Loading...
The Rural Voice, 1990-12, Page 12treleaven's Iucknow feed mill limited COMPLETE LINE OF ANIMAL FEED AND VETERINARY SUPPLIES HOG — BROILER — LAYER TURKEY — BEEF — DAIRY VEAL — FISH — PET FOODS call LUCKNOW 519-528-3000 or 1-800-265-3006 8 THE RURAL VOICE BST AND PST NOT LSD Adrian Vos, from Huron County, has contributed to The Rural Voice since its inception in 1975. The protest against the use of bovine somatotropin (BST) has been dismissed by the Ontario appeals tribunal, and rightly so. Whether the hormone is increased in animals through selective breeding, or through injection or feeding, it makes no difference to the health of the product. No industry can dismiss potential profits simply because of the phobias of some health freaks who would rather use LSD. We still have to wait for research to prove whether the animal's welfare is affected or not. It's possible that the extra milk will demand extra large udders. That could be painful to cows. One of the biggest problems in the use of BST is its application. As one dairy farmer pointed out to me, cows will become very leery when he approaches them daily with a syringe. This problem won't be overcome until either long-lasting injections are developed or the substance can be added to feed. A similar problem could develop with porcine somatotropin (PST), and this cannot be ignored. Not only does it make pork less expensive (fat is energy which takes four times the amount of feed to produce than lean), it also provides consumers with what they have demanded for a long time, lean meat. One of the reasons why it takes four pounds of feed to produce one pound of pork as opposed to only two pounds of feed to produce one pound of chicken or turkey is that poultry has only three per cent of fat compared to more than 35 per cent on a pig. Most pig fat is trimmed off and rendered into soap and such. I'm sure that when PST or any similar product is ready for use, there will be some hog men and health freaks who will raise a hue and cry to ban the stuff. Despite this, I believe it will be allowed. Preliminary tests have shown that between 20 and 30 per cent of feed can be saved in raising hogs. Since 80 per cent of the cost of raising hogs is for feed, it's clear that the total cost of raising a hog can possibly be reduced by as much as 20 per cent. If PST use temporarily increases the cost to some customers, the net overall gain will still be too big to ignore. In the long run, more customers will be gained with the recovery of market losses to chickens and turkeys in the past. I'm convinced that some pork producers will sell PST -free pork when the time comes. British experience has shown that consumers were not willing to accept the high cost associated with so-called "pure" meat. "Organic" pork, which sold well in its initial stages, has now lost much of its appeal and few farmers still produce it. In Holland and Germany, there's still a market for brown organic eggs, which, for the present, is holding its own. However, the extra cost would not be acceptable in a recession, except for a faithful few. Keeps you ears open to reports coming from the Geneva GATT talks. Canada is the only one of 95 or so members of the GATT family to strongly defend supply management. It doesn't help when our Minister of Trade, John Crosbie, gives out the wrong subsidy figures. He mistakenly believes that the difference between the Canadian price and the world price is the amount of subsidies farmers get. Use your head John. A portion of the world price is determined by Third World countries whose peasants work for pennies a day. Besides, the $8.8 billion subsidy referred to by Crosbie is much more than the actual total income of Canadian farmers.0