When Caitlyn Abell received word that she’d won the 2011 Lauren L. Christian Graduate Student Award from the National Swine Improvement Federation (NSIF), she did a double take. The Iowa State University (ISU) student had just recently started her doctoral program in animal science and thought the award was beyond her reach.

“This was a big surprise because my major professor told me most past recipients had finished or nearly finished their Ph.D. and I had just started my program,” Abell said. “I knew he had sent in a nomination, but figured it was just a formality.”

As the award recipient, she received a cash award of $500, a plaque and expenses for attending the annual NSIF conference in Omaha in December. She also gave a presentation at the conference about her work.

As it turned out, Abell is the 10th award recipient from ISU since the annual award was started in 1993. NSIF president Clint Schwab received the award as an ISU graduate student in 2005, and said it is considered among the most prestigious rewards for graduate students in the field of swine genetics.

“For me, it was an incredible honor to be added to the list recipients – many of whom I looked up to during my graduate career,” Schwab said. “Caitlyn is a great addition to the list of recipients, and is a solid representation of Lauren Christian’s contributions to the field of swine genetics.”

Abell’s major professor, animal science professor and ISU Extension swine specialist Ken Stalder, said he nominated her for the award because of her work with litters per sow per year.

“The objective of her current research project is to determine the economic value of genomic selection for swine genetic companies,” he said. “And she’s already worked on using the litters per sow per year figure to reduce non-productive days of a sow in a breeding herd. Results will help producers make better decisions with their sow herds.”

Already Abell has three referred journal articles and two successful grants to her name, and said she chose ISU for her graduate degree program because of its strong reputation in the animal breeding and genetics program. She has a double major in animal breeding and genetics, and statistics, and hopes to pursue a career with a swine breeding company after graduation.

-30-

Contact: Caitlyn Abell, animal science, 515-294-2712, cabell@iastate.edu

The joint venture agreement announced in November 2011 between Vietnam’s leading animal feed producer Japfa Comfeed Long An Ltd (Japfa) and global swine genetics company Hypor B.V. (Hypor) has been finalized on April 25, 2012. The Japfa Hypor Genetics Company has been founded and a 700 sow quality high health pig breeding unit will be established in Vietnam.

The new 700 sow nucleus farm is planned to be ready this summer. In August/September 2012 a shipment of Hypor GGP, consisting of the two dam lines Hypor Large White and Landrace and the sire lines Hypor Maxter and Magnus, will populate the farm.

The nucleus farm will produce reproduction pigs and semen for the needs of Japfa’s own pig production. Alongside a sales and service organization will be set up to commercialize gilts and semen in the Vietnamese market.

Mr. Raf Beeren, Managing Director of Hypor is very enthusiastic about the joint venture and stated: “The combination of strengths of both partners guarantees a successful breeding program in Vietnam. Together we will ensure that the potential of our genetics will be realized within Japfa’s production system and at the Vietnamese commercial pig producers.”

“The last four years the quality of the Hypor genetics and team has proven its value to Japfa. The joint venture is a logical extension of this successful collaboration, but also the start of an ambitious growth scenario”, said Mr.Tan Yong Nang, Director and COO of Japfa Group. “We are rapidly expanding our production base and plans have been finalized for the construction of three AI stations for future distribution of Hypor Magnus and Maxter semen.”

Vietnam is one of the fastest growing markets for pork production in Asia. With rising incomes stimulating domestic meat consumption growth, production needs to increase to keep pace. Furthermore, the Vietnamese government supports the modernization of the pig production industry to move away from backyard production. Japfa and Hypor are ready to invest further in this highly attractive market.

Japfa Comfeed Long An Ltd

Japfa Comfeed Long An Ltd is a leading broiler and layer producer in Vietnam. Based in Long An province the company has extensive operations in integrated poultry and pig production. Its core business activities include animal feed manufacturing, chicken breeding, poultry processing, and pig production in Vietnam in particular. Japfa has 14.000 sows in production and is rapidly expanding to 75.000 sows.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today marked the 150th anniversary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and highlighted the positive impact that USDA has on the life of Americans each day.

“For 150 years, USDA has supported our nation’s economic prosperity and touched the lives of generations of Americans,” said Vilsack.

“I’m proud of the USDA employees who carry out President Lincoln’s legacy throughout the country and around the world, making USDA a truly ‘Every Day, Every Way’ department. Whether improving domestic and international access to food, promoting nutrition and safety of our food supply, conserving our natural resources, advancing agricultural exports, or developing the rural economy, USDA helps Americans to lead better lives.”

President Lincoln created USDA in 1862 and in his last address before Congress, called it the “People’s Department.”

President Lincoln established USDA because he understood the importance of agriculture to America’s success – and under the Obama Administration USDA has focused on advancing Lincoln’s legacy. The Department has delivered record amounts of loan assistance; enrolled a record number of acres in conservation programs; provided food assistance to 1 in 4 Americans and helped to upgrade infrastructure, such as electric and broadband Internet service, for millions of people.

Throughout 2012, USDA will continue to recognize important events such as President Lincoln’s signing of the Act to establish the Department of Agriculture on May, 15, 1862 and the July 2, 1862 signing of the Morrill Act to establish public land grant universities.

USDA works to support the tremendous growth and continued successes of American agriculture at home and abroad, drive economic growth, conduct groundbreaking research, conserve natural resources, promote healthy families and build stronger communities and a stronger nation.

The Department will remain focused on rebuilding and revitalizing the nation’s future while bolstering innovation and supporting economic growth for millions of American families.

In the years to come, USDA will continue to address the changing needs of agriculture and rural America, and will continue to help provide a safe, ample food supply for our nation and the world.

David Baum, D.V.M., Ph.D., has joined Harrisvaccines as vice president of sales and technical services. His duties will include development and management of the Harrisvaccines sales team in addition to providing in-depth product information and technical expertise for veterinarians and their customers.

“We are excited to have Dr. Baum’s extensive animal health expertise on our team,” says D.L. “Hank” Harris, D.V.M., Ph.D., founder and president of Harrisvaccines. “His veterinary medicine, microbiology and immunology background is an important addition to Harrisvaccines and will be a great benefit to our customers.”

Baum earned his master’s degree in immunobiology and Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree from Iowa State University. He later earned a Ph.D. in veterinary microbiology with an emphasis in veterinary preventative medicine from Iowa State.

His professional memberships include the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Swine Veterinarians, American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, U.S. Animal Health Association and the American Association of Animal Scientists.

Before joining Harrisvaccines, Baum served as vice president of health and technical services for Newsham Choice Genetics.

About Harrisvaccines
Headquartered in Ames, Iowa, Harrisvaccines focuses on improving animal health and enhancing productivity in the swine, cattle and farmed shrimp industries. Using state-of-the-art advanced molecular science, Harrisvaccines employs two unique RNA platforms to develop products which aid in the prevention and treatment of infectious animal diseases. For more information, visit www.harrisvaccines.com.

Hormel Foods announced Wednesday the availability of its 2011 Corporate Responsibility Report, highlighting the completion of its first set of five-year environmental goals. The report also explains the company’s progress in commitments in the areas of hunger, food safety, corporate governance and animal care.

JBS SA closed the first quarter with a net income of BRL116.1 million (US$58 million), a result down 21 percent from the same period last year, when it reported net income of BRL147 million (US$73.4 million), the company announced on Tuesday night.

Despite the lower profit, JBS should generate an extra BRL3 billion (US$1.5 billion) in revenue this year via new properties acquired or leased in Brazil in recent months, President Wesley Batista told analysts Wednesday morning.

JBS has bought or leased 12 new slaughterhouses in Brazil so far in 2012, boosting the company’s cattle slaughter capacity to about 8,000 head per day. The company also leased assets earlier this month of poultry processor Doux Frangosul, with daily capacity of 2 million head.

Batista said of those new assets, cattle should generate an extra BRL3 billion and Frangosul’s poultry some BRL1.5 billion, totaling BRL4.5 billion. About BRL3 billion of that should show on this year’s balance sheets, he said. JBS’ recent expansion efforts progressed on Tuesday, when creditors for Brazilian processor Independencia accepted JBS’ buyout offer from April 23.

Results

JBS’ reported net profit for the quarter exceeded the BRL107 million average estimate that eight analysts had predicted within the last week in a survey by Thomson Reuters. The company’s net sales increased 9.1 percent to BRL16 billion (US$8 billion), though the cost of goods sold also rose 10.6 percent.

EBITDA for the first quarter was BRL696.5 million (US$347.8 million), down 16.7 percent from Q1 last year. The EBITDA margin decreased from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent over the same year period.

Through the first quarter, sales for JBS’ USA Poultry operations totaled US$1.9 billion. Pilgrim’s Pride reported a profit of US$396 million in Q1, following four straight quarters with losses.

The JBS Mercosul division expanded its EBITDA by BRL200 million (US$99.9 million) during the quarter, which helped offset the drop in income from the U.S. pork division, JBS said in a statement.

“This result reflects the importance of diversification in geography and proteins for the company, seen through the balance of the consolidated results, which was made possible by the good performance of some business units at the same time other units faced difficulties,” the company said.

JBS will be committed to expanding its operations in Brazil on a continuous basis, mainly in cattle, Batista said. The company’s goal is to capitalize on a change in livestock cycle, which would ensure an increased cattle supply for the company in the coming years.

What is a slaughter health check?

A slaughter health check involves evaluating pigs at the slaughter plant for disease lesions, pneumonia mainly due to Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, liver scarring due to ascarid (roundworms) larval migration, atrophic rhinitis and sarcoptic mange. Other lesions can be observed such as pericarditis, pleuritis and peritonitis (scarring of the heart, chest and abdomen, respectively; often caused by Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Hemophilus parasuis or Streptococcus suis), tumors, abscesses, foot lesions and arthritis. Evaluating pigs at slaughter enables assessment of disease levels in “normal” pigs, unlike necropsy examinations which focus on evaluating lesions in “sick” pigs.

Why are slaughter health checks used less frequently than in the past?

The primary reason slaughter checks were performed in the past was to validate the disease-free status of specific pathogen free (SPF) herds. The decline in the number of SPF herds, along with labor-related costs and biosecurity constraints have resulted in fewer slaughter health checks. In addition, newer herd health practices including mycoplasma
vaccination, age segregated rearing (multi-site production), improved biosecurity, modern facilities, disease eradication protocols and reduced weaning age have improved the overall health status of pigs. Multi-site production in particular has changed disease patterns such that overall disease levels may be reduced, but disease in a particular group of pigs may be more severe. Accordingly, slaughter checks on a few groups may not adequately characterize the health of a whole system that has multiple flows of pigs raised on multiple sites.

Why consider a slaughter health check now?

There are many reasons for having a slaughter health check done on your pigs with the primary reason to follow up on a well-defined clinical disease problem in a flow or site. A slaughter check will evaluate the scope of the disease in the larger population. On the other hand, the scope of disease may not be captured from the smaller number of pigs typically necropsied during a diagnostic workup. With multi-site produced pigs, it is important to select groups of pigs where disease was observed or suspected. Currently, pneumonia is the most significant concern in commercial swine operations. Recent slaughter checks conducted by Merck Animal Health technical service veterinarians have revealed a large degree of variation in the control of pneumonia, most of which appear to be related to the number of mycoplasma vaccine doses (one vs. two) administered to the pigs. The results of these checks are
available in an accompanying technical bulletin.

A second reason to conduct a slaughter health check is to evaluate a change in a herd’s health program or some other production practice by providing information beyond routine production records. Although production records should be the cornerstone of evaluating the relative benefits of different products and practices, slaughter health checks, along with other disease monitoring efforts such as testing blood, oral fluids and feces for antibodies and pathogens, can be used to better understand the underlying reasons for observed performance differences. In order to use a slaughter check in this manner, a “baseline” of slaughter checks should be in place before the production practice is changed.

A third reason is to identify a disease that is not clinically apparent in the herd. Although this may seem far fetched, in fact, our recent slaughter checks have revealed diseases
in herds that were not apparent, and if left unattended, could develop into serious problems. Why? Many herds are now getting older and even though they were populated with relatively clean pigs, a lot of time has passed and new diseases have unknowingly entered these herds. Reduction in antibiotic use due to economics and food safety concerns may enable the clinical revival of bacterial diseases that were previously in check. In some operations, the frequency of necropsies has been insufficient, the disease lesions were not recognized by the person performing the necropsy or the location of the disease in the pig was not examined. For example, failing to saw snouts may result in missing an atrophic rhinitis diagnosis.

How do I get a slaughter health check done?

The first step is to contact a Merck Animal Health salesrepresentative who will in turn forward the request to a Merck Animal Health technical services veterinarian. A plan will then be developed to accomplish the check. Communication between the producer, the buyer for the slaughter plant, the herd’s veterinarian and Merck Animal Health personnel are necessary to coordinate scheduling of the pigs to the plant at the right time and scheduling the personnel who will be doing the slaughter check. Generally, a minimum of one week of lead time is needed to get the check organized.

What are the limitations of a slaughter check?

First of all, it is important to recognize that the lesions at slaughter may be recent in nature. The lack of visible lesions does not mean that the pigs were free
of the disease for the entire growing period. This is especially true with pneumonia lesions and liver scars, which can resolve over time. Likewise, pneumonia lesions are not specific to mycoplasma. Lesions due to swine influenza virus can look the same. To differentiate the two diseases, lung samples may be collected at slaughter and evaluated in the laboratory to determine the causative agent in groups that exhibit a high level of pneumonia.

How are slaughter checks scored?

Pneumonia lesions are scored based on the percentage of the lung surface that exhibits visible lesions. Both the group’s average score and the percentage of lungs with greater than 5 percent and 20 percent involvement are calculated. Reference values for comparison are provided by Merck Animal Health technical service veterinarians. The reference values are based on previous evaluations by Merck Animal Health and published papers.

Atrophic rhinitis is scored based on the degree of turbinate atrophy and septal deviation. An average score is calculated and a relative herd severity level is assigned by the Merck Animal Health veterinarian who conducted the check. Mange is scored based on the presence of small, red papules on the skin surface after the hair has been removed from the carcass. Livers are scored based on the number of scars present on the surface. For both liver scars and mange a negative status is desired in most herds, so the data is evaluated more on a yes/no basis.

How does slaughter health check information fit in with other diagnostic testing, production records and observations?

The interpretation and value of the slaughter health check information will vary between herds and over time. The information needs to be evaluated and interpreted in light of previous diagnostic test results, production records and observations made by the herd’s staff, the attending veterinarian and other advisors. In some cases, the slaughter check information will provide a definitive answer to a question such as a product comparison or verification of a clinically obvious problem. Often times, the information leads to additional testing, especially when the results are unexpected such as the situation where a disease new to the herd, such as atrophic rhinitis is diagnosed or the extent= of a disease, such as ascarid infestation, needs to be determined.

How much does it cost to have a slaughter health check done?

Merck Animal Health technical service veterinarians will perform the checks at no cost to the producer where appropriate. If a private practitioner performs the check, Merck Animal Health will work with the practitioner and may assist with the cost where appropriate, providing that the data collected will be made available to Merck Animal Health for inclusion in a slaughter health check database.

Download The Complete Report

Pork/Hogs

First-Quarter Wholesale-to-Retail Spread Record-Wide

The full set of data that is now available for the first quarter of 2012, is useful in explaining important hog and pork market dynamics of the quarter, as well as in indicating potential market direction as the markets move into summer. As a whole, the data suggest that of all the players in the pork market chain—hog producers, packer/processors, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers—the only ones left smiling by the price and demand/supply metrics of first quarter may be pork retailers. First-quarter retail pork prices finished at $3.49 per pound, 6 percent higher than a year ago and the highest first-quarter retail price on record. Record retail prices reflected, in part, robust first-quarter U.S. exports, which were 15.8 percent higher than a year ago. Strong exports—23 percent of first-quarter commercial pork production—left U.S. per capita disappearance almost 1 percent below the first quarter of 2011. Tighter first-quarter domestic supplies and higher prices for competing animal proteins likely supported record retail prices. At the wholesale level, the situation remains quite different. Wholesale pork prices have lagged year-earlier prices from late January to the present. First-quarter USDA wholesale primal cutout values were 5 percent below first-quarter 2011.

Strong retail prices combined with weak wholesale values to yield the widest firstquarter wholesale-retail spread ever: $2.03 per pound. While it is possible that soft wholesale prices reflect slower forward bookings for export, it is more likely that retailers are defending their spread by favoring strong returns over sales volumes. Higher first-quarter retail prices for beef (+9 percent) and for chicken (+5 percent) would accommodate a retail strategy that places less emphasis on maximizing pork sales volume. Such a strategy could lower wholesale pork demand.

Second-quarter 2012 commercial pork production is expected to be 5.5 billion pounds, 2.8 percent higher than a year ago. Increased April-June pork production derives from year-over-year larger fall and winter pig crops and heavier estimated dressed weights. Second-quarter prices for live equivalent 51-52 percent lean hogs are expected to average $62-$64 per cwt, 8.4 percent lower than a year ago. Prices for 2012 are expected to be about 6 percent lower than a year ago.

Commercial Pork Production and U.S. Pork Exports To Increase Moderately in 2013

In 2013, moderate increases in farrowings and continued strong productivity gains are expected to yield an annual pork production level that is about 2.3 percent above 2012. Commercial pork production is expected to be 23.8 billion pounds. Higher estimates for average dressed weights as a result of lower feed costs contribute to the higher production forecast. Hog prices next year are expected to be $57-$61 per cwt, about 2.7 percent below 2012.

Foreign demand for U.S. pork products will continue to be an important market focus in 2013. Lower U.S. pork prices next year, together with continued global economic growth will, in all likelihood, support continued strong exports. Next year USDA anticipates that 22.7 percent of commercial pork production will be exported, versus almost 23 percent this year. Total U.S. pork exports for 2013 are forecast at 5.4 billion pounds, about unchanged from this year. As is almost always the case, over two-thirds of U.S. exports in 2013 are expected to go to U.S. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners, Canada and Mexico, and to Japan. Japan is expected to remain—solidly—the no. 1foreign destination for U.S. pork exports in 2013.

U.S. pork imports next year are expected to be in line with 2012 estimates, or about 810 million pounds. In the past, the United States has imported about 4.3 percent of its annual pork disappearance; next year should be no different. U.S. imports of live swine next year are likely to be somewhat higher than forecasts for 2012: 5.87 million head in 2013, versus 5.78 million head expected this year, due mostly to expectations of higher Canadian production as indicated by stronger breeding inventories in Manitoba.

In 2013, per capita pork disappearance is expected to be year-over-year higher in each quarter. For the year, per capita pork disappearance is expected to be 47.2 pounds, 2.1 percent above 2012. For a demand inelastic commodity such as pork, small increases in per capita disappearance are often accompanied by disproportionately lower prices up and down the supply chain. Retail pork prices will likely average about $3.40 per pound, or about 3 percent below forecast retail prices for 2012.

First-Quarter Exports Up Sharply

First quarter U.S. pork exports were 1.4 billion pounds, 15.8 percent ahead of last year. The five strongest markets for U.S. pork are shown in the table below. Firstquarter exports to China likely represent the tail end of deliveries of large purchases made in 2011. The USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service expects 2012 China’s pork imports from all sources to decline by 14 percent. See http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/2012/livestock_0412.pdf. USDA also forecasts a 14-percent reduction in South Korea’s imports in 2012, from all sources, as the pork sector recovers steadily from 2010-11 outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. The Government of South Korea recently announced that it would limit the initial 70,000 metric tons (MT) duty free tariff rate quota (TRQ) for fresh/frozen pork bellies announced for the period April-June to 20,000 MT.

Special Article

U.S. Pork Industry Moving Toward Open Sow Housing as an Alternative to Gestation Crates

Introduction

In recent years, a growing number of major U.S. companies that demand and supply pork products have adopted strategies that explicitly move away from direct or indirect use of gestation crates in pork production. McDonald’s Corp.—a major buyer of pork products—and thus an indirect user of gestation crates—recently announced that it would require its pork suppliers to submit plans by May 2012 that transition suppliers’ production facilities from use of gestation crates, to group sow housing. McDonald’s thus joins other major U.S. buyers of pork products along with major U.S and Canadian pork-producing companies, in adopting business models that incorporate group sow housing in pork production. Pork users and pork producers appear to be making this move in response to a developing public perception that crating sows during gestation is detrimental to the welfare of the animal.

The Current U.S. Hog Production System: Gestation Crates

For the last 30 years, typical U.S. hog production has employed individual crates to house pregnant females during gestation. The typical gestation crate measures 7 feet by 2 feet, or 14 square feet, and was adopted by the industry to overcome innate hierarchical swine behavior. Female swine, in particular, tend toward aggressive behavior to establish dominance when they are housed in groups. This means that freely moving pregnant swine tend to fight until dominance is established. Such aggression can cause serious injury to less-dominant females and to unborn piglets. When the females are crated, aggression and threat of injury are minimized. Gestation crates also facilitate individualized animal care, feeding, and monitoring.

The downside of gestation crates is the severe constraint on movement that the 14- square-foot crate imposes. While the crate affords the pregnant female some limited side-to-side and back-and-forth movement, it totally prevents the animal from turning itself around. The animal welfare questions that are raised by the movement limitations of gestation crates have motivated the industry to adopt a different means of pork production that allows the pregnant animal freedom of movement.

Group Sow Housing as an Alternative to Gestation Crates

A production model based on group sow housing places pregnant swine in open pens that allow them free movement. An accurate description of a “typical” group sow housing barn is elusive because no single type has yet evolved in the United States. Consequently, there is wide variation in design characteristics of existing grouped housing units. For example, the number of animals grouped in one pen can vary anywhere from 5 animals to more than 100, depending on per-animal space allocations. The groups themselves can be “static,” meaning that all the animals in a pen enter it together when the group is formed, or “dynamic,” meaning that animals enter and exit the group. The size of the groups and the per-animal space allocations often determine the method employed to feed the animals.

Feeding the animals in a group setting presents serious challenges given the tendency of swine toward aggression, particularly at feeding time. There are various methods available to feed the animals in a group setting. Three of the most common are electronic sow feeders, where the animals are trained to line up to enter feeding stations from which individualized rations are dispensed, based on information read from chips implanted in the animal’s ear; trickle feeding, where feed is delivered over a period of 15 to 30 minutes to troughs or on the floor of the pen; and free-stall feeding, where the animal enters a stall, often with a door closing upon entry, allowing her protection from aggressive pen mates during feeding. Each feeding method has a different set of cost, space, and management requirements, which together interact with group size, per animal space allocations, and numerous other physical characteristics of the unit’s design to affect the animals’ wellbeing.

Gestation Crates and Group Sow Housing: What Do Comparative Studies Show?

There are now many comparative studies in the animal science literature that document differences in production performance, behavior, and welfare indications between animals housed in gestation crates and those housed in pens. One of the most often-cited studies was carried out by McGlone et al. (2004). This study aggregated research findings from 35 previous comparative studies to determine whether sow behavior, performance, or physiology differed between the two housing types. The study tested for statistical differences between farrowing rates; pigs born per litter; oral, nasal, and facial behaviors; and cortisol blood levels in gestating animals. The research results, which are summarized in the table below, indicate that the differences between the means of measured variables were not statistically significant. That is, none of measures were significantly (P < 0.05) influenced by sow housing type. The study concludes that “gestation stalls or wellmanaged pens generally … produced similar states of welfare for pregnant [females] in terms of physiology, behavior performance, and health.”

This study also addresses two issues important in comparing the different systems. The study indicates that sow productivity—as measured by farrowing rates and pigs per litter—is not affected by housing type. This is good news to for U.S. pork producers, some of whom equate group housing with lower female productivity and lower asset returns. More important perhaps, the study identifies the producer’s animal handling/management skills as the key to maintaining productivity of sows housed in pens.

With respect to concerns about the effects of gestation crate housing on animal welfare, neither McGlone et al., nor current animal science research generally provide clear, empirical evidence that switching to group housing improves the welfare of pregnant female swine. The literature is supportive of the contention that sow/gilt welfare is not determined by housing type. “In other words proper design of stalls and pens can result in equivalent animal performance and welfare outcomes, although the design features for achieving that objective will differ. Therefore, it’s not clear that simply switching to group housing will inherently improve or reduce sow performance or welfare.”

The Group Sow Housing Model Often Employs Gestation Crates To Assure Swine Safety

As the sector continues to evaluate sow housing options, it will be important not to overlook two crucial safety features of the group sow housing model: First, the group sow housing model often does not exclude the usage of sow crates. In current practice in both the European Union and the United States, newly bred sows are crated for around 30 days to insure proper embryo implantation. Moreover, the pregnant females are typically crated for a 5-day period just prior to farrowing. Pregnant females are thus removed from group pens at periods in gestation when they are most vulnerable to aggression and injury. Second, both production models—gestation crate-based and group sow housing—move pregnant females into farrowing crates just prior to the birth of the litter.

The farrowing crate— different in dimension and design from the gestation crate—is designed to allow the female to position herself to nurse the litter. The sow’s movement is restricted to prevent injury to the litter, such as crushing or smothering . Crate use in the group sow housing model implies that the female spends about 35 percent of the year—4 months—in individual housing and the balance of the year in a group setting. Under a gestation crate system of production, the animal is crated 100 percent of the time.

Download The Complete Reort

Corn Planting Progress and Emergence Raise Yield Prospects for 2012/13

As of the same date, 32 percent of the expected crop had emerged, compared with an average of 13 percent in 2007-11 and 6 percent last year. Early planting boosts the projected yield for 2012/13 to 166.0 bushels per acre, compared with last year’s weather-reduced yield of 147.2. Rapid planting and emergence is also likely to affect supplies during the last quarter of the 2011/12 marketing year, resulting in reduced prospects for the June-August quarter feed and residual disappearance.

Corn production for 2012/13 is projected at a record high 14,790 million bushels, 20 percent over last year’s crop. With carrying of 851 million bushels and imports of 15 million, supplies are projected at 15,656 million bushels. Total use year-to-year is projected to gain 1,120 million bushels on higher feed and residual and export demand. Ending stocks for 2012/13 are expected to be up 1,030 million bushels.

Record foreign coarse grain production and the huge US corn crop boost 2012/13 global coarse grain supplies to record levels; however, with foreign coarse grain use increasing faster than production and less competition from low-priced wheat, prospects for US corn and sorghum exports are also raised.

Download The Complete Report

Market Comments

One of the arguments for the continued weakness in the pork market has been that prices at the consumer level have not adjusted quickly enough to clear the market. While export shipments have been strong, at least through Q1, lower prices have been needed to stimulate volume movement. More recently, however, the conversation among market participants has focused on the willingness of domestic retailers to lower prices in order to clear the perceived supply backlog. Stickiness of retail prices, or price rigidity, is an old subject in economics. Retailers and foodservice operators are reluctant to change prices often, both because of how they perceive consumer responses to such changes but also because of the costs inherent in changing prices often. Prices tend to be more sticky at the foodservice level. This is understandable considering the expense in changing menus, revising in-store promos as well as the long term established marketing calendars that are tied to advertising campaigns. Large foodservice chains provide exceptional efficiencies of scale but they also have significant bureaucracies that make quick price changes difficult to implement. Retailers tend to be more nimble in making price changes but even there price stickiness persists. Retailers are wary of confusing the consumer and want to see if lower or higher prices will persist before making a change. This happens both when prices move up as well as they move lower.