\u00a0<\/p>\n
As the market for pork becomes more and more differentiated, retailers and processors are looking for opportunities to meet the demand from consumers for products which meet their aspirations in terms of welfare, food safety and the environment. \u00a0This trend is well-developed in Europe where there is a wide range of pork categories such as outdoor reared, antibiotic free and organic. \u00a0Now antibiotic-free pork production is increasing significantly in the USA.\u00a0 The question for producers is whether any loss in production efficiency and the additional costs involved are offset by the price premium received. European experience suggests that the additional cost per pig is in the region of $5.24.\u00a0 However, a paper presented at the recent American Association of Swine Veterinarians by Darwin Kohler, James Schneider, and Chad Bierman demonstrated that removal of antibiotics on one farm did not lead to a significant loss of performance.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe use of antibiotics in livestock feeds is meeting with increasing opposition,\u201d note the authors. \u201cThe controversy revolves around the level of antibiotic fed to livestock for non-therapeutic use, which in turn causes an increase in bacterial resistance in humans and known allergic reactions or toxicity.\u201d \u00a0The consumers of meat products today are asking for a more \u2018natural\u2019 food product.<\/p>\n European opposition has been stronger than in the US. \u00a0A ban of over-the-counter antibiotics was implemented in Sweden in 1986, Norway in 1992, Finland in 1996, Denmark in 1998, and Poland and Switzerland in 1999. \u00a0Current EU regulations state that antimicrobials used in either human or in veterinary therapeutic medicine are prohibited from use as feed-additive growth promoters in livestock.<\/p>\n Based on experience in Sweden and expert opinions, the likely performance effects of removing antibiotics and the cost implications are shown in Table 1.<\/p>\n Table 1: Technical assumptions of antibiotic ban<\/strong><\/p>\n Trait\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Most likely change<\/strong><\/p>\n PSY \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Decreased 1 pig<\/p>\n Weaning age\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Increased 1 week<\/p>\n Wean to 25kg\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Increased 5 days<\/p>\n FCR 25-114kg\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Increased 1.5%<\/p>\n Pre-wean mortality\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Increased 1.5%<\/p>\n Grow\/finish mortality \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Increased 0.49%<\/p>\n Net additives cost \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Increased $0.25\/pig<\/p>\n Total cost\/pig\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Increased $5.24\/pig<\/p>\n Today, one form of antibiotic free (ABF) pork production is beginning to be used in the United States, note the authors. \u00a0It is based on no birth-to-market antibiotic use of any kind, no growth promotants, no natural or artificial hormones, no ionophores, no animal proteins and no animal by-products. \u201cCan antibiotic free (ABF) pork production be more successful in the United States than indicated in Table 1?\u201d they ask.<\/p>\n Case study farm shows little effect on performance<\/strong><\/p>\n The case study reported in the paper is a 1,000-sow farrow to finish conventional confinement system. \u00a0This system has been closed to live animal introduction since 1996. \u00a0Management was interested in pursuing ABF pork production. \u00a0Small amounts of antibiotic had been used or needed in their herd, and a premium was being offered for antibiotic free pork. \u00a0Pigs are vaccinated for Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae<\/em> and the herd is PRRS stable. \u00a0Gilts are raised internally and there is an off-site boar stud. \u00a0Since December 2004 no antibiotics, growth promotants, or animal by-products have been used in pigs from birth to market. \u00a0The farm maintains records of inoculations, illnesses and injuries, treatments, etc. \u00a0Very few pigs require treatment. \u00a0If prohibited medication is used in treatment, the pigs are marked for identification and are sent to conventional markets. \u00a0\u201cProducts such as zinc, copper, probiotics, enzymes, botanicals, enzymes, mannan oligosaccharides, egg antibodies, oil of oregano, and organic acids are allowed to be used in place of antibiotics in the ABF program,\u201d explain the authors. \u00a0\u201cHowever, these products are not necessary in this herd and are not in use as replacements for antibiotics.\u201d<\/p>\n Table 2 shows the sow herd performance before and after ABF. \u00a0The ABF program does allow for antibiotic usage in the sow herd. \u00a0Antibiotic usage in the sow herd changed little over the six-year period. \u00a0Comparisons of traits between the \u2018before ABF\u2019 and \u2018after ABF\u2019 periods are both positive and negative and show no consistent advantage to the use of antibiotics. \u00a0Pigs had received an antibiotic at birth before ABF. \u00a0The expectation would be an increase in pre-weaning mortality. An increase from 8.2% to 9.9% did occur but was not reflected in pigs weaned per mated female per year. \u00a0Adjusted 21-day litter weaning weight is 13 pounds (5.9kg) heavier after ABF with an increase in pounds weaned per sow per year of 8%. \u00a0Only pre-weaning mortality was in agreement with the negative predictions shown in Table 1.<\/p>\n Table 2: Sow herd performance before and after ABF production<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Before ABF\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 After ABF<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jul 02 \u2013 Dec 04\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jan 05 \u2013 Jun 07<\/p>\n Average total pigs\/litter\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 11.4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 11.4<\/p>\n Average pigs born alive \/litter\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 10.4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 10.6<\/p>\n Pre-wean mortality (%)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 8.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 9.9<\/p>\n Average age at weaning\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a018.2 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a020.5<\/p>\n Farrowing rate\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a093\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 91.6<\/p>\n Litters\/mated female\/year\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a02.56\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2.52<\/p>\n Pig wnd\/mated female\/year\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a023.8\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 23.8<\/p>\n Table 3 shows the herd\u2019s finishing performance before and after ABF. Although previous reports show poorer performance with ABF production, few differences are noted here. \u00a0Only feed conversion showed a noticeable drop in performance.<\/p>\n Table 3: Finishing performance before and after ABF<\/strong><\/p>\n Grow finish trait\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2002 \u2013 2004\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2005 \u2013 2007<\/strong><\/p>\n Av. Lwt. of pigs entered (kg)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a018.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 21.1<\/p>\n Av. Lwt of pigs sold (kg)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 114.5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 118.4<\/p>\n Av. days to market\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 114.6\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 115.2<\/p>\n Av. daily feed intake (kg\/day)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2.22\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2.36<\/p>\n Av. daily gain (g\/day)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0839\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 839<\/p>\n Feed conversion ratio\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2.65\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2.69*<\/p>\n *Feed conversion adjusted to common entry and sale weight<\/p>\n The only significant difference is in FCR and the authors calculated this to add $0.68 to production cost.\u00a0 Finisher death loss was slightly higher after ABF resulting in a cost increase of $0.07 per market hog. \u00a0Average drug cost before ABF of $0.18 per market hog resulted in a saving after ABF. \u00a0Pigs were no longer sold grade and yield during the last three years therefore carcass yield and percent lean were assumed to be unchanged.<\/p>\n ABF premium gives bigger margins<\/strong><\/p>\n Additional ABF premium was calculated as the difference received in harvest price by this herd versus other similar herds and selling grade and yield to the same market that this herd had been selling to before ABF. \u00a0Using this method, the additional ABF premium was estimated to be $4.26 per head in 2005 and 2006. \u00a0\u201cThe ABF premium tends to inversely fluctuate with the base grade and yield price and is much higher today when market prices are lower than in the previous two years, note the authors. \u00a0\u201cCurrent additional ABF premium for November 2007 is $16.62 per head.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0Overall, taking the differences in performance and costs into account, there was a net average benefit of $7.89 for ABF production compared to the period when antibiotics were used.<\/p>\n Little or no differences in production numbers were observed on this farm. \u00a0The increase in cost of production has been shown to be $0.32 per head. \u00a0\u201cSuccess is attributed to the use of appropriate genetics, maintaining a closed herd and maintaining a high level of biosecurity to keep pathogens out,\u201d say the authors. \u00a0\u201cGood management in areas of proper husbandry, nutrition management, environmental control, prompt treatment or removal of sick pigs and attention to detail is essential.\u201d \u00a0Not only does this case study illustrate the feasibility of ABF production, but it demonstrates significant profit potential in today\u2019s niche markets, they conclude.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00a0 As the market for pork becomes more and more differentiated, retailers and processors are looking for opportunities to meet the demand from consumers for products which meet their aspirations in terms of welfare, food safety and the environment. \u00a0This trend is well-developed in Europe where there is a wide range of pork categories such […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2102,930,928],"tags":[15957,23676,21662,23288,14290,21303,20210,21308,26145,9500,1809,220,8882,14781,640,23020,26176,24143,19101,3694,15108,7879,7880,25087,23224,23464,21749,11353,26741,13691,18571,19647,16070,1456,8738,24605,3145,15514,10033,13816,4906,2863,5162,12251,5981,6000,15022,16845,4564,189,2235,6784,190,2883,8390,583,6124,19644,26126,2055,8626,21709,25122,527,20604,135,1443,223,25380,5886,4165,103,7846,7859,6904,46,25391,7475,4637,16077,925,9139,530,1066,124,24375,3804,502,20007,105,3322,158,111,34,20463,27026,24811,27054,2771,16083,26132,5381,818,48,26930,10858,21486,94,15513,606,7126,10859,19063,14784,22573,25159,7878,79,5352,15522,22124,21592,4264,967,3465,15459,63,14,33,23071,15043,16262,92,608,1324,8464,4732,8870,15113,21206,23579,4257,4652,6721,17743,27282,16944,4181,8926,1231,14945,18599,5269,22559,396,4643,104,21729,23442,35,20911,4874,18011,52,24994,6053,3790,77,2802,3857,1301,27281,23179,24112,2285],"class_list":["post-7640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-meat-quality","category-production","category-welfare","tag-advantges-of-antibiotic-free-niche-protein-market","tag-a-b-f-pork","tag-abf-meat","tag-abf-pig-production","tag-abf-pork","tag-abf-pork-meat","tag-abf-pork-processors","tag-abf-pork-producers","tag-abf-pork-products","tag-abf-swine-program","tag-acid","tag-additive","tag-al","tag-american-association","tag-animal","tag-annual-drug-expense-per-sold-pig","tag-anribiotic-free-pork-producers","tag-anti-botic-free-pork","tag-antibioitic-free-swine-progarm","tag-antibiotic","tag-antibiotic-and-animal-by-product-free-program","tag-antibiotic-ban","tag-antibiotic-free","tag-antibiotic-free-animal-production","tag-antibiotic-free-hogs","tag-antibiotic-free-on-pork-production","tag-antibiotic-free-pigs","tag-antibiotic-free-pork","tag-antibiotic-free-pork-processors","tag-antibiotic-free-pork-production","tag-antibiotic-free-pork-production-costs","tag-antibiotic-free-pork-production-premums","tag-antibiotic-free-swine-feed","tag-antibiotics","tag-antibiotics-in-pork-production-case-study","tag-antibiotics-in-pork-production-in-sweden","tag-antimicrobial","tag-antimicrobials","tag-arc","tag-ass","tag-biosecurity","tag-birth","tag-boar","tag-born","tag-by-product","tag-by-products","tag-case-study-on-antibiotic-productions","tag-close","tag-comparison","tag-consumer","tag-conversion","tag-cos","tag-cost","tag-cost-of-production","tag-cost-antibiotics-swine","tag-costs","tag-days-to-market","tag-dd","tag-demand-for-outdoor-pork-increasing","tag-denmark","tag-denmark-antibiotic-free-pork","tag-do-antibiotic-free-pigs-get-vaccinated","tag-eet","tag-efficiency","tag-egan","tag-egg","tag-enzyme","tag-enzymes","tag-eu-use-of-antibiotics-in-hog-production","tag-farrow","tag-farrow-to-finish","tag-farrowing","tag-farrowing-rate","tag-fcr","tag-fee","tag-feed","tag-feed-additive-sweden","tag-feed-conversion","tag-feed-conversion-ratio","tag-feed-for-weaning","tag-feed-intake","tag-feed-intake-grow-finish-pigs","tag-feeds","tag-finisher","tag-finishing","tag-five-sow-production-is-profitable","tag-genetic","tag-genetics","tag-gh","tag-gilt","tag-gilts","tag-growth","tag-health","tag-hog","tag-hormone-antibiotic-free-pork-producers-by-state","tag-how-is-a-hog-antibiotic-free","tag-how-to-adjust-fcr-for-pigs","tag-httpwww-prairieswine-comantibiotic-free-pork-production-can-be-profitable","tag-iron","tag-james","tag-jan","tag-light","tag-litter","tag-management","tag-mannan","tag-mark","tag-market-demand-for-antibiotic-free-pork","tag-meat","tag-microbials","tag-mortality","tag-mycoplasma-hyopneumoniae","tag-nat","tag-natural-abf-pork","tag-ness","tag-no-antibiotic-swine-production","tag-non-antibiotic-products-for-pigs","tag-non-therapeutic","tag-nutrition","tag-opinion","tag-oregano","tag-organic-acid","tag-organic-antibiotic-free-pork","tag-outdoor","tag-pathogens","tag-pea","tag-ped","tag-performance","tag-pig","tag-pigs","tag-pigs-antibiotic-free-pork","tag-pigs-born-alive","tag-pl","tag-plasma","tag-pneumonia","tag-pork","tag-pork-no-animal-by-products","tag-pork-production","tag-prairie-swine-centre-antibiotic-free","tag-pre-weaning-mortality","tag-prem","tag-price-of-hormone-free-pork","tag-prices","tag-probiotic","tag-probiotics","tag-prod","tag-production","tag-profitable-antibiotic-free-pork-production-farming","tag-prrs","tag-psy","tag-regulations","tag-removal-of","tag-replacement","tag-report","tag-research-papers-on-free-range-pig-production","tag-safety","tag-sick","tag-sow","tag-sow-farrowing-drugs-human-allergic-reactions-litterguard","tag-success-of-antibiotic-free-pork","tag-swine","tag-t","tag-tan","tag-tot","tag-treatment","tag-usa","tag-use","tag-weaned","tag-weaning","tag-weaning-age","tag-weaning-weight","tag-weight","tag-welfare","tag-what-is-abf-pork","tag-wher-can-i-sell-antibiotic-free-porkl","tag-yield"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7640","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7640"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7640\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7642,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7640\/revisions\/7642"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prairieswine.com\/rsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}