Better Pork - August 2004
BEHIND THE LINES
by ROBERT IRWINIn this issue of Better Pork, we carry a story about the visit to Ontario in early June of high-profile American environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr., founder of the Water Keeper Alliance and an avowed enemy of intensive hog raising -- as the industry is practiced in the United States, anyway. Successfully prosecuting polluters and keeping part of the fines that courts impose helps fund the Water Keepers in the United States. Kennedy told an enraptured audience in Guelph that a wing of the Water Keepers based in Ontario had come across a law that would let private prosecutors of polluters keep half the fine here too.
Details of this law were not available at the time of writing, but we were contacted as we were going to press by Toronto-based environmental lawyer and Lake Ontario Water Keeper president Mark Mattson. Mattson explained to Better Pork that there are only two laws in Canada where a private prosecutor can keep part of the fine and both are federal. One is the Migratory Birds Act. The other is the Fisheries Act. "The Fisheries Act encourages the public to participate in the protection of community resources," Mattson says. Alleged polluters can be charged under Section 36 (c) by a private citizen. In 2000, the City of Hamilton pleaded guilty to charges of polluting and was fined $300,000. The city admitted that it had allowed PCB and ammonia contaminated leachate to be discharged into Red Hill Creek from a public works yard.
Lynda Lukasik, the citizen who commenced the Fisheries Act private prosecution, received $150,0000 "and she helped me buy my boat for Lake Ontario Water Keeper with that money," Mattson says. At the time of the conviction, Mattson worked for the Environmental Bureau of Investigation. A conviction that private citizen Janet Fletcher won against the City of Kingston over leachate from a toxic dump was recently re-affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Mattson expects that the city will take it to the Supreme Court of Canada this fall. At issue is whether the testing was conducted properly and whether the alleged pollution had an environmental impact, Mattson says. The substantial fine and how it is dispensed is not at issue, he asserts.
What does all this mean for pork producers? If anything it emphasizes the importance of good public relations efforts by producers and their organizations. Perhaps there is also the need to distance your industry from practices that may be objectionable south of the border, lest the attention of a well-known and apparently highly respected prosecutor be brought to bear here. BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back Better Pork - August 2004
The new look for pork -- lean, tasty and tender too?
Many industry watchers think that pork is lean enough. Taste is the new frontier and molecular science may help choose the genetics that will put taste back on the plate. But there are detractorsby DON STONEMAN
Testing for growth rate and probing for back fat is now old hat in pork genetic selection. That was the easy stuff, anyway.Enter the molecular scientist, with new testing systems sometimes known as marker-assisted selection (MAS) that will decide which pigs will put tasty pork on consumers' plates without sacrificing the carrier of potentially valuable genetics.
The Canadian Centre for Swine Improvement (CCSI) recently completed a project on the use of molecular information to improve pigs and, according to the centre's chief geneticist, Pramod Mathur, meat quality will be a key target of new selection processes.
Pork producers are already familiar with the halothane gene, which is associated with sudden death losses and poor meat quality, and also the RN (rendement napole) gene in Hampshire pigs. RN gene carriers were associated with low water-holding capacity, and lower yield after cooking or processing. You don't want either of these genes in your swine herd.
Some new genes, or perhaps they should be called genetic markers, are coming to the forefront with positive characteristics that packers will want to see in their coolers. One gene is called Heart Fatty Acid Binding Protein (HFABP). The other is called the Calpastatin (CAST) gene. A gene affecting leanness is IGF2, while another affecting tenderness via the proportion of red and white fibre cells is called fructooligosaccharide (FOS.)
"It is important that the effects of these genes be further validated under the Canadian situation prior to their extensive use," Mathur cautions.
Some breeding companies, such as PIC of Franklin, Ky, already have tests in place capable of selecting the boars that will be bred to your sows based upon taste and tenderness factors, as well as lean meat production. Steve Pearce, PIC's communications manager, says tests for eight genetic markers of consequence have already been developed. Other breeders are still working on their technology.
In the past, selection for meat quality has often been a matter of using a specific breed. Durocs, of course, are known for their meat quality. Cathy Aker, technical manager, genetic improvement, at Ontario Swine Improvement (OSI), says the HFABP gene and the CAST gene seem to be present in all breeds and is not exclusive to the Duroc breed. "What the frequency is, nobody really knows."
The tests for these genes have been developed, but Aker says small breeders, such as those belonging to Ontario Swine Improvement, don't have access to them. That doesn't mean OSI can't move fast when it does get access, Aker says.
OSI has been working with a Belgium-based company called Gene-Tech on a test for IGF2. In late winter, Gene-Tech allowed OSI to sample as many as 200 boars across Canada for IGF2. "We haven't seen results yet," Aker says. OSI and CCSI will have to "work through legal requirements" before the procedure can be used to test their boars and to market semen.
The IGF2 marker identifies boars with a gene that controls back fat. "It doesn't matter who the mother is," Aker explains. The gene is passed through the father, and Aker is excited by the results.
"You could breed one boar to 100 sows with every back fat level known to man and you would get a much less variable group of hogs than if you bred to a boar that doesn't carry the gene.
"The impact is tremendous," she says. On a conservative estimate, one boar can breed about 1,000 sows a year. At 10 pigs per litter, 10,000 market pigs could be influenced by the genetics of that boar.
The back fat gene affects the economics of hog production and "isn't associated with meat quality per se," notes Aker. Still, she uses the IGF2 gene as an example of the speed at which a test like this can be assimilated into an AI sire selection program.
A test for a genetic marker such as HFABP, which indicates a pig with a propensity for intra-muscular fat while maintaining low back fat, can also have a tremendous impact, Aker says. The testing is most likely to take place in animals that are already in mainstream breeders' nucleus herds.
Durocs perform just as well
Some breeders of rare or heritage breeds such as the Berkshire and the Tamworth have expected that the drive to increase intra-muscular fat and also taste will be a boon for them. It isn't necessarily so, Aker says. She dismisses the Tamworth outright. "It would be of no value to the industry at all," she says, because of the high fat content of carcasses.The Berkshire has been used successfully in breeding programs in the United States and "has a connotation as a meat quality breed," but Aker says it's premature to consider having Berkshire sires in the OSI AI unit. Berkshires take two weeks longer to get to market than commercial breeds and time in the barn costs producers money. "As much as we realize meat quality is important, producers aren't getting paid for it" in commercial commodity pork production, Aker says.
The conversation over Berkshires may be a moot point anyway. Some recent studies at Lacombe in Alberta compared Berkshires to nine other breeds and found that Durocs performed just as well for intra-muscular fat. "The Berkshire comes with a cost," Aker points out. The producers who would benefit from raising Berks are those who have a niche market where they get a premium for tender and tasty pork that was also more costly to produce.
Last year the Canadian Swine Improvement Program tested 4,600 Yorkshires, 3,000 Landrace and 1,800 Duroc boars.
The CCSI has recently developed estimated breeding values for piglet survival, feet and legs and number of teats. All these traits have economic value in terms of numbers of pigs raised from a barnful of sows. Also on its way is an Estimated Breeding Value (EBV) measurement for meat quality. A paper that Pramod Mathur has written about EBVs says intra-muscular fat will get a high rating value.
Mathur points out that different markets want different products. The domestic market takes more than half of the high quality pork produced in Canada, while the U.S. market takes 20 per cent and the Japanese market 11 per cent. Because of high pricing, the Japanese market is especially important and tenderness, juiciness and taste are all key.
The HFABP affects intra-muscular fat but not the back fat. Mathur says the industry is asking for that now, especially in export markets. The Japanese would like a little more marbling and intra-muscular fat in the loin. We can use this genetic marker while keeping the pigs as lean as they are now, he asserts.
Tenderness is texture. Taste is affected partly by the intra-muscular fat and partly by the juiciness. The HFABP "is more like a marker" than an actual gene that has the effect in pigs.
Tests are being developed at the research level right now, Mathur says. While they have not yet been used in Canada for selection purposes, he considers them "very promising."
For his part, OSI general manager Richard Smelski says a more natural way to enhance tenderness would be preferable. Packers are adding water to products such as hams to increase tenderness, he says, but there is shrinkage involved with water-enhanced products, he says. "I think there is going to be more and more thrust on that in the future."
Smelski would like to see further research done on making food more attractive to consumers. Most research at Guelph is now aimed at the environment and food safety, he says.
One reason that the industry is getting concerned about flavour and tenderness may be because Canadian pork consumption on a boneless equivalent basis has slipped from a high point in 2001. Jim Vidoczy, Ontario Pork's director of consumer marketing, noted that slippage at OSI's annual meeting in late March.
Another point of concern is export markets. Canada "needs meaningful points of difference to compete with the United States in Japanese markets," said Ted Bilyea, president of Maple Leaf Foods International, in a speech last winter. He specifically pointed to intra-muscular fat and product uniformity, as identified through use of molecular genetics, as key issues.
But breeders in other countries, including the United States, are using marker-assisted selection as well. PIC has about 10 markers for intra-muscular fat "in various stages of validation and a big portion of our European QPG project is focused on gene expression of fatty acids," says Andrej Sosnicki, a biologist and meat scientist with PIC. QPG (Quality Pork Genes) is a project funded by the European Union to improve pig meat quality that has been going on for the last couple of years.
There is a demand for genetic marker selection. Even the highly touted Duroc meat breed, at least the European version, needs to be improved, according to a Spanish study sponsored by PIC recently. The study concludes that Duroc boars should be selected according to their intra-muscular fat content. The reason? The variability of intra-muscular fat content in Duroc-crossed slaughter pigs is very high and creates quality problems for producers of high-class dry-cured hams.
Tremendous Canadian expertise
So where does Canada fit into this?"The Canadian industry has been focusing on the Japanese export market longer than the U.S. industry and obviously it has much more to lose and to gain by being able to export. The Canadians used to be much ahead of American packers and Europeans combined in terms of delivering high quality pork," Sosnicki says.
Canada's swine industry, he says, "has a tremendous amount of expertise in terms of gilt and sow performance and pigs per sow per year. Unfortunately, because they focused on one side of the business, they have not been competitive, especially on the grow-finish systems. There is a tremendous amount of expertise in terms of gilt and sow performance and pigs per sow per year."
PIC's Sosnicki and Pearce think Canadian producers have lost their previous advantages on cost of production. Canada continues to produce high quality pork that meets the needs of exports for the Japanese market, however changes in the U.S. industry over the past 10 to 20 years have closed the gap and the Americans may be ahead, particularly on grower-finisher performance. With economies of scale, American mega-packers are able to compete aggressively with the Canadian industry.
Is Canada's swine industry in fact falling behind? Not in terms of genetics, breeders say. "I don't see other companies passing us," says Bob Robinson, owner of Vista Villa, a member of the Alliance of Independent Breeders. PIC has lost market share in Ontario in recent years to either independent breeders or to other breeding companies, Robinson says. Les Cain, director of marketing for PIC in Ontario, says the company hasn't done as good a job as it might in emphasizing that the Duroc pig, known for its high-quality meat, is part of its breeding program. PIC, which has about 40 per cent of the market in the United States, is making an effort to increase its market share, he says.
Several years ago, Robinson recalls, a geneticist talking about genetic markers for litter size said that conventional breeders "doing a diligent job of selecting for litter size" would be able to catch up with marker-assisted selection within five years. That said, testing for top meat genetics is different than testing for backfat or fast growth. "A dead animal doesn't reproduce," he points out.
Sosnicki says PIC is using gene markers to advance breeding for economically important traits. Some gene markers are the proprietary property of PIC while some are co-owned with Iowa State University, where they were discovered, he says. "We have learned how to incorporate multi-markers into the breeding program. We keep that proprietary."
He points out "that what we do is not GMO. We don't do anything magic besides looking at the genes of the animals, collecting the genes of economic interest and trying to find the animals carrying a favourable portion of these genes as early as possible."
Genetics alone isn't going to produce consistent, desirable pork, says Sosnicki. The heritability is relatively low -- 20 to 30 per cent for intra-muscular fat and tenderness -- and "there are obviously huge environmental factors affecting these quality traits."
Other factors are feeding programs and animal handling (including pre-slaughter handling), CO2 stunning and fast chilling, with fast chilling being more important than either handling or stunning, Sosnicki asserts.
There is a strong correlation between pH and tenderness and tastiness and also meat colour, he notes. The higher the pH, the darker the meat. On a scale of one to five, with meat in categories one and two being as pale as chicken and five being deep red, like beef, the tastiest pork is likely in the five category. But consumers associate that deep red colour with spoilage and don't want to buy it at the meat counter.
"Here is the dilemma in North America," Sosnicki says. From taste tests with trained panels "we know that a beef colour produces the most juiciness and tenderness. However, if that product is shown first, consumers will object." For the Canadian pork industry, the correct answer might be different for the Canadian market than for the Japanese market, he says.
Economic tradeoffs
The amount of intra-muscular fat that is preferred also varies from market to market. In the United States, a modest amount of marbling is acceptable but many consumers still opt for the leanest pork in the meat case, which isn't necessarily the tastiest. By contrast, says Sosnicki, the Japanese market "prefers much heavier marbling than other markets in the world."Integrated pork production systems in the United States, such as Premium Standard, are working towards putting genetics affecting meat pH into their breeding programs, he says.
Intra-muscular fat is more complex, he says. Increasing intra-muscular fat content by one per cent -- from 2.5 to 3.5 per cent -- is likely desirable, but there are economic tradeoffs. Companies exporting pork to Japan will have to make decisions about what tenderness is worth.
Sosnicki predicts that "you will see a series" of dam and sire lines aimed at different markets, including "a line with high intra-muscular fat that will be efficient, but not as efficient as a line that does not have that. You may be thinking about a Japanese pig and an Oscar Mayer pig, or a pig for fresh consumption and a pig for further processing." The "ham" pigs are marinated and don't need the high intra muscular fat for flavour, he says.
Energy and protein levels also have an effect on intra-muscular fat. "If one really understands the (dollar) value of intra-muscular fat, one can take a short cut and manipulate lysine content, drop it into a certain part of the finishing cycle and double the intra-muscular fat." The carcass will be slightly fatter than a regularly fed pig, and the feeding conversion will be slightly less favourable.
If this costs $1.50 to $2 a pig and it creates better marketing "it is a way for the industry to deal with the problem," Sosnicki believes. "Generally our advice to our customers and producers is to look at all possible means to achieve the target and look at the best way to go."
Better Pork asked CCSI's Mathur whether small Canadian breeders can expect to compete with the deep pockets of pig companies such as PIC, which has a lock on 40 per cent of the genetics in the United States. Mathur says CCSI and companies like PIC aren't really competitors at all in the search for gene markers because they are making contributions as well to swine genetics in Canada.
"Our interest is in the whole Canadian industry, not a few people," Mathur says. "We do collaborate in any way we can."
World leader
Some independent breeders see limitations in the use of genetic markers to make advancements. "Everybody can go and look at markers, but there is more in how you develop your genetics," and that includes Canada's version of the Duroc pig, says Richard Stein, co-owner of Thames Bend Farms at Tavistock.Thames Bend markets breeding stock around the world and Stein has a broad view of where Canada fits into pork genetic development. He has visited customers in a dozen countries in the last year, even while carefully avoiding Asia because of animal health problems.
"Over time, we've been very successful" in Canada, Stein says. Canadians discovered the test for the stress gene. "Everybody in the world uses the BLUP system" (Best Linear Unbiased Prediction) which was developed by the late Brian Kennedy at the University of Guelph.
Stein warns that it is difficult to breed for seven or eight different markers because other traits are affected. Canada has been diligent at working on intra-muscular fat, and using the BLUP system "has moved our industry ahead in multiples," he asserts.
The industry has also made gains on all the economic traits that affect the producer and enhance what the processor is selling, says Stein says. Growth rate, feed conversion and litter size put more pork through facilities and cut feed costs.
"Between an average carcass and a good carcass, you are only talking two or three dollars (per pig marketed). But when you are talking feed conversion, it could be a $5-10 difference. Growth rate is another $5-10 difference. Every time you drop .1 on feed conversion, that's probably a $2 hit. If you can drop .3, that's likely a $6 hit."
Stein notes that all sorts of things can be done to make it easier for the processor to sell more pork, but which don't translate into more money for the producer.
One way to measure the colour of pork, he says, "would be an add-on to the grid, but it wouldn't help the producer. It would be just another tool for them to sell more product."
It doesn't give the farmer any more dollars on the bottom line."
Boar stud operator Arnold Ypma also questions whether marker-assisted selection will answer all breeders questions about improving meat quality. Ypma, owner of Total Swine Genetics, thinks the drive for MAS is coming from the marketing side of pig genetic companies. Rather than focusing on MAS for meat quality, he is keenly interested in measuring these traits in live animals and developing an estimated breeding value for a trait such as marbling.
"I think there are traits we can improve with MAS," says Ypma.. But he warns that the industry should be careful about thinking that the use of markers can replace traditional selection methods.
Ypma says the geneticists he talks to in the United States thinks that meat quality traits such as marbling and tenderness depend upon more than one gene. They emphasize that there is still a need to focus on traditional selection rather than depending solely on MAS.
"If we go too much in that direction and don't focus enough on traditional selection methods we could be doing ourselves a disservice," Ypma says. BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back A mature industry, like pork, requires a co-operative approach
As they evolve, industries go from dependency to independence to interdependence. And the pig industry is a very mature one
by RICHARD SMELSKI
There appears to be a tremendous thrust and pride to maintain independence in the pig industry. But whereas it was once glamorous to be independent, it may no longer be so. The definition and perception of "independence" is in the eye of the beholder. The nostalgia of being one's own boss and being at no one's beck and call is about as old as Old MacDonald's farm. But the marketplace and demographics are changing in such a way that no mature industry is independent. The pig industry, like many mature industries, is subject to the scrutiny of regulations, consumer advocates and public perception.In such circumstances, the challenge is not to fret over the definition of one's loss of independence but to see the opportunity when others do not. Here are some guidelines that may help you in this respect.
1.The co-operative team approach is better than an independent approach. Pick your partners. The sum of the team will always be better than the sum of the same individuals working alone. Learn to share your innovations, procedures and production techniques.
2. To work in an interdependent approach, you need to trust your team members. Good listening habits, willingness and adaptation are prerequisites to trust. Can you imagine the power in a value chain if everyone trusted each other?
3. Globalization discourages independence. What may appear big and powerful in a local market is insignificant in a global market. In fact, total Canadian production is less than one per cent of the world market. To tackle the global market requires coherence, leadership and a will to work together.
4. Regulations, advocacy groups, international trade, research, disease risks and labour management require economies of scale. Working together is one method of reducing these "non-contributory" costs of business.
5. The best and innovative ideas come from fellow farmers. Unfortunately, some producers think their neighbour is their competitor, when in fact their innovation may offer the answer to your problem. These innovations become more important as the production continues to improve. Learning from your neighbour may be one of the best ways to remain competitive.
6. There has to be trade-off in a value chain and sometimes you may not be rewarded monetarily. For example, you may expect a corn producer to grow varieties that yield less risk to mycotoxins to you, but at the same time you might be expected to produce animals with more intramuscular fat. Communication is required so as the total value chain appreciates each other's needs and outcomes.
7. Some operations excel in certain aspects of production -- farrowing or nursery or finishing -- and an interdependent approach has worked for these partners. It is a unique individual who can be updated in all areas of production. More often, an independent approach may jeopardize these types of partnerships.
8. The value chain requires more disclosure of production techniques and protocols. Disclosure hinders independence because, with disclosure, comes accountability of your expectations to the value chain. Assume we knew how many pigs to expect in December. The independent would say: "I'm not telling you because you are going to adjust the price." The interdependent would say: "I want to tell you so we can adjust the price."
9. Succession is a challenge in agriculture, especially with some large capitalization and specialization. Working within a team approach offers you more options.
10. Consumers are demanding transparency. Transparency leads to a loss of independence. With transparency come further questions and protocols. Access to markets may even require prerequisites of proprietary products. Working in an interdependent approach to research, educate and market consumer groups may be required.
The challenge is not to focus on one's loss of independence, but instead to seek an opportunity in the change to interdependency. The stages of maturity go from dependency to independence to interdependence and the pork industry is a very mature one. BP
Richard Smelski is general manager of Ontario Swine Improvement Inc. and a former Ontario government swine specialist.
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back The controversies that still dog nutrient management legislation
Will there be adequate funding? Will there finally be a level playing field and resolution of concerns about the "patch-work approach" to local nutrient management regulation?by MURRAY BLACKIE
This column is a follow-up to our last issue. It will discuss two further areas of controversy highlighted at the 2004 London Swine Conference in a presentation by David McRobert, in-house counsel and senior policy advisor for the office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. These issues are whether or not the Nutrient Management Act will effectively supercede local by-laws and the perennial question of funding.Following the development of the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition's Nutrient Management Strategy in 1998, many municipalities developed bylaws based on the draft bylaw provided and containing the recommended components of sound nutrient management. These bylaws were not all identical and some were viewed as more restrictive than recommended in the strategy. It was anticipated that provincial legislation would resolve the variance in local building by-laws.
Section 61 of the NM Act states that "a regulation supercedes a bylaw of a municipality or a provision of a bylaw if the bylaw or provision addresses the same subject matter as the regulation." Although it seems that regulations under the NM Act will render provisions of local bylaws inoperative if they refer to the same subjects, it also seems unclear as to what may be considered the same or different.
But how subtle will a difference be before it justifies the local bylaw? Superceding bylaws made under both the Planning Act and the Municipal Act is generating controversy and it appears that further interpretation is desirable and warranted. If local municipalities feel that the standards or provisions of Regulation 267/03 do not offer adequate environmental assessment or safeguards for the protection of water quality and rural quality of life in general, they will continue to challenge the regulation and try to seek adequate environmental assessment through local bylaws demanding more than is required by the regulation. It appears that this legislation may not yet be the solution to the "patch-work approach" and may not yet be able to guarantee a level playing field.
As for the second area of concern, funding for capital costs, training and education, and the lack of detailed commitment from the province have been a source of ongoing controversy. The province has assured farmers that they would not be expected to bear the full cost of compliance with the act, but it has not yet provided details on a funding program.
The May budget announcement included reference to a $20-million package over the next two years designed to assist farmers in meeting compliance requirements. But will this funding initiative assist only those farmers subject to the act during the next two years? What will be the form of, the limits to and the rate of assistance? What items will be eligible? What items will be ineligible?
In upcoming issues, I will discuss the remaining controversies about inclusion under the Environmental Bill of Rights, and the issue of public access to Nutrient Management Plans. I will also deal further with the provincial funding program, once details are available. 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 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back It's time for farmers to start blowing their own horns
Pork producers, and farmers in general, have gone to great lengths to protect the environment and have a good story to tell. But, sadly, the non-farm community is all too ignorant of agriculture's contribution to environmental stewardshipby SAM BRADSHAW
Environmental activist Robert Kennedy Jr. highlighted the leadership Ontario farmers have shown in environmental protection within North America in a speech made in Ontario in June.Kennedy Jr., who has a well-polished message about water issues, draws his experience primarily from a select few southern states that, according to him, have underestimated the environmental impact of some operations. However, it would appear that agricultural practices in are very different in Ontario than in the areas Kennedy discussed.
"The time has come for people and activists to realize that the practices that Ontario farmers follow set us apart as good environmental stewards," Ian McKillop, an Ontario beef and chicken farmer, said after hearing Kennedy speak. "Maintaining rural Ontario's quality of life and environment has long been a priority to farmers. We can strike the balance of growing our food close to home in an environmentally sustainable manner."
I think that this statement from Ian pretty well sums up the attitude Ontario farmers have toward the environment. But how many people know to what great lengths farmers go to protect the environment?
Over the past number of years, it has been obvious to anyone who cares to look that farmers have improved their practices dramatically. For instance:
Farmers know that the fundamental rules of agriculture are clean water and healthy soil. They want proper safeguards in place to protect water quality and everyone's health. And they themselves follow the rules set out in such federal and provincial legislation as the Farming and Food Production Protection Act; the Drainage Act; the Environmental Protection Act; the Fisheries Act; the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act; the Ontario Water Resources Act; the Pesticides Act; and the Nutrient Management Act.
- Most farmers are either quickly incorporating or injecting their manure nowadays.
- Most farmers are trying to spread manure only once or twice per year. A recent Agriculture Canada survey says that most hog farms with liquid manure storage had a storage capacity of more than 250 days and 9.9 per cent had liquid storage capacity with more than 400 days. The majority of manure storage structures, both liquid and solid/semi-solid, were located more than 30 metres from the nearest water source.
- More and more farmers are advising neighbours of their proposed manure spreading activities and are respecting and working around neighbours' social activities.
- Many farmers are attending Research Update Days to learn about the latest manure handling techniques.
- More than 26,000 Ontario farmers have completed Environmental Farm Plans (EFPs) since 1993.
- Through proactive participation to address environmental concerns, Ontario farmers have contributed more than $42 million to implement their EFPs and have undertaken 358,734 hours in unclaimed labour in doing so.
- In the Grand River Watershed alone, landowners have contributed $6 million and approximately $1 million worth of in-kind labour and materials to Rural Water Quality Improvement projects. More than $4 million in grants has been provided to rural landowners to assist with the implementation of more than 1,160 projects.
Non-food producing people in Ontario need to realize that farmers will go to great lengths to protect their environment, but that adhering to some of these new practices and regulations comes at a cost.
A producer I was speaking to the other day told me that he and his wife had decided to farm because they saw it as a great way to raise children, could actually see the fruits of our labour, liked raising animals and felt that they were producing something of value. But these days, he said, farmers feel more like record keepers, report writers and justifiers of their practices. A lot of the fun has gone out of farming.
What has happened? As I see it, farmers are guilty of not blowing their own horn. Society, not realizing the myriad proactive measures we have taken to look after the countryside and the important contributions we have made, has imposed many unnecessary rules and regulations.
I recall a number of years ago, when I was with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the engineering service was in danger of being drastically cut, a director said to us: "You guys (they were all guys then) do a great job, but nobody knows about it. You should have done a better job of self-promotion."
Well, we as farmers need to do the same. So the next time you are talking to your urban or rural neighbour, you might also mention a few of the following items.
We must all make it our business to inform the people around us about the positive impact farmers have on the health of our countryside. BP
- Some 98 per cent of Canada's farms are family owned and operated (Statistics Canada, 1996). Today's farms are larger than in the past, but are still operated with the same core values, with farm families working together to grow crops and raise livestock.
- Two counties in North Carolina produce more hogs than all of Canada.
- Currently the water required to take a pig to market is less than a human would use in four days.
- Our standard of living is based on how much money you have after you've paid for food and shelter. By this measure, we have one of the highest standards of living in the world.
- There are 4,000 pig farms in Ontario. Half of those market less than 500 pigs per year. An example of a large farm in Ontario would be a barn that could house 2,500 sows.
- Although farms are larger today than in the past, the numbers of animals have remained constant. Most counties in Ontario produce no more pork, have fewer animals and produce less manure than 100 years ago.
- Ontario markets approximately 100,000 pigs a week. The United States markets approximately 2,000,000 pigs a week.
- In industrialized countries such as Canada, less than three percent of the population is directly involved in food production. Yet society enjoys an unprecedented availability of high quality food at lower cost than ever before in history. The question for most Canadians is not whether we have enough to eat but rather what we would like to eat.
- Ontario's pork industry as a whole contributed $5.1 billion and 30,000 jobs to the provincial economy in 2003.
- Pork production yields more than just meat. Virtually every part of the animal is used. For example, insulin is derived from the hog's pancreas, hog skin is used in burn therapy and heart valves from hogs are used in human heart surgery. Fatty acids are used in rubber, floor wax, crayons, chalk, stereo records and antifreeze, and lard is used in the cosmetic industry.
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
Sam Bradshaw is environmental specialist with Ontario Pork.
back