Abstract
Photo by Diane Halverson/AWI |
This publication addresses the two different directions
in which hog production is currently moving: 1) contracting with
large-scale vertical integrators (producers/packers/processors
linked from farrowing to packing to the retail counter), and
2) sustainable production of a smaller number of hogs sold through
alternative markets. The aspects of sustainable hog production
discussed in this publication include alternative niche marketing,
breed selection, alternative feeds, waste management, odor control,
health concerns, and humane treatment. Basic production practices
are not covered in this publication, but they are readily available
in many books and through state Cooperative Extension Services.
Table of Contents
NOTE: This publication links to several documents that are in
the Adobe Acrobat PDF format. Download
Acrobat Reader.
Introduction
Today’s independent hog producers have to choose between
production systems that lead in different directions. One is toward
confinement feeding of hogs and contracting with vertical integrators,
where the motto is “get big or get out.” The other
direction is toward more sustainable
production of a smaller number of hogs and marketing them, through
various methods, as part of a whole-farm operation. Kelly Klober,
author of Storey’s Guide to Raising Pigs and himself a farmer
and value-added marketer, notes the large difference between the
two types of production.
Scaled-down agribiz will not work on the
small farm. When returns are figured in pennies per unit of
production, whether that production is in pounds or bushels,
they will not produce a sustainable and becoming return to the
small producer. The small farmer will have to work from within
those perimeter fences, creating a farming mix geared not on
volume, but premium product production. To succeed with growing
less, one must have to sell it for more, and that means direct marketing,
exotic
production, value added marketing, or just about anything but the
wholesale marketing of farm commodities by the truckload or pen-full
(Klober, 2003).
Related ATTRA Publications
|
Klober stresses that producers should not identify themselves
as hog finishers or grain specialists, but should view their
farm enterprises as being “like fine watches; the good
ones are small, well put together, and everything works together
in a precise fashion.” He goes on to say:
With careful planning,
even the smallest farm can support a number of diverse enterprises.
As long as they do not directly compete for such limited small
farm assets as space, available labor, facilities, or capital,
any number of ventures can be fitted together to form a distinct
small farm. If they are keeping with the producer’s skill
and desires, and good local market outlets exist for their
outputs, any number of enterprises can be considered for the
small farm mix. The answer to what is a good enterprise mix
is as varied as the descriptions of individual snowflakes.
They can be stacked on the small farm to create a structured
cash flow and to fully utilize the labor available
(Klober, 2003).
Back to top
Understanding Pricing, Concentration, and Vertical Integration
Some large, independent hog operations, seeing the wide price
fluctuations for finished hogs in the past few years, have started
to move into contracting. As Jane Feagans, of Oasis Farms in Oakford,
Illinois, says, “Our strategy right now is to survive. I
don’t see the pork business as a particularly good business
to be in right now…. We went into the contract arrangements
as a risk-management tool. But it’s like insurance. Risk
management comes at a cost, because it limits the upside of the
market.”(Hillyer and Phillips,
2002) Producers who want to raise a large number of hogs will most
likely need to contract with someone. As Chris Hart, Purdue University
Extension marketing specialist explains, “The financial risks
of not being aligned in some way in the pork marketing chain are
just too extreme. Many of these independents are saying enough
is enough.”(Hillyer and Phillips, 2002)
However, before producers
decide to sign a contract
to produce hogs for a vertical integrator, it is best to understand
all aspects of the contract. Farmers’ Legal Action Group,
Inc. (FLAG), located
in Minnesota (Further Resources: Web sites), has several publications
and articles on livestock production contracts. Some key questions
to be addressed in contracts are listed in FLAG’s publication
Livestock Production Contracts: Risks for Family Farmers:
- How is
the grower’s compensation calculated?
- What are the grower’s
expenses under the contract?
- Who has management control under
the contract?
- Does the grower carry the responsibility for compliance
with environmental and other regulations?
- Can the Integrator
require the Grower to replace equipment in barns?
- What happens
if the production contract
is terminated by the Integrator? (Moeller,
2003)
In addition, many state departments of agriculture
and Cooperative Extension Services have publications available
to help producers better understand contracts. It is very important
for all parties to READ AND UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING
BEFORE THEY SIGN.
With vertical integration, the mainstream pork
industry has consolidated in a way that many people consider unsustainable.
The number of hog producers is rapidly decreasing every year. Between
1971 and 1992, the number of hog farms fell from 869,000 to 256,390
(Smith, 1998b), and between 1997 and 2002 the number of hog farms
continued decreasing by about 39%, from 125,000 to just over 79,000.(Martin,
2004) While the number of hog producers is decreasing, the large
operations are expanding or increasing in actual numbers. In 2000,
hog producers marketing
fewer than 1000 hogs per year—68.2% of hog producers—marketed
only 1.8% of all hogs produced,
while hog producers marketing more than 50,000 head per year—two-tenths
of one percent (.002) of hog producers—marketed 51.3% of
hogs produced.(Lawrence and Grimes, 2000)
A large animal confinement operation in Wisconsin.
Photo by Bob Nichols, USDA NRCS |
Large-scale vertical integration
(producer/packer/processors linked from farrowing to packing
to the retail counter) has put pork production in the same predicament
as poultry production. Vertical integrators are direct-contracting
more hogs today than in the past. According to a National
Pork Board Analysis of USDA price data, 35.8% of all hogs were
sold on the open market (negotiated price) in 1999, but that
number fell to 11.6% in January 2004.(Anon.,
2004a)
This shrinking of the open market is a problem for hog farmers.
While some small cooperatives and processors, as well as small-scale
direct hog marketers, are technically vertical integrators, they
lack the concentration of power to affect the market. According
to Fred Kirschenmann, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture in Ames, Iowa, the mid-size farms are finding it more
difficult to find competitive markets
for their hogs. The mid-size farms are “too big to sell directly
to consumers and too small to interest corporate food producers,
who often prefer dealing with a few large farms rather than with
dozens of smaller farms.”(Martin, 2004)
What this reduced
open-market pricing really means is that 11.6% of hogs—those
sold on the open market—establish the price for many of the
vertically-integrated hogs as well, because integrators tie their
prices to the open market price. However, in the written testimony
of the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) to the U.S. Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Competitive Policy, and Consumer Rights, Micheal Stumo, OCM General
Council, states:
The hog industry is approximately 87%
vertical at the producer/packer interface. Vertical integration
takes the form of packer owned hogs, and various types of contracted
hogs. Ninety percent of the hog contracts pay the producer
through a formula price based upon the open market price reported
each day by the USDA’s Market News Service. All the pork
packers have been aggressively
going vertical and have stated as much.
In theory, the 13% of the
non-vertical hogs set the price for the open market price reports.
In practice,
three to five percent of the hogs traded set the price. These
are the hogs actually negotiated between
packers and producers in the Iowa-Southern
Minnesota market, the price setting market. The other non-vertical
hogs either are committed to a packer through an oral formula
arrangement, or are merely forced to take the “Posted Price” that
the packer says it will pay based on the Iowa-Southern Minnesota
market.…
Packers always have an incentive to push
hog prices down to save money. But when 90% of the contract
hogs are pegged to the open market, the marginal cost of bidding
for open market hogs is tremendously magnified…. In today’s
concentrated packer environment, we have dominant firms interacting
in a very thin market. This scenario
exponentially increases their ability to drive prices lower as
compared to a situation where the dominant firm bought all their
hogs from a high-volume open market. It is no surprise that the
past 20 years have seen a steady downward trend in hog prices
as packers consolidated horizontally
and vertically even while the wholesale meat prices justify far
more for live hogs (Stumo, 2003).
The Missouri Rural Crisis Center in Columbia, Missouri, has found
that since 1994 more than 70% of Missouri hog farmers (7,400 out
of 10,500) have left hog production. The Center adds that the Missouri
hog farmer’s share of the pork retail dollar has gone from
46¢ in 1986 to 30¢ in 2003, while the consumer prices
of pork have increased more than 40%.(Oates and
Perry, 2003)
Hog Prices Received by
Missouri Farmers
(average annual prices per hundredweight)
1985 - 1987 — $49.34
1988 - 1990 — $48.03
1991 - 1993 — $46.63
1994 - 1996 — $46.27
1997 - 1999 — $41.04
2000 - 2002 — $37.60
** If you adjust hog prices for inflation,
independent pork producers are getting paid about 51% less in real dollars for
their hogs than what they received in 1985.
Missouri Hog Prices (Oates and Perry,
2003)
|
The economic analyses of farm records by various state universities
show that the size of the hog operation is not as important to
making a profit as how well the hog operation is managed.(Ikerd,
2001) In a presentation to the Biodynamic Farming
Conference, Fred Kirschenmann of the Leopold
Center stated, “Studies in Iowa have shown that the most
efficiencies are gained on farms that market 800 to 1000 pigs annually.”(Maulsby,
2003a)
But vertical integrators do not want independent producers;
they want producers tied to them with contracts that offer the
producers minimal rewards for their labor. Vertical integrators
have their own operations in every phase of pork production.
From the farrowing-to-finishing factory farm to the packinghouse
to the fresh and frozen meat cases, vertical integrators need
no help from anyone.
University of Missouri rural sociologist William
Heffernan has found that the profits from an independent producer
have a multiplier effect
of three to four in a local community, but profits from a corporate
or private company–owned farm leave the local community almost
immediately.(DiGiacomo, 1995) Another study in Minnesota found
that for livestock-intensive operations, the percentage spent locally
(within 20 miles of the farm) declined dramatically with the growth
of the operation. So, rural communities
and even states need to consider what is more important to them—having
a large number of hogs produced or having a large number of hog
producers.(Thompson, 1997)
Back to top
Sustainable Systems:
The Other Option
There are many things to consider in sustainable hog production
and marketing. This publication focuses on only some of these issues.
Basic hog production information—housing, breeding, farrowing,
care of baby pigs, weaning, etc.—is not covered in this publication,
but it is available
from state Extension Service offices and in books available at
libraries, bookstores, and on-line stores (see Further
Resources: Books). Other aspects of sustainable production are discussed
in the ATTRA publications mentioned throughout this publication
and in the Further Resources section. The main issues addressed
in this publication are:
- Niche marketing
- Breed selection
- Alternative
feeds, including forages and alternative energy and protein sources
- Waste
management
- Odor control
- Health concerns for hogs and producers
- Humane
treatment
In the past, hogs were a dependable source of cash income
for diversified family farms, sometimes called the “mortgage
lifter,” and contemporary sustainable hog production should
be an integral part of the whole farm. Whole-farm planning or
holistic management is a decision-making management
system that can assist in establishing a long-term goal, help
to create a detailed financial plan, a biological plan for the
landscape, and amonitoring program to assess progress toward the
planned goal. For additional information about holistic management,
see ATTRA’s Holistic
Management—A Whole-Farm Decision Making Framework.
On a diverse,
integrated farm, livestock recycle nutrients in manure that is
used to grow the livestock
feed, forages, legumes, and food crops typical
of healthy, diversified cropping systems, and hogs will readily
eat weather-damaged crops, crop residues, alternative grains, and
forages.
Dan and Colin Wilson, brothers farming near Paullina, Iowa,
raise hogs in hoop houses, in a greenhouse used for winter farrowing,
and on pasture. They decided that confinement pens didn’t
fit their philosophy of animal welfare.
Colin Wilson explains:
“We like working with livestock, and
didn’t want to get into a high-volume, low margin business
that turns animals into production units. Our system provides a
nicer environment for the hogs than a confinement barn, where pigs
just eat, drink, sleep, and get bored. We’ve learned to work
with our animals rather than conform them to our system….
We are trying to run an operation that is good for people and for
livestock. We want to create a farming operation that can be passed
on to the next generation” (Maulsby, 2003b).
Budgeting
Budgets help evaluate the probable costs and income of
an enterprise. To do this, however,
budgets need to include all projected costs and receipts, even
if they are difficult to estimate. Sample budgets can help you
better understand what needs to be included in your budget, but
yours will be unique for your operation, because the costs and
receipts are different for every farm enterprise. Costs can also
change, sometimes quickly, as can market opportunities, making
the final budget
quite different from what was planned. Many state Extension Services
have budget information available for various enterprises. Several
sample budgets are available in the Pennsylvania State University
publications Swine Production and Enterprise Budget Analysis
at
The
Iowa State University publication Cost
of Organic Pork Production (PDF) also provides
information that should be helpful in designing your budgets.
Back to top
Alternative Niche Marketing
As mentioned earlier in Understanding
Pricing, Concentration, and Vertical Integration, one reason
small and mid-size hog farmers are considering
niche marketing is the lack of open markets and the concentration
of hogs under contract. Alternative marketing is not an easy task,
but farmers are being left with fewer options.
Speaking at a “Pig
Power” meeting in Minnesota, Mark Honeyman, Iowa State University
animal scientist, commented that hog farmers are finding niche
markets opening up for them.
As the market gets dominated by huge
operations, it creates more niche markets on the back side. I
call it the Wal-Mart effect.… Of course, if the niche gets big
enough, then the big guys grab it. But one thing the big guys can’t
replicate is the story that goes with the food. People want to
know what they’re eating. They want to know where it comes
from. Farmers like you can provide that story (Anon.,
2003a).
Chuck
Talbott, Adjunct Assistant Professor at North Carolina A&T
State University, discussing his small-scale hog producers project
states:
Small producers cannot and should not compete on the
same level with corporate farms, but they may be able to produce
a unique product that appeals to an upscale market. Therefore,
emphasis
should be placed on marketing the potential strengths and distinguishing
features of the small farmer’s product, such as taste differences
due to diet and genetics, antibiotic-free status, and free-range,
environmental, and animal welfare issues…Many people refer
to pasture-raised pigs as “old timey” farming.
I would rather call it profitable farming, especially if we
can produce a unique product that stands out from the other
nine million exceptionally lean hogs marketed annually in North
Carolina (Talbott, 2003).
The 2001 report “Alternative Production Systems: Influence
on Pig Growth Pork Quality,” from the Pork Industry Institute
at Texas Tech University, summarizes a study on consumer preferences
for pork from conventional and alternative production
systems:
A majority of consumers say they are willing to pay more
for products that are produced as “sustainable,” “natural” or
with other assurances without mentioning any improvement in pork
eating quality. We were surprised at first to see that consumers
now put a value on some social features of the production system
quite apart from the pork’s appearance or sensory qualities.
A niche market is available for pork produced with certain socially-acceptable
assurances even if no real difference in pork sensory qualities
can be consistently demonstrated through objective research (Gentry
et al., 2001).
For information on direct marketing, cooperatives,
and niche markets, as well as legal considerations,
labels, trademarks, processing regulations,
and obstacles, see ATTRA’s Pork:
Marketing Alternatives.
Back to top
Breed Selection Criteria
Pasture-raised hogs require traits such as
hardiness in extreme climates, parasite resistance,
foraging ability, and good mothering attributes.
Photo by Diane Halverson/AWI |
Selection of breeding stock for a sustainable
hog operation is very important. All breeds of pigs have certain
traits that can be advantageous to sustainable hog production.
So before purchasing
breeding stock, try to find a seedstock producer raising pigs in
conditions similar to those in your operation. Research at Texas
A&M indicates that range-ability in sows (the ability to nest
and farrow on their own) is a highly heritable trait and could
be genetically selected for pasture operations.(Nation,
1988b)
The most common breeds of pigs in the United States are Yorkshire,
Landrace, Hampshire, and Duroc. These breeds have been bred for
characteristics
that make them adaptable to confinement
operations and the particular stresses and management conditions
found in these systems. Pasture-raised hogs face different stresses
and require different traits, such as hardiness in extreme climates,
parasite resistance, foraging ability, and good mothering attributes—characteristics
not developed for confinement hog production.(Kelsey,
2003)
Some
traditional and heritage swine breeds still retain these characteristics.
These breeds include the Berkshire, Chester White, Spotted, Tamworth,
Poland China, Large Black, Hereford, and Gloucester Old Spot Pig.
For information about breeding stock availability of these minor
and heritage breeds, contact the American
Livestock Breeds Conservancy at 919-542-5704;
or the New England Heritage
Breeds Conservancy at 413-528-2817.
General descriptions of the many hog breeds can be found at www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/swine.
In
the enclosed “The pastured pig” articles from Graze,
Jim Van Der Pol talks about his ideas of what makes a perfect pasture
sow. He discusses the selection for genetic traits in gilts and
boars, various culling requirements for his sows and replacement
gilts, and changing the sows’ behavior
through genetics. The articles also describe his pasture gestation
and farrowing operations. (Enclosures are not available on-line
but are available
by contacting ATTRA.)
Producers also need to consider what breeds
their markets prefer. Organic Valley, the brand name of CROPP (Coulee
Region Organic Produce Pool) Cooperative at LaFarge, Wisconsin,
says that they have identified a market for a Berkshire cross-bred
with a Chester White sow. So CROPP only accepts Berkshire-sired
certified organic hogs from Chester White sows for their products.
For information about the Organic Valley pork program,
contact Allen Moody, Feed and Pork Pool Coordinator, at 888–444–6455,
extension 240; or 608–625–2602; or e-mail allenm@organicvalley.com.
Niman Ranch Pork Company, the nation’s leading
marketer of natural pork, doesn’t specify what type of hog
their producers need to raise. Niman wants producers to follow
the Animal Welfare Institute’s Humane
On-Farm Husbandry Criteria for Pigs standards and
produce hogs that are good tasting and have enough back fat to
produce a marbled meat. Paul Willis, manager of Niman Ranch Pork
Company, says, “We’re not interested in a super lean
pig. Our animals live outdoors, and they need that body fat to
handle the heat in the summer and the cold in the winter.”(Anon.,
2003b) Niman Ranch Pork Company is working with farmers in the
Midwest and Southeast. For information about Niman Ranch Pork Company,
call 641–998–2683 or e-mail philk@frontiernet.net.
Back to top
Alternative Feeds
Conventional swine rations consist primarily
of corn and soybean meal—corn for energy and soybean meal
for protein. However, diversified farmers may have other types
of grains, crop residues, and forages that lack a ready market
or are considered waste products. Pigs—being versatile
omnivores—can eat a wide range of feeds, such as pasture
grasses and other fibrous materials,
as well as alternative energy and protein sources. The pig’s
ability to digest fibrous materials
increases as it matures. Since they do not have rumens, pigs digest
fiber primarily in their large intestine through fermentation.(Johnson
et al., 2003) Jim Van Der Pol—who grazes and direct-markets
pork, chicken, and beef in Minnesota—
says in his “The pastured pig” series in Graze magazine:
Despite being single-stomached animals that often need some
grain, hogs are wonderful pasture
animals. Digestively, they are durable and flexible. They do
not bloat, founder on grain, or ingest hardware. They eat weeds
readily, even prefer them. If conditions get tough for the sward
[grass-covered ground], they can be removed and switched immediately
to a grain ration with no worries about digestive upset (Van
Der Pol, 2002).
A three-year study by Auburn University’s swine nutritionist
Terry Prince proved that as much as two-thirds of a sow’s
feed needs can be satisfied by a well-managed pasture program,
if vitamin and mineral supplements are provided.(Anon.,
1987)
A 2003 paper presented at the Third National Symposium on Alternative
Feeds for Livestock and Poultry held at Kansas City, Missouri
states:
Fibrous feeds traditionally have not been used for nonruminants
due to their documented depression
of diet digestibility in pigs and poultry. However, some
types of fiber and fiber sources do not exert such negative effects
on nutritional digestibility in older growing pigs and
sows. Dietary fiber can have a positive effect on gut health, welfare,
and reproductive performance of pigs. Hence, nutritionists
are attempting to gain a more thorough understanding of dietary
fiber in swine diets (Johnson et al., 2003).
Pasture, Hogging Off, and Fibrous By-products
In pastures available to hogs, inspect for weeds that can be poisonous
to them.
Photo by Diane Halverson/AWI |
Colin Wilson, who
farms with his father and brother Dan at Paullina, Iowa, has
worked the bugs out of their pasture-farrowing system by trial
and error the past 20 years. Wilson stresses that timeliness is
critical, and that many jobs require two or even three people.
They use a three-year rotation in three adjacent
18-acre fields. The rotation begins with corn, followed the next
spring with a drilled mix of 3.5 bushels of oats, 10 pounds of
alfalfa,
and 3 pounds of orchardgrass. Oats are harvested, leaving a thick
pasture cover for the hogs the following year. Colin explained
that it took a long time to develop a successful
pasture mix. He found that pastures with too little alfalfa were
not as palatable to hogs, and that pastures with too much alfalfa
did not produce a good orchardgrass stand and tended to be muddy
in wet years.
Fencing the pasture is also important for the Wilsons’ operation.
As soon as possible in the spring, they string a two-wire (14-gauge)
electric fence around the perimeter of the pasture; one wire is
4 to 8 inches high, and the other wire is 18 to 24 inches high.
Each wire has its own charger,
so there is always a hot wire if one charger malfunctions. This
pasture is then divided into 150 by 300 foot pens, also using double
wires. Wilson says it is not a good idea to charge the gates. If
the gate is charged, the hogs learn not to pass that point, and
then the producer will not be able to drive the hogs through the
gate when it is open.(Cramer, 1987)
In addition to legumes and grass
pastures, non-legume brassicas—turnips, rape, kale, fodder
beets, and mangels—are high in protein, highly digestible,
and make an excellent pig pasture.
Another option is the practice
of having pigs self-harvest the grain, otherwise known as “hogging
off” the crop. Some of the benefits of hogging off are that
harvesting costs are eliminated, crop residues and manure are left
on the land, and parasite and disease problems may be reduced.
Many different crops can be used with this practice,
as long as there are also legumes or brassicas available. Some
examples of grains that can be self-harvested by hogs are wheat,
rye, oats, dent corn, Grohoma sorghum, Spanish peanuts, and popcorn.(Nation,
1989) Such direct harvesting can sometimes turn a profit from even
a low–yielding grain crop.(Nation, 1988a)
In pastures available
to hogs, inspect for weeds that can be poisonous to them, including
pigweed,
Jimson weed, two–leaf cockleburs, young lambsquarters, and
nightshades. A couple of Web sites providing information and pictures
of many poisonous plants are www.vth.colostate.edu/poisonous_plants/report/search.cfm and www.spokanecounty.org/weedboard/pdf/2004ToxicPlants.pdf (PDF).
Your veterinarian or county Extension agent should also be able
to help with weed identification. The ATTRA publication Considerations
in Organic Hog Production has additional
information on using pastures for hog production.
If pastures are
not available, feeding feedstuffs high in fiber is another possibility.
Honeyman notes that studies show that fibrous feeds and protein
by-products can make up as much as 90% of a gestating sow’s
rations, because of the sow’s lower energy needs and large
digestive tract. Acceptable feeds include alfalfa hay (need to feed
good quality hay; moldy alfalfa can cause abortions), haylage (not
more than 20% of a sow’s ration), alfalfa and orchardgrass
hay, grass silage, sunflower and soybean hulls, corn-cob meal, and
beet pulp. Honeyman says even growing—and finishing—pig
rations can be 10 to 30% forages, if energy levels are maintained.(Cramer,
1990b)
Alternative Energy Sources
Small grains can be used to reduce the
amount of corn in swine rations. Wheat, triticale, barley, and
hulless barley can totally replace corn, but need to be more coarsely
processed than corn to reduce dust and flouring effects—continuous
feeding of finely ground grains can cause ulcers in pigs’ gastrointestinal
tract. The differing nutritional values of small grains means that
the ration will have to be formulated to meet the hogs’ energy
and protein needs—especially
for the amino acids lysine, trytophan, threonine, and methionine,
and the minerals calcium and phosphorus. Light and/or weedy small
grains that would be discounted at the elevator can be fed to pigs
with no difference in their performance. Barley and hulless barley
need to be stored after harvest before feeding them to swine. In
the publication Barley Production
in Alberta: Harvesting on the Alberta Agriculture, Food and
Rural Development Web site, it states:
Newly harvested barley, whether
dry, or high moisture, should always be stored about four to
six weeks before being fed to any class of livestock. This storage
period is often called a sweat period. Serious losses in cattle,
pigs and poultry have been attributed to feeding newly harvested
grain. There is some evidence that certain compounds in the newly
harvested grain may be toxic to livestock. In storage, such compounds
undergo chemical changes that make them non-toxic. Processing
newly harvested barley for feed apparently does not eliminate
the problem of toxicity—a rest or sweat period is necessary
(Anon., 2002a).
The following publications offer further information
about feeding small grains to hogs.
Some
other small grains to consider are oats, rye, flax, hulless
or naked oats, and high-fat oats. All of these small grains can
be used in varying
amounts in hog rations, according to their unique characteristics
and nutritional values. Newer varieties of rye are less susceptible
to ergot contamination—a fungal infection that can cause
abortions—than older varieties and can be used as up to 30%
of the energy source.(Racz and Campbell, 1996)
Oats’ feed
value is only about 80% that of corn; it has high fiber content
and can be used as 20% or more of the energy source. A 2002
study by Mark Honeyman, Sebblin Sullivan, and Wayne Roush at Iowa
State University discusses changes in performance of market hogs
in deep-bedded hooped barns with the addition of 20% and 40% oats
to the diet. The study didn’t find any reduction
in daily gain, feed intake, feed efficiency, or other crucial
factors for either level of oats in the ration. The study is
available at www.extension.iastate.edu/ipic/reports/02swinereports/asl-1819.pdf (PDF).
Up to 5% flax can be added to hog rations to increase the omega-3
fatty acids in the pork and improve sow performance. In 1995, South
Dakota State University researchers tested feeding flax in a corn-soybean
meal ration during the final 25 days of finishing. The results
showed that the omega-3 fatty acids had increased. However, a consumer
taste panel could detect differences in the bacon in rations that
contained more than 5% flax. University of Manitoba researchers
replaced some of the soybean meal and tallow and added 5% flax
to gestation and lactation sow rations. The study showed that the
sows fed flax delivered more piglets at farrowing, that the piglets
had heavier weaning rates, and that the sows lost less weight during
lactation and rebred sooner.(Murphy, 2003)
Hulless or naked oats
and high-fat oats are newer varieties with improved nutritional
characteristics
that make them good alternative feeds. Hulless
oats can be used as the total energy source in swine rations; however,
because of the limited cropping history and marketing opportunities,
their yield potential and economic value are unknown
in many areas and first should be tested in small quantities.
Several
other alternative grains that can be used in hog rations are cull,
unpopped popcorn and buckwheat. Popcorn has nearly the same nutritional
value as yellow corn and can replace corn on an equal weight basis.
If you happen to be in an area where cull popcorn is available,
it can sometimes be less costly than corn.(Anon.,
1990b)
Buckwheat
can be used to replace about 25 to 50% of corn. Buckwheat has only
80% of the energy value of corn but is higher in fiber and can
be planted later in the season as a substitute crop in emergencies.
Buckwheat should not be used for nursery rations or for lactating
sows, because of their higher energy requirements. Buckwheat should
be limited to 25% replacement of corn for white pigs housed outside.
Buckwheat contains a photosensitizing agent called fagopyrim that
causes rashes on pigs’ skin and intense itching when the
pigs are exposed to sunlight. This condition is called fagopyrism
or buckwheat poisoning.(Anon., 1993) A 2004 paper by Lee J. Johnson
and Rebecca Morrison at the Alternative Swine Program of the West
Central Research and Outreach Center in Morris, Minnesota, reported
trying alternative
ingredients—barley, oats, buckwheat, field peas, and expelled
soybean meal— in the ration to help reduce the additional carcass
fat in pigs raised in hoop shelters rather than confinement houses.
The study shows that feeding a low-energy
diet based on small grains slows the growth rate and marginally improves
carcass leanness in hoop-sheltered hogs, but doesn’t affect
the eating
quality of the pork. The study is available at http://wcroc.cfans.umn.edu/sites/c3dc180f-1d66-43c1-bb18-da82832a34dd/uploads/xp0246_final_rpt_no_economics.pdf (PDF).
Alternative Protein Sources
Soybean meal can be replaced or reduced
by the use of alternative protein sources. Canola meal, sunflower
meal, cottonseed meal, linseed meal, or peanut meal may be available
locally, depending
on your location. These alternative meals can substitute for soybean
meal, but they do have different amino acid ratios and mineral
levels that need to be taken into consideration when balancing
the rations. Cottonseed meal contains various levels of free gossypol—a
compound found in cottonseed that is toxic to hogs. The 2003 Oklahoma
Cooperative Extension publication Gossypol
Toxicity in Livestock (PDF),
by Sandra Morgan, provides specific information on gossypol toxicity
levels for swine and other livestock.
Roasting or
extruding whole soybeans is another option; the heat breaks down
the trypsin inhibitors
found in raw soybeans. Processed, green, frost-damaged beans that
would be discounted at the elevator can be used in the ration without
any problems.(Jeaurond et al., 2003) The higher oil content of
whole, processed soybeans produces a faster rate of gain than soybean
meal. The cost of processing equipment and the fact that the extruded
and roasted products don’t store well are considerations
that the producer has to take into account. Additional information
on feeding soybeans to hogs is available at www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/swine/facts/info_green_soybeans_pigs.htm.
Sweet
white lupines can make up to about 10% of the ration for most finishing
and gestating animals. Lupines’ protein content can vary
from 25 to 38%, and they have about half the lysine of soybeans.
Lupines should be supplemented with iron at 400 parts/million (Anon.,
1989) and methionine.(Golz and Aakre, 1993)
Field peas are another
option. The South Dakota State University publication Using
South Dakota Grown Field Peas in Swine Diets states:
Field peas are a
good source of energy and amino acids for swine. However, variety
differences exist,
and producers must know the nutrient content of the peas they
are working with to properly formulate them into swine diets.
Field peas are a good source of lysine, but the concentrations
of methionine, tryptophan, and threonine must be watched closely.
While peas can contain anti-nutritional factors, they are usually
in such low concentration that field peas can be fed raw (Thaler
and Stein, 2003).
The publication is available at http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx2041.pdf (PDF)
or by calling the Agriculture & Biological Science (ABS) Bulletin
Room at 605–688–5628 or 800–301–9293.
Mung
beans can be used as an alternative to soybean
meal. Mung beans contain from 24 to 30% crude protein, but about
equivalent lysine levels as a percentage of protein. Mung beans
contain a trypsin inhibitor just like raw soybeans. This limits
mung bean use in swine rations to about 10% for growing pigs,
15% for finishing pigs, and 10% for sow rations, unless the mung
beans are heat-treated like whole soybeans.(Luce
and Maxwell, 1996)
The Oklahoma State University Extension publication
Using Mung Beans in Swine Diets is available
by calling the University Mailing Services at 405–744–5385.
Distillers
Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) is a co-product of the ethanol
industry. During ethanol
production, a bushel of corn produces about 2.6 gallons of
ethanol and about 17 pounds of a wet, spent mash that is processed
and blended into DDGS. Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles can
vary greatly in nutrient concentrations, with crude protein
ranging from about 23 to 29%, and highly variable lysine levels.
One major concern in using DDGS is mycotoxins from molds on the
corn. Mycotoxins are not destroyed in the fermenting
process. In fact, they are concentrated by threefold in the
DDGS if there are molds on the corn fermented into ethanol. The
2002 South Dakota State University Extension publication Use
of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) in Swine Diets (PDF),
by Bob Thaler, provides specific information on using DDGS in swine
rations.
Balancing Rations
It is important to remember that any changes
to your rations, including adding alternative feedstuffs,
may change the growth rate of the hogs. It is best to determine
the feed-cost savings and any changes in market patterns before
making any changes to your feeding program. Always assess any changes
to your rations so that all the pigs’ nutritional requirements
are being met at every stage of growth. Alternative feeds have
varying food values, so it is important to know the nutritional
contents of each feed ingredient. Nutrient testing of alternative
feed ingredients will eliminate any guess work.
Producers can formulate
their own rations or check with a swine nutritionist to help formulate
a balanced ration for different swine weights and groups. Feedstuff
Magazine Reference Yearly Issue contains feeding values and analysis
tables for many by–products and unusual feeds (see Further
Resources: Magazines). The 1998 National Research Council’s
(NRC) Nutrient Requirement of Swine: 10th Revised Edition discusses
the nutrient needs of swine, including requirements of amino acids
and other nutrients (see Further Resources: Books). The University
of Minnesota publication Designing Feeding Programs for Natural
and Organic Pork Production provides nutritional comparisons and
some rations using alternative feedstuffs (see Further
Resources: Publications). Please see the Appendix for two tables showing energy
and protein composition of various feeds, suggested inclusion rates,
and factors affecting inclusion.
Food Wastes
Food wastes are another alternative food for swine.
Pigs are excellent scavengers of what we would consider garbage.
Food wastes are often available from restaurants, schools, grocery
stores, and institutions, and include leftovers, bakery wastes,
out-of-date food items, fruits, and vegetables. It is more difficult
to balance the diet of hogs when feeding food wastes. Unbalanced
diets can compromise the growth of the pigs and may cause them
to produce low-quality meat with off-odors or flavors. Also, the
producer may want to consider the marketing of garbage-fed hogs:
if you are selling directly to consumers, this may not be a practice
to advertise.
Many states do not allow any food wastes to be used
to feed swine. Make sure that your state allows food-waste or swill
feeding. Check with your state’s Health Department or Department
of Agriculture for restrictions and regulations. A garbage feeder’s
license is required in states that do allow feeding food wastes.
If
your state does allow swill feeding, remember that according to
the 1980 Swine Health Protection
Act, all food waste containing any meat product has to be heat
treated to reduce the risk of diseases and pathogens being passed
to the pigs. Some of these diseases are hog cholera, foot and mouth
disease, African swine fever, swine vesicular disease, Trichinella,
and many other pathogens. The Act does not require cooking of non-meat
products, such as bakery waste or fruit and vegetable wastes. The
2003 University of New Jersey—Rutgers Extension publication
Feeding
Food Wastes to Swine (PDF), by Michael Westendorf and
R. O. Meyer, provides specific information on heat treating food
wastes and other concerns in using food wastes in swine rations.
Back to top
Waste Management
This farm in Wisconsin uses nutrient management practices to apply manure
from the hog operation on cropland.
Photo by Bob Nichols, USDA NRCS |
The goal of sustainable waste management is to
enhance on-farm nutrient cycling and to protect the environment
from pollutants. Hog manure is an excellent soil builder—supplying
organic matter and nutrients and stimulating the biological
processes in the soil to build fertility. When manure is used to
its full potential, it can yield substantial savings over purchased
fertilizers and lead to improved soil fertility through the benefits
of increased soil organic matter. Using manure can also cause problems,
including human food contamination, soil fertility imbalances caused
by excess nutrients, increased weed pressure, and potential pollution
of water and soil. The ATTRA publication Manures for Organic
Crop Production has information on organic manure handling practices to
help prevent some of these problems. ATTRA’s Sustainable
Soil Management discusses concepts and practices critical in soil nutrient
management and in planning a farm’s individual fertility program.
The ATTRA publication Nutrient
Cycling in Pastures has additional information on good pasture management
practices that foster effective use and recycling of nutrients.
Hogs,
like most livestock, are not very efficient at converting feedstuffs
into meat. About 75 to 90% of the feedstuffs’ nutrients are
excreted with the manure.(Tishmack and Jones,
2003) Swine manure
has a high concentration of organic material.
It has a higher nitrogen content than beef or dairy manure, but
less than poultry manure. The amount of organic matter and nutrients
in manure
depends on the rations, the type of bedding, and whether the manure
is applied as a solid, slurry, or liquid.(Tishmack
and Jones, 2003)
Application rates should be based on crop needs and soil tests
(tests available through the Extension
Service or a soil testing lab). Determine manure application rates
based on those nutrients
that are present in the manure in the largest amounts. Basing application
rates on manure nitrogen content alone should be done with care,
since this can sometimes lead to soil nutrient imbalances if other
macro- or micro–nutrients become excessive. Because the ratio
of crop needs to manure nutrient contents is lower for phosphorus
than for nitrogen, many states are concerned about phosphorus buildup
in soils and are requiring soil tests and manure management plans.
On October 24, 2004, the Iowa Environmental
Protection Commission approved rules to prohibit applications of
livestock manure on fields that test very high in phosphorus.(Anon.,
2004b)
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs)
Increased public
awareness of the threat to water
quality posed by hog manure has prompted regulatory actions at
local, state, and federal levels. Hog farmers must stay informed
to avoid violating these regulations—and to avoid polluting
the environment.
In April 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) created
a permit system governing animal feeding operations (AFOs). The
permit system determines how AFOs can be defined as concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and required to get a NPDES permit
from the EPA or a designated state permitting authority. AFOs are
classified CAFOs depending, in large part, on whether the operation
is considered large, medium, or small. However, no matter what
size your AFO, it can be designated a CAFO. Your operation could
need a CAFO permit if your permitting authority finds that it is
adding pollutants to the surface water. For a copy of the rule
and additional supporting information, visit the EPA Web site at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm, call the Office
of Water Resource Center at 202–566–1729, or call the
CAFO help line at 202–564–0766.
A CNMP must be tailored
specifically to a site. The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) has information to help set up this type of management
plan. Contact your local county NRCS office for further information,
or visit their Web site at www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/afo for
help to in finding your local office, for the 2003 series of 33
CAFO Fact Sheets, the CNMP manual, and additional information.
Manure Characteristics for Different Types of Hog Production Systems
A Cargill-style finishing unit. |
When
raised on pasture, hogs distribute their manure
themselves. With proper rotations on stable, non-erodible lands—not
wetlands, streams, waterways,
or riparian areas—the hazards of pollution
are small, and the potential for parasite and disease transfer
is reduced. The pasture loading rate varies greatly with climate,
forage type, and rotation schedule. The vegetation in the pasture
is the main indicator of the proper stocking rate. See ATTRA’s
Protecting Riparian Areas: Farmland Management Strategies for additional
information on riparian zone management and ATTRA’s Considerations
in Organic Hog Production for additional
information on pasture management for farrowing and finishing.
Pasture
hog production can have problems also. Working outside in the cold,
heat, rain, snow, wind, and dark is not always pleasant. Dave Odland,
a farmer at Clarion, Iowa, says, “With my system you have to
be willing to get up at 3 a.m. to keep squealing pigs out of the
mud and rain. And, you have to be able to take those days when you
lose a litter or two because of the weather.”(Anon.,
1990a)
Tim McGuire, who farms at Wisner, Nebraska, comments that from
November to March, they do not feed hogs outside because it is
too difficult to keep water, heaters, straw, and feed in place.(Gralla,
1991)
When using a Cargill-style finishing unit (an 18 by 120 foot,
monoslope, open-front shed with an outside concrete area for feeders
and waterers) or other open-lot operations, whether paved or unpaved,
manure is handled as a solid. The manure
is scraped regularly from the lots to reduce buildup, as well as
to help control odor and fly populations. Scraped manure is either
stockpiled for field spreading later, spread immediately on the
field, or composted. Composting manure allows long-term storage,
with reduced odor and pollution problems and the production of
a superior soil amendment. Raw manure contains high levels of pollutants
and must be properly managed to prevent contamination of nearby
surface or ground water.
Manure from deep-bedded hooped shelters
is also handled as a solid. All of the bedding is removed, usually
with a front-end loader, following
each group of hogs. The composition varies greatly, because of
high concentrations of bedding in some areas of the hooped shelter
and high concentrations of manure in others. The variability of
the manure creates problems in accurately figuring the nutrient
content of the manure and its fertilizer value. For more information
on deep-bedded hooped shelters, see ATTRA’s Hooped Shelters
for Hogs.
Liquid manure systems are generally used in confinement
hog production, including CAFO’s, because they require less
labor than handling solids (as in bedding and scrape systems). Liquid
manure is stored in underground pits, anaerobic lagoons, or outdoor
slurry storage tanks, above or below ground. During storage and mixing
or agitation, high concentrations of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide
can be released, endangering the farm workers and livestock.(Tishmack
and Jones, 2003) In a study completed in November 2002, the Prairie
Swine Centre in Saskatchewan, Canada, showed that hydrogen sulfite
gas emission
in swine barns with shallow manure pits often reached levels that
pose a threat to workers’ health.(Whelan,
2003)
Manure or compost
can be spread on pastures or crop lands before or after harvest.
If possible,
manure should always be incorporated into the soil as soon as possible
after spreading to avoid losses of nitrogen and reduce odor. To
prevent runoff, avoid spreading manure on frozen
ground. Manure spreaders, liquid manure application tanks, and
drag-hose application equipment should be properly calibrated.
Your county Extension or NRCS office has information on these operations.
Regardless
of whether manure is handled as a solid, slurry, or liquid, a well-designed
collection,
storage, transportation, and application program is necessary to
avoid water pollution. See ATTRA’s Protecting Water Quality
on Organic Farms for practices that can help protect water quality.
Hooped shelters,
originally developed in Canada, are among the more promising
and intriguing options for finishing hogs. Hooped shelters
are so successful that more than one million hogs are produced
in them in Iowa. They are popular
due to their low cost and because they allow the pigs to express
social behavior. But pigs in hooped shelters require more feed
per pound of gain, especially during extreme weather conditions.
Hooped
shelters are arched metal frames, secured to ground posts
and four- to six-foot side walls, then covered with a polyethylene
tarp. The ends are left open most of the year for ventilation
but are adjusted appropriately in winter to circulate fresh
air and reduce humidity. The hooped shelters come in various
sizes but usually house from 75 to 250 head per shelter.
Stock density in the shelter can range from less than 12
square feet per pig to about 16 square feet per pig. The
smaller (12 square foot) space occasionally leads to fighting
among the hogs, so some organic producers reduce stock density
to allow more space per hog.
Two-thirds of the floor area
inside the hoop shelter is a deep-bedded area, with the remainder
of the floor area a concrete slab where the feeders and waterers
are located. Deep bedding is the key to the hooped shelter’s performance.
The bedding
consists of 14 to 18 inches of materials such as small-grain
or soybean straw, baled cornstalks, grass hay, ground corncobs,
or a combination of several organic materials.
The bedding absorbs moisture, slowly composts, and helps keep
the pigs dry and warm. The back third of the bedded area is
generally dry and serves as the sleeping area, while the middle
third is where the pigs dung. Please refer to ATTRA’s
Hooped Shelters for Hogs for specific information on using
hooped shelters for finishing and/or gestating hogs.
Besides
hooped shelters, several alternative
methods for sustainable hog production have been researched,
such as the Swedish deep-bedded nursery system and pasture
farrowing, as well as other alternative farrowing and finishing
systems. Among the limiting factors in producing hogs outdoors
are the climate, the amount of land available, topography
of the land, ground cover, and pollution potentials.
Some major differences between alternative finishing systems
and conventional slatted floor finishing are the use of deep bedding, the
manure management practices, use of natural ventilation,
the number of hogs in a group, and the lower initial investment.(Gentry
et al., 2001) See ATTRA’s Considerations in Organic
Hog Production for additional information about these alternative
methods.
In a 2001 annual report from Dickinson Research
Extension Center in North Dakota, researchers reported on the study “An Economic Analysis
of Swine Rearing Systems for North Dakota,” comparing
hogs raised in outdoor pens, hoop shelters, and conventional
confinement buildings. Pig performance and carcass data
were analyzed to estimate the net return per pig from the
three systems. The evaluations considered turns/year, facility
investment, fixed costs, operating costs, and total carcass
values after premiums and discounts were applied. The net
return per pig was calculated by deducting the total cost
of the pig from the total carcass value. The report concluded, “Accounting
for all business parameters, rearing in the hoop structures
returned the greatest net return per pig. Compared to the
conventional confinement system, the hooped structures
and outdoor pen reared pigs returned 6.63% and 4.07% more
net income, respectively.”(Landblom
et al., 2000)
|
Back to top
Odor Control
Liquid manure from a hog operation in northeast Iowa is pumped onto cropland.
Photo by Tim McCabe, USDA NRCS |
According to R. Douglas Hurt, director of the Center for Agriculture
History & Rural Studies at Iowa State University, “Hog
odor is the most divisive issue ever in agriculture, damaging the
fabric of rural society and disenfranchising pork producers from
their communities, even on the roads in front of their farm.”(Smith,
1998a)
Most complaints about hog operations involve odor. Many hog farmers
are finding their odor control efforts are not meeting their neighbors’ expectations.
Because livestock operations are increasing in size, and more people
are moving into rural areas closer to livestock operations, problems
are increasing.(Anon., 2002b) One of the reasons odor causes negative
reactions differently from person to person is that there is no
consensus agreement between farmers and neighbors— or between
any part of industry and the public—on how to evaluate odors.
The total amount of odor coming from a farm depends on the type
and number of animals, the type of housing, the manure storage
and handling practices, the wind direction and speed, and many
other weather variables.(Jacobson et al., 2002)
Odors are from gases created by the decomposition of the manure
and other organic matter. The gases can include from 80 to 200
different compounds that cause odor, some of them at extremely
low concentrations. The interaction between the different odor-causing
compounds can produce either more or less odor than that of an
individual compound. Odors are also absorbed and moved by dust
particles.(Anon., 2002b) Dust from hog operations can come from
the feed, bedding material, manure, and even the hog itself. Some
of the factors that can affect dust and odor levels are animal
activity, temperature, relative humidity, wind, stocking density,
feeding methods, and the feed ingredients themselves.
Predicting odor and dust problems can be difficult because the
odors and dust are moved by the wind, so the problem areas and
odor intensity can change frequently, depending on wind direction
and speed. Some of the gases are heavier and travel slower, close
to the ground, while lighter gases disperse faster into the atmosphere.(Anon.,
2002b)
Odors are considered a nuisance only when their intensity and
character are sufficiently objectionable to get complaints from
neighbors. One legal basis for the nuisance concept is that people
should not use their property in such a way that it would interfere
with the adjoining property owners use of their property. Odors
from hog production systems are regarded as nuisance pollutants
not regulated under the Clean Air Act. How odor affects people
varies. In an article from Inside Agroforestry, the author
states:
People respond to odor differently. Although the human olfactory
organ is quite sensitive, the response to odor is related more
to past memories or cultural experiences. There is not very much
information about the impact of odor to human health. Most of
the existing information refers to the adverse health effects
of individual gases, e.g. ammonia, or dust, but no specific information
about odors. One study did show that odors from a swine facility
had a negative effect on the moods of the neighbors such as anger
and frustration. These psychological impacts can be as significant
as a person’s physical health (Anon.,
2002b).
Even if these odors are non-toxic, they do affect how people feel
and react. Farmers must be current on county zoning laws, Right–to–Farm
laws, and other local and state laws affecting land use. Many neighbors
will be tolerant of occasional odor problems, but if odor persists
or is fairly frequent, trouble will arise.
One management practice that helps is the use of shelterbelts.
According to an article in Inside Agroforestry, shelterbelts
can help relieve livestock odors in several ways.
- Facilitate distribution of odor by creating surface turbulence
that intercepts and disrupts odor plumes.
- Encourage dust to settle by reducing wind speeds
- Physically intercept dust and other aerosols that collect on
leaves and reduce the micro-particles leaving.
- Act as a sink for chemical constituents of odor, because Volatile
Organic Compounds
(VOCs) have an affinity for the outer layers of plant leaves, where they
are absorbed and broken down.
- Provide a visual and aesthetic screen for the operation.
(Colletti and Tyndall, 2002)
The Forestry Department of Iowa State University Web site has
additional information on windbreak
research and odor mitigation available at www.forestry.iastate.edu/res/Shelterbelt.html.
The University of Minnesota publication OFFSET — Odor
From Feedlots Setback Estimation Tool (Further
Resources: Publications and Books) is designed to help estimate
average odor impacts from different animal facilities and manure
storage. The publication is based on odor measurement for farms
and climate conditions in Minnesota, and estimating odor impacts
in other parts of the country should be done with caution and
in consultation with the authors. OFFSET created what they call
odor emission numbers, which are the average of 200 odor measurements
from 79 different Minnesota farms and are average values of measurements
from each type of odor source. The odor emission number varies:
34 to 50 for swine housed with deep manure pits, 20 to 42 for
pull-plug systems, 11 for loose housing and open concrete scrape
areas, and 4 for deep-bedded hoop and Cargill open-front barns.(Jacobson
et al., 2002)
A farmer cannot create an odor-free or dust-free hog operation,
but certain types of buildings and manure management strategies
can help. Common sense, as well as talking to and listening to
your neighbors, is probably your best defense against odor and/or
dust complaints. If possible, manure should not be spread on Friday,
Saturday, or Sunday, when neighbors are more likely to be at home
and outdoors. Farmers should concentrate on sound management practices
before trying any extreme measures.
Back to top
Health Concerns
USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) animal behaviorists study pig
behavior with the goal of improving animal handling practices to reduce
stress on animals and lower production costs.
Photo by Scott Baur, USDA ARS |
The priority in sustainable swine production should
be prevention and disease eradication, rather than disease treatment.
Reducing stress is important in increasing the pigs’ resistance
to diseases. Stress is caused by:
- Taxing living conditions, such
as heat, cold, wet or muddy environment, or poor air quality
(dust, ammonia, and other gases)
- Not allowing natural behavior,
such as nesting, rooting, wallowing, or foraging
- Improper handling
during weaning, moving, or sorting, and mixing strange pigs
together
- Poor
nutrition—low energy and protein levels, vitamin and mineral
deficiencies
Vaccinations are another important tool for disease
prevention and helping to build immunity
in the pig. However, because of varying disease pressures, management
styles, housing conditions, farm locations, climatic conditions,
etc., each producer’s situation is unique, and any recommendations
for routine vaccinations and health procedures need to be based
on a veterinarian’s suggestions.
For additional information
on how vaccinations provide immunity, as well as on reducing
stress from hog handling practices and on allowing natural
behaviors, see the ATTRA publication Considerations in Organic
Hog Production.
Using antibiotics in hog production is becoming more controversial,
especially when they are used as growth promoters and in subtherapeutic
doses. The 2004 report Antibiotic Resistance—Federal
Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to Address Risk to Humans
from Antibiotic Use in Animals, by the Government Accounting Office
(GAO), suggests
that “scientific evidence has shown that certain bacteria
that are resistant to antibiotics are transferred from animals
to humans through the consumption or handling of meat that contains
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” The 100-page GAO report is
available at www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf (PDF).
Additional information on antibiotic-resistant bacteria and livestock
is available from the Land Stewardship Project in Minnesota in
their Land Stewardship Letter article “Antibiotics, Agriculture & Resistance,” available
at www.landstewardshipproject.org/pdf/antibio_reprint.pdf (PDF).
The 2003
research article “Antibiotics in Dust Originating from a
Pig-Fattening Farm: A New Source of Health Hazard for Farmers?” in
Environmental
Health Perspectives comments on one possible antibiotic problem.
It states that 90% of the dust samples taken during a 20-year period
from the same hog building had detectable residues of up to 5 different
antibiotics. The researchers concluded:
High dust exposure in animal
confinement buildings
is believed to be a respiratory health hazard because of the
high content of microorganisms, endotoxins, and allergens. Further
risks may arise from the inhalation of dust contaminated with
a cocktail of antibiotics. Apart from that, our data provide
first evidence for a new route of entry for veterinary drugs
in the environment (Hamscher et al., 2003).
Respiratory problems seem
to be increasing for hog farmers using confinement hog houses.
The 220-page, 2003 University of Iowa report Iowa Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operation Air Quality Study found that at least
25% of swine CAFO workers have reported current respiratory problems.
The report is available at
www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm.
Raising
hogs in a deep-bedded system has advantages
over slatted confinement production. Hogs raised on bedding show
less tail biting, fewer foot pad lesions, fewer leg problems, and
fewer respiratory problems. Research comparing
growth and meat quality for pigs finished in hoop shelters is limited,
but some research has determined that hoop-finished pigs have fewer
abnormal behaviors, have a greater rate of play behavior, and have
fewer leg injuries than pigs finished in a non-bedded confinement
system.(Gentry et al., 2001)
Pigs produced on pasture are usually
healthier than pigs produced in confinement. Pastured hogs often
have fewer respiratory diseases, rhinitis,
and foot and leg problems.(Cramer, 1990b) A 1978–79 survey
of Missouri hog producers demonstrated that hogs raised on pastures
had the lowest health costs. Hogs raised in a mixture
of pasture and confinement had the highest health expenses. This
suggests that the hogs had a difficult time adjusting from one
type of facility to another.(Kliebenstein,
1983)
Raising pigs outdoors
can be more animal friendly and environmentally friendly, if managed
correctly. However, poor management of outdoor pigs will lead to
poor pig performance and environmental damage. Pigs need a dry,
draft-free place to lie down; mud and slop will not produce healthy,
happy hogs. Producers need to be concerned about rotating pastures
and the need for vegetative cover in the pens.
Probiotics (live,
beneficial bacteria)—available
as gels, drenches, dry mixes, or for use in water—can replace
or supplement naturally occurring gut microbes during times of stress
or disease. During periods of stress, such as weaning, shipping,
or changes in weather or feed, the populations of beneficial and
pathogenic microbes can fluctuate, changing the balance in the intestinal
tract.(Carter, 1990) Research on the use of probiotics is not conclusive.
Probiotic firms argue that in laboratory conditions the stress is
not enough to conclusively demonstrate the value of probiotics. Dr.
Austin Lewis, a swine researcher at the University of Nebraska, suggests
that this assumption may be accurate, because laboratory conditions
usually
demonstrate a lower response to antibiotics, too. Many farmers have
observed the benefits of probiotics in their everyday experiences,
but finding research to support probiotic use is difficult.(Cramer,
1990a) Since probiotics must be live to work, they need special care.
Heat, moisture, oxygen, and time can all reduce the viability of
probiotics. It is also important to remember that antibiotics can
kill probiotics’ beneficial bacteria as well as pathogens,
so it is best to check product compatibility.
Back to top
Humane Treatment
Sustainable pork producers need to consider how
the consuming public views their operations. Finishing and gestation
buildings that restrict movement and interaction among pigs have
become targets of media attacks. A sustainable system allows hogs
a chance to pursue their natural
instincts, reduces their stress level with more space to freely
move about, and provides access to either pasture or deep bedding.
The producer must choose a production system that is profitable,
but that also addresses the public’s
concerns about humane treatment of animals, safe food, and a clean
environment. Economics, environmental concerns, and humane treatment
may conflict, so it is usually up to the producers
to reconcile these issues in their operations. Information on humane
treatment of livestock is available from the American Humane Society
at 303–792–9900, www.americanhumane.org; the Animal
Welfare Institute at 703–836–4300, www.awionline.org;
and the Humane Society of the United States at 202–452–1100,
www.hsus.org.
According to the USDA National Organic Program
(NOP) regulations, organic hog producers need to provide living
conditions that accommodate
the health and natural behavior of their animals. These regulations
support concerns for animal welfare, the sustainability of production,
and environmental quality. The methods organic hog farmers use
to meet the NOP requirements can include a wide range of alternative
production
practices. For additional information on humane concerns, please
see ATTRA’s Considerations
in Organic Hog Production, and Further Resources:
Web sites.
Back to top
Summary
A sustainable hog operation is not an end in itself. All aspects
of a farm are tied together. When you are producing pigs in a sustainable
manner, you are using all parts of your farming operation. The
manure or compost is used to help produce the diversified crops
that feed the hogs. Legumes are also used to help feed the livestock
and to add nitrogen back to the cropland. Animals are treated as
parts of a living organism, not just parts of a product. The family
is involved in the whole farm and as a part of the community. Sustainable
agriculture exists in the interaction between the different aspects
of farming; it is not the individual
parts but the interaction among them that makes up the whole farming
operation.
John Ikerd, in his presentation to the 2003 Sustainable
Hog Farming Summit in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, discussed some
of the environmental and social problems associated with vertical
integration.
Thankfully, there are other, better ways to farm and
to raise hogs; the “sustainable agriculture” movement
addresses the need to protect the rural
environment and support rural communities, while providing opportunities
for farmers to earn a decent living. But, sustainable farming takes
more imagination and creativity than contract production – it
requires taking care of each other and taking care of the land. Sustainable
hog producers
all across North America are finding that deep-bedding systems, including
hoop house structures, and pasture based hog production systems often
are not only more humane, ecologically
sound, and socially responsible, but also, are more profitable than
CAFOs. But, such systems require more management, more imagination,
more creativity, more thinking, and thus, are more difficult to “promote” (Ikerd,
2003).
For additional information on any subject mentioned
in this publication, or for information on any other aspect of
sustainable hog production, please contact ATTRA,
the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service.
Back to top
Enclosures
Van Der Pol, Jim. 2001a. Today’s hog won’t work outdoors.
Graze. April. Vol. 7, No. 4.
p. 10-11.
Van Der Pol, Jim. 2001b. Setting up the gestating
sow system. Graze. May. Vol. 7, No. 5.
p. 1, 10.
Van Der Pol, Jim. 2001c. The tools and psychology
of pasture farrowing. Graze. June-July. Vol. 7, No. 6. p. 8-9.
Van
Der Pol, Jim. 2002a. Hogs Improve Swards! Graze. October. Vol.
9, No. 8. p. 10.
Van Der Pol, Jim. 2002b. In search of the perfect
pasture sow. Graze. November. Vol. 9, No. 9.
p. 10.
Van Der Pol, Jim. 2002c. Pastured sow logistics. Graze.
December. Vol. 9, No. 10. p. 10.
Van Der Pol, Jim. 2003. Changing
behavior through genetics. Graze. June-July. Vol. 10, No. 6.
p. 12-13.
Back to top
References
Anon. 1987. Save gestation feed with pasture system. National
Hog Farmer. May 15.
p. 16, 18.
Anon. 1989. Raw lupines are fine for hogs. The New Farm.
May–June. p. 8.
Anon. 1990a. Gilts help put profit in pigs
on pasture. Sensible Agriculture. November.
p. 6–7.
Anon. 1990b. Popcorn replaces yellow corn in starter,
grow-finish diets. National Hog Farmer.
February 15. p. 42
Anon. 1993. Buckwheat can replace corn in swine
rations. High Plains Journal. July 19.
p. 17-B.
Anon. 2002a. Barley production in Alberta: Harvesting.
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 8 p.
www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/crop1256?OpenDocument#7
Anon.
2002b. Odor is more than what meets the nose. Inside Agroforesty.
Spring. p. 4–5.
Anon. 2003a. Swine scientist: ‘Wal-Mart
effect’
creates niches for family farms. The Land Stewardship Letter. December.
p. 9.
www.landstewardshipproject.org/lsl/lspv21n5.pdf (PDF)
Anon. 2003b. Hogs
on pasture—The future of pork. Acres USA. September. p. 1,
8–9.
Anon. 2004a. Checkoff analysis of USDA price data. National
Pork Board News Release. Thursday, March 4. 2 p.
www.porkboard.org/News/NewsEdit.asp?NewsID=403
Anon. 2004b. Iowa
EPC adopts controversial P index. Pork Magazine Industrial News.
June 28. 1 p.
http://www.porkmag.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=2797&component_id=805
Carter,
Heidi. 1990. Probiotics can be an economical
and effective part of livestock health. The Kerr Center for Sustainable
Agriculture Newsletter. August. p. 1.
Colletti, Joe, and John Tyndall. 2002. Shelterbelts:
an answer to growing odor concerns? Inside Agroforestry. Spring.
p. 3, 7.
Cramer, Craig. 1987. Profitable pigs—on pasture.
The New Farm. January. p. 26–29.
Cramer, Craig. 1990a. Healthy
livestock with fewer drugs. The New Farm. February. p. 23, 26–30.
Cramer,
Craig. 1990b. Profitable pork on pasture.
The New Farm. May-June. p. 15-18.
DiGiacomo, Gigi. 1995. Factory
farms are poor rural development tools. Farm Aid News. March 21.
5 p.
Gdigiacomo@igc.apc.org
Gentry, Jessica G., Mark F. Miller, and
John J. McGlone. 2001. Alternative production systems:
Influence on pig growth pork quality. Pork Industry Institute,
Texas Tech University. 18 p.
www.depts.ttu.edu/porkindustryinstitute/research/
Brazil%20paper%20Meats%20&%20Envt%20single%20spaced.htm
Golz,
Theresa, and Dwight Aarke. 1993. Lupin.
North Dakota State University Extension. 9 p.
www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/alt-ag/lupin.htm
Gralla, Shawn. 1991.
Fit for a Pig—Low-Cost/Sustainable Strategies of Resourceful
Hog Farmers. Center for Rural Affairs, Hartington, Nebraska. p.
25.
Hamscher, Gerd, Heike Theresia Pawelzick, Silke Sczesny, Heinz
Nau, and Jorg Hartung. 2003. Antibiotics in dust originating from
a pig-fattening farm: A new source of health hazard for farmers?
Environmental Health Perspectives. October. p. 1590–1594.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/
2003/6288/6288.pdf (PDF)
Hillyer, Gregg, and Jim Phillips.
2002. Squeeze play. Progressive Farmer. December.
p. 20–22.Ikerd, John. 2001. Economic fallacies of industrial
hog production. 8 p.
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/EconFallacies-Hogs.htm
Ikerd, John. 2003. Hogs, economics, and rural communities. 6 p.
http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/HogSummit.htm
Jacobson,
Larry, David Schmidt, and Susan Wood. 2002. OFFSET—Odor
From Feedlots Setback Estimation Tool. University of Minnesota.
10 p.
www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/DI7680.html
Jeaurond, Eric, Janice Murphy, and Kees de Lange.
2003. No adverse effects from feeding roasted green soybeans.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2 p.
www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/swine/facts/info_n_feedsoy.htm
Johnson,
Lee J., Sally Noll, Antonio Renteria, and Jerry Shurson. 2003.
Feeding by-products high in concentration of fiber to nonruminants.
26 p. In: Proc. 3rd National Alternative Feeds Sym. Western Regional Coordinating Committee, Kansas City, MO. November, 2003. http://wcroc.coafes.umn.edu/Swine/KC_Fiber%20paper.pdf (PDF) (Link no longer active.)
Kelsey, Darwin.
2003. Small farms key to sustainable
farming. ALBC News. July–August. p. 2.
Kliebenstein, J.B.
et al. 1983. A survey of swine production health problems and health
maintenance
expenditures. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. Vol. 1. p. 357–369.
Klober,
Kelly. 2003. Downsizing and free spirits, and Larger is not the
answer [sidebar]. Small Farm Today. September. p. 22–23.
Landblom,
D. G., W. W. Poland, B. Nelson, and E. Janzen. 2001. 2001 Annual
Report–Swine Section. Dickinson Research Extension Center.
5 p.
www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/dickinso/research/2000/swine00c.htm
Lawrence,
John, and Glenn Grimes. 2000. Producer
and production profile. In: Pork Facts 2002/2003. National Pork
Board, Des Moines, Iowa. p. 12.
http://www.pork.org/Producers/2002-3%20PORK%20FACTS%20BK.pdf
Luce, William
G., and Charles V. Maxwell. 1996. Using mung beans in swine diets.
Oklahoma
State University Extension. F-3506. 2 p.
Martin, Andrew. 2004. Survey finds 3% of farms are thriving. Chicago
Tribune. Friday, June 4.
Maulsby, Darcy. 2003a. Fred Kirschenmann
addresses the disappearing middle. 3 p.
http://newfarm.org/depts/talking_shop/1203/biodynamic2.shtml
Maulsby, Darcy Dougherty. 2003b. Iowa pork
producers focus on animal welfare. The New Farm. Downloaded July
2004.
http://newfarm.org/features/0103/wilson_hogs/
Moeller, David. 2003.
Livestock production contracts: Risks for family farmers. Farmers’
Legal Action Group, Inc. March 22. 13 p.
http://flaginc.org/topics/pubs/arts/artcf005.pdf (PDF)
Murphy,
Janice. 2003. Flax – The health-giving
facts. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 3 p.
www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/swine/facts/info_flax.htm
Nation,
H. Allan. 1989. A year-round forage program for pigs. The Stockman
Grass Farmer. September. p. 22.
Nation, H. Allan. 1988a. Pastured
pigs. The Stockman Grass Farmer. August. p. 6.
Nation, H. Allan.
1988b. Pastured pigs. The Stockman Grass Farmer. October. p. 18.
Oates,
Bryce, and Rhonda Perry. 2003a. Exploring
sustainable hog production methods for Missouri farmers. In Motion
Magazine. March 18.
www.inmotionmagazine.com/ra03/minn.html
Racz, Vernon, and Leigh
Campbell. 1995. Winter Cereal Production: Rye. University of Saskatchewan.
3 p.
www.usask.ca/agriculture/plantsci/winter_cereals/winter_rye/Rye2.htm
Smith,
Rod. 1998a. Divisiveness of hog odor issue could have social–tragic
results. Feedstuffs.
June 1. p. 1, 22
Smith, Rod. 1998b. Pork producers on schedule
to increase production 40%. Feedstuffs. June 15. p. 1, 5.
Stumo,
Michael C. 2003. Agricultural consolidation
and the Smithfield-Farmland deal. Written testimony of the private
Organization
for Competitive Markets presented to the United States Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competitive Policy and Consumer
Rights. July 23.
www.competitivemarkets.com/news_and_events/press_releases/2003/7-23.htm
Talbott,
Chuck. 2003. Finding the lost taste of pork—Our small-scale
hog producer project. ALBC News. January–February. p. 3.
Thaler,
Bob, and Hans Stein. 2003. Using South Dakota grown field peas
in swine diets. South Dakota State University Extension. ExEx 2041.
December. 2 p.
http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx2041.pdf (PDF)
Thompson, Nancy.
1997. Are large hog operations
good for rural communities? Center for Rural Affairs Newsletter.
November. p. 3–4.
Tishmack, Jody, and Don Jones. 2003. Meeting
the challenges of swine manure management. BioCycle. October. p.
24–27.
Van Der Pol, Jim. 2002. Pastured sow logistics. Graze.
December. p. 10
Whelan, Amanda. 2003. High levels of H2S in swine
barns is a concern. Bacon Bits. June 2.
2 p.
www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/newslett.nsf/all/bb3148?OpenDocument (Link no longer active.)
Back to top
Further Resources
Contacts
Charles (Chuck) Talbott
Adjunct Assistant Professor
North Carolina A&T State University
101 Webb Hall
Greensboro, NC 27411
336–334–7672
Administers the NC A&T free-range program
that has been working with small-scale operations
producing hogs in woodlots and pastures. Establishing a market
with Niman Ranch Pork Co. of Thornton, Iowa.
Pork Niche Marketing
Working Group (PNMWP)
Practical Farmers of Iowa
Gary Huber–CoordinatorBox 349
Ames, IA 50010
515–232–5661, ext. 103
gary@practicalfarmers.org
www.pnmwg.org
The PNMWP works to address the challenges
facing niche pork efforts. Its mission is to foster the success
of highly differentiated pork value chains that are profitable
to all participants, that incorporate farmer ownership and control,
and that contribute to environmental stewardship and rural vitality.
Alternative
Swine Production
Systems Program
Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture
Wayne Martin–Program Coordinator
385 Animal Science/Vet Med
1988 Fitch Avenue
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108
877–ALT–HOGS (toll-free)
612–625–6224
marti067@tc.umn.edu
www.misa.umn.edu/About_the_Alternative_Swine_Program.html
Web
site devoted to providing information on alternative swine programs
in Minnesota. The mission of the Alternative Swine Production Systems
Program is to promote the research and development of low-emission
and low-energy swine housing such as hoop structures, deep-bedded
systems, and outdoor/pasture based systems. The Alternative Swine
Production Systems Program seeks to develop relationships among
farmers, researchers, and educators to research and promote alternative
swine systems that are profitable, environmentally friendly, and
help support rural communities in Minnesota.
Mark S. Honeyman, Associate Professor
Iowa State Research Farms
Iowa State University
B-1 Curtiss Hall
Ames, IA 50011-1050
515–294-4621 or 515–294-3849
515–294-6210 FAX
honeyman@iastate.edu
Coordinator of Iowa State University Research
and Demonstration Farms and Associate Professor
in the Department of Animal Science. Has written many articles
and publications on sustainable and organic hog production and
is researching hooped shelters and the Swedish deep-bedded group
farrowing systems.
Web sites
Pork Industry Institute—Texas Tech
University
www.depts.ttu.edu/porkindustryinstitute
Web site provides
extensive information on sustainable outdoor pork production.
Has many articles and information from research done at Texas
Tech by John McGlone and other researchers.
Iowa Pork Industry
Center Home Page
www.extension.iastate.edu/ipic
Has on-line Iowa
Swine Research Reports for 1998 to 2002, with many parts of the
reports related
to sustainable hog production, along with many other sources
of information dealing with all aspects of hog production.
Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture
www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/grants/files/2002-PNMWG5_alt_production_AR.pdf (PDF)
2003 Annual Report, Alternative Swine Cost of Production Project (3/8/04),
analyzes records
from eight niche pork producers to provide
information about cost of production in a sustainable pork operation.
The data shows that cost of production from niche market producers
is comparable to the cost of production from conventional producers.
Minnesota Department of Administration/Environmental
Quality Board
www.eqb.state.mn.us/geis/
Ten on-line technical working
papers exploring major environmental topics related to animal
agriculture, including Farm Animal Health and Well-Being (312
pages), Impacts of Animal Agriculture on Water Quality (187 pages),
Air Quality and Odor Impact (140 pages), and Human Health
Issues (126 pages).
Animal Welfare Institute—Alternative Farming
Systems for Pigs Page
www.awionline.org/farm/alt-farming.html#pigs
Provides
a bibliography that lists many sources of published information
on alternative hog production techniques—many in full text.
National
Pork Board
www.pork.org/NewsAndInformation/News/Publications/pubIssues.aspx?id=85
Has
on-line 2002 Swine Care Handbook that provides ethical management
practices for hog producers.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture Grants Projects
www.mda.state.mn.us/esap/Greenbook.html
Has
on-line the 1999 to 2002 Greenbook that lists all completed grant
projects of the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture Grants
Programs—many related to small-scale alternative
hog production techniques.
Pigs on Pasture—the Gunthorp Farm
Home Page
www.grassfarmer.com/pigs/gunthorp.html
Three on-line documents
sharing insights and experiences about raising pigs on pasture.
Organic
Valley, Brand name for CROPP (Coulee Region Organic Produce Pool)
Cooperative
www.organicvalley.coop/member/requirements_pork.html
Provides info about member requirements and pork production
standards.
John E. Ikerd Home Page
http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/default.htm
On-line
listing of many of Ikerd’s recent papers and publications,
such as Economic Fallacies of Industrial Hog Production; Hogs,
Economics,
and Rural Communities; Corporate Hog Production: The Colonization
of Rural America; and many others.
Farmers’ Legal Action Group,
Inc.
http://flaginc.org/
Several livestock contracting publications, including the on-line
publication Livestock Production Contracts: Risks for Family
Farmers.
University
of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign: Illinois
Specialty Farm Products Page
http://web.aces.uiuc.edu/value/contracts/livestock.htm
On-line
template Livestock Production Contracts: Check List of Important
Considerations.
Environmental Health Science Research Center—University
of Iowa
www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm
On-line report Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Air
Quality Study.
Back to top
Publications
University of Minnesota Extension Distribution Center
publications:
Designing Feeding Programs for Natural
and Organic Pork Production. 2002. By Bob Koehler.
BU-07736. 18 p. $8.00 or view at
www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/DI7736.html
Swine Source Book: Alternatives for Pork Producers.
1999. By Wayne Martin. PC-07289. Three-ringed binder. $30.00.
Hogs
Your Way: Choosing a Hog Production System in the Upper Midwest.
2001. By Paul Bergh. BU-07641. 88 p. $5.00 or view at www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/components/DI7641.pdf (PDF)
OFFSET—Odor From Feedlots Setback Estimation
Tool. 2001. By Larry Jacobson, David Schmidt, and Susan Wood. FO-07680.
9 p. $1.50 or view at www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/DI7680.html
Order from:
Extension Distribution Center
405 Coffey Hall
1420 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108-6068
800–876–8636
612–624–4900
612–625–6281 FAX
www.extension.umn.edu
The Land Stewardship Project publications:
An
Agriculture that Makes Sense: Making Money on Hogs. 1996.
By Jodi Dansingburg and Doug Gunnink. 8 p. $4.00.
A Gentler Way – Sows on Pasture.
1994. By Dwight and Beck Ault. 23 p. Free with An Agriculture
that Makes Sense: Making Money on Hogs.
Anitibiotics, Agriculture & Resistance.
2002. By Brian DeVore. 12 p. $5.00 or view a copy at www.landstewardshipproject.org/pdf/antibio_reprint.pdf (PDF)
Killing Competition with Captive Supplies: A Special
Report on How Meat Packers are Forcing
Independent Family Hog Farmers Out of the Market Through Exclusive
Contracts. 1999. By Anne DeMeurisse and Lynn Hayes. 47 p. $6.00.
Order
from:
Land Stewardship Project
2200 Fourth Street
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
651–653–0618
www.landstewardshipproject.org
Books
Delmar Learning:
Pig Production: Biological Principles and Applications.
2003. By John McGlone and Wilson G. Pond. Delmar Publishers. 480
p. $95.95. ISBN/ISNN: 0-8273-8484-X
Order from:
Delmar Learning
5 Maxwell Drive
Clifton Park, NY 12065-2919
800–347–7707
http://www.delmarlearning.com/browse_catalog.aspx?cat1ID=AG&cat2ID=AN
The National Academies Press:
Nutrient
Requirements of Swine: 10th Revised
Edition. 1998. Subcommittee on Swine Nutrition, National Research
Council. 210 p. $44.95 or view at http://books.nap.edu/html/swine/swine.pdf (PDF)
Order
from:
National Academy Press
500 Fifth Street, NW
Lockbox 285
Washington, DC 20055
888–624–8333
202–334–2451 FAX
customer_service@nap.edu
University of Nebraska Press:
Raising a
Stink—The
Struggle over Factory Hog Farms in Nebraska. 2003. By Carolyn Johnsen.
181 p. $21.95 plus $5.00 shipping.
Order from:
University of Nebraska Press
233 North 8th Street
Lincoln, NE 68588-0255
800–755–1105 (toll-free)
402–472-3584
www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/bookinfo/4371.html
Other Books:
The following books are available from bookstores
and on-line booksellers. If a book is listed as out-of-print, you
may be able to obtain it through Interlibrary Loan; check with
your local librarian. You may also be able to buy a copy through
an on-line used-book search site such as www.bookfinder.com.
Storey’s
Guide to Raising Pigs. 2000. By Kelly Klober. 313 p. Storey Publishing.
North Adams, ME.
A Guide to Raising Pigs. 1997. By Kelly Klober.
313 p. Storey Publishing, Pownal, VT.
Raising Pigs Successfully.
1985. By Kathy and Bob Kellogg. 192 p. Williamson Publishing.
Charlotte, VT.
Small-Scale Pig Raising. 1978. By Dirk van
Loon. 263 p. A Garden Way Publishing Book, Storey Communications,
Inc. Pownal, VT.
Raising the Homestead Hog. 1977. By Jerome
D. Belanger. 226 p. Rodale Press. Emmaus, PA. Out of Print.
Magazines
Feedstuffs
P.O. Box 3017
Wheaton, IL 60189-9947
800–441–1410 or 630–462–2224
circhelp@feedstuff.com
Subscribe on-line at www.Feedstuffs.com
Weekly publication. Subscription
rate $135/year. Reference issue copy $40.
Graze
P.O. Box 48
Belleville, WI 53508
608–455–3311
graze@mhtc.net
www.grazeonline.com
Ten issues a year. Subscription rate $30/year.
Free sample copy available.
Small Farm Today
3903 W. Ridge Trail Road
Clark, MO 652243-9525
800–633–2535
573–687–3148 FAX
smallfarm@socket.net
www.smallfarmtoday.com
Bi-monthly publication. Subscription rate
$23.95/year.
Video
Pork, The Other Producers: A Better Way To Raise Hogs
This
41-minute video examines the changes in hog production and what
it means for family farmers and rural communities. Production systems
requiring lower amounts of capital—
especially important for beginning farmers—are presented
as alternatives to the large-scale, corporate
structure of production. 1998/45 minutes #V3 $10.00
Order from:
Center for Rural Affairs
145 Main Street
P.O. Box 135
Lyons, NE 68038
402–687–2100 or 402–687–2200
info@cfra.org
www.cfra.org
Appendix
The two tables from Janice Murphy’s 2003 Ontario Ministry
of Agriculture and Food Factsheet Comparative Feed Values for
Swine tables show the "Nutrient Composition and Suggested
Maximum Inclusion" and "Factors Affecting Inclusion Rate
of Alternative Feed Ingredients for Swine." The publication
and tables are available at www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/swine/facts/03-003.htm#relevant.
The tables include many of the alternative energy and protein sources
mentioned above that are used in Canada. Some of the ingredients
common in southern United States hog rations are not listed in
this table.
By Lance Gegner
NCAT Agriculture Specialist
November 2004
© NCAT
2004
Edited by Paul Williams
Formatted by John Webb
IP 019
Slot
85
Version 111804
Back to top |