Sunday, December 8, 2024

Your Daily Bacon Spring 2019

wildfieldadmin
-
0
Your Daily Bacon Spring 2019

By Buddy Simmons

Hello there again, bacon connoisseurs! We’re back with another edition of Your Daily Bacon. We are hitting the newswires for material again like we did for our last rendition. That’s mainly because the trough was not dry, to our surprise. During a scan of the internet, we learned there were a few amusing – and somewhat unsettling – stories. While not late-breaking headline news, these are fairly recent, all things considered.

We do eat other meats, but wrapping them in bacon 
just makes them better! What doesn’t bacon make better?

Pigs are reputed to be pretty intelligent animals. This first pig tale leaves us wondering just how clever they really are…

In Champaign, Illinois, a tractor trailer carrying a load of pigs overturned on Interstate I-57 north, resulting in pigs on the interstate on the lam. Law enforcement was called, of course, who in turn brought in the University of Illinois Vet-med to assist and the pigs were herded into the median. The driver and another car that got involved in the crash were unharmed, but the story did not mention any pig casualties. 
What gives us pause is this. Did the pigs engineer this mishap? Did somebody slip up and mention the final destination within earshot of the pigs? Pigs are clever, but perhaps they’re even smarter than we gave them credit for.

You can probably figure out what happened next. It didn’t work entirely as planned and they were recaptured without incident. To paraphrase the poet Robert Burns, “The best laid plans of pigs and men go often askew.”

Not bad, but we’d change it to “Bacon is red, bacon is 
nifty. One strip is never enough, and neither is fifty.”

Next, this one is from a year ago, but simply too rich to pas up reporting.
A police dispatcher in North Ridgeville, Ohio received a rather unusual call from a man in the early morning. It seems that…hey, you know what? We’ll just copy a transcript of the call – it will do this story more justice.

Dispatcher: North Ridgeville police.
Caller: Uh, hi, I’m walking from the Elyria train station to my house in North Ridgeville and a random pig just came up and started following me.
Dispatcher: A pig, you said?
Caller: Yes. Short pause. “It seems very keen to stay with me, so…

Naturally, the cops were a bit skeptical and figured they were dealing with a very inebriated individual, to say the least. What would anybody think, really?
But police officers are duty-bound, so went to the location to see what was up. Upon arriving they discovered that a pig was, in fact, following the man who had placed the call. The man was not intoxicated, and the pig was not imaginary, but he was apparently lonely. The surprised police took the pig into custody. 

“We will acknowledge the irony of the pig in a police car so that anyone that thinks they’re funny is actually unoriginal and trying too hard,” the department said in a statement.
The pig was placed into the custody of the local dog kennel and the owner was tracked down eventually. How this was accomplished was not detailed, but it turns out the pig’s name was “Zoe” and she was returned to her home. All’s well that ends well!

Now, we are blurring the Daily Bacon lines a little to report a scientific breakthrough, if it can be called that. Given the normal tone of Your Daily Bacon, naturally it will be a bit flippant. This is such a major thing that it probably will not be news by the time you read this, but just in case, here it is.

Scientists have managed to reanimate deceased pig brain cells! Yup. They did. Now, this does not mean that they were able to create a fully functional pig by resurrecting its brain, but it is definitely a breakthrough that could have a lasting impact on medicine and the world. Mind you, reviving some cells and reviving a brain are two very different situations. But still, the implications could be staggering.

There’s innovation, and then there is sheer genius. 
This transcends both!


Now, whether that impact will be a cure for brain maladies, or the Earth being overrun with zombie pigs, remains to be seen. And while those brain cells were no doubt revived in a sterile laboratory and restricted to a petri dish, being “Your Daily Bacon”, we cannot help but imagine a Victor Frankenstein-type character strapping a deceased pig to a table and raising it into a lightning storm and then shouting, “It’s alive! It’s alive!”
Also in that scenario, there could be two very different results. Result A would be success, a Frankenpig! Result B might be a really well-cooked, tender collection of bacon, pork loin, etc. In other words a win-win for Victor Frankenstein.

Here are a few short-takes of other newsworthy pigs.
In the Bahamas, a Venezuelan model was posing was posing for a swimsuit photo shoot when a group of four feral pigs wandered over to take a closer look. One decided to sample the model and gave her an unexpected nibble. Understandably, the model gave a squeal, probably not a good idea considering the nature of her assailants, and when another pig decided to give chase, the hapless lady fled to some rocks. The model was unharmed and took it in good humour after the initial shock wore off.

A pig in Franschhoek, South Africa has entered the world of art. When it was discovered that the young pig liked to play with paintbrushes, the only toys she did not eat. The owners decided to provide some paint and a canvas to see what would happen…and what happened was the pig began to actually paint the canvas.  Her preferred style is abstract, and the paintings reportedly sold on the Internet for thousands of dollars. Her name, if you have not guessed it already, is now “Pigcasso.”

And that’s it for this time around. Don’t forget to send us any pertinent pig news you may come across!

Greta’s Grubs

wildfieldadmin
-
0
Greta’s Grubs

By Greta Rose Hanley

Fruit? For supper? 

Pineapple Kiwi Pork Loins

Pork is one of those versatile meats that you can do just about anything with. As an incorrigible kitchen experimenter, this makes me happy. Sweet and savory both work in beautiful harmony with the full-bodied flavor of pork. While I often serve pork chops or cutlets with a sweet side dish, I generally don’t add fruit directly to the pork recipe, so this dish was a bit of a departure for me.

Not only did I dare to add fruit, I added two types of fruit. Since I was feeling brave, for one of the two, I even chose a super-sweet tropical fruit – pineapple. Now, I’m not a huge pineapple fan. I like it in moderation. It’s definitely better fresh, but I’ve eaten it canned didn’t dislike it. As an ingredient, though, I think it’s scrumptious. There is really nothing like it.

In this dish, I found that combining pineapple with the tartness of kiwifruit and some umami and salty flavors in the soy and Worcestershire sauces proved to delight the palate and really bring out the wonderful flavors of the pork. Final verdict? This was easy to prepare and delicious. I’ll make it again soon!

A little soy sauce goes a long way.

You will need:

  • Six lean pork loins
  • One quarter fresh pineapple (or half a can)
  • One kiwifruit
  • 2 tbsp soy sauce or soy sauce alternative.
  • 1 tsp Worcestershire sauce
  • Fresh ground pepper
  • 1/4 cup water

Directions

Remove pork loins from package and place loins flat in glass or ceramic baking dish. Add soy sauce, distributing evenly. Let rest for 30 minutes, then flip. Refrigerate and marinate for approximately eight hours. Overnight or all-day marinating is recommended for maximum flavour and tenderness. For quicker options, marinate 30 minutes on each side.

Swiss chard is a pretty addition to any meal.

After marinating, heat water in skillet over medium heat. When water is warm, place pork loins and marinade in skillet. Cook for four to six minutes on each side, depending on cut thickness. Cooked pork will generally be light tan in color. 

Cut fresh pineapple into small cubes. (Canned pineapple in water is a fine substitution.) Add pineapple cubes to skillet, distributing evenly. 

Stir in Worcestershire sauce. Reduce heat to medium low. 

Thinly slice kiwifruit and add to skillet. Gently distribute evenly with spatula. Continue to cook on medium low for one to two minutes.

Let rest for five minutes. Serve and enjoy! I served this over pan-seared (rainbow) Swiss chard and paired with couscous and grilled asparagus.

The final product is colourful, and easy to dress up or down, depending on your wine and dessert choices.

Salsa Verde Pork Tacos

Tacos are an easy way to serve a variety of veggies in one meal.

I love tacos. In fact, just about everyone I know likes tacos in one form or another. When I have gatherings, taco-themed nights are always a big hit, so much so that I will find almost any excuse to whip up a taco bar in my house. Hosting a scary movie viewing with friends? Terrifying Taco Night!

Dining both in and out, I’ve enjoyed taco variations ranging from vegan to fish tacos and just about everything in between. While in recent years, the street taco is a much-lauded trend (and deservedly so), it seems the hard shell taco is increasingly pushed to the side, ignored, and, dare I say…abandoned?

Don’t forget to warm your tacos to bring out the flavour.

Not in this house, it isn’t. I have great love for the hard shell taco in all its crispy, textured, complex glory. Taco nights here may include soft shells, both flour and corn, and street taco ingredients, but not in lieu of my beloved crunchy shells. 

One of my all-time favorite taco meats is ground pork. Pork has an rich, succulent flavor that provides the perfect base for other tangy, spicy, flavorful filling. The recipe below is a version of ground pork tacos that has been a taco night staple of mine for over a decade. I’m telling you, it holds up.

You will need:

Optional ingredients

  • 4 – 6 diced jalapeno slices
  • One small lime

Directions

Preheat oven to 175°F (approximately 80°C).

Brown pork over medium heat. When fully cooked, ground pork has a much lighter brown or grey color than ground beef; avoid overcooking. 

While pork is browning, sautédiced onions over medium-low heat; do not caramelize. Dice jalapenos. 

Add Salsa Verde to browned pork and let simmer for 5 minutes. Add sautéed onions and diced jalapenos to mix, reduce heat to low.

The magic of tacos is in the seasoning.

Arrange taco shells on baking sheet. Place in oven for 6-8 minutes if shells are thin*, 10-12 minutes if shells are thicker. Allow to warm but do not brown shells; the warming simply releases the oils and brings out the best flavor and texture of the shells.

Author’s note:

La Tiara brand taco shells are rather delicate, which is what I like about them. The shells don’t overwhelm the ingredients. They are small, however, and may require a lighter load of filling. If you like a larger, thicker shell or are using blue or yellow corn shells, they will require longer warming time. 

Cut one tomato in half, dice one half, and mix into ground pork. This adds some extra complexity to the flavors.

Dice remaining tomatoes and avocado and place in separate bowls.

Coarsely chop cilantro and place in bowl. If you or your guests have the cilantro-hating gene, chopped spinach works well (or use shredded Iceberg lettuce, if you must). 

Add taco seasoning to shredded cheese and place in bowl.

Efficiency tip: If you buy the bagged variety of shredded cheese, a quick way to mix the seasoning in is to add it directly into the cheese bag, reseal it, then shake gently until well distributed. Even if you don’t use all of the cheese, the seasoned shreds are a fantastic addition to many other dishes.

Remove browned pork mix from heat. 

Remove taco shells from oven. 

Let rest for five minutes.

Assemble your tacos and devour!

Makes 10-15 tacos, depending on shell size.

Delicious, nutritious, and pleasing to the eye (and the taste buds!)

Parting thoughts: If you have a house rabbit, be sure to share any extra cilantro!

Don’t forget to share your greens with your rabbit (provided you have one handy and feel like sharing!)

Greta Rose Hanley is a professional writer and small business owner. Growing up in rural farmland in the magical 1970s, she learned to appreciate access to fresh produce, dairy, and meats. Through her mother, Greta also developed a love for cooking and gardening. She is now an enthusiastic culinary and horticulture hobbyist and enjoys experimenting with both. She likes to subject her friends to recipe-testing and please her house rabbits with garden goodies.

Message from the editor

wildfieldadmin
-
0
Message from the editor

Hello, and welcome to Spring! Both the season and the magazine were a little late this year, so I apologize on behalf of Mother Nature and of course, myself.

You will notice that one of our stories is on the updates to the Canada Food Guide. I am sure most of you noticed or heard about it, mostly because of the switch to a more plant-based diet, and because industry wasn’t allowed an opportunity to comment and affect the development of recommendations.

The guide asks Canadians to choose more plant-based proteins, but doesn’t specifically say how much meat to eat. However, the plate photo that represents the guide is pretty telling – it’s hard to even find the meat in the picture.

Will that change again in future years as we learn more about nutrition, and more research is done? Probably. And that’s the important consideration – nutritional science doesn’t change on a whim – it is changed by science. And science is ever-changing… that’s just the nature of the beast. When you think about what we know now compared to 100 years ago, when you think about cancer treatments, life expectancy, infant mortality rates… the researchers get it right, through trial and error. There is no other way.

Personally, I’m ok that they didn’t consult with industry. I mean, would we have wanted them to consult with Pepsi? Or the leading potato chip manufacturer? I think it’s important to take a step back and think about the implications of industry influence on policy. In the meantime, we can funnel our disappointment into more research on human nutrition and what we can do as an industry to make our own product as nutritious as possible. 

Speaking of science – our next issue is dedicated to it! So be sure to send in your research articles, or even your own story about how research and science in agriculture has changed your life.  And please don’t forget to start taking photos for our front page contests! There are prizes to be won, but only if we receive multiple entries. 

Stay safe out there, and as always, thank you for your continued support, and for reading.

Sheri Monk
sherimonk@gmail.com

Canada Food Guide update isn’t bringing home the bacon

wildfieldadmin
-
0
Canada Food Guide update isn’t bringing home the bacon

By Treena Hein 

Canada’s new food guide raised the eyebrows of the meat and livestock sector across the country.

Unless you were on another planet for the past year, you couldn’t have missed the fact that many headlines in 2018 and early 2019 focussed on the impending update and subsequent release of the new Canada Food Guide. The revision was completed by a multidisciplinary team at Health Canada that included researchers, policy experts, registered dietitians and communications specialists, but both the process and the new content have frustrated Canadian livestock commodity groups. 

Officials from Health Canada’s Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion did not meet with representatives from the food and beverage industry because it was important to ensure that the development of dietary guidance was free from conflict of interest.  ~ Geoffrey Legault-Thivierge, Health Canada
 

In the past, any industry stakeholder had the opportunity to comment on planned revisions, but that changed during the preparation and research phase of the most recent edition.

“Officials from Health Canada’s office of nutrition policy and promotion did not meet with representatives from the food and beverage industry,” explained Health Canada spokesperson Geoffrey Legault-Thivierge, because “it was important to ensure that the development of dietary guidance was free from conflict of interest.”

In terms of the eventual release of the new Guide in January 2019, various commodity groups were not pleased with some major changes. Since 1977, there had been four food groups in the Guide – milk and milk products, meat and alternatives, grain products, and fruits and vegetables – that has now been reduced to three. The ‘milk and milk products’ category is gone, as is the ‘meat and alternates’ group, and both have now been combined into one larger category called ‘protein.’  

Health Canada didn’t consult with the meat and livestock sector because the agency wanted to stick to the science of the matter. Other than the reduction in animal-based protein, the meat industry isn’t taking issue with the other messaging.

There is also a much greater emphasis in the new guide on consuming plant-based protein. Even the main visual itself, the plate of food that every Canadian recognizes as being the symbol of the guide, hardly shows any meat. Legault-Thivierge says Canadians are now being encouraged to eat plant-based proteins (such as beans, legumes, rice, quinoa, soybeans and nuts) “because eating more nuts or soy protein is linked to improved blood lipid levels, and the higher fibre intake of plant-rich diets is linked to improved blood lipid levels and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, colon cancer, and type two diabetes.” He adds that “processed meat has been linked to colorectal cancer, and foods that contain mostly saturated fat are linked to unfavourable blood lipid levels and a higher risk of type two diabetes.” 

Reaction

The reaction to this emphasis on getting more protein from plant-based sources has not been received favourably by the meat industry. For example, Rick Bergmann, chair of the board at Canada Pork, stated in a news story thathe’s concerned Canadians might interpret the new version as a recommendation to reduce meat consumption in favour of plant-based proteins.

“Itwould be unfortunate if Canadians interpret this bias toward plant-based proteins as a signal to remove red meat from their diets,”read a statement from the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.

Mary Ann Binnie, manager of nutrition and industry relations at the Canadian Pork Council, agrees. She notes off the top that the new plate graphic isn’t very much different compared to those of previous versions of the guide.

Mary Ann Binnie, Canadian Pork Council says lean meats are still a foundation food. 
Photo courtesy Canadian Pork Council

“Healthy eating remains a balance and variety of lean meats, plenty of vegetables and fruits and whole grains.  We would have obviously preferred to have pork included as a protein shown in the protein group, but there wasn’t a piece of pork in the last version, released in 2007,” she explains. “In terms of animal protein, the previous version had illustrations of a roast, eggs, a whole fish. Animal and plant proteins have always been in the same food group.”

As to the name change of the ‘meat and alternates’ category to ‘protein,’ Binnie believes it highlights the fact that Canadians are looking for more protein in their diets, and that it also helps clarify for them what protein includes. “It sounds strange, but there are some people out there who don’t realize that meat is a protein source, so in that light, the category name change is positive,” she observes. “There has been so much buzz around protein shakes and protein bars that some people have been misinformed.” 

We are relying on dieticians and other health professionals to convey to Canadians that lean meats are, and have always been, a foundational food in the diet.   ~ Mary Ann Binnie, Canadian Pork Council
 

Another big misperception out there about our diets, adds Binnie, is that we eat too much meat. She warns that if groups such as young women interpret the guide’s emphasis on eating more plant-based protein as a directive to reduce meat consumption, there may be serious health consequences for them from Vitamin B12, iron deficiency and more.  

Indeed, Binnie believes any discussion of eating less of certain foods to accommodate the consumption of more plant-based protein should focus on eating fewer low-nutrition convenience food products, commonly known as junk food or empty calories. “Chips and cookies and other highly-processed food products should be the focus as to what should come out of the diet,” she says. “It shouldn’t be lean pork.” 

In her submission to HESA during the consultations before the guide was released, Dr. Sangita Sharma, professor in Indigenous and global health research at University of Alberta, echoed the concerns.

“Some of the recommendations…focus on promoting plant-based protein foods and recommend reducing Canadians’ overall consumption of animal-based protein foods, particularly red meat. Given current research from both my group and others, this is extremely concerning and we believe this could result in some negative heath impacts, including nutrient inadequacies and deficiencies. Plant-based sources of protein do not provide anywhere near the nutrients as provided by animal-based proteins and certainly do not provide the nutrients we know many Canadians are lacking.” 

Consumers are getting creative with their meat consumption, using it sparingly and pairing it with a diverse assortment of veggies and whole grains.
Photo courtesy Canadian Pork Council

Will the new guide actually affect and lower pork consumption long-term?

“We are hoping not,”said Binnie. “We are relying on dieticians and other health professionals to convey to Canadians that lean meats are, and have always been, a foundational food in the diet. We are, in collaboration Canada Beef and the Canadian Meat Council, having an exhibit and offering resources at the Dieticians of Canada Conference in June.”

The Canadian Pork Council is also developing a new strategic plan based on updated Guide, and it’s going to conduct some surveys of dieticians across the country to determine their level of knowledge about protein, the value of lean meat and so on, and to discover the questions that dieticians might have about the same topics. They are then going to develop more resources accordingly. 

Let’s not fool another generation in the process to understand that animal protein is good protein as well. ~Darcy Fitzgerald, Alberta Pork

For his part, Darcy Fitzgerald, executive director at Alberta Pork, notes that in the past, consumers were told animal fats, butter and eggs were bad for them – but that things certainly do change.

“Only to discover that eggs are truly a superfood and those plant-based trans fats and sugars that replaced healthy animal fats have plagued a generation or two with significant health problems,” he said, questioning when moderation, balance and omnivore became bad words. “Let’s not fool another generation in the process to understandthat animal protein is good protein as well.”

Looking at the promises and potential impact of Premier Doug Ford’s reign

wildfieldadmin
-
0
Looking at the promises and potential impact of Premier Doug Ford’s reign

Support from the new Ontario government for the pork industry and other ag sectors 

By Treena Hein

All Ontario premiers are always sure to attend the ‘International Plowing Match and Rural Expo’ held each year in the province. After all, it’s a very high-exposure opportunity to be associated with farming. 

This September however, during their visit to the event, both Premier Doug Ford and new Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) Ernie Hardeman met with representatives from various ag groups at a roundtable, discussing the challenges currently faced by farmers and ways in which Ontario agriculture can grow and diversify in the global market. Stakeholders at the event included Ontario Pork, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), Grain Farmers of Ontario, Beef Farmers of Ontario, Chicken Farmers of Ontario and the Ontario Agri Business Association. 

In the event press release, Ford promised, “I will use every tool at my disposal to help the agri-food sector grow…Ontario is open for business, and I will not leave our farmers behind.” Hardeman added that, “For too long rural Ontario was an afterthought. Our government is committed to listening to farmers…as we work to strengthen the agriculture industry.”

Industry reaction

Schwindt says Ontario Pork well understands the “serious fiscal situation in this province” and that the pork industry wants to be part of the solution. “But,” he asserts, “there has to be a conversation to which everyone can contribute,” and that “Ontario Pork certainly believes that all commodities should benefit equally.”

For his part, although he notes that “it’s still early days,” Ontario Pork Board Chair Eric Schwindtsays Ontario Pork is encouraged that Premier Ford wants to work for farmers. “Hardeman has also been a long-time supporter of agriculture,” Schwindt adds. “He’s been an MP in Oxford County for many years and he was Minister of Agriculture in the Mike Harris government, so he’s a good choice.”

It’s still early days, but we are encouraged that Premier Ford wants to work for farmers. ~Ontario Pork Board Chair Eric Schwindt

Commitments made

Among the current provincial government’s promises, one that particularly pleases Ontario Pork is an increase by 2020 in annual funding of $50 million to the Risk Management Program. “As an industry, we can do a lot to prepare for ups and downs in the market, but this is the only effective program to deal with large fluctuations in market price,” Schwindt explains. “The extra funding is appreciated, but the devil is in the details and there must also be program design changes that better address farmers’ needs.” These includemore response in times of need and the ability to carry-over unspent funds to make the program more like insurance.

Ontario Pork is also encouraged that the government has eliminated the provincial carbon cap and trade program, and is hopeful that going forward, there will be different ways to accomplish the same goal with less economic impact. “We compete in the world market and as we make changes to reduce global warming, we very much need to stay competitive with other jurisdictions,” Schwindt says. “We want to do our part, and we are encouraged that the provincial government isn’t going to impose taxes or regulations that would put us at risk of going out of business.”

From the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) perspective, President Keith Currie says his organization has had some positive conversations with the government about what the new carbon plan will look like, and like Schwindt, he’s confident agriculture’s needs relating to carbon emissions will be much better received than previously. A long-standing request, for example, is moving forward to have natural gas used on farms and in greenhouses exempt or almost exempt from any future carbon tax plan. 

Hardeman notes that in addition to this, his government is working with the private sector to expand natural gas and broadband networks to more communities, as well as reducing gasoline and hydro rates to make it more affordable to do business and live in Ontario. “We want to ensure policies and programs will help the agri-food sector grow their businesses and avoid additional regulatory burden or costs,” he says. “We have already taken some of the first steps to…promote economic growth. We’re also advocating for Ontario’s farmers and processors on a national level. These initiatives are all part of the province’s plan to make Ontario open for business, grow the economy and help protect and create good jobs across the province.”

Doug Ford

Currie notes that this all fits well with the ‘Producing Prosperity’ campaign that OFA introduced to politicians and would-be politicians over a year ago. Like the plan that Hardeman describes, it’s focussed on economic development for rural Ontario that will help farm businesses succeed, specifically through job creation, affordable housing and environmental sustainability and food security.

Cutting red tape

Ontario Pork hopes there are many avenues the provincial government could take to reduce compliance issues for pork farmers, including, says Schwindt, the reduction of “redundant paperwork related to nutrient management, without compromising any of the environmental integrity of the current rules and regulations.” Another opportunity for cutting red tap relates to pork industry worker shortages. “While we always look to hire locally first, many producers and processors need the help of temporary foreign workers to fill positions not wanted by locals,” Schwindt explains. “Current immigration rules make it really difficult for these farm workers to stay and keep working beyond their temporary work permits, even if they decide they want to settle and build a family here in Ontario.” 

At this point, OFA is encouraged at how the new provincial government – and in particular OMAFRA – is working to reduce regulatory burdens. “We are hopeful that we can continue to adjust and tweak regulations that are posing operational changes to our farm businesses,” says Currie, including changes to the employment standards act as another example.”  

I will use every tool at my disposal to help the agri-food sector grow… Ontario is open for business, and I will not leave our farmers behind. ~ Premier Doug Ford

For his part, Hardeman acknowledges that he heard many concerns about red tape and the need for nimble, efficient regulations at the roundtable discussion, as well as “concerns about labour and the unique labour environment required for our farm and agri-food businesses to remain competitive. Some of those concerns are now being addressed through the Making Ontario Open for Business Act.”

Other issues and the big picture

Ontario Pork would also like the Ontario government to be involved with better prevention of animal disease from abroad, as well as better regulation of protests. “With protesters approaching trucks, especially in the winter, it’s dangerous because drivers can’t see them, and there are also food safety risks,” Schwindt says. “The rules of engagement should be that people have the right to protest and stay safe, but our transporter’s safety and that of our animals also needs to be protected.” 

Currie notes that there have been some changes to predation regulations for livestock farming and that OFA is continuing to work on more changes to achieve better loss compensation through the Ontario Wildlife Predation Compensation Act. In addition, since Doug Ford was elected, OFA has also been able (with OMAFRA’s help) to start the reversal process of an action by the previous government relating to rabies vaccinations. These regulations, Currie says, made it very difficult to take animals to shows and exhibits or hold farm tours without having to have all animals vaccinated.

In the end, Schwindt is of the view that no matter what issues should be addressed by the government, the most important thing is “to be in the room” – to be part of driving solutions and creating policy. “We continue to talk to Minister Hardeman, his staff and to our partners at OMAFRA. The pork industry has a reputation for being proactive and helpful in these conversations and we want to continue that. We’re excited about the opportunities to grow and become a larger part of the province’s economy.” 

View from Grier

wildfieldadmin
-
0
View from Grier

Export Value for Canada

Export values are a hot topic lately. That is in part due to the fact that producers think Canadian packers are getting more in the market than normal. That in turn is due to the fact that U.S. packers are in the middle of a trade dispute with Mexico and China. Producers believe Canadian packers are able to attain higher prices as a result. That is proving to be true, at least with Mexico, for now – but what about overall? Does Canadian pork get a premium in export markets because it is Canadian?  

Over the course of 2017, Canadian pork exports of 1.1 billion kilograms on a payweight basis amounted to about C$3.6 billion. That is a unit value of about C$3.25/kg. Total U.S. exports of 1.9 billion kilograms last year amounted to US$5.3 billion. That works out to US$2.79/kg or C$3.62/kg. The U.S. unit value was 10+-% more than the Canadian unit value in C$.

On a country basis, the U.S. unit value was about 5-10 per cent more to Japan and well over 25 per cent more to Taiwan. The top volume countries all saw higher values going to the U.S. This does not mean that Canadian packers are receiving less for the same cut products exported to the same countries. It could just mean that our export product mix contains items of less value. That is not necessarily a negative. On the positive side it could simply mean that the more valuable cuts are staying in Canada or are sold to the United States. That would be more profitable, often. All products go to the market with the highest value, it is best if that is Canada or the United States given logistics.

Another reason U.S. values might be higher is that U.S. packers have advantages because they are much less export dependent. That is the export price is a higher hurdle for U.S. packers before it is worth moving product offshore. U.S. packers have the advantage of having a strong internal market (they export less than us in Canada). Some cuts are higher in the U.S., so they are less dependent on exports than we are. As an example, the retail loin market is a lot larger in the U.S. than in Canada.

With that noted, more specific items such as hams to Mexico also show the U.S. deriving more value. In 2017 the U.S. unit value of hams to Mexico was C$2.12/kg while the Canadian value was C$1.88/kg. That in turn is likely a reflection of the costs of doing business between Canada and Mexico versus the much lower costs between the U.S. and Mexico. In other words, there are a myriad of reasons for different export unit values.

Canadian packers add value

The data notwithstanding, there are times and cases where Canadian packers do attain higher prices than their U.S. counterparts. This is often the case in Japan and Korea, and to a lesser extent Taiwan, Philippines, Aust, and NZ, which are leading markets. The main reason for the higher prices is Canadian packers’ adherence to specifications. That equates to better yield.

In other words, Canadian packers compete against their larger U.S. counterparts in the same way that smaller firms in all industries compete against larger firms –adherence to detail and service. This is nothing new. Another reason for an advantage in Japan is due to the western barley fed hogs which produces a darker pork with whiter fat which that market favors. Others in Canada have switched genetics to those more favored in Japan. Again, this is more of a customer focused approach which is text book business practices for smaller firms versus bigger firms.

The field is always changing though and the old formula may not hold. Many U.S. packers have been able to develop good markets with strong brand recognition/loyalty (Hormel, Smithfield, Hatfield, etc). The question for the future will be how do those new marketing efforts compare with Maple Leaf, Olymel or Hylife exporting chilled pork in Japan or other higher end markets?  Will any Canadian advantage hold against these U.S. efforts?

Not a Canada-wide attribute

The bottom line is that Canadian packers are willing to accommodate export customers. This is often because of the smaller plants which facilitates this flexibility and accommodates the customer better than large plants. There is also the ractopamine-free issue or other protocols that the U.S. industry may be unwilling to accommodate.

Another important point is that the added value per kilo, if it does exist is specific to each market and each packer. It is not a Canadian value. It is not a Canada-wide attribute, and has more to do with what happens to the pork after it reaches the packer than what happens at the farm.

Under-utilized plants are costly

Western Canada has the capacity to slaughter about 200,000 head per week. On a typical week, the slaughter is about 163,000, for an 82 per cent plant capacity utilization rate. The utilization rate in the U.S. is around 95 per cent.  Of course some plants, like HyLife are running full out while others like Maple Leaf Brandon and Olymel Red Deer are not.

Of course, plants that are not run at full capacity also costly. Money is not left on the table in terms of added payments to vendors, but it is lost nonetheless. It is lost in terms of higher kill costs per head and lost productivity.

Take for example a fictional plant on the prairies that is supposed to kill 45,000 head per week. That is about Red Deer’s size. That fictional plant might have kill and cut costs of about $55 per head. Thatwould put weekly costs at about $2.5 million of which about a third might be fixed overhead. The reality, however, is that much of the variable costs are also going to be fixed. Labour, a variable cost in theory, is not going to decrease if numbers are not where they should be. If, therefore, that plant is only running 38,000, like Red Deer has, the costs per head could easily go to $62-$65. Reduced kills add serious costs per head.

On the flip side, if the plant was at full capacity, any week that this fictional plant could run the odd half day on a Saturday would drive the entire week’s average kills down by at least $3/head.

Those numbers fit well with a rule of thumb that says for every increase or decrease in production by 10 per cent leads to a corresponding increase or decrease in costs by about 5-10 per cent.

The above example is a simplification but it does show the costs associated with underutilized plants. These added costs take away competitiveness and drive down profits.

Kevin Grier Market Analysis and Consulting provides industry market reports and analysis, as well as consulting services and public event speaking. You can reach him at kevin@kevingrier.com to comment or to request a free two-month trial of the Canadian Pork Market Review.

Managing water intake

wildfieldadmin
-
0
Managing water intake

Auditing Best Management Practices – Part 8

Submitted by Ken Engele, Prairie Swine Centre

Geneviève Berthiaume, Centre de développement du porc du Québec

In 2017, on-farm best management practices were audited on a total of 24 farms throughout Canada as part of a national project titled From Innovation to Adoption: On-farm Demonstration of Swine Research. This article is part of an eight-part series reporting on these audits. 

Among nutrients, water is required in the greatest amount but quite often receives the least attention. Water intake of finisher pigs has been reported to range up to three times feed intake, depending on body weight and feed intake. However, most ‘water intake’ reported is in the form of water disappearance from drinkers, including water wastage, rather than water actually consumed by pigs. Previous work has shown finishing pigs can waste 25% of water from well-managed nipple drinkers, therefore opportunities exist to reduce wastage when flow rates are adjusted on a regular basis1. Actual on-farm water flow rates and nipple drinker heights were measured on 24 farms across Canada, representing each phase of production from gestation to finishing. Note that not all farms had nipple drinkers installed in each phase of production, for example, some producers solely relied on wet/dry feeders without an additional water source.

Table 1. Water Flow Rate Recommendations

Low (L/min)Target (L/min)High (L/min)Very High (L/min)
Gilt Pen< 0.50.5 – 1.5 1.5 – 2.5 > 2.5 
Gestation< 0.50.5 – 1.5 1.5 – 2.5 > 2.5 
Farrowing< 1.0 1.0 – 2.0 2.0 – 3.0 > 3.0 
Nursery< 0.50.5 – 1.5 1.5 – 2.5 > 2.5 
Finishing< 0.50.5 – 1.5 1.5 – 2.5 > 2.5 

Prairie Swine Centre. 2000.  Pork Production Reference Guide.2

Table 1 outlines water flow parameters showing ranges measured for low, target, high, and very high values.  Recommended flow rates should range between 1.0 to 2.0 L/min and 0.5 to 1.0 L/min for farrowing and all other phases of production respectively, while the target range used in the analysis was expanded from 0.5 to 1.5 L/min for all areas other than farrowing.

Table 2. Measured Water Flow Rates – 24 audited farms

Low (<0.5L/min)Target(0.5 – 1.5 L/min)High(1.5 – 2.5 L/min)Very High (>2.5L/min)
Gilt Pen5.1%33.3%56.4%5.1%
Gestation0.0%59.4%21.9%18.8%
Farrowing15.3%38.9%29.3%16.6%
Nursery15.2%56.8%19.0%8.9%
Finishing5.4%29.3%54.3%10.9%

Overall water management within audited farms varies across phase of production (Table 2).  Generally producers do a better job in managing flow rates within Gestation (pens) and Nursery, where approximately 60% of the nipple drinkers measured met the target flow rate.  The challenge is in Finishing, where approximately two-thirds of nipple drinkers provide flow rates in excess of pig’s requirement, with 11% of nipple drinkers being rated very high (>2.5 L/min).

Economics

Table 3 represents a hypothetical situation of a 6,000-head finishing barn. In this case, if 100% of the nipple drinkers were adjusted to recommended flow rates (1L/min) water disappearance would be 42,000 L/day for the facility. However, as shown in the example in Table 3, only 29.3% of nipple drinkers would have been optimally adjusted. For this scenario, we can assume that any water disappearance above the rate of 7 L/day could be avoided. Therefore, the daily water disappearance would increase by 70% (or 30,800 L) to reach a total disappearance of 72,800 L/day.  The direct cost of water wastage (30,800 L) associated with manure disposal would translate into approximately $119/day or $41,500 per year if the previous assumptions were met. 

Table 3.  Hypothetical water disappearance measurements

CategoryLowTargetHighVery High
Measured Values**5.4%29.3%54.3%10.9%
Water Flow Rate (L/min)0.51.02.02.75
Number of Pigs324 1,7603,260655
Daily Water Disappearance/Pig (L/pig)771419.25
Total Daily Water Disappearance/Day (L)2,26812,32345,64612,613
Daily Water Wastage (L/pig)00712.25
Total Daily Water Wastage (L)0022,8238,026

** Refers to the percentage of nipple drinkers that were measured in each respective category. A total of 24 farms were measured across Canada.

CategoryL/Day
Calculated Water Disappearance72,849
Target Water Disappearance42,000
Water Wastage30,849
Additional Manure Disposal Cost/Day$119

Assumptions

6,000 head finishing barn

Average daily water consumption per pig – 7L/day

Duration of finishing period – 350 days/year (18 weeks/batch)

Manure application cost – $0.0175/gallon or $0.00385/litre 

The previous example provides potential savings for a hypothetical site; every producer should take the opportunity to assess potential savings related to manure disposal, water use, and pumping costs on a regular basis for their operation.

Properly mounting nipple drinkers can help reduce water wastage.3,4,5  Nipple drinkers mounted at 900should be set to shoulder height, while nipple drinkers mounted at 450should be set to 5cm (2 inches) above the back of the smallest pig in the pen.  It is important to note that mounting nipple drinkers lower than required will increase water wastage. 

Conclusion

Finishing pigs can maintain adequate water intake from a variety of drinker types, however water waste from drinkers can be very different depending on drinker type and management. Research has shown well-managed nipple drinkers can help reduce water waste to the same level as bowl drinkers..1 3  Finally, ensure you regularly check water flow rates, as this will 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.  

For Further Reading

1Water Usage and Wastage from Nipple Drinkers 

(English) http://www.prairieswine.com/water-usage-and-wastage-from-nipple-drinkers/ 

2Pork Production Reference Guide

(English) http://www.prairieswine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2000_Prairie_Swine_Reference_Guide.pdf

3Effects of nipple drinker height and flow rate on water wastage in grower and finisher pigs

(English) http://www.prairieswine.com/reducing-water-wastage-from-nipple-drinkers-by-grower-finisher-pigs/

4Recommended Flow Rate & Height of Nipple Drinkers

(English) http://www.prairieswine.com/recommended-flow-rate-height-of-nipple-drinkers/

5A Checklist for Water Use 

(English) http://www.prairieswine.com/a-checklist-for-water-use/

Leveraging quality assurance for better pay

wildfieldadmin
-
0
Leveraging quality assurance for better pay

Alberta pork producers’ resolution demands $7 per head, and Olymel says it won’t pay up

By Sarah Hoffmann

In their ongoing pursuit of better pork pricing, Alberta pork producers may have found a leverage point as a new quality assurance program is to be phased in across Canada. 

Members of Alberta Pork passed a resolution at their November 20, 2018 annual general meeting saying they would only participate in the new Canadian Pork Excellence (CPE) program if packers agreed to pay an additional $7 per head for CPE validated hogs. CPE was developed by the Canada Pork Council and is intended to replace the current quality assurance program over the next few years.

Obviously somebody is making money. It’s just not the producer. ~ Darcy Fitzgerald, Alberta Pork

The resolution comes at a time when producers’ profitability per head is low and they feel they are being asked to do too much for too little. 

According to Brent Bushell of the Western Hog Exchange, a non-profit organization that markets hogs for Alberta farmers, the accounting firm MNP has compared producer profitability over the first three quarters of the last five years and found that farrow-to-finish barns lose an average of $1.05 per head and finishing barns have lost an average of $22 per head. 

Prices have been especially brutal since this summer when tariffs on U.S. pork into China and Mexico caused that country’s cash prices to sink. The prices realized by Canadian pork producers went along for the ride because the formula Canadian packers use to pay producers is based on the U.S. cash price – and likely the cheapest hogs sold on any given day.

However, there are no tariffs on Canadian pork into these markets and presumably packers are selling just as robustly, if not more so, considering the slow-down of U.S. supply. Producers just aren’t seeing the benefit of this steady marketing environment. 

“We don’t have the same trade war going on with our customers that the U.S. has and there are some benefits coming to Canadian packers, but those benefits aren’t coming to the producers,” explained Ron Gietz, economics extension specialist with Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 

Some packers have posted record profits recently. Olymel, for example, increased earnings over the last three years, with their highest profit ever in 2017. According to the website of La Coop fédérée, the parent company of Olymel, the packer earned a record $290.4 million in 2017, which was a $39 million increase over 2016 earnings. 

Producers and their organizations are frustrated by the fact that they follow stringent quality parameters which allow packers to extract a premium in the world market, but producers do not share in the returns on this high-end pork. 

I’m not prepared to give hogs to a packer because we’re friends. They have to work for them or not get them. ~ Brent Bushell, Western Hog Exchange

Darcy Fitzgerald, executive director of Alberta Pork, pointed out that the top customer for Alberta pork is Japan, the highest paying buyer in the world. The original pork quality assurance program, known as CQA, was implemented in 1998, with updates since then. Alberta pork producer’s attention to animal welfare, feed quality, and traceability grant access to world markets to the tune of $500 million annually. CPE, the new program, would require even more training and record-keeping.

Fitzgerald said the resolution is not about anger at quality assurance programs themselves, but about the difficult financial situation faced by producers and the poor relationship they have with the packers.

“They are using this quality assurance program revision to say, ‘Enough. We need to start seeing money.’ That’s their frustration to say we are not seeing enough money for all the work we do to make this excellent pig.” 

These programs come with a cost, not only in administration and training, but also in the finished product. In 2013, Alberta and BC pork produces quit using a popular growth promotant called ractopamine, which is still used in the U.S. and some parts of Canada. This allowed Alberta packers Olymel and Maple Leaf to sell pork into China, Russia and other countries that ban the feed additive, but producers that eschew ractopamine aren’t paid a premium for their sacrifice. 

Richard Vigneault, spokesperson for Olymel, said the company neither requested the introduction of a new quality assurance program, nor are they willing to pay a flat rate per head for hogs produced under that program. 

In Quebec, where pork producers collectively negotiate contracts with packers, they make an average of $8-10 more per head than producers in Alberta. 

I honestly believe we have a five-year window to change this. If we can’t we may not even have a hog industry in Alberta. ~ Brent Bushell, Western Hog Exchange

“I think Alberta producers would be really happy if we got paid the same as guys in Eastern Canada,” said Fitzgerald. “Our number one market in Alberta is Japan and it’s a premium market. They’re looking for more product from us and economics 101 would say short supply, large demand, then price should go up. Obviously somebody is making money. It’s just not the producer.”

So far, he does not see a will to move back towards single desk marketing in Alberta. However, some hog farmers are taking a look at the Western Hog Exchange (WHE) as an option to block market hogs and leverage a better price from packers. 

This past April the WHE began to focus on marketing groups of hogs that were coming off contracts with packers. In the past, WHE marketed most of the hogs they represented to Olymel, but that has changed under general manager Brent Bushell.

“We represent about 10,000 hogs per week right now. We had probably too close of a relationship with one packer. I came on three years ago and we decided that’s not what we wanted to do,” said Bushell. “I’m not prepared to give hogs to a packer because we’re friends. They have to work for them or not get them.”

The WHE tenders out amalgamated, un-contracted hogs to packers and chooses the best price. Speaking of the farmers he sells for, Bushell said, “They’re not prepared to sign long term contracts. They’re not prepared to sell hogs based on broken pricing. They’re prepared to use their strength in number to negotiate the best price.”

Sometimes the best price is found south of the border. Even with ongoing trade wars and transportation costs, producers can still fare better in the U.S. than in Canada. 

“We’ve been able to ship hogs into the U.S. and be able to extract $25-30 more per hog,” said Bushell. “I’m extremely embarrassed by our Canadian packers for making this happen.”

As a result of WHE’s recent activities, they are seeing increased interest from producers outside Alberta. 

“In 2019 we will expand into Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I’ve been invited to a few meetings in Quebec,” said Bushell.

Fitzgerald pointed out that many weaner pigs leave western Canada to be finished in the U.S. This Canadian-born, U.S. finished pork still goes into premium markets – only with an American sticker on it instead of a Canadian one. 

“We’re competing against ourselves,” laments Fitzgerald. 

Meanwhile, Alberta packers are short 70,000-100,000 pigs a week to be slaughtering at full capacity, and production continues to decline in Western Canada, because producers cannot afford to build new barns. Some are even ceasing production in existing barns before they wear out because they can’t afford to keep operating at a loss.

From the packer’s point of view, the current pricing system is a matter of competitiveness. 

“We operate in a North American context and our goal is to remain competitive on the world market as well. This involves purchasing pork at the same price as our competitors in the USA. Our way to deal with the price is based on valuable market references,” said Vigneault.

But a packer needs animals to slaughter and Olymel has had to increase their swine herd to do so. Their subsidiary, OlySky, purchased a large farrow-to-finish operation in Saskatchewan in 2013 and recently added 20,000 sows to their Alberta herd, bringing their total western herd to about 60,000 sows. 

“We are always looking to increase the number of market hogs for our Red Deer plant and in order to do so, we will be looking to develop partnerships with producers on how we finish more hogs which can include contract finishing,” said Vigneault. According to La Coop fédérée’s 2017 annual report, their western hog production sector lost money in both 2016 and 2017.

Ultimately, both Fitzgerald and Bushell believe that packers need to negotiate an equitable price with producers or the hog industry in Alberta may not recover. 

“I think it’s a dangerous game [the packers] are playing to not sit down and negotiate something positive for everyone,” said Fitzgerald. 

Bushell goes so far as to put a timeline on the necessary recovery.

“They’re choking out their own supply of hogs,” he said of packers. “I honestly believe we have a five-year window to change this. If we can’t we may not even have a hog industry in Alberta.”

Coûts d’alimentation élevés : à la recherche d’un répit

wildfieldadmin
-
0
Coûts d’alimentation élevés : à la recherche d’un répit

Rédaction: Geoff Geddes pour Swine Innovation Porc   |  Traduction : Élise Gauthier

Les producteurs parlent des coûts d’alimentation comme la plupart des Canadiens parlent de l’hiver : ils s’en plaignent et n’en voient pas la fin. Si on connaît un bref répit chaque année pour ce qui est de l’hiver, les coûts d’alimentation, eux, demeurent un souci constant. C’est ce qui explique qu’il y ait de nombreuses recherches sur les façons de réduire ce poste de dépense. Dans une recherche récente, des chercheurs se sont penchés sur le lien entre les aliments et certaines pratiques de gestion. Les résultats obtenus sont étonnants.

« Nous avons déjà montré que nourrir les porcs avec des rations dont la teneur en énergie nette (EN) est constante mais plus faible permettait aux producteurs d’améliorer leurs revenus, comparativement à des rations contenant plus d’énergie » rappelle Miranda Smit, Ph. D., du ministère l’Agriculture et de la Foresterie de l’Alberta (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry).

Manger plus

Il faut comprendre que les porcs doivent pouvoir augmenter leur consommation afin de compenser la valeur énergétique plus faible d’un aliment. C’est généralement plus facile à dire qu’à faire, puisque dans les bâtiments l’espace et l’accès aux trémies peuvent être restreints et ainsi limiter la consommation d’aliments.  Y a-t-il un lien entre le niveau d’EN des aliments, la densité animale, l’espace disponible à la trémie et le sexe? Si oui, quel est donc ce lien? Ce que les chercheurs apprécient encore plus que les questions, ce sont des réponses. Ils se sont donc mis à la recherche de réponses en réalisant une étude sur 960 porcs castrés et 960 cochettes.

« Les porcs ont été logés dans 96 parcs. Les parcs comptaient des mâles ou des femelles, 18 ou 22 animaux, 2 ou 3 trémies d’alimentation et finalement, les rations attribuées à ces parcs avaient une teneur en EN faible (2,2 Mcal) ou élevée (2,35 Mcal). Les rations contenant moins d’énergie étaient à base de blé ou d’orge alors que celles avec plus d’EN étaient à base de blé et de pois et contenaient de l’huile de canola. Le poids global des porcs et la consommation apparente d’aliments par parc ont été mesurés pour chaque phase de croissance. »

Bien qu’à certains égards les résultats aient confirmé ce qui avait été démontré antérieurement, ils ont également fourni de nouveaux éclairages pour les producteurs.

Même gain?

« Cette fois encore, nous avons constaté que les porcs nourris avec les rations contenant moins d’EN ont consommé plus que les autres, sans que cela n’ait d’impact sur leur croissance. D’autre part, quand la densité animale était moindre, 18 animaux par parc, les porcs ont mangé un peu plus et ont obtenu une meilleure croissance que quand la densité était plus élevée (22 porcs par parc). Le surpeuplement implique que les porcs ont moins de chances d’avoir accès aux trémies et se développent généralement moins bien. »

L’ajout d’une trémie supplémentaire dans les parcs a permis aux porcs de manger plus. Toutefois, l’impact sur le gain moyen quotidien a été négligeable.

« Je crois que la trémie supplémentaire a favorisé le gaspillage des aliments. L’analyse de l’efficacité alimentaire permet d’établir qu’elle a légèrement diminué avec l’ajout de la troisième trémie. Il y avait alors trois places où les aliments pouvaient être gaspillés. Les porcs de ces parcs ont probablement mangé un peu plus, mais ont aussi gaspillé davantage d’aliments. »

Ce qui étonne le plus Miranda Smit dans les résultats, c’est ce qui ne s’est pas passé.

« Je m’attendais à voir des interactions entre la prise alimentaire et les trois pratiques de gestion : la densité animale, le nombre de trémies par parc et l’EN des rations. En fait, nous n’avons observé aucun lien entre ces paramètres. Le côté positif est que peu importe qu’il y ait surpeuplement ou non ou que vous fournissiez une trémie supplémentaire ou non dans le parc, vous pouvez servir aux porcs des rations faible en EN et ils obtiendront tout de même une bonne croissance. Il s’agit de résultats intéressants. Lors des essais antérieurs les rations faibles en EN avaient bien fonctionné et avaient permis de réduire les coûts d’alimentation. Nous avions alors supposé que tous les autres pratiques de gestion devaient être parfaites pour que ça fonctionne. Les résultats de cette recherche suggèrent que ce n’est pas le cas. »

Bien que ce projet confirme une fois de plus que les rations faibles en énergie nette permettent de réduire les coûts d’alimentation, il demeure important que la proportion entre les acides aminés et l’énergie ne soit pas altérée substantiellement. Sans ça, les résultats seront décevants pour les producteurs. Aux intéressés, Miranda Smit conseille vivement de consulter un expert en nutrition avant d’aller de l’avant avec des rations contenant moins d’EN.

Nos connaissances sur les aliments et sur les façons de réduire leurs coûts ne cessent de s’améliorer. Qui sait si on n’arrivera bientôt au point où il n’y aura plus lieu de se plaindre des coûts d’alimentation élevés. Mais soyez sans inquiétude : on pourra toujours continuer à se plaindre de la météo.

Pour obtenir plus d’information sur cette recherche, veuillez contacter :

Miranda Smit 
Courriel : miranda.smit@gov.ab.ca
Téléphone : 780 427-8409

Feeding hogs extruded and expeller-pressed B. juncea canola cake

wildfieldadmin
-
0
Feeding hogs extruded and expeller-pressed B. juncea canola cake

Xun Zhou1, Miranda Smit2, Malachy G. Young3, Vicente Zamora3,

Ruurd T. Zijlstra1, and Eduardo Beltranena1,2*

1University of Alberta, 2Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 3Gowans Feed Consulting

*Email:eduardo.beltranena@gov.ab.ca

Take Home Message

Brassica juncea is a yellow-seed canola cultivar with a thinner seed coat and therefore lower fibre. However, B. juncea has more than double the glucosinolate content of conventional canola (B. napus). Glucosinolates are bitter tasting compounds that may reduce feed intake. We thought that extrusion prior to expeller-pressing (EEP) could reduce their antinutritional effects. We therefore fed increasing levels (0, 5, 10, 15 or 20%) of extruded and expeller-pressed B. juncea cake to hogs from 38 kg to market weight. Each 5% increase in EEP B. juncea canola cake inclusion linearly reduced feed intake by 46 g/d, weight gain by 8 g/d, carcass weight by 440 g, and loin depth by 0.6 mm, but did not affect feed:gain, dressing percentage, backfat thickness, lean yield, or carcass index. Extrusion prior to expeller pressing did not lessen the bitterness of a specific glucosinolate (3-butenyl) that is particularly high in B. juncea canola. We therefore recommend feeding hogs not more than 5 to 10% B. juncea cake, depending on cake cost. In contrast to these results, we have previously fed hogs up to 30% conventional, solvent-extracted canola meal without reducing growth performance or carcass traits.

Why B. juncea canola?

Yellow-seeded Brassica juncea has recently been labelled the third canola specie in Canada. B. juncea has agronomic advantages over conventional, dark-seeded B. napus.It matures earlier, is more thermo-tolerant and disease resistant, and it can be combined straight without the pods shattering. It is best suited for the warmer, lower rainfall, Brown and Dark Brown soils of the Prairies, where currently little canola production exists. B. junceahas a thinner seed coat and therefore lower fibre content than B. napus. Lower fibre content means one could feed greater inclusions to pigs. However, B. juncea has at least double the glucosinolate content of B. napuscanola. Glucosinolates arebitter compounds that may reduce feed intake, and affect thyroid, liver, and kidney functions.

Extrusion and expeller-pressing

Extrusion compresses feedstocks using a large screw within a cylindrical barrel through a die-end nozzle. The decreasing channel width between the screw and barrel combined with narrowing of the screw thread creates shearing force, high pressure, and generates heat to partially cook feedstuffs. Shearing disrupts cell wall structures (fibre) that trap nutrients, increasing protein denaturation, fat solubility, and mineral availability. Extrusion therefore improves the digestibility of feedstuffs protein, fat, and phosphorus for animals. Extrusion of canola seed prior to expeller pressing could further heat up and cook glucosinolates rendering them harmless. Expeller pressing canola seed is similar to conventional processing of canola meal, except that the last step, solvent-extraction, is not carried out. If seed is expeller-pressed rather than solvent-extracted, oil remains in the cake increasing its feed energy value. Greater oil content in expeller canola cake implies less need for costly fat or liquid oil supplementation in feeds to meet the energy requirements of pigs. We therefore thought that expeller-pressing combined with prior extrusion (EEP) of B. junceacanola seed might be beneficial for swine feeding.

Nutrients in EEP B. juncea canola cake

The B. juncea canola seed was sourced from southern Saskatchewan with the help of Viterra. The seed was extruded and expeller-pressed at Apex Nutri-Solutions Inc., Edgbert, AB. The ground cake was then trucked to Sunhaven Feed Mill at Irma, AB where the test diets were mixed. The EEP B. juncea canola cake fed provided 34% crude protein, 17% fat, and 6% fibre. Lysine content was 1.72% with lysine availability of 1.57%. The total glucosinolate content was considered high (10.9 vs. 5 µmol/gin conventional meal), 9.7 µmol/g being 3-butenyl.

Growing-finishing pig trial

We were interested in comparing the growth performance, carcass characteristics, and jowl fatty acid profile of hogs fed 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20% EEP B. juncea canola cake under commercial conditions. In total, 880 pigs with an initial body weight of 38 kg were housed in 40 pens, 22 pigs per pen, and had free access to 1 of 5 mash feed regimens until slaughter (120 kg). Test diets were best-cost formulated to provide 2.3 Mcal/kg NE and 4.2, 3.8, 3.6, 2.9 and 2.9 g standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine/Mcal NE for Grower 1 (d 0 – 14), Grower 2 (d 15 – 35), Grower 3 (d 36 – 56), Finisher 1 (d 57 – 74), and Finisher 2 (d 75 to market weight) phases, respectively. Grower 1 and 2 diets included 25% and Grower 3, Finisher 1 and 2 diets included 20% of wheat distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). Increasing EEP B. junceacanola cake inclusions substituted lentil, soybean meal and barley grain in diets that were balanced for energy and amino acids for each growth phase.

Trial results

Increasing EEP B. juncea canola cake inclusion in the feed linearly reduced pig body weight at d 14, 35, 56, 74 and 85. Pigs fed 20% of EEP B. juncea canola cake were 2.7 kg lighter than controls at d 85. For the entire trial, each 5% increase in dietary EEP B. juncea canola cake inclusion linearly reduced feed intake by 46 g/d and weight gain by 8 g/d, but did not affect feed:gain (Figure 1).

Each 5% increase in dietary EEP B. juncea canola cake inclusion linearly reduced carcass weight by 440 g and loin depth by 0.6 mm, but did not affect dressing percentage, backfat thickness, lean yield, or carcass index (Table 1). Pigs fed 20% EEP B. juncea canola cake reached slaughter weight 1.4 d after controls fed no canola cake.

Canola seed is high in unsaturated oil. Feeding unsaturated fats to pigs reduces the firmness of pork fat. Soft pork fat causes miscuts during pork deboning and reduces the quality of processed pork products (i.e., oily sausage, mushy patties, stretchy raw bacon that shrinks too much at cooking). Therefore, pork fat quality should be considered when feeding high oil feedstuffs to hogs. In our experiment, increasing EEP B. juncea canola cake inclusion linearly reduced saturated fat content, whereas it increased mono- and polyunsaturated fat content in jowl fat. Iodine value, an indicator of overall fat firmness (lower values are better and indicate more firmer fat in the carcass), increased linearly with increasing of EEP B. juncea canola cake inclusion, but it did not exceed the 70-75 g/100 g fat that it is still considered as acceptable pork fat firmness.

Cost vs. benefit analysis

At the same cost per kg of cake, increasing EEP B. juncea canola cake feed inclusion increased average diet cost. However, feed cost per kg of body weight gain was lower for all diets including EEP B. juncea canola cake versus the control diet. Gross revenue margin per hog after subtracting feed cost was highest feeding diets containing 5% EEP B. juncea canola cake.

Conclusions and recommendation

The results of this commercial-scale trial indicate that feeding increasing inclusions of up to 20% of EEP B. juncea canola cake to hogs linearly reduced overall growth performance. The reduction in weight gain observed could be explained by reduced feed intake. Thus, it cancelled out the beneficial effects from reduce fibre and increased feed energy due to the 17% remaining oil content in EEP B. juncea canola cake. Because backfat and lean yield were not affected, we attributed the reduced feed intake to a specific glucosinolate that tested high in EEP B. juncea canola cake. This glucosinolate (3-butenyl) is known to be bitterer than others found in conventional B. napus canola. Extrusion prior to expeller pressing of B. juncea canola cake did not lessen the negative effects of glucosinolates on hogs.

Increasing feed inclusions of EEP B. juncea canola cake increased unsaturated fatty acids in jowl fat, but did not compromise pork fat firmness. Due to the reduced feed intake, weight gain, and carcass weight, we recommend feeding not more than 5 to 10% extruded and expeller-pressed B. juncea canola cake to hogs, depending on cake cost. In contrast to these results, we have previously shown that hogs perform fine when fed up to 30% conventional, solvent-extracted canola meal (Western Hog Journal 2011, Vo. 32, No. 3 pp. 39-43).

Acknowledgments

We thank Calvin Boese and his team at Apex Nutri-Solutions Inc. for extruding and expeller pressing the seed. Special thanks to John and Neil Burden and Tanya Hollinger for caring for the pigs. We thank Sunhaven Farms for the use of their hogs, providing the feed, and mixing the test diets. Funding was provided by the Canadian Swine Research and Development Cluster (CSRDC) established within the Growing Canadian Agri-Innovation Program –Canadian Agri-Science Cluster Initiative of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

1...373839Page 38 of 39

Contact

Deidre Thomas
deidre.thomas@albertapork.com
(780) 440-8406

Follow Us