Better Pork - August 2003

Is clipping a baby pig's teeth necessary?

Ensuring that newborns get adequate colostral intake soon after birth, says this swine specialist, negates most of the concerns about damage among littermates if teeth are left unclipped
by S. ERNEST SANFORD
There is a mounting debate over the need to keep on clipping baby pig (canine/needle) teeth. Both small and large producers are questioning this long-established practice as being time-consuming, potentially harmful to the piglet and largely unnecessary.

Teeth clipping is also being labelled as a welfare concern by some outside the industry. Recently, a pig welfare report from the European Standing Committee on Welfare proposed, among other things, outright banning of teeth clipping.

Clipping of canine (needle) teeth of newborn pigs is done in an attempt to prevent:

  • Piglet injury and subsequent infection from littermates fighting to establish a teat position on the sow's udder.

  • Udder injury to the sow, especially as piglets approach weaning age.

  • General injuries as piglets fight when weaned into the nursery.

Fighting for teat position among newborn piglets can result in skin abrasions, which subsequently become infected when secondary bacteria invade the open wounds. Infection of the skin over the cheeks and around the eyes is common. These early skin lesions are also a staging ground for pigs to develop "Greasy Pig Disease."

To be of any value, teeth clipping must be done on the day of birth, since most of the fighting for teat position occurs on the first two days of life. The upper and lower canine teeth are clipped on each side (a total of four teeth clipped). Depending on the operating procedures of the particular unit, two teeth per side might be clipped on the upper and lower jaws for a total of eight teeth altogether. Teeth clipping is usually combined with other husbandry procedures such as tail docking, ear notching and tattooing.

Good teeth clippers and clipping technique are essential to obtain the desired results. The clippers must be sharp, clean and functional with uniform tight apposition of the cutting edges when the clipper jaws are closed. There must be no "scissors" action of the cutting surfaces. The goal is to remove the sharp tip of the tooth. Take care not to fracture the tooth or injure the gums by cutting the tooth too close to the gum line.

Another option is grinding the teeth. In this case, a mechanical grinder is used to grind the needle teeth quickly and remove the sharp point.

If the job is not done properly, there can be several undesirable outcomes. Poor clipping can shatter the tooth and the sharp edges could then damage the tongue and cut into gums and lips. Tooth and gum abscesses may result. Deep ulcers can develop on the underside of the tongue (see Fig 1). These ulcers can compromise adequate nursing and may also serve as a portal of entry for secondary bacteria and lead to joint infections and systemic disease.

As sow herds have become larger, teeth clipping has come into question as a possibly unnecessary chore in an ever more crowded schedule. Add to this increasingly inexperienced staff handling ever-larger numbers of piglets and repetitive motion injuries to hands and wrists, and something eventually has to give. That something might be more broken teeth and damaged gums, or improperly clipped teeth.

More significantly, colostrum management, whereby farrowing room personnel ensure that newborns get adequate intake of colostrum in the first few hours after birth, might become compromised in the squash of too many duties for too few hands.

As long as piglets get colostrum in the first few hours of life, the uptake of maternal antibodies in the colostrum protects them against the secondary bacteria that infect the facial wounds and abrasions, thus preventing the diseases that result from infection.

If a choice must be between teeth clipping and adequate colostral management, the latter wins hands down. However, in some of the bigger barns workers might be more keyed in to mechanical tasks like teeth clipping and tail docking, causing them to skimp on such things as colostral management.

So to clip or not to clip? The response in some of the larger herds has been to abandon teeth clipping, while at the same time insisting on proper colostral management of the newborn. Abandonment of teeth clipping will result in increased facial lesions in some newborn pigs. These lesions must be treated quickly with topical treatments to assist nature (colostrum) in the prevention secondary infections.

Teeth clipping is another practice that will likely decline over time. 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 - August 2003

"Stop sniping and start supporting Canadian agriculture"

When articles, such as a recent one in The Canadian Lawyer, make spurious statements about the hog industry, farmers need to stand up and tell their side of the story
by Sam Bradshaw
Sometimes it seems that it is open season on livestock agriculture these days. Recently, an article entitled "The Princess and the Poo" by Bill Rogers appeared in a publication called The Canadian Lawyer, which chronicles events in the life of a lawyer dealing with hog manure problems and contains spurious statements about the scale and impact of the hog industry. "There are so many farm animals now -all of them defecating on a daily basis that Ontario is slowly becoming manure," is typical of the hyperbole.

Pork producers review and fund research proposals from scientists around the world designed to sort out fact from fiction. We also devote a great amount of time and money trying to find better ways of storing and handling manure. For example, Jim Dalrymple of Livestock Technology Services in Brighton recently authored an impressive document entitled "The Ontario Pork Industry and Water Resources." He obtained his information from Statistics Canada and research reports.

He states: "Today, modern swine facilities use fewer resources to produce the same volume of product. Although units are in most cases larger, most of the counties in Ontario produce no more pork, have fewer animals and (generate) less manure than 100 years ago. Modern technology has enabled producers to adequately store this valuable by-product manure, apply it when most needed by crops, apply it when weather is suitable, and in some cases find alternative uses for it."

The following chart highlights hog numbers in a few Ontario counties. Notice that there are only 1.81 hogs per acre in Perth County, one of the largest hog-producing counties in the province.

County Number of farms Hogs marketed Tillable acres Hogs/acre
Middlesex 257 439,789 543,183 0.80
Perth 542 808,696 445,759 1.81
Leeds/Grenville 10 7,709 100,568 0.08
Lennox &Add. 42 12,965 189,478 0.07
The Canadian Lawyer article contends that manure is a lethal pollutant. But is it? Any substance can become lethal if handled and used inappropriately. Common table salt, for example, is quite lethal in concentrated doses.

Manure is teeming with bacteria, most of them beneficial, some not. Bacteria thrive in our stomachs, in the soil and in yogurt, a very healthy and delicious product. We can't live without bacteria. The soil has been described as a large digestive system that uses bacteria to digest manure and to change it into a form that plants use for food.

Agriculture Canada research shows that beneficial microbes in the soil can overpower pathogenic bacteria that may be present in some manure. Research completed in 2003 also states that on a silt loam soil, maximum crop yield can be achieved by fertilizing with liquid swine manure with minimum or no tile water fecal contamination.

Farmers understand what happens to soil that isn't properly manured. It loses its organic content and finally becomes quite unproductive. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food calculates that producers use only one third of the available workable land in the province to spread their manure. Much more soil could benefit from fertilization with manure.

How about manure gases? The Canadian Lawyer article also says that "apart from the revolting odour, manure discharges gases that are increasingly linked to respiratory disease in humans." Most farmers understand that manure in storage does produce gases such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and carbon dioxide, and they take proper precautions when agitating manure. Research indicates that agitation increases the concentration of hydrogen sulphide but not that of ammonia or carbon dioxide and that, under normal ventilated conditions, concentrations of these gases in barns are negligible.

Dr. Don Wilson of the Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan says that, although levels of airborne microorganisms will vary according to season, samples collected beyond 100 metres downwind of the barn have consistently shown there is no detectable difference from fresh air.

The article also quotes lawyers who work "'in the trenches of pig wars." One such lawyer was quoted as saying that he has been swimming in Lake Huron since he was a boy and that he didn't recall ever having the beaches closed. Now they often are, he says. This statement is probably accurate, but it implies that hog manure is causing the problem. While in Florida this year, I noticed that the beach in St. Petersburg was closed for a few days and I'm sure I didn't see any farm animals in the vicinity. Cities such as Toronto sometimes close their beaches during the summer, but these closures are clearly not linked to farm animals. What is to be gained by implying that hogs cause beach closings?

The Environmental Commissioner for Ontario has a much better idea. He suggests that Ontario's water quality could be improved on a watershed basis, where qualified experts start at the source of a watershed, identify issues that are degrading water quality and correct them before moving downstream. I believe this sensible approach would work, and would certainly stop the finger pointing.

Further on, Rogers links the manure issue to global warming and nuclear waste. "Just as its fun to complain about smog while driving -- all those damn cars! -- it's also very satisfying to condemn farmers and their faulty manure management practices while sitting down to a plate of eggs and bacon." To that, I simply say, "Stop sniping and start supporting agriculture!"

Dr. Wayne Caldwell, a Huron County Planner and University of Guelph professor, conducts important research that looks at strategies to help agriculture grow and thrive in today's conditions. Two to three times a year, he organizes a meeting where a research advisory group meets with his graduate students to monitor their research and provide direction for future endeavors.

Claire Weir, one of his grad students, is researching rural non-farm development and its impact on the viability and sustainability of agricultural and rural communities. She provided us with the following map showing Canada's agricultural land, with the food-producing area shown in dark green (See Better Pork, page 62). It left an indelible impression on me, as I came to understand just how little land we have in Canada to grow food. I truly believe that we in Canada, and especially in Ontario, need to decide whether we will be self-sufficient in food production, or wish to rely on other countries to supply our food.

A wise person once wrote: "He who has bread may have many troubles; he who has none has but one."

I have noticed lately that more and more pork producers are standing up and telling their story at public meetings, at consultations, and at the grocery store. Keep up the good work! BP

Sam Bradshaw is environmental specialist with Ontario Pork.


© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..


back









































Better Pork - August 2003

Ontario Pork's ban on meat and bone meal comes with a price tag

Buying other proteins to replace the high protein meal in hog rations will cost about $1.62 a market pig, according to one expert. And disposing of the formerly valuable byproduct will be even more costly -- up to $4.71 a pig
by Don Stoneman
Ontario Pork's coming ban on feeding meat and bone meal (MBM) in growing pig and feeder rations marketed isn't going to be popular with all producers. Some are worried about what such a feed ban, which is due to begin next April, will do to their bottom line.

Adding to the controversy is University of Guelph agricultural economist Karl Meilke, who conducted a study on meat and bone meal use in the Ontario pork industry two years ago. He warns that a ban will be costly in several ways.

Meilke says meat and bone meal now represents five to six per cent of hog feed by weight. Replacement with grain and legume proteins will require expensive supplementation with phosphorus. Removing MBM from rations costs $2 to $12 a tonne, depending on protein and energy levels. Meilke notes that his analysis doesn't take into account a possible price increase in vegetable protein sources as demand increases because of the MBM ban.

Buying other proteins to replace the high protein meal in hog rations will cost about $1.62 a market pig at 2000 production costs, Meilke says. But disposing of the formerly valuable byproduct is going to be even more costly -- up to $4.71 a pig -- and Meilke thinks this cost may be reflected in the base price that processors pay for pigs.

In lay terms, the cost doesn't sound like much, but it will be coming out of thin profit margins. If hog prices stay the same, a feed cost increase of one per cent will lead to a four per cent decline in the profit margin of feeding pigs. A three per cent increase would reduce profits by 12 per cent and a six per cent increase would reduce them by 23 per cent.

Meilke says banning MBM in pig rations could be more costly if meat and bone meal use is also banned in other livestock and poultry feeds and in pet foods. At least, those alternatives now provide some market for the product.

Nearly 90 per cent of the meat and bone meal produced in Canada is used in livestock and poultry feed. Ten per cent is used in pet feed and less than half of a per cent is used as fertilizer, Meilke's study says. If MBM is banned from all livestock and pet foods at once, the cost will be considerably higher, the study finds.

How will farmers pay for disposal of now useless byproducts? Bruce Clark of Hamland Farms in Cache Bay, north of Barrie, says he got a taste of the cost of removing offal when he took some pigs to a local abattoir in early July. The abattoir operator levied a $3 a pig surcharge just for that.

The cost of eliminating byproducts from rations already had Clark's attention. He got concerned this spring when he received a letter from Maple Leaf Foods (Hamland Farms is a Signature Pork supplier). He started looking at feed on his own operation and found that removing meat and bone meal cost 15 cents a pig for weaner rations because it is used in feed only at the end of the weaner feeding period. However, MBM is used in all stages of finishing rations, and replacing it will cost $1.25 for finishing rations. Total for extra ingredients will be $1.40 per pig marketed.

Another concern is the extra cost of flushing MBM products from feed mills that mix rations for other species before mixing prepared pig feeds.

Clark says the push to get meat and bone meal out of rations is coming from the Japanese market and he wonders if the extra cost is worth it. He's concerned that Ontario Pork seems to be going it alone with the ban. Unless it is Canada-wide, we will be adding a significant amount to the cost of raising pigs in Ontario, says Clark.

Ontario Pork is looking for compensation from packers to cover the added cost of removing meat and bone meal from rations. Chairman Larry Skinner says the meat and bone meal ban goes far beyond any health standards. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency defends its use in pig rations, he says.

"If processors say they have to(ban meat and bone meal) to expand their markets we have to respect that," Skinner says. But if the ban is adding value to the product then that value should be shared with producers, he says.

For Don Collis, general manager of Quality Meat Packers in Toronto, the ban on meat and bone meal "is a sign of the times." Canadian processors are concerned that their U.S. competitors are already promising Japanese buyers that the pork they buy is produced byproduct free. He says there is a "large percentage" of stock coming to market in Ontario that doesn't have meat and bone meal in its diet.

"A large percentage of our suppliers are already there," says Collis, who believes that they are not at a cost disadvantage. Overriding everything else is access to foreign markets, especially in light of the BSE outbreak in Western Canada and the subsequent closing of the border to beef exports.

"The (pork) board is trying to position the Ontario herd to ensure that it always has the best product available and it always has market access. You can't live without access," Collis says. BP





© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..


back




















Better Pork - August 2003

Stressful Handling of Pigs

Electric prod use dramatically increases number of downer pigs
Harold W. Gonyou
'Downer' pigs are a problem for both packers and producers. Levels of downer pigs arriving at various U.S. packing plants are typically reported at 0.25 to 0.75 per cent; however, levels as high as 10 per cent have been reported for individual loads. The incidence of downer pigs has increased from 0.08 to 0.30 per cent over the past 10 years.

Stressful handling appears to be a triggering factor for the occasional high levels of downer pigs. Although genetic predisposition has been suggested, the 'stress' gene is not a prerequisite for the condition as statistics show 90 per cent of dead pigs arriving at Canadian packing plants do not carry the 'stress' gene. High levels of blood lactate and ammonia, lower blood pH, blotchy skin, open-mouthed breathing, vocalizations, muscle tremors and a refusal to walk are typical symptoms of these animals. The behavioural and physiological symptoms are characteristic of a hyperthermic animal under stress resulting in the typical fight/flight response and attempts to dissipate heat. The metabolic symptoms are due to the rapid release of energy from either or both the muscle and liver resulting in a build up of lactate and ammonia in the blood. This increase in lactate causes metabolic acidosis, which may be involved in the refusal of the animal to move. In this study we attempted to shift the acid/base balance of the animal by increasing the electrolytes in the diet, hoping to increase the buffering capacity of the blood and reduce the risk of acidosis during stressful handling.

Table 1. Comparison of metabolic responses (post-handling) in downer and non-downer pigs.
Handling Size Non-downer Downer
Number of pigs 90 54
Rectal temperature, ºC 40.3 41.2
Blood pH 7.29 7.24
Blood lactate1, mg/dl 105.6 149.3
Blood ammonia1, umol/l 89.4 143.0
Blood glucose1, mmol/l 8.81 10.88
Blood glycerol1, mg/dl 39.8 50.9
1Values shown were taken post-aggressive handling.
The current model used to study stressful handling of animals is based on handling groups of animals with the understanding that a social stress (unfamiliar animals) as well as frustration during movement due to crowding would represent typical commercial handling situations. Additionally, the electric prod is used in the current stressful model to increase the level of stress since electric prods are believed to be a major source of stress in aggressive handling procedures. In these studies we examined both the need for group handling and the electric prod in the handling model.

Two studies were conducted; using a total of 336 pigs, to determine if altering the acid/base balance of the pigs through diet manipulation would affect the pig's response to stressful handling and to evaluate features of the model used for inducing stressful handling situations.

The experiments were designed to compare stressful handling (aggressively run through a course within the barn) for individually-run or group-run pigs on either a high or low electrolyte balance diet (Study 1). In addition, comparisons were made between aggressively handled pigs with or without an electric prod compared to gently handled pigs (Study 2).

In Study 1 we had a downer rate of 38 per cent. The results show a decrease in blood pH and an increase in the levels of lactate, ammonia, glucose and glycerol in the blood as well as an increase in rectal temperature in downer pigs compared to non-downers. These changes are indicative of the rapid mobilization of energy in downer pigs as a response to aggressive handling. Group-run pigs had lower blood O2 and CO2 and higher blood glycerol post-handling than did individually-run pigs. A higher proportion of downers in the group-run pigs (54 per cent) suggests that group handling of pigs was more effective in inducing downers for model purposes. Altering the acid/base balance of the diet did not affect the pig's response to aggressive handling in either study. The high electrolyte balance diet raised the pre-handling blood pH in the first experiment but this did not prevent the typical physiological responses to handling and did not affect the incidence of downers.

Table 2. Effect of the use of an electric prod on metabolic
responses and the incidence of downers in aggressively
handled pigs.
Handling Manner
Electric Prod		 Gentle
-		 Aggressive
+
Number of pigs 48 96
Number of downers (% of total pigs) 7 (15) 33 (34)
Blood lactate1, mg/dl 47.1 134.5
Blood ammonia1, umol/l 36.3 123.5
Blood glucose1, mmol/l 5.80 9.68
Blood glycerol1, mg/dl 39.5 48.4
1Values shown were taken post-aggressive handling.
In the second study, we obtained downer rates of 2, 15 and 34 per cent for pigs handled gently, aggressively but not prodded, and aggressively including electric prodding, respectively. Among the aggressively handled pigs, the use of an electric prod resulted in a greater metabolic response to handling compared to the non-prodded pigs (Table 2). Aggressively handled, non-prodded pigs had higher blood lactate and glycerol levels post-handling than gently handled pigs. This suggests that aggressive handling, even without the use of a prod, may contribute to the 'downer' response, but this response is exacerbated by use of the electric prod. Strategic funding for this project was provided by Elanco Animal Health.

The Bottom line
The use of the electric prod during aggressive handling contributes to the incidence of downer animals. Aggressive handling of pigs can result in the metabolic response associated with downer pigs. Altering the dietary electrolyte balance was not effective in reducing the metabolic response of pigs to aggressive handling or the incidence of downers. BP





© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..


back