Better Pork - June 2003

Dealing with Avian TB in Pigs

Last January's uproar about TB lesions in Manitoba pigs at a U.S. slaughterhouse was a one-day wonder. Avian TB is an everyday occurrence in pigs going to slaughter and there are ways to prevent it
by S. ERNEST SANFORD
On Jan. 31, rumours circulated on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange that Canadian-born hogs, raised in the United States, had been found with tuberculosis (TB) lesions at a U.S. slaughterhouse. These rumours caused an immediate surge in hog futures prices, based on speculation that the border would be closed to importation of hogs from Canada.

As I dug a little deeper into the story, I was shocked to learn that inspectors had found avian TB lesions in the mandibular lymph nodes of SEW/Isowean pigs that had been imported from Manitoba five to six months previously, raised in U.S. barns throughout their nursery and finisher stages and then sent to slaughter. More on that later.

Fortunately, the story flared around the news media for about 24 hours, then died and disappeared a day later, as well it should have. Folks, there was never any real story here. Identification of hogs with avian TB is an everyday occurrence by meat inspectors in hogs going to slaughter in the United States and Canada, and for that matter in nearly every country where hogs are raised. In 1995, U.S. federal meat inspectors identified about 200,000 hogs (0.21 per cent of 94.5 million slaughtered hogs) with TB lesions. Nearly all were avian TB. Before the Second World War, that figure ran as high as 5.6 million slaughter hogs with TB lesions (16.38 per cent of 34.4 million) in one year.

Tuberculosis can be divided into three types -- human, bovine and avian TB. As their names imply, each type of TB is contracted by its respective host species. Avian TB, contracted by birds, is caused by Mycobacterium avium. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (humans) and Mycobacterium bovis (cattle) cause the other two types, respectively.

Humans as well as cattle, however, can contract bovine TB. The process of pasteurization of milk (and other foods) was developed by Dr. Louis Pasteur in the 19th century to prevent the spread of bovine TB to people drinking cow's milk. We spent most of the last century working (successfully) to eradicate bovine TB from our cattle population in Canada.

Swine can get all three types of TB. However, human and bovine TB have both been eradicated, so the only remaining type available to swine in Canada is avian TB. (See Figure 1.) The prevalence of avian TB in pigs has also declined with the eradication of TB from the domestic poultry population. Wild birds, however, still harbour avian TB, which constitutes a food safety and public health concern because of the susceptibility of AIDS patients (and other immune-compromised individuals) to avian TB.

How do pigs get Avian TB? The primary source of Mycobacterium avium for neonatal pigs is usually sawdust, wood shavings or peat moss used as litter or bedding. Birds with TB contaminate the sawdust or shavings, directly or indirectly. The pigs then ingest the bacterium from the contaminated litter or bedding. The bacterium is extremely resistant in the environment and can survive for years in soil. It is not transmitted from pig to pig, or from pig to people. Instead, each pig or person picks it up individually from a common source. Improperly cooked, contaminated food, is one such source for both humans and pigs.

So how would 16- to 18-day-old Isowean pigs from Manitoba, who almost certainly did not have sawdust or wood shavings in their farrowing rooms, get avian TB? One distinct possibility is from shavings, which are commonly used in hog transport trucks to provide comfort and welfare-friendly environments for Isowean pigs during transport. It is very possible that these pigs did get infected at a very early age, if not exactly at their home farm in Manitoba, then very possibly during transit from Manitoba to the United States as Isoweans.

The Mycobacterium avium organism is usually picked up in bedding contaminated by bird droppings.

Contamination of bedding material usually occurs during storage in barns or in fields before it is brought indoors. The logical course for prevention, therefore, is to make sure that stored bedding is protected from coming in contact with bird droppings. This might mean covering the bedding, storing it in locked sheds or devising other means whereby birds do not have access to it. For climate and environmental control, and also for biosecurity purposes, bird proofing becomes an automatic inclusion in the way barns are currently being built. 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 - June 2003

Guelph survey points to generally good relations Between livestock operations and their neighbours

A comprehensive survey funded by the Ontario agriculture ministry turns out to be a generally good news story, with the evidence pointing largely to livestock operations working towards living harmoniously with their neighbours. However, there are lessons to be learned about the importance of a sound and pro-active good neighbour policy
by Sam Bradshaw
Today, in many areas of Ontario, livestock production has reached a crossroad. The continued viability of livestock production in rural Ontario is becoming somewhat dependent upon the willingness of the community to accept the industry as it continues to evolve. Many legitimate concerns have arisen, including air and water quality, as well as social and economic concerns.

The trend seems to be that, as the rural community becomes increasingly urbanized, there will be an escalation of conflict between rural residents and a livestock industry that is growing in scale and concentration.

Perception is part of the problem causing conflict between non-farmers and farmers. "Rural" is perceived as implying small, family size farms. Some feel that intensive livestock facilities will disrupt and destroy this ideal and, in so doing, the quality of rural life.

The efficiency of modern farming has resulted in much change to the rural landscape. The farm population has now dwindled to less than three per cent of the total population. Few Ontarians have a connection with farmers and increased pressure is coming from urban areas to develop in places of concentrated agriculture. The values of non-farm newcomers often clash with the realities of standard farming practices. Because more people are environmentally aware, there is a lower tolerance of the actions of others, especially in the area of agricultural pollution.

As operations of identical livestock types cluster in areas best suited to that particular production, theses concentrations give rise to increasingly negative perceptions. Local residents fear farming operations will harm water and air quality, reducing the value of their property or other non-farm land uses. However, there is evidence to indicate that the opposite may be occurring. Rural non-farm lot severance activity and development suggest that this growth has increased rural property values, making agricultural land too expensive to purchase.

Two University of Guelph researchers, Dr. Wayne Caldwell and Melanie Williams, have studied several sizeable livestock operations and the perceptions of their neighbours in an attempt to understand better why conflicts arise and how to prevent them. This turns out to be a good news story, with the evidence pointing largely to livestock operations working towards living harmoniously with their neighbours.

The following report is a summary of research funded by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and collected from 50 Ontario livestock farmers and 180 of their neighbours. The information was obtained primarily through on-site interviews, with some phone or mail surveys. The objective was to help understand the relationship and compatibility between livestock operations and rural residents, and to identify the practices that the community deems as positive or negative influences.

About the farmers
Livestock Units
Type Livestock Units Number of Animals to
equal 150 L.U.
Dairy 0.67 100
Beef cows 1 150
Sows 5 750
Weaners 20 3000
Market hogs 4 600
Broilers 200 30,000
Layers 125 18,750
Fifty livestock operations from across the province were chosen, each with more than 150 livestock units and operating for at least five years at the current site. There were 21 hog, 10 dairy, 11 beef and eight poultry farms studied.

Most of the operations chosen were long established in the area, with 62 per cent of the owners farming there at least 25 years, 72 per cent for more than 30 years and 38 per cent more than 50 years. Ninety-two per cent lived on-site.

Intensive livestock operators also contribute to the local economy in a big way, with 84 per cent of the operators reported that they incurred more than 70 per cent of their expenses locally. Availability and a need for specialized equipment were the main reasons farmers gave for going outside the local area to purchase supplies.

These operations in the main have expanded gradually with 78 per cent of operators saying that growing to their current size was a gradual process. Almost half the farmers expected their businesses to grow further within the next five years. As for their level of education and professional training:

  • 62 per cent of farmers surveyed had had some post-secondary education.

  • More than 60 per cent had taken courses to be certified in each area of nutrient management, environmental farm plans and animal health.

  • More than 80 per cent had been certified in the use of agricultural chemicals, the remainder relying on professional applicators.

  • 48 per cent had updated their knowledge and skills through bodies such as the Ontario Agricultural Training Institute, Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food and the University of Guelph. Some farmers have formed community groups to learn from each other.

About the neighbours
 Four hundred landowners within direct proximity to the farms were contacted, and 180 (45 per cent) responded. Almost three- quarters had resided at their current location before the neighbouring livestock operation expanded or was constructed.

  • 22 per cent of respondents had resided near the farms for five years or less

  • 42 per cent had lived on a farm previously

  • 14 per cent had lived off-farm in a rural area

  • 32 per cent were directly involved with agriculture or a related field

The farmers received generally good reviews from their neighbours with regards to their agricultural practices, 82 per cent agreeing that farm operators make good neighbours, 69 per cent seeing farmers as good stewards of the land and 70 per cent seeing them as good at caring for their animals. More than half the respondents also said that farm operators apply manure to their fields appropriately.

While the neighbours largely viewed the agricultural industry in Canada as positive, 11 per cent saw it in a negative light and 15 per cent did not consider it to be positive or negative. Many of those viewing it as neutral or negative cited increasing farm size, economic instability and lack of government support as their reasons.

The findings
The survey found that 74 per cent of operations met Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements. Two operators did not meet Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements. Another four said that only their new barns met MDS, with original standing barns not meeting MDS requirements.

Some 75 per cent of the neighbours indicated that they felt the distance between them and the livestock operation was adequate, while 14 per cent said the distance was inadequate and there per cent were unsure.

As to the locations of the various barns, 12 per cent of barns were less than 500 feet from their neighbour, 52 per cent were within 1500 feet and 48 per cent over 1500 feet.

And the manure storages? Six per cent were less than 500 feet from their neighbour, 18 per cent 500 to 999 feet and 48 per cent more than 1,000 feet.

What type of manure storages did the farms surveyed report?

  • 48 per cent of operators said they used liquid manure, with another 30 per cent using a combination of solid and liquid.

  • 50 per cent reported using a combination of storage systems, most common being outdoor open tanks and below-building systems.

  • 60 per cent of operations had storage for manure over 300 days and 34 per cent had enough storage for approximately one year or more, allowing for fewer manure spreads.

  • 58 per cent of operations spread manure twice per year -- in spring and fall.

  • 50 per cent used a system that either incorporates the manure immediately or is followed within a few hours with a disc.

  • 42 per cent said the manure application techniques were chosen to minimize impact on neighbours.

  • 56 per cent said manure application techniques were chosen to be the best technique to make use of nutrients, protect the soil and make efficient use of physical resources.

Steps taken prior to construction
  • 40 per cent of operators held open houses.

  • 28 per cent involved local people in construction through employing local people or using local services.

  • 20 per cent held a local meeting.

  • 20 per cent did nothing. Most said that it consultation was not needed in their community while some added that, if done today, they would take a different approach.

Steps taken after construction
  • 60 per cent felt that being neighbourly is a key good neighbour policy. Many take time to plough driveways, cultivate gardens or pull people out of the ditch; 28 per cent visit their neighbours.

  • 42 per cent advised at least one neighbour prior to spreading or spraying fields, though only 18 per cent felt obligated to do so. Of those who do not advise, some stated that they did not do so because they spread at the same time every year and it should therefore be expected.

  • In spite of biosecurity concerns, 46 per cent of operators said that neighbours are welcome to visit the farm if they give the operator prior warning.

  • 46 per cent of operators take other approaches, such as participation in church events, supplying food for community barbecues, funding local sports teams or youth groups. One farmer donated an empty storage shed for a community fire hall. Many of the farmers surveyed work to make sure their farm is attractive to help with neighbour acceptance.

    However, it seems that these practices get only limited recognition from the neighbours.

  • Only 14 per cent of neighbours recognized invitations or their ability to visit the operation versus 46 per cent of operators who said that the option was available.

  • 37 per cent of neighbours recognized the neighbourly practices versus 60 per cent of operators who said that they practise good neighbour policies.

  • 18 per cent said that they receive warnings of farm practices, whereas 42 per cent of operators say they provide warnings.

  • 12 per cent participated in an open house while 40 per cent of operators held one.

  • A more consistent result was obtained on the question of personal, visits with 31 per cent of neighbours saying that they received a visit from the operator versus. 28 per cent of operators who said that they use this approach.

What have the farmers changed?
  • 24 per cent have changed their manure application technique. Most farms felt they already had up-to-date manure application techniques in place.

  • 16 per cent have changed their manure application schedules.

  • 14 per cent have taken the time to educate neighbour about "normal" farm practices.

  • 31 per cent have changed manure application to accommodate neighbours.

  • 10 per cent have changed hours of operation, primarily to exclude evenings and some weekends.

What have the neighbours changed?
  • 58 per cent of neighbours have not had to change their normal activities due to the livestock operation.

  • 83 per cent of neighbours have never expressed a concern about the nearby livestock operation

  • During manure spreading (on average twice a year), 38 per cent have had to keep windows closed during manure spreading.

  • 14 per cent have stopped having outdoor functions.

  • 26 per cent have had to stop hanging out laundry.

A number of lessons can be extracted from the survey results:
 .
  • In spite of protests before construction of a livestock operation, understanding and co-operation between farmers and neighbours usually improves after construction. The proactive approaches taken by the farmers usually overcame previously negative perceptions. The only concern that remained relatively constant over time was odour.

  • When it comes to positive neighbour relations, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. A good neighbour policy makes a big difference. So say hello and get involved in the local community.

  • Meet or exceed all municipal and provincial regulations. Make sure your nutrient management plan is up to date and that you meet minimum distance requirements and manure storage guidelines.

  • Fear often arises due to lack of knowledge, so education about farming practices can go a long way in calming fears. Explain what happens in your barn and on your fields.

  • Communicate with your neighbours regularly. Make them familiar with your farm and your goals. Be open and available for informal meetings with neighbours.

  • Before you build or expand, prepare a communications plan that will address as many concerns as possible. Inform your immediate neighbours about your operation and building plans well ahead of construction. Contact knowledgeable resource people in your community to address probable concerns that may arise regarding your project.

  • Develop a way of formally talking to your neighbours at least once a year. A number of farmers write neighbours a letter, send a postcard, host a barbeque or offer a farm tour once each year, often around manure spreading time. Ontario Pork's Communications team can help you with this.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 - June 2003

Let's put livestock manure production in its proper perspective

The water required to take a pig to market is less than a human would use in four days. It takes about 42.8 pigs to produce the waste volume of one person. A comprehensive report from a former Ontario government swine specialist on the real impact of livestock on the environment
by JIM DALRYMPLE
Animal agriculture over the past few years has come under intense scrutiny on several fronts, including the environment, animal welfare, food safety and quality, and the use of anti-microbials. Concerns about manure and the environment currently predominate.

This issue is not unique to Ontario. Reports from around the world relate to manure production and even in Nova Scotia concern has been expressed about the possible impact of manure on the salmon industry.

WORLD ANIMAL DENSITY- (Animal Units/HECTARE)
Ontario 0.46
Quebec 0.64
China 1.17
Germany 0.80
Japan 1.35
Denmark 1.25
United States 0.19
Livestock manure contains a variety of substances that can be harmful to the environment. However, it remains a valuable source of nutrients. Some crops can obtain adequate nutrients from manure and natural sources without additional commercial fertilizer. In addition, soil erosion can be substantially reduced and the water holding capacity of the soil improved if organic matter from animal waste is incorporated into the soil.

This article will deal with changes in production levels, manure production and improved productivity. The problem of odours and related concerns will not be dealt with to any extent, although if odours could be eliminated or reduced the issue might disappear.

Approximately 68 million hectares, or seven per cent of Canada's total land area, is agricultural land. Of this, 46 million hectares is improved (cropland, pasture or summer fallow) and 22 million hectares is unimproved land (Statistics Canada, 1997). The total area of farmland has remained relatively constant for the last 50 years, though decreases have occurred in Ontario and British Columbia.

Total tillable acres
Country Total Acres No. of livestock per tillable acre
Poultry Cattle Swine
Denmark 6,736,082 2.9 0.3 1.6
Indiana 16,000,000 1.7 0.1 0.3
Ontario 9,736,082 4.3 0.2 0.3
Source: (Walkerton Report)
In 1996, Canadian livestock produced approximately 783 million kilograms of nitrogen in its manure. Beef cattle were responsible for creating more than 51 per cent of this nitrogen. Dairy cows and hogs produced 16 per cent each, poultry seven per cent, calves five per cent, horses three per cent and sheep less than one per cent.

To put this in context, it's estimated that several hundred years ago more than 60 million buffalo roamed this country. Thus, domestication of animals and the demise of the buffalo have meant fewer animals in Canada.

The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin is home to most of Canada's prime farmland. Below is a chart showing the number of livestock and poultry in Ontario

TOTAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS (1,000s)/MANURE PRODUCED (1,000s of LITRES)
1986(#) Manure produced 1991 (#) Manure produced 1996 Manure produced
Poultry 36,685 1,634,803 39113 1,726,739 41,519 1,861,045
Cattle 2,241 21,092,869 2,285 19,691,749 2,285 19,349,506
Swine 3,118 10,645,535 2,924 9,974,861 2,813 9,654,041

Pork production
Ontario has seen an increase in pork production, but not nearly to the extent that many urban dwellers believe. There are fewer farms, admittedly larger ones, but it is possible that these larger farms have reduced the potential of nutrients contaminating the soil, air, and water.

Animal production has changed dramatically in Ontario in the last century. Currently, there are approximately 30,000 livestock farms in Ontario. Numbers of animals and manure production provided in the Walkerton report are as follows:

Year Pigs on farms Human population Ratio
1900 1,771,641 2,182,947 0.8:1
1950 2,213,100 4,597,542 0.5:1
2000 3,356,900 11,667,344 0.3:1
Statistics Canada
In areas of the United States, such as Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska, pigs have long outnumbered people. Unfortunately, uninformed people make statements to the effect that "every time you put up a barn for 400 pigs, you are creating volumes of manure equivalent to a municipality with 20,000 people and are spreading it raw, untreated, with no environmental assessment required."

In fact, improvements in days to market and reduced mortalities have led to a reduction in the water requirements and the manure produced per unit gain. As feed efficiency has improved, less water is required to produce a pound of pork. From 10 to 22 weeks of age, the water to feed intake is about 2.56:1. Estimates for the average intake of pigs 16 to 18 weeks of age is seven kg of water per kg of gain.

Water and feed requirements per market hog
Feed conversion (kg feed/kg gain)
4.7 3.3 2.7
Gain -75 kg. Feed
Water		 352.5 kg
951 litres		 277.5 kg
750 litres		 202.5 kg
546 litres
Gain -100 kg. Feed
Water		 470.0 kg
1,269 litres		 370.4 kg
1,000 litres		 270.0 kg
729 litres

Total water consumption (days to market)
Days to market 250 210 180 150
Water intake 1,325 litres 1,113 litres 954 litres 795 litres
Based on daily water intake of 5.3 litres per day.

Daily water requirements (litres/day)
Growing pigs to 90 kg 1.8 litres/day @ 15 kg
6.8 litres/day @ 90 kg
Sows- Non-pregnant 5.5 litres/ day
Pregnant 5.7 litres/day
Lactating 17 to 22 litres/day
Currently, the water required to take a pig to market is less than a human would use in four days. As for swine manure, it contains wastewater, wash water and animal waste while human sewage contains considerable industrial waste. The appropriate way to compare swine and humans is on total volume. Humans produce substantially more waste than animals, with a conservative figure of 227 litres per day per human.



Daily Water Consumption*
Laying hens 0.27 litres / day
Broilers 0.36 litres / day
Turkeys 0.45 litres / day
Source: *Myslik 1991)

Poultry production

Productivity has improved with egg production per year increasing from 275 to 300 eggs per hen/year. Water intake will relate to manure production.

Ontario Egg Production
Number layers (1,000s) Eggs/100 layers
2001 9230 28,045
2000 8847 27,965
1999 8806 27,857
1998 8254 28,356
(Statistics Canada)

Ontario chicken production
Number birds (1,000s) Weight (tonnes)
2001 199,876 314,330
2000 188,817 296,187
1999 182,115 285,442
1998 183,378 288,468
Source: Statistics Canada


Ontario Turkey Production
Number Birds (1000s) Weight (tonnes)
2001 8,422 65,860
2000 8,728 66,978
1999 8,081 59,596
1998 8,020 50,030
Source: Statistics Canada


Dairy and beef production
Dairy cattle numbers
1961 992,000
1971 820,000
1981 555,000
1991 443,000
2001 371,000
2002 367,000
Improved production efficiency in the dairy industry has paid dividends for producers and the environment. In 1951, 40,000 farms averaged 23 cows per farm. Data from Wisconsin in 1908 indicated top production was 6,600 pounds of milk produced per cow. In Ontario, in 1991, 2.9 per cent more milk was produced with 8.9 million tonnes less manure that in 1951. Ontario produces about 32 per cent of the total Canadian milk supply.

In 1900, there were more than one million dairy cows in Ontario with a production of less than one third of today's average level. Manure production from dairy cattle is approximately 60 kg of wet manure from cows, 25 kg from heifers and 19 kg from calves.

Cattle on farms in Ontario
1986 2,382,000
1990 2,366,000
1994 2,172,000
2000 2,097,000
2001 2,140,000

Criticism often appears in the press about cattle that are allowed unlimited access to streams and the erosion of stream banks due to trampling or tillage. Yet the Ontario beef industry has continued to improve its efficiency and reduce its impact on the environment. Advances in animal nutrition have enabled producers and the industry to produce more with fewer resources.

In 1976, there were 3.1 million head of beef cattle on Ontario farms. The feedlot industry has been declining and most of the cow-calf operations are spread across the province on marginal lands. In 1900, there were 1.1 cows and calves for every human in Ontario. Today, there are less than 0.17 cows and calves for every human. Declining cattle numbers and improved feed performance have led to less water being consumed and less manure produced over the last 20 to 30 years.

Market cattle and water consumption
1976 2001
Feedlot Steers (#) 727,000 285,000
Market Heifers (#) 274,000 146,800
Total 1,001,000 431,800
Daily consumption (litres) 30,030,000 12,954,000

Improved feed performance
ADG-1b/day 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0
Days on feed-gain 500 lb. 333 250 167 125
Days on feed-gain 700 lb. 407 350 233 175

Land requirements for today's feed performance
Lb feed/lb gain liveweight 10.00 7.00 5.00
Bushel's corn to gain 500 lb.* 89.3 62.5 44.6
Acres req'd (1950)
yield 48.8 bu/acre		 1.80 1.28 0.9
Acres req'd (2000)
yield 112.6 bu/acre		 0.80 0.56 0.4
*Based on bushel weight-56 pounds


Improving manure utilization

MANURE PRODUCTION --
DAILY VOLUME (LITRES/HEAD)
Dairy cattle 68.7
Hogs 5.80
Beef cattle 21.3
Broilers 0.07
Laying hens 0.20


Improved production and emphasis on quality products needs to be accompanied by an emphasis on manure handling and land requirements to cope with the byproducts of production. Research is underway throughout the world on feeding technologies (enzymes and amino acid research), storage and handling.

The pork industry has come under the greatest attack by environmentalists. Data from Alberta (2002) indicate the following:
Farrow-to-finish 91.0 litres/sow/day
Farrow-to-starter 30.0 litres/sow/day
Farrow-to-wean 25.0 litres/sow/day

Currently, a large portion of the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium is excreted in manure.
Manure generated to produce
One dozen eggs
1951 7.14 kg
1991 3.36 kg.
One kg chicken
1951 12.60 kg.
1991 3.88 kg.
(Source: Surgeoner)


APPROXIMATE % OF INTAKE NUTRIENTS EXCRETED IN MANURE
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
Beef feeder cattle 80 61 93
Veal calves 40 36 82
Dairy cow 71 73 90
Feeder pig 65 69 86
Laying Hen 70 68 87-
Source: Manure Characteristics-Fraser-Agdex 538

Pigs versus people
The average North American uses 350 litres (80 gallons) of water a day with a variation of 270 litres to 450 litres (Best Management Practices). Projected waste volumes from all livestock and humans are based on numbers of animals on hand at a given point in time.

NORTH AMERICAN PROJECTED WASTE VOLUMES
Market hogs 5.3 litres/day
Sows 11.3 litres /day
Boars 11.3 litres/day
People 227 litres/day
Waste per person per year 82,855 litres
Waste per sow and offspring per year 32,850 litres
TOTAL WASTE VOLUME (LITRES)
Per day Per year
1,000 pig feeder unit 5,300 1,934,500
1,000 people 227,000 82,855,000
This would indicate that it would take about 42.8 pigs to produce the waste volume of one person.

The Federal Report on Agriculture in Ontario and Quebec in 2001 by the Environmental Commissioner stated that "livestock operations in Ontario and Quebec generate enough manure to equal the sewage from over 100,000,000 people and the problem is getting worse." She also notes that "the misuse of manure and fertilizer on farmland has damaged the ecosystem of the Basin." But, according to a follow-up report prepared by the George Morris Centre on all livestock in Ontario and Quebec, her figures are 124 times the actual relationship.

A Prairie Swine Centre (PSC) report indicates that, using the lowest sewage output of Regina, Prince Albert and Saskatoon, one city of 40,000 people would produce 1.2 billion gallons of sewage per year -- equal to the quantity of manure from four million pigs. The PSC also indicates that a 2400-sow farrow-to-finish unit would produce about 14.4 million gallons of waste per year.

The Environmental Commissioner's report is also misleading on fertilizer use. Ontario Agri-Business Association data (http://www.agr.ca/policy/cdnfert/text-00) shows total fertilizer use as follows:
1985 1,162,175
1990 889,023
1995 762,694
1998 782,639
2000 699,985
Walkerton data indicate that, for the entire province, the decrease in manure production between 1986 and 1991 was 5.9 per cent, while the 10-year decrease between 1986 and 1996 was 7.5 per cent. Nitrogen quantities dropped by 5.6 per cent between 1986 and 1991. Between 1996 and 1996 the amount of N decreases by 6.7 per cent. P and K also decreased 6.2 per cent and 22 per cent respectively.

It is important to emphasize that manure improves physical soil properties, reduces pesticide dependence and increases soil organic matter. Crops respond to manure, manure can reduce runoff and soil loss, and manure application can sequester carbon. (Land Application of Manure for Beneficial Use-USDA 2003.)

With human waste in Ontario alone at over 2.5 billion litres per day and poultry and livestock waste at 85 million litres a day it is unrealistic to equate manure from Ontario and Quebec farm operations to waste produced by 100,000,000 people. Most data determining manure composition values need to be updated under current production practices.

Ontario's population is expected to increase by more than 50 per cent in the next 25 to 30 years. This will put greater pressure on farmers to increase production without utilizing more of the marginal lands not ideally suited for livestock or crop production.

Sustainable agriculture is a way of farming that can be carried out for generations to come. A long- term approach to agriculture combines efficient production with the wise stewardship of the earth's resources. This is the approach that today's farmers are taking through the use of new technologies to feed an ever-increasing population.

It is worth noting that a one-inch rainfall puts more than 100,000 litres of water on an acre of land. Manure applied per acre in a growing season is approximately 20,000 litres.

Ontario comprises 916,733 square kilometres . That's one sow per three square kilometres. In 1984, Ontario golf courses and sod farms used three times as much water as all animal agriculture.

Terms such as factory farming and intensive farming appear frequently in the press. Perhaps a better term is high technology agriculture. In the 1950s and '60s, farmers began to switch from mixed farm operations, which housed a few chickens, pigs, cattle and a multitude of crops to the more specialized farm of today.

In the process, they have likely benefited the consuming public by offering more uniformity of product, less antibiotic use, less costly products on the store shelf and a safer, more nutritious selection of food. BP

New initiatives improve performance and create less manure

From a crop production perspective, the development of crop hybrids that reduce levels of N, P and K excreted may be positive for livestock production.

The Enviropig, a line of transgenic Yorkshire pigs trademarked by the University of Guelph, uses plant phosphorus more efficiently, thereby substantially reducing phosphorus in the manure.

According to the Prairie Swine Centre, initiatives by the pork industry to further reduce levels of N, P and K in manure include:

  • Altering amino acid levels in rations;

  • Better knowledge of nitrogen needs;

  • Multiphase feeding regimes;

  • Separate diets for nursing and gestation sows;

  • Higher amino acid digestibility.

Aarnik (1993) indicated that a reduction in the daily feed intake of 0.1 kg/day resulted in a four per cent reduction of ammonium (NH4) in the manure. Increasing pig growth by 50 grams a day corresponded to a reduction of five per cent of ammonium. Ammonium is a nitrogen compound composed of nitrogen and hydrogen. Proteins that are not retained are excreted, partly in the form of NH4. Ammonia is produced as a chemical reaction of NH4.
Feed-related measures contributing to the reduction
in pollution from animal production
Changes in feeding regimes Percent reduction in manure content of
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Amino acid formulated diets 20 to 25 -
Cellulase 5
Phytases - 25 to 30
Modified grains - 25
Growth promoting substances 5 5
Precise feed formulation 10 to 15 10 to 15
Phase feeding 15 15
Ingredient changes 5 5
(ARI - Goss 2001)
Advanced Manure Management Technologies for Ontario (November 2002) reports more than 50 technological projects under review. These include manure additives, composting systems, digesters, separators and filtration systems. R E Cycle Systems of Banff is developing a system as a solution for the environmental concerns of very large integrated swine facilities. This unit is designed to convert manure into value-added products -- energy and ash. The energy would be captured in the form of electricity or a liquid fuel, such as diesel or ethanol, and sterile ash eliminating phosphorus as an environmental concern. BP


J.R. (Jim) Dalrymple, P.Ag., CAC, is a former Ontario government swine specialist and owner of Livestock Technology Services in Brighton.

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..


back



























Better Pork - June 2003

Auditable guidelines on the way for animal care

Farmers now following the voluntary Code of Practice are likely now in compliance but, says the Canadian Pork Council, auditable standards are needed to satisfy public demand
by SUSAN MANN
When the Canadian Pork Council develops auditable, on-farm guidelines for animal care in the hog industry, Ontario representatives believe they should be very simple and measurable.

Subjective terms, such as "appropriate space," shouldn't be used in the guidelines, says Crystal Mackay, communications specialist with Ontario Pork. "It's got to be defined in some way that's measurable. So do you say 'appropriate care,' or do you say, 'fed daily?'"

The need for auditing of animal care practices in farming is starting to be felt around the world. A range of audit standards is currently in use in different countries, some of them very complex, Mackay explains. "The most complex one I've ever seen is Australia's broiler chicken audit, which has five different work books. It would be like what a food-processing plant would have in place, but it's for use on farms."

It will be some time before the animal-care guidelines will be ready for use on Canadian hog farms, but when they are completed it's expected they will be voluntary. However, processors and other customers may require farmers to have the audits done as part of a condition of sales.

It's also expected that the guidelines will be worked into the Canadian Quality Assurance (CAQ) program, the hog industry's on-farm food safety initiative.

When the CAQ was developed in 1998, it included a section on animal care. "The program was built with the idea that we would include animal care standards," Mackay says. The initial focus in the CAQ was on food safety and the animal care section was to be added later. "That's where we are now. Public attention and media and retailer demands brought it more to the front burner."

The industry already has a voluntary, recommended Code of Practice that outlines the care and handling of hogs. But, recently, the Canadian Pork Council's board of directors voted in favour of working out auditable guidelines, because consumers and customers want proof that farmers are doing what they say they're doing.

"We're very strong believers that hog producers are taking good care of their animals, but we didn't have a mechanism in place to demonstrate that to our customers," says Catherine Scovil, executive associate with the Canadian Pork Council.

With the voluntary Code of Practice, there is no paper trail and without a paper trail, the guidelines are not auditable. "The world is moving towards auditable standards for a variety issues. We've done it ourselves in Canada for food safety with our quality assurance program," she notes.

The Canadian Pork Council's working group is just in the initial stages of developing these guidelines. Decisions have yet to be made about what standards should be included in the animal welfare audits and what things on farms can be objectively measured.

In today's world, auditable guidelines are inevitable says Ron Douglas, an Ontario producer representative on the working group. Douglas who farms 300 acres and has a 25-sow, farrow-to-finish operation near Wingham in the northeast corner of Huron County says if they are following the recommended Code of Practice, farmers are currently doing everything that will likely be included in the guidelines.

"What we're hoping to do is just put together something that will plug into the Quality Assurance program," he says, noting that validators are already doing on-farm visits as part of that program and could be used to do the animal care audits at the same time. BP





© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..


back