Better Pork - June 2005
German supermarket chain calls for Duroc influence in its "Gutfleisch" pork
In return for requiring that the Duroc breed be used in producing slaughter hogs, Edeka-Südwest, Europe's ninth largest retail group pays a bonus of 8.5 cents a kilogramby NORMAN DUNN
A leading supermarket chain in Germany is now demanding that the Duroc breed be used in the production of slaughter hogs for its labelled quality pork sales. Perceived advantages of the Duroc influence -- from 12.5 to 25 per cent of Duroc blood will have to be present in the slaughter hogs -- include more intramuscular fat and juiciness in the pork.The supermarket chain, Edeka Südwest, is part of Europe's ninth largest retail group. It also says that farmers must supply slaughter hogs with a carcass lean muscle percentage of between 54 to 61 per cent. Annually, farmers deliver some 200,000 hogs under contract to the Edeka-Südwest for its "Gutfleisch" quality meat product line.
Currently, this retail chain pays a bonus equivalent to 8.5 cents a kilogram slaughterweight over the national average price for the hogs it accepts in the programme, but requires much more than carcass quality for its money. For example, fishmeal is not permitted in Gutfleisch hog rations and the withdrawal period for any animals treated with medication is double the legal period.
Also, each slaughter hog must have pen floor space of at least 0.8 square metres towards the end of its feeding period with slaughter at between 82 and 105 kilograms liveweight. That's over 20 per cent more than the legal minimum space in Germany.
All piglet producers and hog feeders supplying the programme must keep full records of feed and medication used, and allow independent inspectors to look over their buildings and animals at least once a year.
The farmers supplying the Edeka programme reckon that the extra management inputs, paperwork and labour involved add up to a further $1.70 Cdn per finished hog. On the other hand, Edeka pays the costs of the farm inspections and laboratory testing of all feed used.
Farmers supplying the Gutfleisch programme are nearly all from the central German state of Baden-Württemberg and have organized themselves into two production groups within which members can discuss production methods and help provide uniform supplies of hogs to approved slaughterhouses. Most have accepted the demand for increased Duroc influence and the breeding advisors involved have worked out that this will best be included through the breeding sow. A pure Pietrain boar is preferred as terminal sire breed by both retailer and farmers as the lines of this breed, which is used in most European countries, give a stress-stable pig and resultant meat with lower drip loss than other breeds.
But price wars between supermarkets are affecting even this successful marketing program and currently Edeka Südwest is renegotiating with its farmers, offering new five-year contracts plus a loosening of the lean meat percentage window, perhaps to a minimum 52 per cent, in return for a 50 per cent or even 60 per cent reduction in the present five cents a kilogram bonus. BP
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back
'Big Saver' is saving Dutch piglets' lives
by Norman Dunn
Dutch hog rearer Dick Wermink has developed a simple idea which has had a substantial influence on cutting piglet mortality on his farm. For young litters, where piglets are still too weak to get out of mother's way quickly during the danger periods when she gets up to feed and lies down again, Dick has built a moveable piglet shelter.
This "Big Saver", as he calls it, has a single door that is manually closed after all the litter members are safely inside. A timer then allows the stockperson to set the door for automatic opening later on.
"In the beginning I saw that I could always avoid one or two per cent of piglet losses if I barricaded the youngsters into their creep area before sow feeding time started and then let them free again when the sow had eaten and was lying down again," explains Dick.
"With dozens of sows farrowing at one time, I recognized that an automatic system was needed and designed and built my first automatic piglet shelter. The stockman's hand is still needed to push the youngsters into the nest. But then a time switch linked to a compressed air cylinder automatically lifts the doors and lets the piglets out to feed when the sow is lying down again. This can be set to activate from quarter of an hour to even an hour later. "
Each Big Saver is made of aluminium sheeting and can therefore be easily moved to the next farrowing pen after three or four days. "It effectively keeps the piglets out of harm's way at sow feeding time and I have made real savings in my own herd with the system," adds Dick.
Nor has the idea gone unnoticed by neighbouring farmers in the Witharen region of the Netherlands, where Dick Wermink farms. Local demand has encouraged him to go into business manufacturing the portable piglet shelters, which are now selling fast for the equivalent of $460 Cdn apiece. BP
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back
Long-life sows don't always mean more profit
by NORMAN DUNN
Top Danish hog producers don't keep their sows in the herd too long. Average production life before slaughter for the breeding animals is reckoned at between four and five litters. Over the border in Germany, farmers gasp at this high herd replacement rate and strive to keep their sows in production for six or even seven litters.
The Danish argument for rapid replacement is that genetic improvement is so fast in the national herd compared to others n Europe -- for instance, the current target is an increase of 0.4 live pigs per litter per generation, which is approximately 1.25 years. It is therefore not really viable to keep sows after two productive years, according to breeders and advisers.
On top of that, the national Danish "Danbred" hybrid is already capable of producing 13 living pigs per litter from the best gilts, with a further increase in piglet output in subsequent litters. Taking the national average, the number of weaned piglets per gilt litter in 2003 was 10.5 hogs, with the best 25 per cent of herds making 11.6.
This compares with an average of 10 per gilt in recent results from 74,000 litters in German Westphalia. In that survey, the average for weaned pigs per litter over five litters was 9.3" Advisers from the Westphalia Chamber of Agriculture point out that this means that costs per weaned piglet produced can be written off far faster in Danish herds.
The Westphalia experts say their farmers should aim for an average production life of 6.5 litters per sow or even seven, but warn farmers that there's a steady drop in born live piglets, usually after the fifth litter. This means that production becomes less and less profitable and that there's probably no profit at all in keeping sows for an eighth litter. BP
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back
Loose farrowing is looking good to Danish farmers
By NORMAN DUNN
Farmers in Denmark are at the moment comparing sow and piglet performance in eight different loose farrowing systems, where there's no confinement of the sow in a farrowing crate. As before, the standard in Europe remains the conventional crate with the sow confined from farrowing to weaning.Although research so far by Danish scientists, including Vivi Aarestrup Moustsen from the National Committee for Pig Production (NCPP), indicates that a slightly larger farrowing pen is ideally required, having no crate can mean that the system can still be cheaper.
On top of this, recent litter performance comparisons between the two systems made by Dr. Moustsen's team indicate that piglet growth can be better in a loose farrowing environment. On one commercial farm, both individual piglet weight and total litter weight at weaning were significantly higher for loose farrowing at an average 7.7 and 79.9 kilograms respectively, compared with 7.4 and 76.9 kilos for crate systems on the same unit. More piglet deaths through laying and trampling have always been a danger with loose farrowing and the Danish comparison indicates that this is still the case with piglet mortality 6.2 per cent for loose pens and 4.3 per cent for crates.
The loose farrowing sows on the test farm certainly had larger appetites, eating the equivalent of an extra 14 kilograms of rations over the nursing period compared with the sows in crates. This could well mean that they produced more milk, which in turn might be the key for the outstanding performance of the piglets on this particular trial.
Dr. Moustsen cautions that there are still improvements to be made in the available loose farrowing pen designs for optimum welfare and health of both sow and piglets -- and in order to minimize labour demands. Also, loose farrowing demands a lot more input from the manager or stockperson before results can match or better those of farrowing crate systems.BP
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back
Biosecurity -- how will inspectors behave when they come to your farm
A draft protocol has been prepared to set out procedures that inspectors should follow when they visit a farm, and a more comprehensive one is being developed. But some nagging questions remainby MURRAY BLACKIE
Biosecurity was front and centre at the London Swine Conference in April. It was encouraging to see the push for consistency in implementing biosecurity procedures and the realization that we need to do more adequate planning to prepare ourselves for large-scale outbreaks and more research on pathogen survivability and transport.When the Nutrient Management Act was being developed, concerns about the adequate training of inspectors and their adherence to acceptable biosecurity procedures were hot issues. Although some government visitors were already following procedures similar to those one would expect from a veterinarian during a farm visit, there was no formalized protocol for inspectors.
In November 2002, a draft protocol was prepared. Although the draft protocol was removed from the Nutrient Management regulations, a more comprehensive version has been under development by the Ontario agriculture and environment ministries and will soon be completed.
This new protocol is intended for adoption by other ministries and designed for any government inspector to follow during a farm visit. It is considered as a minimum and, if individual farms have higher levels of bio-security, inspectors will follow the procedures and use equipment provide by the operator. Government staff has reportedly been trained in this draft protocol and consistently follow it during farm visits.
Like most things, a common-sense approach is always best. If we assume that the highest risk of cross-contamination arises from contact with the animals, their manure or their feed, the visitor will simply ask, "Do I have to go into the barn?" "Visitors are also advised not to touch the animals no matter how cute they are -- and this includes pets.
Though discussions regarding airborne pathogens have evolved over the years -- from the usual brush off when such questions were raised to recent considerations of air transport mechanics and pathogen longevity -- there are some unanswered questions.
Livestock facilities have been located so that they generally comply with Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) guidelines. Can we assume that, if a new or expanding operation meets these distant requirements, then the threat of disease transmission and odour conflicts have been addressed? These distances were developed based on experience with thousands of farms over a period of time and are not based on the same type of approaches used by air pollution engineers at the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). Is it time to reassess the effectiveness of MDS formulae and employ apply more site-specific criteria to proposals?
In Ontario, MOE uses a point of impingement approach in assessing specific emission sources and their use on neighbouring land. Approval engineers consider principals of plume behavior, atmospheric stability, pollutant dispersion and the nature of the sensitive receptor or point of contaminant impingement on that receptor. Proposed separation distances are evaluated and required to be changed if necessary.
Some nagging questions remain:
Based on what I heard during the London Swine Conference, some of these questions are already on the radar screen. I have been encouraged to note that some producer groups are planning and carrying out exercises for hypothetical scenarios, presumably to assess response capability. With periodic outbreaks of avian flu, foot-and-mouth disease and BSE over the past few years, and the use of new terms such as "Pandemic," adequate and appropriate measure to optimize biosecurity remain essential.
- Should we be moving toward this type of approach for all sources of emission -- be they from a petrochemical plant or a livestock operation?
- If we smell manure or barn smells, does this necessarily mean that the odour-causing gases or chemicals are alone in that plume or could they accompanied by viable micro-organisms?
- Do we have enough research on pathogens and pathogen longevity or decay rate?
- Are the MDS formulae adequate to protect against disease transmission?
- Are we adequately protecting against animal to human disease transmission or are we only concerned about what is carried on a visitor's boots or coveralls? Do visitors pet the dog and cat?
For more information on the draft biosecurity protocol, I recommend visiting the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's Web page and searching for bio-security.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 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back
Are we keeping up with consumers' changing needs for meat products?
Consumers have changed and the product needs to change with them. That means the industry must develop merchandising solutions for underused cutsby BILL COLLIER
Changing consumer demographics in Canada are presenting opportunities for increasing pork consumption and Ontario Pork has several initiatives underway with the powerful retail sector to achieve just that.There are 6,700 grocery stores in Ontario. In 2004 alone, this sector racked up $22 billion in sales. And although large chain stores, such as Zehrs, Sobeys and A&P, account for 62 per cent of all sales in Ontario, a significant amount of business is still done by butcher shops and local grocers -- what the industry calls independents.
In 2004, pork consumption in Canada increased four per cent -- from 19.1 kg to 19.9 kg per capita. As Canada's population ages, there is a growing need to motivate the food industry to find new ways to appeal to consumers, particularly baby boomers, who want more convenience and more quality and who have more income than other generations. The trend towards boneless products is a good example. In the pork sector, sales of boneless meat, which is also leaner and better trimmed than it used to be, have overtaken sales of bone-in products as the industry takes advantage of changing consumer demands.
But work still needs to be done on the rest of the carcass. For example, grocers are still selling less popular cuts, such as the shoulder, in the same fashion as they did three decades ago. Most consumers are comfortable with only one or two cuts in the meat counter -- usually from the loin -- because they've had success with cooking and eating those cuts. And even if they do try an less popular cut, unless they have a good eating experience with it the first time, they're not likely to buy it again.
Ontario Pork has been working with the industry to try and add more value to the entire hog by developing merchandising solutions for underused cuts. For example, the picnic ham is currently sold bone-in, skin on and simply cut in half. That same cut would be more palatable to consumers if the bone and skin were removed.
The blade is typically sliced for bone-in chops and the boneless neck end tied into an oddly shaped roast. A more consumer-friendly alternative is to remove the capicola group of muscles and slice them into smaller, leaner chops. The upper blade can then be rolled into a small and manageable boneless roast.
It is one thing to develop these ideas, but it is another to encourage the industry to implement them on a wide scale. Ontario Pork works on many levels to introduce these new ideas into the marketplace. This includes activities such as training manuals, videos and brochures, and seminars for consumers, meat cutters, culinary students and food service sales staff.
Very few foods in the grocery store, with the exception of fresh meat, are sold without preparation instructions. Although some branded programs now come with cooking instructions, the meat industry has been very slow in reacting to consumer needs in this area.
Ontario Pork offers on-pack labels with cooking instructions for independent stores to use when merchandising pork. Labels are a must when merchandising cuts unfamiliar to consumers -- shoppers are often hesitant to try anything new if they're unsure how to prepare it. And without instructions, they tend to cook all cuts the same way and are often disappointed with the outcome.
Ultimately, if retailers start selling more of the underutilized cuts such as shoulders, pork's presence in the meat counter will increase. It is possible to sell more pork to today's consumer by offering more variety and selection, as long as the industry keeps the consumer's preferences in mind and focuses on targeting those preferences.
The days of "growing it and they will buy it" are long gone. Consumers have changed and the product needs to change with them. BP
Bill Collier is Manager of Consumer Marketing for Ontario Pork and a former Meat Specialist with Sobeys, Ontario.
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back
Needed: A clear separation between the roles of MOE inspectors and investigators
Farmers have had some 'really wild' experiences dealing with the Ministry of Environment in the past and the Walkerton report emphasizedd the need for 'procedural fairness.' Now a working group is attempting to develop protocols that will help ease the problemby DON STONEMAN
Goderich sow barn operator Gilbert Vanden Heuvel gets his back up when he reads about the powers welded by Ministry of Environment (MOE) inspectors and investigators when they come onto your farm. What about the rights of farmers? he asks.Vanden Heuvel says he got burned in the late 1980s when he reported a manure spill on the farm he then ran with his father and has since purchased. When someone from the MOE attended in response to the spill report, Vanden Heuvel spoke to him at length. "They said 'we're here to help you do better the next time.'"
But Vanden Heuvel ended up in court, where he was horrified to find that parts of his conversation with the MOE officer were used in evidence against him. Vanden Heuvel paid a fine, but years later he hasn't forgotten the experience. He feels there's a black mark against his name as far as the MOE is concerned, and says he learned a lesson. "We wouldn't have gone to court if we had known our rights," Vanden Heuvel says.
In fact, legal advice received after the fact indicated that he really had to say very little to the investigating officer. That said, he says, "there is a difference between knowing your rights and lying,"
In the past MOE enforcement officers usually came to a farm when there was a complaint or a manure spill. Under the new regulatory environment, where audits will be performed, it is more likely than ever that farmers to deal with MOE officials, says pork producer Dennis Zekveld of Janetville. Many producers are uncomfortable with this.
Farmers have had "some real wild experiences" dealing with the Ministry of the Environment, admits Zekveld, who is chairman of Ontario Pork's environment committee and its representative to the Ontario Farm Environment Coalition (OFEC).
He cites one case in recent years where a farmer, under orders from the MOE, spent more than $300,000 testing for leaks and drilling wells for neighbours who complained that his barn's manure tank had contaminated their drinking water. Both Ontario Pork and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture were involved.
Eventually, through extensive DNA tracking of the bacteria, the source of the contamination was linked to faulty septic systems. The MOE has never admitted that it did anything wrong, Zekveld says. It's because of cases like this that the farming community's reaction to having the MOE perform auditing functions under the Nutrient Management Act has been so negative. It's also why the farming community was so keen to have the ministry of agriculture deal with regulatory issues, and the ministry of environment perform enforcement functions under the Nutrient Management Act.
The separation between inspection and investigation had been more "cut and dried" when the ministry of agriculture was doing the inspecting and the MOE's mandate was enforcement, says David Armitage, senior researcher with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The previous Progressive Conservative government had been on side with farmers in keeping inspections under the Nutrient Management Act within the auspices of the ministry of agriculture. When the Liberals came to power nearly two years ago they were committed to "following the letter" of the Walkerton report, he says. So powers of inspection were handed back to the MOE, along with powers of investigation.
Still, there is supposed to be a clear delineation between the roles of inspectors and enforcement officers in the part of the ministry, says Armitage, who also sits on OFEC with Zekveld and other farm leaders and organization staff. The importance of that separation can't be over-estimated, he says. OFEC received a legal opinion that this delineation will stand up in court. And the Walkerton Report even makes reference to it.
Armitage makes much of a section about "procedural fairness" from the Walkerton Report, part 2, by Justice Dennis O'Connor in a chapter that deals specifically with inspection of drinking water plants but has broader implications. The section of the Walkerton Report that he cites, reads as follows: "The procedural fairness point. The concern - which can be characterized as a breach of procedural fairness or an abuse of administrative discretion under Section 8 and possibly Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom - comes down to concern that routine inspections could be turned into covert investigations that would otherwise require the use of search warrants or other procedural protections. When inspectors are truly acting as investigators, they are required to adhere to the stricter procedural requirements of the investigation process."
O'Connor cited the court case R. Versus. Inco Ltd, (2001) "which turned on the issue of whether an MOE officer was acting on reasonable grounds that an infraction had occurred (in which case he would have required a search warrant) or had no such reasonable grounds (in which case he could have relied on statutory inspection powers.)"
R. Vs. Inco is "a very celebrated (court) case," Armitage says, noting that O'Connor goes on to say that the best way to deal with the difficulty of inspectors acting as investigators is to have a clear separation of function and personnel. This is what the MOE is trying to do now, he says.
John Steele, an information officer with the Ministry of the Environment, confirms that inspectors and investigators have very different roles. The inspector's role is to inspect a company or a farm and to ensure that contamination doesn't enter the natural environment. If there is a spill, the inspector ensures that it is stopped and that a cleanup is possible. Inspectors "have a number of tools," he says. They can issue orders to a farmer where there is an adverse effect or the potential for an adverse effect, including issuing a provincial ticket which has a maximum fine attached to it. The inspector's role is to find out as much as possible about the spill. Therefore they will have discussions with the farmer about where and how they spread the manure. That interview "is not designed to charge the farmer," Steele insists. Inspectors and investigators do communicate, he admits, "as long as the lines of communication remain formal" as stated in O'Connor's report. It's the investigation and enforcement branch that lays charges. An investigator should caution a farmer that what he says can be used in court, Steele says.
There has been a working group, a mixture of agricultural group staff and farm leaders working with the government to develop protocols for working with farmers. A plan from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, which sponsored the Nutrient Management Act, is before farm leaders as Better Pork went to press. The nutrient management act isn't dead, but the regulations may not look the same as they did before the winter. "We are working to get the regulations changed, Zekveld says. "There is a proposal before us now.... It is of a confidential nature." He predicts that it will go before the provincial government cabinet shortly.
"I think we've made pretty good headway" in helping the MOE develop protocols but until the first audits and inspections take place I guess you never really know."
Back on the farm near Goderich, Vanden Heuvel's advice on dealing with the MOE is this: "Know your rights. Don't invite (the officer) in for coffee. It may be a stressful day but you have to go through it."BP
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back