I modestly congratulate the organising committee, of which I was Pork CRC’s representative, and sponsors and delegates for again supporting this important biennial event.

The mood among producers was much more optimistic than in 2012 and for good reason. We are certainly making good progress differentiating our industry and our pork and the plenary presentations from producers Tim Kingma and Kenton Shaw certainly outlined where they saw the greatest opportunities. Andrew Spencer similarly outlined the basis of APL’s strategic plan for the next five years, with more emphasis on what you might term higher end export markets.

The three concurrent sessions covered Pork CRC research in sow housing, eating quality of Australian pork and carbon reduction, the latter particularly emphasising how to make more from manure.

Catch up

In sow housing, Paul Hemsworth outlined where we’re at with housing gestating sows in groups, while Paul Hughes covered alternative lactation systems. I can say the researchers have caught up with industry in respect to the management and nutrition of group housed sows and there seems to be some take-home messages to making group housing work.

The most interesting finding is that sows, whether grouped at weaning or after mating, adjust quite rapidly (within days) to mixing/grouping and reduced available floor space. However, based on measuring cortisol levels and observing injuries, their welfare is compromised during this period.

The impact of mixing on welfare can be reduced by:

1.  Providing sows during the period immediately after grouping with more space and good quality space i.e. with barriers and/or shoulder or full body stalls. However, as I said, the amount of space can be reduced once sows have sorted their dominance order and we know from commercial experience that 1.8-2.0 square metres of  ‘good quality’ floor space appears adequate for welfare and reproduction. We keenly await a final Pork CRC report from Paul Hemsworth of a study looking at the effect of floor space between 1.45 and 2.9 square metres on welfare and reproduction – let’s see what these results tell us.
2. Providing sows with ample feed immediately after mixing and feeding at a higher level (2.7 kg/d) for the first 28 days of gestation. The former reduces aggression immediately after mixing and the latter improves reproduction, especially in younger sows.
3. Grouping parity one sows with gilts, rather than older sows.
4. Good stockmanship – I know this is a given with Australian pork production, but it is particularly important with group housed sows.

Of lesser importance is group size and whether sows are housed in dynamic or static groups.

Familiar territory

Although we’ve not specifically investigated how, or even if, familiarity impacts aggressiveness or welfare of sows at grouping, there is evidence that sows remember their pen mates for some six weeks and you’d expect that the ‘problems’ experienced at mixing  and grouping would decline as sows became comfortable with the system and more familiar with those they are mixed with. So, the future looks good and I think this was clearly demonstrated by the results of Jean–Loup Rault, who showed that providing things are done correctly (adequate space and feed) excellent reproduction can be achieved with sows weaned into groups or stalls and grouped within six days of weaning. Much interest remains in the subject, but it is largely sorted out. We have now moved to looking at satiety and enrichment with group housed sows.

Smith theory

One thing we haven’t tried (not sure why) is grouping sows at weaning and mating them in stalls and then regrouping. The system was advocated by innovative Victorian pork Tom Smith at the PPPE sow housing sessions and makes sense, given the sows would be familiar with each other when regrouped after mating, thus reducing aggression and stress during this crucial period of reproduction (shortly after mating).

Greater challenge

Alternative lactation systems are a different matter, but it was obvious at PPPE that quite a few producers have installed systems such as the SWAP pen, the PIG SAFE pen and even the 360 degree pen, which I saw for the first time at the Stockyard stand at PPPE. The latter is one of the few alternatives with a similar footprint as conventional farrowing crates, so it will be interesting to see how they perform commercially. Pork CRC research to date shows these alternative systems generally don’t work, requiring considerable adjustment and modification and even then resulting in higher piglet mortality, generally taking up a lot of space and are considerably more costly than conventional crates. We are trying to develop a farrowing system index which accounts for the impact on the sow, the piglet and the producer. The producer aspect of the index will likely be based on dollars. In addition to the cost of the pen and extra space required for most of the alternatives, it will also consider the greater cleaning and occupational health and safety issues associated with some of the alternative systems.

Our research has also moved from comparing different systems (although admittedly important for those installing such systems) to better defining the welfare implications for the sow, especially in conventional crates – is it compromised and how might it be enhanced?

Bottom line is there is a long way to go, but it’s important good research be conducted so we can keep ahead of the curve in an area of production that will likely continue to come under pressure.

Biogas business

On carbon reduction there seems to be and certainly seemed to be at PPPE a lot more interest in Biogas. Pork CRC Research Fellow and leader of our Bioenergy Support Program, Stephan Tait, was very much in demand. Look elsewhere in this issue of APN for Stephen’s latest ‘It’s a gas’ column, which this month covers the very important safety aspects of handling biogas on-farm.

Cutting remarks

On eating quality, Pork CRC research has demonstrated that there are pork cuts, particularly the loin and silver side roast that consumers don’t particularly like. Based on an eating quality ranking from 1 to 5 (terrible to excellent) we (the researchers) consider pork that is ranked as 1 or 2 in consumer taste panels as having failed (not liked and not likely to result in repurchasing pork). In four studies across a number of supply chains, the fail rate for loin and silver side roast has been consistently high and reached 36% in one study. Eating quality is affected by many factors, including the sex of the pig, the cut, how long it is aged, cooking temperature and many other factors – but in the end it may be ultimate pH (measured 72 hours after slaughter) that is causing the problem.

Eating out

A recent study by Cameron Jose, a Pork CRC Postdoc with DAFWA, looked at the effect on eating quality of loins with low (5.31-5.49) and normal (5.49-5.69) pH and found the average fail rate was 21%.The good news is that 38% of the loins were rated by consumers as above average or excellent (ranked as a 4 or 5). Still, a fail rate of 21% is too high and the objective of our researchers is to reduce the fail rate to 10% or less.

The impact ultimate pH, which appears to be declining across the industry, can have on eating quality is shown in Figure 1 which compares the percentage of loins from female and intact male pigs ranked as premium (score 4 or 5) by consumer taste panels across two supply chains (SC 1 and SC 2).

Figure –effect of ultimate pH (low and normal) of the loin on the percentage of loins from female and male pigs across two supply chains (SC 1 and SC 2) ranked by consumers as premium eating quality.

For SC 1 fail rates for loins from female pigs with low and normal pH were 22.5% and only 10%, respectively. However, the change in fail rate was not consistent across the sexes or supply chains, with the move upwards (between low and normal pH) in some, from average (ranking 3) to the premium grades with little change in fail rate.

Eating quality was also related to tenderness and ultimate pH to muscle glycogen level at slaughter, so some clues maybe on how ultimate pH might be increased.

Improving eating quality goes hand-in-hand with differentiating Australian pork and reducing fail rate to 10% and/or being able to predict eating quality and grading pork accordingly has been calculated to have a marked effect on demand and reflect in the price received by producers.

The project is being led by Heather Channon and Frank Dunshea at University of Melbourne. They are making good progress and are now analysing a project involving processing interventions across three supply chains. It is a challenge, but with great rewards for industry and the supply chain, from processors to retailers, is very interested and involved.

I will keep you updated.

Thoughtful thinking  

I see a lot of results from large scale grower and finisher experiments generally conducted in systems with automatic feeding devices such as Feed Logic and over the past couple of years the feed: gain values reported are consistently around 2.1 for growers (30-60 kg) and around 2.5 for finishers. Most of these values were for females, so would be even lower if males and Improvac males sold within two to three weeks of receiving the second vaccination were included.

My thought is that for herds selling only 20 pigs per sow/year, these figures equate to a HFC between 3.2 and 3.4. In the Pork CRC benchmarking project the average HFC is 3.9 and it has been stuck there for the past three years. We do, however, have two or three producers reporting values between 3.3 and 3.4, so we have the pigs and some have the other things right, but the question is why aren’t more achieving the efficiencies our pigs are obviously capable of?

Cold comfort

I don’t think it is the diets as such, as we know how modern genetics should be fed and our research nutritionists have consistently demonstrated this. It is likely related to feed waste, shedding or environment and probably the fact that pigs are below their thermo neutral zone through the colder months of the year and outside their thermo neutral zone most of the year. Disease and immune challenge also probably contribute to the higher than expected HFC values across the industry.

Feeling better

I don’t think we need any new technology to improve HFC, but we do need a better feel for the major factors contributing to inefficient feed use in commercial grower and finisher pigs. Pork CRC has projects on reducing immune challenge in commercial situations, on the impact of the common diseases on feed efficiency under commercial situations and on grain processing on feed efficiency. We have never been able to get a reliable estimate of feed wastage, but APL is trying a new approach (across different herds) using PIG BAL. The outcomes will be interesting, but there is a lot of money left on the table and given our diet costs are not likely to decline in the near future, considerable effort directed at defining the gap is warranted.

In the next column I will update you on some recent outcomes on grain processing assessed under commercial situations – it is something we need to seriously consider and account for.

Student uprising

Speaking of the future, I must briefly refer to our enthusiastic, bright group of students who showcased their studies and projects at the student workshop, the day before PPPE and concluded it with a well deserved dinner and social gathering that same evening. Well done to all of you and may you continue to establish positive career paths within the pork industry, because it needs you and values you. Elsewhere in this issue of APN is some coverage of the students involved at PPPE.

First published in APN June 2014

Return to Home Page

March/April 2014

]]> http://apri.com.au/latest-pork-journal/feed/ 0 http://apri.com.au/pork-crc-pointers-for-successful-sow-group-housing/ http://apri.com.au/pork-crc-pointers-for-successful-sow-group-housing/#comments Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:45:15 +0000 http://apri.com.au/new/?p=2511 Australian pork producers and sows in their care are successfully transitioning to group housing as part of the concerted efforts to produce high integrity Australian pork and appropriately differentiate the product from that of overseas competitors.

Addressing 150 pork producers and industry stakeholders at the recent Pork CRC and APL ‘Successful Group Housing Systems for Dry Sows’ workshops in Toowoomba, Queensland and Melbourne, Victoria, CRC for High Integrity Australian Pork (Pork CRC) CEO, Dr Roger Campbell, described group housing the Australian way as “now virtually a done deal”.

“Most producers have made the transition and those who are now a couple of years down the track are reporting very satisfactory production levels and, it seems, improved welfare outcomes for sows.

“While the precise recipes for those successes vary slightly, the essential ingredients are providing adequate quantity and quality of space for the sows, plenty of feed availability and access, especially immediately after first mixing of sows into groups and, as is the Australian way, good stockmanship,” Dr Campbell said.

Pork CRC Subprogram Leader, Professor Paul Hemsworth of the Animal Welfare Science Centre (AWSC), University of Melbourne, said domestic pigs, just like their wild relatives, needed to establish a social order or hierarchy and this needed to be done quickly when sows were first mixed.

“Sows need adequate space to avoid other sows and research has shown that space is more important than group size when mixing sows.

“Stress will, typically, reduce from day two to nine after mixing and maximising space allowances, especially up to day two, will help reduce aggression between sows.

“Superior stockmanship is very important with group housing and being aware that if sows have recent familiarity they are likely to be less aggressive on mixing,” Professor Hemsworth said.

He added that the quality of floor space and feeding system type was also important.

Producers at the workshops generally agreed that providing plenty of feed, including perhaps multiple drops per day if floor feeding, was very important, especially when sows were first mixed in groups.

All feeding arrangements, including electronic sow feeding systems (ESFs), where sows are trained and full or shoulder stall feeding, had advantages and disadvantages.

Producers should, for example, ensure sufficient ESFs for the number of sows in the pen to minimise aggression during entry to the ESF.

Dr Jean Loup Rault, a colleague of Professor Hemsworth at AWSC, addressed the workshops, recommending that, in order to limit unwelcome aggression between sows mixed at weaning, producers should consider using feeding stalls, distinct mating stalls and make efforts to limit sexual interaction by dominant sows over submissive sows.

Chris Richards and Associates veterinarian, Dr Bernie Gleeson, warned of unintended consequences, saying that nothing happened in isolation and this was particularly the case in group housing.

Producers needed to be aware of potential hazards such as mycotoxins in straw bedding, overweight sows, especially when floor feeding where dominant sows may eat more than submissive sows and the strategic placement of self feeders.

Robust producer panel discussions were held at the Toowoomba and Melbourne workshops, with most agreeing that the transition to group sow housing, albeit challenging, was working well and that there was no one size fits all solution.

Most agreed that the positive perception of improved sow welfare was apparent.

A very informative manual, titled Mixing Sows – How To Maximise Welfare, was launched at the workshops and made available to producers. It can be viewed and/or downloaded from the Publications page

Edited by Pork CRC Program One Leader, Dr Ray King, it is very comprehensive, outlining the latest research on group housing sows and strategies for mixing sows post weaning or post insemination.

Some key take-home messages in the manual are:

• Current Australian research indicates that the minimum space allowance for group housed sows is likely to be somewhere between 1.8 and 2.4 m² per sow.
• Sows adapt quickly to mixing and may adapt to reduced space during later stages of pregnancy.
• Physical and visual barriers within pens of large groups of sows allow sows to avoid each other and escape aggressive sows.
• Sows should receive average daily intakes that maintain targeted body condition.
• Higher feeding levels immediately after mixing and through to day 28 of gestation will minimise the risk of less dominant sows receiving less nutrition, as well as reduce aggression.
• Feed should be spread widely to allow greater access by timid sows, while multiple feed drops, every 30 to 60 minutes, may reduce aggression at feeding.
• Dynamic groups should not experience more welfare issues than static groups, provided only a small proportion of sows enter and are removed from the group at each change.
• Keep the majority of sows in the same group from one pregnancy to the next, and try to match sows into groups, based on parity and size.

 Authorised by Pork CRC and issued on its behalf by

Brendon Cant, Mob 0417 930 536.

MEDIA CONTACT: Dr Roger Campbell, Pork CRC CEO, Mob 0407 774 714.

]]> http://apri.com.au/pork-crc-pointers-for-successful-sow-group-housing/feed/ 0 http://apri.com.au/pauline-mooney-joins-pork-crc-board/ http://apri.com.au/pauline-mooney-joins-pork-crc-board/#comments Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:46:54 +0000 http://apri.com.au/new/?p=2297 March 19, 2014

Pauline Mooney, Executive Director, South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI), has been appointed to the Board of Directors of the CRC for High Integrity Australian Pork (Pork CRC).

Affiliate Professor Mooney replaces Simon Maddocks on the Board, after Professor Maddocks resigned to accept a position as Vice Chancellor at Charles Darwin University in the Northern Territory.

The Pork CRC Board comprises Dennis Mutton (Chairman), Kathryn Adams, Sandra Di Blasio, Rod Hamann, Professor Pauline Mooney, Professor John Pluske, Kenton Shaw, Andrew Spencer, Chris Trengrove, Professor Robert van Barneveld and Dr Hugh Wirth.

The four research programs of the CRC for High Integrity Australian Pork are:

1. Reduced confinement of sows and piglets
2. Herd health management
3. Healthy pork consumption
4. Carbon-conscious nutrient inputs and outputs

Announcing the appointment, Pork CRC Chairman, Dennis Mutton, welcomed Professor Mooney and paid tribute to the contribution of Professor Maddocks.

“Simon not only represented SARDI, regarded as one of the Pork CRC’s most significant participants, but also contributed in his own right as a scientist and an administrator with substantial experience on the boards of CRC’s,” Mr Mutton said.

“Pauline brings similar outstanding scientific and management rigour to the Pork CRC Board and we look forward to her contributions as we move deep into our second term.”

Despite 29 years in science, business and financial leadership, including extensive experience in strategy planning, research and project management for primary industries research across terrestrial, marine, livestock and food sectors, Professor Mooney admits to never having worked directly in the pig or pork industry.

“Although the drivers and science behind the Pork CRC’s programs will be new to me, my research interests have always been eclectic, so the opportunities the industry has before it and the associated challenges certainly have sparked my interest,” she said.

“I look forward to working with Pork CRC’s Board of Directors, its highly motivated Executive management team, fellow participants and research providers to address such topical issues as animal welfare, pig health, meat quality and the environment.”

Professor Mooney has broad knowledge across a range of science programs and related research activities, including breeding superior plants and developing sustainable production systems through novel processing techniques, post-harvest handling and storage systems, evaluating consumer preferences and natural resource management.

She holds a PhD (University of Sydney), MSc cum laude (University of Natal), BSc Hons cum laude (University of Natal), BSc (University of Natal) and is an Affiliate Professor in the School of Agriculture Food and Wine at University of Adelaide.

Professor Mooney, a Graduate and Member of Australian Institute of Company Directors, has extensive governance and corporate leadership experience, including 11 years as director on a range of boards and as a member of a number of committees.

She is currently a Board Member of Australian Grain Technologies and Australian Seafood CRC and a Member and current Chair of the AW Howard Memorial Trust.

Authorised by Pork CRC and issued on its behalf by

Brendon Cant, Pork CRC Communications Manager, Mob 0417 930 536.

MEDIA CONTACT: Dr Roger Campbell, Pork CRC CEO, Mob 0407 774 714.

Here’s how the program works:

• You can download the presentation from the website, after you receive a reminder by email from Paul Hughes.
• View the presentation, preferably with all piggery staff and record any questions that you might have.
• You can then ask the speaker questions via e-mail to Paul Hughes at *protected email*, or log into Podio and entering your questions online.
• Questions received and answers will then be displayed on the website for users. Archival Q&A’s also available.

Pork CRC CEO, Dr Roger Campbell said that owners, managers, piggery staff and technical services providers involved in the daily management and care of pigs should enrol to access experts in all fields of pork production, plus share in their insights and ask questions of them, all from the comfort of their own homes, offices or piggeries.

For help, or further details, contact Professor Paul Hughes: Email *protected email* or Tel 08 8313 7603.

Despite the hottest of hot conditions in South Australia during last month’s annual two week Pork CRC supported ‘The Science and Practice of Pig Production’ course at the Roseworthy campus of University of Adelaide, it once again attracted plenty of interest from pork industry workers and students.

According to SARDI’s Professor Paul Hughes, who successfully put it together, the 2014 course covered all aspects of pork production, from genetics and reproduction to nutrition, housing, welfare, health and pig meat.

“Course attendees recognise that there’s a wide diversity of background knowledge among them and they appreciate that no background knowledge is assumed and everything is taught from scratch,” he said.

“Even so, both the science behind pork production and its practical application on-farm are encompassed in the two weeks.

“Perhaps the most appreciated course components are the visits and practicals, ranging from hands-on learning at the Roseworthy piggery and in the post-mortem laboratory, to visits to commercial piggeries, an AI station, feed mill and abattoir.

“At the end of the day, university students assimilate some of the practical knowledge held by those from the pork industry, while the pork industry people bulk up their overall knowledge and increase their understanding of the science underlying and underpinning pork production.

“If that’s not enough, the group also get to positively socialise and network, make new friends and even visit a few wineries in what was at the time a very hot Barossa Valley,” Professor Hughes said.

According to Pork CRC Research Manager, Graeme Crook, the students endured a five day heatwave during their first week, with temperatures rising to 46.4 degrees Celsius on a day when Roseworthy recorded the highest temperature in the state.

All, however, survived and relished the relatively cooler weather in the second week, while undertaking field trips to piggeries and other facilities associated with the pig production industry and classroom and practical sessions with Paul Hughes, Assoc Prof Roy Kirkwood of University of Adelaide, Tony Edwards of Ace Livestock Consulting and Dr Roger Campbell, CEO of  Pork CRC.

Authorised by Pork CRC and issued on its behalf by Brendon Cant, Mob 0417 930 536.

MEDIA CONTACT: Dr Roger Campbell, Pork CRC CEO, Mob 0407 774 714.

Industry Personnel listings

Supplier company guides