SEARCH
Industry Partners
Prairie Swine Centre is an affiliate of the University of Saskatchewan
Prairie Swine Centre is grateful for the assistance of the George Morris Centre in developing the economics portion of Pork Insight.
Financial support for the Enterprise Model Project and Pork Insight has been provided by:
ALUM SETTLING AND FILTRATION TREATMENT OF LIQUID SWINE MANURE
Posted in: Environment by admin on January 1, 2006 | No Comments
Agrienvironmental indicators: methodologies, data needs and availability
Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments
Main aim was to asses the state of art for research on agrienvironmental
indicators. The present report tries to clarify where the data demand
arises from, which are the priorities to be faced and which is the availability
of basic data or methodologies referring to specific issues.
Main agrienvironmental issues addressed by existing policy, either generated
in the integration process of the existing sectoral policy or in the development
of specific environmental issue policy, are listed. The existing
policy on sustainable development is also analysed referring to issues related
to the agriculture sector.
Monitoring of agrienvironment related phenomena is thus required,
through a harmonised system of indicators. Conceptual frameworks existing
at international level on environmental indicators and on sustainability, and
the related indicator lists, are presented, in some cases showing overlapping
and differences. Such lists represent a reference point to refer to and the
data demand arising at international level, so that assessing basic data
availability at national level in order to comply with such lists is becoming
necessary. Integration of such lists can also be required whenever it is
recognised that a specific issue, not considered at international level, needs
to be faced at national level.
Monitoring agrienvironmental issues involves an enormous variety of skills including statistical work and scientific research. Statistical approach
has to proceed knowing the steps ahead made on the comprehension of
a specific phenomenon. On the other hand, data producer and data user,
having institutional tasks, should work in closer cooperation to better evaluate
existing database, and where necessary to immediately clarify which
is the evolution of the data demand.
A review of available indicators, of basic data and, in some cases,
of the related calculation methodology, in relation to some specific issues,
is presented (paragraph 5). Focuses on specific issues are provided. The
Environmental methodologies and statistics Unit in Istat provided an overview of the agricultural practices that can affect pressures on the environment,
that might be worth to monitor, evaluating statistical activity done
in the last years in Istat to integrate existing surveys on such issues (paragraph
5.1). The same Unit performed also a deepening(a) on availability of
data and information collected through farm structure survey on use of
water in agriculture for irrigation purpose (paragraph 5.2). The mentioned
contributions show the enormous work done since 1998 integrating existing
surveys, mainly surveys on farm structure, and planning of new one
(use of plant protection products) in order to comply with the increasing
data demand arising on agrienvironmental issues. Furthermore, the
Statistics on agriculture inputs Unit in Istat presented its activity related to
statistics on sale (paragraph 5.3.1) and use (paragraph 5.3.2) of plant protection
products. Highlights on the activity carried out by Istat are provided
with reference to the waste generation and management issue (paragraph
5.4). Methodology applied by Istat to calculate Gross nitrogen balance
indicator is also depicted and results are presented at national level.
The other Institution involved in this project was the Agency for the protection
of the environment and for technical services (Apat)1 on ongoing
production of data and on future improvements on some gas emissions
from the agriculture sector (paragraph 5.6), such as ammonia (paragraph
5.6.1), carbon dioxide (paragraph 5.6.2), methane and nitrous oxide (paragraph
5.6.3). Lastly a full list of agrienvironmental indicators organised by
theme and derived from variables surveyed through agriculture census of
year 2000 is presented (paragraph 5.7).
Greenhouse gas and ammonia emission abatement by slurry treatment
Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments
Winter Cover Crop and Management Effects on Summer and Annual Nutrient Yields
Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments
Soil Tests for Predicting Corn Response to Nitrogen Fertilizer in New York
Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments
Agricultural Chemical Usage Swine and Swine Facilities
Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments
The agricultural chemical use estimates in this report are based on data compiled from a
survey conducted in the summer of 2006 in 17 Program States, which contain approximately 94 percent
of the U.S. hog inventory. The Program States are the 17 States published individually in the Quarterly Hogs and Pigs report. These States are listed in the inventory table on page 4 of this report.
This report provides insecticide use information on the swine sector of agriculture. All data refer to the on-farm use of active ingredients contained in insecticides applied during the 2005 calendar year.
Insecticides are applied to swine and swine facilities to control mange/mites, lice, flies, and other pests. Chemical data are provided on a rate per head per application and rate per head per year basis. Some swine received no chemical applications in 2005, whereas, other hogs and pigs received multiple applications of the same chemical. In yet other cases, swine received applications of several different chemicals. The number of times a chemical was applied varied significantly based on product formulation, method of application, and pest stress at particular locations. The rate per head data cannot be used to calculate the actual number of head treated with a particular chemical. June 2006 hog and pig inventories are reprinted in this report from the September 2006 Quarterly Hogs and Pigs report.
This report excludes pharmaceutical products that treat swine for internal pests. A pharmaceutical is
classified as a drug and is regulated by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). Pharmaceuticals
generally target internal livestock pests such as viruses, bacteria, or worms. Some products can be
classified as either a pesticide or a pharmaceutical because they treat both external and internal pests. Examples of dual purpose products are Doramectin and Ivermectin. These products can be applied to swine internally through oral dosage or injection, or applied externally as a pour-on. Also excluded are disinfectants and sanitizers. Only insecticide data were collected and summarized.
Insecticide use information on chemical applications made to swine facilities is also included in this
report. Herbicide and termite chemical applications are excluded, as are all rodenticides.
Larger Groups for Grower-Finisher Pigs: Feeding and Social Behaviours and Impacts on Social Stress.
Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments
Most studies on feeding and social behaviours of pigs have been conducted on groups of fewer than 40 pigs/group. However, these group sizes are much smaller than some that are now used in some commercial operations (100-1000 pigs/group) in North America and elsewhere. The social dynamics of feeding and other behavioural activities of pigs in large social groups are not well understood and the competition for and the utilization of important resources such as feeders by pigs in larger social groups is therefore unclear. The present study was conducted to gain a better understanding of feeding and other behavioural activities and the impacts of larger social groups on social stress in grower-finisher pigs.
To address this question, two blocks, which consisted two group-size treatments, 18 (Small Group) and 108 (Large Group) grower-finisher pigs per pen, were carried out. Each block, which lasted 10 weeks in duration, consisted of two pens of Large Group and four pens of Small Group size. A total of five hundred seventy six barrows and gilts (Pig Improvement Canada) were used in the experiment at the PSC Elstow facility. The animals were weaned at approximately 18-day of age, were then held in nurseries for eight weeks, before being used in the experiment. The ratio of barrows to gilts was kept constant (1:1) between the two group sizes and the average starting weight of pigs was 34.6 kg ± 4.1 kg (S.D). Pigs were housed on fully-slatted floors with floor space allowance per pig of 0.76m2.
Wet/dry feeders supplied feed and water to the animals, with a pig to feeder space ratio of 9 to 1. Feeders were spread equidistantly along the central line in large groups with four feeder holes per feeder location. This maintained an equal distribution of feeders within the large group, giving an equal opportunity for all the pigs to access the feeders without any difficulty.
The individual pig feeding behaviour and group feeding patterns were studied during weeks 1, 5, 7 and 10 of the grower-finisher cycle. In addition, other behavioural activities such as percentage of time spent on eating/drinking, resting (lying) and standing/walking and diurnal patterns of these activities of pigs in both large and small groups were studied during weeks 2, 5 and 10 following re-grouping.
To evaluate the group size effect on social stress, salivary cortisol levels were measured periodically throughout the grower-finisher cycle i.e. during weeks 1, 2, 5 and 10. In addition, morphological parameters of the adrenal glands were measured at the end of grower finisher cycle to understand any effects of chronic stress on pigs that were formed into larger groups.
The pigs in large groups had more bouts of feeding (35 vs. 25, P<0.05) and the feeding bouts were shorter in duration (232 vs. 301 sec, P<0.05) during day 3 following re-grouping. However, no differences in number of feeding bouts and bout lengths were found during weeks 5, 7 and 10. More importantly, we found that the percentage of pigs queuing at the feeders to be high in larger groups than in smaller groups during day 3 (0.90 vs. 0.59, %, P <0.05). This trend of higher percentage of queuing at feeders were also apparent during day 6 following re-grouping (0.79 vs. 0.60, %, for large and small groups, P=0.08) but not thereafter. There were similar 24 hr group feeding patterns in pigs of both SG and LG during weeks 1, 5, 7 and 10 (Figure 1). Furthermore, the average percentage of feeder spaces occupied (mean day 3 and 6 and week 5, 7 and 10) was also similar between the two group sizes (55.7 vs. 56.2, %, for large and small groups). The average times spent on eating/drinking (5.2 vs. 5.2 %, for small and large groups), standing/walking (5.1 vs. 5.4 %, for small and large groups) and resting (89.6 vs. 89.3 %, for small and large groups) did not differ between the two group sizes. Furthermore, the diurnal patterns of these activities were also not affected by the large groups. One main concern of large group sizes for pigs is the potential for increased social stressors. Interestingly however in our study, during the entire 10 wk experimental period, pigs in larger groups did not demonstrate any short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) responses of social stress (Table 1). Therefore, it was apparent that the pigs had not gone through any adverse social stressors by living in larger groups.