Better Pork - October 2004

Netherlands: Luxury housing coming for hogs

by NORMAN DUNN

In a unique multi-discipline welfare project, Dutch farmers, agricultural researchers and animal welfare experts are presently co-operating in the planning of "luxury" housing for 100 feeding hogs. For a start, available space per feeding hog at two square metres is to be more than double that currently required by European Union.

The hogs will be held in a single group with extensive areas of deep straw bedding where natural rooting behaviour can be followed. There will also be shallow ponds for wallowing, automatic sprinklers for cooling off, plenty of natural light from windows and a range of playthings, such as chains and balls, to alleviate boredom.

"The aim is to create housing where we can study just how hogs react to what the various experts consider optimum conditions within a farming context, " explains Adrian Vernooy, manager at the University of Wageningen's Raalte experimental farm, where the project is to be developed. "We've really turned planning principles on their head for this program," he adds. "We've started with a list of welfare-based conditions and planned the building according to these."

The main Dutch farmers' union, the national animal welfare society and Wageningen University are all contributing to the funding of the luxury housing project, with the major investor being the university.BP

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - October 2004

Germany:Cow colostrum boosts piglet performance

by Norman Dunn

Feeding dried cattle colostrum to piglets has increased daily liveweight gain and feed conversion ratio by more than 11 per cent in a commercial trial.

In a 135-piglet trial at the Neumühle Institute for Livestock Production in southwest Germany, 35 per cent immunoglobulin colostrum was mixed in conventional creep and weaner rations over 24 days, starting at half a gram per piglet on day eight after birth and rising to one gram per piglet on the tenth day post-weaning (32 days of age).

The dairy-based supplement boosted piglet weight gain by more than 11 per cent for the trial period with the control group averaging 174 grams daily liveweight gain (dlwg) and the colostrum group tipping the scales at 194 grams per day. And at 28 kilograms liveweight the average dlwg for the colostrum-fed piglets was still 10 grams higher than that of the control group.

Researchers at Neumühle caution that further trials on the effect of the colostrum in piglet diets must be carried out to confirm the initial results and add that it seems clear the immunoglobulin's role in giving passive protection against disease to young animals is the reason for the encouraging results so far.

A slight drawback revealed by the research during the 24-day test was a slight decrease in feed conversion efficiency for the colostrum-fed animals. Feed consumption per kilogram of weight gain averaged 2.1 kilos for the colostrum batch and 1.94 kilos for the other piglets. BP

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - October 2004

Denmark: Danish test project shows startling improvements in disease resistance

Encouraged by research showing that Duroc boars conferred three times more disease resistance to their offspring than others, Danish researchers are moving ahead with a much larger research project on hereditary resistance

by NORMAN DUNN

Duroc boars in Denmark are among the first to be selected for disease resistance traits after a three-year test demonstrated that some boars conferred three times more disease resistance to their offspring than others. The sires passing on the highest incidence of disease resistance produced hogs averaging birth to slaughter mortality of just six or seven in every hundred, while those from the worst boars suffered double that amount.

These startling results have already encouraged the Danish National Committee for Pig Production (NCPP) to start a second, much larger, project looking into hereditary resistance. Meanwhile, a parallel national "genome scan" is being carried out aimed at identifying genes responsible for high degrees of disease resistance.

With 12 boars and 12,481 of their offspring involved in the initial project, scientists monitored offspring mortality and checked for signs of disease in the slaughter hogs produced. To further highlight resistance traits, all piglets were reared on three commercial farms with histories of a higher than average incidence of pneumonia.

"The differences between even the 12 boars initially tested have been immense," reported the NCPP researchers. "Total disease symptoms found at slaughter varied from 32 per cent to 49 per cent according to the terminal sire involved."

And when checking for signs of pneumonia alone in the slaughtered hogs, the Danes found that the frequency varied from 18 per cent in the hogs sired by the best performing boar to a sobering 59 per cent in those from the boar with the poorest resistance traits.

NCPP scientists are also studying possible natural resistance in some hogs to Post Weaning Multi-Systemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS), following reports last year from PMWS-infected herds that individual animals remained free from the disease when other hogs in the same litter were infected. The Danes regard this as an indicator that the existence of genetic resistance is a possibility. BP

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - October 2004

Buying or leasing a barn? Do a building evaluation before you sign on the dotted line

A new building is no guarantee of good performance and an old which s properly designed may be a good investment. Do the proper analysis before you sign a rental or purchase contract

by RON MACDONALD

The rapid changes in the swine industry over the last 15 years have left a whole new set of questions and problems. Included in these is the need to evaluate facilities for rental contracts or purchase. A relatively new building is no guarantee of long-term performance and lower operating costs. By the same token, old structures that were properly designed, built and maintained may actually be a good investment.

The question is how to determine if the facility is a good investment. Even your own barn can benefit from a periodic review. The following steps can help:

1. A structural analysis of any questionable building components by a qualified person is a necessity. Costs of an upgrade need to be clearly documented and quoted.

2. A smoke test of the facility should be done for air leakage. This a very common problem in barns and, as they age, leaks usually increase, decreasing the life of the structure and impairing the ventilation system performance if they are not repaired.

3. The other major components each need to be evaluated -- feed, water, ventilation, electrical, water quantity and quality.

An independent evaluation of the facility before you sign on the dotted line can reveal problems that are not obvious on a walk-through. Some previous examples found by the author during site inspections include:

• A boiler system in a farrowing unit that was controlled so that it shut off in 20 C or warmer weather. In this case, farrowed piglets were deprived of creep heat and deaths from crushing would shoot up in warmer weather.

• A manure gutter system that was interconnected to adjacent rooms, creating a ventilation and air quality nightmare.

• An overloaded electrical supply, due to additions and conversions over the years, which required a costly upgrade.

• An inefficient energy system that cost more than necessary to operate and created an unacceptable environment for the animals.

• Extreme leakage at the air inlets and ceiling joints and at the ceiling/wall connections, resulting in an uncontrollable ventilation system. This is a very common problem, frequently overlooked.

• An inadequate controller and no back-up controls, alarm system or generator.

It is always worth reviewing these points with your insurance agent, as well to verifying coverage on the new facility. It is especially important to do so when it comes to contract or rental/lease facilities.BP

Ron MacDonald, P. Eng., is an agricultural engineer with Agviro Inc. in Guelph

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - October 2004

Cuts in provincial funding stun Ontario genetics organizations

Ontario Swine Improvement, Beef Improvement Ontario and other hard-hit companies are pleading for bridge funding as they contemplate a bleak future without provincial support

by DON STONEMAN

Ontario Swine Improvement (OSI) is known for its transparency of information, its research that helps all of the swine industry and its not-for-profit status.

But, says general manager Richard Smelski, "all the rules change now." In mid-August, the provincial government announced it was abruptly cutting funding to genetic improvement organizations for pork, beef and dairy in Ontario. OSI will lose an annual grant of $640,000 next March, but changes must start almost immediately, Smelski says.

The first thing that OSI will do is make a bid for time. It is asking the agriculture ministry to re-evaluate its decision to end funding abruptly and is seeking some transition funding. A study conducted by auditing firm KPMG in June gave OSI high marks for doing its job, Smelski says. It said the genetic companies should work towards self-sufficiency and OSI doesn't have a problem with that, Smelski says. "Put some time lines on it and we are prepared to work towards it," he says.

The pork industry moves "from crisis to crisis" and producers need an organization that focuses on genetic progress, Smelski says. The big challenge is to continue to support the national program with local funding. Smelski says Ontario contributed towards one third of the tested animals. The rest of the industry benefits from this, Smelski says. Why? OSI has a leadership role. It shares its numbers and formulas on genetic factors, such as backfat and lean yield. The rest of the industry uses OSI and CCSI as a benchmark even if it doesn't contribute to the program, Smelski says. The private sector doesn't do this. "Their message is 'trust us.'

Other breeders base their results on as few as 100,000 animals tested in a year while the CCSI program tests three million animals a year.

In a cost recovery program, breeders in remote areas will likely be affected the most because of travel costs. "The cost to smaller family farms is definitely going to increase because of cost recovery," Smelski says. The level of increase won't be known for two or three months, but Smelski pledges that OSI will communicate with clients and "won't clobber anybody."

However, fees for pig testing will have to be increased substantially, says OSI chair John Gough of Strathroy. Some breeders will probably drop out if fees have to rise too dramatically. "It seems that the government is very shortsighted to cut off its association with us without warning," he says.

The cutback is "devastating" to Beef Improvement Ontario (BIO), says its president, James McKinlay of Ravenna. BIO will have to make some hard decisions at the Oct. 20-21 board meeting, he says. "How do you run a business on two-thirds of what you normally expect for revenue?" he asks. At BIO's year end, Aug. 31, provincial support accounted for 61 per cent of the organization's budget, but it was headed towards self-sufficiency, McKinlay asserts. A year before, 73 per cent of BIO's income came from government.

McKinlay cites a list of food safety matters in which BIO was involved -- the Quality Starts Here program in partnership with OMAF and the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, and also deadstock issues. BIO plays a major role in retiring the identification numbers of cattle that have gone to slaughter. The big packers handle the cattle going through their plants. BIO enters the data for the rest of Canada's cattle slaughter and sends the information on to the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency.

"Everything is on the table now," McKinlay says. He doesn't understand why funding is being ended when both the Haines Report on the Aylmer Meat Packers controversy and a KPMG business review completed in June said BIO was contributing to food safety in Ontario.

The big question is whether a smaller BIO can continue to serve the beef industry. "We are a high-tech company," McKinlay says. If you make staff changes, you aren't as attractive to customers. "You lose your capability to do the services that we have in the past."

Last year, OMAF provided a $1.445 million grant to Canwest DHI in support of dairy herd management and animal improvement activities, representing about 12 per cent of the budget. Michael Hall, Canwest DHI's chair, says the funding cut means farmers will have to pay 15 to 20 per cent more for their milk recording services or between $370 and $400 a farm. Hall expects the number of farmers using higher-end services will likely drop. "Any of them thinking of leaving the industry will probably fall off more quickly."

Like BIO and OSI, DHI was expecting cuts over three to four years but not a single "drastic" cut, Hall says. "I haven't seen it worse in the countryside in my lifetime and I don't think I will. It's a poor time to be pulling back from agriculture which seems to be this government's attitude."

DHI will be looking for bridge funding, too. "Government cuts in the past have always been in stages, Hall says. "We can work with that."

Could the three organizations work together to save money? BIO's McKinlay thinks that is possible. BIO already shares some services with Canwest DHI, including payroll and computer services. But Gough says the companies perform different services and there are no employees at OSI that aren't working hard now. DHI's Hall feels the same way.

"We still need the field staff people out there; the front line people," Hall says.BP

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - October 2004

Good-bye to "butts" and "ends" in the pork meat case

Producers hope that the new nomenclature for cuts of pork will enhance buying decisions, level the playing field and be more appealing to consumers

by DON STONEMAN

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. That may have been true for Will Shakespeare, when he wrote "Romeo and Juliet" some 400 years ago. But Will wasn't trying to sell butt pork chops from a retail meat case beside competitors like chicken, beef and lamb.

These days a name is everything and a less than appetizing name can throw off consumers making split-second buying decisions. Last summer, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which ensures that pre-packaged foods are labelled with a common name, signed off on a new nomenclature system for the pork industry that becomes mandatory Jan. 1, 2005. The names of a few primal cuts were changed, allowing for the renaming of a large number of retail portions that are cut from the primals.

For example, the "pork loin tenderloin end" will now be called "pork sirloin." "Loin rib end" will be referred to as either a "rib chop" or a "rib roast," depending upon the cut of meat. "Picnic shoulder butt" will be called a "picnic shoulder blade."

From the point of view of producers, who want to see stagnant per capita pork consumption increase, the new names should be beneficial, says Bill Collier, Ontario Pork's retail specialist. The old nomenclature system, established in 1977 and unchanged since then, was aimed at the trade but was less descriptive for consumers, who don't understand the anatomy of a pig and don't have the time to learn about it.

Collier says the names have been changed to suit the cuts on the market better and to avoid negative connotations to consumers. "We believe that as soon as you put the term 'end' on something, you devalue it," Collier says. "The fact of the matter is that the 'rib end' we are speaking of is the same (from a pig) as prime rib' (in beef). Why would you devalue 'prime rib'?" he asks.

Another name with a possibly negative connotation is the "pork butt chop." In the old nomenclature system, retailers had the option of calling this cut either a "butt chop" or a "blade chop." "The consensus was that most consumers think it comes from the back end and it's actually from the shoulder," Collier says, adding that it's not a very appetizing term to the consumer. Instead, the cut will be called a "blade chop."

Some terms will be mandatory, such as "pork loin centre" and others are considered by the CFIA as "optional modifiers." For example, the label "pork loin centre" is a mandatory name for a particular cut of meat, while the terms "steak" (a boneless piece of meat), "chop" (generally a piece with the bone in) or "butterfly" (where a boneless chop has been cut down the middle), are optional "as long as they aren't misleading," Collier says.

The new shorter names for cuts, such as "boneless pork tenderloin end," are also useful to the retailer. Some scales that produce the labels can handle a maximum of 26 characters per line, which can be a challenge in areas of the country where bilingual labels are required. The new terminology means that retailers can still use older scale systems in order to weigh and label packaged meats. Collier says this is important to the more than 1,000 independent meat retailers in the province. One of Ontario Pork's jobs is to disseminate a letter from the CFIA and a package of descriptions about the new pork cut names to retailers.

The industry called for the changes and the grocery distributors' organizations took part, says John Stanger, a program officer with CFIA in Ottawa. He thinks the new system will benefit every aspect of the industry from producers to retailers. It provides consumers with a single and consistent nomenclature system and retailers with a level playing field. The new descriptive names of meat cuts and the optional modifiers will be consistent from store to store and province to province.

Both the old and new names can be used until Dec. 31, allowing retailers time to convert their scales. More information on meat cuts can be found on the meat cuts manual page of the CFIA's web site http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/bureau/mcmancv/mcmancve.shtml. BP

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..

back