Better Pork - June 2005
BEHIND THE LINES
by ROBERT IRWINThere's an old joke about a farmer who was somewhat disappointed that his son followed in his footsteps into agriculture. "He always wanted me to be a middleman," the son explains, repeating that ancient refrain that somewhere between the farmer and the shopper is a guy who is making a lot of money.
Modern livestock operators are more sophisticated than that, of course. Still, when "hook space" is at a premium and export markets are uncertain, many pork producers can't help but carry a deeply felt belief that owning a packing plant would help independent producers to truly forge their own destiny.
In that respect, Progressive Pork Producers is every independent pork producer's dream. With over 150 members and more than 10 per cent of the province's weekly hog slaughter, 3-P, as it is known, is a force to be reckoned with.
We took a look at 3-P for this month's cover story, including some of the co-op's trials and tribulations as it finds itself at odds with another producer-run organization, Ontario Pork. The way that pig marketing is regulated in Ontario, members of 3-P are also members of Ontario Pork. So the politics involved can be fierce.
S. Ernest Sanford has written frequently in these pages about the problems of combatting PRRS. In this issue, he tells us about a new effort to combat the disease on a regional basis and how swine veterinarians, producers and the industry as a whole in Ontario are co-ordinating with other programs across North America. "Co-operation, patience and keeping an eye on the ultimate goal will be the path to success," he writes.
And, on the research front, correspondent Mike Mulhern advises that its developers at the University of Guelph consider the Enviropig ready for market and for regulatory approval, while researchers at the Prairie Swine Centre report their findings that phytase is proving effective in reducing phosphorus excretion by weanlings. All of which can only help the industry's efforts to be environmentally friendly.BP
© copyright 2005AgMedia Inc..
back
Better Pork - June 2005
LETTERS
Why the pork industry lacks glamour
Your April cover story (Swine Apprenticeship Program Stays Grounded) points out some facts that we have known for years. I give Bill Weaver credit for even tackling an apprenticeship program for Ontario's swine workers. Bill is a well-educated, well-spoken, energetic person; if anyone could have made this program fly, it would have been Bill.We have been purebred breeders for many years. My wife Mary and I have seen many younger people enter the business only to end up in financial difficulty and even bankruptcy, heartache and, in some cases, marriage breakups and suicides.
The point of this letter is that it has finally set in, as Richard says, that "the industry lacks glamour." This is very true. My wife and I used to have school tours and I have seen how the children, even before they got off the bus, were holding their noses. In one case, the teacher led by example in holding her nose. This tells us a lot about our education system and the lack of glamour that pork producers have today.
The industry is organized from the wrong end. Instead of pork producers having control of their industry, "corporations" have taken over. Many years ago, a group of us worked very hard to get some form of orderly marketing system for Ontario pork producers. We met with the Hon. Eugene Whelan, incidentally one of the best agriculture ministers Canada has had, and he was supportive.
I believe Lorne Henderson was the agriculture minister for Ontario. There was a vote concerning orderly marketing at the annual meeting of the Ontario pork board that year. The vote was very close, so close in fact that the pork board commissioned a study done by Dr. Gordon Bowman from the University of Guelph. The study, in my opinion, was very biased. A term used by Dr. Bowman in this study was 'totalitarianism versus anarchy." This study became known as the Bowman report.
Lack of foresight and financial returns are the key to the whole problem. To quote Patrick Jileson from the Better Pork story, "why would anyone coming out of high school put in time as a swine apprentice when he or she can get good wages as a plumber or an electrician and expect to earn $15- $20 an hour." He recognizes that it is not the farmer's fault.
The truth is the industry was never very glamorous, but better financial returns would certainly have added some glow.
Jim Field,
Port Dover
What about the rights of farmers?
This morning I was going through your April issue magazine and read Murray Blackie's article on Ministry of Environment (MOE) visits (If MOE Visit You Uninvited this Spring it May Be a Business Call). As a hog farmer, manure management has always been at the forefront. Being a large farmer puts an exclamation mark on manure management for our farm.After reading the article by Mr. Blackie, I was dumbfounded at what he was telling your readers. The article explained the rights of the inspectors and the reduced rights of the investigators that may visit as well. The amazing part of this article, which is aimed at farmers, is that the rights of the farmer are not mentioned at all.
The main statement that "whatever you say or do can be used against you in a court of law" applies the minute an MOE representative steps on to your property. No matter how nice they seem, their job is to find evidence to bring you to court. Mr. Blackie even says: "On the other hand, you can co-operate voluntarily." After being lied to by an MOE investigator about what the purpose of his questions was, I and my staff will no longer "co-operate voluntarily."
It would be great to have both sides of this story printed. To know what the MOE team's rights are is great information but, more importantly, what questions does the farmer have to answer and what doesn't the farmer have to say?
As far as my lawyer told me, all I have to answer is what we were doing on the day in question, but after that I don't have to say a thing. That's my two cents worth. I hope you don't mind a comment or two. Keep up the good work.
Gilbert Vanden Heuvel,
Goderich
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back The Enviropig is ready for market, say its developers
With its potential to reduce phosphorous output, University of Guelph researchers believe this transgenic pig will have enormous market potential. They are now preparing to bring it to the regulatory agenciesby MIKE MULHERN
Cecil Forsberg, a professor in the department of molecular and cellular biology at the University of Guelph, says the Enviropig is ready. "As far as we are concerned, it really doesn't need any additional genetic enhancement," he said.The agencies they will have to convince that the pig is ready for marketing include Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Forsberg says, but there is no time line set for submitting the applications.
The original founder pigs, containing a phytase transgene, were produced in 1999. From a group of 33 founder pigs, the researchers have selected a favoured line, which has a low transgene copy number and no antibiotic resistance factor.
"With the original transgenic plants," Forsberg explains, "there was always an antibiotic resistance factor as part of the transgene. With plants, the mandate now is to produce transgenic plants with the transgene not containing an antibiotic resistance factor."
As a result, he says, they discontinued testing Enviropig lines that contained an antibiotic resistance factor.
The point of the Enviropig is to reduce phosphorous output. "The transgene," Forsberg says, "contains a phytase enzyme to use plant phosphorus more efficiently. To balance the diet of conventional pigs, you have to add supplemental phosphorus to the diet. In this case, one can eliminate supplementary phosphorus from the diet because more of the dietary phosphorus is used by the pig." Less, therefore, gets through into the manure.
Forsberg says the market for the Enviropig should be enormous. "Liberally speaking, all pigs in the world should have this gene introduced for more efficient phosphorus utilization," he says.
To those who oppose the introduction of a transgenic pig into the marketplace, Forsberg says, "I don't have any ethical arguments to disagree with individuals who totally oppose it. The only point I will make that is globally quite significant was raised in the recent Millennium Report by several hundred scientists worldwide (http://www.millenniumassessment.org//en/Brochures.aspx). One of the major global issues they talked about was the high input of phosphorus and nitrogen into the environment arising from agricultural activities. If we keep on going in that way, our global environment will be like a sump hole."
Phosphorous encourages the growth of blue green algae (cyanobacteria) in water, which are dangerous to the atmosphere and the health of animals and humans.
Ontario Pork has been supporting research and development of the Enviropig since 1996. Support also comes from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Natural Sciences and Engineering, the Research Council of Canada and MaRS LANDING (Medical and Related Sciences, Links to Agriculture Network for Development and Innovation with Guelph).
Four University of Guelph faculty members -- Professor John Phillips of the department of molecular and cellular biology and Professors Serguei Golovan, Roger Hackerand Ming Fan of the department of animal and poultry science -- are participating with Forsberg in the research. BP
© copyright 2005AgMedia Inc..
back
PORK, PROCESSING AND POLITICS: 3-P and Ontario Pork try to resolve their differences
Launched 11 years ago so that farmers could market their own pork, Progressive Pork Producers Co-operative has turned into a political force as it searches for its ultimate goal: 'independence' for producers. In doing so, its relations with the pork board have turned "frosty"by DON STONEMAN
Salford farrow-to-finisher John De Bruyn lives and breathes pork. Two years ago, he and his brother Dave culminated five years of attending open houses and voracious reading by building their 700-sow "dream barn" south of Ingersoll.John De Bruyn heads up the local Salford Swine 4-H club, and the 40-year-old's face lights up as he talks about positive results from a new gilt isolation facility that Dave runs to raise breeding replacements. Recently, John finished a term on the pork board's environment committee and he is a councillor for his county's pork association.
John and Dave are also shareholders in Progressive Pork Producers Co-operative, the producer-owned co-op that takes 250-300 hogs a week from their finishing barns and kills them at a plant on the east side of Kitchener. And that is where De Bruyn's loyalty is torn. Ontario Pork, and 3-P, as the co-op is known, don't always get along.
"I'm not happy when the two organizations that represent me are at odds," says De Bruyn matter-of-factly. And how does he define relations between the board of Ontario Pork and the board of 3-P? "I think 'frosty' would be a good term for it now," De Bruyn says.
Launched as a marketing co-op in 1994, 3-P members first sold hogs to the now defunct Thorn Apple Valley plant in Detroit, while members bought a defunct canning factory in London. The goal of owning a plant was finally achieved by purchasing Conestoga Packers, near Kitchener in 2001, with investment from producers and a $2 million loan from the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Council (Canadapt).
The co-op has 155 members. According to 3-P, an average producer markets 4,000-5,000 pigs per year. The investment is $20 per hook space and an average farm's investment is $80-100,000. A farm the size of De Bruyn's may have an investment of $400,000 or more.
3-P Conestoga is the number three packer in Ontario, at capacity killing 13,000 hogs a week, which is between 10 and 13 per cent of the province's hog production. The co-op's original aim was to ship hogs to its own "kill and chill" plant, which would sell carcasses to further processors. But 3-P's goals have changed along the way. Even carcasses and primal cuts are commodities these days and 3-P has eschewed commodity production in favour of value-added marketing, all the while aiming for the brass ring, a branded product.
3-P vice-chair and front man Bob Hunsberger of Breslau, who finishes pigs from 300 sows, explains one of the frustrations of modern agriculture this way. "We buy branded feed, corn seed, genetics and tractors and make a commodity and sell it to a customer, who takes it apart and makes it back into a branded product."
The trouble with commodity pork is that sometimes packers go through hard times, too. Hunsberger has a unique way of explaining this, saying "A pig is worth more alive than dead."
That said, branding is "not an easy thing to do" he concedes. For now at least 3-P is mid-way between producing what Hunsberger calls "value-added" products -- largely boneless hams that are sold in grocery stores under the Piller's and Schneider Foods names. Boneless ham production is something that Conestoga, with its relatively slow line speeds can do better than the processing giants, Hunsberger explains.
Somewhere along this evolutionary path of commodity, value-added and branded pork is where 3-P and the marketing board's interests apparently diverge. All hogs sold from Ontario farms go through Ontario Pork, so all 3-P members are inevitably Ontario Pork members too. The pork board gets its powers from the Farm Products Marketing Act, which Hunsberger says is designed to market commodities. "Clearly we are moving away from being a commodity," Hunsberger asserts.
Political force
The issues where 3-P clashes with Ontario Pork define where the co-op feels it is going.Last year, 3-P joined Cold Springs Farm, Elite Swine, Selves Farms and Synergy Swine Services in fighting the pork board's plan to impose an 80-cent-per-pig levy on all hog sales to counter a potentially crippling countervail and anti-dumping challenge from the United States. They challenged Ontario Pork before the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which ruled in favour of the marketing board in January.
While Hunsberger was careful to differentiate 3-P from the other appellants (he insisted that his photograph be taken separately from the others), it became clear that the marketing co-op had become a political force in the provincial pork industry.
At the same time as this dispute went on, 3-P was challenging Ontario Pork over its authority to approve delivery contracts between processors and producers before farmers sign.
Ontario Pork insists that it have first crack at the "language" in contracts between producers and processors, and it applies that rule to 3-P and its members as well as to contracts between producers and packers such as Maple Leaf Pork.
Hunsberger sees no reason for that. "Having Ontario Pork act as an intermediary on contract language really does not add value," Hunsberger insists.
And then there is the issue of terms of settlement. Ontario Pork owns all hogs marketed in Ontario temporarily, until they are delivered to the packing plant. Ontario Pork is then responsible for assuring that producers are paid.
At the Ontario Pork annual meeting in March, there was a very public discussion about financial issues between Ontario Pork and 3-P, and the fact that while standard terms of settlement call for payment to farmers within three days of delivery of hogs, 3-P was taking eight days to pay its producers (The terms of payment have now been reduced to seven days.)
Neither Ontario Pork chair Larry Skinner nor Hunsberger are particularly happy that the public discussion took place. "I don't think it was appropriate to have that discussion there," Hunsberger says, while giving Skinner credit for attempting to defuse the topic. The issue came to light during a bear pit session when a producer asked about the "significant" increase in accounts receivable at Ontario Pork, he says. When pressed, the pork board's financial officer told the audience that there had been an extension of credit to Conestoga Meat Packers.
The implication that Ontario Pork was giving Conestoga meat packers more credit is incorrect, says Hunsberger, asserting, "It is the 3-P members that are extending the credit, not Ontario Pork." Normal settlement terms call for producers to be paid three days after hogs are delivered. He says 3-P had arranged with Ontario Pork to extend the payment terms and this appears on Ontario Pork's financial accounts as "an offsetting accounts payable."
"Every day that we delay payment to farms puts half a million dollars worth of working capital into the plant," Hunsberger says. "We decided that by delaying paying we could raise working capital." Members "agreed to take the risk," Hunsberger says, citing a waiver which Ontario Pork insisted 3-P members sign to the effect that Ontario Pork will not be responsible for payment beyond the normal terms in case there is a financial failure. "It has no implications for Ontario Pork and for non-member (producers) in the province," Hunsberger insists.
Temporary arrangement
Better Pork asked Ontario Pork's chairman, Larry Skinner, how he feels about this explanation of the extended terms of credit that 3-P Conestoga uses. "It's an accurate reflection of what I have heard Bob say before," Skinner says, emphasizing that the extended settlement term was "viewed and set up as a temporary arrangement. Ontario Pork does not view it as standing policy on credit terms."Are there implications for producers other than 3-P members? They are indirect, says Skinner. There are principles at stake, Skinner says. "How do we deal with that if there are other requests of a similar nature? We do consider Ontario Pork to be responsible for oversight of credit terms and payment to producers." In fact, when a packer failed several years ago Ontario Pork made good on the outstanding payments to farmers from its operational budget.
"The request (for extension of credit) came to us for a specific purpose," Skinner says. "If the company is now considering it or portraying it as something more general or more universal, that is not consistent with the original request."
At least one 3-P member, who declined to be identified for this story, says the extension of credit makes him and his lender uncomfortable. The extension of credit began in July and was supposed to last only until October, but it remains in effect at this writing. Then there is the issue of general exemptions for 3-P from the marketing system.
Lambton Pork Producers Association submitted the following resolution to be voted on at the Ontario Pork annual meeting:
"Whereas 3-P does not fit into the current marketing system, therefore be it resolved that Ontario Pork exempt 3-P from its current marketing authority and put legislation in place that would reflect its current ownership."
Better Pork asked Hunsberger about the origins of this resolution. He told us that the differences between 3-P Conestoga and other packers had been widely discussed with the membership over the winter, and there are "quite a number of 3-P members in Lambton County." Hunsberger says 3-P members don't need to be represented by Ontario Pork when they ship hogs to their own plant.
"We don't really buy pigs," Hunsberger insists. "All the pigs are supplied by the membership. Pricing is based on the meat markets, he adds, "not on the live hog markets."
Most Ontario producers are paid a base price which reflects hog prices in the United States converted to Canadian dollars, plus factors for dressed meat and some type of premium for quality. The 3-P price looks to the meat market as opposed to the hog market in the United States.
"Pricing off the wholesale market is innovative, but it's not as if it hasn't been done before," says Patrick O'Neil, Ontario Pork's sales team manager. Other packers have tried this as well. The wholesale price tends to be steadier than the hog market throughout the year in the United States.
The contentious resolution was withdrawn from the pork board convention after some second thoughts. "After some discussion, we (3-P) thought it was probably best not to debate that on the floor at this time, because it wouldn't be productive," Hunsberger says. "It could have become a heated debate and it would not have moved us forward. We talked to the Lambton County guys and asked them to withdraw it and they did."
At the politically charged Ontario Pork convention, a reporter saw Oxford County's De Bruyn working the rooms and corridors putting out political fires when the controversy over 3-P got hot. But, characteristically, De Bruyn says that he "didn't do much."
Hunsberger says he wants to downplay the conflict. "We are working with Ontario Pork to find ways to accommodate our needs and their needs at the same time, and we hope to be able to come to an acceptable resolution of any issues that we have with Ontario Pork in a logical and businesslike fashion."
Support for $2 million loan
For his part, Skinner wants to make it clear that the pork board does not want to see 3-P fail, and in fact has been working to help 3-P improve its position.Better Pork asked the board in what way it helps 3-P, if at all. Ontario Pork replied that its letters of support helped 3-P to secure its $2 million loan from the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Council in 2001. Canadapt was replaced last year by the Agricultural Adaptation Council. Terry Thompson, its operation and finance manager, says the loan to 3-P is still in place and in good standing.
All packers are helped by Ontario Pork scheduling hog deliveries so that they get pigs on time, including arranging for trucks to fill gaps in the delivery line if there is a breakdown on the highway. 3-P is among the packers who have been provided with software that automates hog tracking, grading and manifesting hogs and which captures financial data.
3-P was among the packers that benefited when the grade index for ridgling pigs was changed to 40 from 67, as packers requested, so that the packers don't have to pay as much for them. (Ridglings are males with undescended testicles and may produce tainted meat.)
Ontario Pork also negotiated a $50 ante-mortem condemned fee for live animals that are delivered to the plant and deemed unfit for human consumption by Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors. This keeps costs down for processors, who have faced considerably higher rendering fees since the BSE crisis, says Lillian Schaerer, Ontario Pork's communications specialist.
Ontario Pork also says it does some things specifically for 3-P. The co-op asked that all truckers delivering hogs to its plant be CQA certified and Ontario Pork saw to this. A special training program in pig handling techniques was put on for the barn staff. Ironically, Ontario Pork even brings out its barbecue units to cook for 3-P's employee appreciation day.
Back on the farm near Salford, De Bruyn sees the benefits of both points of view to his business, which supports his brother and his family, himself, his wife Debbie, and four children. He hopes that there is some middle ground and that the issue of terms of settlement can soon be resolved.
He supported Ontario Pork's position of having all hog producers fund the defense against the countervail and anti-dumping challenge. If the U.S. International Trade Tribunal had ruled against Canada, then perhaps his opinion about who should pay the tariffs in order to export pigs might have changed.
And he certainly appreciates the political actions of 3-P in defending his business interests. "I wish that 3-P didn't need to be as political as they are now," he says. The two boards have different mandates. "Maybe there will never be a time when they are completely amicable," he muses. And he wonders if differences between Ontario Pork and its other customers, Maple Leaf and Quality Meat Packers, are ever fully resolved.
As this story was being completed, Hunsberger downplayed the conflict with Ontario Pork. "3-P believes that there needs to be some changes in the way hogs are marketed through Ontario Pork and that change often involves some confrontation and some struggle. We are committed to supporting a valuable and important role for Ontario Pork," he says.
Nor does he think that the Ontario Pork service fee needs to be eliminated. "We are happy to pay the $1.75 Ontario Pork service fee. Ultimately, we think it is a good idea to go to a fee-for-service type arrangement. We have not argued with Ontario Pork or even really discussed eliminating the $1.75 fee."
Ultimately, of course, politics and business come together in the Ontario Pork boardroom. There are 14 directors on the Ontario Pork board, including the chair and vice-chair. Three directors are also 3-P members. Pork board chairman Skinner says that the politically charged situation of 3-P members declaring a conflict of interest and leaving the boardroom when 3-P was discussed has recently been resolved. BP
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back Think like a pig when it comes to farrowing crate design!
Preweaning mortalities are still too high. To reduce them, we need to think what the pig can use best rather than what suits us
by RICHARD SMELSKI
There was a little tribe in Africa, where the natives were dying prematurely. Scientists were sent into the tribe and determined that a little insect bite was creating their premature death. They further outlined the alternatives:
Guess what the outcome was. You are right -- do nothing!
- Spray the little adobe homes to get rid of the insects.
- Relocate.
- Take the homes down and rebuild.
- Do nothing.
In the pig business, we have the same dilemma with preweaning mortalities. Preweaning mortalities of 10-15 per cent have to be improved upon. No industry can sustain such waste. Besides, if mortality were reduced by half, this would create a tremendous competitive advantage. And for those that say this will create a surplus of pigs, convince them to do nothing, while you change.
We know that five per cent preweaning mortality is possible. We know that 75 per cent of the prewean mortality occurs in the first 48 hours and we know that the major cause is lay-ons. We know there are many factors that can reduce mortality -- bulb management, colostrum management, birth weight, genetics, design, and so on. We also know that the width of the crate is important and that wider is better. But reducing preweaning mortality is still beyond any current good management practice.
First, we need to establish what is a realistic goal. Reports from South America show that five per cent mortality is possible only on large-scale farms. Right now, you are having a conniption because their labour is so cheap and abundant, and they can afford to tend sows around the clock. Typically, we have been able to compete with capital and innovation instead of labour, but we cannot compete with complacency or lack of creativity.
I believe our farrowing crate design guarantees preweaning mortality. Crushing is proportional to the amount of time the piglet spends under its mother. If mother lies down 22 times per day, the chances are just too high for lay-ons in our current farrowing crate designs. This little piglet has the same chance of getting out of the way, as you would have of getting ready for supper next to a falling 60-foot silo, 22 times per day, as the dinner bell is ringing for supper, with nine buddies and you are unaware of the fall.
I do not believe the sow was designed to crush piglets. Remember the sow that got away and came back from the backfield with 10 piglets. What nest did she design? If I gave you a design, your first response would be that it doesn't work, and you would have your mind made up even before you heard the details of the design.
Because of the tremendous investment in farrowing crates, there is little creative effort is invested in doing otherwise. We need to get right out of the farrowing crate paradigm and think what the sow can use best rather than what we want. Think pig!
My guess is that the best result will come from farrowing nests, but with a unique design. For the remainder, the option is do nothing, as the little tribe in Africa did. BP
Richard Smelski is general manager of Ontario Swine Improvement Inc. and a former Ontario government swine specialist.
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back Timely tips on saving on feed and water and increasing performance
Improper feeder design can lead to increased spillage. Likewise, water waste can be cut if the nipple drinker is properly and the flow rate is reducedby SAM BRADSHAW
One of the topics at a feeding strategy workshop I attended in Moncton, N.B., in February dealt with feeding and watering strategies to improve your bottom line while reducing environmental concerns.Dr. Harold Gonyou of the Prairie Swine Centre in Saskatoon talked first about designing a feeding system to maximize feed conversion efficiency and he came up with some very interesting ideas.
He explained that a meal is a period when a pig is focused on eating. The pig may enter and exit a feeder several times during a meal but is never absent for long. In general, if a pig is out of the feeder for more than 10 minutes, or lies down, the meal is ended.
A pig eats between 10 and 20 meals a day. The number of meals per day decreases with the age of the pig. A weanling eats about 15 meals per day, while a market-ready pig would eat only 10 meals per day. The number of meals also decreases with number of pigs per feeding space -- 20 meals a day for one pig per feeding space and about 10 meals per day for pigs in groups of 20 per feeding space.
Pigs will also eat more meals per day with longer periods of light -- 10 meals a day with eight hours of light and 16 a day with continuous light. Smaller pigs also eat more slowly than larger pigs. A 25-kilogram pig might eat for 100 minutes per day, while a 70-kilo pig would eat for 60 minutes per day.
So what does this all mean? Crowding around a feeder has a larger effect early in a pig's life cycle and less as it grows older.
In one study done by the Prairie Swine Centre, the duration of eating mash feed was drastically reduced with wet/dry feeders. Pigs took 104 minutes a day to eat at the dry feeders and 86 minutes a day at the wet/dry feeders. In this study, the average daily feed intake was 2.66 kilograms for the dry and 2.82 kilos for the wet/dry feeders. Average daily gain was 873 grams on the dry feeders and 917 on the wet/dry feeders.
The wet/dry feeders in this test resulted in a five per cent increased feed intake, five per cent increased weight gain, 40 per cent less water used and 20 per cent more pigs on a feeder.
Another researcher noted that there wasn't much difference in gain when using either mash and/or pellets in a wet/dry feeder. Pigs gained about 900 grams a day, but this dropped to 870 grams a day on dry pellets and 790 on dry mash. Pigs on wet/dry feeders ate 20 per cent faster than those on dry meal feed.
Carrying capacity of feeders varied widely. Figure 1 indicates what width of feeder per hog is required.
Figure 1 Weight (kg) Width (cm) Width (in) 55 25.5 10.2 70 27.7 11.1 100 31.1 12.4 110 32.2 12.9 120 33.1 13.2 Figure 2 indicates how many pigs can use one feeding space if given different feeds and feeders.
Figure 2 Feeder and
feed typeEating time
min/dayEstimated
stocking
rateDry - mash 106 13 Dry - pellet 59 24 Wet/dry - mash 68 21 Wet/dry pellet 60 24 To calculate your carrying capacity, determine the number of feeding spaces and the total duration of eating with standard stocking (for example, 12 pigs per space).Estimate the number of pigs that would keep the feeder busy the entire day, and reduce this by one or two as a safety factor.
Reducing feed waste. Earlier ideas tried to minimize waste by restricting access to feed by closing the gap and causing a slower eating speed. The current approach is to minimize waste by improving trough design and thus facilitating eating. We were surprised to hear Dr. Gonyou explain that most feeders do not go through rigorous testing.
Spillage from commercial feeders ranged from two to 5.8 per cent. It was interesting that smaller, 40-kilogram pigs averaged 4.4 per cent spillage and larger, 80-kilogram pigs averaged 2.4 per cent. Feed spillage occurs when pigs back out of the feeder, fight, root, and eat.
If the lip of the feeder is not designed properly, 25-kilograms pigs cannot use the first 10 centimetres of the feeder and 95-kilogram ones cannot use the first 20 centimetres without standing on their heads. If the feeder is too deep, smaller pigs have to step into the feeder to reach more than 20 centimetres, while larger pigs would have to step in to reach over 32 centimetres.
Recommended feeder dimension areas are represented in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Pig size Feeder depth Feeder width Finisher only (60-110 kg) 30-35 cm 35-40 cm Grow/finish (25-110 kg) 25-30 cm 32 cm Wean to finish (8-110 kg) 25-30 cm 32 cm Drinking behaviour. Eighty per cent of drinking is associated with a meal. Waste occurs when the pig's mouth does not completely cover the nipple. A surprising amount of water is wasted when pigs brush the nipple as in Figure 4
Figure 4 Drinker types Amount of waste Nipple 25- 40% Swing nipple 20% Recessed bowl Minimal Wet/dry feeder Minimal Straw drinker Minimal Also, finisher pigs wasted 33 per cent of their water when the flow rate was one litre per minute, but only 25 per cent when flow rate was reduced to half a litre per minute. When a nipple drinker was adjusted to about five centimetres above the pigs shoulder, finisher pigs wasted 17 per cent. When left unadjusted, waste was almost 40 per cent.
Wasted water must be stored and pumped. For example, on average, we can save about one litre per pig per day by adjusting water nipple height. For a 1,000-head finishing barn, this would save about 240,000 liters (53,333 gallons) in eight months. BP
Sam Bradshaw is environmental specialist with Ontario Pork
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back