The Rural Voice, 2002-10, Page 18Who'll be making pork in the futures
Those who respond to customer needs, _speakers say
By Keith Roulston
Woo will make pork in the
future in Ontario? "Those
producers who recognize
that they have to serve their
customers" seemed to be the
common conclusion of speakers at
The Future of Ontario Pork
Production conference in
Shakespeare, September 18.
"Those producing pigs in the
future will be those who understand
what the market demands," said
Arnold Ypma of Shade Oak Swine in
Tillsonburg. "(It will be) those who
know how to produce what the
market demands."
It's not about how big you are or
whether you produce on a contract or
which packer you ship to that will
determine your future place in the
Ontario hog industry, added Bob
Hunsberger of the Progressive Pork
Producers and their co-operatively
owned packing plant Conestoga Meat
Packers in Breslau. It's about
recognition that the customer,
whether the packer or the ultimate
consumer, must be served, he said.
"It's about simple courtesy to your
customer and giving your customer
what they want," Hunsberger said.
"It's up to you to decide whether
you want to be one of them (the
producers of the future)," said
Hunsberger, one of 10 speakers
discussing everything from
ownership models to methods of co-
operation.
Hunsberger, who is involved in
both ends of the business as both a
14 THE RURAL VOICE
producer and chairman of the
producer -owned packing plant, was
perhaps the harshest critic of current
producers at the meeting.
"We have typically shipped off -
spec. We've short -shipped and over -
shipped without apology," he said of
past practices of Ontario's hog
producers.
When the PPP co-op got into the
packing business the producers found
out that what the packers had been
saying about too much variation in
pigs was true, Hunsberger said.
"There is a variety in the quality of
hogs from PPP members and we are
working on improving hog quality
and reducing variability," he said.
Part of the problem is that there's
a failure in the current system to
determining payment for value in
hogs, Hunsberger argued. Farmers
are paid for an absence of fat, not for
the presence of lean muscle. He said
he's not convinced that the single
probe point currently being used is
sufficient to give a true evaluation of
the carcass.
Ypma also pointed out the
problems with the current payment
system. A farmer will be rewarded
the same amount of money for
reducing back fat 1 mm as he or she
will get for increasing lean muscle
yield 9 mm, he said.
He showed how five pigs with an
index of 110-112 could range from a
mere 25.5 mm of loin thickness to 75
mm.
Ypma promoted the idea that 80
per cent of hogs should be within a
"good" range or 12-20 mm of backfat
(ideal is 15-18 mm) and 55-75 mm of
loin depth (ideal is 60-70).
Variability is not unique to the hog
business, Hunsberger said. Even
broiler chickens, usually regarded as
the closest thing to an industrial
product in animal production, have a
degree of variability within an entire
barn full of chickens. But variation
within hogs is extreme, he said.
Producers need to think what's best
for the pork production system not
just for their farm.
While nutrition and management
might contribute to some variability,
extreme variability comes from
genetics, Ypma said. Cross -breeding
contributes to variability, he said.
Purebred sires increase predictability
and uniformity.
Focus on sires first, he advised.
Select sires from a single breed
and a single line within the
breed. Demand information on those
sires. Look at the loin thickness
readings of the sires and choose the
best. Look at the backfat readings.
Look for uniformity and look for lean
yield.
He also suggested using artificial
insemination. The best boars should
be in boar studs, he said and the use
of these sires should produce the
largest number of offspring.
Hunsberger said there's a
disconnect in communications in the
pork business. "I've been in the
business for almost 35 years and it's