By Treena Hein

The latest on-farm best practices relating to all phases of production were shared as part of several presentations during three management-focused breakout sessions during the 2023 Banff Pork Seminar, including the impact of mortality and efficient feeding.

Lee Schultz of Iowa State University and Kurt Stoess of HyLife showcased their work and how it can save money for producers.

Putting a price on mortality

With colleagues from his university and others, Lee Schulz has been working on a spreadsheet-based decision tool to help producers examine the costs of reducing mortality on their operations by a certain level. It is important, he said, to determine whether the costs are worthwhile in terms of the profit benefits of the lowered mortality.

That is, there is an optimum total farm profitability level of mortality that can be determined for any given operation. Producers should note, however, that this level can also change over time. Schulz stressed that economists think differently about the optimal level of mortality compared to producers in general.

“It’s where marginal revenue, the last dollar I get, is equal to marginal cost, or the last dollar that I spend,” said Schulz. “It sounds really simple, but it isn’t. It’s a very different task to calculate it.”

Schulz further explained that the value of a dead pig should not just be measured through the money that has been invested in that animal up until the time of its premature death, but must also include the lost revenue that would have been received had the pig provided its maximum profit, similar to what its fully grown peers brought in, at the point of marketing. The cut-out value and not just live weight at marketing should be the focus.

He also suggested defining the value of, for example, what a percentage point drop in mortality would do related to the return realized for the costs involved.

“When you think about making a change on your operation, you usually know the cost because someone’s quoted you the cost of an animal health intervention, a nutritional intervention,” said Schulz. “But you need to know the value of it in order to decide whether you should incur that cost.”

He then illustrated with the decision tool an example of comparing the value of going from six to five per cent mortality. The spreadsheet is simple and easy-to-use while factoring all the information needed for good analysis. Producers tailor the information to their farm and also input current market characteristics. Schulz explained that a large part of the calculation is the average weight of pigs at death.

“The later they die, the less cost savings producers have,” said Schulz.

He added that there might be some differences in the calculations of wean-to-finish feed efficiency that come with changes that producers employ, to try and reduce premature death, but everything else in the calculation needs to stay the same – feed costs, for example – in order “to tease out the true cost of that one per cent of mortality.” He also added that the overall cost of reducing mortality can vary depending on the cause.

While it may not be completely exact, Schulz insisted this tool is a valuable starting point for producers to weigh the projected benefits of mortality-reducing strategies against the anticipated costs.

Feed-related choices can be significant

The critical importance of ongoing in-depth conversations with your nutritionist is what Kurt Stoess stressed. He urged producers to discuss many aspects of their swine diets with their nutritionists on a regular basis if they want to see farm performance improve.

“Nutritionists are one of the biggest influences on your feed costs, which covers two-thirds of your costs,” said Stoess. “The other thing I want you to remember is that your farm is unique, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to your problems.”

Stoess advised that nutritionists must, first of all, know the pig you are feeding in terms of any change in genetics, or new information that may become available from your genetics firm, along with gender, health status, target end weight and any other updated packer specifications.

Referring to the feed itself, Stoess touched on energy, amino acid ratios, ingredient availability, feed additives, mash versus pellets and the reformulation schedule.

Energy is divided up into maintenance, growth or challenges, he explained, but that growth is a complex aspect that needs close attention from you and your nutritionist.

“At the beginning of your finisher batch versus late in your finisher batch, for example, you may want that growth to be doing different things, and a lot of this is dependent on genetics,” said Stoess. “In the beginning, you’re going to get more lean deposition versus fat deposition, so maybe you want your nutritionist to feed higher energy there if you get bonuses for loin eye size and things like that – maybe there is payoff there.

“Vice versa, maybe you just want to keep your energy level steady throughout your whole feeding stage and let things play out, or maybe you drop your energy level at the end. Maybe your back fat needs to rise [at the end] if your genetics are very lean, and you will get penalties for having it too low. There is no one right answer, but you need to have that conversation with your nutritionist.”

With amino acid ratios, the key, in Stoess’ view, is to continue learning and keep abreast of new findings. Similarly, Stoess encouraged regular discussion about all the latest feed additive developments. One newer finding he pointed out relates to feeding ionophores, where there are bigger benefits being seen with higher-fibre diets. 

On the ingredients front, he noted that western Canada usually has good advantages for availability, but things like drought, labour and other factors can get in the way quickly. Comparing mash to pellets, he said that, while pellets cost more but have more benefits, particle size is important. Pelleting wheat and barley has more benefits than pelleting corn.

To maximize the value of reformulation, Stoess strongly recommended that producers and their nutritionists have a prescribed plan as to how often diets are being assessed and what factors trigger reformulation.

“How does that work?” asked Stoess. “As your nutritionist is running different scenarios and trying to least-cost your diets, you both have to also remember ingredient availability, so you need to have constant communication.”

Producers and nutritionists also need to decide how to implement stage feeding plans and perhaps increase the number of stages. With only three, he believes producers are leaving money on the table and instructs that five to seven is best. To determine where one stage ends and the next begins, “I like to go with tonnage [rather than weight],” said Stoess, “as it’s nice and simple to control.”

Overall, he also thinks producers should work with nutritionists to focus on gut health through vaccinations, investing in veterinary advice, and using ionophores and feed additives such as essential oils.

“If you focus on improving your gut health from day one, when those little health challenges happen, they will not affect your bottom line nearly as much,” said Stoess.

By David Speller

Editor’s note: David Speller is a poultry farmer and CEO, OPTIfarm, based in the U.K. He presented as part of the ‘Technology’ breakout session during the 2023 Banff Pork Seminar. He can be contacted at david.speller@optifarm.co.uk.

Digital farming, technology and data insights have all become popular subjects for many animal agriculture conferences. The terms offer so much yet often deliver so little when we try to apply them. Indeed, it appears crop farming is accelerating away from us with self-steering, precision applications, GPS mapping and, soon-to-come, self-driving or driverless tractors.

For more than a decade, livestock sectors have been focused on gathering data on environmental impacts, feed and water consumption, and performance. The aim is to capture, store and analyze this data, to help farmers. This will surely lead to an increased understanding of our businesses, better decision-making on-farm and increased livestock productivity, health and welfare. This trend has definitely set businesses on a journey, but not so many businesses have seen the actual, tangible benefits and extra profits related solely to the new technologies they have implemented.

Most recently, we have seen a focus on using technology to conduct the same evaluations as a skilled stockperson, focusing on sight, sound and smell, with a lot of activity around visual data. Some technologies have been specifically developed for the agricultural implementation, such as camera weighing systems or microphones listening to animals, while others have been taken from other sectors and adapted for agriculture, such as an electronic ‘nose’ originally designed for human health or robotics from the nuclear industry.

We now appear at a point where the possibilities of technology know no bounds. We have reached a place where we appear full of data, with more different data sets arriving daily and an ever-growing desire to find ways to use this data, from generating improvements, validating supply chains and, more recently, answering questions around sustainability. However, there are still few ways of turning any of this data into real-life business actions to deliver value to livestock farmers.

Finding the right problems for the right solutions

Although the specific problems in different livestock sectors vary, there are some common themes. Primarily, we see technology being developed to bring new insights and understanding, reduce the demand on labour and compile data to enhance the prediction of animal health challenges. Examples of this include monitoring animal activities to understand behaviour, using robotics to support human tasks such weighing pigs and analyzing sounds to predict swine respiratory diseases.

Most of the digital and technology solutions we see globally are originating from a ‘start-up’ culture, as a spin-off of an established business, academic institution or as a standalone company with a product idea. By their very definition, start-ups require significant investment or early adopters willing to fund the realization of a concept. This has really driven most developers to answer the call of their investors by offering new business models, innovative approaches and a drive to finding solutions that are believed to meet the mutual needs of a global livestock sector.

In the last few years, we have seen larger supply companies acquire technology from start-ups rather than incubating it internally, and they are also showing a desire for these innovative solutions to support their legacy products. It appears that we may be on the cusp of seeing innovations implemented within existing supply chains that have a need to improve performance, but relatively few of these solutions have seen rapid global scaling to date. Innovators are still wondering who the customers are for their solutions: farmers, processors or allied supply industries?

Companies in livestock are now very committed to addressing the demands of their own sustainability pledges. While these initiatives complement good business practices with resource efficiency and output optimization, what will also be needed, moving forward, is a way to validate sustainability claims. This is where digital insights can really support a business, and it is an area in which technology uptake will likely continue to grow.

Return-on-investment should rationalize uptake

Digital technologies have the potential to support productivity gains on-farm, but how is that value realized? Consider the use of insights and technology to improve uniformity in a batch of pigs delivered to a processor. If the supply contract does not reward the producer for the improved uniformity, the processor gains a more desirable carcass without any costs incurred, while the producer pays the price without much direct benefit. On the other hand, if the processor is offering a premium for pigs raised without the use of antibiotics (RWA), the producer may have an incentive to implement technology that allows for improved decision-making around disease issues.

Uptake of digital solutions and technology differs across livestock sectors and regions of the world. Ideas and offerings have been around in a ‘proof of concept’ format for many years, so there may be an argument that uptake is too slow. The availability of commercial-ready offerings is increasing, but many producers are still trying to determine the return-on-investment (ROI) for these solutions.

What we need to see now is the growing acceptance and use of these digital solutions, as not only does this endorse the solutions themselves to the industry, but it allows innovators to learn and adapt their technologies much faster, as they can see how their solutions being deployed in the real world, at scale.

Slow but steady progress – the way forward

The successful and practical implementation of digital solutions and technology in livestock sectors can be seen more as an evolution, not a revolution. There are still critical issues to address, such as rural internet connectivity and the declining cost of hardware to catch up with the aspirations of innovators.

In many farm enterprises, the margin between profit and loss is incredibly narrow, so solutions must be cost-effective, offer strong and reliable ROI and meet the current day’s needs. All this from the coming together of academia, start-ups and large corporations makes this is a hugely interesting and exciting time for all involved.

By Andrew Heck

Editor’s note: This article has been corrected regarding the xenotransplantation of a pig kidney, which was performed on a brain-dead human.

When science fiction becomes science fact, heads quickly turn. Such is the case with gene editing – an emerging suite of technologies enabling precise changes to the DNA of a cell or animal.

While the discovery of DNA in the 1950s heralded a new age for biotechnology, the field really began to take off after the 1990s, thanks to successive breakthroughs in genetic engineering.

Fast-forward to the 2020s, and gene editing technologies are now taking centre stage, with more than 35,000 scientific papers published on the subject since 2013, including 7,000 alone in 2022. More than 100 of those published last year were related to pigs, specifically in the field of biomedical science.

Just prior to the start of the 2023 Banff Pork Seminar, Swine Innovation Porc (SIP) hosted three researchers to present their knowledge on the subject, including Ray Lu from the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Guelph, Vilceu Bordignon from the Department of Animal Science at McGill University, and Stuart Smyth from the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Saskatchewan.

The researchers each spoke on different aspects of gene editing. For Lu, the possibility of using gene editing as a solution to the wild boar problem; for Bordignon, an exploration of where the technology has been successfully deployed in various aspects of our world; and, for Smyth, the state of the technology’s public acceptance.

“Our goal in presenting this information is not about being ‘for’ or ‘against’ gene editing,” said Arno Schober, Chair, SIP. “It’s about bringing together farmers and researchers to have discussions about how we can prepare for the future and what role it could play in our industry.”

To begin to understand the basics of gene editing, it is important to establish what it is. ‘CRISPR/Cas’ gene editing is a precision genetic toolbox that singles out individual nucleic acids – the building blocks of DNA. This allows for the creation of new gene sequences at the same level as nature, in principle. Genetic variations exist naturally between organisms but also between cells within an organism, and most of these differences play no role in ‘phenotypes,’ which are the visible expressions of genetic variation, such as what makes brown hair, brown, and blonde hair, blonde.

Comparing gene editing to genetic modification or ‘GMO,’ the major difference is that gene editing relies on existing genetic material to perform edits, rather than introducing new genetic material – typically from entirely different organisms – which is the case with GMO.

At the higher level, more traditionally, genetic variation within livestock has been brought about through selective breeding strategies. These have, for a long time, led to the favourable genetic advancements in pigs that we can all appreciate. But can isolating, slicing and replacing strands of DNA achieve results in a similar fashion, with greater speed, efficiency and effectiveness? Certainly, and science is only beginning to scratch the surface.

A radically different approach to wild boar

On the Canadian prairies, in parts of Ontario and across the southeastern U.S., wild boar – sometimes referred to as ‘feral swine’ or by other terms – are a highly destructive invasive species. Controlling wild boar populations has proven incredibly difficult or impossible, in some regions. Hunting causes their groups to scatter and infest new areas, leaving the most credible solution, at present, to be tracking, trapping and culling whole groups, called ‘sounders.’

But what if there was a proactive way to manage the wild boar population? Ray Lu believes gene editing could help reduce the harm they cause in two ways: one, by making them resistant to the African Swine Fever (ASF) virus, or, two, by limiting their ability to replenish their numbers so quickly.

The first option is called ‘population replacement,’ which refers to editing an organism’s genome so the specific gene that transmits a certain pathogen is altered in a way that does not allow for transmission. With successive generations of reproduction, the altered gene becomes more prevalent, eventually snuffing out any virus-carrying potential. The second option is called ‘population suppression,’ which acts as a method of generating female infertility to reduce wild boar numbers outright.

In 2015, Pig Improvement Company (PIC) began to develop a gene-edited pig resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS). Currently, the company is working toward making the pig commercially available. There has been a great deal of enthusiasm around the PRRS-resistant pig, and some have wondered if the approach can be applied to other swine viruses.

“For ASF resistance, it is more complex,” said Lu. “This virus is very stable in the environment.”

ASF is presently less widespread than certain other swine viruses, including PRRS, but its existence anywhere is much more concerning for the pork value chain, collectively, along with Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD), which affects swine and several species of ruminants. PRRS continues to take a massive toll on swine herds around the world, and recovery from PRRS is costly for individually affected farms; however, the discovery of an ASF or FMD case in Canadian wild boar or a domestic pig herd would close our borders to the international markets into which around 70 per cent of all pigs and pork produced and processed in our country are sold. Given the relationship between Canadian and U.S. markets when it comes to pricing pigs and pork, a case of ASF or FMD discovered in the U.S. could be equally devastating for Canadian exports of live animals or pork and beef products.

While the agri-food industry certainly has a vested interest in controlling wild boar and diseases they carry, other disease issues have a broader, global impact on humans. Mosquito-borne viruses like dengue, malaria, Zika and West Nile kill upwards of one million people annually, with the vast majority of cases and deaths affecting people in Africa, especially young children. As such, the scientific community has been actively pursing gene editing solutions to combat these viruses, demonstrating that the real potential for positive improvements in this area goes well beyond the hype. Suffice to say, the world is ready for any credible strategy that lowers the toll of insect- or animal-borne disease transmission, which is a promising inclination for everyone.

Where gene editing is already finding success

Vilceu Bordignon believes advancements in gene editing can have mutual benefits for human medicine and livestock production, while also recognizing the pitfalls.

“Not all genes can be edited,” said Bordignon, referring to genes that are fundamental to an organism’s existence. “What we do in the lab isn’t ‘natural,’ but it’s pretty close to what nature does.”

Bordignon provided several examples of how the technology is already being deployed, including ‘xenotransplantation,’ which is the transfer of living cells, tissues or organs from animals to humans. Notable instances include a pig-to-human kidney transplant, in late 2021, and a pig-to-human heart transplant, in early 2022. Both examples were taken from pigs that had 10 gene edits applied.

In the case of the heart transplant, the recipient, unfortunately, passed away just two months following the procedure. The recipient was a 57-year-old male with terminal heart disease. Had nothing been done, his fate may have been the same. But thanks to his willingness to participate in the experimental procedure, his contribution and the work of the surgeons who performed the transplant will long be remembered as a necessary step toward meaningful progress. Such examples exist in many scientific fields throughout history, and their value cannot be overstated.

In livestock production, gene editing is more familiar to the bovine industry. It has already been used to produce hornless dairy cattle with genome-edited cells, and within the past year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved beef from gene-edited cattle for human consumption.

“Gene editing is much more than cutting genes with scissors; it’s more like a Swiss Army Knife,” said Bordignon. “The CRISPR/Cas system allows for all kinds of modifications and combinations.”

Piglet castration is a contested practice within production, along with tail-docking. While it makes practical sense, the animal welfare component is constantly brought to light. The main goal of castration is to remove the testes to prevent male pigs from reaching sexual maturity, to avoid ‘boar taint’ in meat. A novel approach could be to use gene editing to delay puberty beyond market age – so it is never fully reached – or generate sex reversals in utero by preventing the expression of the genes that present the male phenotype, resulting in an all-female piglet litter.

No matter where gene editing in livestock is headed, the possibilities cannot be denied, while the full scale of unknowns surrounding the technology warrants further research and dialogue across the agri-food industry and society. 

Getting public buy-in on gene editing

Looking at the history of innovation and science within the public consciousness, Stuart Smyth presented some alternative examples of how, over time, acceptance continues to grow.

‘Mutation breeding’ has existed since the 1920s, when researchers zapped crops like corn and barley with X-rays to find out if radiation could be used to create beneficial genetic variations. It worked, and it has been instrumental in advancing crop science ever since. But imagine the reaction of someone a century ago after being told that the same corn and barley their ancestors had grown for years could be drastically improved through advances in biotechnology – like magic, to the untrained eye. Are we, today, going through a similar shift with gene editing?

“Messaging around this issue is just as important as the science,” said Smyth. “Those people who are fighting against science and innovation in agriculture are appealing to emotion. If the messaging doesn’t appeal to emotion, the public will reject it.”

As of 2022, Health Canada no longer requires additional risk assessments on gene-edited crops; however, we still have no regulatory framework for gene-edited animals.

“The pace of innovation exceeds that of regulation, causing lengthy delays,” said Smyth.

Public perception in Canada on gene editing is currently split. In 2018, two-thirds of Canadians were opposed. In 2020, that decreased to just over half, with many remaining uncertain. Yet, it is becoming abundantly clear that the Canadian pork sector has an opportunity to prevent zoonotic diseases and overcome potential trade barriers by using gene editing.

Trade protectionism is increasing in the world, and when it comes to meat and plant products crossing borders, buyers are becoming even bigger skeptics on the disease front. If gene editing can create a closer-to-guaranteed solution to disease issues, in addition to farm biosecurity and in-plant food handling practices, Canada’s important trade relationships may be easier to preserve with airtight confidence.

While keeping borders open is the goal of free trade, the biggest challenge, it seems, may be to open minds.

Benefits of gene editing coming into focus

Wherever you find yourself on the spectrum of opinions about gene editing, there is little doubt, given the growing body of research interest, that the subject is poised to change many aspects of our world, including the pork sector.

“We are a science-based industry; that’s a big part of the success of Canadian agriculture,” said Daniel Ramage, Executive Director, SIP. “It’s how we do more with less, and it’s how we produce safe food efficiently. Research is a foundation to that.”

If gene editing can lead to better pork production, safer food or enhanced human medicine, it is increasingly likely you could soon come across gene-edited technologies in a barn, grocery store or hospital near you. As time goes on, however, wrinkles in the social fabric caused by gene editing might prove even more stubborn than the brilliant minds using gene editing to achieve the goals of scientific progress.