Better Pork - June 2005The battle to tame the PRRS Virus shifts to the regional level
Despite successes in controlling PRRS in individual herds it has a nasty habit of popping up again. Now programs across North America are targeting it on a regional front and are counting on the co-operation and commitment of producers in trying to beat it once and for allby S. ERNEST SANFORD
Believe it or not, PRRS has been with us for 18 years now. Though we didn't call it PRRS then, I diagnosed my first PRRS cases in the summer and fall of 1987. Now, two decades later, very direct and protracted programs being are being implemented to conquer this forever challenging scourge.That's not to say that we haven't been attempting to do exactly that over the last many years, but the PRRS virus seems to have bedeviled each and every effort to tame it so far. Programs in Quebec, in Rice County, Minn., and other parts of the United States and in Sonora, Mexico, have spearheaded these new efforts so far. Swine veterinarians, producers and the entire swine industry have now started a similar program here in Ontario and are co-ordinating with other programs already in existence in the rest of North America.
Even though PRRS continues to frustrate our attempts to control it, we have gained immense knowledge about the PRRS virus, its biology, behaviour and epidemiology since it was first isolated back in 1991. We knew early on that pigs and semen were major factors in spreading of the virus. More recently, we learned that needles, insects and trucks were other ways that it could be transmitted. A big unknown that remains, however, is the source of "area spread" (suspected to be by "aerosol transmission") which occurs frequently in pig-dense areas without the help of any of the aforementioned means.
By the end of the 1990s, we had developed the technology, tools and knowledge to eradicate PRRS from herds. That led to heady days of eradication of PRRS from large numbers of American herds at the turn of the century and into the first few years of this millennium. These early eradications were, however, met with huge disappointments when, one after the other, most of these herds suffered new outbreaks of PRRS, sometimes just a few months after successful eradication. These early eradication efforts were done on individual herds in pig-dense areas. A new approach was obviously necessary.
Thus was born the move to a more cautious and measured approach. It became clear that control and eradication efforts had to be targeted on a regional front rather than on an individual herd basis. Furthermore, it was more rational to start with areas of relatively low pig density and low PRRS infections. Plans were then formulated along the following lines:
Thus the Rice County regional PRRS prevalence and control program was born in Minnesota. This area was chosen because of its natural geographic borders, low pig density and presumed low PRRS viral activity in herds. All swine farms were identified by type (farrowing, nursery, finishing) and PRRS infection status. Of 49 swine herds in Rice County, 44 of the owners agreed to participate and it is expected that 47 will be on board by the end of 2005.
- Select a defined geographical region.
- Start with an area of low pig density and with a relatively low prevalence of PRRS virus infections.
- Get a buy-in from all pork producers in the defined area.
- Map PRRS distribution using geographical information systems (GIS).
The first phase involved identifying and sequencing all PRRS viruses from each herd in that region. The next step moves into determining what the risk factors are for infection in each herd and what are the best control strategies for the entire region. This will then lead into an evaluation of a voluntary area-based PRRS control and eradication program.
In Quebec, a smaller program got started about five years ago. Here, PRRS viruses taken from outbreaks in herds owned by a few integrated pig companies were sequenced and GIS maps used to determine the relationships of herds to viruses and the location of different strains of viruses within the province, and also to make projections into how they were being spread from herd to herd. This program has now been expanded into a much more robust one involving the entire province. It includes more intensive herd investigations, epidemiological surveys of individual producer's herds; interconnections between surrounding farms and links to transport vehicles and suppliers.
As for the state of Sonora, Mexico, it has several features that make it a suitable candidate for regional PRRS control and eradication. These include:
Serological profiling of all herds (farrowing, nursery, finishing), and identification and sequencing of PRRS viruses from each herd are ongoing. Geographical positioning system (GPS) maps will be used to plot and understand the movement of the PRRS virus. The PRRS status of each herd will be combined with the GPS information to create clusters of herds that will be targeted for control and eradication within the region. These clusters will then be expanded to merge with neighbouring ones and thus cover the entire region.
- A well defined and isolated geographical region;
- A desert climate hostile to the survival of the PRRS virus;
- Large herds, integrated production and well organized producers;
- Control of pig movement because the region is hog cholera and pseudorabies free.
In Ontario, a PRRS surveillance program has been started with aims and objectives similar to those in other regions of North America. The objectives of this program are to:
The final goal of these various programs is the control and eventual eradication of PRRS. For several years now, we have had the technology and know-how to do this. These techniques have been successfully used to rid hundreds of individual herds of it. However, when done on an individual herd basis, new outbreaks occur in most of these herds in pig dense areas.
- Sequence all PRRS viruses from PRRS clinical cases;
- Compare genetic sequences of PRRS viruses in Ontario with those from other regions in North America;
- Identify how the PRRS virus is being spread, using GPS, relatedness of viruses, pig flow, breeding stock and semen sources, transport vehicles, and the like;
- Develop methods to control the spread of PRRS among herds in Ontario in the first phase, and ultimately eradicate the virus.
The goal has now shifted to a more co-ordinated approach targeting an entire region. It is obvious that the ongoing co-operation of all pork producers in the defined areas will be essential for these projects to succeed. Human nature being what it is, one can expect fluctuations in commitment over time, with periods of high motivation interspersed with loss of enthusiasm. Co-operation, patience and keeping an eye on the ultimate goal will be the path to success in this endeavour. BP
S. Ernest Sanford, DVM, Dip. Path., Diplomate ACVP, is a swine specialist with Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica (Canada) in Burlington. esanford@bur.boehringer-ingelheim.com
© copyright 2005AgMedia Inc..
back Phytase proves effective in reducing phosphorus excretion by weanlings
Experiments showed that the addition of phytase enzyme to the diet of weanling pigs decreased total and water-soluble P output in the manure. This effect was reduced when dietary calcium was high. Phytase had only modest effects on performance.by DENISE BEAULIEU, JOHN PATIENCE and MIKE BEDFORD
Excessive phosphorus (P) output in manure is a concern because it can leach into groundwater and may limit manure application on certain lands. However, extensive research has documented the efficacy of phytase in improving the digestibility of phosphorus in cereal grains. As a result, its use in pig diets is rapidly increasing. This, in turn, allows diets to be formulated with less total P (tP), resulting in decreased P output in the manure and potentially reducing feed costs.It is well known that when diets are formulated with less total P, the dietary calcium:P ratio (Ca:P) becomes extremely important in maximizing the utilization of P. As the industry moves to diets with little or no excess P, and the use of phytase grows, the need to clarify the Ca:P ratio also increases.
It has been suggested that the environmental benefit of reduced phosphorus output in manure is partially dependent upon the solubility of the excreted P. If the use of phytase results in a greater proportion of the P excreted being water soluble, then the environmental benefits may be reduced.
We set out to examine the effect of the dietary Ca:P ratio on phytase efficacy and to determine the effect of the phytase enzyme on the amount and form of the excreted P. Our objectives were achieved through a series of experiments. All the experiments used weanling pigs fed diets based on corn, soymeal and barley. Dicalcium phosphate was added to achieve different concentrations of total P in the diets. Additionally, the diets were supplemented with the phytase enzyme in various amounts. Typically, 500 units per kuilogram is the recommended addition level. The first two diets -- 0 (0.15) and 250 (0.22) -- were assumed to be deficient in available P for pigs of this age.
In a second experiment, diets were formulated to contain 0.56, 0.86 or 1.18 per cent Ca and about 0.50 per cent P. The Ca:P ratios were therefore approximately 1.1, 1.7, or 2.3. Either 0 or 500 units of phytase per kilogram were added to each diet for a total of six treatments.
In experiment 1, there was a modest improvement in growth rate with the added phytase. Phytase had no effect on feed intake and therefore feed efficiency improved. Total excreted P ranged from about four grams per pig per day when dicalcium phosphate was added to the diet -- 0(0.31) treatment -- to 2.1 grams per pig per day when the diet contained no added dicalcium phosphate and 1,000 units per kilogram of phytase enzyme -1,000(0.43) treatment.
Additionally, the P excreted as soluble inorganic (hatched bars) ranged from 75 to 80 per cent of total P and was not affected by treatment. Therefore, the pattern of excretion of the soluble inorganic P was similar to total P - that is, it decreased with the addition of phytase.
The beneficial effect of phytase on the excretion of total and soluble P was repeated in experiment 2. Moreover, this experiment demonstrated that the effect of phytase is mitigated when the dietary Ca:tP ratio exceeds 1.7:1.
Thus, we can see that the addition of phytase enzyme to the diet of weanling pigs resulted in approximately 1.4 grams per day per pig less P excreted compared to the same diet with the phosphorus provided from an inorganic source (dicalcium phosphorus). The effectiveness of phytase is reduced at Ca:P ratios above 1.7. We saw no effect of phytase on the proportion of P excreted that was water soluble. Phytase, therefore, allows us to formulate diets containing less total P and effectively reduces the excretion of total and soluble P.
Strategic funding for these experiments was provided by Sask Pork, Alberta Pork, Manitoba Pork and the Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food Development Fund. Project funding from Zymetrics Inc. was greatly appreciated. BP
Denise Beaulieu and John Patience are researchers with Prairie Swine Centre, Inc. Mike Bedford is a researcher with 2Zymetrics, Wiltshire, UK. This work received the 2004 National Pork Board Research Award.
© copyright 2005AgMedia Inc..
back Livestock Issues Resource Centre - a national resource for Canada's pork producers
Database addresses a wide range of needsby PRAIRIE SWINE CENTRE STAFF
Our mission is to be the primary industry reference on environmental and welfare issues, energy efficiency and general production efficiency research for the Canadian pork industry.Knowledge on key issues facing the livestock industry is being produced and disseminated around the world with increasing volume and speed. And yet the ability for industry or governments to access this information has not kept pace. Getting to the information just got easier thanks to an on-line database.
The Livestock Issues Resource Centre provides easy access to reliable information on topics of interest to Canada's pork producers. The on-line database holds thousands of summaries of practical, applied research information in the areas of environment, animal welfare, energy efficiency and production research. Here for example you can find answers to questions as diverse as "What do we know about odour management?" through to "How can I reduce the energy costs of operating my ventilation system?"
The information is located on the Prairie Swine Centre Web site (www.prairieswine.ca) and can be accessed through the key words search function. The search locates matches in our information database and provides a series of links to the summarized documents. Select the document titles you think best address your interests and click to get a summary of the research report. The database documents are short and to the point, typically 500-1,500 words that let you know what the researcher found and how applicable it may be to the Canadian production system. More detailed reports, newsletters and publications are online and can be downloaded. In the event that the information cannot be posted in its entirety for copyright reasons, you can contact the original author or the Prairie Swine Centre for a hardcopy.
The Livestock Issues Resource Centre is managed by Prairie Swine Centre with funding support provided by Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, Ontario Pork, Manitoba Pork, Sask Pork, Alberta Pork, Alberta Farm Animal Council, Farm Animal Council Saskatchewan and Ontario Farm Animal Council. BP
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back How is energy deregulation affecting your power bill?
In order to control your electricity charges, power use needs to be managed. Make sure you how your electricity is billed and consider an energy audit to determine how you are using itby RON MACDONALD
Ontario's electricity market was deregulated on May 1, 2002. Deregulation did not affect the regulatory component of the electricity industry -- in fact, electricity retailers in Ontario are faced with more regulations than ever. The market structure; however, has changed.Under the old system, Ontario Hydro was almost the exclusive supplier and retailer of electricity to farm customers in Ontario. The amount of energy used was billed at a fixed rate per kWh and this rate included such other costs as generation, transmission and billing.
Under the deregulated system, the only charge that is deregulated is the energy or kWh charge. All other costs are regulated and priced separately, based on consumption and local delivery costs, and are added to the monthly bill.
Electricity energy costs are highly dependent on the demand for power. Figure 1 shows that demand is lowest when temperatures hover around 10 oC. As temperatures drop, the demand for electric heat increases. Conversely, warmer temperatures raise the demand for air conditioning. In general, demand for electricity is much greater in hot weather than cold weather.
How has deregulation affected most Ontario farms?
Electricity comes into the farm from the road to a pole on which a transformer is located. The "hydro meter" is usually located on this pole. From this pole, the service may feed to a generator/utility room or directly to different areas of the farm. The service to the farm can be either single-phase or three-phase.
- Electricity rates fluctuate. Peak summer and winter temperatures result in peak pricing, while cooler fall and spring conditions bring lower electricity prices.
- Billing is more confusing than before. Instead of the basic kWh (energy) or kW (demand) charge, there are kWh and kW charges for transmission, distribution and fees associated with the privatization of Ontario's electricity system.
- Most farms and businesses will get an "Interval meter" that will provide hour-by-hour billing based on the spot price. This meter will gather information on lows and highs, load profiles, demand and power factors. At present, it is unknown how all the data will be collected by dedicated phone line and made available to the end user.
- Farms can choose their electricity supplier, opting to buy from a retailer on a "fixed term and price contract" or to remain with the "Default" supplier (Hydro One).
Three-phase power is common on farms with large electrical loads. Three- phase motors are much simpler than single-phase presumably, with fewer moving parts and thus much more reliable. They are also usually are more efficient and the larger the motor, the more efficient they become. These motors start more easily, even under load, reduce surges on the line (which reduces problems with voltage sensitive electronics such as controllers) and cost less on a $/hp basis.
However, three-phase power is not suitable for all farms due to a number of barriers:
First, if they only run for short periods every day, there will be little saved in operating costs. For example, a 10 hp motor running for one hour every day to unload corn will cost about $0.80 a day in electricity costs. An energy-efficient three- phase motor would reduce this to $0.60 a day, giving savings of $73 a year.
- It is very expensive to bring into the farm. Since you have to pay from the road to the farmyard, costs can escalate to four times that of single-phase.
- If three-phase is not out at the road, then new road lines must be erected, meaning higher and stronger poles, transformers and wire, which is prohibitively expensive.
- It is more dangerous to work with. Many electricians will not work on three-phase, and certainly many producers used to doing their own repairs and minor installations should think twice before tackling three-phase.
- For most farm operations (swine, poultry, dairy), many of the motors are "fractional" (less than one horsepower). Three-phase motors are generally not available for these smaller loads.
- A number of single-phase loads such as block heaters, computers and power tools are present on most farms. A transformer is required to convert from three- to single-phase power for these loads. This is another expense and a component that requires maintenance and replacement. It also wastes energy.
- Many livestock and poultry farms may have large electrical motors (five to 500 hp), for unloading silos, manure handling and feed processing. However, it is worth evaluating whether converting the entire farm to three-phase is justified for one or two motors.
Second, there are other methods of reducing the problems from having one or two large motors on single-phase You ca install an invertor to change single- to three-phase for these limited loads or install a "Written PoleTM" motor on the large loads, eliminating start-up current and voltage sags. You can ensure that the motor used is correctly sized and the correct type for the application and use load management to make sure critical components and other larger motor loads (washers, dryers, and any other non-critical loads) are not running. And you can ensure that the electrical load is balanced on both legs of the single-phase panel.
The service also will have an amperage and voltage rating. The amperage ratings range from 200, 400, 600 amps and so on. Examples of the service voltage are 240 V single-phase, 208 or 550 V three-phase.
Billing Types
All farms in Ontario are billed on energy (kWh). Farms with demand in excess of 50 kW are billed on demand (kW) as well. Energy or kWh (kilo-watt-hour) is the "fuel" that powers the lights and motors and is equivalent to the amount of water flowing through a pipe for one hour.
Demand or kW (kilo-watt) is the measurement of the peak flow of electricity into a farm at any given time. For example, if all exhaust fans, feed mill motors and lights are on, the demand will be much higher than in the middle of the night when just a fan or two are running. Demand is equivalent to the diameter of the water pipe. The diameter of the pipe is based on the maximum amount of water required at a single point in time.
Farms with 400-amp or larger services will have monthly demand charges. This demand charge refers to the largest total load that occurred on the farm during the month. This peak load might occur when one motor comes on or when a combination of motors is running simultaneously. Other less common types of billing include time of use and peak demand.
1) Time of use. Electricity is most valuable when the demand is highest, usually on really hot days when air conditioners come on in addition to the existing load. On these days, the ability of the utilities to supply all the energy (kWh) decreases and they have to buy it on the spot market. Under time of use billing, the customer is billed according to the actual cost of electricity at given points in time. This means that the cost of electricity can vary from day to day or even in as little as 15 minute increments. On some farms, it may be possible to do some processes such as feed grinding and preparation at off peak periods.
2) Peak Demand. The peak demand is paid on the kW portion of the power supply. Utilities have certain times of the day when demand is at its peak. Customers on peak demand billing will be charged for power used during those peak periods. Alternatively, suppliers will give price breaks for power used during off-peak periods. Being able to co-ordinate farm peaks with electric supplier valleys can save a large amount of money.
Under these billing formats, farms that have a peak use coinciding with the peak demand and/or energy time periods will see the cost of power skyrocket. In order to control the electricity bill, electricity use needs to be managed, which means you must know where and when it is being used.
A farm energy audit may reveal potential for savings.
Figure 1 (Currently unavailable) shows the combined loads in a farrow-finish barn and feed room during the morning. Note the rise and fall in energy requirements for each area and their impact on the total load. There are three distinct peaks on the total load. The third one is the most interesting. The feed room is on and coincides with the highest peak in the barn, creating an overall maximum that approaches 35,000 W (or 35 kW). If the producer had deferred running the feed mill for about one hour when the barn energy requirements were lower, the peak would only have been about 28 kW.
There are other options for managing the load. Instead of performing all feed mix tasks, ask yourself whether they can be broken down into smaller loads over a longer time period. Can the loads be placed on a timer and be done in the early morning or late evening?
Knowing the load profile allows it to be compared to the retailer's electricity profile, which enables you to decide what equipment is to be used and when. Altering the load profile can have a large impact on the final billing.
Several retailers sell electricity to farms in Ontario. Each retailer's bill presents the information differently. The primary electricity supplier to rural Ontario is Hydro One. The following Hydro One website has more details on billing. However, the next article will be on this topic as well.
http://www.hydroonenetworks.com/en/customers/farm/bill_explained_kWhandkW/#zc1 BP
Ron MacDonald, P.Eng., is an agricultural engineer with Agviro Inc. in Guelph.
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back The multiple benefits biotechnology holds for pork production
The different applications of biotechnology offer better productivity, disease reduction and animal welfare, while at the same time benefiting human health and the environmentby Jim Dalrymple
Biotechnology, biodiversity and bioproductivity are all terms being tossed about in agriculture and pork production circles these days.In the pork industry, biotechnology is being used to improve production efficiency, enhance pork quality, increase disease resistance and sustain the environment for future generations.
Biotechnology is the application of science and engineering in the direct or indirect use of living organisms or parts or products of living organisms in their natural or modified form. This definition encompasses organisms developed through traditional breeding methods and newer technologies such as genetic engineering.
Reproductive technologies. This is the area of biotechnology most widely used in pig production. Artificial insemination, using liquid and frozen semen, embryo transfer and embryo manipulation, has benefited the industry through genetic improvement and disease prevention. Furthermore, the fact that several thousand fewer boars are needed means less feed and water used, less waste produced, less problems with marketing, both from the standpoint of animal welfare and pork quality, and likely fewer injuries on Ontario farms.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with the input of other federal departments and the pork industry, have been assessing any animal health risks and food safety risks that may occur from emerging technologies.
Transgenics. Transgenics is the introduction of genetic material from one organism into another. More than 70 studies have been conducted recently on transgenic pigs, most of them falling into one of four categories -- generation of transgenic pigs as potential organ donors for humans; transgenic pigs as bioreactors for production of therapeutic proteins in milk; transgenic pigs that improve growth rate and efficiency; and transgenic modified pigs that improve disease resistance.
Modern science is conducting research on zenotransplants of pig organs into human recipients. Organ rejection problems are being addressed, and these transplants could have a significant impact on health costs in the future.
Cloning. Cloning is the production of offspring that are genetically identical to the single parent organism and has implications both for human health and agriculture. As with traditional breeding methods, genetically superior animals can be selected by cloning, offering the opportunity to produce exact copies without diluting the desired genetic traits.
Genomics. Many new technologies in genomics -- the study of DNA sequence, structure and function -- make it possible to identify genes, their effects, and either enhance or suppress their expression. Gene research, for example, is attempting to isolate the gene related to influenza virus infection. These and other studies on diseases are very beneficial to both producers and consumers. Work is also underway on "immunocrastration,' the development of a vaccine to eliminate the need for surgical castration.
The Animal Biotechnology Unit (ABU) of the CFIA's Animal Health and Production Division is responsible for establishing animal health standards and augmenting regulatory controls for the development of biotechnology-derived animals. Its mandate is to evaluate the reproductive technologies used in livestock production with a focus on animal health and welfare. It also works with other government agencies to develop and implement risk-based regulatory controls for the assessment and control of biotechnology-derived animals. Consultations with all segments of agriculture and the general public have been underway for several years.
Through the years, pigs have provided more than just food. Nearly 40 pharmaceuticals and other products benefiting human health are derived from porcine tissues, including hormones, enzymes, heart valves and skin. "Pharming" of pigs will continue due to their similarities to humans. The need for organ transplants will escalate, as will the need for sources other than human donors.
Work on the "Enviropig,' a pig requiring less phosphorus in the diet, is continuing in Ontario. This pig will enable the pork industry to reduce the amount of phosphates in feeds, reduce the amount of phosphates excreted in manure, give the industry the opportunity to export significant numbers of breeding stock and lead to less environmental concerns from pork production.
Science is making enormous strides in adding to our understanding of the pig, its value and quality as a food source and in new product development.
Biotechnology continues to offer new genetic technologies for improving pork production and disease resistance, as well as new technologies that can benefit human health and the environment.BP
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back Ministry seeks to apply "science" to controversial setback rules
Rules limiting the application of manure near surface water are proving a sore point with farmers. A group of scientists reviewing the literature on the subject are expected to report shortlyby DON STONEMAN
The provincial ministry of agriculture and food is applying a measure of science to one of the more controversial aspects of the Nutrient Management Act that affects swine operations.In late May, a group of scientists commissioned by the agriculture ministry was to report on the suitability of some controversial rules mandated under the Nutrient Management Act -- the setback rules that dictate how close farmers can apply liquid manure to fields near to surface water such as rivers and streams.
The act includes some specific rules on manure applications that have farmers pulling their hair out and the setback from surface water is a particular sore point. Chris Attema, water quality specialist for livestock groups in Ontario, offers an example.
The rules require that there be a mandated vegetative "buffer zone" of 10 feet that must separate cultivated fields from surface water, such as a river or stream. Attema says farmers don't argue with the desirability of such a buffer zone. The controversy is attached to the adjacent strip of cropped land where liquid manure cannot be applied. This "setback" zone could be as narrow as 10 feet, or as wide as 100 feet, depending upon soil type and degree of slope, says Attema. Since the Act defines surface water as any body of water where water-loving plants grow, the setback rule applies to any ditch with bulrushes, even to municipal drains.
Attema cites the case of a field characterized by "a silty-loam soil with a modest slope," where a setback of 45 feet from the watercourse would be mandated. While liquid manure can't be spread in the setback area, use of commercial fertilizer is acceptable to the ministry, if not to farmers, who would have to make a separate pass around the edge of the field with a commercial fertilizer spreader. "You can't manage 20 rows of corn separately from the rest of the field. That is the bottom line," Attema says.
If the objective of nutrient management is managing nutrients, then we don't see how applying manure nutrients is different than applying the same agronomic rate in commercial units, Attema says. "If the objective is to minimize pathogens, that is a different question altogether." Hog operations are most likely to be affected by this rule, though it also applies to liquid residue from operations and beef manure. With solid manure, the setback is greatly reduced.
Charlie Lalonde, director for the agriculture ministry's resources management branch, says the scientists conducting the review of literature on the suitability of setbacks were chosen based on the lowest bid and were reporting to "a small group" made up of representatives from the industry as well as from the ministry of environment and agriculture. This group is overseeing the study, which was commissioned in January. Lalonde says the report was finished by early May and it was just a matter of the industry group getting together in order to receive it, likely in the last week of May.
The setback was put in place to prevent transfer of nutrients to the waterways, Lalonde asserts. The width of the setback depends upon the "limiting values" of nutrients in the nearby soils. Usually phosphorus is the limiting factor, Lalonde says, with nitrogen being the limiter in "very rare instances."
Nutrient management is being reconsidered in general by the ministry. "With some of the contingencies in place, there may be changes in the areas of setbacks "one way or another," Lalonde says. BP
© copyright 2005AgMedia Inc..
back Pork research should target two key markets -- older consumers and new immigrants
So says the president of Agri-Food Technologies, pointing to the success achieved by Omega-3 milk and eggsby DON STONEMAN
Is there a connection between value-added products such as Omega-3 supplemented milk and eggs and Ontario's growing ethnic population? Gord Surgeoner thinks there is and that they come together in pork producers' wallets.Pork producers have done an exemplary job of increasing productivity per sow and in making feed conversion gains. Now, says the president of Agri-Food Technologies Inc. based in Guelph, they should be aiming food product and development research dollars in Ontario towards two key markets -- older people who are concerned about their health and newly arrived immigrants. Older consumers want foods with health benefits such as Omega-3 fats that protect the heart and glucosamine that strengthens joints. New immigrants bring different eating habits with them. Both of them offer an opportunity for specialty markets that aren't, or can't, be served by commodity markets.
Why is serving these markets important? Pork producers have already done an exemplary job of increasing production and in cutting costs. But they may be overwhelmed in commodity markets by countries such as the Ukraine and Brazil. "Brazil has just become the largest producer of chicken in the world. It's not going to be long before pork is right behind them," Surgeoner says.
Canada accepts 250,000 and 350,000 immigrants per year. Statistics Canada says 56 per cent of them come to Ontario and the majority settle in the Greater Toronto Area. "Vaughan and Markham are like another world," Surgeoner says. Southeast Asia predominates, with China and the Philippines in the lead. Western European countries don't make the list of top 10 nationalities declared by immigrants coming to Canada. Pork is China's favourite meat, but Chinese and Filipino restaurants don't serve up pork the same way, so Ontario producers would do well to court these markets and to build an ethnic loyalty.
On the health side, Surgeoner says consumers like him would gladly pay a premium for food that they knew gave the same effect. "That premium, call it a health insurance plan," he says. "I wake up every morning and I take two little pills that cost me $6 a piece for my cholesterol."
Surgeoner asserts that producers need to look at new ways of increasing their incomes. "Can you imagine having a bacon and egg breakfast where both the bacon and the eggs were designed for health?" Especially if they tasted the same as the traditional meal.
Producers should be pushing for research to make this possible, and also for government policies for fairer trade. The American countervail against Canadian pork is hurting the industry and so is U.S. farm policy, he asserts. "It's time we stopped being the good boy scout" on pork and softwood lumber.
When the Americans launched a countervail action against Canadian greenhouse tomatoes several years ago, Canadian producers fought back with their own countervail suit. Surgeoner cites the tomato war as an example of producers standing up for themselves. "I see some of these (trade actions) as being nuisance. They aren't based on merit.
But, he adds, "Going head-to-head on low commodity prices against the Ukraine and Brazil, and the Farm Bill in the United States is not a good game." BP
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back