Better Pork - June 2006
BEHIND THE LINES
by ROBERT IRWINThis spring, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal dismissed a contentious countervail against lower-priced imported American corn. The issue had divided the pork industry. (At press time corn producers were considering an appeal).
Regardless of which side of the issue pork producers were on, the countervail reminded them that, while they share common markets, there are different cost structures on each side of the border. Writer Kate Procter looks at some of these differences in our June cover story.
Elsewhere in this issue, Procter also writes about so-called Heritage Pork. Berkshire pork is hot. Toronto’s daily newspapers extol its virtues in their restaurant sections. But this pork comes from the United States. Some producers are looking at taking advantage of some of the buzz about pork that is very different from the commodity product sold in retail stores and comes with a premium price. But the premium comes with a compromise in herd productivity.
The Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition has a number of concerns about the Clean Water Act and strongly believes that changes are needed to make it farmer friendly. Environmental columnist Sam Bradshaw offers some suggestions on page 25. And, if you’re puzzled by the many changes in electricity pricing, on page 50 agricultural engineers Ron MacDonald and Steve Clarke tell you the things you need to know in order to operate your farm efficiently.
Where is the pork industry going? On the positive side, the Ontario agriculture ministry’s Janice Murphy and Ron Lackey examine the future for “functional foods” that enhance the health of consumers. This is Murphy’s last column as a swine nutritionist in Ontario. She is moving with her family to Prince Edward Island, where she plans to continue her involvement with swine research. Janice will also continue writing for Better Pork from the Island.
On a less positive note, as S. Ernest Sanford notes on page 70, Postweaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome is still wreaking havoc on the province’s swine herds. Researchers are making some progress, but it’s too early to say if their discoveries will help control pig diseases that so greatly threaten productivity. Watch for our August issue, which will examine some choices and outcomes for affected herds.BP
© copyright 2006AgMedia Inc..
back COSTS OF PRODUCTION: Owner-managers give Ontario a competitive edge over the United States
But Ontario producers worry that, among other factors, nutrient management regulations, the rising cost of land and higher building costs may be eroding their competitive advantage
by KATE PROCTEROntario pork producers looking south may see lots of areas where their U.S. counterparts have competitive advantages. But there are advantages to producing in Ontario as well.
Someone who is exploring these differences is Niagara Peninsula pork producer James Reesor, who operates RFW Farms Ltd. with two partners. Together, they own 2,000 sows and finish most of the pigs they produce in Ontario. Recently, they started a project to compare profitability between finishing pigs in Ontario and in the United States. They are sending weaner pigs to the United States and hiring a farmer there to custom finish them.
The partners assumed before they started that corn and feed costs in the United States would be lower and that market prices would be higher. So far, they have determined that some costs are lower in the United States than in Ontario. They have realized savings on corn and soy meal, but will have to wait and see if the packers pay more than in Ontario, says Reesor.
It is a small-scale project, stresses Reesor. They managed to find a person with an older barn to finish their pigs, so there are no costs associated with building a new barn. While they are paying somewhat less to their U.S. contract finisher than they would in Ontario, Reesor says that it is important to ensure that they are paying for the same things.
“We have grown accustomed to a certain level of management that we get from people who raise hogs for us. We don’t want to be casual about the value that that means,” he says. It is a bit dangerous to jump to conclusions regarding barn operator skills.
As a result, they carefully monitor their operations both in the United States and in Canada, tracking all costs associated with growing the animals, then calculating cost per kilogram of gain and feed efficiency for the animals. Reesor says his initial impression is that the people who are monitoring the barn in the United States seem to be well skilled.However, he feels that Ontario still has competitive advantages over producers in the United States when it comes to producing piglets. He thinks a higher percentage of owner operators in Canada makes a difference. Sows respond well to lots of detail management, which often goes hand in glove with a person who has a clear financial stake in the operation, says Reesor.
Data published in 2004 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture backs the view that Ontario’s sows and their managers are highly competitive. “Market Integration in the North American Hog Industries,” by Mildred M. Haley, provides statistics showing that Canadian sows are increasingly more productive than those in the United States.
In 1995, sows in Canada produced 1.9 pigs per sow per year more than those in the United States. By 2003, that gap had widened to 3.4 additional pigs per sow per year. Canadian litter sizes on average are 0.4 pigs per litter larger than their U.S. counterparts.
“Canada’s greater breeding efficiency contributes to lower production costs, which in combination with favourable exchange rates, enabled Canadian feeder pigs to gain a significant share of the cornbelt market,” the report says. Between 1980 and 2003, the cornbelt states of Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio accounted for almost half the U.S. hog inventory, largely due to their low feed costs, according to Haley’s report.
Feed costs make up the bulk of the costs associated with raising a pig to market weight. Haley writes that feed accounts for between 50 and 55 per cent of the total cost of production, and Reesor agrees. While a producer may scratch out a savings of $2 to $3 per pig on labour, savings of $12 to $14 per pig can be realized on lower feed costs, he says. Health, genetics and barn environment all play a role in determining feed efficiency of the animals, and that does not vary by location.
Eliminating the nursery step
Changes in production also have an impact on production costs. If you were designing a new barn from nothing, it can be planned to accommodate whatever system you have in place, says Reesor. However, for people with existing buildings, they have to live with some physical constraints.
While it is acknowledged that piglets weaned at a slightly older age tend to perform better than those weaned at 14 days or less, there is a limit to how long they can stay on the sow before housing needs to be changed. “We have found ways to raise the weaning age from 15 or 16 days to 17 or 18 days,” Reesor says. However, pushing the age up higher than that would require adding more sow crates, which might not affect piglet viability enough to make it worthwhile economically.
One U.S. trend in new buildings, he says, is to eliminate the nursery step altogether. Producers are moving toward a system where pigs are weaned directly into the finishing barns, where heat lamps and pads are used to help the piglets get started. In these systems, it may be advantageous to wean a few days older, but for piglets that are going into a nursery, Reesor does not think there is much advantage to weaning over 17 or 18 days of age.
While there has been talk in the past year or two of producing 30 pigs per sow per year, is this number the most profitable target to aim for? Reesor says that producers need to be careful when looking at pigs per sow/year numbers to make sure that they are comparing apples to apples. For example, defining when a female enters the herd and is counted as a sow in the record keeping affects the overall production number.
“I’m not sure it costs more to do a good job than a poor job in the sow barn,” says Reesor. “If you are going to try and live in the barn, there is a cost -- both psychological and financial. However, he is not convinced that there is a direct linear relationship between time spent in the barn and actual pig performance. A lot of factors go into the number of pigs produced: litters per sow; the number born alive and the number weaned.
“Not all of those parameters are a function of fussing with pigs,” he says. It is important to think about the return on time spent and to work smart, he adds. When producing at a number “nicely over 20 pigs per sow per year,” Reesor says, it is essential to pay close attention to what is driving productivity in the barn and focus on those factors.“I’ve no doubt we’ll hit 30 pigs per sow per year in the marketplace,” says Richard Smelski, general manager of Ontario Swine Improvement. “The challenge is to get more for less. The producer that is going to be innovative and creative and say ‘I’m going to make more money than 25 pigs per sow per year’ is going to be the winner at the end.”
The biggest challenge in Reesor’s opinion is maintaining stable health in the barns. He and his partners pay close attention to biosecurity, taking care to wash properly between handling groups of pigs. They also focus on the movement of weaned pigs and are currently changing the mechanics of how this is done to reduce the number of trucks involved in the process.
Tactical error
When comparing Ontario’s cost of production to costs in the United States, Reesor says that the Ontario Corn Producers have made a real tactical error by putting the corn countervail in place. While he recognizes the pressures Ontario’s corn producers are under, he says a lot of that is due to the strength of Canada’s dollar relative to the U.S. currency, which affects pork producers as well. Launching a countervail duty that pushes customers away from them forces pork producers to look at other alternatives. “Over time, I really don’t think the corn producers want to kill their market, even if they say the market isn’t paying them enough. There is a bit of a ‘join the club’ kind of feeling there,” he says.
Al Mussell is a Senior Research Associate with the George Morris Centre in Guelph. He says that hogs tend to be finished where feed is relatively less expensive. This often means the U.S. cornbelt, and the further away from the Mississippi River, the more expensive feed tends to be.
The U.S. Farm Bill has had an impact. While American pork producers are not directly subsidized, the fact that the corn producers are helps drive down U.S. corn prices and offers American feeders a competitive advantage. As a result, hog production in North America has evolved to the current state with more sows located in Ontario and southern Manitoba, and an increasing number of the weaners produced here travelling to the United States to be finished.
In fact, Haley writes that eight per cent of hogs slaughtered in the United States in 2004 originated in Canada, a substantial increase over the past 10 years. This is due to significant structural changes concurrent with policy changes within Canada. In the past 15 years, an open border and pronounced breeding herd efficiencies have helped increase Canadian hog exports stateside by more than eight-fold. In 1989, 16 per cent of the pigs coming from Canada were imported as feeders. In 2004, that number had risen to 64 per cent.
After feed, Mussell points to labour and cost of capital as the most important factors affecting cost of production. Labour costs are quite variable, depending on location. For example, Alberta producers have enormous difficulty getting people because they are competing against oil production. “When the oil industry is paying $35 per hour to sit on a dump truck all day, it makes it a difficult to get someone to come and work in a hog barn,” says Mussell.
Costs associated with constructing new buildings for pigs can also be quite different between the two countries. One factor is the cost of borrowing money. For many years, Canadian producers enjoyed a significantly lower interest rate than their American counterparts. That has changed, with Canadian rates now exceeding American in some instances.
Smelski says that building costs provide a big disadvantage to Canadian producers compared to their American counterparts. Operating an all-in all-out system costs 25 per cent more than a continuous flow building, and there will always be dead space while the barn is being emptied and filled.
“The Americans tell us we’re building castles,” adds Smelski. Concrete, sandwich-walled buildings with long amortization periods have a tough time competing against the American “stick buildings” that are less expensive to build but have high depreciation rates.
Ontario land prices higher
Ron Bolton, manager of the agriculture department for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, explains that the “stick buildings” popular in the United States are naturally ventilated, have no concrete and can be rented for less money than producers can rent a building to finish pigs in Ontario. Feed costs are lower, building costs are lower and “the corn countervail is making people nervous,” he says.
Among the people he works with, Bolton sees a fair number of 25-kilogram pigs going to be finished in the United States. “That tells me that they can make more money than we can here,” he says.
Good land in Iowa is not as expensive as in Ontario, says Bolton, adding that land prices are about $1,000 per acre higher here than for comparative land in the United States. He says there is more pressure on land prices from the cities than most people realize.Smelski also points to increased costs in Ontario due to regulations that have no associated profit. Nutrient management, pesticide safety courses and thinking about traceability all take producers’ time and are costly.
There has been some speculation that complying with nutrient management regulations has put upward pressure on land prices, especially in livestock-dense parts of the province, as farmers struggle to acquire the amount of land required for the number of livestock units they own. This could affect competitiveness, especially when compared with areas where restrictions are less stringent.
Dr. Alfons Weersink of the Agricultural Economics and Business Department at the University of Guelph says this argument may have some truth to it. “The requirement of a nutrient management plan before the issuance of a building permit in many municipalities over the last decade, and more recently for the province as a whole, has increased the value of the land,” says Weersink. Farmers have to have sufficient land to spread their manure before a permit is issued.
This stocking density restriction has also forced some farmers to seek more land, increasing demand and pushing up prices. Weersink says his department has not done any work to establish how much land has been pushed up by this factor alone. However, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence, since prices in the livestock intensive regions of Oxford and Perth are higher than in corresponding regions with less livestock.
Ken McEwen, a Ridgetown College economist, has done extensive work examining cost of production factors. McEwen agrees that nutrient management has had an impact, although he has not researched it specifically. Prices for land in livestock-dense areas such as Perth and Oxford counties went much higher than in counties with similar yield potential with lower livestock numbers, such as Kent. However, he acknowledges that many factors affect land prices.
However, Tom Nolan, senior appraiser with Farm Credit Canada (FCC), disagrees that nutrient management regulations affect land values. FCC publishes a “Land Values Report,” which looks at the changes in land values every six months. There is currently about 10 years worth of data available on their website at www.fcc-fac.ca. Quebec has been affected by manure quotas for longer than Ontario and producers in that province have limitations on individual properties, Nolan says and land prices haven’t increased significantly there.
When the first Environmental Farm Plans came out in Ontario, there was no immediate change, but later in the 1990s and early 2000 land prices did move upward. Nolan suggests that this may have been due to the fact that people were afraid that the province was planning to start policing the Nutrient Management Act, which was never the intent.
Scrambling for land
Nolan maintains that the provincial government was trying to achieve consistency across the province with regard to nutrient management and get rid of the “patchwork quilt” effect that had developed with different municipal regulations.
While most farmers had adequate land to spread manure, they did not always own it. Suddenly they were scrambling to acquire the amount of land required to comply with the number of animal units. The water-quality crisis in Walkerton brought this to the forefront, says Nolan.
People now understand the Nutrient Management Act better than they did five years ago, so removing some of the pressure to own land. People were making choices to own rather than rent land. “It was insurance for them to a certain extent. They wanted to be sure they had the land they needed,” says Nolan.
Did this drive up the cost of production for Ontario producers? “Maybe,” says Nolan. On the other hand, it could have lowered costs for some producers, he suggests. If farmers were able to acquire land closer to their barns, their manure transport costs would be reduced, as would the risk associated with transporting manure.McEwen agrees that nutrient management regulations have probably affected cost of production somewhat. The rules in Ontario are stricter than in the U.S. cornbelt, but North Carolina has developed much stronger regulations and has put restrictions on expansion. Ontario producers must have concrete manure tanks, eliminating the less-expensive lagoon option. This will add to capital costs, he notes.
Nolan says it is important not to single out nutrient management as a driving force behind rising land prices. “I don’t think we can make that kind of comparison. It is like saying the war in Iraq is putting up the price of fuel. Maybe.” While nutrient management is one of the reasons that farmers buy land, “it is not the only reason,” says Nolan.
Farmers now have larger equipment, he points out. The labour component is less significant and one person can manage bigger acreages. Low interest rates also have contributed to higher land prices and there is a lot of pressure around urban areas. Ontario has seen significant population growth and Toronto is the place of choice for new immigrants arriving in Canada. People are commuting longer distances and fields around Guelph that once grew corn are now growing houses, says Nolan.
However, he also notes that efficiencies have increased in the past 20 years. The 16 pigs per sow per year that was once the provincial average is now “laughable,” he says. Producers who aren’t putting out at least 20 pigs per sow per year can no longer afford to be in business.
Overall, there has been a 25 per cent increase in efficiency, which means that fewer sows are required to produce the same number of piglets. The increasing use of artificial insemination has also resulted in better use of barn space. Where it was once common to see one boar for every 15 sows, now it is rare to see more than two or three boars in an operation, says Nolan.
In the information age, it is easy to look outward and compare costs in the United States. to those in Ontario. However, Smelski says that by far the biggest challenge Ontario producers face is the reluctance to look inward. “The number one dilemma is that there is a lot of poor book-keeping in the marketplace. Farmers like farming. They don’t like book-keeping.”
Smelski stresses that it is vital for an operation wanting to stay in business to keep accurate books -- and not just for income tax purposes. “If all they want is groceries for next year, I don’t think that is a business,” he says. Improving the cost of production starts with a benchmark. “If they don’t have a good idea of where point A is, it is mission impossible to get to Point B.”BP
© copyright 2006 AgMedia Inc..
back Keep that positive attitude in a negative environment
A will to succeed, a proper action plan and a team to help you are just some of the elements you need to deal with the problems facing the pig business today
by RICHARD SMELSKI
Can one retain a positive attitude in a negative environment and should one?
These days, there are many things in the pig business to become concerned and depressed about -- prices, costs, border disputes, disease, environment, regulations and labour. We are asked to view a glass that is half full rather than half empty --not only half empty, but the glass is chipped and I cut my lip and infection will set in and no one cares. Yet somehow we keep surviving and thriving, even though each time it seems worse than the time before.
So what can one do? First, one must have a will to succeed. A powerful desire to overcome obstacles is the first requirement. While there are many motivational books, programs and workshops available, the real test is one’s own personal desire. Only you can change your attitude. It’s not anyone’s fault -- not yours or anyone else’s -- so just get over it.
Secondly, dissect the problem into little pieces. Problems are never as big when you take them apart. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. For example, if it is Circo virus, dissect it, pick your team, analyze the details, develop an action plan and check off each step. Every disease is the worst ever, yet these diseases seem to subside and somehow we learn to manage them.
A carefully considered action plan is next. Write it out so as the mind does not play games with you. Moreover, a written plan encourages a team approach and a blueprint with an end in mind. Appreciate the differences of opinion in the plan. It may require you to make difficult decisions, involving tremendous emotion. For example, if it takes you to get 28 pigs per sow per year to own that neighbor’s property, then it might be better to relinquish that property. At times you need production to push financial outcomes and at times you need financial rewards to challenge production barriers.
Pick your team. If you think you can do it alone, you are a fool! You need someone to give you encouragement in the down moments and put the brakes on in the upbeat moments. Mentors are often a good way of exchanging ideas and probing your underlying convictions. Many rely on a higher being and this might be the time to redefine one’s commitment. A technical team is different than your personal team. Knowing how to reach the decision is as crucial as the decision itself. Hang out with positive people and go only to proactive meetings.
Lastly reward yourself. A mentor of mine says that “a vacation is not a luxury, it is a necessity.” The reward needs to be in a different area of work, but not a mindless activity. If I accomplish this task, sell this farm, hit this target, or achieve this number, then I will reward myself by…. (and it shouldn’t be with more of the same). Pay yourself first, balance the activities in your life, appreciate your health and well-being.
Above my desk I have Winston Churchill’s famous 1941 speech in Harrow: “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”BPRichard Smelski is general manager of Ontario Swine Improvement Inc. and a former Ontario government swine specialist.
© copyright 2006 AgMedia Inc..
back The Clean Water Act should be ‘withdrawn and redrafted’
The Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition supports source water protection. But it argues that the proposed act is too heavily skewed towards enforcement, doesn’t provide appropriate levels of compensation and has an inadequate appeals process
by SAM BRADSHAW
The Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC), of which Ontario Pork is a member, has a number of concerns with the proposed Clean Water Act and has been attempting to gain revisions to it. In fact, one could question the need for this act at all.
Many of the Ministry of the Environment’s clean water initiatives are based on recommendations from Commissioner Dennis O’Connor’s report on the Walkerton tragedy. Notwithstanding the O’Connor report, Jim Smith, the environment ministry’s chief drinking water inspector, issued a progress report in 2006 which confirms that the province’s drinking water is of a very good quality, and that the ministry’s safety net approach is working.
Farmers own or control most of the land adjacent to municipal wells and surface water intakes and will likely be most affected by this legislation. Farmers are used to dealing with risk, and would accept a risk-derived solution to clean water. We hope that the Source Protection Committees described below, will follow a risk-based program.
The Act is supposed to work as follows.1. Source Protection Authorities will be established making use of existing Conservation Authorities. Some smaller ones may be combined. They will establish source protection committees which will:
- Develop terms of reference;
- Develop an assessment report;
- Develop a source protection plan for the source protection area.
An assessment report will:
- Identify watersheds and the vulnerable areas within the watershed;
- Characterize quality and quantity of water;
- Identify all recharge areas and all surface water intake zones;
- Identify existing and planned municipal systems;
- Assess the drinking water threats in each vulnerable area.
2. The Source Protection Committee will also prepare a source protection plan which will:
- Set out policies intended to ensure that every existing or future activity identified by the assessment report as a significant drinking water threat ceases to be a significant drinking water threat;
- Designate land uses requiring that a notice may need to be obtained before a person constructs a building or proceeds with an application under the Planning Act.
Now, one would hope that in most of Ontario where the municipal drinking water is “of a very good quality,” these committees will suggest that farmers with land surrounding a water intake will not need to change any practices to meet the requirements of this Act. But will this be the case? Usually, when a committee is established to complete a project, they will in one way or another complete their mandate and it’s usually not difficult to find something wrong.
The farm community is also opposed to the way the Clean Water Act has been initiated. The Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC) supports the concept of source water protection, but recommends that Bill 43, as presented, be withdrawn and redrafted. This process would provide the time necessary to craft enabling legislation that would set out clear and achievable objectives, along with a framework indicating how those objectives will be met in a reasonable timeframe.
Here are a few of our concerns with the proposed Act.
1. Permits, enforcements and penalties. Farmers own or control most of the land adjacent to municipal wells and will likely be most affected by this legislation. The proposed legislation seems to be heavily skewed toward enforcement, permits and penalties for non-compliance. Enforcement and penalties may work in the short term, but we believe that co-operation and incentives will produce long-term results.Farmers respond well to education and encouragement. If given solid scientific reasons and incentives for needed changes, they will be willing co-operators without the need for many of these regulations and enforcement measures.
We are opposed to a Permit System for agriculture as proposed in this legislation. It is our opinion that the “Permit official” model is not suitable for protecting municipal drinking water supplies. The approach to addressing risks to drinking water is quite subjective and would require detailed site-specific information relating to the soils, topography and farming system. It would be impossible to find one individual who could accurately assess all of these variables on multiple properties.
The Permit concept could be replaced by a directive requiring municipalities to gain control of the most vulnerable wellhead and intake protection areas necessary to protect the water supply systems that they own and operate. That control can be gained through purchase of the land or a land lease agreement.
We do, however, support the concept of a “Risk Management Plan” in areas immediately circumjacent to the most vulnerable wellhead or intake protection zones. A Risk Management Plan would reflect a negotiated approach to wellhead protection developed jointly by a landowner and an ‘official’ acting on behalf of either the municipality or province. It must be stressed, however, that preparing a Risk Management Plan is a planning process and requires neither permits, permit officials, nor permit inspectors.
2. Appropriate levels of compensation. Section 88(6) suggests that the provincial government is unwilling to provide compensation for the imposition of land use restrictions that could have an adverse impact on the profitability of a farm operation.
This section conflicts with Section 83 which provides for an appropriate means of compensating a landowner for relinquishing control of their land through purchase, lease or otherwise for public use. We would recommend that Section 88(6) be removed from Bill 43.
As previously suggested, the dilemma of compensating farmers for opportunity costs associated with land- use restrictions imposed by the Clean Water Act is best addressed by requiring municipalities to gain control of the wellhead protection areas and intake protection zones associated with their wells and surface water systems either through purchase or a lease agreement. If a lease agreement is entered into between the municipality and the farmer, the cost of the lease to the municipality would be negotiated. If the municipality’s expectation is that the land be taken out of agricultural production altogether, then the lease cost would reflect the full opportunity cost to the farmer. If the municipality feels that agricultural production can continue but with reduced inputs, then the lease cost would only reflect net yield losses that are attributable to lower inputs. We believe that every farmer should have the same opportunity to make a decent living whether inside or outside a water protection zone.
3. Authority and role of Source Protection Committees. We are concerned that Bill 43 portrays the Source Protection Committee (SPA) as subordinate to the Source Protection Authority (SPA) or Conservation Authority. The appropriate role for the SPA or Conservation Authority is to facilitate the process and provide technical assistance. The SPA or Conservation Authority must not be in a position to supplant the authority of the Source Protection Committee. This approach will also ensure a separation between the broad watershed responsibilities of Conservation Authorities and the more narrow objectives of protecting drinking water sources within a watershed.
We recommend that Section 7.1 be amended to indicate that the Source Protection Committee be established by the Minister of Environment and empowered as having lead authority with respect to Terms of Reference, the Assessment Report and the Source Protection Plan.
Bill 43 also currently indicates that Source Protection Committees will have no role beyond the preparation of the Source Protection Plan. We recommend that Section 31 (1) be amended to indicate that it is the Source Protection Committee that is responsible for proposing amendments to a Source Protection Plan.
4. Appeals process. The appeal process outlined in Bill 43 is not sufficient for landowners that are affected by either the proposed Assessment Report or Source Protection Plan. Given the potential impact of having land designated as vulnerable or having a practice deemed to be a significant threat, it is imperative that landowners have the opportunity to demonstrate to the province that data were not interpreted properly or mitigating factors ignored.A robust appeal process must be established to ensure that landowners can challenge information contained within either the Assessment Report or the Source Protection Plan that relates specifically to a landowners property.
For more detailed information about our concerns, please visit Ontario Pork’s website www.ontariopork.on.ca.BP
Sam Bradshaw is environmental specialist with Ontario Pork.
© copyright 2006 AgMedia Inc..
back