Better Pork - June 2004

BEHIND   THE   LINES

 by ROBERT IRWIN

Anyone with a history in the pork industry will remember the countervail duties that the United States placed on Canadian hog imports in 1985, and the battle that raged for well over a decade to try to get them removed. The last vestige of that countervail was erased as recently as 1999, but the traces of damage can still be felt, and seen, in the countryside in the form of broken down buildings and broken dreams.

The countervailing duty took away that part of the pork producer's income that should logically have been re-invested in new buildings and production facilities over 15 years. Without the countervail, it can be argued that the Ontario pork industry would be structured very differently today.

The newest trade action from the United States, dealt with in our cover story, has two edges and threatens to go well beyond the 1985 countervail. The U.S. International Trade Commission is also looking into allegations that Canadian producers are "dumping" pigs into American markets at prices below the cost of production here. It's an expensive charge to disprove: Just ask Canadian beef producers who fought dumping charges in 1999 and paid a bill of more than $5 million to do it.

While mentioning pork industry structure, in preparing for this issue we talked to lenders about loops, farrow-to-finish operations and other ways that Ontario producers are working together, or competing with each other, in the dynamic business that the pork industry is today. We think you will find what lenders have to say to be interesting.

Elsewhere in this issue, we tackle the key subject of genetics. On page 22, ag writer Mike Mulhern describes how one Lambton County farmer is getting premium prices and developing new customers by concentrating on rare breeds with special characteristics - so proving that not all the winners in pork are the big boys. BP



© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..


back





















Better Pork - June 2004

Canadian pork industry faces long and costly litigation battle over U.S. countervailing and dumping challenge

On April 8, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced its decision to initiate antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on imports of live swine from Canada. If the case goes against Canada, the export market for Canadian pigs could take a hit and a new and far-reaching precedent could be set in U.S. relations with its trading partners
by Randy Duffy
On March 5, 2004, the U.S. National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting countervailing and antidumping duties against live swine from Canada.

The petition alleges that live swine from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value and that the federal and provincial governments in Canada are providing countervailable subsidies with respect to the manufacture, production and export of live swine. Furthermore, the petition alleges the U.S. swine industry is being materially injured by these imports from Canada. Duties cannot be imposed until after a series of determinations on subsidization and dumping are made by the DOC.

The ITC investigates and determines whether injury to the U.S. domestic market has occurred because of the imports from Canada. The period of investigation is Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2003.

There are several key issues in this petition:

1. Countervail. Countervail is not new to the Canadian swine industry. Canada fought a battle from 1985-1999 over countervailing duties imposed by the United States on live pig imports from Canada.

Countervailing duties are imposed to protect U.S. domestic industries from injury caused by imports that have benefited from foreign government subsidies. Subsidies that provide a benefit and are specific to an enterprise or industry are countervailable. Subsidies that are generally available and not specific to an enterprise or industry are not.

Past experience with countervail has made the Canadian industry determined not to have any government programs unless they were acceptable under international trade rules. And, with the exception of a couple of isolated provincial programs, government programs available to the swine industry are for the most part whole-farm income programs viewed as falling within international trade rules.

However, the U.S. petition alleges the federal and provincial governments in Canada have provided subsidies to the Canadian swine industry, including substantial income protection and stabilization payments, investment incentives and preferential financing programs.

An interesting item in U.S. trade law is that the petitioner (in this case the U.S. swine industry) only has to allege that countervailable subsidies may exist or may have been used in order for a petition to be filed requesting an investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Dumping. This is a new issue for Canadian producers. Dumping is selling a product in the U.S. market at prices below those charged for a comparable product in the producer's home market (Canada), or at prices below the cost of producing that product (cost of production in Canada). The concept of dumping specifically is selling a product in the U.S. at a price below "normal value." Normal value is defined as:

  • the price in the country of origin or "home market" (Canada)

  • the price in a third market

  • based on a constructed value (cost of production plus selling, general & administrative plus profit).

The dumping margin is the difference between the normal value and the price in the U.S. market. The dumping investigation will look at several calculations. One will be the comparison of prices received for Canadian imports in the United States (U.S. market net price) with the price received by Canadian producers in the Canadian domestic market (home market sales price, also referred to as the normal value). If the price received by Canadian imports in the U.S. market is less than the price received in the Canadian domestic market, this may meet one of the definitions for dumping.

Table 1 shows some calculations included in the petition for this test, comparing the Canadian domestic price with the price received by Canadian imports in the U.S. market. The petition alleges that Canadian finish pigs are being sold in the United States at prices nine per cent below the market price in Canada. Feeder pigs are alleged to be sold at prices 25.33 per cent lower.

A second test compares the home market sales price in Canada with the estimated cost of production in Canada to see if pigs are being sold below their cost of production. Table 2 shows calculations included in the petition for this test. If the home market sales price is below the cost of production, this also may meet one of the definitions for dumping. Table 2 alleges that Canadian producers are selling their finish pigs and feeder pigs below their cost of production by 17.92 per cent and 24.24 per cent respectively. The home market sales price and cost of production information comes from the Swine Enterprise Budgets reported by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, since the budgets are one of the few public sources of data available and the petition states that "petitioners do not have access to information concerning Canadian producers' actual live swine COP data."

Table 1. Estimated Price-To-Price Margin Calculations, 2003
  Finish pig Feeder pig
1. Home market sales price (C$) $137.19 $51.35
2. Exchange rate (US$/C$) 0.727047 0.727047
3. Normal value (US$) (1 x 2) $99.74 $37.33
4. U.S. market net price (US$) $91.50 $29.79
5. Estimated unit margin (US$) (3 - 4) $8.24 $7.54
6. Estimated unit percentage (5 / 4) 9.00% 25.33%
Source: Live Swine from Canada Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition, Canada AD Exhibit 1. Notes: Home Market Sales Price: Canadian domestic price (source: OMAF Swine Enterprise Budgets) Normal Value: Canadian domestic price in US$ (home market sales price x exchange rate) U.S. Market Net Price: price of imports in U.S. market (source: ITC) Estimated Unit Margin: Normal value - U.S. Net Market Price Estimated Unit Percentage: Estimated Unit Margin/U.S. Market Net Price


TABLE 2. HOME MARKET BELOW COST TEST, 2003
  Finish pig Feeder pig
1. Home market sales price (C$) $137.19 $51.35
2. Cost of production (C$) $167.13 $67.78
3. Amount price is below COP (C$) (2 - 1) $29.94 $16.43
4. Percent price is below COP (3 / 2) 17.92% 24.24%
Source: Source: Live Swine from Canada Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition, Canada AD Exhibit 6 Notes: Home Market Sales Price: Canadian domestic price (source: OMAF Swine Enterprise Budgets) Cost of Production: Canadian cost of production (source: OMAF Swine Enterprise Budgets) Amount Price is Below COP: Cost of Production - Home Market Sales Price Percent Price is Below COP: Amount Price is Below COP / Cost of Production


3. Material injury. The U.S. swine industry claims that material injury is occurring as a result of the increased Canadian imports. The U.S. industry has decreased its production in order to try and cause U.S. domestic prices to increase, but the increased imports have allegedly caused the anticipated price increase not to happen. The United States alleges that the Canadian industry has grown, despite two years of low prices, because of substantial government subsidies.

Material injury occurs if the investigation shows that the U.S. industry has suffered decreased prices and loss of domestic market share due to unfairly traded imports.

Once the investigation is complete, and if countervailable subsidies are found to exist, to benefit the Canadian industry and to materially injure the U.S. industry, then a countervail duty will be implemented. Also, based on the findings of the dumping investigation, an anti-dumping duty could be implemented if dumping was found to have occurred and the U.S. industry was materially injured as a result.

Increasing Canadian exports a factor
The main reason this petition has been filed is because Canadian pig exports to the United States have increased during the last few years. In 2003, 7.4 million head at a value of US$389.3 million ($554 million Cdn) were imported by the United States from Canada. These imports represented 6.9 per cent of the U.S. total pork consumption.

However, it would appear that the increase in imports from Canada has allowed the U.S. pork industry to move into an export position itself.

Graph 1 shows the percentage of U.S. total pork consumption that is exported by the U.S. (total U.S. pork exports). Also shown is the percentage of U.S. total pork consumption attributable to Canadian live imports on a carcass weight basis (live imports from Canada). The 2001-2003 average for percentage exported is 5.7 per cent per cent while the percentage represented by Canadian live imports is 5.8 per cent.

In 2003, U.S. pork prices were $23 per head higher than they would have been in the absence of exports (NPPC Press Release, February 27, 2004). If this is the case, then how have the Canadian imports harmed the U.S. industry? If there were fewer or no Canadian imports, the United States would not be able to export as much or any of its own production and wouldn't have benefited from the high prices received from its own exports.

U.S. also provides producer support
The U.S. petition alleges that Canadian pig production benefits from government subsidization. The United States, however, appears not to be innocent of providing government subsidies to its own pig producers. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), both the U.S. and Canadian governments have provided support to their domestic pig industries.

The OECD uses the Producer Support Estimate (PSE) as a way to compare the level of government support for various countries and various commodities. The PSE measures government support and calculates it as a percentage of total value of production (at farm gate).

graph For example, the PSE for Canadian pigmeat production in 1998 was seven per cent. This was calculated as $169 million in producer support divided by $2.392 billion ($2.223 billion in farm gate value of production plus $169 million in producer support). The PSE for U.S. pigmeat production in 1998 was five per cent. This was calculated as $442 million US in producer support divided by $9.116 billion US ($8.674 billion in farm gate value of production plus $442 million in producer support).

Graph 2 shows the PSE percentage for Canada and the United States for the 1998-2002 period. Canada's PSE averaged approximately 7.6 per cent during the period while the U.S. PSE averaged about 4.4 per cent. However, on a total dollar basis, Canada provided an average of $242 million Cdn in producer support annually in PSE while the United States provided an average of $437 million US. The U.S. producer support is equivalent to about $662 million Cdn annually or 2.7 times Canada's annual average PSE.

Even if, according to the OECD and its PSE calculations, the Canadian government provides support to its swine industry, the support is mostly through whole-farm income programs available to all agricultural producers. These programs are not specific to the swine industry and, therefore, are acceptable under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

Timing of events
On April 8, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced its decision to initiate antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on imports of live swine from Canada. The alleged antidumping margin ranges from 0 to 66.48 per cent, depending on the swine category. For the countervail investigation, 22 Canadian subsidy programs will be investigated.

Two important dates are June 11 and Aug. 25, 2004. June 11 is the earliest date when preliminary countervailing duties could be collected, while Aug. 25 is the earliest date when preliminary anti-dumping duties could be collected. Both of these depend on the results of the investigation initiated on April 8.

What are the implications for the Canadian industry? If a countervailing duty and/or anti-dumping duty is imposed on live Canadian exports to the United States, this will decrease the price in Canada for all pigs. The duty, combined with the impact of a stronger Canadian dollar, will likely result in fewer exports and more pigs staying in Canada. Live pig exports to the United States are going to be very vulnerable and a lot less profitable. More pigs staying in Canada results in more supply for Canadian processors, which means a lower price for Canadian producers.

After suffering through the recent, lengthy period of low prices and reduced profitability, as well as the impact of BSE, a strong Canadian dollar and current high feed prices, how much more can the Canadian industry handle? The possibility of a countervailing or anti-dumping duty being imposed on live exports will not help the situation. The investigation has only just begun. It will be a long and expensive litigation battle.

What happens if the United States wins this challenge against its largest trading partner? A new precedent could be set in the trade world. Because of past experiences with countervail, Canada has worked hard to develop an agricultural policy with programs that are supposed to be WTO-compliant. Now that the United States has filed a petition against Canada, directed at supposedly WTO-compliant programs, a successful challenge by the United States may have far-reaching effects on other countries and commodities.

Many of the United States' trading partners, who think they have WTO-compliant programs, may face a similar situation to Canada. What country will be next on the U.S. hit list to be punished for creating an export-driven, world-class industry supported by WTO compliant agricultural policies?

EVENT COUNTERVAILING
DUTY INVESTIGATION		 ANTIDUMPING
INVESTIGATION
Petitions filed March 5, 2004 March 5, 2004
Initiation date April 7, 2004 April 7, 2004
ITC preliminary May 3, 2004 May 3, 2004
DOC preliminary* June 11, 2004 Aug. 25, 2004
DOC final* Aug. 25, 2004 Nov. 8 , 2004
ITC FINAL* Oct. 12, 2004 Dec. 23, 2004
Issue Order** Oct. 19, 2004 Dec. 30, 2004
* These dates may be extended under U.S. law.
** This will take place only in the event of final affirmative determination by DOC and ITC.


What are the implications for the Canadian industry? If a countervailing duty and/or anti-dumping duty is imposed on live Canadian exports to the United States, this will decrease the price in Canada for all pigs. The duty, combined with the impact of a stronger Canadian dollar, will likely result in fewer exports and more pigs staying in Canada. Live pig exports to the United States are going to be very vulnerable and a lot less profitable. More pigs staying in Canada results in more supply for Canadian processors, which means a lower price for Canadian producers.

After suffering through the recent, lengthy period of low prices and reduced profitability, as well as the impact of BSE, a strong Canadian dollar and current high feed prices, how much more can the Canadian industry handle? The possibility of a countervailing or anti-dumping duty being imposed on live exports will not help the situation. The investigation has only just begun. It will be a long and expensive litigation battle.

What happens if the United States wins this challenge against its largest trading partner? A new precedent could be set in the trade world. Because of past experiences with countervail, Canada has worked hard to develop an agricultural policy with programs that are supposed to be WTO-compliant. Now that the United States has filed a petition against Canada, directed at supposedly WTO-compliant programs, a successful challenge by the United States may have far-reaching effects on other countries and commodities.

Many of the United States' trading partners, who think they have WTO-compliant programs, may face a similar situation to Canada. What country will be next on the U.S. hit list to be punished for creating an export-driven, world-class industry supported by WTO compliant agricultural policies? BP


Randy Duffy is a research associate at Ridgetown College, University of Guelph.

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..

back































Better Pork - June 2004

Take time to enjoy the beauties around you

Being driven by financial imperatives or letting business stresses dominate your life is not a recipe for success. And that applies to the pig business as much as any other
by RICHARD SMELSKI
Bill is a pork producer, friend and mentor. I recently asked him how he always manages to be so composed, relaxed and deliberate in everything he does. Here's how he replied:

"Twenty years ago, I was in a car accident. I was broadsided -- five ribs broken, bleeding spleen and I couldn't breathe. I knew I was going to die and, for those few moments, I sat there thinking, 'If only I live, I always want to enjoy what I am doing.' And then I took a breath."

Bill now manages an 1,100-acre farrow-to-finish operation, and he volunteers a lot. He's very successful, very sharing and, most of all, fun to be with. He has no desire to be the biggest, the best or the wealthiest, although I think he ranks among the top in each. He enjoys life, and the pig business gives him that opportunity.

Bill enjoys a balance in his life, but how many can say the same? Does it take a disaster to realize the true values in life? Agricultural historian Hiram Drachi claimed years ago that a crisis can lead to success. The pig industry, similar to many industries, has rapid change, labour disputes, price fluctuations, regulation overloads, family challenges and health concerns. Because these crises have become more standard in our business does not mean that this needs to be reflected in our attitude.

Enjoyment leads to success, not the reverse. Now may be the time to consider exiting the business if you aren't enjoying the stress of pig farming. Remember the dictionary definition of stress -- force applied that strains or deforms the initial shape. If you cannot accept the new shape of your business and enjoy it, the stress can break you. Even the Skydome is designed to move with the stresses of the environment. It's your choice to enjoy the stress and smile or not.

A great book, Die Broke by Stephen Pollan, proposes that we forget the idea of spending our entire lives saving and investing with the goal of idyllic retirement on a beach somewhere. His key principles are: quit today, pay cash, don't retire and die broke. "The last cheque you write should be to the undertaker -- and it should bounce." Use your money while you're alive.

Building up a pile of money to pass on to your children is built on the mistaken notion that money has value in and of itself. The reality is that money is a tool, a means to an end. Use it while you can appreciate it. Giving a pile of money to your kids can ruin them. Money or assets might be left to children or grandchildren at key points of need, so the giver as well as receiver can both enjoy the gift.

Enjoy the moment. Nature surrounds us and we only need to appreciate the beauties that farmers take for granted. When have you taken the time to enjoy a newly farrowed litter rather than hurrying off to enter the data, check the heat bulbs and note the temperatures? When have you just enjoyed the nature around you? No wonder surveys have shown that 80 per cent of farmers keep poor financial records, because they are driven by true values and not always by financial assets. If you couldn't breathe, would you wish for anything different than you are doing right now?

Hakuna matata," as the lyrics to "The Lion King" go, or "No worries for the rest of your life!" BP

Richard Smelski is general manager of Ontario Swine Improvement Inc. and a former Ontario government swine specialist.


© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..


back






























Better Pork - June 2004

Which provincial ministry should enforce the Nutrient Management Act?

The lead role in enforcing this legislation has flipped back and forth between the environment ministry and the ministry of agriculture and food. While farm groups have favoured the latter, this specialist argues that the environment ministry makes more sense
by MURRAY BLACKIE
On April 2, at the 2004 London Swine Conference, I attended a presentation by David McRobert, in-house counsel and senior policy advisor for the office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

As part of his paper, he listed what he saw as controversies associated with the Nutrient Management Act. I would agree with his list, although I think that the word "controversies" might be a little gentle. "Hot buttons" might be more appropriate to their emotional character. The list consisted of:

  • Compliance and enforcement;

  • Whether the NM Act supersedes local by-laws;

  • Funding;

  • Information access;

  • Including the NM Act under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Here is my take on the first of these hot buttons - whether the NM Act is "a compliance and enforcement maze." Who should be in charge of, or take the lead in, compliance and enforcement? The enforcement lead has flip-flopped from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) and now back to MOE (with six inspectors hired by OMAF during their flip). The MOE lead was consistent with the recommendations of Justice O'Connor following the Walkerton tragedy.

Although farm groups have favoured the OMAF lead, putting MOE lead does make sense. Staff of MOE already regulate bio-solids, respond to manure spills and discharges, respond to pesticides complaints and investigate once charges are recommended under existing environmental legislation. It makes sense to strive for consistent compliance of all agricultural/nutrient compliance issues.

From the outset, the farm community has voiced the concern that compliance staff must be knowledgeable in agriculture to help them understand the processes as well as the environmental issues, practices and management. Every sector of the economy has different environmental problems, different wastes, different emissions and different industrial processes. MOE inspectors, investigators and other staff have had to be competent in sectors as disparate as sewage treatment and the petrochemical industry. I am confident that any relevant training will be provided and that staff hired will be well qualified in both environmental and agricultural areas.

The question of optics or perception should not be minimized. Should the ministry, which has historically acted as the environmental consultant to the agriculture sector, be used as its environmental regulator? The roles presently assigned to each ministry will accentuate their strengths and send a clearer message to those concerned that the legislation will be effectively enforced. It seems that those concerned about the environmental impact of livestock agriculture and those that have resisted expansion have not been very vocal in the overall consultation on the regulations. But if enforcement seems to be inappropriately assigned, that may fuel their concerns. There are also a number of contentious standards-related issues And keeping enforcement consistent, transparent and logical makes sense.

The other hot buttons listed above are also worthy of comment and, in upcoming issues, I will address inclusion of the NM Act under the Environmental Bill of Rights, public access to nutrient management plans and whether the NM Act can supersede all seemingly similar or related by-laws. 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































Better Pork - June 2004

Harvesting pig manure on a conveyor belt shows promising test results

In U.S. trials, the belt housing system proved easy to operate, resulted in good animal performance, and most importantly, yielded feces of five per cent dry matter, a clean urine stream and only one kilogram of ammonia.
by SAM BRADSHAW
Last September, five North Carolina State University researchers (I am guessing here) presented a paper at an American Society of Agricultural Engineering conference in North Carolina which describes a relatively new and quite promising way of handling hog manure.

Ontario Pork, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the University of Guelph are researching a barn similar to the one described below, this summer. Here's a summary of what the North Carolina paper said.

Modern swine facilities have not been designed for maximization of manure value or minimization of ammonia emission. These benefits can possibly be achieved by harvesting urine and feces separately on a conveyor belt placed at an angle beneath the slats.

Urine drains off this belt into a gutter leading to a closed storage vessel while feces remain on the belt. Such a belt was evaluated in a partially slatted swine facility housing 80 grower pigs.

In trial 1, the optimal time of day for fecal collection and belt performance under steady state use were determined.

TABLE 1. EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS AND ANIMAL PERFORMANCE DATA FOR BELT-BASED HOUSING TRIALS
  Trial 1 Trial 2
Belt		 Conventional
Housing
Entry Weight (kg/pig) 27 23 24
Exit weight (kg/pig) 55 51 52
Daily feed intake (kg/pig) 1.52 1.72 * 1.84 *
Daily gain (kg/pig) 0.76 0.82 0.83
Feed/gain 1.99 2.09** 2.21**
Fecal output (kg DM/pig/d) 0.26 0.22 ND
Water utilization (l/pig/d) ND 3.6 2.6
Urine output (l/pig/d) 1.1 1.5 ND
* p < 0.10 **p <0.05 ND = Not determined
In trial 2, belt performance under steady state operation was tested, and animal performance was compared with that from a conventional facility.

The belt system was timer-operated, requiring no labour other than cleaning the scraper.

Urine collections in trial 2 averaged 1.3 l/pig/day or 42 per cent of the water intake.

Ammonia emissions were derived solely from the pen surface (unaffected by the fecal load on the belt), and thus were dependent on the defecation pattern of the animals. When defecation occurred predominantly on the slatted portion of the pen, ammonia concentrations ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 ppm.

Pigs housed in the belt facility (trial 2) had a six per cent improved feed efficiency compared to those in conventional housing.

In conclusion, the belt housing system was easy to operate, resulted in good animal performance, and most importantly, yielded feces of five per cent dry matter, a clean urine stream and only one kilogram of ammonia.

Introduction. Environmental concerns with intensive swine production facilities have necessitated the re-evaluation of management practices for manure handling. Current manure management practices in the swine industry are a slatted floor with either liquid storage under the slats (slurry system) or a flush system with lagoon storage (Keener et al., 1999). These systems yield manure that usually ranges between one and 10 percent dry matter, which limits the flexibility of its application primarily due to transportation costs.

Solid/liquid separation techniques like centrifuges, tangential flow separation, settling basins and screen separators have all been used to improve manure handling because the reduction of solids in the liquid bulk facilitates pumping and handling and allows for use of the high phosphorus solids as a value-added product.

However, since all these technologies separate manure after it has been mixed and stored, they do nothing to mitigate odour and ammonia emissions within the hog house or at the storage facility. They also demonstrate a low efficiency of solids recovery from the swine manure and require higher investments for equipment, maintenance, and skills on the farm level (Westerman and Bicudo, 2000).

Conveyor belts have been successfully used to collect poultry manure for the past 30 years. This technology was adapted to swine production, placing the belt at an angle under the slatted portion of the pens. Its lower edge feeds into a pipe that collects the urine and transports it to the end of the building, thus allowing the separate collection of urine and feces within the hog house. Due to the separate collection of the manure streams, bacterial urease, present in feces, has limited opportunity to metabolize urinary urea to ammonia and CO2, thus potentially reducing ammonia emissions.

The harvesting of fecal material as dry manure also allows for easier and cheaper transport of the phosphorus-containing material, ultimately permitting greater flexibility in its application. This material can also be easily composted, gasified for energy production or transported to areas where it may be applied to land. The urine stream, containing approximately 70 per cent of the excreted N (Aarnink et al., 1993), can be used for land application, or can be processed through denitrification or ion-exchange to capture the N for use in fertilizers.

Trials with a demonstration belt housing unit were performed, 1) to evaluate the belt design; 2) to determine the pig's growth potential using the chosen partially slatted housing design; and 3) to quantify ammonia and methane emissions from the belt housing system.

Methods. For each trial, 80 pigs, barrows and gilts, were raised from 25 to 55 kilograms and housed 16 pigs per pen (2.25 x 4.5m). Penning material, feeders, and the belt were supplied by Big Dutchman (Vechta, Germany) and were two-thirds solid floor and one-third slatted floor (tri-bar). The pen size used was 75 per cent of that of a standard barn; otherwise, the same layout was used as in a standard barn. Solid partitions were used around the solid floor to direct defecation to the slatted-floor portion of the pen. Each pen also contained one wet-dry feeder in order to minimize water wastage. Animals were fed a corn-soybean meal grower ration with 17 per cent crude protein.

A one-millimetre-thick polypropylene conveyor belt was installed beneath the slatted area. The belt was placed at a four-degree angle, side to side, to facilitate liquid drainage into the gutter running the length of the belt (Figure 1). The belt was also sloped one degree along its length, allowing urine to drain continuously into a closed collection vessel at the end of the belt.

Trial 1 was conducted solely in the belt demonstration housing facility. For trial 2, however, pigs were assigned either to the belt demonstration facility or to the conventional housing unit at the NC State University swine farm. Animals from a single source were weight-matched, distributed between the two facilities, housed at the same stocking density and fed the same ration.

Ammonia and methane concentrations in the exhaust air from the belt housing facility were analyzed by a process called Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy FTIR; van Kempen, 2001).

Results. The belt was operated automatically from a timer and ran unattended. It performed trouble-free in all trials. The only manual action required was the daily cleaning of the belt-scraper, which takes approximately one minute per belt (depending on accessibility). During this time, belt tracking was verified and no problems were observed throughout the course of the trials.

Animal performance was comparable in both trials, with an average daily gain of 0.79 kg/pig/day and a feed efficiency of 2.04 (see Table 1). The total manure produced per pig during the trials was 0.24 kg/day on a dry matter basis (suggesting an 83 per cent digestibility of feed dry matter. Collected urine averaged 1.3 liters per pig per day, or 42 per cent of the water intake. This urine appeared to have little fecal contamination, based on color and clarity, but was somewhat concentrated due to evaporation.

Fecal dry matter was strongly affected by the time of day at which the belt was run. The data suggest that early morning collections are best. This may be due to the observation that little urine is deposited on the belt at night, thus allowing the feces to dry more completely.

Dry matter exhibited a sigmoidal pattern with early morning collections resulting in the driest manure, likely linked to the diurnal urination pattern of the pigs.

Ammonia emissions were monitored semi-continuously during the steady-state collection period in trial 1 to determine if a diurnal rhythm was observed that corresponded to the cleaning frequency of the belt. These data show that ammonia emissions are virtually constant throughout the course of the day. If feces on the belt were contributing substantially to ammonia levels, higher emissions would be expected just prior to 6 a.m., when collection occurs, and a sharp drop should be observed just after collection.

The lack of such a pattern suggests that quantitatively the belt manure is not contributing to ammonia emissions. This is in agreement with in vitro data showing that feces contaminated with small amounts of urine (less than 30 per cent) have minimal ammonia emission over a 24-hour period (data not shown).

The gas emission data also showed that methane emissions were constant within the room. These emissions increased with the age of the pigs, probably due to the higher feed intake of older animals. This coincides with independent observations showing that methane production comes from the pigs alone and not from the manure pit in systems with short-term storage of manure (unpublished results).

In conclusion: The current belt design proved successful in separating the two waste streams produced.

Feces can be harvested with a dry matter content of more than 50 per cent when collected early in the morning, limiting the amount of solid waste to approximately half a kilogram per pig place per day for a typical grow-finish facility.

The collected urine stream is relatively clean and approximately 1.3 l of urine was obtained per pig place per day.

Ammonia emissions are a function of the extent of pen fouling, thus pen design, but in properly designed and managed facilities, emissions of less than1 kg per pig place per year should be attainable.

This housing system thus offers many advantages over conventional barns from an environmental standpoint.BP



© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..


Sam Bradshaw is environmental specialist with Ontario Pork.

This article was based on the following paper: "Swine Housing with a Belt for Separating Urine and Feces; Key to Flexibility," by T. van Kempen, B. Kaspers, P. Burnette, M. van Kempen, and J. B. Koger, pp. 159-165 in Swine Housing II, Conference Proceedings, 12-15 October 2003 (Raleigh, North Carolina,), ed. Larry Jacobson, October 12, 2003. ASAE Pub #701P1303.
REFERENCES
Aarnink, A.J.A., P. Hoeksma, and E.N.J. van Ouwerkerk. 1993. "Factors affecting ammonium concentrations in slurry from fattening pigs". In Nitrogen flow in pig production and environmental consequences, 413-420. M. W. A. Verstegen, L.A. den Hartog, G.J.M. van Kempen, and J.H.M. Metz, eds. Pudoc Scientific Publishers, Wageningen.

Kaspers, B., P. Burnette, J. Koger, M. van Kempen, and T. van Kempen. 2002. "Separating urine from feces may be key to flexibility". Feedstuffs , May 27: 11-13.

Keener, H.M., D.L. Elwell, T. Menke, and R. Stowell. 1999. "Design and management of a high-rise hog facility manure drying bed". ASAE Paper No. 994108. 1999 ASAE/CSAE-SCGR Annual International Meeting. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.

Kempen, T. van. 2001. "Dietary adipic acid reduces ammonia emission from swine excreta". J. Anim. Sci. 79:2412-2417.

Westerman, Peter, and J. Bicudo. 2000. "Tangential flow separation and chemical enchancement to recover swine manure solids, nutrients and metals". Bioresource Technology. 73:1-11.

back































Better Pork - June 2004

Manitoba frustrated but not surprised by U.S. ITC ruling on Canadian hogs

The province's agriculture minister regards it as another frivolous challenge, not unlike the nine unsuccessful challenges against the wheat board. And she believes it will meet with the same outcome
by BRUCE COCHRANE
Rosann Wowchuk, Manitoba's Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, says a U.S. decision to proceed with investigations into imported Canadian butcher hogs and weanling pigs is frustrating but not surprising.

On May 2, in a unanimous 6-0 decision, the U.S. International Trade Commission determined there is a reasonable indication of injury to U.S. pork producers from unfairly traded hogs imported from Canada. The preliminary finding clears the way for the trade commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce to proceed with investigations of complaints filed by American pork producers.

Rosann Wowchuk says that, given previous experience with this type of U.S. trade action, the ITC decision was not unexpected. "We have been working very closely with the producers on this one. We have legal council representing us in Washington as part of the Canadian team. We think it is a frivolous challenge and we're quite frustrated by the number of frivolous challenges we have had here."

Wowchuk notes that there have been nine unsuccessful challenges against the Canadian Wheat Board. "We believe this one (pork) will go the same way. They are challenging our programs and, whenever we develop programs, we work very closely to ensure we are not in violation of the trade agreements. It's quite frustrating to continue to get these challenges when we have a very integrated market. U.S. producers want free trade, but they continue to use these challenges to disrupt trade."

Wowchuk points out that, while the ITC ruling allows the countervail and antidumping investigations to proceed, it does not result in any immediate duties being applied to Canadian hogs.

Ethanol by-products show promise in swine rations
Research conducted near Saskatoon shows that cereal by-products from ethanol production hold great promise as feed ingredients in swine diets. A 20-fold increase in North American ethanol production over the past 20 years has made available more cereal by-products, namely dried distillers grain plus solubles abbreviated as DDGS.

Scientists at the Prairie Swine Centre examining the potential of these by-products in swine rations looked at corn DDGS, wheat DDGS and wheat and corn DDGS. Swine nutritionist Dr. Ruurd Zijlstra says dried distillers grains have generally higher concentrations of fibre, crude protein, fat, vitamins and minerals than their parent grains.

"We know simply by some chemical characteristics that wheat DDGS compared to corn DDGS has more fibre and less fat, and that was reflected in a lower digestible energy content of wheat DDGS versus corn DDGS," Zijlstra explains. He says that would mean that wheat DDGS is a valuable feed ingredient for pigs, but not as valuable as corn DDGS.

Zijlstra says the research is also focusing on phosphorus, an important nutrient for pigs but something that the swine industry would like to reduce in manure. "What we found in this study is that wheat DDGS is similar to corn DDGS, in that the phosphorus in these ingredients is very highly digestible with a much higher digestibility of this phosphorus in the by-product as compared to the original feedstock for ethanol production."

Dr. Zijlstra says that over the next two years scientists plan to examine what can be done to improve the feed quality of dried distillers grains, identify maximum inclusion rates in rations and evaluate the effects of these ingredients on carcass quality.

Manitoba Pork Council calls for changes to CAIS program
The Manitoba Pork Council is calling for two key changes to make the new Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program (CAIS) more responsive to the needs of swine producers.

In an effort to determine how the CAIS will work for hog producers, the council commissioned consultants Meyers, Norris, Penny to evaluate several scenarios. Pork Council chair Karl Kynoch says the study indicates the program will work better for swine producers than had been feared, but two changes would improve its responsiveness.

"One change we would like to see would be to have the option to select between the three-year reference margin or the 'Olympic' average." An Olympic average uses the average production margin over the previous five years, after dropping the highest and lowest margins. This represents the producer's historical income, forming the basis for the program.

"We'd like to have the option to choose that reference margin. The margin they're working on, I think, is the previous three, so it would be one positive...to have the option to have either one of those reference margins." Kynoch also wants to be able to use "period one-period two" pricing. By that, he means that "you could actually value your inventory on Jan. 1 and value it again on Dec. 31. Right now, they use the same value on both ends and we both know, in a crisis, that when prices drop our inventory takes a significant drop in value. Sometimes, when we get that huge drop in value, you can see where an operation can all of a sudden become cash-strapped at the bank. They always look at your debt ratio to equity and that would possibly help cover some of that."

Kynoch says that, on the positive side, the CAIS program will not penalize swine producers for employing good management practices. He says those producers who are able to run with lower costs and maybe higher selling margins will be able to protect higher reference margins and will not suffer for being efficient.

Saskatchewan tops 95 per cent CQA certification
Sask Pork reports that more than 95 per cent of Saskatchewan's hogs are now produced on farms certified under the Canadian Quality Assurance program (CQA). CQA is the Canadian swine industry's national on-farm food safety program.

Last August, Sask Pork targeted a 95 per cent enrolment within six months. Producer Services Manager Harvey Wagner says that target has now been met and the organization is working to take that number even higher. "Right now, 96.35 per cent of hogs marketed in Saskatchewan are marketed under the CQA program."

Wagner says most larger units are on the program and he's hopeful the rest will be on soon. "A lot of the smaller operations are also becoming involved in the CQA program. What's driving it, in part, is the fact that most of the packers are quite aggressive in seeing that producers belong to the CQA program for food safety reasons. The packers certainly would like to see that all the meat that they process and market is coming from a CQA herd in order to minimize any potential of drug residue problems and also other health issues -- zoonotic diseases, physical contamination like broken needles and that type of thing. The CQA program certainly addresses all of those issues in a fairly direct way." Wagner says the CQA program is extremely valuable in terms of food safety and he expects virtually all of the pigs produced in Canada to be certified within the next few years. He notes that some packers have actually stopped accepting hogs that originate from non-CQA herds, while others have started severely discounting hogs that are not CQA certified. BP



© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..


back