitted with plastic wall panels and flooring. Only the piglet area in each pen then required underfloor heating or heat lamp.

Plastic panel construction would also allow easier rebuilding of farrowing pens within barns, an important point in Europe where political demands for space per hog and design of livestock accommodation can change rapidly. Latest figures in the Netherlands also show that the old bricks-and-mortar solutions for farrowing pens are no longer cheaper than plastic ones.

Another feature badly needed and still missing from most present-day farrowing houses, according to the Dutch hog farmers, is a ventilation system which brings fresh air straight to the noses of the farrowing animals. The questionnaire respondents felt that least a proportion of air intake should be released into the pens through slits in front of farrowing crates at nose level.

A last design feature that would greatly improve efficiency in European farrowing pens, according to the farmers questioned, would be a substantial reduction in the height of pen walls. Even nowadays concrete versions can run from 70 cm to a metre in height when only 40 cm is really required. Low plastic panel walls supported by steel frames would not only cut future costs, but stockpersons could access the pens by simply stepping over the barriers. BP

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - April 2003

Bacteriophages: What are they? And Can they Replace Antibiotics?

by S. ERNEST SANFORD

Suppose I told you that we have in our possession antimicrobial materials that attack and kill all kinds of disease causing bacteria. Not only that, but these materials attack only the harmful bacteria and leave the beneficial bacteria unharmed, do not damage the environment, and do not require hugely sophisticated laboratories and infrastructure to make them? Almost unbelievable, right? It would be even more unbelievable if I went on to tell you that not only are there such products, but that they have been around and known to scientists and researchers for almost 100 years now. Yes, these products, called bacteriophages, have been used and researched to death throughout the last century. Too good to be true? Here's the deal.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages ("phages" for short) are bacterial viruses that specifically attack and destroy their host bacteria. They are very specific, do not attack any other bacteria and are safe in the environment in that they will not affect any other living creatures.

Background on Bacteriophages

Bacteriophages were first discovered and described by English bacteriologist, Frederick Twort, in 1915 and, independently, two years later in 1917, by French Canadian microbiologst working at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, Félix d'Hérelle. D' Hérelle coined the term bacteriophage, meaning bacteria eater (Gk. phago = to eat). Their discovery brought much excitement to the emerging field of virology and intense investigations were launched into many aspects of these phages and their potential uses. One area intensively researched was their ability to fight and kill bacteria pathogenic to both man and animals. They seemed ideal for just such a job. Interest in and work with bacteriophages as therapeutic antimicrobials waned considerably after the second world war when Sir Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin ushered in the age of antibiotics.

The decreased interest in bacteriophages as therapeutics occurred mainly in Western countries, but not so in Eastern Europe. Research continued unabated over the last 50 years in the former Soviet Block countries. The Eliava Institute of Bacteriophage, Microbiology and Virology, located in Tbilisi, in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, became the most active clinical research centre on phages. Publications of successful therapies using phages against pathogenic bacteria abound, though virtually unnoticed or ignored in Western countries.

Renewed Interest in Bacteriophages

The current anti-antibiotic climate and concerns about antibiotic resistance have stirred renewed interest in bacteriophages as possible replacements for antibiotics (see Table 1). Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., K88 (F4) E. coli and various antibiotic resistant bacteria, are all potential targets of interest for this resurgent area of microbiology. Abundant research with bacteriophages occurs at universities right across Canada. One centre conducting research against bacterial diseases of animals is Biophage Inc., a private Montreal-based research and development company.

Current Research Focus

Researchers at Biophage Inc. are in the process of developing a new generation of treatments based on the use of bacteriophages. They have used highly virulent bacteriophages they isolated against two bacterial pathogens, an E. coli pathogenic to pigs and an isolate of Salmonella typhimurium DT 108.

Bacteriophages against E. coli Diarrhea

They set up two different treatment protocols using the bacteriophage virulent against E. coli that cause diarrhea in pigs. The first consisted of pre-treating one-day-old, colostrum-fed piglets with the bacteriophages three hrs prior to challenge with the pathogenic E. coli. The second treatment consisted of experimental challenge of piglets with the E. colifollowed by treatment with the bacteriophages as soon as the first clinical signs appeared. Untreated, challenge-controls were used in both treatment protocols.

The bacteriophage pre-treated pigs had a statistically significant reduction in severity of diarrhea. Pigs approached normal levels within 48 hrs compared with >4 days in untreated challenge controls.

Pigs treated with phages after development of clinical signs also had a reduction in severity of diarrhea and a significant decrease in the elimination of the E. coli challenge strain in the feces. There was no significant change in total number of E. coli in the feces of phage-treated pigs suggesting that phage treatment did not have an adverse effect on the intestinal microflora.

Take Home Message

Outbreaks of E. coli diarrhea in pigs can be effectively treated, prophylactically and therapeutically, with bacteriophages.

Bacteriophages against Salmonella typhimurium Infection

Two different dosage regimens of a bacteriophage virulent against S. typhimurium were used. Treatment at both doses resulted in a decrease in fecal shedding of S. typhimurium indicating elimination of the pathogenic Salmonella from the phage-treated pigs. By day 7 post-phage treatment, Salmonella was not found in feces of any of the phage-treated pigs, except one. Furthermore, bacterial counts in that one pig were very low. Very high bacterial counts were recorded in feces of the untreated, challenge controls by day 7. In addition, there was enlargement of mesenteric lymph nodes in challenge controls, but not in either of the two phage-treated groups of pigs. Diarrhea did not occur in any of the challenged groups of pigs so this clinical sign could not be monitored. However, there was no fever in the phage treated groups, unlike the case in the untreated controls.

Bacteriophages

Antibiotics

Very specific, affects only the target bacterium Development of phage resistance frequently is associated with attenuation of bacterial viruence Selecting a new phage is a rapid process; production is simple and relatively inexpensive No known side-effects The disease-causing bacterium has to be identified and the desired phage isolated before phage therapy can be started* * Indicates a disadvantage

Non-specific action that affects multiple bacteria including normal microflora* Antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains remain pathogenic* Developing a new antibiotic is a time-consuming process which may take several years and be expensive* Multiple known side-effects* Antibiotics can be used without knowing the identity of the disease-causing bacterium

Table 1. Comparison between bacteriophages and antibiotics

Take Homes

The following conclusions can be drawn from the above research studies:

• Phage therapy is a very effective alternative to the use of antibiotics in treating enteric infections in livestock.

• Outbreaks of E. coli diarrhea in pigs can be effectively treated prophylactically and therapeutically with the bacteriophages.

• Phage therapy does not affect the host's intestinal microflora.

• Because of low withdrawal periods, phage therapy can be given up to one week before slaughter.

• Phage therapy can be used against drug-resistant pathogens where no conventional antibiotics can be used.

Problems and Unresolved Issues with Bacteriophage Therapy

This might seem too good to be true, so I know you've been waiting for the "but". And yes, there is a "but". There are several hurdles to phage therapy in field situations that have remain unresolved after nearly 100 years since their discovery. Some of the major hurdles include:

• The targeted bacteria are usually very heterogeneous and require, not one phage but usually a large combination of phages, due to the different sensitivities of the target population to the phages.

• The bacteria quickly develop resistance to the various phages, which then requires repeated changes to the mixture of phages.

• The host makes antibodies to the phages that neutralize the phages prior to them being able to kill their target bacteria.

• The results of initial laboratory and field trials are usually good on first use, but not effective when attempted on a 2nd outbreak because the bacteria develop resistance to the phage, necessitating the constant change to new phages or mixtures of phages.

Conclusions

So there are problems. These problems are being tackled from fresh perspectives and with new, more advanced technologies. We will have to wait and see if this new surge of interest in bacteriophages will resolve these lingering issues and allow phages to become a viable tool in the fight against bacterial pathogens. BP

S. Ernest Sanford, DVM, Dip. Path., Diplomate ACVP, is a swine specialist with Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica (Canada) Ltd. in Burlington.

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - April 2003

SHAC's results speak for themselves

This letter is in response to the story: "Manure Additives," Better Pork, February 2003. I am not speaking for other products on the market, but I do speak for SHAC Environmental. Theirs are 100 per cent, all-natural products which activate and balance resident microbes and include: Manure Digester, Feed Additive, Shactivate and Ponder.

All products contain water and liquefied carbon, which attracts and ties up billions of unwanted chemicals and toxins that may inhibit microbial activity. SHAC works with nature. Its solutions are effective in the long run and do not compare to short-term Band-Aid treatments.

The studies done by SHAC have been passed on to government agencies, pork producers, environmental people, municipalities and consumers. The results speak for themselves. Just ask users who follow recommended rates.

We have approvals from the Canadian Feed Inspection Agency (feed additive for swine); Ontario Ministry of Environment (SHACTIVATE); Health Canada (Ponder-NSF certified); University of Guelph (under the supervision of Dr. Kees de Lange); Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph, (Dr Gordon Kirby did toxicity results on tissues and organs of hogs fed SHAC); Iowa State University; Agricultural Utilization Institute of Minnesota; ORTECH; and independent barns in Ontario containing more than 12,000 pigs.

Are these affiliations or studies not proof enough that SHAC works well for the "negative experts" out there? Perhaps those that refer to us as "snake-oil salesmen" are not the experts they profess to be, but realize that if an all-natural product such as SHAC is on the market, government grants might not be forthcoming to prove that something else doesn't work!

Dry manure treated with SHAC composts faster to retain moisture and decrease leaching and run-off to our waterways. It pays to use SHAC. You be the judge of our results in hog barns:

• 57.6 per cent reduction in odours;
  
• 28 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide;
  
• 35 per cent less phosphates;
  
• total reduction in solids;
  
• 60 per cent reduction in ammonia in finish barns;
  
• 48 per cent ammonia reduction in sow barns;
  
• 45 per cent ammonia reduction in weaner barns;
  

For references or testimonials, call 1-800-294-9725.

Paul Revington
Ontario Sales Manager,
MTS Environmental

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - April 2003

Monitoring - an integral part of manure management

As the province enters a new era of environmental regulation, manure mismanagement will come under even closer scrutiny - and nowhere more so than in the swine industry. All the more reason for vigilance and effective monitoring

by MURRAY BLACKIE

Although manure spills are not restricted to any one species of farm livestock, they do seem directly related to the use of liquid manure systems, and the majority of swine operations fall into this category.

There has been much discussion about manure spills and what types of mismanagement practices contribute to them. This column will focus on the benefits of vigilance and the need for effective monitoring.

Monitoring means being watchful and aware of where your manure is and where it may be going. Such watchfulness should be an integral part of all farm management programs.

In recent years, concerns have been raised regarding the integrity of manure storages. Levels in both concrete and earthen storages should be regularly checked to help identify possible leaks. A leak-detection or monitoring drain near a storage site should be considered to help identify problems early and help to contain collected material.

If liquid manure is being moved through pipes or hoses, monitoring will help spot leaks or separations and allow for fast shut down, less manure loss to watercourses or tiles and easier clean up of spilled material. Manure enters watercourses via tile drains in more than 50 per cent of spills reported to the environment ministry.

Catch basins or tile outlets should be readily accessible, so that an operator can monitor tile water quality easily at manure spreading times. I would recommend observing the tiles before starting manure spreading to determine if they are running and to confirm that the water quality is clean, prior to spreading.

Observations should begin as soon as possible, ideally within 20 minutes of the start of spreading. They should be as frequent as is practical -- at least hourly -- and continue until spreading stops. Monitoring should continue following spreading. Manure can migrate to tiles at varying speeds and may take some time -- perhaps hours -- to reach the tile and be discharged.

If monitoring locations are not readily accessible on your farm but are better at some point downstream, you should still try to carry out observations. If it doesn't seem practical to monitor downstream, you should pre-till, reduce application rates and incorporate, if possible, to retard flow to tiles and lessen the likelihood of downstream impact. If it is not possible to monitor during spreading, try to access an observation point downstream after spreading to assess water quality.

At different times of the year, there may be opportunities to analyze water quality in peripheral or leak detection drains to verify leaks or in tile drains to assess the effectiveness of nutrient management practices. Operators may have to make quick decisions when actually handling or spreading manure. They need to rely on sight and smell to tell them if tiles are contaminated and to help direct their actions.

Effective monitoring will allow for a timely response to unintentional manure spills or discharges. This practice will reflect a measure of diligence in your manure management.

In upcoming issues of Better Pork, I hope to discuss specific standards in the regulation under Bill 81 as they relate to swine operations. BP


Murray Blackie is the former agricultural specialist with the Ministry of the Environment and is now a consultant, expert witness and writer on agro-environmental issues.

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - April 2003

Guelph research will focus on meat quality and variability

The new chair of the University of Guelph's food science department will bring expertise honed in Denmark to the quest for consistently high quality pork

by SUSAN MANN

What makes one piece of meat mouthwateringly tender and juicy while another tastes like old shoe leather?

That's what meat scientist Dr. Peter Purslow will continue to investigate while here in Canada. At the beginning of January, Purslow took over as chair of the food science department at the University of Guelph. Before that, he spent five years as a professor of meat science in Copenhagen, Denmark, a major pork-producing country.

Purslow's expertise is in meat quality. During the five years he was in Copenhagen, his research focused on quality and the means to control variability in quality, mainly in pork. His work was centred primarily on meat tenderness and water holding.

At Guelph, Purslow will continue to concentrate on meat quality and how to control its variability. He will be doing basic cell growth work because "after all the business of growing cows, pigs and chickens is the business of growing muscle." And he will examine how factors, such as animal genetics, play a role in meat quality variability.

"People may buy meat on appearance and cost in the supermarket. But when it comes to their level of satisfaction, which governs their repeat purchase, it's taste, tenderness and juiciness that they judge products on," he explains. "Food safety is something they'd much rather not worry about. They'd like to take it as a given."

It's generally recognized in the meat industry that variability in these basic quality attributes (taste, tenderness and juiciness) is one of the longstanding problems in consistently producing high-quality products.

In the pork industry, Purslow says there has been a huge emphasis on genetics as a way to control and manipulate animal growth and meat quality. But just 30 per cent of the variability in tenderness and juiciness actually comes from genetics.

Another 30 to 40 per cent of the variability comes from what is done to the carcass after the animal is killed. For example, stress at the time of slaughter deteriorates meat quality. "A lot of our work in Denmark was showing that if you improve the handling of pigs and they were in low-stress situations, then many of the quality markers improved," he notes. "There was improved water holding, for example."

The remaining factor in meat quality variability has to do with how the genome of an animal is expressed. "If you have pigs which are in different conditions or subject to different stimuli during the rearing process, that actually means that maybe they won't grow as fast or those different parts of their metabolism will not be turned on," he says.

Studying both what's in the animals' genes and how different parts of the genome are expressed and turned on or off are tools scientists use to look at how different factors affect the end result.

Purslow did both his undergraduate work and PhD at Reading University in the United Kingdom. After finishing university, he got a job at the U.K.'s Meat Research Institute in Bristol.

Another of the areas where Purslow hopes to pursue increased research here is the positive effects of meat on human nutrition. In Denmark, scientists were working on the role meat plays in reducing iron deficiency in women aged 15 to 50. About 30 per cent of women in Western Europe are iron-deficient, making it the biggest nutritional problem in that region.

"Meat has very good iron availability," he says. And when small amounts of meat are mixed with iron-rich vegetables, such as spinach and peas, the iron uptake in the body is radically increased. BP

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - April 2003

Analysis shows average swine farm profitable and growing between 1998 and 2001

This comprehensive study shows farms returning to profitability after the low-price year of 1998 and doing so with only a modest increase in debt load

by LYNN MARCHAND

The Ontario Data Analysis Project (ODAP) is a collection of farm level financial and production data from a group of Ontario farrow-to-finish swine operations. All farmers participating consider themselves to be full-time and report very little, if any, off-farm income. Most rely on other family members to fill additional labour needs. Fourteen farms have participated in the survey consistently each year from 1998 to 2001.

For the 2001 survey, the average operator age was 47 years, the average workable land base of these farms was 270 acres and 53 per cent of the participants operated as family corporations. The average number of litters per sow per year was 2.33 with 10.5 piglets born alive per litter and 9.1 piglets weaned. Average weaning age was 22 days at a weight of 6.7 kg and average market hog was shipped after 170 days at a live weight of 111.1 kg. The average farm shipped 73 hogs every seven days. Several farms also shipped weaners in 2001 with the average farm selling 74 weaners every 13 days.

Table 1 shows the average income statement for the participating farms between 1998 and 2001. Growth on commercial-scale swine operations is confirmed by the steadily increasing average number of sows for this group of farms -- from 215 sows in 1998 to 254 in 2001, an 18 per cent increase in four years.

The size of these farms is further emphasized by analyzing total revenue, which increased 62 per cent over this time period to $801,760 in 2001. Most of this is a result of increased income from swine sales, which represented more than 75 per cent of the total revenue. It should be noted that the increase in revenue from swine sales is due both to an increase in the number of pigs produced and increased market hog prices.

Total expenses from 1998 to 2001 increased by 18 per cent, with the largest increases reported for other swine-related expenses (such as a 27 per cent increase for vet charges, building repairs, trucking and marketing expenses) and other farm expenses (a 23 per cent increase for expenses related to cropping, interest, rent, etc.). Average net farm income for these farms has ranged from negative $18,396 in 1998, when prices hit historic lows, to $221,066 in 2000. The results indicate that the average ODAP swine farm has been generally profitable and able to increase in size during this time with only a modest increase in debt load. BP


Lynn Marchand is a research associate at Ridgetown College, University of Guelph.

Table 1: Average farm income statement

	1998 20 farms	1999 19 farms	2000 17 farms	2001 17 farms
total current assets	$241,080	$221,698	$298,511	$360,553
Buildings	382,819	459,979	514,684	548,102
Land	452,978	599,526	695,642	884,906
Swine breeding stock	55,680	60,150	75,550	78,144
Other capital assets	357,202	379,322	414,632	455,462
Total capital assets	1,248,679	2,498,977	1,700,508	1,966,614
Total farm assets	1,489,758	1,720,675	1,999,019	2,327,168
Total farm liabilities	718,223	645,263	661,139	807,356
Equity in farm	771,536	1,075,411	1,337,880	1,519,812
Return on assets (per cent)	1.4	6.2	13.7	11.0
Return on equity (per cent)	-2.3	6.3	17.6	13.4
Pigs produced	3,500	3,347	3,703	3,868
Average # of sows	215	208	240	254
Revenue
Swine	429,809	389,834	592,179	659,314
Other farm income	65,893	126,209	158,579	142,446
Total revenue	495,702	516,043	750,758	801,760
Expenses
Purchased feed	221,726	183,517	238,180	253,587
Swine Purchases	27,418	14,787	25,295	26,590
Other swine-related expenses	40,687	32,287	49,407	51,554
Other farm expenses	224,266	220,948	216,810	275,395
Total Expenses	514,097	451,539	529,692	607,126
Net farm income	(18,396)	64,504	221,066	194,635
Profit per sow	(85.54)	310.74	922.13	766.10
These results are for the entire farm and not just the swine enterprise. Wages to family members have not been included. Depreciation has been calculated at 20 per cent for barn equipment, 15 per cent for machinery (including trucks and cars), 5 per cent buildings and 2.5 per cent other assets.

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back