Friday, March 29, 2024

Evaluating the merits of creep feeding

0

By Dan Columbus & Jade Sands

Editor’s note: Dan Columbus is a research scientist at Prairie Swine Centre. He can be contacted at dan.columbus@usask.ca. Jade Sands is a former research assistant at Prairie Swine Centre.

‘Creep feeding’ refers to the practice of providing prepared feed to piglets, but is the practice helpful at all?

Creep feeding is a common practice throughout the pork industry with many perceived benefits, including provision of nutrients, higher weaning weight and improved transition at weaning; however, these benefits only occur if the creep feed is consumed.

It is estimated somewhere between four and 40 per cent of piglets will consume creep feed during lactation.Intake of creep feed is usually low and highly variable among pigs, with smaller piglets having higher intake and larger piglets having little to no consumption. The achieved benefit of creep feeding on growth performance in the lactation and nursery period remains inconsistent. 

The benefits of providing creep feed may have less to do with provision of nutrients and more to do with exposing piglets to a dry feed and enhancing exploratory behaviour. Dietary diversity, such as particle size variation, has been shown to have a greater influence on pre-weaning feed intake than dietary flavour. Therefore, it is possible that provision of expensive creep diets is not necessary to achieve creep feeding benefits related to weaning weight and overall performance. Feeding simple diets, such as a typical lactation diet, may be sufficient. Identifying less expensive alternatives will help to reduce cost of production in the pork industry.

Methodology

A total of 50 sows and litters with between 12 and 14 piglets per treatment were randomly assigned to one of four creep feeding treatment protocols. The protocols were:

  1. No creep feed provided
  2. Complex creep feed provided
  3. Simple creep feed provided
  4. Combination of complex and simple creep feed provided

The complex creep consisted of a standard nursery starter diet, and the simple creep consisted of a standard lactation diet. For the combined treatment, one feeder contained the complex creep and one contained the simple creep. 

Sows were moved into the farrowing room approximately five days prior to the expected farrowing date and placed on a commercial lactation feed. Upon farrowing, total pigs born alive and litter weight were recorded. Within a day of farrowing, piglets were cross-fostered, if needed, equalizing the number of piglets per sow.

Litter weight was recorded weekly on the seventh, 14th and 21st days. On the 28th day, at weaning, all mortalities were recorded and litter size was adjusted. On the 14th day post-farrowing, litters were placed on their respective creep protocol treatment. The type of creep provided and intake were recorded daily and adjusted for wastage. Fresh creep feed was provided each day until weaning. 

Upon weaning, piglets were housed in pens of 10 to 13 pigs per pen, with each treatment having 14 to 16 pens within pre-weaning treatment groups. Individual pig body weight and feed intake per pen were recorded weekly for four weeks.

Results

Table 1: Pre-weaning performance
Table 2: Nursery performance

There was no difference in litter performance prior to provision of creep feed or in average daily gain throughout the first week after creep was provided. However, the second week saw an increase in average daily gain in piglets, with an overall trend for improvement in litters receiving the simple and combined creep treatments. There was no difference in creep feed intake across treatments. There was no preference for simple or complex feed (Figure 1) in piglets that had access to both dietary treatments. 

Overall, there appears to be little benefit to providing creep feed under the conditions of the current study. It should be noted, however, that the data represents averages by litter (or pen), which does not account for potential positive effects of creep feed on individual piglets. Previous work has indicated there may be a benefit of providing creep feed but only in those piglets that actually consume it.

Another factor to consider: while creep feed had no benefit on overall pig growth, there may be other benefits that were not determined in this study. For example, quicker adaptation to feeding and adjustment to plant-based diets versus milk may help to improve gut development and health, improving long-term robustness of the pig. Future work should focus on the non-growth impact of creep feeding.

Results indicate piglets had no preference between the simple or complex creep diets. Intake of both creep types was similar in the group that had access to both diet types.

Conclusions

Total intake of starter and lactation diet in litters offered both diets during the pre-weaning period. Values are least square means ± SEM.

This study has shown how providing creep feed has little impact on pre-weaning performance, with increased average daily gain only in the final week pre-weaning. While there was a slight benefit to providing creep feed on growth performance in the first week post-weaning, this was not maintained through the nursery period.

Overall, there appears to be little benefit of providing creep feed in general or of providing complex, expensive creep feed. Further research is required to determine the impact of creep feed on individual pigs and to determine if increasing the number of pigs consuming creep feed will create potential benefits.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided by the Government of Saskatchewan through the Agricultural Demonstration of Practices and Technologies program. General program funding for Prairie Swine Centre is provided by the Government of Saskatchewan, Sask Pork, Alberta Pork, Manitoba Pork and Ontario Pork. Assistance provided by Prairie Swine Centre staff is gratefully recognized.  

Pork’s place in an increasingly plant-based world

0

By Mary Ann Binnie

Editor’s note: Mary Ann Binnie is the Nutrition Manager for the Canadian Pork Council (CPC). She can be contacted at binnie@cpc-ccp.com.

At this Canadian grocery store, imported and domestic plant-based meat alternatives are found in the frozen section of the meat department, alongside other processed products. Some stores integrate these options directly within the fresh meat cooler, but the shelf life is shorter. Low sales volumes can lead to waste.

Recent promotion of plant-based protein foods stems from growing international pursuit of ‘sustainable healthy diets’ to address climate change and chronic disease concerns.

However, many plant-based protein products entering the market are highly processed and are arguably not healthier alternatives to animal-based protein foods, such as pork. Makers of simulated meat have used semantics to their advantage, playing up the notion that these products are plant-based and, therefore, somehow better.

Health Canada released dietary guidance in 2019 encouraging Canadians to choose plant-based protein foods more often. The cover of Canada’s Food Guide still includes animal-based proteins – meat, poultry, fish, eggs and milk products – however, they are given little prominence compared to previous versions. Additionally, milk products are now considered part of the ‘protein’ food group, along with meat and alternatives. Plant protein sources – such as tofu, lentils, beans, peas, nuts and seeds – make up roughly half of the ‘protein’ group visually.

Impact of plant-based alternatives on Canadian food supply

The evolution of Canada’s Food Guide shows how food groups have changed. Meat, poultry, fish, eggs and milk products were once prominently featured, but their positioning has changed from 1944, 1977, 1992, 2007 to 2019.

In June 2021, Health Canada released its ‘Food and Nutrition Highlights 2020’ annual report. This report provides an overview of what this federal agency is doing to make it easier for Canadians to pursue healthier choices. As part of the report, Health Canada is tracking the Canadian market availability of foods high in nutrients of public health concern – including saturated fat, sugars and sodium – to assess the impact of the agency’s ‘Healthy Eating Strategy’ on the nutritional quality of the Canadian food supply.

Health Canada examined how the Canadian food supply changed after the launch of the current food guide. It looked at the impact of plant-based foods on Canadians’ dietary choices, using recent market research data. Between the launch of the current food guide in January 2019 and December 2020, research showed that 120 new plant-based products entered the Canadian market. Of these new products, they found that 15 per cent were processed meat, fish or egg alternatives; 30 per cent were dairy alternatives; 26 per cent were snack foods; and 11 per cent were desserts.

Many of the new plant-based alternative were high in sodium, saturated fat or sugar, often containing 15 per cent or more of the recommended daily value for these nutrients of concern. The 2020 annual report states: “Although plant-based, many of these products are not in line with Canada’s Food Guide recommendations… More than half of the new plant-based, processed alternatives to meat, fish or eggs were high in sodium… Moreover, more than one-third of dairy alternatives, snacks and processed meat, fish or egg alternatives were high in saturated fat… In addition, the majority of the plant-based desserts were high in sugars and saturated fat.”

There is clearly reason for concern in terms of the health implications of these new food products.  Processed plant-based meat alternatives are often not the healthier options they are marketed to be. This trend is reminiscent of the marketing of lower-fat food products that are often high in sugar, and the marketing of foods made with trans fats following Health Canada’s national dietary guidance to reduce total fat and saturated fat consumption back in the 1990s.

Impact of pork on Canadian diets

Nearly one-third of adult women in Canada are deficient in iron. Consuming red meat – like pork – helps meet this dietary need. Iron deficiency can lead to anemia, shown in this magnified blood smear.

A recent study conducted at the University of Toronto found a significant number of Canadian adults do not meet the dietary intake recommendations for several essential nutrients. Study findings noteworthy to meat consumption included:

  • Iron: Nearly 30 per cent of women between the ages of 19- and 50-years-old did not get enough iron from their diet. Iron is critical for women during childbearing years and to prevent anemia – a lack of healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen to body tissues.
  • Zinc: Between 20 per cent and 40 per cent of both men and women are deficient in zinc, and the risk of inadequate intake increases with age. Zinc is essential for healthy pregnancies, normal brain function and resistance to infection.
  • Magnesium: Nearly two-thirds of women and half of men are deficient in magnesium. Magnesium is important for blood pressure regulation. More than two-thirds of Canadian seniors have high blood pressure. High blood pressure is the number-one risk factor for stroke.
  • Potassium: The average intake of potassium for all Canadian demographics is considered inadequate. Like magnesium, potassium helps regulate blood pressure.

This study is extremely useful to help us understand meat’s valuable role in the diets of Canadians. Pork is a naturally nutrient-dense protein food that contains several of the nutrients that many Canadians are lacking in their diets. A relatively small portion of pork can go a long way toward helping Canadians meet these specific nutrient needs.

Steering Canadians toward eating more whole, nutrient-dense foods – like pork – and away from highly processed, nutrient-poor foods can help address the nutrient shortfalls identified in the study.

Plant and animal proteins are not equal

Ultra-processed foods – such as simulated meat – can be deceptive in terms of their dietary value. Unlike imitation plant-based products, pork provides a naturally rich and complex nutritional profile, along with complete protein, without the need for additives.

Plant and animal proteins are not nutritionally equivalent. Animal proteins contain all nine essential amino acids in amounts that can be used to grow and maintain our bodies. These essential amino acids remain available for absorption and protein synthesis even after digestion. Evidence suggests high quality animal-based proteins stimulate muscle protein synthesis more effectively than plant-based proteins.

Recent studies indicate that there are large differences in the nutrients and metabolites found in ground meat versus plant-based substitutes. As researchers point out, these should not be considered as nutritionally similar or interchangeable, despite comparable nutrition facts.

Processed plant-based veggie patties or ‘grinds’ generally contain added fat in the form of vegetable or coconut oils. If these added fats are grouped together, they may be the largest component by weight.

A substantial body of evidence shows the nutrients in red meat – such as high-quality protein, iron, zinc and B-vitamins – play a powerful role in nourishing Canadians, from fueling physical activity and helping manage weight, to developing cognitive skills and aging vibrantly.Pork provides nutrients that can be difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant-based foods alone.

A balanced diet, for people and planet

As one of the most nutrient-dense foods available, pork makes an important contribution to the food security and diet quality of Canadians.

The global push to reduce meat consumption has led to an increase in plant-based simulations in response to mounting international calls, public health policy and marketing messages to choose more plant-based proteins to address climate change and chronic disease concerns. However, processed, plant-based, simulated meat products are not necessarily healthier than nutrient-dense, single-ingredient animal protein foods, such as pork.

Most Canadians do not eat enough vegetables, fruits or fibre. So, encouraging more consumption of whole, minimally processed plant foods may provide benefits in terms of the prevention and management of certain chronic diseases. However, increasing plant-based foods does not need to mean replacing meat. In fact, pork adds many essential nutrients to a plant-based diet.

Research indicates that, since animal- and plant-based protein foods differ in their nutrient profiles and make different contributions to diet, they should not be viewed as nutritionally interchangeable. Animal- and plant-based foods provide different nutrients that are complementary. Food synergy makes them better when consumed together.

Villainizing whole foods – like red meat – confuses and distracts from the priority nutrition concerns of Canadians, which are contributing to the rising rates of obesity and other chronic diseases. The age-old advice of eating a balanced diet continues to make sense for most Canadians, and it leaves room on the plate for both animal- and plant-based foods.

U.S. Pork Exports

0

Pork Commentary, November 9th, 2021
Jim Long, President-CEO, Genesus Inc.

The U.S. (Canada) needs continued pork exports to hold hog prices strong. Latest week report brought some good news: Pork Sales 45,700 metric tonnes (MT) – the highest week since May, led by Mexico (18,450 MT) and China (15,990 MT).

Mexico is leading the charge on U.S. Pork Export Sales, this year up 30% :

  • 2020 = 422,502 MT
  • 2021 = 548,595 MT

A whopping 140,000 plus tonnes year to date with most of the increase in Mexico exports coming since May.

We expect the weekly China sale might be an outlier as China is currently awash in pork. It is important to watch China’s pork imports going forward. Germany can’t export to China due to ASF. Many packing plants in Canada, EU, Brazil delisted for pork export to China. U.S. plants are almost all eligible to ship.


European Union


Pig Prices still languishing in European Union. In Germany (world’s fourth-largest hog producer) latest early wean pig price 11.6 Euros ($13.50), 25 kg feeder pigs 18 Euros (55 lbs. $21), cull sows 0.5 Euros a kg (26¢ lb.), market hog 1.20 Euro kg carcass (63¢ lb.).

ASF, beginning a year ago in September, has hammered the German market. Pig prices have been below breakeven for most months. Today, with high feed prices, losses are in the $40-50 range per head. The sow price is the lowest we can find in the previous years. A real sign of sow liquidation.

Germany buys millions of small pigs annually from Denmark and the Netherlands (about 15 million). The low small pig price is hitting those countries hard. We would not be surprised to see the EU sow herd down 500,000 to 1 million by the time industry recovers. This will mean less total pork production. The question is where will the lower values of pork be sold? We expect to highest bidder, whether domestic or export.


China


The China Ministry of Agriculture monitors production costs on swine farms. Their September report for large-scale farms shows the cost per pig raised at 2,398 RMB ($374 U.S. per head). Ministry of Agriculture estimates a loss of 668 RMB per head in September ($104 per head).

Certainly, the cost to raise a pig in China of $374 per head makes you wonder how China capitalists won’t be motivated to import pork in the future as China’s hog supply declines.

Some reports from China speak of continued production increase ongoing. We will be contrary that no swine industry expands in the face of daunting losses. Producers run out of cash with losses well over $100 per head. USDA in August projects 14% less pork produced in China in 2022 vs. 2021. We expect the hog prices that have been worse the last two months to have moved the number to 20%.

The reality will be the market price. China’s hog price has jumped from a low of 12 RMB kg a few weeks ago to 16 RMB kg. We work on the premise nobody pays more than they have to. Why would price jump 35% in a few weeks other than less supply? We expect China’s Hog Price to increase above 25 RMB kg in 2022 ($1.77 U.S. liveweight lb.). Breakeven is about 20 RMB/kg ($1.40 U.S. liveweight lb.). At 16 RMB/kg current loss per head is about $75 USD. Not exactly good times all around. The history of hog production losses lead to liquidation, always has, always will.


Pork Taste 


We strongly believe, to grow our industry we need to produce pork that gives consumers a great eating experience. Lately, Genesus has been involved in multiple taste tests around the world. We win at a Tom Brady type regularity. Some in our industry think “Duroc” is the answer. Partially true, but there are Durocs in our industry that are too lean with little to no marbling and poor water holding capacity. They give no better eating experience as some of these “Durocs” are just synthetic breeds with traits similar to Piétrains or have Piétrain added. Producers being pushed to Durocs are finding slower growth, higher mortality, tail biting, flank biting, and getting no better pork to make an improved eating experience.

One company thinks changing a number on their pretend Duroc Boars and adding foreign genetics that they have a better Duroc. The results are coming. Slow growth, higher morality, ear-biting, tail biting, and pork quality on the bottom of many taste tests.

If we are going to grow our industry, we need to use Genetics that gives a better taste and eating experience. Consumers don’t care if it’s called Duroc, we expect 97% of consumers have no idea what a Duroc is. We need a consistent predictable better eating experience. Genesus has the world’s largest herd of real registered Durocs. We believe in Durocs but what the pork they produce is what matters, not what they are called.

U.S. Slaughter Continue to be Lower Year over Year

0

Pork Commentary, November 1st, 2021
Jim Long, President-CEO, Genesus Inc.

U.S. slaughter last week 2,551,000; a year ago 2,694,000. That’s 5.5% less.

U.S. Iowa – S. Minnesota slaughter weights are 2 lbs. higher year over year.

Certainly, appears to us less hogs around. The USDA September 1st Inventory report indicated 6% less hogs under 120 lbs. We should see those hogs coming to market near December 1st.

Lean Hog Futures have taken a big hit last few days. We will stick with our premise liquidation in China, Europe, and lower U.S. hog numbers will lead to cash prices in 2022 much higher than lean hog futures indicate now. Less Hogs. Less Pork. Higher Prices.

Some U.S. packers being challenged by lack of labor. This is restricting kills and ability for them to add value to carcass. This is hurting hog prices currently.

Crops

All have seen the roughly 50¢ bushel jump in corn the last while. We have been traveling the Midwest the last week and we saw lots of corn still to harvest. Producers we talked to were positive about yields. Corn and Soybean exports both below USDA projections for this new crop year. Soybean imports to China in September the lowest in seven years. If pigs are being liquidated in China it makes sense less soybeans and corn will be needed.

Less Pigs Getting to Market

MetaFarms Data for Quarter 3 of over 2,000 closeouts shows a steady increase in mortality in nurseries and finishers.

Quarter 3 Mortality

Quarter 3 Mortality
 20182021 
Nursery2.76%4.03% 
Finisher4.08%5.14% 
Nursery – Finisher6.4%9.17%Increase of 2.33%

If the 2.33% increase in mortality is indicative to the whole, we estimate that’s about 3 million more pigs going into nurseries and finishers dying than in 2018. Big number. Why? Speculation, more disease? Less labor and stockmanship? Weaker genetics? Not sure why but a lot less pigs getting to market.

MetaFarms Quarter 3 sow production data of 475 sow farms has an average of 25.9 pigs weaned mated female a year in 2021 vs. 26.3 pigs in 2020, a decrease of 0.4 pigs per sow. Certainly, an indication of productivity not getting better (-1.5%). If industry has 6 million sows x 0.4 = 2.4 million fewer pigs per year.


Some Farmer Arithmetic. Higher nursery-finisher mortality of 2.33% and 1.5% lower pigs per sow per year pushing 4% effect. No wonder slaughter numbers continue to rush lower than a year ago. No wonder USDA inventory indicates 6% less hogs in future

Summary

Not pretty now with lower hog prices and higher feed costs. We expect the multiple effects of lower hog numbers coming in China, Europe and USA in 2022. The world’s major swine production blocs. Prices will move higher.

Some good news from China signaling hog supply beginning to fall and an indication of the liquidation effect. Hog prices last week 16.24 RMB/kg ($1.17 U.S. liveweight a lb.), up from 12 RMB a few weeks ago but still under the cost of production of 21 RMB/kg. 15 kg feeder pigs now 24.17 RMB/kg ($57 for 33 lbs.) they were $20 not so long ago. We expect continually stronger prices over the coming weeks.

Lowering pork’s carbon footprint by feeding peas

0

By Denis Tremorin

Editor’s note: Denis Tremorin is the Director of Sustainability for Pulse Canada. He can be contacted at dtremorin@pulsecanada.com.

Introduction

Not only in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, but also in terms of water usage, feeding peas can provide benefits.

Canadian pulses are one of the world’s most sustainable crops – driven by the nitrogen-fixing capacity of pulses, as well as water and soil health benefits of including pulses in crop rotations. As feed production represents a significant portion of the carbon footprint of the livestock industry, using pulses in feed gives us the opportunity to lower the environmental impact of livestock production.

Pulse Canada wanted to highlight this opportunity to show pork producers and processors that pulses can help them reach their sustainability goals. That is why we commissioned a research project investigating the environmental impacts and benefits of including Canadian peas into animal feed rations for western Canadian pork. The findings were clear: through a change in hog rations toward a pea-based diet, producers can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 18 per cent.

The research investigated the environmental impacts and benefits of including Canadian peas by undergoing a life cycle assessment, guided by the International Organization for Standardization. Life cycle assessment is a science-based, internationally recognized tool for evaluating the relative potential environmental and human health impacts of products and services. The method can be used to identify opportunities to improve the environmental performance of products, inform decision-making, along with supporting marketing, communication and educational efforts.

Methodology

These yellow peas are… ‘green’? Yes! As time goes on, public trust in the Canadian hog sector increasingly depends on environmental stewardship.

The research was conducted by Groupe AGÉCO – a Canadian consultancy specializing in life cycle assessments of food and agricultural products – and was supported by a technical team of livestock researchers from western Canada. Through this study and others preceding it, the pulse industry has identified the use of pulses within livestock diets as an opportunity to reduce the environmental footprint of pork production systems, while also creating the potential to develop and market livestock products with low environmental footprints.

Results

Comparing environmental impacts of feeding peas versus other feed ingredients

The findings of the study were substantial, demonstrating a 28 per cent reduction of GHG emissions in the feed production alone, lending to an overall 18 per cent reduction in the final product’s GHG emissions. The study looked at four environmental impact categories that were recognized to be significant areas of concerns in Canada:

  • Climate change: Replacing wheat, barley, soymeal or any of the compared grain products by a pea-based feed allows a 28 per cent reduction of GHG emissions related to swine feed production.
  • Water scarcity indicator: Including peas in swine feed production represents a benefit by reducing water use by 23 per cent.
  • Land use and biodiversity: Changing standard rations to pea-based rations does not significantly affect the land use or biodiversity indicators.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the inclusion of Canadian peas into western Canadian hog rations has a strong potential to reduce the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from pork production. This reduction is largely driven by using peas to replace feed ingredients with a higher carbon footprint, such as wheat, barley, canola meal and soybean meal. The low-nitrogen fertilizer needs of peas is an important consideration that favours pulses over other crops from the perspective of combatting climate change.

As the global food system continues to explore how to reduce environmental impacts of food production, pulses have been shown to be a potential solution-provider, with benefits from both their production and consumption. In the case of livestock production, the inclusion of peas and other pulses should be considered as a potential strategy in reducing the GHG impacts of livestock production.

High feed costs prompt strategic management

0

By Bijon Brown

Editor’s note: Bijon Brown is the Production Economist for Alberta Pork. He can be contacted at bijon.brown@albertapork.com.

With the right knowledge, producers may be able to ship earlier, lighter, to save on feed costs while fitting their packers’ grids and still earning bonuses where possible.

Over the past year, there has been a marked rise in feed costs for hog farmers. With feed costs representing around 63 per cent of the total cost of production – based on Alberta Pork’s 2020 Cost of Production study results – ‘business as usual’ is likely not the best way to look at things.

As the price of feed rises, producers are feeling the pinch, especially if they locked in hog prices months ago that did not take into consideration the higher feed costs seen today. Many producers are searching to find cheaper alternatives to keep their costs in check.

Changes to diets, revisions to herd management practices and even reducing production outright may be some of the options that producers have considered so far. Another option that could be considered is altering the targeted marketing weight.

Maximizing feed savings, while minimizing bonus structure losses, should be the goal of all producers and packers at this time – a win-win approach. When producers proactively reach out to their packers to discuss options, it ensures both sides are working together to achieve a mutual benefit.

Could shipping earlier save on feed?

Around the 100-day mark, average daily gain peaks. Feeding longer could generate unnecessary expenses.

As more days are added to the finisher stage, average daily gain decreases. Producers must decide whether feeding the finisher hog longer to achieve incrementally less lean gain is economically sound. This is where the feed cost and hog value determine the direction to take. What happens if hogs are shipped a week earlier than normal? How much feed could be saved versus the dollars potentially lost in hog value?

Alberta Pork’s estimates indicate that if a producer targets a 128 kilogram (kg) live weight or around 102 kg dressed, it would take approximately 121 days to feed a hog a total of 319 kg of feed. Targeting an earlier marketing date of about a week could result in the marketing of a 121 kg live weight or 97 kg carcass hog and would result in feed savings of 26 kg per hog.

Target weight, feed consumption and packer grids

A live weight of 121 kg, at 113 days on feed, could represent a ‘sweet spot’ for some producers.

Technically, it is possible to save on feed if there is a slight adjustment to shipping dates, but are the feed cost savings enough to noticeably lower your cost of production and offset any loss in revenue?

Estimating cost savings is only half of the battle. Shipping a week earlier means that hogs will be lighter, and this will have implications for how the lighter hogs fit the grid. Will shipping a lighter hog drastically impact the index received? It depends on the packer contract.

To aid in this analysis, actual settlement data was compiled to illustrate the impact on the index of shipping a week earlier. The data used represents more than 170 hogs shipped with an average carcass weight of 105 kg. Shipping a week earlier would, on average, result in a reduction of 5 kg to 100 kg carcass weight.

Shipping a week earlier drops the average carcass weight per load by about 4 kg per hog.

In short, if you are on grid designed for heavier pigs (such as Maple Leaf Foods’ 101 kg grid, the OlyWest 2020 102 Pay plus or the OlyWest 2021 R2 wide grid), then the cost savings of shipping a week earlier would have been wiped out by a loss of premiums due to weight changes in the grid.

Not all contracts are equal when it comes to reaping the benefits of shipping lighter hogs.

However, if you are on a grid designed for slightly lighter pigs (such as Maple Leaf Foods’ 97 kg grid, the OlyWest 2020 98 Pay plus or the OlyWest 2021 Ungraded), then cutting back a week earlier could generate some savings. 

Out of the $11.05 per hog of feed cost savings, if you ship a week earlier on the OlyWest 2020 contract grid, changes could claw back around $6.45 per hog of the savings. If you are on the OlyWest 2021 R2 wide grid or Maple Leaf Foods’ 97 kg grid, then shipping lighter hogs would claw back almost $7.50 and $7.75 per hog, respectively. Since there is only one Britco contract grid available, there are no changes to the Britco grid impacts.

A tool at your fingertips

Diets can be complicated, which is why producers should seek out more than one source of information prior to making any adjustments.

Alberta Pork’s weekly report for producers often includes feed cost estimates and related commentary. These feed costs represent the cost of feed for a market hog from birth to slaughter at the date indicated in the report.

However, producers looking to fill their bins today, based on feeding hogs at current prices, should consider using Alberta Pork’s feed cost modelling calculator, developed by Gowans Feed Consulting. The calculator, updated monthly, is available on Alberta Pork’s website, and a webinar recording is available online for producers who would like to learn how it works. To find the calculator and webinar recording, visit albertapork.com/our-producer-services/feed-cost-modelling/.

Using the calculator, producers can estimate the impact of altering feed ingredient mixes, manufacturing costs, freight costs or altering target weights. Specifically, manufacturing costs, transport costs and the feed budget for breeding stock can be adjusted, along with the feed-to-gain ratio, the number of days on feed, and the initial and ending weights for hogs in each stage of production.

Before making any changes, producers should discuss diets with their nutritionists. The calculator can be useful in the conversation to compare cost impacts, but it should not be taken as a singular source of information. For example, Gowans diets indicate a feed cost of $177.13, but using rations from Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development, changing the starter to finisher cells in the 129.4 kg live weight example, feed cost increases by $4.15 to $181.28. In the hog industry, where meagre margins mean so much, $4 per hog could mean the difference between profits or losses.

Estimating the impact on producer bonuses

Weight changes also impact the bonus structure on shipped hogs. Except for the Britco contract, shipping lighter hogs could decrease net feed cost savings anywhere from $0.25 per hog on the Maple Leaf contract to $1.15 per hog on the OlyWest 2021 R2 contract. Due to contract bonuses giving slight preference to lighter pigs under the Britco contract, the bonus impact slightly reduces the net cost losses, but it is not enough to turn it to net cost savings.

Overall, slightly adjusting your shipping date may result net savings from $2.40 to $3.60 per hog or $400 to $600 per load shipped. It should be noted here that only weights were changed for this analysis. There may also be changes to the yield, fat content and loin depth that could affect both your index and bonuses.

All in all, producers could save between $400 and $600 per load shipped, depending on their contract.

Ultimately, it boils down to where your cost of production sits relative to your revenue. Alberta Pork’s Cost of Production initiative can provide answers.

Alberta Pork estimates that feeding a hog to 102 kg dressed weight (or 128 kg live weight) would cost around $135.60, based on $420 per metric tonne of wheat on a 97 per cent wheat-based diet. Shipping a week earlier would result in 26 kg less feed at a cost around $124.55. This would mean that, if a producer’s bins are empty and feed grains were purchased at these currently high prices, the producer could buy 26 kg of feed less per hog, which could result in estimated cost savings of around $10.37 per hog. Each farm is different, and these numbers may not represent every producer’s farm.

This is where a conversation with the hog purchaser (packer) would be a good thing, as a slight reduction in weights could be helpful with minimal grid and bonus losses during times of high feed costs. This could also be a benefit to the packer versus bigger shifts in alternative feed usage.

Cost and revenue go hand-in-hand

As always, it is important for producers to consider the relationship between cost of production and revenue as the fundamental measure of profitability. As markets change, so should producers’ strategies for protecting their bottom lines.

By taking a collaborative approach across the value chain, all stakeholders have an opportunity to support each other in ensuring the pork sector remains sustainable in uncertain times.

China Update

0

Pork Commentary, October 25th, 2021
Jim Long, President-CEO, Genesus Inc.

China’s financial losses are high. We took the last quarterly reports of four publicly traded swine companies and then divided the amount to what they report as their sow numbers. The four companies combined have 3.7 million sows.


Reported Loss for Quarter July-September 2021
(US Dollars per sow)


Company A $916
Company B $866
Company C $813
Company D $436


Two of the companies’ quarterly losses reported over 1 billion US Dollars. Average loss per sow of the four publicly traded companies is calculated at $757 for the quarter. If we use 4.5 hogs marketed per sow in the quarter, average loss per head is $168.


Official data estimates China’s sow herd at 41 million. If the average loss across the industry is similar to the four publicly traded companies – 41 million times $757 per sow makes about $31 billion industry loss in a quarter or roughly $2.4 billion a week. It appears the average China price in the last quarter was 14.8-15 RMB/kg. Price now, 12 RMB/kg. That means to us that no doubt, financial pain continues.


The cash drain is phenomenal. There is massive sow liquidation underway. Sow price at 2 RMB in China, 1/6 hog price. One thing for sure, when hog farms lose money, less hogs are coming. China super hog cycle – MASSIVE HIGHS and MASSIVE LOWS. We expect China hog supply will drop close to 20% in 2022. Hog price will surge, and China’s pork imports will rebound.


If we are correct and China’s hog inventory will be plunging due to huge losses, the need for imported corn and soybean will be lower.


The US new crop year starting September 7th to date is at 17% below last year. Soybean export shipments this year compared to last are down 49%. Lower hog numbers in China and Europe going forward means less feed needed.


Chicken 


Chicken is competitive meat for Pork. US Chicken slaughter for year to date has been the same as a year ago. Turkey production is down 4%.


Chicken price is better than a year ago last week; $102.40 now vs a year ago same week $68.75. No more Chicken being produced year over year and more expensive supports pork market.


Beyond Meat 


The shine seems to come off Beyond Meat. Their share value fell up to 16% Friday. Shares are down 13% year to date compared to the rise of 21% for the S&P 500 Index.


Beyond Meat quarterly sales are $106 million versus forecasts averaging $134 million. The diminished forecast makes the latest setback for Beyond.


We believe consumers are looking for taste flavour and a good eating experience. This reinstates to us the best defuse we have as a pork industry is to continue to evolve using genetics that has more marbling, redder and water holding capacity. All factors that lead to better taste. Our best defense is an aggressive effort to make a better eating experience and drive pork demand. The only reason beef sells for three times the price of pork is consumer eating experience leads them to pay more. They vote with their money.


At Genesus, since 1998 we have worked diligently to produce better tasting pork at a competitive cost of production. Taste and Flavour should not be a niche product. We need to drive demand that will pull us closer to beef prices. It has been calculated that if each American ate pork one more time per month, we would need 7 million more hogs. That’s increasing consumption and demand. Demand drives price, it’s how to defend and grow market share.

Every picture tells a story.

Summary 

  • China’s financial losses are huge, liquidation is ongoing.
  • Europe losses $50 per head currently, liquidation ongoing
  • USA – under 120lbs hogs on Sept 1st, 6% fewer year over year. Less hogs coming.

In our opinion, 2022 will see less supply of pork globally. The lean hog futures are undervalued. Prices are going to take off in 2022.

Europe Market thoughts

0

Pork Commentary, October 18th, 2021
Jim Long, President-CEO, Genesus Inc.

As our readers know, we spent a couple weeks in Spain, the world’s third-largest sow herd country. At the time we wrote about the big drop in hog prices and thought major herd liquidation was ongoing in Northern Europe – Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, maybe Denmark – Poland. This past week we looked at the markets in Northern Europe now. We have data on prices for the last six years.

  • Last week Cull Sows 0.50 Euro/kg – lowest in six years (27¢ U.S. lb.)
  • Last week 25 kg feeder pig – 20 Euros – lowest in six years (55 lb. pig – $24 U.S.).
  • Last week’s Market Hogs – .0.90 Euro/kg live – matching low of six years.

In Spain, we were told cost of production farrow to finish was 1.18 – 1.22 Euro/kg. Using 1.20 Euros/kg average (64¢ U.S. liveweight a lb.), if breakeven 1.20 Euros and market price 0.90 the loss is 0.30 a kg – .30 x 125 kg market hog = 37.5 Euros loss per head ($45 U.S.).

One guarantee in the hog business is when producers lose money you end up with less hogs after the herd liquidation. Our synopsis, Euro sow price lowest in six years means lots of sows and packers only pay what they have too. Feeder pig price lowest in six years indicates lack of demand and the price finishers figure they can pay to at least break even. Current Market Hog price of 0.90 Euro/kg way below breakeven, losses will be mounting that’s why sow price is low, liquidation.

China 

Meanwhile in China sow herd liquidation continues. We are told the sow price in some areas 2 RMB/kg (15¢ U.S. lb.). They are worth almost nothing. A sign of abundant sows coming to market. Why the liquidation? China’s breakeven estimated to be 21 RMB/kg, the current market price 11 RMB/kg. The loss is 10 RMB/kg (-72¢ lb.) multipled 120 kg hog = loss 1200 RMB per head (264 lb. hog, losing $190 U.S. per head!). It’s hard to believe per head losses of $190 U.S. but that’s the arithmetic.

Consequences:

  • Producers run out of cash – can’t buy feed – ship all hogs – sows – plus everything else.
  • A major global animal health company told us they are no longer going to ship any products to China – didn’t get paid and are afraid they won’t, ever.
  • Biosecurity – health monitoring becomes nonexistent triggering even more ASF, PRRS, and PED breaks.
  • One of the publicly-owned stock market World Mega Producer reported loss of $500 million U.S. first half of the year. This year first six months average price of hogs in China about 22 RMB/kg. How’s it working at 11 RMB – $200 a head loss?
  • Since January the stock market value of the listed swine genetic companies has declined over $70 billion. Lots of people and businesses out lots and lots of money. $70 billion would have bought the whole U.S. hog industry.

The losses in China per head are the highest ever experienced anywhere at any time. It’s uncharted water, the latest data we saw was China marketing 13 million hogs a week. Farmer Arithmetic 13 million at $190 U.S. per head loss is an industry going backward just about $2.5 billion a week. Maybe too high but take a billion off and it’s still almost incomprehensible. The one guarantee in the hog industry when producers lose money sows get liquidated. When producers lose lots of money lots of sows get liquidated. China losing lots of money.

2022

In 2022 we see fewer hogs in Europe and China. In USA the USDA inventory indicates 6% fewer hogs beginning 2022. The USDA September 1 inventory report had 2.318 million fewer pigs under 120 lbs. than a year before. If we use 16 weeks to get from birth to 120 lbs. 2.318 million that’s 145,000 less hogs per week. A big number.

Summary 2022

  • Europe will end up with less hogs compared to 2021.
  • China will end up with less hogs compared to 2021.
  • USA will end up with less hogs compared to 2021
  • Every major producer is declining.

Our thought is price will rebound with vengeance as Global supply declines in 2022. Lean Hog futures USA currently undervalued. The dog is going to hit the end of the chain. It’s not if but when.

Fall 2021 – Editorial

0

The Fall 2021 edition of the Canadian Hog Journal is here!

It is a tale as old as time: man versus beast. As the war on wild boar rages on in North America, learn about how the issue is being approached by different jurisdictions, and head into the field with a pair of boar trappers to learn about eradication efforts.

Feed cost management strategies are becoming more and more popular as feed prices remain high, availability remains low, and as hog prices gradually decline approaching the fall. Find out how you can protect your operation from unnecessary losses.

Public trust matters in agriculture, and, for consumers, farmers are the most important representatives of the industry. Consider why we all need to work together to improve our image by sharing the good news of your work.

In an increasingly plant-based world, pork still plays an integral role in the diets of Canadians. Look past the simulated meat hype and see why the real deal is still wanted and needed.

In research, creep feeding and canola extrusion are getting a closer look, and feeding peas could be a step in the right direction for lowering the carbon footprint of hog production.

As COVID-19 restrictions ebb and flow with case counts in each province, my home, Alberta, has imposed new guidelines for in-person gatherings, including a vaccine passport system. These kinds of spur-of-the-moment changes from government have complicated event planning in our industry, leading to cancellations or postponements in some cases and a shift to online formats in others.

The Alberta Livestock Expo in Lethbridge will not take place this year, unfortunately, but I was originally hoping to share this magazine – hot off the press – with producers and stakeholders at that event. Also in Alberta, the Red Deer Swine Technology Workshop has gone virtual for the first time, after being cancelled last year, and you can read about that in our next edition.

Coverage of this year’s Porc Show – virtual for the second time – will appear in the next edition of the Canadian Hog Journal, and coverage of the upcoming Banff Pork Seminar – back in-person, as of now – will be featured in the special edition after that, as always.

Hopefully soon (and I really do mean soon!), I can make my way across the province and country again to broaden my horizons and keep in touch with so many of our great readers and others in the industry.

Even if we cannot connect face-to-face, share your ideas with me by emailing andrew.heck@albertapork.com. There is a vast amount of experience and wisdom out there waiting to be broadcasted. Let me know what is on your mind!

Public trust matters in modern agriculture

0

By Cam Dahl

Editor’s note: Cam Dahl is the General Manager of Manitoba Pork. He can be contacted at cdahl@manitobapork.com.

The Canadian Centre for Food Integrity (CCFI) considers public trust a ‘roadmap for success.’ Farmers need to buy in to telling their story to preserve consumer confidence at home and abroad.

I find that many farmers react to the words ‘public trust’ like a cat running across hot pavement. The subject is often viewed as a threat, seen by some as rhetorical cover for those who want to dismantle modern agriculture.

While I understand the reaction, I have a different response. I see public questions on food production as an opportunity. Addressing consumers’ questions will help enhance the connection and relationship between farmers and the public. This will also differentiate Canada’s farmers – and the food they produce – in both domestic and international markets. It is a key tool to secure sustainable and long-term consumer demand.

Until relatively recently, Canadian agriculture did not have to consider questions from consumers on how their food is produced. Governments established food safety standards, registered farm input products and set environmental regulations. This provided the assurances that consumers were seeking – at least most of them. That has changed. Nowadays, farmers, processors and everyone involved in supporting agriculture production is required to actively engage in telling the story of modern farming.

Answering questions about the origins of food is not a fad that will be gone tomorrow like the latest internet diet. The growing focus by many consumers on food production practices is a true trend that agriculture needs to be ready to meet head-on. Consumer interest will only continue to grow for years to come.

Rather than responding to questions from consumers with skepticism, farmers can embrace them with optimism. That is because, when it comes to tending to the environment in a sustainable way, and caring for animals humanely, our farmers are world leaders.

We need to do a much better job of telling the good news story of modern agriculture. Decades of land and water stewardship have proven that farming can be considered the oldest ‘green job’ in many jurisdictions, which is certainly true for Manitoba. For example, pork producers create more food today with less environmental impact than even 10 or 20 years ago.

Over the last 50 years, hog farms have significantly reduced their carbon footprint. Manure that was once thought of as a waste product is now viewed as a valuable organic nutrient. Using new technology, farmers inject manure below the soil so that it is efficiently taken up by crops. The modern practices that have made environmental gains possible are the result of years of investment by farmers, governments and industry.

The same progress has been made in ensuring animals are raised in appropriate housing, that they receive well-balanced and nutritious feed, that diseases are prevented where possible and judiciously treated when not, and that hogs are handled humanely at all stages of their lives. Animal welfare is assured through a combination of rigorous provincial animal welfare regulations and industry standards.

An important component of the standard for animal care is the science-based National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs that all Canadian hog farmers are required to follow. The code is backed up by requirements for engagement with a veterinarian, including on-site visits. Adherence to the code is supported by audits, and farmers cannot deliver to federally inspected processing plants unless they are part of a national quality assurance program, like Canadian Quality Assurance (CQA) or Canadian Pork Excellence (CPE). Animal care requirements are regularly revised if scientific research demonstrates that changes in practices are warranted. Consumers can be confident that hogs in Canada are ethically raised.

Modern Canadian hog farmers take pride in their record on mitigating environmental issues and upholding animal care standards. It is also a record that should be a source of pride for consumers. Nutritious, high-quality Canadian pork is raised in a sustainable way that will help ensure the industry’s ongoing contributions to our economy and job creation in our local communities. Telling this story consistently and more frequently will help reinforce demand for Canadian pork everywhere.