ODEURS

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

Comment les humains perçoivent-ils les odeurs?
Le sens de l’odorat joue un rôle important dans la sensation de bien être des humains. L’odorat est unique
à chaque humain et varie dans le temps selon la condition physique de l’individu, les conditions
d’émission d’odeur et la mémoire olfactive et le vécu de l’individu. La réponse olfactive est le résultat de
stimuli créés au niveau du bulbe olfactif (situé dans la partie supérieure de la cavité nasale) qui vient en
contact avec des molécules d’odeur. Des signaux sont envoyés au centre olfactif du cerveau par des
fibres nerveuses où une impression d’odeur est créée et comparée avec celles déjà emmagasinées dans la
mémoire olfactive personnelle qui est elle constituée de perceptions individuelles et de valeurs sociales
(Berglung et al. 1988). Comme l’odeur a un caractère très personnel, certaines personnes ont un bon nez
(très sensible) et certaines autres ont un mauvais nez (moins sensible ou insensible) (Hermia, 1997).
Berglund et al. (1988) mentionne aussi que l’odorat est très utile car il considère ou évalue l’odeur comme
un tout même si celle -ci est composée de plusieurs mélanges de gaz complexes plutôt que d’analyser les
différents composés chimiques séparément.
Quelles peuvent être les réactions humaines possibles aux mauvaises odeurs?
Les réactions aux odeurs reliées à la production porcine peuvent apparaître très subjectives pour certaines
personnes et elles sont susceptibles d’être différentes d’une communauté à une autre. Une anecdote
populaire en Iowa porte sur une personne résidant à proximité d’un bâtiment d’élevage porcin vide et qui
se plaignait des mauvaises odeurs qui, selon elle, en émanaient. Toujours en Iowa, on rapporte le calvaire
subi par une famille agricole aux prises avec les odeurs qui proviennent d’un élevage porcin situé à
environ un kilomètre de leur ferme (Thu, 1996).
Selon cet auteur, la problématique globale des odeurs associées aux élevages repose généralement sur un
problème plus profond de frustration des personnes affectées. Celles-ci auraient souvent l’impression de
ne pas avoir accès aux canaux de communication qui pourraient permettre la résolution des problèmes
interreliés découlant du développement et de l’intensification de la production porcine. Schiffman et al.
(1995) ont découvert que de tels sentiments de perte de contrôle, par rapport à la problématique des
odeurs par exemple, peuvent constituer un élément déclencheur important dans le développement de
problèmes psychologiques pour les personnes affectées. Les résultats qu’ils ont obtenus à la suite d’une
étude portant sur les effets d’un voisinage rapproché à de grands établissements de production porcine ont
démontré que l’attitude générale des voisins de ces établissements était grandement affectée par les
odeurs qui pouvaient en émaner. Des problèmes accrus de tension, de dépression, de colère,
d’épuisement et de confusion de même qu’une vitalité réduite des personnes ainsi affectées ont été
rapportés par Schiffman et al. (1995).
Les réactions ne sont pas dues à la seule intensité des odeurs; elles dépendent également de la fréquence
d’exposition des personnes, de la durée de ces expositions et du caractère hédonique des odeurs. Il
importe donc de pouvoir quantifier certaines de ces caractéristiques si l’on veut s’attaquer efficacement à
la résolution des problèmes associés aux odeurs (Sweeten, 1997; Nicell et Tsakaloayannis, 1997).

Macronutrient digestibility in Kadon pigs fed diets with isonitrogenous amounts of various carbohydrate sources

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

The behaviour, welfare, growth performance and meat quality of pigs housed in a deep-litter, large group housing system compared to a conventional confinement system

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Deep-litter, large group systems have been developed as an alternative housing system for growing pigs. These systems are cheaper to establish and are perceived as being more welfare friendly for pigs, compared to conventional housing systems. Deep-litter, large group systems offer more pen space per pig (approximately 1 m² per pig), larger group sizes (ranging from 150 to 2000 pigs per pen), an enriched environment, (an environment which provides an outlet for rooting and foraging in deep bedding), together with the opportunity for increased social interaction among pigs (Morrison et al., 2003a,b). Conventionally, pigs are housed in more confined systems with fully, or partially slatted floors, liquid effluent system, group sizes ranging from 5 to 50 pigs with a floor space allowance of approximately 0.7 m² per pig. Anecdotal evidence suggests that pigs raised in deep-litter, large group systems are less fearful of humans and novel objects and are easier to handle when transporting. It is difficult to compare housing systems since they are often confounded by factors such as pen space, group size, environment and substrate provision. The scientific literature is deficient in information on the relationships between these factors and pig behaviour in large multi-factorial experiments. The aim of this experiment was to compare the behaviour, welfare, growth performance, and meat quality of pigs in a deep-litter, large group housing system compared to a conventional housing system. Castrated males were housed from 9 weeks of age in a conventional housing (15 pigs/pen; 1.0 m²/pig) or deep-litter, large group housing system (90 pigs/pen; 1.7 m²/pig). Behavioural observations and stress physiology measurements were conducted at 9, 17 and 22 weeks of age. The willingness of the pigs to approach a novel object was assessed using a standard novel object test at 22 weeks of age. Pigs in the deep-litter, group-housing system spent more time standing, locomoting, and interacting with their environment compared with contemporaries housed in the conventional system. At 17 weeks but not at 9 or 22 weeks, pigs in the conventional housing engaged in more social interactions than deep-litter housed pigs. Salivary cortisol was higher in deep-litter pigs compared to conventional pigs at 9 weeks of age but was similar at 17 and 22 weeks of age. Pigs in the deep-litter, large group system exhibited more exploratory behaviour compared to conventionally raised pigs in the novel test. Loins from pigs housed in the deep-litter, large group treatment had lower loin pH, more purge loss, more glucose in purge and were lighter in subjective colour than loins from conventionally housed pigs. A trained sensory panel detected no differences in tenderness, juiciness or overall desirability of loins from deep-litter or conventionally housed pigs. In this experiment, the housing system modified pig behaviour, fearfulness and stress physiology (at 9 weeks of age) but these differences did not negatively impact meat quality.

Overview of PCVD – The Disease in Eastern Canada & US vs. Europe

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Starting at the end of 2004, and particularly since the beginning of 2005, cases of post-weaning multi-systemic wasting syndrome (PMWS) in Quebec increased dramatically. Simultaneously in Ontario and a little later in North Carolina, the same phenomenon of dramatic increase in PMWS cases was observed. This paper tries to shed some light on the possible reasons why this may have occurred and on what can be done to control the losses. This paper also briefly looks at some of the conditions, other than PMWS, that might be associated with porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), and at a few similarities and differences that may exist between the European situation and the one we have to deal with in Eastern Canada and the US. The acronym PMWS is gradually being replaced in Europe by PCVD (porcine circovirus disease) and in North America by PCVAD, (porcine circovirus associated disease). Reasons for this switch include: 1) wasting is not specific to PCV2; 2) PCV2 has been associated with conditions in pigs other than PMWS; 3) the word wasting might have a negative impact on public perceptions of the swine industry, and of the safety of pork. Two main positions are currently debated. There are those who believe that PCV2 is the cause of PCVD, although other factors or agents may contribute significantly to the losses associated with it in the field, and that another as-yet-unidentified agent, often called agent X, might be the real culprit. The virus can be transmitted in various ways, it has been reported to be excreted through nasal and ocular secretions, urine, feces and colostrums, it is also present in semen and some boars have been found to shed it for at least 24 weeks (McIntosh et al, 2005); it is very persistent in the environment, and pigs from herds with no clinical signs can contract the disease if placed in contact with sick pigs, or if placed in close proximity (Kristensen et al, 2004). Many other ways that PCV2 can be transmitted are also summarized in this paper. The best chances of success or improvement when PCVD is a problem are genetic changes, vaccination, management changes, serotherapy, the control of other diseases, like PRRS, that can trigger the condition or increase its severity and depopulation/repopulation. Strategies that have been suggested to help control PCVD include: reduce the number of weaned or feeder pig sources; reevaluate the vaccines and vaccination programs used; use disinfectants (e.g. Virkon S) that have good activity against PCV2; batch farrowing every 2, 3, 4 or even 5 weeks; partial depopulation of the nursery; bioflavonoids, vitamin E and Se, antioxidants, mash feed, feeds with larger particle size, restricted feeding, no feed changes after moving pigs, richer diets; no hospital pens, either euthanize sick pigs or move them elsewhere; increase weaning age; acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid, florfenicol, tilmicosin; closing the herd; use measures to improve colostrum intake; all piglets to suckle their natural mothers for the first 24 hours. The list seems almost endless and one must admit that the results obtained have been very variable, and quite frequently disappointing. There are, however, situations showing that management strategies and infection pressure may have a significant impact on the outcome. PMWS/PCVD/PCVAD has produced severe losses for pig producers in many areas of the world. While North America has to a certain extent avoided these severe losses until recently, we now have areas where losses are unacceptably high and solutions have to be found. Different control alternatives have been briefly discussed in this paper. In my opinion the two approaches most likely to make our lives easier with this condition are genetics and vaccines. Some genetic lines or combinations are clearly more resistant to PCVD than others, and the preliminary results obtained with vaccines are very encouraging. An effective and practical control of the problems associated with PCV2 now appears possible.

Manitoba – Foreign Worker Destination

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Worker shortage in Canada is becoming critical. The labour shortage in Manitoba and across Canada is forcing producers to utilize programs such as a Temporary Foreign Worker or a Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program. Roy Hildebrand outlines 5 steps that should be followed in order to obtain foreign workers for your operation: 1) Plan and prepare – take into account how many positions you may need to fill with foreign workers; 2) Service Canada, Foreign Worker Application: follow the steps required for obtaining a foreign worker as outlined by Service Canada; 3) Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program: looks to ensure that you as a producer have done enough to prove that employees were unable to be obtained, and then further helps you to obtain a foreign employee; 4) Selection of Foreign Workers – once a job has been posted and has applicants, it is recommended to do certain routine background checks on work history and education; 5) Settlement of Foreign Workers: proper care must be taken to ensure adequate transportation, housing, and support for your new employees.

Detection of two porcine circovirus type 2 genotypic groups in United States swine herds

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

In late 2005, sporadic cases of an acute onset disease of high mortality were observed in 10- to 16-
week-old growing pigs among several swine herds of the United States. Tissues from the affected pigs
in Kansas, Iowa, and North Carolina were examined, and porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) was
detected consistently among these tissues. Phylogenetically, PCV2 can be divided into two major
genotypic groups, PCV2-group 1 and PCV2-group 2. Whereas PCV2-group 1 isolates were detected in
all the diseased animals, only two of the diseased animals harbored PCV2-group 2 isolates. This observation is important because PCV2-group 1 isolates had never been reported in the United States
before (GenBank as of May 16, 2006), and they are closely related to the PCV2-group 1 isolates that
have been described in Europe and Asia, previously. Our analysis revealed that each genotypic group
contains a distinct stretch of nucleotide or amino acid sequence that may serve as a signature motif
for PCV2-group 1 or PCV2-group 2 isolates.

Economic Analysis of the Hog Production Industry in Manitoba – Final Report

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

The Manitoba hog and pork industry is an agricultural success from any economic perspective including growth, jobs, incomes and trade. The Manitoba and, in fact, the entire industry in Canada has undergone a period of three years in which it has suffered disproportionate losses relative to US competitors. As a result, the industry now finds itself in a period of rationalization of packing plants and more rapid attrition in producer numbers. The summer 2007 announcement by Olymel that it would reduce its pricing structure in Red Deer will accelerate the attrition in producer numbers on the prairies. Furthermore, the prospects for packing plant closures on the prairies and in Ontario are factors that, again, will involve massive challenges for producers. Lastly, the pending US legislation regarding Country of Origin Labeling has the potential to further reduce pricing in Canada relative to the US. There will be a period of two to three years of industry pressure and reduced production in much of the prairies and the hog regions of Eastern Canada. At the same time, however, Manitoba is in a strong position on two key fronts. First, and most importantly, the province has enormous production capability in feed grains and land available for hog production. Fundamental factors that made the province the number one growth area in North America are still in place and are at the forefront for the future. The key problems that Manitoba faces in feed grain competitiveness are policy related not natural disadvantages. These policy issues can, and likely will, be addressed. Key among the non-feed grain policy issues relates to environmental legislation. Manitoba must ensure that its regulations address real environmental issues in a way that does not unfairly burden the industry relative to competing jurisdictions. In addition, the packing sector has determined that Manitoba is a place of growth for the future. The packing sector is expanding in Manitoba and new entrants are hoping for the opportunity to participate in the market. Just as importantly, producers have ready access to packers in the United States. Manitoba producers will not escape the coming difficulties but they are in a good position to endure it, compared to other areas of Canada. Furthermore, when the difficulties pass, Manitoba’s model has proven it to be the best place to grow and move forward.

A Decision Tree for Co-Product Utilization

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

The aim of this paper is to describe a decision tree for judging the economical value, safety and applicability of new co-products. The risk assessment of both the supplier and the co-product is an essential part of the analyses for decision making. Co-products from the agro-food industry do play an important role in modern animal and fish nutrition. Total feed consumption by the livestock and aquaculture industry in the 25 EU countries (EU-25) is estimated to be approximately 450 million tonnes per year. Besides 270 million tonnes of home grown cereals and forages, farmers use about 140 and 40 millions tonnes of industrial compound feed and purchased straight feedstuffs, respectively. The major reasons for using co-products in animal feed are related to costs, availability and nutrition value. Pigs and in particular ruminants are capable to convert fibrous components into valuable nutrients finally resulting in high quality animal products, such as milk and meat. As a consequence, many co-products can be fed to those species, even high-moisture co-products. The latter is feasible because of the existence of sophisticated liquid feeding systems, especially designed for the feeding of high-moisture co-products. Nevertheless, the use of co-products in animal feed certainly has its limitations. Many species show physiological constraints which require a more specific nutritional approach and some co-products require appropriate risk management. Increasing awareness in both the food and feed industry and continuously improving risk management strategies, such as the NuTrace® program (Nutreco, Boxmeer, The Netherlands), have proven to be effective to reduce the number of incidents. These measures and the reform in the European food and feed legislation, including the implementation of the General Food Law, the Hygiene Regulations and other legislation addressing quality, safety, health and environmental protection, make it possible to use co-products from the agro-food industry in a sustainable way. A logical start of the process is to introduce the product and the supplier. In the first step information is gathered about the supplier, product composition, production process, available volumes, some major quality aspects and indicative prices for assessing the technical-economical feasibility. Finally, the economical feasibility is assessed in a least-cost formulation exercise. If the results demonstrate that the co-product is financially attractive, time is invested in the risk assessment. If not, there will be a ‘no-go’ for the co-product. In the next phase a questionnaire has to be filled, which functions as a checklist for the risk assessment. The quality assurance program of the producer is reviewed and critical control points of the production process, the product and the logistics are defined. After approval by the responsible quality manager and nutritionist, the purchase department is informed that there is green light for the supplier and the new co-product. The last step is to judge whether the co-product is technically and economically worthwhile to use in animal studies. Resources to asses the quality and risk of a new material may be limited, but in principle all steps in the decision tree have to be taken by a pig farmer that is offered the new co-product as a single ingredient. In many cases, the feed company, the supplier of the co-product and other authorities provide the information and advice that is necessary for decision making at farm level.

COOL is a Hot Problem

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is to be put into practice in the United States by October 1, 2008. This is likely to have major negative ramifications for the Canadian cattle and hog industries. In 2006 the US was the destination for over 14 million Canadian hogs in either live or meat form. The fact that the purpose of Country of Origin Labeling is to deter or reduce Canadian imports, helps to focus attention on the importance and threat of this legislation. Essentially, under the original version of COOL that was proposed in 2002, the law required that all fresh pork and beef sold at retail in the US be labeled as to the country of its origin. For a product to be labeled as product of the United States, it would need to be produced from an animal that was born, raised and processed in the United States. All other permutations and combinations would need to be put on the label. For example, if a pork chop came from a hog that was born in Canada, but finished and killed in the US, the label would need to say: born in Canada, raised and processed in the United States. Needless to say this would involve multiple labels, which will increase costs through the chain. COOL was passed as part of the 2002 Farm Bill. Significant battles since that time have delayed the implementation of COOL for livestock and meat twice. The current effective date for implementation is October 2008. In 2003 and 2004, when COOL first raised its head, the George Morris Centre did a great deal of research on behalf of hog industry organizations, like Manitoba Pork, regarding the impacts of the legislation. The bottom line of the research was that US packers would need to segregate, sort, control and account for Canadian livestock that they purchase. They would also need to segregate and label the meat from these animals separately from other meats. The George Morris Centre research concluded that COOL is nothing less than a non-tariff barrier to trade. COOL would impede livestock imports. That, of course, is exactly what its proponents, mostly US cattle producers, intended when they pushed for the legislation. Canadian livestock producers are not alone in facing negative consequences resulting from COOL. US cattle feeders, hog finishers, packers and retailers will all be worse off as a result of COOL. Not only will they face higher, non-productive costs, but also they depend on Canadian livestock for their packing plants, feedlots and finishing barns. The latest version of COOL is far from perfect. The bottom line is that COOL remains a source of uncertainty and risk for Canadian hog producers at a time of mounting uncertainty and risk in most other areas of their businesses.

Factors critical for successful vaccination against classical swine fever in endemic areas

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments