Your AgStar FSO
Mark Greenwood
Email: Mark.Greenwood@AgStar.com
Phone: 507-381-0968
AgStar Client Services: 1-866-577-1831

Vice President of Agri-Business Capital, Team Leader

Named as one of National Hog Farmer’s Visionaries of the US Pork Industry in 2005, Mark is Vice President of Agri-Business Capital at AgStar. Mark is a leading swine expert with a world-class reputation and is in high demand as a speaker on economic issues concerning the swine industry. He regularly shares his knowledge and experience at industry conferences throughout the United States, Europe, South America and Canada. He also works on government relations on behalf of the National Pork Council.

Born and raised on a hog farm in Southern Minnesota, Mark has worked in the swine industry his entire business career. In addition to his practical on the farm experience, he also earned Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration and a minor in Economics from Mankato State University.

<a href=”http://swineweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Greenwood_Mark.jpg” onclick=”return TrackClick(‘http%3A%2F%2Fswineweb.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FGreenwood_Mark.jpg’,'Greenwood_Mark’)”><img title=”Greenwood_Mark” src=”http://swineweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Greenwood_Mark-243×300.jpg” alt=”" width=”243″ height=”300″ /></a>

Your AgStar FSO
Mark Greenwood
Email: Mark.Greenwood@AgStar.com
Phone: 507-381-0968
AgStar Client Services: 1-866-577-1831

Vice President of Agri-Business Capital, Team Leader

Named as one of National Hog Farmer’s Visionaries of the US Pork Industry in 2005, Mark is Vice President of Agri-Business Capital at AgStar. Mark is a leading swine expert with a world-class reputation and is in high demand as a speaker on economic issues concerning the swine industry. He regularly shares his knowledge and experience at industry conferences throughout the United States, Europe, South America and Canada. He also works on government relations on behalf of the National Pork Council.

Born and raised on a hog farm in Southern Minnesota, Mark has worked in the swine industry his entire business career. In addition to his practical on the farm experience, he also earned Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration and a minor in Economics from Mankato State University.

AgStar’s Mark Greenwood discusses his views on shared learning between lenders and clients and introduces a new member of the AgStar Swine Team.

Bookmark With:

Observations by the author at slaughter plants and farms all over the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia indicate that producers are responsible for about 50% of the pale, soft, and exudative (PSE) pork on the market, and packers are responsible for the other 50%. Surveys conducted in slaughter plants in two different countries indicated that PSE levels varied over 100% between different producers.

Genetics is probably the single most important factor contributing to the prevalence of PSE pork today. Some pork-grading systems motivate producers to breed pigs that carry the stress gene. These animals have maximum lean and weight gain (Aalhus et al .,1991). Unfortunately, they also have high levels of PSE. Some of the highest levels of PSE were recorded in hybrid pigs, which had been selected for leanness and rapid growth. The breeding companies have recognized the problem and have taken steps to produce lines that will have lower levels of PSE. DNA testing methods will enable the PSS (porcine stress syndrome) gene to be eliminated (Sellers, 1993).

At one plant, a certain line of commercially available hybrid pigs constituted 10% of the pigs received each day. Ninety percent of the pigs that were dead on arrival or died in the yards came from these hybrids. Genetics has a large effect on death losses (Murray et al., 1998). Genetics is not the sole explanation for differences between producers. A survey conducted at a vertically integrated operation indicated that PSE levels varied 5-10 percentage points among producers who raised identical pigs in identical buildings. Handling, management, and transport also had an effect. Several surveys have shown that pigs transported a short distance will have more PSE compared to pigs transported a longer distance. Observations by the author have indicated that pigs hauled very short distances for under 30 minutes are often more stubborn and difficult to drive at the plant compared to pigs hauled longer distances (Grandin, 1993a). Pigs hauled long distances are more likely to have DFD (dark firm dry) meat because glycogen stores become depleted.

PSE can be reduced by fasting pigs 12 to 24 hours prior to slaughter (Warris and Bevis, 1987; Eikelenboom et al.,1990). Pigs should have access to water at all times. To reduce the possibility of carcass weight loss, a shorter fasting period of 12 hours prior to stunning and slaughter is recommended (Grandin, 1993).

Excitable pigs

There are problems with excitable pigs. The leanest animals with large muscles often have the worst excitability problems. Shea-Moore (1998) found that high lean pigs were more fearful. These pigs often have the worst meat quality problems. Pork from stress gene pigs which are grown to heavy weights is tougher and drier than pork from pigs which are stress gene free (Monin et al., 1999). Excitable pigs are very difficult to handle at the slaughter plant. This creates both meat quality and welfare problems. Handling excitable pigs at 1000 per hour in a single file race is difficult to do quietly. Some plants have installed two stunners to improve handling. Fortunately some of the vertically integrated companies have removed the stress gene from their herds. This has resulted in calmer pigs which are easier to handle. They are now breeding pigs for quality instead of quantity.

Handling of pigs can also be improved by installing a system which eliminates the single file races. The Danes have developed a CO₂ stunning system where pigs are stunned in groups. Cattle move very easily through a single file race because their natural behavior while walking from pasture to pasture is to move in single file. Pigs do not have the instinct to walk in single file. When pig excitability increased, problems with single file races increased. When pig excitability is reduced single file races will have fewer problems.

Many excitable pigs are animals that have been raised in confinement (Grandin, 1993). Genetics is a major factor. Observations by the author in identical pig confinement buildings and in the same slaughter plant indicated that changing genetics improved handling. Pigs with a calmer temperament were easier to handle and PSE was reduced. There is a definite need for breeding companies to select pigs for temperament. This is especially important for pigs raised in confinement.

In confinement buildings, producers must provide pigs with more environmental stimulation. Providing confinement pigs with additional environmental enrichment, such as toys and people entering the pens, produced calmer pigs that were easier to drive (Grandin,1989; Pederen,1993). Producers need to eliminate practices such as keeping pigs in darkened rooms. Playing a radio in the building can help get pigs accustomed to sounds. Pigs that have been finished in a pen with a radio playing at a reasonable volume are less likely to be startled by sudden noises.

Producers should walk in the finishing pens every day to get the pigs accustomed to handling. The person should quielty walk through each pen in a different random direction each day to teach the pigs to quietly flow around them. The person should not stand in the pen and allow pigs to chew on their clothes. This trains the pigs to approach and chew instead of driving. Geverink et al (1998) reported that confinement pigs which have been driven in the aisle during finishing were easier to handle. Moving pigs out of their finishing pen one month prior to slaughter improved their willingness to move (Abbott et al., 1997)

Observations by the author have also indicated that raising finishing pigs on plastic or metal floors produces animals that are hard to drive because they do not know how to walk on concrete. Plastic or metal floors work well for young pigs, but during the final finishing phase, confinement pigs should be raised on a concrete surface. Producers must also avoid producing pigs with a high incidence of either hernias or spraddle legs. Both of these conditions have a strong genetic component.

Slaughter plant factors

After pigs arrive at the plant, handling and chilling practices will have a large effect on the incidence of PSE. I estimate that handling practices account for 10%-15% of the variation in PSE, and chilling practices account 20%-40%.

Improvements in handling practices have enabled several plants to ship 10% more pork to Japan. These handling procedures will reduce PSE:

• Schedule trucks to prevent delays during unloading. Heat builds up rapidly in a stationary truck. Do not overload trucks. 
• Rest pigs for 2-4 hours prior to slaughter (Malmfors, 1982; Milligan et al., 1996). Trucks must be scheduled to allow adequate resting time. 
• Shower with cool water during hot weather (Smulders et al.,1983). 
• Handle gently in the stunning chute. Rough handling during the last 5 minutes prior to slaughter increases PSE, because pigs become overheated. Handlers must be taught behavioral principles of pig handling. Over-exertion and excitement shortly prior to stunning increases PSE in stress-resistant pigs that do not have the stress gene (Sayre, 1963; Barton-Gade, 1985). 
• Reduce or eliminate electric prods in the stunning area. Stressful handling shortly before slaughter will damage meat quality (Warriss et al., 1990; D’Souza et al., 1998; Van der Wal, 1997). 
• Reduced squealing in the stunning area will help reduce both PSE and bloodsplash. Squealing is associated with increased stress and lower meat quality (Warriss et al, 1994). The last five to ten minutes prior to stunning is most critical for reducing PSE. 
• Fill the crowd (forcing) pen which leads up to the single file race only half full. Move smallgroups fo pigs. In group stunning systems the staging areas that leads into the stunning areas should be filled half full. Pigs need room to turn. 
• Replace electric prods with other driving aids such as flags, panels, or paddles. 
• Eliminate distractions which make pigs balk and refuse to move such as air drafts blowing in their faces, sparkling reflections on the floor, shadows or small moving objects such as chains. If pigs constantly back up, the distraction that is scaring them must be removed (Grandin, 2000, 1996). See the behavior section of this webpage.

Lower temperature

Gentle handling, rest, and showering helps lower body temperature. Pigs that are overheated are more likely to have PSE or DFD meat (Gariepy, 1989). Heat damages the meat, both in live pigs and shortly after slaughter, making proper chilling important. Sometimes carcasses are jammed together or there is insufficient refrigeration. Some managers make the mistake of maximizing pig numbers by overloading the cooler. They are saving a few pennies on numbers and throwing dollar bills away in carcass shrink losses. It is easier to quantify pigs per hour and person hours than shrink loss and customer dissatisfaction. The industry needs to change its mind set and eliminate the “ram and jam” mentality. To succeed in the marketplace of tomorrow, quality must come first and quantity second.

Segmented market

A segmented market causes losses to be passed from the producer to the next person in the marketing chain. A producer who sells pigs live-weight has no motivation to improve quality. Live-weight selling or a carcass marketing system that fails to reward quality are the major causes of quality problems. The producer gets the wrong economic incentives. Some grading systems reward lean, highly muscled pigs with high levels of PSE. The electronic probes currently being used by the packing plants measure fat thickness and the size of the loin, but there is no PSE measurement. This motivates the producer to select breeding stock for rapid gain, leanness, and muscle growth. These selection pressures have resulted in high levels of PSE because pigs carrying the stress gene are kept as breeding stock. The swine industry needs to use an accurate method for measuring PSE so that a PSE measurement can be added to the fat and loin eye size measurements. The producer must be financially rewarded for producing lean pigs with low levels of PSE. Changing the carcass measurement and payment system to include PSE measurement will motivate producers to reduce the incidence of the stress gene in their herds. The bottom line is that the producer has to be financially rewarded for producing quality pork instead of maximum tonnage.

Bloodsplash

Bloodsplash is damage to the meat caused by either small pinpoint haemorrhages or large blood clots in the meat. It is a severe cosmetic defect that affects the appearance of the meat. Haemorrhage problems are mainly caused by problems inside the plant, but nutritional factors such as low levels of selenium and vitamin E may possibly contribute to it by weakening capillary walls. Lean pigs often have more problems with bloodsplash.

These procedures have effectively reduced bloodsplash in many plants which use electric stunning:

• For electric stunning, use an amperage power supply where the amperage remains constant and voltage varies with pig resistance. Old fashioned voltage-regulated stunners allow amperage spikes that damage the meat. Some plants have built their own electronic constant amperage power supplies. These units can lower bloodsplash over 100%. To ensure good animal welfare, a minimum of 1.25 amps must be used to reliably induce a grand mal seizure and produce instantaneous unconsciousness (Hoenderken, 1983). For large market pigs, a minimum of 300 volts should be used and slightly lower voltages can be used for lighter market pigs (Hoenderken, 1983; Gregory, 1988). Some plants have attempted to reduce bloodsplash by reducing amperage to 0.5 amps. This must never be permitted because scientific research has shown that low amperages or frequencies over 800 Hz fail to induce instantaneous unconsciousness. 
• Bleeding a pig within 10 seconds after stunning will reduce bloodsplash. Prone sticking systems accomplish this, but older, hanging sticking systems sometimes have intervals of over 30 seconds. Quick bleeding also improves animal welfare because it reduces the possibility of an animal reviving (Hoenderken, 1983; Blackmore and Newhook, 1981). 
• The operator must be careful to avoid double stunning and causing the pig to contract more than once (Grandin, 1985/86). Double stunning can be caused by allowing the stunning applicator to slide during the stun or turning on the electricity before the applicator is pressed firmly against the pig. The pig should not squeal when the stunner is applied. 
• Worn cords and switches should be replaced. Slight disruptions in electrical continuity will cause bloodsplash. Wet cords can also cause problems. 
• Reduce electric prod usage. In a research trial, elimination of electric prods reduced bloodsplash (Calkins et al.,1980). 
• CO₂ stunning will reduce bloodsplash (Velarde et al., 1999). The disadvantage is that it is expensive to operate and it requires well trained maintenance technicians.

Other Factors

Both PSE and bloodsplash will fluctuate with weather changes. Observations by the author indicate that PSE levels may double during the first 4 hot days of spring. Bloodsplash tends to worsen when temperatures fluctuate. It is very important to take weather into account when new methods for reducing PSE or bloodsplash are being tested. In one study, the amount of bloodsplash reduction benefit provided by new handling and stunning procedures greatly fluctuated, depending on the weather (Grandin, 1988). On some days, it provided great reductions in bloodsplash and on other days, almost no reduction. The procedures must be tested over a period of weeks to eliminate confounding effects of weather.

Bloodsplash can be reduced by the use of CO2 stunning (Velarde et al., 1999). Recent observations in a plant equipped with both state-of-the-art CO2 and constant amperage electrical stunning equipment indicated that PSE and bloodsplash levels were almost identical. CO2 definitely reduces bloodsplash compared to old-fashioned voltage regulated electrical stunning equipment. New CO2 stunning systems could provide handling advantages by eliminating the need to line pigs up in single-file chutes. However, there have been concerns about humaneness (Hoenderken, 1983). Some genetic lines of pigs react very well to CO2 and others may possibly be stressed. The Yorkshire breed reacts very well (Forslid, 1987), but stress-susceptible pigs may possibly be conscious during the initial excitation phase (Troeger and Waltersdorf, 1991). Therefore, CO2 may be an excellent method in a vertically integrated system where pig genetics could be controlled, but animal welfare may be poor for certain genetic types of pigs.

Conclusions

The biggest problem facing some segments of the industry is the emphasis on quantity rather than quality. Producers need to be provided with a marketing system that provides economic incentives to improve pork quality rather than just grow heavier pigs. In the 90′s the “mind set” of a large segment of the United States pork industry was commodity based. The entire mind set of the industry needs to change from commodity-based to consumer-based. When this occurs, new procedures will be developed quickly. Fortunately, the industry has become more quality oriented and this has resulted in improvements in pig handling and changes in genetics.

Until this happens, nobody will be motivated to invest the time or the money to change systems.

Bookmark With:

The ethanol economy remains strong and healthy, even without the blenders’ credit and the import tariff which expired at the end of 2011.  There were few that would have imagined that several years ago, based on the strength of the lobbying efforts of the corn and ethanol associations.  However, the lack of expected competition from Brazil has been the reason for today’s ethanol market.  That market has US ethanol being shipped to Brazil, just the opposite of what had been predicted.  But how long will that be the case, and could it change?

Global ethanol production has increased substantially in the past decade to provide an alternative to fossil fuels, and many governmental policies around the world indicate that trend may continue, says a recent article in Amber Waves, an electronic magazine from USDA’s Economics Research Service.  Their focus was on Brazil, which is the world’s second largest ethanol producer, behind the US.  But Brazilian ethanol is produced from sugarcane, instead of corn or biomass.  The reason is an increased capacity to produce cane and supportive government policies for the conversion to ethanol. “But Brazil will need to sustain production growth in the ethanol sector in order to meet increasing domestic demand and maintain its export share,” say the USDA economists.

But before ethanol, which was a large market for sugarcane in the 1970’s, was the global sugar market, and Brazil is the world’s largest sugarcane producer.  With the introduction of ethanol, the conversion was easy with a good climate, abundant land and labor, public demand and public policies that were supportive.  Continual production improvements have made sugarcane a large and profitable crop.  In 2010 ethanol was consuming 55% of the sugarcane being produced in Brazil.  The allocation of how much sugarcane goes to ethanol and how much to sugar production is determined by cane millers based on expected sugar and ethanol prices and the market demand.  There are 430 plants that convert sugarcane into ethanol in Brazil, a doubling of production in the past decade.  27 billion liters—7 billion gallons—of ethanol was produced in Brazil in 2010.

By 2008 Brazil was exporting 19% of its production, but that was a peak, and numbers have declined to 7% in 2010.  But once a supplier of 62% of global exports, that volume has declined substantially due to strong domestic demand for ethanol and increased global sugar prices which pulled more of the sugarcane away from the ethanol refineries into the sugar refineries.

(Jib, one of the frequent commenters here suggested that a Brazilian policy toward increased sugar production would have a positive impact for the US ethanol industry.  He said, “World production of sugar, on average, may have a hard time meeting consumption. Brazil is projected to have to move from producing 1 in 5 pounds of the world’s sugar in 2006 to 1 in 4 by 2015. The increased sugar demand for non-fuel consumption may keep it out of fuel production. This may help keep US corn moving into US ethanol production. Brazil’s great plan of supplying the world ethanol could find a delay with the increasing food demand.”

In response, University of Illinois marketing specialist Darrel Good said, “World sugar production problems and high sugar prices have cut into Brazilian ethanol production for more than a year now and is on-going. U.S has picked up that ethanol export demand.  Eventually, high sugar prices will result in surplus production and a return to Brazilian ethanol exports—just don’t know when.”

Brazil has government policies promoting ethanol, including flex fuel cars, mandatory blending targets, tax exemptions, and other incentives, along with incentives to sugarcane producers to ensure ethanol is produced.  However, Brazil also has some long term plans for ethanol exports, helped by a target of increasing ethanol production by 45% over the coming decade.  But the ERS economists say, “However, Brazil’s ability to provide the bulk of the world’s import needs will depend on its domestic ethanol demand, world sugar and oil prices, Brazil’s currency exchange rate, and the capacity of its infrastructure to move ethanol to ports.”

World sugar prices are a key to whether Brazil becomes an ethanol competitor to the US.  USDA says, “When the sugar price is high, more sugarcane is used for sugar; lower sugar prices favor conversion of sugarcane to ethanol. In late 2010, when the world sugar price fell to under 14 cents per pound from a 29-year high of 30 cents per pound earlier that year, the share of sugarcane used for ethanol rebounded.”

The economists say in the future, sugar and crude oil prices will need to remain at levels that encourage ethanol production, if Brazil is to be an ethanol exporter.  But as Darrel Good notes, high sugar prices will encourage higher production and Brazil may be producing both sugar and ethanol for export.

Summary:
Brazil has an abundant supply of sugar cane and has been a global supplier of sugar, as well as a recent supplier of ethanol made from sugar cane.  Brazil had been seen as a significant competitor to corn-based ethanol in the US, but more US is being shipped to Brazil than is Brazilian ethanol coming to the US.  Future pricing of sugar and oil will influence whether Brazil becomes a sugar exporter or an ethanol exporter.

Bookmark With:

CORN futures on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) finished down on Monday. MAR’12 futures closed at $6.316/bu; down 10.0^¢/bu but 11.75^¢/bu over this time last week. The DEC’12 contract closed at $5.646/bu; off 6.25^¢/bu but 8.5^¢/bu higher than a week ago. Short covering, profit taking, a higher U.S. dollar, improved weather in South America, and lower-than-expected exports weighed on corn prices. The dollar rose against the euro indicating a bearish signal for U.S. grains. Crop-friendly rainfall is expected this week through all of Argentina and also Brazil. Several sources polled indicate bearish feelings that U.S. corn prices may fall by as much as 15% by the end of the year. Much will depend upon the next key USDA expected plantings report.  Exports were bearish for U.S. corn. Late Monday USDA put corn-inspected-for-export at 22.690 mi bu vs. estimates for 29-33 mi bu. In addition, economic sanctions on Iran are holding up grain movements in the area increasing transportation costs. Iranian assets are frozen so cargoes will not be unloaded until someone agrees to pay for the grain. A recent graph by ERS shows that the U.S. is still the world’s largest corn exporter. See below:

It would be a good idea for corn producers to consider pricing a portion of the 2012 corn crop at this time.

SOYBEAN futures on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) closed down on Monday. The MAR’12 contract closed at $11.852/bu; down 33.75^¢/bu and 32.25^¢/bu lower than a week ago. NOV’12 futures closed at $11.944/bu; down 27.75^¢/bu and 13.0^¢/bu off from last report. Better crop weather in South America and a stronger U.S. dollar weighed on prices. Exports were supportive. USDA put soybeans-inspected-for-export at 41.503 mi bu vs. estimates for 24-32 mi bu. One interesting development in soybean exports from Argentina allowed increased exports from that country.  Port authorities in Argentina’s Rosario grains hub dislodged a vessel that ran aground earlier this month, and all delayed ships have been able to get going with their grain cargoes. This will most likely create pressure on U.S. exports as importers meet needs with cheaper soybeans. Argentina is one of the world’s top suppliers of soybeans and soybean by-products. It might be a good idea to price a good portion of the 2012 crop at this time.

WHEAT futures in Chicago (CBOT) were down on Monday. The MAR’12 contract closed at $6.446/bu; down 2.5^¢/bu but 25.0^¢/bu higher than last report. JULY’12 wheat futures finished at $6.712/bu; off 3.5^¢/bu but 17^¢/bu lower than last week at this time. Prices were pressured on news from the USDA attaché in Australia report that wheat production in that country continues to increase. In the past the Australian wheat crop has been damaged by wet weather reducing wheat acceptable for export. Year-on-year production of wheat, barley, and sorghum has yielded back-to-back record wheat crops and are projected to support another banner year. See graph below:

Production declines in Europe on bitter cold temperatures are price supportive. Exports were somewhat supportive with USDA placing wheat-inspected-for-export at 18.655 mi bu vs. estimates for 15-19 mi bu. Wheat producers should not feel pressured to price the 2012 wheat crop at this time.

DAIRY CLASS III futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) closed mixed on Monday. The JAN’12DA contract closed at $17.10/cwt, unchanged from last Friday but $0.01/cwt higher than a week ago. MAR’12DA futures closed at $16.70/cwt; down $0.02/cwt but $0.16/cwt higher than last report. The JULY’12DA contract closed down $0.04/cwt at $17.10/cwt. This contract gained $0.01/cwt over last Monday’s close. Spot trade was influenced by sell orders. Butter and Grade A NDM dropped $0.04-$0.07/cwt. Whey futures were down in the front months. Butter production is far exceeding demand right now. Butter production for 2011 was up more than 16% over 2010. Ending stocks were 29% higher than the previous year. CWT accepted more bids for export assistance on sales of 2.8 mi lbs of cheese and 11.0 mi lbs of butter for delivery through June 2012. Milk production continues to grow in the exceptionally mild U.S. winter weather. Cow comfort is good boosting the cream supply over demand. Current average futures prices for Class III milk declined a range of $0.80 – $0.60/cwt. Prices were: 3 months out = $16.83/cwt (0.19/cwt higher than last Monday); 6 months out = $16.79/cwt (0.09/cwt over last report); 9 months out = $16.92/cwt (0.06/cwt more than a week ago); and 12 months out = $16.95/cwt (0.03/cwt over last report). Feed inputs should be bought hand-to-mouth for now and milk should be price up to 3 months out.

LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) finished down on Monday. The APR’12 contract finished at $127.750/cwt; down $0.70/cwt and $0.425/cwt lower than last report. JUNE’12LC futures closed at $126.850/cwt; off $0.325/cwt and $0.15/cwt lower than this time last week. DEC’12LC futures closed at $132.075/cwt; down $0.475/cwt and $0.775/cwt lower than a week ago. Cash prices reflecting upside-down fundamentals at meat packers pressured prices as buyers backed off. Cash prices have fallen after two weeks of price surge. Packers are cutting production because of losses. According to USDA, packers trimmed slaughter rates last week by 20,000 head for 608,000 head. Trade estimates show processors will cut slaughter rates again this week. Funds are also pulling some cash from the livestock positions in preparation for what they see as failed bailouts of the Greek and Portugal economies. Late Monday USDA put choice boxed beef prices at $182.88; down $1.25. Late Monday, January 30, USDA put the 5-area average price at $123.87. See Chart:

According to HedgersEdge.com, the average packer margin was placed at a negative $106.50/head based on the average buy of $125.78/cwt vs. the breakeven of $116.65/cwt. The record low of minus $112.10/cwt was set in early December.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME finished down on Monday with the exception of the August ’12 contract. APR’12FC futures finished at $156.600/cwt; down $0.225/cwt but $1.20/cwt over last Monday’s close. The AUG’12FC contract closed up $0.050/cwt and $1.325/cwt over last report at $159.000/cwt. Feeder futures fell from record territory, weighed down by falling prices for fat cattle and general weakness across equity and commodity markets. Feeders failed to set a record high for the nearby spot contract for the first time in three weeks. The Oklahoma National Stockyard feeder cattle auction estimated receipts for Monday, 1/30/12 at 7,300 head compared to 9,432 last week and 9,405 a year ago. Compared to last week feeder steers were $2-$4 lower while feeder heifers were $2/cwt higher. Steer and heifer calves were $3-6/cwt higher. Demand was good for feeder cattle and calves. Quality for calves was mostly average. Late Monday the CME feeder cattle index for 1/30/12 was placed at $153.59; up $0.52 from the previous close.

LEAN HOGS on the CME finished lower on Monday. The FEB’12LH contract closed at $86.450/cwt; off $0.225/cwt and $0.25/cwt lower than last report. MAY’12LH futures closed at $96.025/cwt; up $0.150/cwt and $0.225/cwt lower than a week ago. AUG’12LH futures finished down $0.175/cwt but $0.325/cwt higher than last Monday at $97.025/cwt. Wholesale markets reflecting slack demand continued to pressure prices. Pork processors, much like beef packers continue to face dauntingly negative margins on sluggish domestic demand. Several processors interviewed last week said they plan to trim slaughter numbers again this week. USDA put Monday’s slaughter at 406,000 head, down 21,000 head from a week ago but 25,000 head over this time last year. USDA put pork carcass cutout at $83.26/cwt; down $0.03/cwt from Friday and $2.335/cwt lower than a week ago. Cash hog prices were steady-to-weak with cash prices ranging from $59-$62/cwt on a live basis. According to HedgersEdge.com, the average packer margin was placed at a negative $7.45/head based on the average buy of $62.45/cwt vs. the breakeven of $59.74/cwt. Late Monday the CME lean hog index was placed at $87.71; up $0.36 and $2.32 over last Monday.

Remember, when working with futures risk is involved.  Past performance does not indicate a promise of future results.

If you need help with a market strategy, have comments or questions you may contact Mike Roberts at:

mtrobert@ncsu.edu

Kannapolis Office: 704-250-5429

NCSU Campus Raleigh Office: 919-515-6092

Mobile: 804-720-7551

Or … follow me on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/FencePostTalk

Roberts Commodity Report © Copyright 2012. Michael T. Roberts – All Rights Reserved

This Roberts’ Agricultural Commodity Report is made possible by support from:

Bookmark With:

Last February the spot market for SEW pigs hit $71 on the week ending February 4. This past week the spot market was at $69 as listed in the Friday USDA report. Forty pound feeder pigs are $77 on the spot market, right where they were last year at this time. Prices are high for 2 reasons – a belief that summer profits can support such prices and a shortage of pigs to fill barns due to the impact of PRRS on breeding herds.

The impact of PRRS on breeding herds this winter has been large in the upper Midwest. There are reports of severe abortion storms and even sow deaths as the virus goes thru a unit. I’ve talked with several shareholders of units that have been hit by PRRS and many times they are in the market for weaned pigs and/or feeder pigs to fill existing facility spaces. A common question at the Minnesota Pork Congress was ‘got any weaned pigs for sale?’.

Selling weaned pigs or feeder pigs is indeed a feast or famine experience. While the pig price was very high in January and February last year, by late May SEW pigs traded as low as $10/pig with 40 lb pigs averaging $45-50/pig. Sellers of pigs aren’t going to make large investments in production facilities with this type of variation in income. This type of variation explains why sellers of weaned pigs typically don’t invest in production facilities without a weaned pig sale contract of some type.

I’ve had a few calls with questions about SEW contracts, but with the spot market swinging this wildly, it is really tough to formulate a contract that is fair to both buyer and seller relative to the spot market. If lenders are involved, it has been tough to keep contracts together if the buyer is in a position of losing money on these purchased pigs. In the last market down-turn, many lenders refused to lend money to purchase pigs under a contract arrangement since purchase of the pigs would worsen the balance sheet of the producer, something the banks were unwilling/unable to do with federal bank auditors looking over their shoulder. Some of these broken contracts are still being settled in arbitration hearings and court filings.

Ultimately, the buyer of SEW pigs ends up owning shares in the weaned pig production unit, or the seller of SEW pigs ends up retaining ownership of some or all of the pigs. While we can talk about specialized production (breed-wean and wean-finish), ownership is consolidating to farrow-finish because of how profit risk has proven to be difficult to share.

Bookmark With:

 COMMON SENSE:

When I hear people say “you just have to use common sense” when moving and working with pigs, I get a little squirmy. Common sense assumes that we are acting with an accurate picture of how the world works. Unfortunately, some of what is credited with being common sense could be better labled as blowing smoke.

It’s not always easy to distinguish between actions that are based on real knowledge and deliberate intent, and actions that are silently guided by the instincts of eons of ancestors; hunters who stayed better fed if their instincts made animals stop moving or come back for another whack. Today’s pig handlers typically want animals to move and would be better served if their instincts helped animals make a controlled escape.

Sometimes our actions and outcomes are shaped by something as simple as the way our handedness affects how we hold our tools.

Example:

If you are right handed, to move feeder pigs out of pens with a board and a paddle, you will likely carry the board in your left hand and the paddle in your right. If you  make no conscious choices, that will influence your position in the pens and make it easier for you to move pigs out of pens on one side of the alley than on the other.

This week’s example:

Breeding stock and export sales often require that blood samples be drawn from pigs  to determine / assure their health status.

It often involves one person snaring a pig by the snout and holding it as still as possible while another person draws blood. Minimizing stress and risk of injury for both pigs and people is a priority.

Video 1

If you’re going to be down on your knees in a pen full of pigs, common sense might tell you to get as far away from the bulk of the pigs as possible: that you will be best protected and get the least interference if you are close to the gate. Let’s have a look.

Person drawing blood at gate

The bubble of the person holding the snare displaced hogs and encouraged them to Circle towards the gate and the person drawing blood.

Video 2  

Here things were switched around. The person holding the snare was close to the gate and the person drawing blood was in the middle of the pen.

Person holding snare at gate

A person who is hunkered down and preoccupied is:

-          less threatening

-          has a smaller bubble

-          puts less pressure on pigs to circle her, than a handler who is standing up.

Holding the snare from close to the gate and facing into the pen put pressure on hogs to not Circle out of the back of the pen.

Summary:

Common sense to be helpful, depends on handlers having an accurate understanding of pigs’ response patterns, and I think we still have a lot to learn in that regard.

If we clamp our minds shut around the notion that we can just rely on our common sense, there’s a good chance we’ll get misled and miss opportunities to make moving and working pigs a whole lot easier for ourselves and for our pigs.

That’s it for this week.

Take care

Nancy Lidster

Bookmark With:

Mandatory Price Reporting (MPR) data indicates that for barrows and gilts purchased in 2011 on a carcass weight basis by non-small packers, 4.2% were negotiated purchases, 38.4% were market formula contracts (formula priced from reported hog or pork prices), 9.8% were priced off of the futures market, 15.2% were other types of contracts, 4.7% were purchased from another packer, and 27.6% were raised by the packer that slaughtered them. Over the 10 year history of MPR, the biggest change has been in the number of negotiated purchases (down 10.4 percentage points) and packer owned (up 10.2 percentage points). Negotiated sales may not be a viable pricing method much longer. They have declined at slightly over one percentage point per year for the last decade.

The average retail price of pork in December was $3.461 per pound, down 5 cents from the month before, but up 27.3 cents from December 2010. Pork prices have been above a year-ago for 21 consecutive months.

The average December price for 51-52% lean hogs was $62.14/cwt. That was $11.22 higher than 12 months earlier.

Calculated pork demand was up 4% in December and up 1.3% for the year, based on preliminary data.

Hog prices ended the week even with the previous Friday. The national average negotiated carcass price for direct delivered hogs on the morning report today was $82.30/cwt, up 50 cents from last Friday. The were not enough hogs sold early today for a morning price quote in either the western corn belt or Iowa-Minnesota. The eastern corn belt averaged $81.05/cwt this morning. Friday’s top live hog price at Peoria was $59.50/cwt. Zumbrota, had a top of $60/cwt. The top for interior Missouri live hogs was $61.50/cwt, up 50 cents from the previous Friday.

USDA’s Thursday afternoon calculated pork cutout value was $83.29/cwt, down $1.48 from the previous Thursday, the lowest since January 11, and second lowest in the last year. Loins, butts and hams were lower; bellies were higher. The national average hog price this morning was 98.8% of the pork cutout value.

Hog slaughter totaled 2.167 million head this week, down 2.4% from the week before and down 0.8% compared to the same week last year. Barrow and gilt carcass weights for the week ending January 14 averaged 206 pounds, down 1 pound from both the week before and from a year ago. Iowa-Minnesota live weights for barrows and gilts last week averaged 275.3 pounds, down 1.1 pounds from the previous week, but up 1.0 pound compared to a year earlier.

Today’s close for the February lean hog futures contract, $86.67/cwt, was up $1.35 from the previous Friday. The April lean hog futures contract settled at $87.37/cwt, up 32 cents for the week. May hogs settled at $96.17/cwt. June hogs ended the week at $97.35/cwt.

Bookmark With:

Justin is an associate financial services officer and has worked at AgStar since 2008 specializing in Swine.

In this week’s Hog Blog, AgStar’s Justin Roelofs discusses the current margin opportunities available as well as the long-term effect some protein sources could have on hog prices. Watch now!

Bookmark With:

Stu Ellis, formerly with University of Illinois Extension, serves as the Farmgateblog.com blogger and editor. Ellis has been a presence in Illinois agriculture for more than thirty years and he brings an impressive array of credentials to his new position.

The deteriorated pasture and rangeland pushed many head of cattle into feedlots at an early point in their cycle, and Friday’s Cattle on Feed report reflected that glut, with a high number on feed, but low numbers entering feedlots and being marketed.  With the weather still uncooperative, many livestock producers are concerned about the outlook for feed in the coming year.  Will there be enough, given all of the dynamics pushing and pulling on the supply?  Answers follow.

The January 20 Cattle on Feed Report indicated 11.9 million in feedlots, 3% above year earlier levels, with December placements 6% below prior numbers and December marketings 2% below prior levels.  Other disappearance was 40% above December of 2010, which includes death loss, movement back to pasture, and shipments to other feedlots.

With hefty numbers in feedlots, will there being enough feed?  USDA’s latest Feed Outlook says even though more cattle were in feedlots, there is more corn in the bin, and enough to offset lower sorghum production.  The feed grain supply for the current marketing year is forecast at 358 MMT, with total feed use for the current marketing year at 334 MMT, reflecting higher corn exports.  Domestic use is expected to be 290.5 MMT, down slightly reflecting lower projected feed use and lower sorghum supplies.  Barley and oat production was unchanged.  Wheat feeding is only addressed in passing “because of decreasing in projected feeding.”

Animal numbers are slightly higher, with grain consuming animal units forecast at 93.7, up from 93.3 million projected in December.  Higher beef and pork production than was expected, but less poultry production is anticipated.

1) Corn projections have been raised slightly to 12.358 bil. bu., which is down by 89 mil. bu. from last year, but reflects increased acreage and lower yields.  Feed use of corn is project at 4.6 bil. bu.  September to December stocks disappearance was estimated at 1.838 bil., bu. down 233 mil. bu. from year ago.

2) Corn used for ethanol production was estimated at 5.0 bil. bu. up slightly from the same period a year ago, but increased production was attributed to blenders trying to get as much out of the VEETC tax as possible, which expired at the end of the year.  And ethanol production is expected to slow early in 2012.  Corn use will be about 5 bil. bu. and ethanol exports will grow slightly.  Exports will be slightly larger to 1.650 bil. bu. and ending stocks should be 1.127 bil., resulting in an increase in feed stocks to 4.792 bil. bu.

3) Sorghum production is estimated at 214 mil. bu., down 132 mil. from year ago levels.  Production is down as a result of less acreage and less yield per acre.  Consequently lower sorghum for feed use is 20 mil. bu. less.

4) USDA lowered the price range for corn by a dime, and it now stands at $5.60 to $6.60 for the current year.  USDA says strong demand from ethanol producers and tight supplies still exist.

Hay stocks on farms at the first of December totaled 91 mil. tons, down 11% from year ago levels.  Disappearance for the May to December period totaled 62 mil. tons, and hay stocks declined everywhere except for the upper plains states.  The declining supply was attributed to many livestock producers feeding it earlier than planned.  All hay production totaled 131 mil. tons, down 10% from last year.  Dry weather in the southwest reduced the production area to the smallest since 1930 and production to the least since 1925.

Following unusually dry conditions across the central and southern Plains states, which kept hay production down, abundant late August and early September rain promoted increased growth in many pastures and hayfields, increasing production from year earlier levels.

USDA says the termination of the ethanol blenders’ credit is not expected to affect demand and price considerably, however discretionary blending above the mandate could be negatively affected.  While the renewable fuels mandate will keep ethanol production at a strong level, the production above the mandate, which is now being exported, may see lower levels of profitability and may be subject to reduction.  Subsequently, USDA says that may be reflected in a lower demand for corn, but to a small degree.

Summary:
The shortage of pasture and rangeland in the southern plains that sent a larger than usual number of cattle early to feedlots, has moderated with the help of some rains.  Nevertheless, there is still some tightness in both supplies of feed grains and hay.  Feed grain production is lower due to less corn and sorghum yields, and hay production is down because of the weather.  Ethanol production will consume larger than normal supplies of corn, and in fact, some reduction could be observed.

Bookmark With:

The Minnesota Pork Congress was Wednesday and Thursday this past week and I had the opportunity to speak with many of the readers of this blog. A common theme in our conversations seemed to be speculation regarding who is expanding and when will the expansion in production impact the markets. There was also a lot of discussion regarding how many wean-finish and grow-finish spaces will be constructed this summer and everyone agreed – quite a few.

At the same time as many were asking about expansion plans and impacts, some of you were asking for my thoughts on the major issues that will impact the industry is 5 and 10 years. This is a little tougher, but the list I came up with includes:

1) Exports – with over 25% of our product now leaving the US, any policy decision that influences this will impact us. The free trade agreements with Korea and other countries will help stabilize some of our export numbers, but we are increasingly at the mercy of our trading partners with our trade numbers often determined by issues unrelated to the quality or price of our pork products. Successful producers in the future will include considerations of foreign trade in their risk management decisions.

2) Animal Welfare – I don’t see any relief from this debate. The consumer continues to be unaware of production agriculture and relies on many sources to form opinions about our production practices. This past week there has been quite a bit of discussion among university officials about the recent Yahoo News ranking of the most useless college degrees that ranked several agriculture pursuits as the most useless. This included animal science/ husbandry and veterinary science. Like it or not, our long term ability to produce products such as pork, beef, etc in a safe, humane and relatively cheap manner will be dependent on our ability to inform the consumer regarding the bias in the options being presented by such groups as HSUS, PETA, etc. Their long term goal is no animal agriculture, not improved animal agriculture.

3) Global population and food security – how do we feed a world population that is expected to peak sometime around the year 2050. Many speak of a need to double output in the next 30-40 years, with a fixed production area for land and more fights over water allocation. Pork production will need to continue to improve in efficiency (not only feed:gain or pigs/sow/yr) but also pork per gallon of water used, pork per unit of environmental emission, etc.

4) Ownership of production facilities – how do we transfer much of our production base to the next generation of producers? While we have youth involved in many production aspects, much of the asset base of pork production in the Midwest is in the hands of producers who accumulated these assets over many years – generally meaning ownership is 50+ in age and often over 60+ in age. There is a growing need to develop and implement generational transition plans for much of the production base that exists. While youth will make many mistakes along the way, we need their enthusiasm and willingness to risk change.

5) Production efficiencies – these will continue to improve. Ten years ago no one talked about 30 pigs per female per year and now we’re envisioning up to 40 pigs per female per year. We have production systems achieving 2.3 lb of feed per lb of liveweight gain wean-finish and 1.75-1.8 lb/d daily gain for the same period. In the future we will be talking about energetic efficiencies using terms such as lb of carcass lean per unit of energy intake, etc.

6) Environmental concerns – production methods including facilities will evolve to less the environmental footprint per lb of carcass lean produced. I don’t think we’ve even begun to imagine the possibilities of how this improvement will occur or the impact these improvements will have on our image with the consumer.

Bookmark With:

CORN futures on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) closed up on Monday. MAR’12 futures closed at $6.200/bu; up 8.5^¢/bu. The DEC’12 contract closed up 4.5^¢/bu at $5.562/bu. Slower-than-expected moisture counts in South America, higher cash markets, and a weaker U.S. dollar were supportive. The larger-than-expected supply forecast last week cast a bearish tone over the market. However, most marketers and traders don’t really expect the report to hold up. Exports were neutral with USDA putting corn-inspected-for-export at 35.198 mi bu vs. estimates of 32-38 mi bu. Exports were up 5 mi bu over last week. Slow farmer sales have cash markets soaring. Farmers are holding back waiting on a return to higher prices. According to several floor sources in Chicago and a dozen merchandisers across the Corn Belt the cash market is very hot right now. Exporters are snapping up supplies to meet international demand. It might be a good idea to buy some near-to-medium term supplies before the end of the week.

SOYBEAN futures on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) closed up on Monday. The MAR’12 contract closed at $12.174/bu; up 30.5^¢/bu. NOV’12 futures closed at $12.074/bu; up 23.75^¢/bu. Worries over harsh weather in Argentina, brisk cash sales, and weak dollar were supportive. Exports were neutral at 35.666 mi bu vs. estimates for 33-39 mi bu. Disappointing rainfall in Argentina leaving over one-third of the corn and soybean producing area is hurting South American supply. Argentina is the world’s third largest exporter of soybeans and the largest exporter of soymeal and soyoil.

Loading Soymeal in Rosario, Argentina

Another international demand element factoring into higher prices is that China has suspended imports of soybean oilmeal from India after finding contamination in rapeseed last year. The dollar fell against a number of currencies, with the euro hitting a near three-week high. Several floor sources said the weaker dollar was really driving prices. A weaker dollar makes commodities priced in U.S. currency more attractive to exporters.

WHEAT futures in Chicago (CBOT) closed up on Monday. The MAR’12 contract closed at $6.196/bu; up 9.25^¢/bu. JULY’12 wheat futures finished at $6.542/bu; up 10.5^¢/bu. Positive momentum from last week and a weaker U.S. dollar making wheat more competitive in global markets was supportive. However, global wheat stocks are the highest in more than a decade weighing on prices. Exports were neutral with USDA putting wheat-inspected-for-export at 17.106 mi bu vs. estimates for 15-20 mi bu. Chart signals continue to indicate speculators may be interested in buying wheat futures soon. All it will take is a global trigger to indicate supply will be removed more quickly than is thought now.

DAIRY CLASS III futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) closed down on Monday. The JAN’12DA contract closed at $17.09/cwt; off $0.01/cwt. MAR’12DA futures closed at $16.54/cwt; down $0.15/cwt. The JULY’12DA contract closed up $0.09/cwt at $17.15/cwt. Increased milk productions and higher grain prices weighed on prices. December milk production was up 2.5% over last year with an estimated 16.559 bi lbs for last month. Cow numbers were up 12,000 head from November. Production per cow was 57.9 lbs/day, up 0.9 lbs (1.6%). Fonterra reported record-high exports of 246,000 tons in December; 17% over this time last year. Southeast Asia, China, the Middle East, and North Africa are driving export growth. CWT accepted bids to help with up to 4.0 mi lbs of cheese for delivery through June. CWT assisted exports averaged 3.3 mi lb/mo since May 2010. Milk margin for dairy producers declined from November 2011 through December 2011 but still finished 15% over 2010.

Current average futures prices for Class III milk declined a range of $0.80 – $0.60/cwt. Prices were: 3 months out = $16.64/cwt; 6 months out = $16.70/cwt; 9 months out = $16.86/cwt; and 12 months out = $16.92/cwt.

LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) closed up on Monday. The APR’12 contract finished up $0.45/cwt at $128.175/cwt. JUNE’12LC futures closed at $127.000/cwt; up $0.675/cwt. DEC’12LC futures closed at $131.300/cwt; up $0.375/cwt. Bullish demand factors and outside markets were supportive. Repositioning in cattle futures, a weaker U.S. dollar, and strong demand on tightening supplies were supportive. Higher feed prices weighed on prices. Last week’s USDA report confirmed tightening supplies. The mix of signals will slow trader momentum while waiting for clearer signs. Slaughter was down 9,000 head on higher cash prices. USDA on Monday put the 5-area average at $125.73/cwt. See graph.

Late Monday USDA put the choice boxed beef price at $183.52/cwt; up $1.52/cwt from Friday. According to HedgersEdge.com, the average packer margin was placed at a negative $102.05/head.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME finished up on Monday with the exception of the March ’12 contract. The JAN’12FC contract settled at $151.900/cwt; up $0.275/cwt. APR’12FC futures finished at $155.400/cwt; up $0.200/cwt. The AUG’12FC contract closed up $0.325/cwt at $157.675/cwt. Feeders were supported by higher commodity prices and tight supplies. The Oklahoma National Stockyard feeder cattle auction estimated receipts for Monday, 1/23/12 at 9,500 head compared to 11,265 last week and 9,829 a year ago. Compared to last week feeder steers and heifers were $2-$4 higher. Steer calves were $4/cwt lower while heifer calves were $1-$4/cwt higher. Demand was good for feeder cattle and extremely good for cattle bought by folks putting them on pasture. Quality for calves was plain to average. Numbers of cattle less than 500 lbs are declining but this is average for this time of year. Late Monday the CME feeder cattle index for 1/20/12 was placed at $151.35; off $0.04 from the previous close.

LEAN HOGS on the CME closed up on Monday on short covering and spillover from other commodities.. The FEB’12LH contract closed at $86.475/cwt; up $1.150/cwt. MAY’12LH futures closed at $96.250/cwt; up $0.800/cwt. AUG’12LH futures finished up $0.75/cwt at $96.700/cwt. Futures rallied Monday on thinking that prices have bottomed. Floor sources are optimistic about prices. Futures were supported by last week’s broad rise in wholesale pork prices. Wholesale USDA pork prices rose $1.79 during the week, including a gain of $0.87 Friday. Cash hogs were mostly steady. Monday USDA put pork carcass cutout at $85.27/cwt; down $0.37/cwt from Friday. The latest CME lean hog index for Monday, 1/23/12 was placed at $85.39; up $0.12.

No graph this week.

Remember, when working with futures risk is involved.  Past performance does not indicate a promise of future results.

If you need help with a market strategy, have comments or questions you may contact Mike Roberts at:

mtrobert@ncsu.edu

Kannapolis Office: 704-250-5429

NCSU Campus Raleigh Office: 919-515-6092

Mobile: 804-720-7551

Or … follow me on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/FencePostTalk

Roberts Commodity Report © Copyright 2012. Michael T. Roberts – All Rights Reserved

This Roberts’ Agricultural Commodity Report is made possible by support from:

Bookmark With:

A Review: The past two blogs showed examples where the handler paused for a very few seconds at doorways and corners and gave sows time and space. Willingness to allow that brief pause is often all it takes to keeping pigs moving.

The standing back isn’t about a laissez-faire attitude: about letting pigs lollygag along and take their own sweet time. Sometimes all pigs need is a chance to check back and reassure themselves it is safe to shift their attention away from us so they can move forward comfortably and confidently. Pausing (at about :16 in the video) is a tool that can help us maintain movement.

Pause as a tool

The diagram included in many pig handling courses is often interpreted to mean that pausing will make pigs stop  (as per Points A and B in the diagram). Many handlers don’t understand that appropriate pauses and release of pressure can aid pig movement.

Source: TQA Version 3

In a future blog I’ll deal with when and how to pressure animals that hesitate, but today I want to discuss the effects of physical touch on pig and human responses.

The principles apply through all categories of pigs. I’ll use sow examples this week and show how pig size influences responses to handlers’ touch at a future date.

HAND CONTACT WITH PIGS.

The previous diagram shows the concept of a pig’s flight zone. It can’t be taken as a factual representation of the size of pigs’ flight zones. You also need to understand that:

-          The size of each pig’s flight zone constantly changes as we work with them

-          As with other forms of pressure, we have to give pigs release from our physical touch

-          If we are close enough to touch an animal we are close enough to make it stop moving, especially if we use continuous contact and don’t give it release from our pressure.

The nature of physical contact is critical and tends to reflect the confidence, expectations, and state of mind of the handler. These have a huge affect on pigs’ responses.

Positive contact:

This handler’s contact was typical of someone who is comfortable and confident with moving sows.

Positive, effective contact

Negative contact:

The intensity, frequency, and pushiness of contact on the last sow in this group is fairly typical of handlers who:

-          Believe they have to “make sows move” and that contact improves movement

-          Expect and are trying to prevent problems

Detrimental physical contact

Pigs’ responses are shaped by events prior to the contact:

In this next clip, the last sow’s attention was back – towards the handler (see previous two blogs for details) and her initial response was to stop and lean back into his hand contact before she moved off. If hand contact had started as she entered the hallway, there’s a good chance this sow would have shut down and totally quit moving long before she got to this point.

Leaning into contact

Handlers often intensify contact unconsciously when moving sows. The same applies to other tools and other categories of pigs.

If they don’t make a conscious, deliberate choice to limit contact and give pigs space, many handlers fall into a problem-creating cycle. We’ll use sows for our example:

-          We start with a gentle, occasional tap

-          We stay close enough to the sow to maintain contact and without any deliberate decision to do so, our contact becomes automatic, repetitive, and continuous

-          We don’t let the sow move away and she can’t get any release so she slows down

-          Scared that she might stop, we increase the intensity and frequency of contact to keep her going

-          She says “Enough already” and either tries to turn back or shuts down and quits moving

-          We call in recruits to help shove and otherwise encourage her forward

-          She resists more

-          We attempt to match the effort and egos of other team members

-          (Let me be clear here. This isn’t about being bad people. It’s about human nature and handlers doing the absolute best they know how until they are taught more effective handling methods.)

-          Next time we have to move sows we start with an expectation of problems and with extra recruits to help us

-          It is all self-fulfilling. We find / create what we look for.

The same general pattern can be seen in problems related to moving weanlings, sorting and loading market hogs, moving hogs in packing plants…

Summary:

Physical contact can be useful and effective but we need to be very selective and careful about how and when we use it.

If we are close enough to touch an animal we are close enough to stop it.

That’s it for this week.

Take care

Nancy Lidster

Bookmark With: