USA COOLs Canada

Posted in: Production by admin on January 1, 2007 | 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.

Economic Assessment of Manure Phosphorus Regulations for Manitoba's Pig Industry: Overall Impact at the Provincial Scale

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Manitoba has proposed new manure phosphorus regulations. This study investigates the additional annual costs for the industry to comply with these new regulations. Using complex economic modeling and functions the researchers have concluded that managers will have to make changes in conventional manure management techniques. From the modeling it is determined that at a regulation of 2x phosphorus removal, it will collectively cost producers 17.88 million dollars, which is 18% of the estimated annual income for 2005, and a 1x phosphorus removal will cost 27.86 million dollars, which is about 28% of the estimated annual income for 2005.

Some Perspective on the US National Pork Producers’ Council’s Claims About Canadian Swine Subsidies

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

The U.S. Commerce Department announced on August 17 that Canadian farm support payments to swine producers are fully in compliance with U.S. law and international trade rules. The ruling was a victory for the Canadian swine industry and its U.S. customers and a clear defeat for the U.S. National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), the organization that filed this trade petition. Despite this ruling it appears that the NPPC is in denial or shock.

A note on the effects of two versus one feeder locations on the feeding behaviour and growth performance of pigs in a deep-litter, large group housing system.

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Deep-litter, large group housing systems for growing pigs have been developed as an alternative housing system compared to conventional confinement systems. Deep-litter, large group systems are naturally ventilated, have a floor base of deep-litter consisting of rice hulls, straw, corn stalks or other bedding material, accommodate larger group sizes (ranging from 150 to 2000 pigs per pen) and the pigs have a floor space allowance of approximately 1.0m² per pig (Morrison et al., 2003a). Conventionally, pigs are housed in more confined systems with fully, or partially slatted floors, a liquid effluent system, group sizes ranging from 5 to 50 pigs with a floor space allowance of approximately 0.7m² per pig. Pigs housed in deep-litter, large group systems are up to 10% less efficient in converting feed provided to liveweight gain (feed:gain) and present 1–2 mm more backfat at slaughter compared to pigs raised in conventional systems (Morrison et al., 2007; Honeyman and Harmon, 2003). It is speculated that there may be disincentives for pigs in deep-litter, large group systems to visit the feeders regularly. These disincentives may include large distance to travel to the feeders, reduced social facilitation to feed and a reluctance to frequently visit the feeder due to increased opportunity to interact with a large number of pigs away from the feeder (Hsia and Wood-Gush, 1983). The aim of the current experiment was to test the hypothesis that reducing the distance that the pig must travel to feed in a deep-litter, large group system will result in shorter, more frequent feeding bouts, thus improving growth performance (feed intake, growth rate and feed:gain). The experiment studied pigs from 9 to 22 weeks of age, using 720 crossbred pigs. There were two trials conducted, utilising 360 pigs each time. The two treatments were: (A) maximum distance to travel to the feeder (MAX) – one feeder located on the north end of the pen and (B) minimum distance to travel to feeder (MIN) – two feeders: one located on the north end of the pen and one at the south end. Feeding behaviour was observed at 14 and 22 weeks of age. It was concluded that reducing the distance that the pig had to travel to the feeder (MIN) did not significantly change the feeding behaviour of pigs in a deep-litter, large group system. Furthermore, there was no impact of treatment on growth performance. These results suggest that the extra distance that pigs have to travel to feed in deep-litter, large group systems is not a disincentive for the pigs to visit the feeder regularly. Other factors may be responsible for the difference in feeding behaviour between pigs in deep-litter systems and conventional housing systems, such as a combination of deep-litter bedding and social contact with pen mates which preoccupies the pig’s time and distracts them from visiting the feeder and feeding frequently. Morrison et al. (2003a, 2007) have shown that pigs in deep-litter, large group housing systems do spend significantly more time interacting with their environment and their pen mates and perform more locomotory behaviours compared to conventionally housed pigs. These studies provide evidence that perhaps pigs in deep-litter, large group systems may not feed frequently because they are distracted by these other factors rather than being inhibited by the actual distance required to travel to feed.

Financial Management of Pig Businesses: Making Your Lenders, Investors & Partners Comfortable with Your Business Plans

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

A business is more likely to achieve its long-term potential, if all parties involved, from the investors down to the staff, are aligned toward a common goal: optimizing the long-term profitability of the business. Because pig production is a business, all parties involved in a swine enterprise should be exposed to at least some aspects of the business’s financial information. The Profit and Loss Statement (P&L) is usually the first bit of financial information reviewed by all stakeholders. Depending upon their specific roles or positions, some parties look initially at the P&Ls for individual flows or farms while others initially examine the consolidated financial information from all flows and farms. When financing is being procured, lenders and investors will want to see projections of financial information at least for the term of the loan, and they usually want to review it in the context of historical information. Direct adjustments to the P&L statement for specific cash and non-cash line items are made in the creation of simple CF reports. Non-cash items reflected in the P&L (e.g. depreciation) are added back to the P&L. Similarly, all cash items that were excluded from a P&L analysis are included in the CF statement. The financing of fixed assets (i.e. Term Debt) is typically based upon a lender financing a portion of the appraised value of the asset. While lenders typically require 25% or greater equity in order to finance an asset, the percentage of equity required may vary with the market value of the asset, which, in turn, usually varies with market conditions. Some type of marketing agreement having a reasonable term will usually be required for lenders to finance a fixed asset. Also, lenders will always need to understand the financial structure of your business if they are to: (1) be able to accurately interpret its financial performance and (2) ensure that they understand their risk. The Balance Sheet (B/S) is the financial statement commonly used by lenders to get a handle on a business’s financial structure. The B/S portrays the financial structure of a business; that is, its assets, liabilities and owner equity. We believe that solid (trusting and long-lasting) relations with lenders will best occur: with the open sharing of all business and financial information and when you understand their needs and expectations. They need to be convinced of the ability of your business to repay their loans. In most cases, this requires that, in the short term, the business generates positive cash flows and that, in the long term, the business is sustainably profitable. While everyone involved with a pig business has different needs, orientations, and goals, they should all be committed to the common goal of the business being financially successful. We believe that the more minds that work on the problems and opportunities of a business, the more likely the business will be successful. Business success appears to be more likely when all parties are united around a common business model, one that provides the correct balance of profits, risks, and leverage.