May 14, 2004                                                  Volume 1 - Number 3

 

Calendar                     

May 22            SD Feeder Pig Derby, SDSU Animal Science Arena, Brookings

June 9              National Pork Board’s Pork Academy, Des Moines, IA

June 10-12       World Pork Expo, Des Moines, IA

July 30             SD Summer Spotlight Show, Huron

August 5           George Young Swine Health and Management Conference, S. Sioux City, NE

August 20         SD Master Pork Producer’s Pork Chop Open, Hartford, SD

September 4-6 SD State Fair 4-H, FFA, & Feeder pig swine shows, Huron

September 14   Deep Bedded Livestock Conference, Iowa State University

 

 

Field Peas as an Amino Acid Source for Pigs

 

Due to changes in crop rotations, field peas are becoming a more commonly grown crop in central South Dakota, and researchers at SDSU (Stein et al, 2003) have documented their feeding value to pigs.  Field peas are a good source of energy and lysine, but the concentrations of methionine, tryptophan, and threonine must be watched closely.  Since it can be assumed that field peas grown in South Dakota have a similar energy concentration to corn, diets containing field peas can simply be balanced on digestible amino acid concentrations.  The diets should first be balanced on lysine concentration, and then the diets need to be analyzed for concentrations of methionine, tryptophan, and threonine.  If feeding high levels of field peas, synthetic additions of these 3 amino acids may have to be made. Another method to incorporate field peas into swine diets is a simple substitution method.  You can replace 4 parts corn and 2 parts SBM with 6 parts field peas.  For example, 18% field peas would replace 12% corn and 6% SBM in the diet.  Recommended maximum inclusion rates for field peas are nursery @18%, grow-finish @ 40%, gestating sows & boars @ 16%, and lactating sows @ 24%.  Variety differences do exist in peas so producers must know the nutrient content of the peas they are working with so they can be properly formulated into swine diets While peas can contain anti-nutritional factors, they are usually in such a low concentration that field peas can be fed raw.  Depending on economics, field peas can work well in diets for all classes of swine.  For more information on feeding field peas to swine, go to the following webpage: http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx2041.pdf

 

Automatically Sorted, Large Pen Finish Barns Reduce Death Loss During Transportation

A Swine Vet Center review:  The automatically sorted, large pen finish floor is an emerging technology that is gaining popularity across the country for rearing market hogs. In this study, 17 automatically sorted, large pen barns were compared with 49 conventional finish floors. This was a controlled retrospective study to test for the possibility of additional economic and welfare benefits associated with this technology.  The average number of dead animals per truckload originating from conventional finish floors was 0.353 or .2075% of a load. The average number of dead from an automatically sorted barn was 0.158 or .112% of a load. There was an increased risk of death on arrival associated with the conventional facilities.

SVC take:
1. Animal handling, loading technique and length of trip are the biggest drivers of death of hogs in transit and NANIs (non-ambulatory, non-injured) at the packing plant. Proper training of load out crews can greatly reduce the DOAs to the plant.

2. There can be differences in DOAs by the trucker. Proper training of the trucker can decrease the death loss, and truckers should be strongly encouraged to enroll in the National Pork Board’s Trucker Quality Assurance program..  

3. We know the best way to prepare pigs for loading is to walk the pens daily (physically in with the pigs) so that the pigs are accustomed to human interaction in their pen space. The autosort large pen barns force the producer to “be in with the pigs” on a regular basis since many of these autosort barns have no alley. The other benefit autosort barns have (in relationship to loading) is they teach pigs to follow each other single file through the scale. It makes sense that these auto-sort barns would produce lower numbers of DOAs and NANIs in most cases.

4. Make sure everything is ready to go. Don’t assume the pigs know where to go. Leave them no options except the one you want. Moving small groups and being patient will actually make the job go faster. If pigs are squealing, something is wrong.

Source: “Automatically sorted, large pen finish barns reduce death loss during transportation to market”, Brumsted M., University of Pennsylvania, Proc. Of AASV Annual meeting, 2004, p. 47/ Swine Vet Center Staff.  Courtesy of PorkNet Daily Update

 

Nominations Needed for Outstanding Pork Producers

The SD Master Pork Producers organization is comprised of allied industry members who have the goals of recognizing outstanding pork producers and promoting pork production in SD, and are soliciting nominations for producers to be considered for the 2005 SD Master Pork Producer award.  The producers are judged on performance records, management level, industry activities, etc.  They are NOT judged on size or type of operation.  Basically, they are just looking for pork producers who are doing a good job of raising hogs in SD.  Please take a few minutes to nominate producers in your area who you think are deserving of the MPP award.  All you need to do is send their name, address, and telephone # to Dr. Bob Thaler, Box 2170, SDSU, Brookings, SD  57007 (robert_thaler@sdstate.edu) no later than July 1st.  Thanks for your support of the SD swine industry.

 

“Buyer Beware”

With the tight economic situation currently facing the swine industry, producers are being bombarded with a wide variety of products that will “help” their operations.  While some of these products may work and can be economically justified, there are just as many products, if not more, that are worthless. In the past 3 weeks, I’ve seem two different products being sold that promise to do everything and then some: improved gain, feed efficiency, carcass quality, reproductive performance, litter size, and profitability, as well as decreasing odor and nutrient excretion.  In cases like this, the old adage “If it’s too good to be true, it probably is” is very applicable.  There are some things producers can do to better evaluate these types of products, however.  First of all, find out if there’s been any controlled research done on the product.  Testimonials and on-farm trials by themselves are meaningless if you don’t know how and who ran them.  Depending on the scruples of the person, you can make an on-farm trial come out any way you want.  Most universities will do research on products, and this will provide valid information on the product’s efficacy.  While it does cost money to do research, if the manufacturer doesn’t have enough confidence in his product to pay for the testing, why should you invest your money in it?  Secondly, what’s the active ingredient that responsible for the improvement?  One product promoted urea as one of the main ingredients, and it was supposed to help the growth of “good” bacteria. The bad news is that pigs can’t utilize urea while cattle can.  All the urea did was to make the analyzed protein level seem much higher than it was, and increase the amount of nitrogen excreted by the pig.  Another thing to ask is at what level does it end up in the diet?  If you add 10 lbs of a product/ton of feed, and there’s only 5% active ingredient in the premix, that’s not very much getting to the pig.  Thirdly, does the pig actually require what they’re selling?  Another product discussed a pig’s hydrogen requirement!  Considering all the hydrogen a pig gets from water and feed, this is pretty ridiculous.  Fourth, even if the product does what they promise, do you get enough return to pay for it?  If diet cost increases by 11% with the product, you’d better improve feed efficiency by at least 11% if you want to breakeven.  Even if you improve feed efficiency by 7%, you’re losing money.  Finally, visit with your Extension people, veterinarians, and consultants about it and get a second opinion on it.  They might have had some experience with it, and can give you good advice on it.  Again, there are some good products out there that will help and don’t be afraid to use them.  However, stay away from the “cure-all” products because the only people that benefit from them are the ones taking your money.

 

Optimal Efficiency Through Genetics

There are obvious advantages from a herd health standpoint to close the herd to all live animals. But to do this, a system that allows production of replacement females from within the herd must be implemented. There are two general approaches to internal production of replacements: maintaining a purebred GGP (great-grandparent) nucleus or using a roto-terminal mating system. There are costs and management investments associated with each method. This paper compares the relative genetic cost of production with these alternative forms of procurement.

A summary of comparative genetic costs of production is included. The practice of purchasing parent stock females results in significantly higher genetic costs for the pork producer. In addition, there is considerable health risk associated with purchase of outside animals. It is much cheaper to produce replacement females within the herd in terms of genetic cost. A savings of about $40 per sow per year in genetic costs can be realized with internal multiplication. However, the costs to run the internal multiplication program must be deducted from this genetic cost savings. It would appear however; that the net savings would be significant if the pork producer had the interest and ability to make replacement females within the herd.

From the inputs and assumed parameters of this research, the practice of internal multiplication of replacement females appears to offer the potential for cost savings with the purebred based GGP being the least cost alternative, but the roto-terminal genetic system being simpler to implement and almost as cost effective. Any benefits due to increased herd health are not accounted for here but are theoretically significant.

Source:  Proceedings, American Association of Swine Veterinarians/ John Mabry, Iowa State University, Seminar No. 8, March 2004.  Courtesy of PorkNet Daily Update

 

 

Toll Milling & Pelleting Can Reduce Diet Costs

 

While producers traditionally have mixed their own feed on-farm and fed it in a meal form, there are other alternatives available to them to save on feed dollars.  One of those options is to have your feed toll milled and pelleted.  Savings can occur in 2 ways.  First, large feed mills have access to a wider variety of feedstuffs and volume purchasing so they can usually put together a least-cost ration nutritionally equal to one made on-farm at a lower price.  Second, if it’s a large enough mill, they can also pellet the diet, which improves feed efficiency by 5-8%.  Assuming a pelleting charge of $8/ton, grow-finish feed at an average of $167/ton, and a 2.90 feed efficiency from 50 to 260 lbs, a producer would save $.27/pig with a 5% improvement in feed efficiency, and $1.85/pig if feed efficiency is improved by 8%.  This does not take into consideration the other savings of a potential lower cost diet from the feed mill, nor does it place a value on labor and utility savings on farm by not having to make feed.  While this option may not be for every one, it is certainly an opportunity for people to consider, and worth a visit to the local feed mill.

 

 

Public Trust Poll: Farmers In, PETA Out

Americans are consistently careful where they place their trust, according to two new polls, and they are not easily misled on animal welfare issues, reports Feedstuffs.  "The general public has deep trust and confidence in American school teachers, veterinarians, physicians and farmers and ranchers," according to a study released by the Animal Agriculture Alliance and the National Corn Growers Assn. (NCGA).  In contrast, according to Feedstuffs, the public indicates distrust for politicians and well-known Hollywood actors or actresses, especially when they attack animal agriculture, the two groups said. 

Interestingly, in a second study reported March 18 in The Chronicle of Philantrophy, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) ranked at the bottom of the trustworthiness scale in an online survey of 21,942 people polled by Harris Interactive.   In ranking 20 non-profits for trustworthiness, Doctors Without Borders, Habitat for Humanity and the Salvation Army were the most trusted, according to a news report from the American Meat Institute.  According to the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s president Bruce Andrews, "More than 40 percent of respondents over the age of 25 considered farmers and ranchers to be one of their two most favorably viewed groups. At the same time, animal rights activists show themselves to be consistently out of touch with the public at large."

The public opinion survey was conducted online Market Directions, Inc. of Kansas City, Missouri. The 1,002 respondents were 37 percent male and 63 percent female. Ninety-three percent of respondents indicated they are the primary shopper or share in shopping duties.

Source: National Pork Producers Council/ News Release, April 5, 2004.  Courtesy of PorkNet Daily Update.

 

 

 

Pork Chop Open to be Held on August 20th at Harford, SD

 

The SD Master Pork Producers are hosting the annual Pork Chop Open on Friday, August 20th at the Central Valley Golf Course in Hartford, SD.  Tee times need to be made in advance by calling the club house at (605) 528-6451.  The proceeds from the golf tournament go to 2 very worthy activities.  First, they use the money for scholarships at SDSU, and in 2004, the SD Master Pork Producers gave five $750 scholarships to SDSU students with ties to the swine industry.  Second, they provide pork and their own free time to help meet the needs of the guests at The Banquet in Sioux Falls.  Please come out for a great afternoon of golf and fellowship on August 20th, and if you’re interested in becoming a member of the SD Master Pork Producers Association and helping with their charitable activities, contact Keith Matthiesen (keith_matthiesen@cargill.com) or Jim Anderson (jim.anderson@alpharma.com).

 

 

 

 

 

 

====================================================================

For comments or questions about this newsletter or if you want to subscribe, contact Dr. Bob Thaler, SDSU Extension Swine Specialist at 605-688-5011 or robert_thaler@sdstate.edu