Better Pork -February 2003
BEHIND THE LINES
by ROBERT IRWINSelenium, it seems, could be an important key to preventing cancer. Ontario pork producers have been adding this trace mineral to their swine rations for years. In 1996, the first results of an ongoing University of Arizona study showed that men given a selenium supplement had a 63 per cent decrease in prostate cancer, a 58 per cent decrease in colon and rectal cancers, a 45 per cent decrease in lung cancer and an overall reduction in deaths by cancer death of 50 per cent.
For the past few years, four Korean pork co-ops have captured a 30 per cent premium from health-conscious consumers for meat with a high level of organic selenium. Will further studies support the Arizona research? Are there opportunities for pork producers in other regions, such as Ontario, to secure lucrative niche markets for selenium-enriched pork? Only time will tell. For more on this development, see Janice Murphy's feature on page 53. Research projects don't always produce the desired results, as our article on Meishan pigs on page 14 shows. Back in 1998, the year the pork market crash made headlines, Woodstock producer Gerry Huinink thought he had found a way to increase his profits. Amidst some publicity at the time, he teamed up with Genex, one of the world's top genetics companies, to establish an on-farm trial of an improved strain of the legendary Meishan breed. Meishans are among the most prolific breeds in the world and Genex has a solid track record with superior breeding stock in Ontario, so Huinink rightly assumed his income would increase. Things didn't work out.
We are able to tell you this story because both Huinink and Genex were both very willing to talk about what went wrong, even though they don't agree on some points. That willingness to share information benefits all producers and it's an attitude the industry needs to encourage.
Also on the line of discussion of research that doesn't neccessarily turn up positive results, many North American pork producers view odour emanating from manure as the first line of concern expressed by their neighbours and passerbys and therefore a major threat to their operations. Companies are rising to this perceived opportunity by producing and marketing additives that are supposed to reduce or eliminate these odours. Sometimes the sales pitches are very aggressive.
Wise producers are asking for proof that they work and there's been a flurry of testing at universities on both sides of the border. The results, unfortunately, are generally less than positive. (see cover story on page 8.)
Further confusing the issue are results from surveys revealing that the public is of two minds about manure odours.
In another story we publish in this month'sBetter Pork on neighbours attitudes towards large livestock operations, a survey showed that, on average, 40 per cent of them closed their windows at some time during the year because of odour. Yet relatively few neighbours on the verges of these farms complained BP
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back Better Pork - February 2003
MANURE ADDITIVES: Snake oil, placebo or cure?
So far, testing of the various commercial manure additives on the market has been disappointing. Some help a little, some do nothing and some even make the problem worse. But they haven't given up hope that science will come up with an answerby KEN BENNETT
In the past five years, there has been an explosion of testing at U.S. and Canadian universities to determine with objective certainty whether or not the manure additives on the market are capable of defeating odour.For the most part, it seems that looking for an additive cure is more like panning for gold. With each company claiming to have a nugget, it is ultimately up to the farmer to be the prospector to screen through the sand. While additives claim to be capable of many things, odour reduction stands out as the one remedy desired from everybody.
"Many producers feel that if we could control odour, a lot of our problems would be solved and I wouldn't argue with that," says Sam Bradshaw, environmental specialist for Ontario Pork. "If something can be shown to work, no question there would be a great demand for it."
Bradshaw is part of an eight-person technical evaluation committee in newly-formed AMMTO (Advanced Manure Management Technology for Ontario). "I've looked at all the odour additives that have been tested and there are very few that do it -- in fact hardly any," says Bradshaw, in reference to a number of findings already available that indicate poor odour reduction.
Probably the most definitive study was done recently at Purdue University in Indiana. Early in 2001, its agricultural air quality laboratory produced an extensive 187-page report that described testing 35 commercial manure additives for swine odour control. Of those, only four reached even a 75 per cent probability of success in decreasing odour levels and none gave 95 per cent certainty. Even one good product would be sufficient if it caused a decisive reduction rather than the unspectacular 25-32 per cent decrease of these top contenders.
The study, which measured over 20 variables, found that 23 of the products failed to show more than a ten per cent decrease in any of three frequently discussed air quality problems -- odour dilution, hydrogen sulphide or ammonia levels. An appalling 15 did nothing of any certainty in these areas or, in fact, made the problem worse.
Even products that showed some marked improvement in one of the categories caused an increase in another category, and so may or may not be of overall benefit to the farmer. "It's like a black box," says Daniel Masse, research scientist for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Lennoxville, Que. "When using a manure additive, people don't look at the impact of that additive on the microflora in the manure or at the change in the manure characteristics," says Masse, who is in the midst of developing a methodology to test products in a more representative way. While he believes some products "have good potential," he cautions that "if an additive has to be recommended, we must make sure that it does not create other problems."
According to Masse, a company that claims its product will eliminate one problem, like ammonia, can inadvertently be causing another problem to emerge. "For example, if you reduce the pH," says Masse, "the ammonia will stay in the system. But then on the other side, you have more hydrogen sulphide emissions. If you increase the pH, there will be less hydrogen sulphide emissions, but you get more ammonia."
Disconcerting failure
Canadian studies, though smaller in scale, have also been disappointing. For instance, a 1999 Manitoba report summarized the results of an in-barn test of six unnamed products by concluding there was no significant reduction in odour intensity of barn air that could be detected by a human odour panel.At the Prairie Swine Centre in Saskatchewan, a comparison of five pit additives showed results ranging from a 16 per cent reduction to a 49 per cent increase in odour for an indoor trial. Only one of the products, a copper sulphate mixture, gave a significant reduction of 66 per cent, and that was only for outdoor measurements.
Perhaps the failure of products to perform with certainty would not be so disconcerting if there wasn't increasing pressure on farmers to deal with odour complaints. "Some of it revolves around perception as well," says Ryan Stinson who did his graduate thesis on some of the work additives done in Saskatchewan. "If neighbours know farmers are doing something to treat manure, they may tend to perceive less odour coming from the site," says Stinson, who now works for a U.S.-based environmental management company.
Still, Stinson recognizes that there can be strong external factors motivating farmers. "Unless there is some type of a driving force which, in a lot of cases, would be the nuisance, a lawsuit or something like that," says Stinson, "then it's just money spent with no tangible gain."
Such an incentive for farmers to take immediate action in response to complaints from neighbours was visible to Environics International president Doug Miller in Toronto in 1998 when he presented an insightful Canadian survey at the "Hogs and the Environment" workshop, jointly sponsored by the Canadian Pork Council and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. His opinion research group tracked public perception of odours from livestock operations compared to other agricultural impact issues and found that, astonishingly, the public ranked odours as both "not important"' and at the same time "very urgent." On a relative scale, respondents ranked questions such as water pollution from livestock waste and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides as "very important" and "not urgent."
"In my presentation," says Miller, "I made the point that you've got to meet people where they are." To him, this meant "prompt attention to less serious, highly visible issues" for the sake of "building trust on the more serious, but less visible ones." He agrees that the findings could mean that people think odour problems are easily solved and therefore rank them as an immediate action item, which could put pressure on farmers to seek a quick fix from the smorgasbord of ineffective manure additives on the market.
A 2001 survey, Miller notes, suggests a growing sense of urgency. Among farms, it showed that the percentage of Canadians who think pig operations have the most negative environmental impact has increased from 29 in 1997 to 36 in 1998 and 47 per cent in 2001 "It has all the attributes of an issue that's quickly getting out of control," Miller says. As with a headache that won't go away, the thought that there is an arsenal of medicinal pain relief available on a shelf somewhere is very tempting.
"It's very difficult when someone comes to the door and offers a free can if you'll only try it," says Rick Van Kleek, an engineer with the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. He warns that when a farmer has a problem, the tendency is to start trying several possible solutions, including additives, at the same time, so it is easy to misinterpret on-farm results. "Suddenly there's a change in odour or a change in manure characteristics or something else and they give credit to the wrong thing," he says.
Van Kleek says he also receives solicitations from many companies, but he doesn't rise to the bait. "I get a phone call at least once a month from somebody wanting me to certify their product," says Van Kleek "They're trying to get some sort of a blanket approval so they can use it as part of their sales pitch when they get to the farmer's door. I send them off to a university to have an accredited test done on it"
Central information resource
Bradshaw also acts as a firewall to protect farmers from companies clamouring to get their product into the marketplace. "They want me to supply them with a whole lot of names of farmers and we don't do that," says Bradshaw. "I tell them to get a researcher somewhere to research your product and then we'll go from there."In his role at AMMTO, the assistance Bradshaw can give may be somewhat limited. While he tells producers, "keep using it if it works," he adds that he and the engineers at the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) are somewhat additive-shy because "we have seen so much research on this stuff that shows it's not what it claims to be."
Still, when AMMTO put out a broad request for proposals last year for all manure technologies that could benefit livestock producers, seven of the 54 submissions listed under review by them were from manure additive companies. So far, it doesn't look as if AMMTO will be easy to convince.
"Odour is just one concern of AMMTO and probably not its primary focus," says Jake DeBruyn, an OMAF wastewater specialist and co-chair at AMMTO. He views the main objectives as minimizing risk to surface and groundwater, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and shifting nutrients to land bases far from the barn. In considering additives, he says he would rely heavily on the conclusions of other research that's been done. "The intent is to have a central resource of information that provides a consistent approach to analysing different technologies," says DeBruyn, adding that some consider pit additives a "bandaid approach."
The kind of information AMMTO project manager Richard St. Jean expects from companies is both proof that the product works and an explanation of the technical process before the AMMTO committee will evaluate them. "We're not going to suggest that we move forward with something that's a black box and then just say you've got to believe us. That's not a good way to approach things," says St. Jean "If they don't release the information, then we can't technically evaluate the product. It's as simple as that."
Despite the warnings that experts convey to farmers, they are still willing to raise a cautious flag of optimism that an effective product will emerge. "In the past, there's been a lot of very good snake oil salesmen out there," says Van Kleek. "In general, I'm pessimistic about additives, but I do believe science will prove some products do work and have a place on farms. But the list of products at the present time is really, really short."
Van Kleek said that at least one company "went off and tried to do what I suggested, so from that point of view I think they believe that science will prove them right," and he adds, "The other ones will disappear." BP
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back Lighten up at work, and your pigs will do better, too
It's well known that laughter and humour are good for health and productivity. That means they can help give you a competitive edge as well
by RICHARD SMELSKI
If you don't have a competitive advantage, according to one common business strategy, then don't compete. However, a prerequisite for getting a competitive advantage just might be having more fun and laughter.Which situation do you think promises to be most productive? One where the manager meets the employees each morning with a smile and friendly comment, or one where he always checks his watch and says nothing? Two different encounters -- one relaxed and fun-loving, the other an intense and strict routine. From which kind o class do you learn more? One where the instructor starts with a smile and a joke in each class, or one that starts with the course outline and a threat of a passing grade? And which class do you want to keep coming back to? With similar farm situations, which do you think will have the competitive advantage?
It is a medical fact that humour in the workplace is good for productivity and workers' health. Laughter is not a distraction from getting the real work done, but a happy, healthy way to increase workers' wellness, satisfaction and productivity. Laughter and humour enhance motivation and team building, reduce workplace stress and tension, promote health, minimize resistance to change and make leadership easier.
A skilled manager can achieve tremendous competitive advantages with joy and laughter. Yet a workplace survey conducted W. Edward Deming showed only two per cent of managers and 10 per cent of employees find joy in their work.
Joy equals satisfaction and commitment. It builds enthusiasm, thereby improving productivity and quality.
Several scientific studies have produced a measurable response showing that laughter is a powerful medicine. Research shows that laughter and attitude can have a tremendous healing effect. They not only bolster the immune system, but lead people to take better care of themselves and those around them.
Anger and stress do the reverse by elevating the stress hormones, epinephrine and cortisol, known to be immuno-suppressants, as well as diminish reproductive hormones Laughter lowers the blood pressure, stimulates endorphins, your natural painkillers, and your immune system.
A Duke University study has shown that hostile people, who bang on elevator buttons, yell at cars that cut in front of them and count items in a grocery basket at express lines, are four to seven times more likely to be dead by the age of 50 than those that aren't hostile. Humour is contagious, laughter is infectious and both are good for your health and thus for everyone and everything around you. So lighten up and joke with your family, coworkers and friends verbally, by e-mail or by fax. Associate with people that share the same sense of humor and it will often mean associating with successful business people like yourself.
If we believe Australian animal behaviourist Dr Paul Hemsworth's research, we understand that our attitude and sense of well-being are reflected in the productivity of the livestock we work with. So if we lighten up, our pigs should do better as well. The best part is that it doesn't cost any money, and it doesn't need to be injected with a needle. BP
Richard Smelski is a swine industry consultant and former Ontario government swine specialist.
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back Better Pork - February 2003
Make sure you ask -- "Is this a judicious use of medicine?
What you should know about the risks and rewards of Extra Label Drug Use -- the use of medicines in ways not described on the labelby Cate Dewey
Most pork producers are aware of the need for judicious use of medicines and have participated in the Canadian Quality Assurance program. Extra Label Drug Use (ELDU) -- the use of medicines in ways not described on the label -- is well defined by the program. This includes taking a medicine labelled for pigs but using it for a disease or size of pig, or at a different dose, at different time intervals for a longer period, or injecting it in a different place than specified on the label.If you inject a pig with more than one medicine at a time or if you feed an antibiotic and put another in the water at the same time, or inject a pig that is receiving an antibiotic in the feed, that is ELDU. If you do not keep a pig for the full withdrawal period or you use a medicine that is not labelled for use in pigs or one that is not labelled for any food animal, then that is also ELDU.
However, in my view lumping all types of ELDU into one category does not allow us to focus on the risk involved. The public is concerned about ELDU because of the potential for human health concerns. But there are really two concerns. Pork with residues and pigs with antibiotic-resistant bacteria may infect people. Then there is the concern for pigs receiving an antibiotic. If the pigs become ill, the antibiotic that is used routinely may be ineffective against the bacteria causing the disease.
Judicious use of medicines includes seeking veterinary advice on the choice and use of antibiotics, limiting the use of antibiotics to those that are essential for the health and welfare of the pigs in your care and discontinuing the use of the antibiotic as soon as it is no longer required. Judicial use of an antibiotic to treat a sick pig may include using an antibiotic for a disease that is not on the label or for a size of pig that is not on the label.
However, ELDU must be limited to the times when the labelled dose will definitely fail. A common example of this is the treatment of pigs with Strep suis. Penicillin is often used at a higher dose than the label says and may be injected twice rather than once a day. The pig needs a high level of penicillin in the bloodstream to kill the Strep suis bacteria. Provided the withdrawal time is extended appropriately, this is a judicious use of ELDU.
At times, Strep suis bacteria are resistant to penicillin. Then your options as a producer are to let the pig die or to treat it with another antibiotic that is labelled for use in pigs but not labelled for use against Strep suis. For welfare reasons, it is important that these pigs are treated. However, it is unlikely that there will be other antibiotics specifically labelled for Strep suis because of the cost of the trials required to change labels for drugs. I would consider this an ELDU with low risk. The product is labelled for pigs, it has a dose and a withdrawal time. If it effectively kills the Strep suis bacteria and returns the pig to health and the withdrawal time is observed, this is a judicial use of a medicine.
The examples of extra label drug use that entail the most risk fall into two categories. The first is the use of a medicine that may result in a residue in food. This could occur if a medicine is used in pigs that is not labelled for use in food animals. These products do not have a known withdrawal time. Residues may also occur with medicines that are labelled for use in food animals but where the dose is increased, the frequency of use is increased or the known withdrawal time is not observed. If multiple medicines are used in one pig, the withdrawal time must be greatly extended. Of particular concern are sows that are treated at farrowing and then culled at weaning.
The second type of ELDU of concern is the routine use of injectable antibiotics or the use of multiple antibiotics in one age of pig. Injecting all pigs with one dose of an antibiotic causes antibiotic resistant bacteria to grow in the pigs in these barns. So I would argue that routinely giving a single antibiotic injection to every pig cannot be justified.
The other way that pigs are routinely exposed to antibiotics is in the feed and water given to nursery pigs. Nursery pigs tend to have less illness and a better growth rate when antibiotics are included in the diet. I recommend that you and your veterinarian select one antibiotic to put in all of the nursery feeds in your production unit. Do not change antibiotics as you change diets in the phase-feeding program. If you restrict the antibiotic to one (or a labelled combination product), then that group of pigs will only have bacteria that are resistant to that one antibiotic. If on the other hand, we use one antibiotic in the water and then change antibiotics with each diet change, we could produce a population of pigs resistant to a wide variety of antibiotics.
Judicious use of medicines is everyone's responsibility. Each time a disease occurs on a farm, samples should be submitted to the diagnostic laboratory for a culture and sensitivity. This will ensure that the antibiotic chosen will be effective against the disease. Treatment protocols must have a limited time period. If the nursery pigs are experiencing a problem that requires water medication, we cannot assume that every group of nursery pigs will need that water medication.
The Canadian Quality Assurance program and the Swine Medicines Course are both useful educational programs that encourage judicious use of medicines in swine. They let us re-evaluate our treatment protocols and let us answer the question "Is this a judicial use of medicine?"BP
Cate Dewey is a professor in the Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph.
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back