Rotecna World 10

1

NUMBERTEN2009

ROTECNAWORLD

Balancingsow & piglets welfare with productionefficiency

RESEARCH&DEVELOPMENT

Our sector is still struggling through the situa-tion, which now seems to show some glimmers of optimism. And that would be very welcome. Some northern countries are said to be beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. That is fine, although for southern countries it means seeing the light a little later.

According to experts in Holland, Belgium, Ger-many and Denmark, the perspectives for the last months of the year are good. However, they still maintain a certain pessimism, as we cannot know when the wind might change direction and it is bet-ter to be cautious.

Given this situation, not at all easy to deal with, given this panorama, what is left? The desire to move ahead. This is something shown not only through attitudes but also with action. So, now more than

ever, innovation must be our flagship. In our case, in Rotecna, we follow this con premise, which has always been one of our characteristics, with the launch of the Swing Feeder R3, the evolution of that first feeder for large groups that revolutionised the European market.

For companies, this is not a time to give up nor slow down; but rather this space –perhaps longer than we would wish- should be used to build the foundations for the trampoline that will push us forward.

It is true that the last year and a half have not been the best, and we are facing a 2010 -a priori- just as difficult, but the sector has always known how to overcome the downturns. It is simply a ques-tion of overcoming another one with shrewdness, hard work and also, of course, some courage.

Gener RomeuRotecna's President

LETTERFROMTHEEDITOR

SUMMARY

ROTECNA WORLD 10 OCTOBER 2009 ISSN: L-41-2007

EDITION:Rotecna, s.a.

EDITORIAL STAFF:Montse Palau

DESIGN:Montse gueRReRo

PRINT:IMPRenta baRnola

Rotecna's World's editors accept no liability for contributor's opinion

4 6 10

20181712

4

ROTECNANEWS

ROTECNA, S.A. has begun a campaign to preserve natural resources, applying the directives that refer to efficient industrial production.

The actions for a more eco-efficient production began some years ago with the classification and recovery of all kinds of residual materials (plastic, paper, wood, desecho,…) for recycling. Later came the progressive replacement of wood pallets with plastic ones. And now, we wish to reduce the excessive material that is dumped in natural after a single use, reusing the plastic pallets.

With the slogan “Let the plastic pallets come back”, ROTECNA aims to raise awareness among its national clients to work together to protect the environment with a simple gesture. The com-pany will recover the pallets that are in good conditions to reuse them. Currently, we use some 10,000 pallets per year, which represents a large amount of material apt for reuse.

Continuing with this policy of using energy resources, several months ago a solar photovoltaic plant was installed in our industrial complex. This installation, of 110 kWp (kilowatts peak) and 504 photovoltaic modules, is able to generate 145,812 kWh per year of clean electricity.

This photovoltaic solar plant is like a small power station for producing non-polluting electric energy. It is made up of:

Photovoltaic generator.-

Supports for the photovoltaic panels.-

Electronic converter.-

Interconnection protectors and - measurement equipment.

5

Rotecna:Eco-efficientindustrialproduction

The photovoltaic panels have a guarantee of per-formance for 25 years, with output of 90% until the tenth year and 80% until the twenty-fifth.

The province of Lleida (where ROTECNA’s industrial complex is located) is the second highest in Spain for solar radiation after Almería. According to study by the Centre for Energy, Environmental and Tech-nological Research (Ciemat), the average radiation in Lleida is between 4.5 and 5.1 kW/h per square

metre. That means that any photovoltaic installa-tion has a high electricity producing performance.

These actions in favour of the environment are carried out within ROTECNA’s directives to move towards eco-efficient industrial production to preserve natural resources con with gestures like these, simple but effective.

If we do MORE with LESS, WE ALL gain.

“Let the plastic pallets come back”

6

RESEARCH&DEVELOPMENT

Abstract

The close confinement of sows in barren environmental conditions gives rise to major public concern for their welfare. Such concern has resulted in EU legislation to ban individual confinement systems for the majority of gestation, and strong pressures to find alternatives to the farrowing crate for lactating sows. Many alternative loose housing systems for dry sows exist, and have been in widespread use for a number of years. They have the potential to deliver both higher welfare and good repro-ductive performance, but careful attention to feeding and management to prevent social stress is critical to success. Adoption of alternative non-confinement sys-tems for farrowing and lactation is more problematic. Despite their routine use in some EU countries at the current time, systems which guarantee good piglet sur-vival under large-scale indoor production conditions have yet to be commercially proven.

It is likely that changes to both genetics and manage-ment will be necessary to make such systems function in an acceptable commercial way.

The non-confinement alterna-tives for gestating sows

For the pregnant sow, a wide variety of alternative sys-tems to the gestation stall exists (Edwards, 1998) and, since the banning or phasing out of confinement systems in many European countries, these have been in use on both small and large commercial scales. In the UK, group

Sandra Edwards

Newcastle University

Balancingsow & pigletswelfare with produc-tion efficiency

7

housing systems have been operating since well before this became a legal requirement, and a vast deal of practi-cal experience has accumulated. In synthesising advice and information on such systems, a UK advisory body recognised six different generic categories of gestation housing system (Pig Welfare Advisory Group (PWAG), 1997a,b,c,d,e,f,). These can be summarised as follows:

Outdoor SowsLow capital cost is incurred in a system where dry sows can be stocked at up to 25 animals/ha in large group sizes, contained by double or single strand electric fenc-ing, housed in simple corrugated iron huts, and fed on the ground (PWAG, 1997a).

Yards or Kennels with Floor FeedingThis is the simplest and cheapest of the indoor systems and can be adopted in almost any building.

Yards and Individual FeedersThis is generally the most expensive housing system because of the cost and space requirement associated with having a feeding stall for each sow (PWAG, 1997c).

Cubicles and Free-Access StallsThis is a cheaper variant in which less space per sow is required, since the stalls serve as both lying and feeding place (PWAG, 1997d).

Yards or Kennels with Short Stall FeedersFurther attempts to reduce cost and space per sow have lead to development of systems in which only head or shoulder length partitions between feeding places are used (PWAG,1997e).

Electronic Sow FeedersLarge scale automation of dry sow rationing has been made possible by more recent technology which permits individual sows to be electronically identified and allocated a specified amount of diet in a computer controlled feeding station.

The challenges of the alternative gestation housing systems

The challenges posed by alternatives to confinement sys-tems can relate both to welfare challenges for the animals, and practical and economic challenges for the producer.

Welfare ChallengesThe welfare challenges for the group-housed gestating sow relate to social aggression and ability to access a fair share of feed resources. Because of the restricted feed level and chronic hunger experienced by the animals, even on nutritionally adequate diets, competition for feed can be a major source of aggression unless feeding ani-mals are fully segregated. With floor feeding systems, aggression at feeding time can be severe (Brouns and Edwards, 1994; Whittaker et al., 1999) and large variation in body condition can result (Edwards, 1992). In systems with partial feeding stalls (for example, cubicles and free access stalls) significant aggression during feeding can also occur if some sows within the group finish their feed allocations whilst others have food remaining. For this reason, grouping strategies with careful matching of age and body condition are important. Electronic sow feeders require animals to feed sequentially. With good feeding protection and a regular routine, such systems can oper-ate with little aggression. However, any unreliability of the technology due to poor design or maintenance can cause aggression and vice to quickly escalate (Edwards and Riley, 1986).

To minimise the problems with social aggression, a 1. number of general recommendations for system design and management, based on scientific under-standing of social behaviour, can be made (Edwards, 1992, 2000). Some are:

Allowing adequate space for social signalling of sub-2. missive behaviour, with a minimum of 2.4 m2 per sow in stable groups (Weng et al., 1998), and provid-ing increased floor area and visual barriers within the pen at the time of mixing (Edwards et al., 1993) can reduce the level and severity of injurious behaviours.

Provision of a foraging substrate such as straw 3. bedding, or even smaller recreational amounts of long or chopped straw, allows appropriate expres-sion of foraging behaviour and has been shown in both experimental studies and practical experi-ence to reduce aggression and lesion scores. In unbedded systems, maintaining animals in better body condition and feeding once, rather than twice, daily to allow greater meal size reduces restlessness and aggression.

8

RESEARCH&DEVELOPMENTAs an alternative to increasing feed energy allow-4. ance, providing increased dietary bulk through fibre incorporation can also induce greater satiety as a result of longer feeding time, greater gastro-intes-tinal distention and prolonged nutrient delivery and heat generation from hindgut fermentation (Meu-nier-Salaün et al., 2000).

Economic ChallengesThe extent to which acceptable economic performance can be realized in alternative loose housing systems for gestating sows depends on two aspects. The first relates to fixed costs arising from the capital cost of system installation, and the second to the level of reproductive performance which can be achieved in a given system relative to the variable cost requirement. Capital costs of group housing systems for dry sows vary widely depend-ing on the building space requirement and sophistication of feeding system adopted. Total space will be greater than for confinement systems, and initial investment or building conversion cost will therefore be higher unless low cost housing structures can be used, such as deep litter systems in uninsulated buildings or hoop structures. The significant reduction in lower critical temperature of group housed sows in deep litter systems, in comparison to individually housed animals in unbedded systems, can mean that the feed penalty associated with less control-led thermal environments is not always great.

Most producer concerns relate to whether less intensive systems can deliver the same level of reproductive per-formance as the very controlled conditions of stall hous-ing. Many of the early studies on group housing systems in different countries (for example Denmark and USA) have shown reduced reproductive performance relative to stalls in both conception rate and litter size. However, these studies were often carried out in unbedded accom-modation with highly competitive feeding systems and staff unfamiliar with group housing systems. It is cer-tainly the case that social stress on sows at key times in the reproductive cycle will result in suppressed oestrus behaviour, reduced ovulation rate and, most importantly, increased embryo mortality (Arey and Edwards, 1998). Adverse effects of stress have been identified at all levels in the hypothalamo-pituitary-gonadal axis as a result of the influence of changes in a number of hormones and neurotransmitters. Avoiding mixing and social competi-

tion around the period of insemination and implantation (7-14 days post insemination) by good housing design and feeding management is therefore key to reproductive success. It is for this reason that most EU countries have retained stalls for the first 4 weeks of pregnancy, although large scale surveys in countries with a tradition of group housing (Arey and Edwards, 1998) and more recent stud-ies in countries in the process of adopting such systems (EFSA, 2007) show that well managed group systems can deliver the same high level of reproductive performance.

Comparisons of performance between different dry sow housing systems using industry survey data have peri-odically been published, especially at times of transition when different systems are running contemporaneously. Feed use is typically 10-15% higher in outdoor systems, and often reported to be 5-10% higher in floor feeding

indoor systems. The extent to which this reflects feed wastage, increased sow activity and/or association with poorer quality buildings is uncertain.

Experimental within-farm comparisons of different group housing systems have been carried out within the UK (e.g. Stewart et al., 1993; Broom et al., 1995) and elsewhere within Europe (e.g. Bengtsson et al., 1983; den Hartog et al., 1993). Few consistent performance differences between systems have emerged from such studies but welfare has generally been held to be com-

This image will disappear soon in Europe members as in 2013 the stalls in gestation will be completely banned.

9

promised in group feeding systems, and more at risk in electronic sow feeding systems. Studies have generally focussed on different feeding systems, with confound-ing of other system components such as group size and/or bedding provision. A further concern has been the reporting of increased culling of sows from group hous-ing systems for lameness and leg injuries incurred dur-ing aggression at mixing and mounting behaviour dur-ing oestrus, particularly in slatted systems. Once again, correct design of housing and management is the key, with adequate space, nonslippery floors and correct slat and void dimensions.

The way forward

For both gestating and lactating sows, non-confinement systems which can improve sow welfare without unac-

ceptably compromising piglet welfare or production economy do exist. Making these systems an effective commercial reality involves more than just implement-ing a building design. Although the system is often considered to be the situation into which the sow is placed, factors associated with the sow herself can interact with other components to play a crucial role in system success. Certain genotypes of sow are better adapted to extensive systems, requiring a robust indi-vidual, than others. This is particularly apparent in out-door systems but can also be relevant in indoor group-

housing systems. Selection of genotypes for traits more relevant to social and maternal success in non-confine-ment systems (Baxter et al., 2007; Roehe et al., 2008) will be a critical part of a successful strategy. It is also becoming apparent that the previous physical environ-ment and social experience of the animals can influence later group behaviour (van Putten and Buré, 1997), and understanding and utilising these developmental influ-ences will also be important. Finally, it must be recog-nised that the system cannot be divorced from the human input of management and stockmanship. Sow observation and management during key production stages such as breeding and farrowing become more critical as artificial aids are reduced.

Conclusions

Pig producers must consider the long term future of their industry, which ultimately depends on the accept-ance of pig production methods by consumers and the wider society. The close confinement of sows in barren environmental conditions gives rise to major public concern for their welfare. Many alternative loose hous-ing systems for dry sows exist, and have been in wide-spread use for a number of years. They have the poten-tial to deliver both higher welfare and good reproductive performance, but careful attention to feeding and man-agement to prevent social stress is critical to success. Adoption of alternative non-confinement systems for farrowing and lactation is more problematic. Despite their routine use in some EU countries at the current time, systems which guarantee good piglet survival under large-scale indoor production conditions have yet to be commercially proven. However, promising devel-opments are now emerging which, together with appro-priate changes in genetics and management offer hope for the future. The extent to which alternatives succeed is likely to depend on the scale of operation, the skill of stockpeople and the philosophy and motivation of the producer. However, such considerations cannot be divorced from production economics. Producers in a very competitive industry can only operate within the bounds of profitability. Initiatives that reduce net mar-gin are not sustainable and any systems which signifi-cantly reduce output or increase capital or running costs are only viable if associated with a protected market or reliable product premium.

The study also includes the electronic sow feeders in gestation.

10

SOMETHINGABOUT…

Catalonia has some 700 kilometres of coast, divided into three main areas: the Costa Central (in Barcelona province), the Costa Dorada (in Tarragona, to the south) and the Costa Brava (in Girona, to the north). The three coasts are bathed by the Mediterranean, although there are obvious differences between them. While the Costa Dorada is lower and the sand finer, the Costa Brava has a more abrupt landscape and coarser sand.

Used by many Catalans for second homes, the Costa Brava has the charm of the sea very close to the moun-tains. It is a very valuable area for the variety and rich-ness of its natural resources, its centuries of history and culture in its buildings, etc, and for the quantity of

tourist resources; with ski slopes in winter, or its beaches and coves in summer.

The coastline of the Costa Brava, the most northerly in Catalonia, is about 200 kilometres long from Portbou, on the French frontier, to Blanes. It was discovered at the beginning of the twentieth century by writers and artists like Picasso, Marc Chagall or Santiago Rusiñol, who were attracted by the human qualities of the inhabitants, the wealth of its traditions and the main heritage of the Costa Brava: its natural beauty.

This is a very wild coast (“Brava” means wild) resulting from the various mountain ranges, such as the Pyr-

Costa Brava: between sea & mountain

Besalú's bridge; Arxiu Patronat Turisme Costa Brava, Francesc Tur.

11

enees, the Albera range, the massif of Les Gavarres or that of Cadiretes, that reach the sea as rocky cliffs to give it a wild and jagged aspect, with hidden coves and beaches, where pines grow right down to the waterline. There are also wide beaches like those in the Gulf of Roses or the dunes at Pals, which break up the unity and give variety to the landscape.

In the interior of the Costa Brava, there are small towns near the sea, normally with an economy based on agri-cultural or small-scale industry, which have managed to keep their charm and personality over the centuries. For example, there are such municipalities as Peratallada, Peralada, Monells, Ullastret or Pals. The Empordà plain, with the special aspect of the “masías” or farmhouses, singular constructions highly valued by those who seek peace and quiet as a refuge from the big city. The area of La Selva, with great forests and towns lost in the heart of Montseny, or Banyoles, with its lake surrounded by hills. Then there is La Bisbal, the pottery capital and Figueres, with the original and unique Dalí Museum.

The geographic proximity of all the towns on the Costa Brava and the good communications allow the visitor to

enjoy a wide range of activities, not only in the landscape, but also referring to gastronomy or sports, including sail-ing, parachuting, hang gliding or diving. Thus, it is not by chance that the Costa Brava has been the staring point for many civilisations, so that now it is full of culture and art, like the Roman ruins at Sant Martí de Empúries.

Among the curious sites on the Costa Brava is the Art Park in Cassà de la Selva, an invitation to enjoy nature in a place designed down to the last detail to house unique contemporary sculptures. The Art Park has 150 sculp-tures by renowned artists in the open air in a hectare of gardens. Nothing about the landscape and the treat-ment of the space is left to chance, and each Zen work is put in the place it corresponds to: in the shade of a cork oak, floating on a pond, on the grass, etc.

Artistically, Salvador Dalí has undoubtedly been a plus for the Costa Brava, where the Dalí triangle (the Dalí Theatre-Museum in Figueres, Púbol Castle and his house in Portlligat) maintains the painter’s artistic creativity. It merits a chapter to itself.

Information from www.costabrava.org

Photos: Cadaqués; Arxiu Patronat Turisme Costa Brava; Francesc Tur.

12

PIGPRODUCTIONIN…

Summary

Russia’s red meat imports increased 10.8% during the first five months of 2008, up from 518,800 tons imported during the same period of 2007. Poultry imports increased 7.5% during the first five months of 2008, up from 426,900 tons imported during the same period of 2007. Unless Russian meat and poultry import regulations change, over-quota imports are projected to increase in 2008 and 2009. Imports of live pigs for slaughter increased 30% in the first quarter of 2008 as exporters sought to avoid import TRQ limita-tions. Supplies of live animals in Western Europe have been largely exhausted, and importers are turning to Australia, Canada, and now the U.S.

Potential investors in Russian cattle production are deterred by historically negative financial

returns, and beef production is expected to decrease 2% in 2009. Pork production is expected to increase 7% in 2009, largely due to growing investment in swine production, better reproduc-tive yields, greater availability of investment credit subsidies, and a high grain yield in 2008. Livestock policies under the State Program for Development of Agriculture and Regulation of Food and Agricultural Markets in 2008-2012 encourage swine production and attempt to address Russia’s declining cattle numbers.

In May 2008 Russia and the United States agreed on several new veterinary certificates for livestock genet-ics, including for live cattle and bovine embryos. Appropriate Russian agencies changed food safety regulation for food additives, organic food, poultry chlorine treatment, and others.

Russian Federation the big market

Resource: USDA Foreign Service. GAIN Report

13

In February 2009, the First Deputy Prime Minister, Viktor Zublovbv, told that “we have a chance to fully provide ourselves with pork within three to four years”. “Russia”, added, “produced 8% more pork than in 2007”.

Production

The Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) reported that as of July 1, 2008, there were 17.4 million hogs, 1% fewer than in 2007. In 2007 the swine herd totaled 17.6 million hogs, a 9.9% increase from 2006. In Rus-sia, private plots generated 49% of cattle, 43% of swine, and 50% of sheep and goats at the end of June 2008. Rising input prices significantly affect small Rus-sian producers, because private households have a limited ability to pass on higher costs to consumers. Total profits in the Russian pork industry are falling, and competition is becoming fiercer. More-profitable, vertically integrated companies are increasing their market share as they absorb less-efficient producers.

Falling grain prices will drive herd growth-potential, allowing farmers to increase their pig herds. Swine production is expected to increase 7% to 44.4 million pigs in 2009. In 2008 swine production is expected to increase 7% over the previous year due to unexpect-edly high reproductive yields and an anticipated record grain yield. Some meat market analysts predict that as new and modernized pig farming complexes reach planned capacity, pork production will grow 75% from 2008 to 2012. Under the National Priority Projects, the Russian government hopes to increase annual domes-tic pork production to 2.4 MMT by building multiple new pork production facilities. Domestic livestock pro-duction is currently cost prohibitive due to unreason-ably high production costs, feed conversion ratios, and rising energy prices. This may change in 2008 as a record-setting grain yield results in lower feed prices. Lower input costs and higher meat prices may make pork production more cost effective.

In keeping with a long decline in the cattle sector, low productivity and reproductive inefficiency are expected to decrease cattle herds 3% in both 2008 and 2009. Beef production is forecast to fall 3% in 2008 and another 2% in 2009. While Russia has started to develop a commercial beef cattle industry, it will not

play a significant role in beef production in the near future. Dairy cattle, including bull calves and spent dairy cows, remain the primary source of domestic beef. Making beef an attractive area for investment in Russia remains a challenge.

According to Rosstat, Russia boosted production of basic food items in 2008. Processed meat production increased

18% to 1.1 million tons from January to May 2008. Sausage production increased 8.6% to 965,000 tons, and canned meat increased 13.5% in the same period.

Production of all processed meat and meat products increased 7.7% in the first half of 2008 over the same period of 2007. Meat and offal processing increased 14%, including a 0.5% increase in pork, a 4% decrease in beef, and a 21.4% increase in poultry. Production of semi-ready products increased 11%, and sausage production increased 4%.

Consumption

Thanks to rising incomes, consumer demand for meat is growing. Rising domestic production and imports continue to satisfy demand.

The cool climatology doesn’t worry the pig producers.

14

PIGPRODUCTIONIN…Trade

Several organizations import live cattle, live hogs, semen, and embryos under the National Priority Project in Agriculture. These include the State Agro-Industrial Leasing Company, Rosagroleasing (http://eng.rosag-roleasing.ru/), Rosplem ([email protected]), Agroplem-soyuz (http://www.agroplemsoyuz.ru/), and several other companies. Supplies of live animals in Western Europe have been largely exhausted, and importers are turning to Australia, Canada, and the U.S for imported swine genetics. Outdated Russian swine genetics offer a 4:1 feed conversion ratio and fat hogs that are unfit for processing. Western swine genetics offer better feed conversion ratios and leaner hogs.

Imports of Live Animals for Slaughter

Russia imports a significant volume of live pigs for slaughter in response to growing food prices and an urgent need for raw meat for processing. These imports are not limited by tariff rate quotas (TRQ). Live pig imports increased 30% in the first quarter of 2008 over the same period of 2007. Most of it - 92,000 head out of total imports of 109,048 head – came for slaughter,

a 37% increase from 2007. Russia imported 59,410 hogs for slaughter from Lithuania - over half of total pigs imported for slaughter – an increase of 50% from the first quarter of 2007. Imports of purebred hogs fell from 6,941 in the first quarter of 2007 to 3,523 in the first quarter of 2008. Most imports during this period came from Hungary, Ireland, Poland and Denmark.

Russia Increased Meat Imports

Russian pork imports increased 40% year-on-year dur-ing the first three months of 2008. From January to March 2008, fresh and frozen pork imports totaled 152,626 MT, 30% of which came from Brazil. Other significant suppliers of pork include the United States, Canada, Denmark, and Germany.

VPSS Starts an Experiment onPreliminary Notification

In an effort to reduce the length of veterinary inspec-tions at the border, VPSS introduced an experimental procedure at customs in Kaliningrad Oblast, which cov-ers Kaliningrad, Smolensk, Tver, Pskov, and Leningrad oblasts. Kaliningrad’s regional Veterinary Directorate introduced a system of preliminary notification for rail shipments of livestock-origin products from the Euro-pean Union to the Russian Federation. The exporter or importer was instructed to send electronic notification with scanned copies of the exporting country’s veteri-nary certificate. Such shipments would get preference over those that did not provide preliminary notifica-tion, thus saving time at customs inspections. While this experiment takes place, existing clearance proce-dures will still be in force at other customs posts.

In 2007 Russian veterinary officials stated that they would soon impose a new electronic system to detect counterfeit veterinary certificates and reduce the smuggling of illegal livestock products into Russia. They cited an “increasing number of cases where accompanying documentation was filled with errors.”

Prices

Consumer prices grew 9.3% since the beginning of 2008, a rapid increase compared to 6.6% during the

RUSSIA: IMPORTS OF PIGS >50KG FOR SLAUGHTER 010392 IN 2005, 2006 AND 2007, IN HEAD

RANK COUNTRY CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007

0 -THE WORLD- 57,957 296,617 279,266

1 LITHUANIA 0 40,745 159,805

2 ESTONIA 1,595 61,120 47,302

3 GERMANY 0 0 21,425

4 IRELAND 0 797 15,008

5 HUNGARY 0 2,518 14,585

6 POLAND 55,456 188,232 9,124

7 CZECH REPUBLIC 32 0 6,799

SOURCE OF DATA: WORLD TRADE ATLAS

RUSSIA: LIVE ANIMAL IMPORTS BY REGION, IN HEAD

COMMODITY NUMBER REGION ORIGIN DATE

PIGS 10,000 SOWS, SEED STOCKS SVERDLOVSK OBLAST DENMARK 2008

SWINE 10,000 SVERDLOVSK OBLAST DENMARK 2008

SWINE 240 ORENBURG HUNGARY AUGUST 2007

SWINE 1,000 MORDOVIA U.K. JUNE 07

SWINE 1,200 OREL CANADA JUNE 07

SWINE 1,432 KIROV CANADA MAY 07

SWINE 2,337 BASHKIRIYA GERMANY 2007

15

same period of 2007. The Economic Development Ministry raised its inflation forecast for the year from 10.5% to 11.8%. According to Rosstat, meat and poultry prices have increased 9.6% since Janu-ary 2008, reaching an annual growth rate of 15.1%. Meat and poultry prices grew 1.6% in July alone. The trend of price increases for pork and beef – of both domestic and imported origin - will likely continue for the following reasons:

World demand for agricultural products of •plant and animal origin;

Significant increase in input costs for meat •and poultry production;

High inflation in Russia;•

State interference into internal and foreign •trade by non-market levers.

According to Minister Gordeyev, prices of livestock products should be stable and fair. The government, he said, should comply with the Federal Law on Agricultural Development, monitor price increases, and allocate compensatory subsidies in a timely

manner. According to Minister Gordeyev, the gov-ernment allocated 10 billion rubles (approximately $400 million) in 2008 to subsidize pork and poultry production to prevent losses and make production profitable.

Domestic pork prices were stable in 2007 and started to increase in May 2008. Imported pork prices increased from 89 rubles/kilo ($3.56) in August 2007 to 120 rubles/kilo ($4.80) in July 2008.

The Russian Government tries to reduce the smuggling of illegal livestock products into the country.

TABLE 3. RUSSIA: PORK IMPORTS, BY COUNTRY, 2005-2007, JAN-DEC, IN METRIC TONS

% CHANGE

RANK COUNTRY 2005 2006 2007 07/06

0 -THE WORLD- 562,849 625,657 671,738 7,37

1 BRAZIL 397,722 233,249 282,198 20,99

2 DENMARK 33,048 107,104 92,476 -13,66

3 UNITED STATES 29,687 68,424 75,129 9,80

4 CANADA 10,280 64,961 70,474 8,49

5 GERMANY 19,438 43,686 43,533 -0,35

6 SPAIN 4,005 13,623 26,427 93,98

7 NETHERLANDS 10,208 16,702 17,215 3,07

8 FRANCE 9,759 18,086 16,006 -11,50

9 BELGIUM 1,548 14,335 14,654 2,22

10 FINDLAND 8,617 16,388 14,463 -11,74

11 IRELAND 964,000 5,164 9,306 80,20

SOURCE OF DATA: WORLD TRADE ATLAS

16

PIGPRODUCTIONIN…

Development of livestock production in Russia increased demand for protein feeds.

Stocks

Stocks of meat are sufficient for retail trade and processing. Imports help keep prices at an affordable level.

Development of livestock production in Russia increased demand for protein feeds. Russia’s imports of soybeans and soybean meal subsequently sky-rocketed, thereby suggesting that demand for bio-tech feed products is also growing. Russia imported 215,259 MT of soybeans from July 2007 through March 2008, compared with only 2,333 MT in the same period of the preceding year.

There are no specific bans on importing biotech products. The Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance of the Ministry of Agri-

culture (VPSS) registers biotech feeduse crops. VPSS developed and adopted new registration procedures reportedly similar to an earlier protocol used in 2004. Registration for feed use still expires after five years.

Pre-Notification of ExportCertificates

For certificates issued on or after August 1, 2008, Rus-sia’s Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance Service requires advance e-mail notification of all scheduled shipments of U.S. poultry, pork, and beef. It is the responsibility of the exporter to assure that notification is provided.

Russia issued a draft “Technical Regulations On Meat Production and Its Turnover”, stipulating that many products may be produced only from chilled pork. Belarusian meat processing facilities subsequently ordered special refrigerated tracks to transport chilled carcasses and half carcasses to Russia. Currently, this product is shipped in refrigerators with a temperature of -18 degrees Celsius.

RUSSIA: FEED STOCKS AS OF APRIL 1, 2008, IN MMT FEED UNITS

2006 2007 2008

FEED AVAILABILITY 10.0 9.0 9.0

INCLUDING FEED GRAIN 3.4 3.3 3.4

SOURCE: ROSSTAT

17

TECHNOLOGY

Everyone knows that the feed for a pregnant sow is one of the most important aspects to ensure optimum reproductive performance. The best is to seek a balance so that the sow does not suffer from underfeeding or overfeeding.

On one hand, underfeeding could affect the reproduc-tive performance in the following two or three deliveries, as the mother sacrifices her own body reserves to avoid affecting the prenatal development of the piglets.

On the other hand, excessive feeding in this period also has negative effects. Sows that are overfed after insem-ination and during gestation have higher embryo mor-tality and produce smaller litters than sows that are correctly fed. Furthermore, sows that are very fat at delivery suffer a depression in feed consumption during lactation, resulting in higher weight and backfat losses.

To draw up a correct feeding plan for pregnant sows, the experts recommend knowing the body state of the animals, as well as measuring the thickness of the backfat. So that intake is correct, the dosifier used will

also play an important role. In Rotecna, we have devel-oped the FOUR dosifier, very practical to work with. Among its characteristics there is the semitransparent front and back to enable the available feed to be checked. Another important characteristic is that it has a trap to open or close the feed drop in the “Four” depending on whether the gestation or farrowing place is free or occupied by an animal.

The FOUR – for gestation and farrowing – has been designed for better handling in the gestation and far-rowing pens, especially bearing in mind the importance of feeding, which must be adjusted to the needs of each sow, in both phases. It has also been developed taking its handling by the farmer into account, so the component pieces can easily be disassembled with only a “click”. This way, the dosifier can be cleaned without mounting and dismounting being cumbersome.

Some studies show that feed intake can vary by 20-25% between farms. Thus, the precision of the dis-pensers plays an important role. So, in Rotecna this is a characteristic you will not find lacking in our range.

Practicality forfeeding in gestation

18

TECHNOLOGY

SWING R3:The evolution of

the speciesIt is 12 years since the launch of the Rotecna hopper, the Rotecmatic, later replaced by the Swing Feeder R-2. Over this decade, the company has used its character-istic research, development and innovation to optimise the initial design. And now it launches the latest ver-sion of this feeder. Between the first version and the Swing Feeder, Rotecna has managed to sell over 250,000 units around the world.

This is the Swing R3, the new generation that has been optimised for greater efficiency as the same feeder can be used for weaning, fatteners and wean to finish. Rotecna presents this latest version with the same essence as at its birth, but updated, with the innova-tions and experience of twelve years on farms all over the world.

The base of the new Swing R3 is the same: feeder for dry and wet feed, with two lateral drinkers and an eas-ily learned feed drop mechanism. However, this new version also has the following:

The plate, totally stainless steel, now keeps •water and feed separate.The pendulum that allows better working •for the feed drop.The plastic structure reinforced with stain-•less steel.The more precise adjustment with 24 posi-•tions, instead of the previous 15.Ease of filling and cleaning designed for •more comfortable handling by the farmer. The better performance with meals, thanks •to its diameter and the drop mechanism being apt for all kinds of feed.

19

ADVANTAGES:

• Better learning• Better working with meals• Easier regulation (24 positions)• Easier filling given its lower height• Easier cleaning

HIGHER EFFICIENCY BOTHFOR WEANING, FATTENING AND WEAN

TO FINISH

A single version that is designed for animals from 6 kg to 120 kg, with a swinging pendulum that provides better learning top work the feed drop as the animals make it work with their natural rooting instinct. The new design (with a capacity for 30 to 50 animals) is also easier to fill and clean bearing in mind the han-dling by the farmer. The performance of the new Swing R3 with meals is also notable.

Antecedents

The first version of this type of hopper was presented at the end of the 1990s, when Rotecna was already well established on foreign markets. In some north European countries, it was habitual to find farms with weaning and fattening with large numbers of animals, so a feeder that could feed this large group of pigs was necessary. Rotecna designed the Rotecmatic feeder.

This is a feeder for wet or dry feed with easy and effec-tive dosing, thanks to the eleven positions to adjust the precise distribution of the feed. The feeder has already appeared in two versions, Maxi –fattening- and Mini –weaning. The design was done with a distributor like a pendulum that was worked by the animal to make the feed drop. As well as the central zone in stainless steel for the dry feed, the feeder was completed with two lateral nipple-like drinkers.

This ease of intake favoured a good atmosphere in the pen, as the animals did not need to compete for feed as they did in other feeders. They all had the chance to feed and thus their growth was uniform. Moreover, the two lateral drinkers improved the pigs’ appetite and reception of the feed.

These were the basic lines of that first version. Over the years, Rotecna has optimised its design, part of its materials, but without varying from the initial idea: easy access to the feed for all the animals. The lines of the pendulum have been modernised, the capacity of the feeder extended and we made it semitransparent, added four more positions to the adjustment. Even the name has changed: Swing Feeder.

And in 2008, new characteristics were added to ensure its advantages continued to increase.

TECHNICAL DETAILS:

Nº animals for feeder 30-50

Animal live weight, kg 6-120

Hopper capacity, L. 95

Hopper filling height, cm 125

Diameter of hopper (maximum), cm 57

Plate width, cm 55

Plate depth, cm 45

Plate length, cm 10+3

SWING R3 reforircement, use when the feeder for finisher in the middle of the pen.

20

FUTURE

In 2008, the European Food Safety Authority launched a draft of its scientific opinion about the implications of cloning animals for food safety. The work was in response to the request by the European Commission (EC) in February 2007 for the EFSA to give an opinion about this question.

The opinion of the European Authority had to help to take the necessary considerations for future measures by the European Union (EU) regarding the animal clon-ing and the food products obtained from them. In February 2009, after the EFSA conclusions, the Euro-pean Commission met again to debate animal cloning

To clone or not to clone that is the question

21

and asked the European Authority to extend the infor-mation sent to them about this subject, and specifi-cally about:

Research into the causes of the pathologies and •mortality observed in cloned animals during gesta-tion or in the periods after birth and those observed less frequently in adult animals.

The health and welfare of the cloned animals dur-•ing their productive lives.

The EFSA report

The EFSA’s Scientific Committee drew up a report about animal cloning as a multidisciplinary theme for the use of groups of experts in different areas. Some of the main conclusions by these experts were:

Although death and disease rates of clones are •significantly higher than those observed in con-ventionally reproduced animals, healthy clones and their offspring indicate that somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT) can be successfully used as a reproductive technique in cattle and pigs. Based on a number of parameters including physiological and clinical ones, healthy clones and healthy offspring show no significant differences from their conventional counterparts.

The health and welfare of a significant proportion •of clones have been found to be adversely affected. The proportion of unhealthy clones is likely to decrease as the technology improve.

Food products obtained from healthy cattle and •pig clones and their offspring, i.e., meat and milk, are within the normal range with respect to the composition and nutritional value of similar prod-ucts obtained from conventionally bred animals. In view of these findings, and assuming that unhealthy clones are removed from entering the food chain as is the case with conventionally bred animals, it is very unlikely that any difference exists in terms of food safety between food products originating from clones and their progeny compared with those derived from conventionally bred animals.

No environmental impact is foreseen as a result of •animal cloning, but only limited data is available.

The report stated that SCNT is a relatively new tech-nology and the available data for risk assessment are limited. Most studies have been of small sample size and the currently available data only allow for an assessment of cattle and pig clones and their prog-eny. In addition, as SCNT is a developing technology, information on animals reared and remaining alive for considerable periods of time is limited. Also, the current welfare assessment is largely based on inter-pretation of limited data.

In these moments, the Commission is awaiting for the new report from the EFSA by June (with the two above-mentioned requests) to enable the adoption of the required measures in the field of animal cloning.

The first pig cloning was in 2000 with 5 piglets.

22

ROTECNANEWS

Ethical Opinion

The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) also presented a report to the European Commission with their opinion, to com-plement the EFSA’s conclusions that do not reflect the ethical moral or social aspects in their opinion.

The EGE’s opinion concluded that “considering the current level of suffering and the health problems of the cloned animals, the EGE has doubts as to wheth-er cloning animals for food supply is ethically justi-fied”. “At present”, the Group continued, “the EGE does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their off-spring”.

Europe versus the USA

Cloning is an international question. Cloning tech-niques are being used in a good number of coun-tries, with Japan being the latest to allow it, although the United States stands out. The country’s food

safety authorities, the FDA (Food and Drug Adminis-tration) have expressed their opinion about the risks to food safety from meat products obtained from cloned animals.

The FDA concluded that “meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine (pigs), and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals”. The North American Agency requires no additional labelling or meas-ures for these foods from cloned animals or their descendents given that no differences were observed compared with foods from conventional breeding.

If we compare the opinions of the FDA and the EFSA, we must note that the European Authority mentions the subject of animal welfare while the FDA does not contemplate this aspect in its considerations. Also in the European context, the EC also takes the ethical opinions of the EGE into consideration, while the FDA does not.

The scientists expect that the cloned pigs will contribute to meeting the demand for pig organs, if these are approved for use in human transplants.

23

Other countries are not so advanced in their discus-sions about cloning and its risks.

The Europena citizen

Most Europeans have a negative attitude to animal cloning for meat and milk production, with 58% stat-ing that it would never be justified, according to a Eurobarometer survey published in October 2008. In the case of Spain, there was greater tolerance, with the percentage of people against falling to 44%.

For now, in September 2008, the European Parlia-ment asked for the UE-wide prohibition of cloned animals for food production and requested a ban on the import of all products from animals obtained by this technique.

Cloning pigs

In March 2000, the scientists responsible for Dolly the sheep announced the birth of the world’s first five cloned piglets. The PPL company, based in Edinburgh,

Scotland, expect that these animals will contribute to meeting the demand for pig organs if these are approved for use in human transplants.

The five piglets were born on 5th March 2000 and were named Millie, Christa, Alexis, Carrel and Dotcom. The animals were created from adult cells, using a “nuclear transfer” technology, similar to that used with Dolly.

Colin Blakemore, Professor of Physiology at Oxford University, hopes that, in the future, these cloned ani-mals can be used in new cellular therapies. According to him, pig cells could be modified to generate human insulin, to be used to treat diabetes. Until now, this disease cannot be cured by organ transplant.

Also in 2000, but in Japan, Akira Onishi from the Department of Animal Reproduction and Genetics in the National Institute of Animal Industry Tsukuba Norin Danchi, cloned pigs. A year’s work on cloning pigs with his team produced Xena, a black piglet born from a surrogate sow that was white coloured.

The UE is working in a legislative way to approve or not the consumption of meat from cloned animals.

Your profitability is our target

SWING R3Feeder for Weaning, Growing, WTF

GROW FEEDER MAXIGrowingwet / dry

GROW FEEDER MINIWeaningwet / dry

SOW FEEDERFarrowingwet / dry

TOLVA TRWeaning4 / 5 feeding outlets

MINI HOPPER PANInitation feeder for suckling piglets

TECNA PANInitation pan for suckling piglets

EASY PANInitation pan for suckling piglets

MINITAINERVacuum type liquid container for suckling piglets for supplying milk or medication

MAXITAINERpara MAXI PAN

Vacuum type liquid container for weaning

for supplying milk or medication

MAXI PANPan for weaning

MAXI HOPPER PANSupport feeding for weaning and WTF

MINI PANInitation pan for suckling piglets

Polígono Industrial, s/n, nave nº3 · 25310 Agramunt (Lleida) SPAIN

Tel. +34 973 39 12 67 · Fax: +34 973 39 12 32 e·mail: [email protected] · www.rotecna.com

Liters

SOW BOWLSynthetic bowl withstainless steel rim

MAXIWETWet feeder for weaning

FEEDING BALLAccurately regulates the exact quantity of feed

SIMPLEX6 / 10 liters

CLUTCHDISPENSER6 / 10 liters

DOSIMATIC6 / 7 / 10 liters

FOUR7 liters

DISPENSEROUTLER REDUCER60Ø / 63Ø

EASY DRINKERMINIStainless steel nipple

EASY DRINKERMIDIStainless steel nipple

VR-H VALVEValve maintains a constant water level

EASY DRINKER DUOdrinker trought with VR-H valve

for sows, pics and growing

SWING DRINKERUnique drinker with swing action

and constant flow of water for weaning and growing

The most extensive equipment range

CHAIN AND DISK SYSTEMShock absorbing teeth system.Easy adjustable chain tensioning system with graduation scale.Corners with easy aperture system.Silo extraction system with an agitator.

ZINC-PLATEDSTEEL CHAIN50Ø / 60Ø

NITRURATEDCARBON CHAIN50Ø / 60Ø

DROP KITS55Ø / 75Ø / 90Ø

AUGERS55Ø / 75Ø / 90Ø

AUGER SYSTEMThe silo outlet system consist of a silo boot, a transfer unit and a slide gate assembly that allows horizontal and inclined insta-llation.

DELTA BEAMPROFILE110 / 135 mm

SILENT BLOCK

T PROFILE90 / 120 mm

BASIC POST BEAMAdjustable support

point for profiles

ERGOFIXSlat anchorsconcrete / plastic

CLICK-INFor close the slots in concrete slats

P.V.C. PEN DIVIDERS PLANKS for modular pennings

SOLID GRIP

FAST LOCK BRACKET SYSTEM

U BRACKETS SYSTEM

DELTA NETTilting flooring system

The most extensive equipment range

WEANER SLAT 1200x500

BLIND SLAT10% OPEN 1200x500

WEANER SLATS200x400 mm600x400 mm600x500 mm600x600 mm

WEANER SLAT 200x600 mmwith TRAP SLAT

BLIND SLATS600x400 mm600x500 mm

WEANER SLATS100x400 mm100x500 mm

PARTIAL BLIND SLATSA and B

600x500 mm

WTF SLATS600x400 mm600x500 mm

SOW SLATS200x600 mm600x200 mm600x300 mm600x400 mm

SLAT TRIM

BLIND SLAT 10% OPEN600x600 mm

SOW SLAT CONFORT600x400 mm

CAST-IRON SLATS400x600 mm600x400 mm600x600 mm

FERROCAST® LEVEL SLAT600x600 mm1200x600 mm

FERROCAST® STEP SLAT1200x600 mm1000x600 mm

HEATED PLATES600x400 mm

Water / Electrical