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:
Warming up for C.O.O.L.: Canadian Response
Posted in: Production by admin on January 1, 2004 | No Comments
Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) has been a household name in the food sector for roughly two years and is basically now law. As of October 2004 (in the USA anyways), COOL is mandatory (law), implementation was about 2 billion USD, industry stakeholders had their input heard, and more concerning the passage of COOL into law. Reasons for supporting COOL include the fact that people have a right to know where their food came from and may pay a premium for meat of a different origin. This theory is flawed, and many think that politicians that have no real understanding of agriculture and economics passed COOL into law. In conclusion, COOL is a shortsighted attempt by anti-trade members in the US to construct a complex and costly trade barrier to trade in livestock and red meat. There is little economic merit other than consumer rights, even though consumers indicate they have no interest in the origin. The poultry industry is excluded from this, which helps it due to the fact that the costs of COOL would be highest for pork and beef.
Feeding High-Fat Oats to Swine
Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments
The performance of pigs fed diets based on oat is typically poorer than that of pigs fed diets based on higher energy cereal grains. The reason for this is that oat provides approximately 10% less digestible energy than barley and about 20% less digestible energy than wheat and corn due to its high fibre content. The fibre itself is not digestible and its presence also impairs the digestibility of energy and other nutrients contained in the grain. Current recommendations regarding the incorporation of oat into rations fed to growing-finishing swine suggest that their inclusion should be limited to less than 20%. However, these recommendations are based largely on experiments conducted in excess of 25 years ago. Considerable improvement has been made in oat varieties during this period, especially in terms of lower % hull. The results of the present experiment indicate that both normal and high fat oats can substitute for barley at levels as high as 50% of the diet without hindering pig performance. A breeding project was recently undertaken at the University of Saskatchewan’s Crop Development Centre to develop a high-fat oat for use in livestock feeding. Feeding this recently developed high-fat oat to pigs improved growth rate and efficiency of feed conversion when compared with normal-fat oat. Nutrient digestibility also improved with no negative effects on carcass quality. These results provide a strong indication that high-fat oat is superior to normal-fat oat as an energy source for swine. There appears to be greater potential to utilize oat, regardless of fat level, in rations fed to growing-finishing pigs than is currently being achieved. The agronomic properties of high-fat oat are still being tested at the Crop Development Centre and they are not currently available for commercial feeding. However, in the future, high-fat oats may provide swine producers with an alternative energy source that can be successfully incorporated into rations fed to swine.
Growth performance of pigs fed hand-chopped sugar cane stalks
Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments
Production responses of weaned pigs after chronic exposure to airborne dust and ammonia.
Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments
Nine hundred and sixty weaned pigs were exposed for 5.5 weeks to controlled concentrations of airborne dust and ammonia in a single, multi-factorial experiment. Production and health responses were measured but only the former are reported here. The treatments were a dust concentration of either 1.2, 2.7, 5.1 or 9.9 mg/m3 (inhalable fraction) and an ammonia concentration of either 0.6, 10.0, 18.8 or 37.0 p. p. m., which are representative of commercial conditions. The experiment was carried out over 2.5 years and pigs were used in eight batches, each comprising five lots of 24 pigs. Each treatment combination was replicated once and an additional control lot (nominally approx.0 mg/m3 dust and approx.0 p. p. m. ammonia) was included in each batch to provide a baseline. The dust concentration was common across the other four lots in each batch in which all four ammonia concentrations were used; thus the split-plot design was more sensitive to the effects of ammonia than dust. The pigs were kept separately in five rooms in a purpose-built facility. The pollutants were injected continuously into the air supply. Ammonia was supplied from a pressurized cylinder and its concentration was measured with an NOx chemiluminescent gas analyser after catalytic conversion. The endogenous dust in each room was supplemented by an artificial dust, which was manufactured from food, barley straw and faeces, mixed by weight in the proportions 0.5:0.1:0.4. The ingredients were oven-dried, milled and mixed and this artificial dust was then resuspended in the supply air. Dust concentration was monitored continuously with a tribo-electric sensor and measured continually with an aerodynamic particle sizer and gravimetric samplers. Live weight per pig and cumulative food intake per pen of 12 pigs were measured after 5.5 weeks of exposure. Exposure to both aerial pollutants depressed live weight relative to the control (control v. pollutant, 25.7 v. 25.0 (s.e.d.=0.33) kg, P=0.043) and there was a trend for food intake to be lower for pollutant-exposed pigs (control v. pollutant 292 v. 280 (s.e.d.=7.1) kg per pen, P=0.124). The reduction in live weight and food intake was dependent upon the concentration of dust (mean across all ammonia concentrations for increasing dust concentration; live weight 25.3, 26.4, 24.0 and 24.5 (s.e.d.=0.65) kg, P=0.081; food intake 295, 316, 248 and 263 (s.e.d.=14.3) kg per pen, P=0.016) but not ammonia (mean across all dust concentrations for increasing ammonia concentration; live weight 24.4, 25.1, 25.3 and 25.3 (s.e.d.=0.41) kg, P=0.158; food intake 279, 275, 288 and 279 kg (s.e.d.=9.0) kg per pen, P=0.520). There was an interaction between dust and ammonia for live weight (P=0.030) but the effects were complicated and may have been the result of a type I error. There was no interaction for food intake (P=0.210). In general, both food intake and live-weight gain, but not food conversion efficiency, were lower for weaned pigs exposed to 5.1 and 9.9 mg/m3 dust concentrations compared with 1.2 and 2.7 mg/m3 treatments. Other measures of production were also analysed and supported the overall interpretation that dust concentrations of 5.1 mg/m3 and higher depress performance. This study is the first to quantify the effects of chronic exposure to common aerial pollutants on the performance of weaned pigs. The results suggest that dust concentrations of 5.1 or 9.9 mg/m3 (inhalable fraction) across ammonia concentrations up to 37 p.p.m. adversely affect performance. The commercial significance of these findings depends on the financial benefits of the superior production at low dust concentrations relative to the cost of providing air of this quality.
DE: air-pollutants; air-pollution; ammonia-; dust-; exposure-; feed-conversion-efficiency; feed-intake; liveweight-gain
Community-Based Strategies for Resolving Agricultural and Land Use Conflict
Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments
Design and Testing of an Enclosed Biofilter
Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments
Biofiltration of odourous air from livestock barns using a horizontal airflow configuration
is possible. During the course of this research, two possible designs have been evaluated.
A pressurized headspace design functioned well, but may not be practical for a full-scale
commercial hog operation. Using the principle that “simpler is better”, a biofilter using a
non-pressurized headspace seems to eliminate some of the practical challenges associated
with the pressurized headspace design. Looking to the future, I see two potential applications of horizontal airflow biofilters. First, as we have demonstrated in this project, is a retrofit situation where the exhaust air from an existing barn is to be treated. I envision that individual biofilter units would be constructed in a factory setting and then transported to the barn for installation and
filling. Each biofilter unit could be custom-designed to either the airflow requirements of the exhaust fan, or the odour reduction desired by the owner. Construction of the units would be quick, easy, and inexpensive at a central, factory-like location. The dimensions of the units are such that they could be transported on a flat-deck trailer. Further work must be done to determine the best way to install the units within the limits imposed by insurance companies. The second potential application of a horizontal airflow biofilter is the integration of the biofilter with the barn at the time of construction. Specifically, the integration of the exhaust fan and the booster fan. By considering both the ventilation requirements for air quality within the barn and the airflow resistance characteristics of the biofilter, a single fan could be selected to satisfy both functions. With such integration at the design stage, there should be no need for insurance companies to be uptight about the presence of a
biofilter. During this project, much has been learned about the technology of biofiltration. At the
same time, much has been learned about the non-technical issues associated with biofiltration of hog odour. As evidenced by the response to the open house event, the general public is extremely interested in biofiltration if it can make the smell go away. Those within the hog industry are somewhat interested, but seem to be more skeptical. Companies that design livestock facilities are beginning to take notice of the technology because it may help to remove roadblocks to new expansion within the hog industry. Municipal officials are watching closely. And finally, the insurance companies are
concerned about increased liability.