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:
Microbial source tracking using host specific FAME profiles of fecal coliforms
Posted in: Production by admin on January 1, 2006 | No Comments
The objective of this study was to investigate the host-specific differences in fatty acid
methyl ester (FAME) profiles of fecal coliforms (FC). A known-source library was
constructed with 314 FC isolates cultured from 6 possible sources of fecal pollution; 99
isolates from sewage; 29 from bovine; 29 from poultry; 50 from swine; 46 from waterfowl;
and 61 from deer. It was found that the hydroxy FAMEs 12:0 2OH, 12:0 3OH, and 14:0 2OH
were exclusively associated with isolates of human origin. On the other hand, 3 saturated
FAMEs, 10:0, 15:0, and 18:0 were found only in isolates from non-human sources, 15:0 being
associated with livestock samples only. In addition to the presence of these signature
FAMEs, the mean relative masses of 16:1 o7c and 16:1 ISO/14:0 3OH were significantly
different between the isolates of human and non-human origins. A linear discriminant
function differentiated FC isolates of human origin from those of livestock and wildlife
origin at 99% accuracy. These results strongly suggest that the FAME profiles of FC show
statistically significant host specificity and may have the potential to be used as a
phenotypic microbial source tracking tool.
Ventilation: How to Read a Room
Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments
Successful production requires uniformity in many areas including ventilation. Air velocity and turbulence are two important ventilation factors. The interactions of these factors have an influence on pig comfort/stress as well as disease. Studies have resulted in the development of a temperature vs. airflow velocity chart that suggests specific airflow rates (in feet/minute) that do not hinder productivity. As the temperature of the barns fluctuates the pigs will adjust their feed intake accordingly. It is believed that the greatest intake of net energy along with peak conversion occurs just above the lower critical temperature. When analyzing ventilation it is important to take into account volume, distribution, and control of air. Recommended ventilation rates are simply calculated by multiplying the number of animals in the house by the recommended rate. The distribution system will provide sufficient mixing of fresh air with appropriate maintenance. A common method of monitoring the control of air is via a sensor inside of the room in question. These can help to make control decisions. Most of the ventilation problems occur during cold or cool weather when ventilation rates are low. Air quality can be poor because of under ventilation. If relative humidity is high, other contaminants are usually above the threshold values as well. A suggested priority for ventilation testing would be temperature and humidity, air distribution pattern, ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and dust.
Lactic acid fermentation of food waste for swine feed
Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments
Apparent and true total tract digestibility of phosphorus in field peas (Pisum sativum L.) by growing pigs
Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments
The apparent (ATTD) and true (TTTD) total tract digestibility of P in field peas were measured using growing pigs. Two diets based on field peas without or with microbial phytase were formulated. A P-free diet was also formulated to measure endogenous losses of P. Results of the experiment showed that the ATTD and TTTD of P in field peas with microbial phytase (65.9 and 72.3%, respectively) were greater (P < 0.01) than in field peas without microbial phytase (55.0 and 60.8%, respectively). The addition of microbial phytase to field peas also reduced (P < 0.01) the excretion of P in the feces (from 5.77 to 4.09 g/5 d).
Financial Risks, Concerns & Opportunities for Pork Producers
Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments
Farm Credit Canada (FCC) is a federal crown corporation, with roots dating back over 45 years. Back then they were strictly a mortgage lender, offering one type of loan. Today, they offer 24 types of loans – 18 of them being customized products to meet the various needs of the agriculture industry and the sectors within it. In addition to financing, through their expanded mission, they provide a variety of other business solutions to farm families and ag-business. FCC operates out of 100 offices across the country – so they are represented in every hog-producing region in Canada and hold a fairly large loan portfolio in the sector. FCC’s Account Managers are fairly knowledgeable about the issues facing the hog industry and have found that although the reasons may be varied; expansion in the form of increasing the scale of operations is not in the forefront of producers’ minds. Rather, producers are placing more emphasis on how they can “hold their own” at least through 2006/07. The general consensus is that this core business goal will be achieved if they can: withstand tightening margins (in particular maintain their working capital position); re-tool or enhance existing operations in order to find finishing space –either under the umbrella of their own operation, or through contract barns; stabilize the herd from a health perspective; andor find and keep good employees. At Farm Credit Canada, “Agriculture is all we do.” So says their slogan. In French-speaking parts of the country, the literal translation is closer to “Agriculture…our reason for being”. Passion for the industry has made it easy for FCC to be there during the peaks and the troughs. Cycles in the industry result in continuous change in the needs of producers, and with that change, FCC continues to broaden its focus and to add value in a variety of ways.
Managing the Risk: Price Protection Through Insurance
Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments
Studies are currently being done to examine whether a price insurance program would work in the hog industry. Producers (for the most part) are willing to pay 1 to 2 dollars per pig for a reasonable insurance due to the wide price fluctuations that have occurred over the past few years (producers tend to remember 1998 and 2002 in particular). Producers wish to guard against scenarios where the hog margin after feed is insufficient to cover the remaining costs. This has occurred before for a period, as long as half a year, and it took even longer to recover from it. Consultations with producers and other related observations suggest there would be good receptivity to having an insurance alternative to add to their available tools in the risk management package, and costs should be held within $1-2/hog to obtain fairly wide coverage.
Effect of feeding food waste-broiler litter and bakery by-product mixture to pigs
Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments
Effects of animal/feeding-place ratio on the behaviour and performance of fattening pigs fed via sensor-controlled liquid feeding.
Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments
Over the past few years, various new feeding systems for fattening pigs have been developed. One of these systems is sensor-controlled feeding, whereby the animals are fed with liquid feed. Liquid feeding systems are different from dry feeding systems in many respects. Larger volumes of feed are consumed and a feeling of satiation may therefore be reached sooner in the individual pig. On the other hand, satiation probably lasts for a shorter time and feed must be provided several times during the day. As the water content in the feed is high, it takes the pigs longer to consume the same amount of digestible energy in the form of liquid feed compared to dry feed. With dry feeding systems for fatteners, it has been observed that a restricted a animal/feeding-place ratio (AFR) may lead to competition for feed, and consequently to increased aggression at the feeding trough, reduced duration of feeding and lower weight gain with more variation in weight between individuals (Hansen et al., 1982; Botermans and Georgsson, 2001; Kircher, 2001; Turner et al., 2002). As a result of increased competition at feedings, some pigs, especially the smaller ones, may have difficulty gaining access to the trough, and thus feed less (Botermans and Georgsson, 2001). These individuals may tend to be of lower social rank. In other studies on pigs, it has been found that there is a correlation between weight and social rank within a group (Rushen, 1988; Hicks et al., 1998; Andersen et al., 2000; O’Conell et al., 2004). The aim of the present study was to quantify the effect of three different AFRs (4:1, 7:1 and 13:1) with nine, six and three feeding places per group, respectively, on the behaviour and performance of fattening pigs (25–100 kg) housed in groups of 40 individuals. Each AFR was tested with seven groups and with each group, four pigs were selected from each weight class (lightweight, middleweight and heavyweight) as focal animals. The behaviour in the feeding area was observed by means of 24 h-video-recording for the 12 focal pigs at an age of 14 and 17 weeks. Daily weight gain was calculated for all animals. As the AFR increased, feeding bout duration at the trough declined significantly, whilst the duration of waiting increased. The AFR had no significant effect on the frequency of aggressive displacements at the feeding trough. On the other hand, the fatteners were more frequently pushed away from the trough without aggressive interactions as the AFR increased. Besides the AFR, the age and weight class of the focal pigs had a significant effect on behaviour. Lightweight animals waited longer for access to the trough and were more often displaced from the trough as a consequence of aggressive interactions. Weight gain was lower as AFR increased, an effect that was more pronounced in lightweight focal animals. In conclusion, the AFR has a decisive influence on the behaviour and performance of fattening pigs fed by sensor feeding. Lightweight pigs, most likely the subordinate group members, are more affected by an increased AFR, and hence most at risk of impaired welfare. An AFR of 13:1 has marked negative effects on the pigs’ performance and behaviour and is inadvisable to be used for this feeding system.