The role of farmer organisations and researcher support in the inclusion of smallholders in quality pork supply chains in Vietnam

Posted in: Production by admin on January 1, 2007 | No Comments

Allosuckling in domestic pigs: Teat acquisition strategy and consequences

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Allosuckling (suckling by a young of a female other than its mother) has been observed in many wild and domestic group living mammals (Riedman, 1982; Packer et al., 1992). The causation and function of allosuckling for females remains puzzling given that producing milk is costly and that allosuckling may augment the risk of pathogen transmission between mothers and alien offspring. Furthermore, based on the typical nursing and suckling behaviour in domestic pigs allosuckling should be quite difficult for alien piglets to achieve for following reasons. First, every piglet usually occupies and suckles from one teat or occasionally from two teats (Rosillon-Warnier and Paquay, 1984; de Passille´ et al., 1988), which it defends against littermates and alien piglets. A teat order develops within the first days of life and unused mammary glands atrophy during the first week after parturition. Allosuckling is often reported to result in several negative consequences, including fighting among piglets, disruption of the teat order and higher proportion of missed nursings (Andersson and Andreasson, 1992; Pedersen et al., 1998), resulting in reduced milk intake and weight gain (Puppe and Tuchscherer, 1995; Wattanakul et al., 1997, 1998). On the other hand these negative consequences seem to be rather short term and after some time the suckling strategies of faithful piglets and allosucklers are equally successful. Only little is known about the impact of allosuckling on the growth of the recipient mother’s own young. Víchová and Bartoš (2005) found that the growth of beef cattle calves was not negatively affected by allonursing of their mothers. Similar results were found also in red deer (Bartoš et al., 2001) and in bighorn sheep (Hass, 1990). On the contrary, it has been suggested that frequent allonursing of a dam may result in insufficient maternal nutrition provided to the own calf (Murphey et al., 1995; Owens et al., 1985; Stevens et al., 1982). In pigs, nothing is known about the impact of allosuckling on the weight gain of teat losers. The aims of the study were to identify the strategies used by allosucklers and teat losers during teat acquisition; to assess how teat fidelity was affected by allosuckling and how allosuckling affected weight gain of the allosuckler and teat loser. Ten pairs of sows and their litters were used in this study. For each pair, the two sows were housed individually until their litters were weaned; however, their litters had access to both sows from day 10 post-partum. The behaviour of the animals was videotaped for 6 h on days 10, 11, 16 and 24 postpartum. The strategy of teat acquisition and the teat fidelity were analysed for every pair and for every day of observation. All piglets were weighed on the day of birth, days 10 and 24 post-partum. The predominant takeover strategy (69%) was to occupy a teat from a piglet owning two teats. The other takeover strategy was to usurp a teat from a piglet owning one teat. In almost all cases (95%) teat losers were able to find a new teat in that nursing before milk ejection. The occurrence of allosuckling had no significant effect on the teat fidelity of the non-dam sow’s litter (GLMM, NS). Permanent allosucklers did not differ in weight gain (Student’s t-test, NS) from faithful piglets and the teat losers did not differ in weight gain from their littermates (Student’s t-test, NS) on day 24 post-partum before weaning. Our results indicate that allosuckling does not confer any major advantage for allosuckling piglets but it does not impair the growth of the non-dam sow’s litter.

Genetic Sources of Variability in Pig Production

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Increasing uniformity has important economic implications for pork production and rightly receives a lot of attention. On the other hand, a certain amount of variability is useful for different production environments and different market needs. Variability can also create opportunities for improvement if the reason for better performance or specific quality can be identified and repeated. Variability in pigs has both genetic and non-genetic sources. These include nutrition, disease challenges, production system, and social interactions to name a few. Genetics is certainly one important source of variability among them. The overall differences among breeds or lines are an important source of genetic variability. Differences among the many breeds and lines available can be potentially very large. One reason for differences is that the foundation stock may have had some unique characteristics, such as maternal abilities or pork quality. However, a breed may be exceptional for one trait such as large litters, but not be able to meet the requirements for other traits such as carcass quality or feed efficiency. Genetic selection is another, perhaps more important reason for breed and line differences. The differences will depend firstly on the selection objectives, which determine the direction of genetic changes for specific traits, and secondly on the effectiveness of the selection program which determines the magnitude of the changes. Often the differences between sires of the same breed can be larger than differences between two different breeds. Advances in molecular genetics allow us to more precisely evaluate and control genetic variability. The Halothane gene and the RN gene are two examples of individual genes that have large effects on pork quality. Eliminating the adverse form of these genes enhances both the quality and uniformity of pork. A more recently available discovery is a test for the IGF2 gene. This gene has been shown to control a large amount of variability in carcass lean and sow productivity. Sires that carry only the lean form of the gene will produce leaner and substantially more uniform market hogs. Similarly, maternal line sires that carry only the fatter form of the gene will produce gilts that are substantially more uniform for body condition. Other genes are being discovered that could have a large influence on various traits, such as defects, intramuscular fat levels, longevity and resistance to disease. New tests for these genes will allow more precise control of genetics and production of more uniform market hogs. Genetic evaluations based on genetic differences between individuals provide a tool for producers to gain control over genetic choices. These choices can enhance herd performance levels and also move performance in a direction that matches the needs of each producer. The genetic choices made by producers can and do have a large impact on both herd performance and variability. Unique attributes of the foundation stock of a breed or line may be an important consideration. However, it is also important to consider the selection objectives that have been followed and the total amount of genetic change that has been made for traits of interest. Genetic evaluations of individual pigs, especially AI sires, offer new opportunities for producers to fine-tune the use of genetics for their own needs. These opportunities are increasing with the recent discoveries of tests for important genes, and will become even larger as more gene tests are available.

USA COOLs Canada

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

While the U.S. and Canadian producers have had different opinions on a number of topics in recent history, we have agreed upon one thing from the start: Mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) is a bad deal for our combined pork industries. MCOOL just isn’t cool. Period. While a minority of U.S. producers would disagree with that statement, the vast majority see MCOOL for what it is – a back-door protectionist measure that has nothing to do with product quality or safety. It is based on a desperate belief that adding costs to Canadian pigs will keep them north of the border. The other erroneous belief is that in so doing, those pigs and the pork they produce will not affect U.S. pork and hog prices. It’s difficult to believe that anyone in this day of global markets and instant communications would actually believe that, but they do. MCOOL’s roots trace back to the late 1990s and, more specifically the North American industry’s severe financial crisis of 1998 and 1999. During this critical period, Canada was shipping more and more pigs to the U.S. That did not happen, of course, without willing buyers of pigs in the U.S. but the critical factor was the continued increase in the Canadian breeding herd even during those difficult times. Many U.S. producers, including some quite reasonable people, were asking “How is it that finances can be this bad and Canada is still expanding?” One response was “If they want to do that, let’s force the pigs to stay in Canada.” This all happened again in spades in 2002 and 2003 giving rise to this legislation and NPPC’s decision to ask for countervailing duties on imported Canadian pigs. Was MCOOL the correct response? Of course not, and the U.S. in general and NPPC in particular remain committed to free trade. That’s the reason NPPC has opposed this from day one. But should tough economic times return and the Canadian sector not respond in a way that is at least close to what U.S. responses and economic theory suggest is correct, there will be more tension. Senators from the Midwest and Northern Plains carry considerable clout and have been quite united in their interest in these market meddling legislative proposals. The biggest irony, or course, is that MCOOL will hurt most of those small, independent “family” farmers that the Senators and Representatives believe they are protecting. A few years ago, Rod Smith of Feedstuffs newspaper lead off his editorial on the proposed mandatory price reporting system with this line: “Mandatory price reporting is a bad, bad, bad, bad idea whose time has come.” I believe the same could be said for MCOOL which will take a great deal of time, effort and money and generate hardly any benefits. But the Congressmen and Senators “did something” and that seems to be what counts.

Role of yeast cell wall polysaccharides in pig nutrition and health protection

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Documenting a century of achievement in the livestock industry

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Jim Dalrymple, James White and David Hume have just published an important and interesting book entitled “The Livestock Industry in Ontario – A Century of Achievement.”
This 250-page book describes changes in the dairy, poultry and pork industry over the last century. It also has a chapter describing how technology has affected food production from 1900 to 2000.
It begins with the authors describing some of the technological advances agriculture has made in the last 100 years. How many know, for instance, that there were 776,000 horses on Ontario farms in 1916, but by 1961 this number had declined to 89,000, while tractors had increased to about 150,000.
A “big” tractor in the 1950s was approaching 50 hp. I can remember when my neighbour purchased an International W-6 which was then considered one of the largest in the neighbourhood. The 37-hp International Farmall W6 Standard gas tractor was rated as a three-plow tractor. The author says that, over the century, the percentage of capital invested in equipment increased from six per cent to 13 per cent of gross income and the investment in livestock and poultry decreased from 14 to six per cent.

Financial efficiency of health and pig management education intervention in controlling porcine cysticercosis in Mbulu District, northern Tanzania

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

The potential contribution of separation technologies to the management of livestock manure

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

The objective of this review is to establish the scope
of separation technologies within the context of liquid
animal manures, marking out what can be achieved and
that which requires additional steps, such as biological
or chemical treatment. The principles (rather than
specific equipment) are considered in the light of the various demands on manure management, including the
likely level of success that can be identified in each
application. It was concluded that introducing a separation technology is the right option
if the main purpose is either (a) the improvement of
manure handling, (b) the removal of specific insoluble
components of the effluent, including non-reactive
organic matter and some of the phosphorous, organic
nitrogen, copper and zinc, or (c) the preparation of a
concentrate to produce an organic fertiliser product.
Alone, separation has little effect on pathogens, offensive
odour or soluble components, including ammoniacal
nitrogen.

Comparative evaluation of mathematical functions to describe growth and efficiency of phosphorus utilization in growing pigs

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

The aim of this study was to evaluate 4 candidate
mathematical functions for best fit in describing specific
data sets on pig growth, and to evaluate these 4 functions
for describing of P utilization for growth in a separate
experiment. It was found that the nonlinear mixed analysis can give reliable parameter estimates and is a useful tool when analyzing data from multiple studies. Although the Gompertz equation has been used extensively, the Richards equation was superior in describing growth over time and is recommended for use in data analysis in nonruminant animals. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies on growth and nutrient intake analyses consider other models such as the monomolecular and flexible equations such as the Richards as well as the Gompertz.

Odour Emissions Following Application of Hog Slurry to Grassland

Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments