Swine Grist 2016 - Summer

Swine Grist

VOL 3 ISSUE 2 | SUMMER 2016

A P E R I O D I C N E W S L E T T E R P R O D U C E D B Y G R A N D V A L L E Y F O R T I F I E R S LT D .

Jim Ross, Chairman Dear Friends, This issue of our Grand Valley Grist is chocked full of information and challenging concepts in the development of production practices and marketing concepts today. Perhaps as never before, consumers are becoming more knowledgeable about what they are eating. Besides flavour and the nutritional value of their food, consumers are also concerned about the humane production practices and feeding regimes which are being followed to bring meat products to the market place.

Times are changing and livestock producers and packers must respond to the demands of consumers as they move away from conventionally produced protein. We believe family farms have a great opportunity to address this growing market and differentiate their product for better returns, price stability and thus farm stability.

Wishing you good farming this summer. Sincerely, Jim Ross, Founder & Chairman

OPPORTUNITIES FOR FAMILY FARMS

by: IAN ROSS President & CEO, Grand Valley Fortifiers

H

aving just completed my reading of The Meat Racket, The Secret Takeover of America’s Food Business, by Christopher Leonard, I have been reminded, and further educated, on the massive impact of integrated food companies like Tyson Foods, and Smithfield Foods on how chicken, pork and beef is raised in this continent as well as who is raising it.

This year I turned 47 and in my relatively short life time we have witnessed the consolidation and/or elimination of 90% of the protein producing family farms in North America. Certainly, these integrated food companies have played a significant role in the massive transition – a transition that consumers are now both waking up to and pushing back against. Now only 2% of the North American population grows food for the other 98%. In 1930, this was 20% of the population.

The loss of literally hundreds of thousands of family farms in North America is a travesty that we at Grand Valley Fortifiers do not take lightly. We have been blessed to work with family owned and operated farms for 56 years – a privilege that we will continue to invest in for the foreseeable future. As we look at the present pork market situation in Canada we have a renewed sense of responsibility to create opportunities for the remaining family farms producing pork to not just survive, but thrive in the future.

When my father began this company in 1960, his vision was to help local, family farmers to be more successful by creating opportunities for them to embrace. As we look over the past (almost) six decades

Alberta 1-866-610-5770 Saskatchewan 1-877-242-8882 Manitoba 1-866-626-3933

there have been specific opportunities that Grand Valley Fortifiers has worked diligently towards to help allow their customers to become more profitable.

1960 – Present: (Grand Valley Feed & Farm Supply) Providing high quality feed products, at competitive prices, direct to farm, with personalized service.

1970 – Present: (Grand Valley Fortifiers) Promoting the opportunity to reduce feed costs by providing high quality premixes, and (originally) corn/soy based rations to allow family farms to manufacture their own feed on farm using their own home grown feed stuffs.

1980 – Present: Providing the opportunity to allow family farms to incorporate the latest in nutrition technology to allow for “the best possible production at the lowest possible cost per kg of protein or litre of milk produced”.

1990 – Present: Providing the opportunity to allow family farms to utilize nutrition technology to improve and/or differentiate the pork produced on their farm resulting in improved carcass merit & quality, and improved nutrient value.

2000 – Present: Providing the opportunity through nutrition technology for interested producers to participate in value chains like organic, “raised without” or DHA Omega 3 enriched for increased commercial value for their animals.

2015 – Present: Providing the opportunity for family farms to access the fragmented market of exploding demand of consumers for pork with various label claims and attributes through the holistic approach of nutrition technology, management protocols, regulatory navigation, value chain governance & monitoring, networking and marketing of differentiated pork and pork products.

Today, like never before we are committed to helping our customers grow differentiated pork and access these growing markets in order

Ian Ross, President & CEO | Jim Ross, Chairman Clarke Walker, VP & COO Dr. Martin Clunies, Monogastric Nutritionist David Ross/Patti Bobier, Publishers

to address a more sustainable market with increased and more stable prices, allowing for more profitable family farms.

I love the quotation of Thomas Jefferson, 1787 provided in the Forward to The Meat Racket.

“Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness”.

This certainly has been the case for us as we have been blessed to work closely with family farms over the last 56 years. God willing we look forward to many more years in the same endeavour. n

TAIL BITING

by: DR. KAYLEIGH ALMOND Primary Diets

T

ail biting is a distressing yet common behaviour seen in pigs, predominantly reported in the growing/finishing stages of production, although tail biting can occur earlier in some cases. This is a multifactorial vice which can be challenging to manage in commercial situations. Tail docking has been carried out on piglets historically as a procedure to alleviate the discomfort of tail biting later in life, but there is increasing concern around the welfare implications of routine tail docking. In addition, whilst tail docking has been a successful tool for reducing tail biting, it does not completely prevent the behaviour. This article explores the theories behind what causes tail biting and tries to provide some practical advice on ways which we can reduce the incidence.

What is tail biting and what causes it?

Tail biting is one of a number of aggressive behavioural vices (including ear biting and flank biting) seen in modern pig production, particularly associated with intensive systems. It originates from a natural desire of the pig to “root”, which may be a limited behaviour in commercial buildings without enrichment, and is believed to be exacerbated by discomfort or stress. Initial exploratory “mouthing” of other pigs tails can lead to damage and once lesions and blood are seen on bitten tails, they become more attractive to other pigs for biting, causing the problem to escalate.

Tail biting can be caused by a number of factors alone and in combination, of both “internal” (pig specific) and “external” (environmental) nature. This makes identifying a trigger at farm level difficult. Tail biting can also be sporadic; different batches and even different pens of pigs may be affected differently. Some of the common suggestions which may contribute to tail biting behaviour include: • Environment: Drafts, high levels of ammonia, poor ventilation, fluctuating temperatures and high humidity can all unsettle pigs, increasing their activity levels which can trigger tail biting.

• Stocking Density, including limited feeder or water access (Moinard et al., 2003): This can lead to unsettled hierarchies of pigs, and cause difficulties for “bitten” pigs to escape “biters”. Competition for food and water can cause aggression. This has become even more relevant with improved genetics leading to greater numbers of piglets born and weaned with no change in the nursery or finisher accommodation space allowance.

• Health: Disease will unsettle pigs and increased activity can trigger tail biting. Disease-associated skin lesions can attract attention and lead to biting (not limited to tail biting).

• Nutrition: Some nutritional factors have been associated with the behaviour, but research is inconclusive around many of these

mechanisms. Nutrient imbalance or low satiation of gut fill, for example, can unsettle animals and cause rooting behaviour. Salt is often a focal nutrient when considering tail biting episodes and drive for salt consumption is believed to be a factor in pig attraction to blood.

However, research around salt supplementation reducing tail biting yields variable results and has proven inconclusive. (Widowski, 2002).

In summary, there are a variety of factors (often in combination) which can be associated with tail biting, but the common feature is anything which results in discomfort, dissatisfaction, or stress of the pig.

Tail biting and other vices are often the exhibition of this discomfort.

What are the impacts of uncontrolled tail biting?

Tail biting represents a cost in pig production, as a combination of several factors. The performance impact of tail biting can be difficult to quantify, because a number of other factors, including those which may be associated triggers of tail biting, will also influence performance.

In a two year study on individually fed and tagged finishing pigs, on one farm in Finland, ADG (g/day) of pigs which were recorded as having been bitten was reduced by 11g/day once corrected for genetic influence factors (Sinisala et al., 2010). In this study, 11% of pigs were affected by tail biting, where 11 pigs per pen from 35 – 121kg live weight shared a single space individual feeder (3190 pig records were collected). Previous studies have suggested up to a 5% reduction in ADG of barrows during the finisher period resulting from tail biting, which can be as high as 11% in the immediate interval of a biting event (Wallgren and Lindahl, 1996).

Additional costs will also come with any medical treatment or veterinary intervention required, particularly where lesions provide a route for infection, as well as increased carcass condemnation at the abattoir (Valros et al., 2004) As incentives start to be offered for entire, unbitten tails, the premium for this against each carcass will also be lost.

Can we do anything to prevent it?

• Look closely at the environment in your buildings. Could any of the environmental factors listed above be causing tail biting? Is the temperature, ventilation, humidity right in the building?

• Reconsider stocking density and feeder access. Is there adequate access to feed and water for all pigs?

• Enrich the environment with malleable materials to redirect rooting behaviour. Straw is an effective option both in the nursery and for finishing pigs, but where this is not possible, chains, tires, etc. may be possible alternatives (Widowski, 2002, Taylor et al., 2010, Zonderland et al., 2008).

• Consider the nutrition on the unit; are the diets fed to the pigs balanced and suitable for purpose? Do all pigs have sufficient access to feed? As tail biting is associated with stress, there may be opportunity to promote calmness in the pig nutritionally, for example, the use of higher magnesium diets. Dietary magnesium is sometimes used to calm animals, however, trial evidence to support the benefits of magesium on tail biting itself is limited.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a single, repeatable nutrition solution to tail biting and this vice is most likely not a result of a nutritional cause. If tail biting becomes established despite the actions above, it is important to act quickly, as it is difficult to stop tail biting once it has started: • Remove injured pigs and those initiating the tail biting (usually the smaller pigs in the group).

• Treat lesions and injured pigs as appropriate. Tar may be used to protect the tail lesions. Seek veterinary advice if necessary. n

Swine Grist

References: • Council Directive 2008/120/EC (OJ L 47, 18.12.2008, p. 10) • Moinard, C., Mendl, M., Nicol, C. J. and Green, L. E. (2003) A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 81, 333–335 • Sinisalo, A., Niemi, J. K., Heinonen, M. and Valros, A. (2012) Tail biting and production performance in fattening pigs. Livestock Science. 143, 220–225 • Taylor, N. R., Main, D. C. J., Mendl, M. and Edwards, S. A. (2010) Tail-biting: A new perspective.

The Veterinary Journal. 186, 137–147 • Valros, A., Ahlström, S., Rintala, H, Häkkinen, T. And Saloniemi, H. (2004) The prevalence of tail damage in slaughter pigs in Finland and associations to carcass condemnations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. 54 (4), 213–219 • Wallgren, P. And Lindahl, E. (1996) The influence of tail biting on performance of fattening pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinacia. 37 (4), 453–460 • Widowski, T. (2002) Causes and Prevention of Tail Biting in Growing Pigs: A Review of Recent Research. Proceedings of the 2002 London Swine Conference. Pages 47–56 • Zonderland, J. J., Wolthuis-Fillerup, M., van Reene, C. G., Bracke, M. B. M., Kemp, B., den Hartog, L. A. and Spoolder, H. A. M. (2008) Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 110, 269–281

THE CHALLENGE OF FEEDING NURSERY PIGS FROM LARGE LITTERS

by: DR. MARTIN CLUNIES, PhD., Swine Nutrition Group, Grand Valley Fortifiers uring the last 10 years, swine geneticists have made great advances in increasing the number of piglets produced annually by the modern commercial sow. Danbred was the first major pig genetic company to offer females that give birth to significantly larger litters; the other major breeders have subsequently followed suit intensifying their selection pressure for sows that farrow large litters. The result is that most of the major pig breeders today offer sows that give birth to 14 or more live born piglets per litter.

D

With this increase in litter size has come two major challenges; 1) how to raise the extra piglets farrowed through to weaning, and 2) to have these extra pigs become full value pigs without prolonging the finishing period, thereby reaping the benefits of the investment in improved sow genetics. With this increase in litter size, the average birth weight of the piglets is reduced 0.08–0.12 kg per additional piglet, despite an increase in total litter birth weight. More critical is that the proportion of small piglets per litter has increased significantly. These smaller piglets typically remain small throughout lactation and are lower in body weight at weaning. The result is these small piglets take longer to attain market weight.

The use of feed additives, such as Paylean, is a powerful tool to reduce the days to market for the smaller pig in the finishing barn, resulting in more full value pigs. Globally Paylean has become a barrier to pork trade, and in a country which exports approximately 60% of the pork produced in Canada, more packers have requested that hogs sent to their plants should never be fed Paylean. As a result, this tool has been lost to our industry. There are, however, other strategies that can be used to reduce the days to market of these small piglets. What are the real drivers that have the greatest impact on days to market?

Studies have shown that while birth weight and weaning weight both have a significant effect on the days to market (at 30% each), weight gain in the nursery had a more significant effect (70%) on days to market weight. Unless other interventions are employed, growth rate in the nursery may be in large part determined by weaning weight.

The big question is, how to deal with these small piglets and what should the strategy be post weaning without blowing the feed budget

costs for the nursery. If we are creep feeding in the farrowing rooms, it is likely that the smaller piglets have learned to eat solid feed, due to insufficient milk supply from the teat it suckles. This works in our favourgiven a high quality weaning diet, these piglets will readily consume feed and grow quickly after weaning. Post wean the largest piglets are slower to start consuming solid feed, and often sulk the most the first few days as they have consumed little or no creep having had the pick of the sow’s best teats with the most milk. Therefore, there is the opportunity for the smaller piglets to grow faster and narrow the weight gap between the bigger piglets of the litter (or certainly not increase it) if the right feed is fed.

With 70% of lifetime growth rate being determined by early nursery growth (partially dependent on weaning weight), the quality of the first feed offered in the nursery has the potential to have a big impact on that early growth. University research has shown that pigs which fail to gain weight during the first week post wean, took 10 days longer to get to market as compared with pigs gaining more than 225 g/d during that first week. Pigs gaining between 0–150 g/d took 7 days longer while piglets gaining 150–225 g/d took only 2 days longer (Tokach et al., 1992). Piglets gaining more than 200 g per day during the first week post wean are most likely to be the fastest growing piglets throughout their lifetime. Why is this? At weaning time the healthy piglet has a great amount of fat reserves, and is in fact the fattest it will be in its lifetime. In the days after weaning the piglet not consuming enough feed will live of these fat reserves and loses its “bloom”. Piglets gaining more than 200 g in the first wean after weaning are at a tipping point, consuming enough nutrients so that the need to use body reserves is minimized. Most important, with a growth of more than 200g/d, the integrity and digestive capacity of the gut, the most important organ for weight gain, is preserved. Piglets which gain rapidly in the first 7 days post wean grow the fastest to market weights.

With larger litters there is a greater variation in the weaning weights of pigs presented to the nursery unit. Formulating the correct combination of feeds for piglets of such different weight is difficult but critical to enhancing the profitability of the nursery and finisher units. Providing the smaller piglets with diets high in nutrients and digestibility due to their lower intakes is critical for rapid, early growth.

For the larger piglets providing a diet that is nutrient dense diet with a slightly lower digestibility is a key component to attracting the larger piglet. The correct blend of these two different types of feeds is critical to overall herd performance, while controlling feed budget costs.

Igniting the intake and weight gain of these small pigs is critical to the early nursery growth and their growth rate to market. n

GROUP SOW HOUSING

by: BRUCE SCHUMANN, B.Sc. (Agric.), M.Sc., Monogastric Nutritionist, Grand Valley Fortifiers & DR. MARTIN CLUNIES, PhD., Swine Nutrition Group, Grand Valley Fortifiers,

T

he regulations governing the conditions in which we house our breeding sows are changing. Under the new guidelines contained in the 2014 “Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs” both mated gilts and sows must be in loose housed groups. Regardless of whether you have a new facility built after July 1, 2014 or continue to house sows in an existing facility these new “Codes of Practice” requirements for mated gilts and sows come into effect July 1, 2024. Further options that will be used to satisfy these requirements will be clarified by July 1, 2019.

w w w.grandvalley.com

The impending new codes have the requirements that all mated gilts and sows must be housed in groups. While individual stalls are permitted, it is qualified that these individual stalls may only be used to house sows up to 28 days post breeding, with an additional 7 days allowable for individual management of sows for the purpose of treatment and to temporarily protect individual sows from harm. In addition to the aforementioned limited duration of time that sows can actually be in those stalls, the spatial requirements have to satisfy the following welfare conditions: 1. Sows need to be able to lie down without their udders protruding into adjacent stalls 2. Sows need to be able to stand up in the stall without simultaneously touching both sides of the stall or both ends of the stall and stand without touching the top bars of the stall.

While many continue to debate the impact of the loose housing on sow productivity, scientific studies and the practical experience of those already using these systems in Europe and the USA suggest that the difference in productivity is within less than 1 pig per sow annually compared to traditional gestational stall systems. Surely aggression among sows is a greater risk, and dealing with boss sows and the resulting pen variation presents a challenge for managers. In addition, loose housed sows tend to have slightly greater percent pre-wean mortality. However other benefits, such the impact of daily exercise which makes farrowing easier with less still born pigs, are apparent in all studies and experience.

With these impending requirements, pork producers are busy considering barn design principles and how their future sow barns will look, along with the implications of these on the cost of construction of new and renovated barns. Many new constructs have oriented towards the use of Electronic Sow Feeding (ESF) systems, while many renovated systems orient to the use of drop feeder systems either using floor, open stall feeding or a combination of both. The use of loose penning with drop feeders represents the most economical installation, whereby the savings on stalls resulting in better economies of the renovation. The disadvantage of this sow system is the increased variation in sow condition associated with more dominant sows consuming more feed in the group pens. However, it should be noted that even in traditional gestating stalls, there is considerable variation in body condition that occurs between sows of the herd. Like everything in pig production, attention to detail reduces the impact of each. ESFs are used to accurately manage sows for ideal body condition, vaccination, and movement to the farrowing room, etc. While the construction of a new barn is fairly simple, renovating existing traditional gestation stall barns present a real challenge. The dilemma is the partial or complete removal of the existing gestation sow crates and orientation of new penning. Part of this is decision is driven by the observation that sows use stalls for protection from aggression by pen mates. Providing some stalls for the less dominant sows allows them to retreat to a zone of safety in smaller groups where bullying is less likely.

Conversion of alternating slatted areas in herring bone gestating barns often require extensive changes to flooring, to the point that new construction becomes an economical choice to providing a more ideal model for their loose housing of sows going forward. In these renovations alternating zones of solid flooring can be used as dual feeding and resting areas, which result in better manure and urinating patterns. In some cases the density of the slat openings may have to be altered to provide better footing for sows. Most recently, a product from Europe has become available in Canada, which can be hammered into existing slat opening to improve sow footing. Made of rubberized material and adaptable to many different sizes of openings, this is an economical alternative to replacing slats or more extensive renovations to herringbone sow barns.

Whatever the design of the new group housing barn, the two greatest challenges are animal and human behaviours. Firstly, genetic predisposition

of the animals to being more social and less aggressive are pre-requisites to choosing sows suitable for group housing environments. Sow aggression typically occurs mostly in the period around feeding, as boss sows try to dominate the feeding areas. Reducing the number of feedings per day reduces the number of incidences of aggression. For those non-feed incidences of aggression, allowing subordinate sow to escape the line of sight of more dominant sows reduces those incidences of aggression as boss sows typically do not seek out subordinates in the pen. Similarly providing a partial stall with feed troughs combined with drop feeders reduces aggression at feeding time, resulting in more sows getting their allocation of feed. The one drawback is that such systems increase the barn foot print for the same number of sows or requires a down-sizing of sow numbers. With respect to people, perhaps the greatest challenge of moving to a loose housing system is the mindset of the people managing the pigs. If they are open minded and like problem solving then the success of the system is ensured. In many cases previous pig experience may not be as important. The stock person who resists change may not be the best person for dealing with the challenges of new equipment and animals in a loose housing system, or any new system for that matter. Those individuals who are methodical and accept and like challenges are best suited to these new ways of production. Their most important assets are their power of observation and empathy for the animals in their care. There are formalized systems of evaluation which can be used to more accurately assess the suitability of candidates for these new positions.

In this manner the owner is the most important person in defining the need to change and be flexible, as a manager of change.

More recently, animal and livestock producer practices seem to be driven by consumer preferences. It is unlikely that the voice of the 2% of us who are involved in agriculture will be able to convince the other 98% who are not. In our busy world we the 2% do not have the time or the resources to do so. A certain segment of consumers are concerned about not only what they eat, but how the food they eat was produced, where it was produced and by whom. For animals, these method of production qualifiers or “claims” now include: pasture raised, raised without antibiotics, raised without animal by-products, organic products, cage free eggs, humanely raised and animal welfare standards (such as the Global Animal Partnership production systems). Future animal code requirements are being pre-empted by activism of consumer groups that are intent on driving the change in our industry. Here again those managers who are able adapt to change will take advantage of these to satisfy consumer preferences just as car companies offer different models and options for varying tastes. The new “code of practices” represents a shift to align ourselves with our customer’s values and requirements. We can either see these new requirements as impediments to our business or as an opportunity to provide a valuable service to our customers. Being flexible may ensure our future, as for every other industry change is imperative, and we are not immune to that philosophy. An industry without change may not be an industry of the future, signalling no real demand for our product. Demand for change signals that there is indeed demand for our product. As we consider these changes what we should all ask ourselves is, “where would we be financially without customers for our products?” n

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Today little thought is given to what is right or what is wrong. Increasingly society is abandoning the great truths, found in the Bible, truths which when lived by have always brought prosperity and righteousness to society.

The rain and snow come down from the heavens and stay on the ground to water the earth. They cause the grain to grow, producing seed for the farmer and bread for the hungry. It is the same with my word. I send it out, and it always produces fruit. It will accomplish all I want it to, and it will prosper everywhere I send it.

Isaiah 55:10-13 NLT