Effects of Overseeding Cool-Season Annuals on Hay Yield and Nitrogen and Phosphorus Uptake by Tifton 44 Bermudagrass Fertilized with Swine Effluent

Posted in: Environment by admin on January 1, 2005 | No Comments

Nitrogen Concentration at Maturity—An Indicator of Nitrogen Status in Forage Maize

Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments

Les exploitations d'élevage et la qualité de l'eau souterraine

Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments

La plupart des personnes vivant dans les zones rurales du Manitoba dépendent principalement de l’eau souterraine pour s’approvisionner en eau. Afin de protéger et de conserver la qualité des sources d’eau souterraine, il est important que les producteurs agricoles exploitent leurs terres d’une manière responsable, en tant que gardien non seulement de la terre mais aussi de l’eau souterraine qui s’y trouve.

Tips for Saving Water

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Water is an essential nutrient in pork production. Research reveals how we can manage this resource for best results and minimal cost.

1. Do a water audit. Wasted water costs money to pump and to dispose of in slurry. The average usage is 78L per sow (farrow to finish farm), however actual usage has been reported as low as 65L/sow and as high as 120L/sow, a variation of as much as 50% from the mean! See water usage table in Pork Production Reference Guide 2000, pg 30.

2. Water requirements have been found to be 2.3L for every kilogram of feed consumed (grower and finisher pigs). Gonyou

3. Mounting water nipples correctly reduces wasted water. For nipples pointed straight out pigs should drink from shoulder height. For nipples mounted downward at 45o the nipple should be 5cm (2 inches) above the back of the pig. Mounting lower will increase water wastage. Nipples should be set for the height of the smallest pig in the pen. Water Use and Drinker Management, Gonyou,

4. Check flow rates. Flow rates determine time spent at the nipple, water intake and water wastage. Too little is just as costly as too much when it comes to flow rates. Flow rates of 1,500 ml for lactating sows, 700 ml in grow-finish are recommended. Research on wastage found 23% at 2080ml/min versus 8.6% at 650 ml/min. Water use and Drinker Management, Gonyou

5. Adjust nipple height. Improved water nipple design by providing a step for smaller pigs resulted in a reduction of water waste of 13%, and reduced manure volume of 10% compared to conventional nipple drinkers. Well-managed nipple drinkers (including nipple height changed every two weeks and flow rate) gave similar results to the improved nipple designs. PSC Annual Report 2002, Li, pg 23.

6. Cup or bowl drinkers waste less water, reducing spillage by 10-15%. Energy Efficiency in Barns, Part I Winter/spring 2001.

7. Water wastage has been measured at 25% of total water disappearance in grower-finisher pigs at Prairie Swine Centre, this is lower than the 40-60% estimated on commercial farms. Proper flow rates and nipple height could contribute to reduced losses. PSC Annual Report 2002, LI, pg 23.

8. Use wet/dry feeders in grow-finish. Wet/dry feeders reduce water used by 34%, and slurry volume by 20-40% compared with dry feeders and a bowl. Wet/dry feeders also increase consumption of mash diets compared to dry feeders and a separate water nipple, resulting in a 5% improvement in average daily gain. PSC Annual Report 2002, Christianson, pg 24.

9. Avoid high mineral water sources. High levels of sulphate in water results in an osmotic diarrhea but has no effect on animal performance. PSC Annual Report 1997, Patience, pg 26.

10. Feeding a diet containing excessive protein and/or excessive mineral levels results in increased water usage. PSC Annual Report 2002, Shaw, pg 33.

11. Temperature impacts water requirements. For every 1oC above 20oC results in a sow drinking 0.2L more water each day. Energy Efficiency in Barns, part I, Winter/Spring 2001.

12. Wasted water results in increased slurry application costs. Assuming grow-finish pigs waste 40% of water delivered to the nipple, 396L will be wasted per market hog. This will result in increased manure slurry produced and cost an additional $0.60 per pig in manure application costs. Energy Efficiency in Barns, Part I, Winter/Spring 2001.

Practical Application of Enzyme Supplementation in Swine

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Introduction
Application of enzymes to improve nutrients digestibility of plant-based feed ingredients for swine and poultry has now been studies for decades. Initially, the main focus was phytase to break down the phytate molecule and release the attached phosphorus molecules. In the last two decades, enzymes to assist digesting NSP were developed, tested, and commercialized. In the meantime, enzymes to assist digesting starch, protein and fat have been tested as well. A large array of chemical characteristics exists among plant-based feed ingredients, and success of enzyme application will depend on these characteristics. The substrate must match the enzyme and be a limitation for nutrient digestibility or voluntary feed intake. Two diet formulation methods exists to apply enzyme treatments in practice: (1) formulate diets to a regular nutrient content and supplement with an enzyme, while hoping for an improvement in feed efficiency, or (2) formulate diets to a reduced nutrient content and count on an uplift by the enzyme to a regular nutrient content, while reducing feed costs. An overview of considerations and practical application of enzyme supplementation in swine will be presented.

Ingredients
Seeds of plants crops or fractions thereof each contain some of the three main energy categories: carbohydrates [divided into sugars, starch and non-starch polysaccharides (NSP)], protein, and oil (fat). Among the listed feed ingredients, a large array in content of these main energy categories exist, ranging from 10 to 37% NSP, 14 to 63% starch, 9 to 47% protein, and 1 to 5% fat (Table 1).

In least-cost diet formulation, the greatest cost-pressure exists against digestible or available energy (Zijlstra et al. 2001). Overall in swine nutrition, the inverse relationship between NSP content and energy digestibility has been well described for several feed ingredients, for example wheat (Zijlstra et al. 1999) and barley (Fairbairn et al. 1999). Logically, enzymes that degrade fiber and thereby improve energy digestibility or voluntary feed intake will thus have a high chance to be beneficial economically, whereas phytase to improve phosphorus digestibility may also reduce nutrient excretion and thereby improve sustainability of the swine industry.
Among ingredient, large differences in digestibility of the main macronutrients exist (Figure 1). Among the cereal grains, oats has the lowest digestibility of crude fiber, then barley, wheat, while corn has the highest digestibility of crude fiber. Both peas and soybean meal have a high digestibility of crude fiber. By-products from value-added processing, including wheat middlings from wheat flour milling, generally have a lower nutrient digestibility than the parent cereal. Digestibility of other carbohydrates, including starch, sugars, and the remainder of the fiber fractions was lower for wheat middlings, oats and barley compared to the other four feed ingredients. Protein digestibility followed and similar pattern as digestibility of other carbohydrates with the highest protein digestibility observed for soybean meal. According to the database (CVB 1994), fat digestibility showed a large variation among feed ingredients. Phosphorus digestibility was consistently below 40%, likely due to the phytate contained in plant-based feed ingredients.

A Checklist for Water Intake

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Pigs obtain water from three sources: water physically contained in the feed, water consumed by drinking, and water produced through chemical reactions as part of normal metabolism in the body. Maintaining water balance is extremely important, as even small changes in water balance can result in serious consequences to the pig. The water requirements of the pig have never really been defined. Research at the Prairie Swine Centre and elsewhere has found that free choice water intake in young growing pigs with free access to feed is about 2.2 to 2.8 times the intake of feed. Thus, a pig eating two kilograms (kg) of feed will normally drink at least 4.5 litres of water per day. Nursing sows have a somewhat higher intake, approaching four times their feed intake, due to the water needed for milk production. The above estimates do not allow for wastage, which can be quite high (40+%), especially with nipple drinkers. Also, additional water must be added to the above intake levels to compensate for hot weather, excess minerals or protein in the diet, or to help the pig deal with certain health problems such as scours. Pigs do not drink only to satisfy their physiological need for water. Pigs will also drink water to alleviate a feeling of hunger, or out of boredom. The impact of “luxury” intake must not be underestimated, especially in gestating sows since they are limit fed; boredom and hunger can increase water intake many fold over basic requirements. One critical question for pork producers is what are the minimum and maximum flow rates necessary to optimize health and productivity? While solid research on the subject is limited, reasonable flow rate estimates can be provided: weanlings and growers – 750 to 1,000 millilitres per minute (mL/min) and nursing sows – 1,000 to 2,000 mL/min. Water quality is also a common issue on the Prairies. Quality can be evaluated using microbiological, physical and chemical criteria. Within each, individual items relate to safety and/or aesthetics. For pork producers, iron and manganese can be problematic, since they plug screens and cause other delivery problems. However, the most common concerns of pork producers are associated with sulphates, which cause diarrhea and at very high levels, poor performance. A recent study, conducted with the cooperation of Stomp Pork Farms in Leroy, Sask., demonstrated that weanlings perform quite well with water containing 1,600-ppm sulphates.

Comparison of three models to estimate breeding values for percentage of loin intramuscular fat in Duroc swine

Posted in: Meat Quality by admin on | No Comments

Évaluation d’un traitement à aérosol pour améliorer la qualité de l’air dans une porcherie de production intensive (CAFO, ou Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation)

Posted in: French Articles by admin on | No Comments

La mauvaise qualité de l’air à l’intérieur des porcheries de production intensive (CAFOs) représente un danger pour les travailleurs, la communauté environnant l’élevage, et la production agricole. Pour faire face à ce problème, la présente étude a été effectuée pour évaluer une technologie pour réduire la pollution de l’air incluant les particules en suspension (PM), les bactéries viables et l’ammoniac à l’intérieur d’une porcherie de production intensive. La technologie consiste en l’application quotidienne d’un aérosol à base d’acide, d’huile et d’alcool. Son efficacité a été évaluée en comparant la qualité de l’air avant et après le traitement et entre les côtés traités et non-traités d’une porcherie divisée par une partition imperméable. Sur le côté non-traité, la qualité de l’air était typique pour une porcherie à production intensive, avec un PM2.5 de 0,28 mg/m3 et un PMTOT de 1,5 mg/m3. Le traitement a permis une réduction dans la concentration de PM de 75-90% si on considère la concentration avant et après le traitement. L’efficacité a augmenté avec le temps, l’application, et la taille des particules (40% de réduction pour le 1ím et 90% pour >10ím). Les niveaux de bactéries en suspension (bactéries totales, Enterobacteriaceae, et la cocci gram-positive) ont diminué d’une unité logarithmique après le traitement. En contraste, le traitement n’a eu aucun effet sur les concentrations d’ammoniac. Ces résultats démontrent l’efficacité d’une intervention par des réductions de l’exposition et des émissions.

What Can the United States Learn from Spain’s Pork Sector? Implications from a Comparative Economic Analysis

Posted in: Economics by admin on | No Comments

Factors identifying pigs predisposed to tail biting.

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Tail biting results in welfare and production problems. The objective of this study was to identify common behavioural factors among pigs that tail bite. At three and six weeks of age (before and after weaning) pigs were individually tested in a tail chew test. This test consisted of observing each pig’s behaviour in response to two ropes (one soaked in saline, the other not). The time spent in contact with the rope in the second tail chew test (after weaning) was positively correlated with tail biting behaviour. The time spent in contact with the rope in the first tail chew test was positively correlated with ear biting behaviour. Pigs that spent more than 1.5% of their time engaged in tail biting behaviour weighed less at weaning and tended to weigh less at seven weeks of age than pigs that spent less time performing tail biting behaviour. The authors suggest that nutritional deficiencies could be at the core of the tail biting problem. The nutritional deficiencies could cause the pigs to engage in foraging behaviour directed at other pigs in the form of ear/tail biting.