Evaluating the Impact Under Commercial Conditions of Increasing Dietary Energy Concentration on Grow-Finish Performance, Carcass Quality and Return Over Feed Cost

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on January 1, 2005 | No Comments

The primary objective of pork production is to produce lean meat in a cost effective and sustainable manner. From a nutritional perspective, energy is perhaps the most critical nutrient, because it is the most expensive to provide in the diet. Other nutrients are less expensive to provide, and can always be provided in amounts that meet or exceed the pig’s requirement for growth. Because energy is considered the most important driver of growth in the diet, achieving the full genetic potential for growth in the modern pig requires a clear and definitive understanding of the energy response curve in all phases of production. Establishing responses to nutrient intake levels is particularly critical in defining feeding programs to optimize carcass quality.
Two experiments were therefore conducted by the Prairie Swine Centre to develop energy response curves for pigs during the growing and finishing phases of production. The first experiment was conducted at the Centre. Each room contained 20 pens, with 5 pigs per pen, or 300 pigs on test. This experiment employed 5 experimental treatments in each of three phases of growth. Diets varied from 3.00 to 3.60 Mcal/kg DE. The increase in diet DE concentration was achieved by increasing canola oil, wheat and soybean meal at the expense of barley.
Energy density of the diet did not affect pig growth, bodyweight, or the variability in growth during any growth phase (P>0.05). Feed intake decreased as energy density of the diet increased (P<0.001); consequently, feed efficiency improved (P<0.001). However, because of the increased cost of the high energy rations, feed costs per pig increased by 20% as diet DE increased from 3.0 to 3.6 Mcal/kg (Figure 1). Back fat thickness increased from 16.8 to 19.4 mm as diet DE increased from 3.0 to 3.6 Mcal/kg (P<0.001). Carcass value, and premiums paid, however, were surprisingly not different among energy levels (P>0.10). Therefore, the increased cost of the high energy diets made them uneconomical to feed.
Upon reviewing the results of experiment #1, we wondered if the level of feed intake impacted the response to energy. Feed intake, which typically varies a lot amongst farms, could conceivably mitigate a response to the higher energy diets. Therefore, a commercial farm was considered as another model to evaluate the response of pigs to dietary energy concentration.
The second experiment was conducted at St. Denis Stock Farm, located at St. Denis, SK, about 50 km east of Saskatoon, SK. It is a single site, 600-sow farrow-to-finish operation constructed about 10 years ago. It operates as a strictly commercial entity, and is not normally used for research. Three grower and 3 finisher rooms, with 12 pens each were utilized. Each pen housed 20 pigs, for a total of 36 pens and 720 pigs on test.
Three dietary energy levels were employed: 3.20, 3.35 and 3.50 Mcal DE/kg. This range in energy was selected as it represented the reasonable expected range of energy used in typical commercial diets in western Canada. Ingredient and nutrient composition are shown in Table 1. This table shows the formulated and the actual DE, which was determined for each treatment and gender at the mid-point of each phase. The deviation we observed between formulated DE values and determined DE values in the experimental diets confirms the importance of this measurement. The average deviation between formulated and determined DE, reported herein, was 71 kcal/kg, or 2.1%, a significant amount in the context of practical swine diet formulation.
The diets were formulated according to commercial practice, such that increasing the energy content of the diet resulted in increased use of wheat, soybean meal and tallow, and less barley. The upper limit of tallow levels in the highest energy diets – 4.0% – was determined by the handling capacity of most on-farm mills, especially during the winter months.
Pigs performed very well on this experiment, with daily gain averaging 990 g/d across treatment. Average daily gain and feed efficiency were improved during the early phases of the experiment (P<0.05). Up to about 80 kg, there was no effect of diet on average daily feed (P>0.10), so increased dietary energy concentration resulted in increased daily energy intake (P<0.05). However, beyond about 80 kg, pigs tended to consume less of the higher energy diets, so growth rate was not affected by diet during this period. Of particular interest to commercial barn operators was the observation that the number of tail-end pigs, those that did not achieve the target shipping weight within the room turn period, was higher on the lower energy diet (Table 2). Interestingly, dietary energy did not affect carcass backfat thickness, lean yield, carcass index or carcass value (P>0.10). However, the higher energy diets tended to increase loin thickness (P<0.10), something we have seen in previous experiments. The dressing percentage of the pigs on the low energy diet tended to be lower than pigs on the other treatments (P<0.10). The dietary energy concentration did not improve the uniformity of the pigs, nor the uniformity of their carcasses. Thus, producers should not increase diet energy concentration with the expectation that pigs will reach market in a more uniform manner, or produce more uniform carcasses. The latter will be much more dependent on selection practices at the time of shipping. An economic analysis was conducted using longer-term average prices for pigs (1.45/kg) and ingredients: (wheat, $130/t; barley, $110/t; soybean meal, $340/t; canola meal, $204/t, tallow, $550/t) (Table 3). Two possible scenarios for the adoption of these results on a commercial farm were considered. In scenario #1, all pigs were shipped by the time the finishing room was turned over to the next group; some pigs would be marketed below the core weight and revenues reflected the associated lost value. Under this circumstance, the best return over growout feed cost was earned on the lowest energy diet, with an advantage in the range of $2.12 compared to the medium energy program, and $4.04 over the high energy program. In the second scenario, the tail-end pigs were held back until they reached the minimum market weight; this resulted in a higher gross income, since all pigs would be marketed within the optimum weight range, but the cost would be higher, since there would a considerable increase in the feed required. Space to house the tail-end pigs would also be required. In this scenario, the advantage again fell to the lowest energy program, earning $1.26 more than the medium energy program, and $4.02 compared to the high energy program. In the latter scenario, no charge for housing was included, as it was assumed that hold-back pigs would be moved into an existing hold-back room, or would be placed with other pigs. In conclusion, net income can be maximized by feeding lower energy programs. However, the results of individual phases within this experiment suggest that feeding higher energy diets up to 80 kg may be warranted, as this is the period when pigs would respond the most to the higher energy diets. It is clear from this experiment, and from others conducted previously, that the response to dietary energy concentration is not easy to predict. If pigs are able to consume sufficient quantities of feed to achieve excellent growth on lower energy diets, then feeding higher energy diets is unlikely to be beneficial. However, if feed intake is low, then there may be a benefit to feeding higher energy diets, to increase daily energy intake and thus support faster growth. Nonetheless, we caution producers from assuming that increasing dietary energy will universally increase pig performance; experimental data does not support such an assumption. Finally, in terms of gross numbers, the numerical difference in growth rate between the low and higher energy diets was very similar at St. Denis as compared to the Prairie Swine Centre; while conducting research at multiple locations is obviously preferable, it is also very expensive. These comparative data confirm the validity of the response of pigs housed under the conditions of the Prairie Swine Centre.

Tallow and Energy for Grow-Finish Pigs:

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

The primary objective of pork production is to produce lean meat in a cost effective and sustainable manner. From a nutritional perspective, energy is perhaps the most critical nutrient, because it is the most expensive to provide in the diet. Energy is also an important driver of growth; achieving the full genetic potential for growth in the modern pig requires a clear definitive understanding of the pig’s energy response curve. Feeding the pigs lower energy programs may maximize net income. However, the results of individual phases within this experiment suggest that feeding higher energy diets up to 80 kg may be warranted, as this is the period when pigs would respond the most to the higher energy diets. Furthermore, the relative cost of high and low energy ingredients will dictate the optimum energy concentration. It is clear from this experiment, and from others conducted previously, that the response to dietary energy concentration is not easy to predict. If pigs are able to consume sufficient quantities of feed to achieve excellent growth on lower energy diets, then feeding higher energy diets is unlikely to be beneficial. However, if feed intake is low, then there may be a benefit to feeding higher energy diets, to increase daily energy intake and thus support faster growth. Nonetheless, we caution producers from assuming that increasing dietary energy will universally increase pig performance; experimental data does not support such an assumption.

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.

Heating and Ventilation in Swine Facilities

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

John Patience Receives Award for Excellence in Nutrition and Meat Sciences

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

Preparing Ventilation for Spring and Winter

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

Brian Andries

The variation in temperature changes starting late fall and progressing into the winter months requires strategies dealing with ventilating pig barns in our cold climate regions. Ventilation deals with brining in fresh air to meet heating and cooling requirements. Cooling during spring and summer months does not require the expenditure of extra energy to heat an entire facility, as in the winter months. There are two main challenges when considering optimum control to ensure proper conditions for both animals and people working in confinement operations. The most important deals with maintaining a healthy environment and the second in conserving energy and keeping costs down to operate the facility. To meet these challenges we need to ensure that we are operating in energy efficient building and effectively controlling a somewhat complex ventilation system to minimize energy loss.

Cold climate ventilation dictates that animals are required to be housed in confinement. Animals housed in close quarters during the winter months produce heat, moisture, and gas. Heat is a result of both the metabolic process resulting in growth of the animal as well as the production of heat from equipment and lights. Moisture results from respiration of animals as well as water spillage from drinkers and evaporation from manure. Gases are emitted from manure storage and dirty pens while dust is a result of dander, dried fecal material and feed. To ensure an adequate environment for both animals and people working in barns, all of these contaminants have to be diluted and removed from this confined space. Ventilation is used to balance temperature, humidity and gas and dust concentration.

When consideration is given to conserving energy in relation to achieving an optimum environment during the winter months we should first consider the concept of heat transfer and loss through the walls ceiling and floor of the facility. We need to ensure that the facility is properly maintained to rectify any chance of heat loss through exterior doors or windows. Seal exterior doors with weather stripping and ensure cracks in walls are also sealed. As well, the insulation values of our building materials need to be monitored to ensure that they have not been compromised by rodent infestation. At least 30% of all heat loss in a facility is through the building envelope.

Part of maintaining a good environment in the barn is to ensure that ventilation controllers are set to ensure proper ventilation rates required to remove moisture, gas and other contaminants from the air space inside the barn. Ventilation rate is also a component of the setpoint temperature and insulation factor of the building itself. A balance needs to be found between the removal of contaminants and moisture, while maintaining a room temperature close to the set point ensuring minimal loss of heat expelled to the outside. Ventilation accounts for close to 70% of the heat loss from a facility over the colder months of the year.

Ensuring proper management and maintenance procedures as well as good husbandry practices to maximize optimum environmental conditions in the barn will assist in decreasing ventilation rates and in doing so conserve energy losses. Repair of all leaking water lines and nipple drinkers will ensure reduced moisture levels in the facility. Reducing humidity levels from the evaporation of urine and fecal material can be accomplished by ensuring proper dunging patterns are maintained by properly monitoring inlets and recirculation ducts as well as regular cleaning of pens. Clean pens will also reduce the level of ammonia in the room. Ammonia is produced by the decomposition of nitrogenous compounds in feces and urine on solid surfaces. At the time of manure removal from the room hydrogen sulfide is released and only at this time should the ventilation rate be increased to reduce hydrogen sulfide levels. Dust levels can be reduced by in a facility by minimizing feed handling and disturbance and by avoiding disturbing the pigs. Proper safety equipment should also be available to staff including dust masks, eye and hearing protection.

Regular maintenance on ventilation equipment is important to ensure proper ventilation rates are maintained during the winter months. All fans need to be cleaned and function properly on a daily basis. As to cold season arrives proper fan covers should be installed on all stages of fans not utilized during the winter months. These covers should be maintained so that they maintain their insulation value and do not allow the back drafting of cold air into the facility. All fan hoods should be mounted to ensure wind protection for exhaust fans so that wind pressure against the fan will not cut off the fan air delivery. Air inlet adjustment is also very important to the ventilation system during the heating season. The opening size should comply with the minimum ventilation rate to ensure more cold air is not entering the room requiring excess heating. Inlet opening controls and actuators should be monitored to ensure proper functioning at all times. Heaters should also be checked and serviced regularly. Corrosion of relay contact points is very common and the pilot of gas heaters should e kept clean.

After a ventilation system is designed it is very important to ensure the proper management of the system. It is recommended to draw up procedures for all seasons to ensure that the ventilation system can be properly monitored on the following basis:
– setpoint temperatures
– minimum ventilation rates during heating seasons
– fan scheduling
– air inlet adjustment
– moisture control
– odour and dust control

New Scientist Joins Prairie Swine Centre

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

New Research Scientist at Prairie Swine Centre

Saskatoon – Dr. Pascal Leterme, a research scientist with impressive international credentials, has joined the Prairie Swine Centre.

Before coming to Canada, Leterme was an assistant professor at the National Veterinary School in Lyon, France. Previous to that, he held research positions at universities in Colombia and Belgium.

He has been program leader for projects financed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Volkswagen Foundation, the Belgian Ministry for Cooperation to Development and the Government of Colombia.

Dr. Leterme is a recognized expert in swine nutrition completing work in ingredient evaluation, utilizing pulse crops in swine rations, and protein metabolism. At Prairie Swine Centre his work will concentrate on the utilization of pulses in swine diets, better use of locally available ingredients like canola and flax, and integrating nutrition and the environment in sustainable production systems. “Western Canada is a perfect fit for my training and interests” notes Dr. Leterme. Legumes, especially peas are an area of particular expertise where Dr. Leterme has distinguished himself through the development of novel investigation techniques, earning him an invitation to the prestigious Scientific Committee of the European Association of Grain Legume Research, based in Paris. Pascal has also provided leadership to the scientific community as Editor of the Grain Legumes Journal for 6 years.

Dr. Leterme saw the opportunity to immigrate to Canada as a positive move to further his practical work on swine nutrition, “I knew from a previous visit to Canada that the Prairie Swine Centre had great facilities and offered lots of opportunities for practical feed ingredient research.”

“We’re really fortunate to attract someone of Pascal’s skills,” says John Patience, President of the Prairie Swine Centre. “He is considered ‘Mr. Pulse Crop’ for his work with grain legumes in Europe.”

Leterme is fluent in three languages – English, French and Spanish. “That will help the Prairie Swine Centre keep abreast of research developments in many countries around the world,” notes Patience.

Pascal his wife Carmenza and two children moved from Lyon, France to Saskatoon in fall 2005.

Prairie Swine Centre Inc., located in Saskatoon, is a non-profit research corporation affiliated with the University of Saskatchewan, and is recognized globally for its contributions to practical, applied science in pork production in the disciplines of Nutrition, Engineering and Animal Behaviour.

-30-

For more information, contact:
Pascal Leterme
Research Scientist – Nutrition
Prairie Swine Centre
Phone: 306-667-7445
Fax: 306-955-2510
E-mail: pascal.leterme@usask.ca

John Patience
President,
Prairie Swine Centre Inc.
Phone: 306-373-9922
Fax: 306-955-2510
E-mail: john.patience@usask.ca

P.I.G Tour Quickly Becoming Teacher's Pet

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

If its first year of operation is any indication, The Prairie Swine Centre’s Pork Interpretive Gallery (P.I.G.) is well on its way to building a well-deserved reputation as a valuable teaching tool for Saskatchewan educators. Located at the Prairie Swine Centre’s Elstow Research Facility, a 600-sow farrow-to-finish hog operation, the Pork Interpretive Gallery allows tour participants unprecedented access to an intensive hog operation. This access is made available through a unique viewing gallery that ‘bypasses’ biosecurity concerns at the barn.

In fact biosecurity is not compromised, but rather, the viewing gallery is accessed through a separate, outside entrance that leads up a flight of stairs to what would normally be the barn’s attic. But thanks to a stroke of genius and a few structural modifications, the attic became a segregated viewing gallery, aptly known as the P.I.G.
Geared towards students from the Grade 5 to Grade 9 level, the tour has some very eye-catching and interactive signage to captivate the students’ attention, and is guided by knowledgeable and friendly interpreters.

“Hats off to the interpreters, they were amazing,” says Leslie Sichello, a Grade 5 teacher at Silverwood Heights Elementary School in Saskatoon. “They were so patient and they provided all of the answers that the kids wanted to know. They were able to anticipate what kids of things would really capture a Grade 5’s brain.”
Kandace Chopty, a Grade 5 teacher at Watrous Elementary School was so impressed with her first visit to P.I.G., she made a return trip this past school year. “The kids learned some new things about the pork industry,” Chopty says. “Even though they are rural children, there was still stuff there that they learned.”

“I guess this year the highlight was of course we saw the pigs being born. They were right there, noses pressed to the glass, observing it,” she chuckles. “Of course they didn’t want to leave that area, that was by far the highlight of the day.”

Regardless if the touring students come from an urban or rural setting, the P.I.G. tour seems to provide a valuable learning experience for any and all students. “None of our students were from a farm background so it was very new to them,” said Cliff Adelman, an Agriculture 20 teacher at Lutheran Collegiate Bible Institute (LCBI) in Outlook. “They loved it,” “It very much changed their perception,” he adds. “They now know when they eat pork what kind of a place it comes from.”

“A student from Toronto thanked me especially for it, he said ‘I know where my food comes from now, I never really thought about it before.’ So it’s excellent.” Despite targeting its message largely to grade school students, the P.I.G. tour is also adaptable enough to be beneficial to university veterinary medical students, says U of S vet med professor Joe Stookey. “All of the responses back from the students was excellent,” says Stookey, who took out 70 second-year veterinary students as part of their introduction to swine production. “And in fact I’ve had requests from other years wanting to do the same thing. Some classes felt they missed out on it.” “And the interpreters were great,” Stookey adds, concurring with Sichello’s earlier comments. “We had some pretty sophisticated questions, I would guess compared to grade school or high school questions, and there wasn’t anything that went unanswered.”
Not only is the actual tour a delight for teachers, but the P.I.G. is beneficial to teachers even before the field trip begins, says Sichello.

“The documents that they sent out ahead of time that had everything connected to curricular objectives was very well planned as well,” she says. “They knew exactly what this would connect to in health and lifestyles.”
“So the kids were prepared and they just loved it,” Sichello says, adding that the P.I.G. tour was her best field trip of the year. “It was really good.” For more information on or to book your tour with the Pork Interpretive Gallery, please call P.I.G. Tour manager, Deb Ehmann-PIG-TOUR (1-866-744-8687), or visit www.PIGTour.ca