Dear Reader,

The livestock industry has once again been hit by a virusoutbreak, this time in the poulty sector. It first appearedin Asia, but globalisation being what it is, in only a fewhours it had seemingly spread to half the world.

This type of news does no good to any livestock sector,and although the pork sector was not involved on thisoccasion, the way consumers view intensive animal rea-ring is inevitably affected. This is bad news for everyone,as questions about food safety are raised in the consume-r’s mind yet again.

Although the main effects of bird flu were felt in Asia,countries closer to the European Union (EU), such asRumania, were also affected by the disease, with severalcases being detected on bird farms. Although Rumaniadoes not yet belong to the EU, its anticipated inclusion asa member state is being discussed for early 2007. Until

then, the development of handling, environmental andanimal welfare techniques employed in Rumania andother countries vying for EU membership needs to bemonitored, so that they may be brought into line with thevery strict standards which EU member states must meet.

In addition to food safety, livestock sectors also face theon-going challenge of respecting the environment. Somemonths ago, the European Union published a report onCO2 levels generated by the livestock industry. As youmight imagine, the conclusions were not exactly good.

We must therefore continue to make every effort tohonour our commitment to the environment, in which weare united with the rest of society, companies, fauna andflora. It is a task in which densely populated Europeancounries like Germany, Spain and France have a major roleto play.

Gener Romeu Guàrdia

3

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

Gener RomeuRotecna’s President

4 6 10

12 14 16 19

ROTECNA WORLD

EDITION:ROTECNA, s.a.

DESIGN:Montse Guerrero

PRINT:Imprenta Barnola

EDITORIAL STAFF:Montse Palau

7 FEBRUARY 2006 ISSN: L-156-01

Rotecna World’s editors accept no liability for contributors’ opinion

SUMMARY

Dear Reader,

The livestock industry has once again been hit by a virusoutbreak, this time in the poulty sector. It first appearedin Asia, but globalisation being what it is, in only a fewhours it had seemingly spread to half the world.

This type of news does no good to any livestock sector,and although the pork sector was not involved on thisoccasion, the way consumers view intensive animal rea-ring is inevitably affected. This is bad news for everyone,as questions about food safety are raised in the consume-r’s mind yet again.

Although the main effects of bird flu were felt in Asia,countries closer to the European Union (EU), such asRumania, were also affected by the disease, with severalcases being detected on bird farms. Although Rumaniadoes not yet belong to the EU, its anticipated inclusion asa member state is being discussed for early 2007. Until

then, the development of handling, environmental andanimal welfare techniques employed in Rumania andother countries vying for EU membership needs to bemonitored, so that they may be brought into line with thevery strict standards which EU member states must meet.

In addition to food safety, livestock sectors also face theon-going challenge of respecting the environment. Somemonths ago, the European Union published a report onCO2 levels generated by the livestock industry. As youmight imagine, the conclusions were not exactly good.

We must therefore continue to make every effort tohonour our commitment to the environment, in which weare united with the rest of society, companies, fauna andflora. It is a task in which densely populated Europeancounries like Germany, Spain and France have a major roleto play.

Gener Romeu Guàrdia

3

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

Gener RomeuRotecna’s President

4 6 10

12 14 16 19

ROTECNA WORLD

EDITION:ROTECNA, s.a.

DESIGN:Montse Guerrero

PRINT:Imprenta Barnola

EDITORIAL STAFF:Montse Palau

7 FEBRUARY 2006 ISSN: L-156-01

Rotecna World’s editors accept no liability for contributors’ opinion

SUMMARY

moul-

4 5

ROTECNANEWS

Rotecna’s business activity is based on the design,manufacture and marketing of plastic products for pigfarms. In order to make its products unique and exclu-sive, Rotecna decided long ago to invest in the pro-duction of its own moulds for injecting plastic.

In the work of this section of the company, everyattention is paid to detail, as the task of makingmoulds for our products is arduous and time-consu-ming. However, Rotecna possesses the state-of-the-

making mouldsart machinery required to carry out this work. One ofour star machines is the CNC (numerical controlmiller), which makes it possible to manufacture partsfor moulds faster than manual millers.

Thanks to the CNC, mould designs are fed into a com-puter, which then gives the coordinates for manufac-turing the features of the mould to the machine. TheCNC operator simply has to monitor the progress andrunning of this automatic process. The end result is

the moulds which make Rotecna’s TechnicalDepartment projects a reality.

Initially, many of the company’s moulds were manu-factured externally. With the consolidation of ourwork in this area, however, Rotecna has been makingits own moulds with cutting edge machinery for seve-ral years. In addition to the CNC, the section is alsoequipped with more conventional machinery to achie-ve perfect finishes. The machinery in question consistsof a manual miller, a lathe, an electronic erosionmachine, a rectifier and a radial bore.

The moulding section is also responsible for the main-tenance of moulds which are used on a daily basis inthe plastics section. One of the operators makes sureeach part is polished and in perfect condition for thenext time it is used. This task requires great precisionand patience, as the most worn parts of the mouldshave to be smoothed.

Though it may seem surprising, the moulds are anextremely valuable asset to our company, not onlybecause of their high cost but also because they are

essential to our work in manufacturing equipment forpig farms. This is why Rotecna had a fireproof cham-ber built to store all of our moulds in and protectthem from damage in the event of fire. Safeguardingthe moulds also safeguards Rotecna.

The success of this section also lies in the professionalengineering work of the Technical Departmentand the precise work of the Moulding Section. Thesetwo departments work in close collaboration so thatthe moulds can be used in our plastics sectionmachinery and the end product corresponds exactly tothe idea that our technicians have designed by com-puter.

In this sense, both the specific moulding machineryand the professionals who run this section areessential to the smooth running of the team. Althoughthis is not difficult work, their task is complex andrequires a degree of specialisation. Since Rotecnastarted making its own moulds, the resulting challen-ge has provided professional motivation for the mem-bers of the Moulding Section and the TechnicalDepartment alike.

Rotecna has been making its ownmoulds with cutting edge machinery forseveral years

The success of this section also lies inthe professional engineering work of theTechnical Department and the precisework of the Moulding Section

moul-

4 5

ROTECNANEWS

Rotecna’s business activity is based on the design,manufacture and marketing of plastic products for pigfarms. In order to make its products unique and exclu-sive, Rotecna decided long ago to invest in the pro-duction of its own moulds for injecting plastic.

In the work of this section of the company, everyattention is paid to detail, as the task of makingmoulds for our products is arduous and time-consu-ming. However, Rotecna possesses the state-of-the-

making mouldsart machinery required to carry out this work. One ofour star machines is the CNC (numerical controlmiller), which makes it possible to manufacture partsfor moulds faster than manual millers.

Thanks to the CNC, mould designs are fed into a com-puter, which then gives the coordinates for manufac-turing the features of the mould to the machine. TheCNC operator simply has to monitor the progress andrunning of this automatic process. The end result is

the moulds which make Rotecna’s TechnicalDepartment projects a reality.

Initially, many of the company’s moulds were manu-factured externally. With the consolidation of ourwork in this area, however, Rotecna has been makingits own moulds with cutting edge machinery for seve-ral years. In addition to the CNC, the section is alsoequipped with more conventional machinery to achie-ve perfect finishes. The machinery in question consistsof a manual miller, a lathe, an electronic erosionmachine, a rectifier and a radial bore.

The moulding section is also responsible for the main-tenance of moulds which are used on a daily basis inthe plastics section. One of the operators makes sureeach part is polished and in perfect condition for thenext time it is used. This task requires great precisionand patience, as the most worn parts of the mouldshave to be smoothed.

Though it may seem surprising, the moulds are anextremely valuable asset to our company, not onlybecause of their high cost but also because they are

essential to our work in manufacturing equipment forpig farms. This is why Rotecna had a fireproof cham-ber built to store all of our moulds in and protectthem from damage in the event of fire. Safeguardingthe moulds also safeguards Rotecna.

The success of this section also lies in the professionalengineering work of the Technical Departmentand the precise work of the Moulding Section. Thesetwo departments work in close collaboration so thatthe moulds can be used in our plastics sectionmachinery and the end product corresponds exactly tothe idea that our technicians have designed by com-puter.

In this sense, both the specific moulding machineryand the professionals who run this section areessential to the smooth running of the team. Althoughthis is not difficult work, their task is complex andrequires a degree of specialisation. Since Rotecnastarted making its own moulds, the resulting challen-ge has provided professional motivation for the mem-bers of the Moulding Section and the TechnicalDepartment alike.

Rotecna has been making its ownmoulds with cutting edge machinery forseveral years

The success of this section also lies inthe professional engineering work of theTechnical Department and the precisework of the Moulding Section

Several studies suggest that stereotypies diminish if theenergy supply is increased (Appleby and Lawrence, 1987;Terlouw et al., 1991) or if straw or another manipulablematerial that increases ingestion time is added (Spoolderet al., 1995; Whittaker et al. 1998, 1999). Anotherimportant factor in the appearance of stereotypies is therestriction of behaviour caused by the housing system.The group housing of sows helps to reduce stereotypiesin relation to housing in pens at the same level of inges-tion (Jensen, 1988; Broom et al., 1995; Vieuille-Thomaset al., 1995). To minimise stereotypies, therefore, sowsshould be provided with manipulable material and hou-sed in a way which allows them to display normal explo-ratory behaviour (SVC, 1997).

Although group housing improves many of theseaspects of welfare, it does have its drawbacks. As wellas making it difficult to provide each sow with the pro-per ration, supervision is more laborious, and the detec-tion of nutritional, pathological and behavioural pro-blems is thus complicated. The biggest problem as far aswelfare is concerned, however, is the increase in stressand injuries caused aggressions among animals, in par-ticular immediately after grouping and during feedingtime. When animals are grouped, a hierarchical order is

INTRODUCTION

New European animal welfare legislation (directive2001/88/EC) makes it compulsory to house gestatingsows in groups from the 29th day of gestation to 7 daysbefore the expected delivery date from January 1, 2013.The ban on current individual stalls will particularlyaffect the handling, feeding and welfare of animals.

Housing in pens makes it possible to offer each animalits own diet, facilitates the supervision and manipula-tion of sows and prevents injury as a result of aggres-sion. This system does, however, lead to the developmentof stereotypies, apathy, social stress (resulting frombeing unable to resolve interactions among animals), aswell as decubitus ulcers and lameness (caused by thelimitation of space). Sterotypies are probably the mostwell-studied welfare problem in sows.

The term “stereotypy”refers to any sequence of move-ments which are repetitive, invariable and lacking in anyapparent function (Odberg, 1978). The most frequent ingestating sows are biting bars, making chewing move-ments with an empty mouth and using drinkers, occa-sionally consuming excessive quantities of water. Thecauses of stereotypies have not been clearly established,although in the case of gestating sows, they seem to bedue to the chronic sensation of hunger which resultsfrom restricting feed.

6 7

RESEARCH & DEVELOP-

effect ofhousing andfeedingsystems onthe welfare and

productivity ofgestating

sows

Researchers at the UAB carriedout a study on the effect of hou-sing and feeding systems on ani-

N. Chapinal,J.L. Ruiz de la Torre,M.D. Baucells,J. Gasa,X. MantecaFacultat de Veterinària,Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)

The group housing of sows helps to redu-ce stereotypies in relation to housing inpens at the same level of ingestion

Several studies suggest that stereotypies diminish if theenergy supply is increased (Appleby and Lawrence, 1987;Terlouw et al., 1991) or if straw or another manipulablematerial that increases ingestion time is added (Spoolderet al., 1995; Whittaker et al. 1998, 1999). Anotherimportant factor in the appearance of stereotypies is therestriction of behaviour caused by the housing system.The group housing of sows helps to reduce stereotypiesin relation to housing in pens at the same level of inges-tion (Jensen, 1988; Broom et al., 1995; Vieuille-Thomaset al., 1995). To minimise stereotypies, therefore, sowsshould be provided with manipulable material and hou-sed in a way which allows them to display normal explo-ratory behaviour (SVC, 1997).

Although group housing improves many of theseaspects of welfare, it does have its drawbacks. As wellas making it difficult to provide each sow with the pro-per ration, supervision is more laborious, and the detec-tion of nutritional, pathological and behavioural pro-blems is thus complicated. The biggest problem as far aswelfare is concerned, however, is the increase in stressand injuries caused aggressions among animals, in par-ticular immediately after grouping and during feedingtime. When animals are grouped, a hierarchical order is

INTRODUCTION

New European animal welfare legislation (directive2001/88/EC) makes it compulsory to house gestatingsows in groups from the 29th day of gestation to 7 daysbefore the expected delivery date from January 1, 2013.The ban on current individual stalls will particularlyaffect the handling, feeding and welfare of animals.

Housing in pens makes it possible to offer each animalits own diet, facilitates the supervision and manipula-tion of sows and prevents injury as a result of aggres-sion. This system does, however, lead to the developmentof stereotypies, apathy, social stress (resulting frombeing unable to resolve interactions among animals), aswell as decubitus ulcers and lameness (caused by thelimitation of space). Sterotypies are probably the mostwell-studied welfare problem in sows.

The term “stereotypy”refers to any sequence of move-ments which are repetitive, invariable and lacking in anyapparent function (Odberg, 1978). The most frequent ingestating sows are biting bars, making chewing move-ments with an empty mouth and using drinkers, occa-sionally consuming excessive quantities of water. Thecauses of stereotypies have not been clearly established,although in the case of gestating sows, they seem to bedue to the chronic sensation of hunger which resultsfrom restricting feed.

6 7

RESEARCH & DEVELOP-

effect ofhousing andfeedingsystems onthe welfare and

productivity ofgestating

sows

Researchers at the UAB carriedout a study on the effect of hou-sing and feeding systems on ani-

N. Chapinal,J.L. Ruiz de la Torre,M.D. Baucells,J. Gasa,X. MantecaFacultat de Veterinària,Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)

The group housing of sows helps to redu-ce stereotypies in relation to housing inpens at the same level of ingestion

8 9

established, mainly on the basis ofaggressive interactions.

This being said, aggressions with physi-cal contact diminish considerably after24 hours (Barnett et al., 1992), the hie-rarchy being established in a few days(Brouns y Edwards, 1994). The fre-quency of aggressions diminishes withdensity (Weng et al., 1998) and also asthe group grows in size, as sub-groupsare formed (Edwards et al., 1993) andthe total available space increases(Broom et al., 1995). Dynamic groups,with periodical animal turnover, presentmore problems than stable ones(Simmins, 1993). Once the hierarchy isestablished, the level of aggressions isaffected by the competition for resour-ces. In the case of gestating sows, it isvery important to choose a feedingsystem which keeps competition forfood to a minimum. A low-intensityfood source like straw or beetroot pulpmight be helpful (SVC, 1997).

Group housing allows the use of diffe-rent feeding systems, which is what willdetermine the design of the pen andgroup sizes. Two of the most commonfeeding systems are those of slow fee-ding (SF) and electronic feeding (EF).With SF, animals feed at the same time,thanks to a system of continuous, slowfeed distribution. Two important featu-res of the SF system are the lateralseparations (Petherick et al., 1987) andthe adjustment of distribution speed,which have an influence on the aggres-sions which occur at feeding time (denHartog et al., 1993; Edwards, 1998). Inthe case of EF, each animal is immedia-tely recognised by microchip by thefeed dispenser, which then provides itwith the previously programmed ration.This system thus allows individualisedbut non-simultaneous feeding, whichleads to greater competition amonganimals (van Putten y van de Burgwal,1990). The animal may be protectedwhile feeding (tunnel type) or not(Fitmix type).

The overall aim of this study was to compare two feeding systems forsows (SF and EF) with the traditional individual stall system (IS) in rela-tion to welfare and productivity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty sows LW x LD from the first to the eighth delivery were housedfrom day 29 of gestation to 1 week before birth in three different hou-sing and feeding systems:

A) 20 animals were housed in conventional individual stalls (IS) (0.60 x2.15 x 1 m) with wet feed once a day.B) 20 animals were housed in 2 pens (10 animals/pen) with SF. The ani-mals were offered dry feed once a day, at an average speed of 159g/min.

C) 20 animals were housed in a pen with EF, fitted with a single wetfeed dispenser without protections. The feeding cycle was 24 hours,and was updated at 7:00.

All the animals had 2.3 m2/animal, excluding the space reserved for thefeeding system.

The animals were weighed (LW) on days 29, 44 and 110 of gestationand the back fat thickness (BFT) was determined on days 29, 44, 60, 93and 110 of gestation by ultrasound (RENCO LEAN-METER®).

Behaviour was observed for 12 non-consecutive days for each treat-ment, 2 hours after morning feeding and 90 minutes in the afternoon.

The recording methods used were scan sampling with 10-minute inter-vals for recording the posture and oronasal behaviours (ON) of the ani-mals (fig.1), and behaviour display for recording aggressions in thegroup houisng treatments (Martin y Bateson, 1993). Whenever possi-ble, the details recorded of aggressions were the particular aggressor,the recipient, the outcome, the intensity (from 1 to 4) and location inthe pen. This information was used to calculate the social rank index(SRI; Nielsen et al., 1995).

In the 24 hours after birth, the number of piglets born alive, dead andmummified was recorded, in addition to the total weight of the litterand that of live births.

Statistical analysis was made with the 12.0 version of the SPSS-PC pro-gramme (SPSS Inc., Chicago). Data were analysed principally with aone-factor ANOVA with housing system as inter-subject factor, and arepeated-measures ANOVA with housing system inter-subject factorand time as intra-subject factor.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The EF animals were observed to be lying down in a larger proportionof observations than the IS and SF animals (71.39%, 50.15% and56.16% of recorded observations, respectively; p<0,001). The IS animalsdisplayed ON behaviours in a larger proportion of observations thanthe SF animals, and the SF animals a greater proportion than the EFanimals (p<0,001). The IS animals displayed empty chewing behaviourin a larger proportion of observations than the SF and EF animals(p<0,001), and manipulation of the bars in a larger proportion ofobservations than the SF animals (p=0,004). The SF animals were obser-ved to be drinking in a larger proportion of observations than the ISanimals, and the latter in a larger proportion of observations than theEF animals (p<0,001).

These results suggest that the EF system might offer a less restrictiveand more comfortable atmosphere, as these animals apparently deve-loped fewer abnormal behaviours and rested more. Group housing withthe EF and SF systems reduced the appearance of stereotypies likeempty chewing and the manipulation of bars compared to IS housing.The mean of aggressions for each animal (both as aggressor and reci-

pient) was higher in the EF than the SFsystem (114,2 vs 39,7; p=0,004). In the EFsystem, there was a higher percentage ofaggressions in the feeding area than inthe SF system (81,5% vs 23,5%;p<0,001). The proportion of aggressionswith physical contact was greater in theEF than the SF system (39,5% vs 28,7%;p<0,001). A correlation was observedbetween the SRI and the number of deli-very in the SF system (rs=0,467; p=0,038)and the EF system (rs=0,498; p=0,002),and with the initial LW in the EF system(rs=0,648; p<0,002).

These results suggest that aggressivenessis an serious problem in the EF system,and is probably due to the fact thatsequential feeding makes it more com-petitive. Providing a low-density feedsupply such as straw might reduce fee-ding-related aggressiveness in this typeof systems (van Putten and van deBurgwal, 1990; Jensen et al., 2000). Thehierarchical structure seems to be moreimportant in more competitive systems,as the correlations of the SRI with boththe initial LW and the number of deliveryindicate.

There were no differences between tre-atments in mean feed consumption byanimal and day or in the different obser-vations of LW and BFT. Thus, energyrequirements were not apparently incre-ased in any of the treatments. Also, nodifferences were observed between tre-atments in reproductive performance,which would indicate proper handling ofthe animals in the different systems(SVC, 1997).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Consult the publishers.

This study was financed by theMinistry of Education, Culture andSport (PETRI 95-0639 OP). The authorsgratefully acknowledge the collabora-tion of SAT – La Vall, Vall CompanysGrup and Rotecna S.A.

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

These results suggest that the EF system mightoffer a less restrictive and more comfortable

Two of the most common fee-ding systems are those ofslow feeding (SF) and elec-tronic feeding (EF)

There were no differencesbetween treatments in meanfeed consumption by animaland day or in the differentobservations of LW and BFT

8 9

established, mainly on the basis ofaggressive interactions.

This being said, aggressions with physi-cal contact diminish considerably after24 hours (Barnett et al., 1992), the hie-rarchy being established in a few days(Brouns y Edwards, 1994). The fre-quency of aggressions diminishes withdensity (Weng et al., 1998) and also asthe group grows in size, as sub-groupsare formed (Edwards et al., 1993) andthe total available space increases(Broom et al., 1995). Dynamic groups,with periodical animal turnover, presentmore problems than stable ones(Simmins, 1993). Once the hierarchy isestablished, the level of aggressions isaffected by the competition for resour-ces. In the case of gestating sows, it isvery important to choose a feedingsystem which keeps competition forfood to a minimum. A low-intensityfood source like straw or beetroot pulpmight be helpful (SVC, 1997).

Group housing allows the use of diffe-rent feeding systems, which is what willdetermine the design of the pen andgroup sizes. Two of the most commonfeeding systems are those of slow fee-ding (SF) and electronic feeding (EF).With SF, animals feed at the same time,thanks to a system of continuous, slowfeed distribution. Two important featu-res of the SF system are the lateralseparations (Petherick et al., 1987) andthe adjustment of distribution speed,which have an influence on the aggres-sions which occur at feeding time (denHartog et al., 1993; Edwards, 1998). Inthe case of EF, each animal is immedia-tely recognised by microchip by thefeed dispenser, which then provides itwith the previously programmed ration.This system thus allows individualisedbut non-simultaneous feeding, whichleads to greater competition amonganimals (van Putten y van de Burgwal,1990). The animal may be protectedwhile feeding (tunnel type) or not(Fitmix type).

The overall aim of this study was to compare two feeding systems forsows (SF and EF) with the traditional individual stall system (IS) in rela-tion to welfare and productivity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty sows LW x LD from the first to the eighth delivery were housedfrom day 29 of gestation to 1 week before birth in three different hou-sing and feeding systems:

A) 20 animals were housed in conventional individual stalls (IS) (0.60 x2.15 x 1 m) with wet feed once a day.B) 20 animals were housed in 2 pens (10 animals/pen) with SF. The ani-mals were offered dry feed once a day, at an average speed of 159g/min.

C) 20 animals were housed in a pen with EF, fitted with a single wetfeed dispenser without protections. The feeding cycle was 24 hours,and was updated at 7:00.

All the animals had 2.3 m2/animal, excluding the space reserved for thefeeding system.

The animals were weighed (LW) on days 29, 44 and 110 of gestationand the back fat thickness (BFT) was determined on days 29, 44, 60, 93and 110 of gestation by ultrasound (RENCO LEAN-METER®).

Behaviour was observed for 12 non-consecutive days for each treat-ment, 2 hours after morning feeding and 90 minutes in the afternoon.

The recording methods used were scan sampling with 10-minute inter-vals for recording the posture and oronasal behaviours (ON) of the ani-mals (fig.1), and behaviour display for recording aggressions in thegroup houisng treatments (Martin y Bateson, 1993). Whenever possi-ble, the details recorded of aggressions were the particular aggressor,the recipient, the outcome, the intensity (from 1 to 4) and location inthe pen. This information was used to calculate the social rank index(SRI; Nielsen et al., 1995).

In the 24 hours after birth, the number of piglets born alive, dead andmummified was recorded, in addition to the total weight of the litterand that of live births.

Statistical analysis was made with the 12.0 version of the SPSS-PC pro-gramme (SPSS Inc., Chicago). Data were analysed principally with aone-factor ANOVA with housing system as inter-subject factor, and arepeated-measures ANOVA with housing system inter-subject factorand time as intra-subject factor.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The EF animals were observed to be lying down in a larger proportionof observations than the IS and SF animals (71.39%, 50.15% and56.16% of recorded observations, respectively; p<0,001). The IS animalsdisplayed ON behaviours in a larger proportion of observations thanthe SF animals, and the SF animals a greater proportion than the EFanimals (p<0,001). The IS animals displayed empty chewing behaviourin a larger proportion of observations than the SF and EF animals(p<0,001), and manipulation of the bars in a larger proportion ofobservations than the SF animals (p=0,004). The SF animals were obser-ved to be drinking in a larger proportion of observations than the ISanimals, and the latter in a larger proportion of observations than theEF animals (p<0,001).

These results suggest that the EF system might offer a less restrictiveand more comfortable atmosphere, as these animals apparently deve-loped fewer abnormal behaviours and rested more. Group housing withthe EF and SF systems reduced the appearance of stereotypies likeempty chewing and the manipulation of bars compared to IS housing.The mean of aggressions for each animal (both as aggressor and reci-

pient) was higher in the EF than the SFsystem (114,2 vs 39,7; p=0,004). In the EFsystem, there was a higher percentage ofaggressions in the feeding area than inthe SF system (81,5% vs 23,5%;p<0,001). The proportion of aggressionswith physical contact was greater in theEF than the SF system (39,5% vs 28,7%;p<0,001). A correlation was observedbetween the SRI and the number of deli-very in the SF system (rs=0,467; p=0,038)and the EF system (rs=0,498; p=0,002),and with the initial LW in the EF system(rs=0,648; p<0,002).

These results suggest that aggressivenessis an serious problem in the EF system,and is probably due to the fact thatsequential feeding makes it more com-petitive. Providing a low-density feedsupply such as straw might reduce fee-ding-related aggressiveness in this typeof systems (van Putten and van deBurgwal, 1990; Jensen et al., 2000). Thehierarchical structure seems to be moreimportant in more competitive systems,as the correlations of the SRI with boththe initial LW and the number of deliveryindicate.

There were no differences between tre-atments in mean feed consumption byanimal and day or in the different obser-vations of LW and BFT. Thus, energyrequirements were not apparently incre-ased in any of the treatments. Also, nodifferences were observed between tre-atments in reproductive performance,which would indicate proper handling ofthe animals in the different systems(SVC, 1997).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Consult the publishers.

This study was financed by theMinistry of Education, Culture andSport (PETRI 95-0639 OP). The authorsgratefully acknowledge the collabora-tion of SAT – La Vall, Vall CompanysGrup and Rotecna S.A.

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

These results suggest that the EF system mightoffer a less restrictive and more comfortable

Two of the most common fee-ding systems are those ofslow feeding (SF) and elec-tronic feeding (EF)

There were no differencesbetween treatments in meanfeed consumption by animaland day or in the differentobservations of LW and BFT

10 11

TECHNO-

draught-freecomfort

Rotecna’s second innovation in slats this yearis the 200 x 600 slat for delivery pens. An addi-tion to the 600 x 200, 600 x 300 and 600 x 400models, the new slat provides a variation ondelivery pen assembly to suit all tastes anddimensions.

The 200 x 600 slat is the perfect answer to theneeds of delivery pens fitted with iron slats.The smallest size for designing a delivery stallis 60 centimetres, which has promptedRotecna to complete its slat range with the200 x 600 model. It allows the pig handler touse up to 25% fewer iron slats, and thus cutcosts and enlargen the comfort zone forpiglets.

Performance levels are maintained, as this newmothering slat is placed at the front and theback of the central part of the deilvery pen.There is no need for an iron slat in either part,as the front part is used for the mother’s fee-der and the back is the area where piglets areborn and the mother defecates. In these zones,a plastic slat is the best option.

The fact that there is a plastic slat in the backmeans that piglets feel warm plastic instead ofcold iron when they are born. And as for thefeeding area, cleaning up food scraps is mucheasier with plastic slats.

To make it possible for this new 200 x 600 slat

Rotecna, S.A. set out in 2005 with the aim of extendingits slat range with at least four new models to providemore options for configuring livestock farms and facili-ties. The first model is a blind weaning slat to meet thenew demands of the European market created by natio-nal legislation in different countries.

90% of the surface of this slat is completely blind, withsmall open areas making up the remaining 10%. The slatis used to screen large spaces in weaning rooms, thanksto its measurements. It is this feature which enables thelivestock handler to cut costs on installation and the useof profiles. With this and the 600 x 600 weaning slat,Rotecna aims to provide its customers with the bestoption for equipping weaning rooms with slats whichare both large-scale and have fewer joints and, in con-sequence, fewer places for dirt to build up.

Having the slat 10% open makes for easier cleaning inrooms where there is a need for many of these slats.These openings allow dirt to drain away after cleaning

and animals to grow more healthily in more hygienicconditions.

The usefulness of having screened zones during weaninglies in the fact that piglets can be kept warm with scre-ens which reflect heat to the floor. Also, piglets may restin these draught-free areas, and are thus protected frompossible illnesses like colds. This is something whichmust be taken into consideration in the early days ofweaning especially, which is when the animals are stillgetting used to being without the heat previously givento them by their mothers.

This new slat, whichmay be used withanimals of up to 60kilos, is manufactu-red with a ribbed-design to stop ani-mals from slippingand injuring them-selves.

10%open 600x600

ADVANTAGES:

o Screens larger areas during wea-ning.o Fewer profiles needed.o With openings for better cleaning.o Creates draught-free comfort

made-to-measuredelivery pens

ADVANTAGES:

o Ideal for 60 cm-base delivery pens.o Saves on iron slats. o Non-slip.o Comfortable and hard-wearing.

to be used in conjunction with its Ferrocast slat, Rotecna plansto launch a smaller 60 x 60 Ferrocast slat, as shown in figure 2.This combination in delivery pens has not yet been feasible, asthe Ferrocasts measure 60 x 120 and two were needed in eachdelivery pen.

As with all of its mothering slat range, Rotecna has given thenew slat a ribbed design to make it non-slip. The ribs have beendesigned to allow dirt to be cleaned off easily. Also, the 200 x600 slat offers comfort to piglets, but is tough enough to standup to the mother.

200x600mothering slat:

1. Figure 1: with iron170x2401. Figure 1: 240x240

2. Figure 2: with ferrocast.:60x60 and 120x60 180x240

10 11

TECHNO-

draught-freecomfort

Rotecna’s second innovation in slats this yearis the 200 x 600 slat for delivery pens. An addi-tion to the 600 x 200, 600 x 300 and 600 x 400models, the new slat provides a variation ondelivery pen assembly to suit all tastes anddimensions.

The 200 x 600 slat is the perfect answer to theneeds of delivery pens fitted with iron slats.The smallest size for designing a delivery stallis 60 centimetres, which has promptedRotecna to complete its slat range with the200 x 600 model. It allows the pig handler touse up to 25% fewer iron slats, and thus cutcosts and enlargen the comfort zone forpiglets.

Performance levels are maintained, as this newmothering slat is placed at the front and theback of the central part of the deilvery pen.There is no need for an iron slat in either part,as the front part is used for the mother’s fee-der and the back is the area where piglets areborn and the mother defecates. In these zones,a plastic slat is the best option.

The fact that there is a plastic slat in the backmeans that piglets feel warm plastic instead ofcold iron when they are born. And as for thefeeding area, cleaning up food scraps is mucheasier with plastic slats.

To make it possible for this new 200 x 600 slat

Rotecna, S.A. set out in 2005 with the aim of extendingits slat range with at least four new models to providemore options for configuring livestock farms and facili-ties. The first model is a blind weaning slat to meet thenew demands of the European market created by natio-nal legislation in different countries.

90% of the surface of this slat is completely blind, withsmall open areas making up the remaining 10%. The slatis used to screen large spaces in weaning rooms, thanksto its measurements. It is this feature which enables thelivestock handler to cut costs on installation and the useof profiles. With this and the 600 x 600 weaning slat,Rotecna aims to provide its customers with the bestoption for equipping weaning rooms with slats whichare both large-scale and have fewer joints and, in con-sequence, fewer places for dirt to build up.

Having the slat 10% open makes for easier cleaning inrooms where there is a need for many of these slats.These openings allow dirt to drain away after cleaning

and animals to grow more healthily in more hygienicconditions.

The usefulness of having screened zones during weaninglies in the fact that piglets can be kept warm with scre-ens which reflect heat to the floor. Also, piglets may restin these draught-free areas, and are thus protected frompossible illnesses like colds. This is something whichmust be taken into consideration in the early days ofweaning especially, which is when the animals are stillgetting used to being without the heat previously givento them by their mothers.

This new slat, whichmay be used withanimals of up to 60kilos, is manufactu-red with a ribbed-design to stop ani-mals from slippingand injuring them-selves.

10%open 600x600

ADVANTAGES:

o Screens larger areas during wea-ning.o Fewer profiles needed.o With openings for better cleaning.o Creates draught-free comfort

made-to-measuredelivery pens

ADVANTAGES:

o Ideal for 60 cm-base delivery pens.o Saves on iron slats. o Non-slip.o Comfortable and hard-wearing.

to be used in conjunction with its Ferrocast slat, Rotecna plansto launch a smaller 60 x 60 Ferrocast slat, as shown in figure 2.This combination in delivery pens has not yet been feasible, asthe Ferrocasts measure 60 x 120 and two were needed in eachdelivery pen.

As with all of its mothering slat range, Rotecna has given thenew slat a ribbed design to make it non-slip. The ribs have beendesigned to allow dirt to be cleaned off easily. Also, the 200 x600 slat offers comfort to piglets, but is tough enough to standup to the mother.

200x600mothering slat:

1. Figure 1: with iron170x2401. Figure 1: 240x240

2. Figure 2: with ferrocast.:60x60 and 120x60 180x240

12 13

TECHNOLOGY

ADVANTAGES:

o For supplying milk during weaning.o More economical medication perstall.o Easy adaptation for piglets.o View of contents.o Level gauge. o No waste: rounded edges.

Some time ago, ROTECNA, S.A.launched the Maxitainer, acontainer to continue feedingpiglets on milk during the earlydays of weaning, before theyhave got used to their new dietof feed.

When piglets are separatedfrom their mothers, one of thebiggest changes for them isthe type of feed they are given.They switch from a practicallyliquid diet to solids. It is our jobto help them grow naturallyduring this phase, somethingwhich requires a swift, stress-free adaptation to the newdiet. This is what promptedROTECNA to launch theMaxitainer, a semi-transparentcontainer connected to a MaxiPan.

The main novelty of this con-tainer is that ROTECNA hasgiven it a user-friendly design.In addition, this product is nowmanufactured at the ROTECNAplant in Agramunt, thus assu-ring that the Maxitainer passesthe same rigorous quality con-trol process as the rest of thecompany’s products.

The Maxitainer consists of twopieces which together form acontainer that fits easily to theROTECNA Maxi Pan. This way,piglets have the ideal place todrink easily without any lear-ning process.

The Maxitainer was created tomake it possible to providepiglets with milk during theearly days of weaning afterseparation from their mothers.

maxi-tainer

thesecondmother

However, it is also a good container for medicating in indivi-dual animal stalls. This represents a more economical way ofmedicating in stalls, as it allows big savings saves on waterfacilities, especially when pigs are housed in older buildings.

Like the Maxi Pan, the Maxitainer can cater for about 10-25animals, with a capacity of 24 litres. The rounded design ofthe Maxi Pan helps prevent piglets from spilling liquid, andthus wasting milk and water containing medication.

ROTECNA continues to come up with solutions to the day-to-day problems encountered by livestock-handlers.

12 13

TECHNOLOGY

ADVANTAGES:

o For supplying milk during weaning.o More economical medication perstall.o Easy adaptation for piglets.o View of contents.o Level gauge. o No waste: rounded edges.

Some time ago, ROTECNA, S.A.launched the Maxitainer, acontainer to continue feedingpiglets on milk during the earlydays of weaning, before theyhave got used to their new dietof feed.

When piglets are separatedfrom their mothers, one of thebiggest changes for them isthe type of feed they are given.They switch from a practicallyliquid diet to solids. It is our jobto help them grow naturallyduring this phase, somethingwhich requires a swift, stress-free adaptation to the newdiet. This is what promptedROTECNA to launch theMaxitainer, a semi-transparentcontainer connected to a MaxiPan.

The main novelty of this con-tainer is that ROTECNA hasgiven it a user-friendly design.In addition, this product is nowmanufactured at the ROTECNAplant in Agramunt, thus assu-ring that the Maxitainer passesthe same rigorous quality con-trol process as the rest of thecompany’s products.

The Maxitainer consists of twopieces which together form acontainer that fits easily to theROTECNA Maxi Pan. This way,piglets have the ideal place todrink easily without any lear-ning process.

The Maxitainer was created tomake it possible to providepiglets with milk during theearly days of weaning afterseparation from their mothers.

maxi-tainer

thesecondmother

However, it is also a good container for medicating in indivi-dual animal stalls. This represents a more economical way ofmedicating in stalls, as it allows big savings saves on waterfacilities, especially when pigs are housed in older buildings.

Like the Maxi Pan, the Maxitainer can cater for about 10-25animals, with a capacity of 24 litres. The rounded design ofthe Maxi Pan helps prevent piglets from spilling liquid, andthus wasting milk and water containing medication.

ROTECNA continues to come up with solutions to the day-to-day problems encountered by livestock-handlers.

of Valls, the so-called ‘birthplace of castells’. The earliestreference to a “colla castellera” dates back to 1805,with mention of associations in Valls and Tarragona.Together with the famous cava-producing town ofVilafranca del Penedès, these places are central to anydiscussion about castells.

The evolution of this popular tradition is closely linkedto the history of Catalonia, with eras of both splendourand decadence.

How is a human castle built?A solid base is needed to take the weight of the humantower. For this purpose, 4 people linking arms form thebase, and a solid structure is gradually constructed asmore people gather around them to make the ‘pinya’, orclan. The latter extend their arms to reinforce the struc-ture and provide a cushion in case the tower collapses.In casteller jargon, this is known as ‘fer llenya’, ormaking firewood.

When the pinya is ready, more people pile up on top ofthem to make the second floor, and give the word tothe third floor components to do likewise. The grallathen sounds to signal that the building and dismantlingof the castle may safely proceed. The other floors arethen added until the top is reached. At this point, it isthe children – ‘la canalla’ - who take the starring role,as they clamber barefoot up the different floors untilthey reach the top. The smallest among them must

14 15

It’s one o’clock and hundreds of peoplegather in the Plaza Mayor of anyCatalan village. Not even the intensesummer heat can stop them coming tosee a unique and splendid human cons-truction; the castellers are performing.

Catalonia boasts several forms of artisticexpression among its popular traditions,the most outstanding of which are theCatalan dance called the sardana andthe castells, or castles. As a spectacle,however, it is the latter which mostimpress visitors.

The castells are human towers which aresteadily built up with ‘floors’ of 1, 2, 3, 4or 5 people, depending on the type ofcastle. This construction is alwaysaccompanied by a group of musicians,who play their strident notes with ins-truments like ‘grallas’, a sort of Catalanbagpipe. Indeed, they are named ‘gra-llers’ after this wind instrument,although they are also accompanied bydrums.

The first records of associations of caste-llers can be traced to the Catalan town

SOMETHING ABOUT …

caste-llers

humantowers

complete the castle by holding up a hand and shouting“Fer l’aleta!” - “Chase after it!”- once he or she has rea-ched the summit. The castle is now built, and it is gra-dually dismantled floor by floor. If this operation iscarried out without the construction collapsing, thenthe castle is considered to have been successfully loa-ded and unloaded. In other words, it has been perfectlybuilt. As the Catalan musician, poet and politician JosepAnselm Clavé once remarked, to load and unload ahuman castle takes “strength, balance and good judge-ment”.

The hardest constructions to build are castles of 9 oreven 10 floors. In 1998, the Minyons de Terrassa (theLads of Terrassa) made history by loading and unloadingthe first 10-floor castell. Specifically, it was a ‘3 de 10amb folre i manilles’, or 3 of 10 with padding andmanacles, in which each floor up to the seventh is madeup of 3 people, the penultimate of two, and the last ofone. Apart from castles, ‘pillars’ of several one-personfloors are also built.

There are now more than 65 casteller associations inCatalonia, most of which have been set up since 1990.This figure says a lot about the golden era which thetradition is currently enjoying. In summer, it is commonto see these performances in the local festivities orga-nised in many Catalan towns and villages, althoughcasteller associations may also be found in the south ofFrance, Argentina and Mexico.

of Valls, the so-called ‘birthplace of castells’. The earliestreference to a “colla castellera” dates back to 1805,with mention of associations in Valls and Tarragona.Together with the famous cava-producing town ofVilafranca del Penedès, these places are central to anydiscussion about castells.

The evolution of this popular tradition is closely linkedto the history of Catalonia, with eras of both splendourand decadence.

How is a human castle built?A solid base is needed to take the weight of the humantower. For this purpose, 4 people linking arms form thebase, and a solid structure is gradually constructed asmore people gather around them to make the ‘pinya’, orclan. The latter extend their arms to reinforce the struc-ture and provide a cushion in case the tower collapses.In casteller jargon, this is known as ‘fer llenya’, ormaking firewood.

When the pinya is ready, more people pile up on top ofthem to make the second floor, and give the word tothe third floor components to do likewise. The grallathen sounds to signal that the building and dismantlingof the castle may safely proceed. The other floors arethen added until the top is reached. At this point, it isthe children – ‘la canalla’ - who take the starring role,as they clamber barefoot up the different floors untilthey reach the top. The smallest among them must

14 15

It’s one o’clock and hundreds of peoplegather in the Plaza Mayor of anyCatalan village. Not even the intensesummer heat can stop them coming tosee a unique and splendid human cons-truction; the castellers are performing.

Catalonia boasts several forms of artisticexpression among its popular traditions,the most outstanding of which are theCatalan dance called the sardana andthe castells, or castles. As a spectacle,however, it is the latter which mostimpress visitors.

The castells are human towers which aresteadily built up with ‘floors’ of 1, 2, 3, 4or 5 people, depending on the type ofcastle. This construction is alwaysaccompanied by a group of musicians,who play their strident notes with ins-truments like ‘grallas’, a sort of Catalanbagpipe. Indeed, they are named ‘gra-llers’ after this wind instrument,although they are also accompanied bydrums.

The first records of associations of caste-llers can be traced to the Catalan town

SOMETHING ABOUT …

caste-llers

humantowers

complete the castle by holding up a hand and shouting“Fer l’aleta!” - “Chase after it!”- once he or she has rea-ched the summit. The castle is now built, and it is gra-dually dismantled floor by floor. If this operation iscarried out without the construction collapsing, thenthe castle is considered to have been successfully loa-ded and unloaded. In other words, it has been perfectlybuilt. As the Catalan musician, poet and politician JosepAnselm Clavé once remarked, to load and unload ahuman castle takes “strength, balance and good judge-ment”.

The hardest constructions to build are castles of 9 oreven 10 floors. In 1998, the Minyons de Terrassa (theLads of Terrassa) made history by loading and unloadingthe first 10-floor castell. Specifically, it was a ‘3 de 10amb folre i manilles’, or 3 of 10 with padding andmanacles, in which each floor up to the seventh is madeup of 3 people, the penultimate of two, and the last ofone. Apart from castles, ‘pillars’ of several one-personfloors are also built.

There are now more than 65 casteller associations inCatalonia, most of which have been set up since 1990.This figure says a lot about the golden era which thetradition is currently enjoying. In summer, it is commonto see these performances in the local festivities orga-nised in many Catalan towns and villages, althoughcasteller associations may also be found in the south ofFrance, Argentina and Mexico.

16 17

FUTURE

Stern*, S., Dep. of Animal Breeding and GeneticsGunnarsson, S., Dep. of Animal Health and EnvironmentKumm, Dep. of EconomicsSonesson, Institute for Food and BiotechnologyU. and Öborn, I. Dep. of Soil ScienceP.O. Box 5401, SE-42902 Gothenburg, Sweden, SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences,

*Dep. of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Funbo-Lövsta, 75595 Uppsala, Sweden, Susanne.Stern@hgen.slu.se

Presented at the 54th Annual meeting of theEuropean Association for Animal Production,Rome, Italy. August 31st –September 3rd, 2003.

whichwayahead?Futurescenarios forsustainable pigproduction

Abstract

Sustainability in pig production is a multidimensionalissue. To study future production systems, a step-wisemethod for scenario construction was used to createfuture scenarios of pig production based on different sus-tainability goals. Three future scenarios were constructed.They were deliberately chosen to be extreme in perspecti-ve with different goal visions. The first scenario has thefocus on animal welfare, natural behaviour of the animalsand a good working environment for the caretaker. Thesecond scenario focuses on low impact on the externalenvironment and an efficient use of natural resources,including energy. The third scenario focuses on quality

and safety of the product.The scenarios were then parameterised and the economiceffects of the different scenarios were calculated. A LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) will be performed on the samedataset.

Introduction

The goal of pig production is to produce pig meat to aslow costs as possible, as the industry in large is based onshort time profit. At the same time consumers as well associety show a growing interest in production methodsand quality of products (Öborn et al., 2002). The negativeenvironmental effects of animal production are also dis-cussed. Therefore the question of sustainability in pigproduction needs to be taken into consideration.Sustainability can be defined in many different ways. Thedefinition chosen in this study is based on the long-termgoals for FOOD 21 which covers eight main sustainabilityaspects:1. Efficient use of natural resources, fossil energy, totalenergy. 2. Low impact on external environment, optimised use ofP and N, low emission of green house gases. 3. Animal welfare, animal health, natural behaviour, lowuse of medicine.4. Safe products.

5. High product quality. 6. Ethics, accepted production forms. 7.Farmers. 8. Economy. (FOOD21, 2002).

The aim of this study was to present three future pig pro-duction systems based on the sustainability goals ofFOOD 21 and evaluate these from economic and environ-mental aspects.

Material and methods

Creation of scenariosScenario methology was used (Alcamo, 2001). It is a pro-gressive way of working where conflicts between diffe-rent sustainability goals are identified and handled in atransparent way. This method is iterative and makes itpossible to work in a structured way with both shorttermand more long-term scenarios (Sonesson et al., 2003).The first step in the method is to define the productionsystem to be analysed, in our case pig and pig feed pro-duction. The production system is then described as a setof functions required for the production system to work,e.g. housing and feed supply. Secondly, the sustainabilitygoals should be identified. In this case we used FOOD21’ssustainability goals.The goals should be quantifiable as well as possible, an

16 17

FUTURE

Stern*, S., Dep. of Animal Breeding and GeneticsGunnarsson, S., Dep. of Animal Health and EnvironmentKumm, Dep. of EconomicsSonesson, Institute for Food and BiotechnologyU. and Öborn, I. Dep. of Soil ScienceP.O. Box 5401, SE-42902 Gothenburg, Sweden, SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences,

*Dep. of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Funbo-Lövsta, 75595 Uppsala, Sweden, Susanne.Stern@hgen.slu.se

Presented at the 54th Annual meeting of theEuropean Association for Animal Production,Rome, Italy. August 31st –September 3rd, 2003.

whichwayahead?Futurescenarios forsustainable pigproduction

Abstract

Sustainability in pig production is a multidimensionalissue. To study future production systems, a step-wisemethod for scenario construction was used to createfuture scenarios of pig production based on different sus-tainability goals. Three future scenarios were constructed.They were deliberately chosen to be extreme in perspecti-ve with different goal visions. The first scenario has thefocus on animal welfare, natural behaviour of the animalsand a good working environment for the caretaker. Thesecond scenario focuses on low impact on the externalenvironment and an efficient use of natural resources,including energy. The third scenario focuses on quality

and safety of the product.The scenarios were then parameterised and the economiceffects of the different scenarios were calculated. A LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) will be performed on the samedataset.

Introduction

The goal of pig production is to produce pig meat to aslow costs as possible, as the industry in large is based onshort time profit. At the same time consumers as well associety show a growing interest in production methodsand quality of products (Öborn et al., 2002). The negativeenvironmental effects of animal production are also dis-cussed. Therefore the question of sustainability in pigproduction needs to be taken into consideration.Sustainability can be defined in many different ways. Thedefinition chosen in this study is based on the long-termgoals for FOOD 21 which covers eight main sustainabilityaspects:1. Efficient use of natural resources, fossil energy, totalenergy. 2. Low impact on external environment, optimised use ofP and N, low emission of green house gases. 3. Animal welfare, animal health, natural behaviour, lowuse of medicine.4. Safe products.

5. High product quality. 6. Ethics, accepted production forms. 7.Farmers. 8. Economy. (FOOD21, 2002).

The aim of this study was to present three future pig pro-duction systems based on the sustainability goals ofFOOD 21 and evaluate these from economic and environ-mental aspects.

Material and methods

Creation of scenariosScenario methology was used (Alcamo, 2001). It is a pro-gressive way of working where conflicts between diffe-rent sustainability goals are identified and handled in atransparent way. This method is iterative and makes itpossible to work in a structured way with both shorttermand more long-term scenarios (Sonesson et al., 2003).The first step in the method is to define the productionsystem to be analysed, in our case pig and pig feed pro-duction. The production system is then described as a setof functions required for the production system to work,e.g. housing and feed supply. Secondly, the sustainabilitygoals should be identified. In this case we used FOOD21’ssustainability goals.The goals should be quantifiable as well as possible, an

18 19

FUTURE

example is g ammonia/kg pig produced asa measurement of the effect on theexternal environment. Next the best solu-tion for each goal is discussed in the multidisciplinary group of researchers. Thisresults in as many descriptions of thesystem as there are goals. By studyingthese fairly extreme solutions, conflictsbetween different sustainability goals areidentified. The two goals natural beha-viour and product quality may, for exam-ple, result in very different systemdesigns.Next step is to group goal visions of sus-tainability. Since we do not know any-thing about future values several goalvisions are described. The three goal sce-narios here are (A) animal welfare, naturalbehaviour of the animals and a good wor-king environment for the caretaker. (B)Low impact on the external environmentand an efficient use of natural resources,including energy, and (C) Productionsafety, production quality and high effi-ciency.Taking these three goal scenarios as abasis, the earlier descriptions, where onlyone goal at the time was optimised arecombined, to produce scenarios thatcorrespond to the goal vision scenario.These qualitative descriptions of futuresystems are one of the products of thescenario work.

Evaluation of scenariosIn order to allow comparisons of the threecreated scenarios they were parameteri-sed by the multi disciplinary group toge-ther with specialists. The parameterisationwas based on the scenario descriptionsand included diet formulation, productionlevel, slaughter weight etc. Some exam-ples of parameters are given in table 1.

Economic calculationsCost of production per kg of pig meat istotal long run cost including feed, buil-dings, labour, interest, and sundry inpiglet production and slaughter pigs divi-ded by kg of meat produced. Possible future improvements of growthrate and feed efficiency and reducedlabour consumption due to larger herdsare taken into consideration in the scena-rios as well as reduced cost of feed pro-duction due to increased yields, reducedsoil tillage and larger farms. On the other

side, animal welfare and environmental restrictions imposed in two ofthe scenarios tend towards increased costs. The cost of feed grain pro-duction is reduced by present EU income support.

Environmental evaluationThe environmental impact of the scenarios will also be analysed with LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) using the same dataset as in the economic eva-luation. LCA is a method for analysis and assessment of environmentalimpact caused by a production system (see Cederberg, 2002 for a des-cription of LCA analysis of animal production).

Results

Scenario one, focus on animal welfareIn this scenario production is integrated with both sows and slaughterpigs at the same farm. Groups are kept intact throughout the rearingperiod, to avoid fighting and re-ranking. Piglets and sows are kept out-doors on pasture with huts during summer. Slaughter pigs are kept indo-ors on straw, in a veranda system with access to a paddock. The spaceallowance per slaughter pig is 2.5 m2. Strategic feeding with diets thatare diluted with forages to give longer eating times and occupation forthe pigs are used. The breeding goal includes the traits growth rate, lean-ness, appetite and maternal traits. Slaughter is based on age, thus thewhole batch is slaughtered at the same time.

Scenario two, focus on the external environment and resource effec-tiveness.In this scenario, the production form is specialised or externally integra-

ted. Both sows withpiglets and slaughter pigs are keptindoors. The buildings are closed, in order to control thenitrogen emissions through air and manure. The ventila-tion air is filtered and ammonia is regained.Slatted floors and covered manure storage keep nutrientlosses and smell low.Diets are based on locally produced energy and they arelow in nitrogen. Synthetic aminoacids and enzymes areused to increase the fed efficiency. Phase feeding is prac-ticed to reduce nitrogen and the nutrient losses. Specialpathogen free (SPF) pigs are used. In the breeding goal,growth, leanness and feed conversion. Pigs of differentsex can be raised to different slaughter weights and malescan be kept intact for higher fed efficiency. The pigs areslaughtered in batches.

Scenario three, focus on product quality and safetyIn this scenario, the whole production chain from animalto retailer is integrated. Production is indoors with specia-lized or external integration. The buildings allows a well-controlled environment, regarding ventilation, temperatu-re, feed distribution etc. Feed ingredients are controlledfor nutritional and hygienic value. SPF pigs are used.Health is controlled and preventive medical treatment isused. In the breeding goal, leanness, growth rate and pro-duct quality (meat quality) is included. It is possible thatseveral different breeding goals will be used depending onthe product, such as bacon pigs, heavy pigs etc.Slaughter based on weight (160 kg) in groups on slaugh-terhouses with high standards to assureproduct quality.

Economic calculationsThe production costs per kg pig meat produced were cal-culated to 2.08 Euros for the animal welfare scenario,1.48 Euros for the external environment scenario and1.64 Euros for the product quality scenario.

Discussion

The use of this method resulted in three different scena-rios each with one aspect of sustainability in focus, but inconflict with the others. The ranking between the diffe-rent aspects of sustainability may also differ between dif-ferent people and over time.It is clear that today there is an increased production costtaking animal welfare into account as in the animal wel-fare scenario. This is due to increased feed intake and hig-her building costs. However, the cost of increased spaceallowance to pigs have recently been calculated byBornett et al. (2003). They conclude that this could beachieved in pig production to a moderate increase in cost.Furthermore, the economic calculations in this study areperformed in a short time perspective. The future profit ofconsumers confidence in pig production with high animalwelfare is not included. Olesen et al.(2000) has describedhow such non market values effects can be includedwhen designing a sustainable breeding program.Acceptance of pig production systems by the society isfundamental for the survival of the production. Kanis etal. (2003) concludes that even though the prime interestof consumers is low prices on pork, there is a growingconcern of safety and healthiness of pork, animal welfa-re and environmental pollution etc, which needs to beaddress.How to evaluate different aspects of sustainability ismainly a political question, and legislation and politicaldecisions can easy change the ranking of the scenarios.But these decisions should be based on knowledge.Scenario studies like this one is a useful tool in the searchof new knowledge, as a compliment to traditional scien-tific studies.

REFERENCES Consult the publishers.

18 19

FUTURE

example is g ammonia/kg pig produced asa measurement of the effect on theexternal environment. Next the best solu-tion for each goal is discussed in the multidisciplinary group of researchers. Thisresults in as many descriptions of thesystem as there are goals. By studyingthese fairly extreme solutions, conflictsbetween different sustainability goals areidentified. The two goals natural beha-viour and product quality may, for exam-ple, result in very different systemdesigns.Next step is to group goal visions of sus-tainability. Since we do not know any-thing about future values several goalvisions are described. The three goal sce-narios here are (A) animal welfare, naturalbehaviour of the animals and a good wor-king environment for the caretaker. (B)Low impact on the external environmentand an efficient use of natural resources,including energy, and (C) Productionsafety, production quality and high effi-ciency.Taking these three goal scenarios as abasis, the earlier descriptions, where onlyone goal at the time was optimised arecombined, to produce scenarios thatcorrespond to the goal vision scenario.These qualitative descriptions of futuresystems are one of the products of thescenario work.

Evaluation of scenariosIn order to allow comparisons of the threecreated scenarios they were parameteri-sed by the multi disciplinary group toge-ther with specialists. The parameterisationwas based on the scenario descriptionsand included diet formulation, productionlevel, slaughter weight etc. Some exam-ples of parameters are given in table 1.

Economic calculationsCost of production per kg of pig meat istotal long run cost including feed, buil-dings, labour, interest, and sundry inpiglet production and slaughter pigs divi-ded by kg of meat produced. Possible future improvements of growthrate and feed efficiency and reducedlabour consumption due to larger herdsare taken into consideration in the scena-rios as well as reduced cost of feed pro-duction due to increased yields, reducedsoil tillage and larger farms. On the other

side, animal welfare and environmental restrictions imposed in two ofthe scenarios tend towards increased costs. The cost of feed grain pro-duction is reduced by present EU income support.

Environmental evaluationThe environmental impact of the scenarios will also be analysed with LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) using the same dataset as in the economic eva-luation. LCA is a method for analysis and assessment of environmentalimpact caused by a production system (see Cederberg, 2002 for a des-cription of LCA analysis of animal production).

Results

Scenario one, focus on animal welfareIn this scenario production is integrated with both sows and slaughterpigs at the same farm. Groups are kept intact throughout the rearingperiod, to avoid fighting and re-ranking. Piglets and sows are kept out-doors on pasture with huts during summer. Slaughter pigs are kept indo-ors on straw, in a veranda system with access to a paddock. The spaceallowance per slaughter pig is 2.5 m2. Strategic feeding with diets thatare diluted with forages to give longer eating times and occupation forthe pigs are used. The breeding goal includes the traits growth rate, lean-ness, appetite and maternal traits. Slaughter is based on age, thus thewhole batch is slaughtered at the same time.

Scenario two, focus on the external environment and resource effec-tiveness.In this scenario, the production form is specialised or externally integra-

ted. Both sows withpiglets and slaughter pigs are keptindoors. The buildings are closed, in order to control thenitrogen emissions through air and manure. The ventila-tion air is filtered and ammonia is regained.Slatted floors and covered manure storage keep nutrientlosses and smell low.Diets are based on locally produced energy and they arelow in nitrogen. Synthetic aminoacids and enzymes areused to increase the fed efficiency. Phase feeding is prac-ticed to reduce nitrogen and the nutrient losses. Specialpathogen free (SPF) pigs are used. In the breeding goal,growth, leanness and feed conversion. Pigs of differentsex can be raised to different slaughter weights and malescan be kept intact for higher fed efficiency. The pigs areslaughtered in batches.

Scenario three, focus on product quality and safetyIn this scenario, the whole production chain from animalto retailer is integrated. Production is indoors with specia-lized or external integration. The buildings allows a well-controlled environment, regarding ventilation, temperatu-re, feed distribution etc. Feed ingredients are controlledfor nutritional and hygienic value. SPF pigs are used.Health is controlled and preventive medical treatment isused. In the breeding goal, leanness, growth rate and pro-duct quality (meat quality) is included. It is possible thatseveral different breeding goals will be used depending onthe product, such as bacon pigs, heavy pigs etc.Slaughter based on weight (160 kg) in groups on slaugh-terhouses with high standards to assureproduct quality.

Economic calculationsThe production costs per kg pig meat produced were cal-culated to 2.08 Euros for the animal welfare scenario,1.48 Euros for the external environment scenario and1.64 Euros for the product quality scenario.

Discussion

The use of this method resulted in three different scena-rios each with one aspect of sustainability in focus, but inconflict with the others. The ranking between the diffe-rent aspects of sustainability may also differ between dif-ferent people and over time.It is clear that today there is an increased production costtaking animal welfare into account as in the animal wel-fare scenario. This is due to increased feed intake and hig-her building costs. However, the cost of increased spaceallowance to pigs have recently been calculated byBornett et al. (2003). They conclude that this could beachieved in pig production to a moderate increase in cost.Furthermore, the economic calculations in this study areperformed in a short time perspective. The future profit ofconsumers confidence in pig production with high animalwelfare is not included. Olesen et al.(2000) has describedhow such non market values effects can be includedwhen designing a sustainable breeding program.Acceptance of pig production systems by the society isfundamental for the survival of the production. Kanis etal. (2003) concludes that even though the prime interestof consumers is low prices on pork, there is a growingconcern of safety and healthiness of pork, animal welfa-re and environmental pollution etc, which needs to beaddress.How to evaluate different aspects of sustainability ismainly a political question, and legislation and politicaldecisions can easy change the ranking of the scenarios.But these decisions should be based on knowledge.Scenario studies like this one is a useful tool in the searchof new knowledge, as a compliment to traditional scien-tific studies.

REFERENCES Consult the publishers.

1- French pigmeat production in the European contextAfter the enlargement of the European Union to CEEC’s inMay 2004, France, with 15.3 million heads, is rankedfourth among European producing countries afterGermany, Spain and Poland. After a dramatic increasebetween 1988 and 1999 (+ 39 %), sow inventories havedecreased 7 % between 1999 and 2003, although theimprovement of technical performance has maintainedpig production at a higher level than that of 1999.Environmental regulations and pressure from citizensslow down new investments (settlement or enlargementof piggeries) in the whole of France, in both high or lowdensity areas.As in other European countries (Germany, Italy, Spain…),pig production is becoming increasingly concentrated inone area, the West of France (Brittany, Lower Normandyand Loire). Today, this area accounts for 75 % of nationalpig inventories. Brittany, the French Western foreland,located in the heart of the main production area,accounts for 55 % of national inventories and 6.7 % ofEuropean inventories. The pig density of Brittany (4.8pigs/ha) is lower than in Belgium (6.7) and theNetherlands (5.3), but higher than in Denmark (4.4) and inNordrhein Westfalen (4.1).French pig farming is mainly based on small family farms.According to the 2000 Farm Census, the number of hol-ders with more than 4 sows and 19 fattening pigs is about19,000. Although they only represent 39 % of pig farms,farrow-to-finish farms own 74 % of national sow inven-tories and 61 % of national fattening pig inventories.Until now, this type of production has been encouragedby public authorities and professional bodies to avoid the

Introduction

Since 1988, French pigmeat production has grown at a dramaticallyfaster rate (from 1.78 to 2.37 million tons cwe between 1988 and2003) than consumption (from 2.11 million in 1988 to 2.25 million in2003), thus making France self-sufficient from 1994 onwards. In recentyears, its self-sufficient rate has stabilised at around 105%. However,the French pigmeat sector strongly depends on foreign markets withregard to both imports and exports. In 2003, 23 % and 30 % of natio-nal production were imported and exported by the French pigmeatsector, respectively. For this reason, French farmers and slaughteringindustry are in competition with other European pigmeat sectors notonly in their own domestic market but also in European markets suchas Germany, Italy, Greece, which traditionally import pigmeat and, to alesser extent, international markets. Nowadays, the French pigmeatsector is affected by the fluctuations and turbulences of the Europeanmarket.

20 21

SWINE PRODUCTION IN

Frenchpigmeatsector insearch ofnew dynamic

Yves TREGAROAgro-Economist in pig sectorOFIVAL (French intervention meat agency)Division Economie et Prospective (Economicand Prospective Department)80, avenue des Terroirs de France75607 PARIS CEDEX 12Francee-mail : tregaro.yves@ofival.fr

pig production

in france

sanitary and economic risks linked to fluctuation of pigand piglet prices. The average size of these farms is about120 sows and 640 fattening pigs. Only one hundred farmshave more than 500 sows. Finally, farrowing farms, i.e. 21% of national pig farms, own 25 % of national sow inven-tories. Fattening farms, i.e. 40 % of national pig farms,own only 36 % of national fattening pig inventories.

2- A large number of independent slaughterhouses inFrance.In the whole of France, just 220 pig slaughterhouses wereinventoried in 2003. A large number of them have a localuse, acting as a service provider for local players such asbutchers and small pigmeat processors. They are evenlydistributed in France. However, the 14 largest slaughter-houses, handling over 70,000 tons a year, i.e. 700,000heads a year, are all located in the West of France andhandle about 70 % of national production.France’s largest pig slaughterhouses, owned by the co-operative sector (60 %) and the private sector (40 %), areconsidered efficient and well adapted to the Europeanmarket in comparison with those in other large pig pro-ducing countries (Denmark, Germany, Netherlands orSpain). The size of pigmeat groups, however, is smallerthan those of its Danish (Danish Crown - 20 millionheads) or Dutch (Dumeco – 6.6 millions heads) competi-tors. Only Socopa and Cooperl, two co-operative groups,have more one slaughterhouse which treat about 2millions heads. The French slaughtering sector is thusfragmented.Unlike other European countries (Denmark, Netherlands,Germany, Spain…) where mergers and alliances occurredinternally or across borders between pigmeat groups, theFrench slaughtering industry has remained « congealed »over the last ten years. Only some co-operative groupshave bought into slaughterhouses previously ownedexclusively by private groups. In the present context, con-centrations can be seen in the downstream pigmeat sec-tor (pigmeat processors or modern retail market) andabroad. French slaughterhouses appear to be too dividedand disorganised to seal large contracts, or make headwayin negotiations with customers, seeking new outlets andnews products.With regard to the cutting rate of French slaughterhou-ses, it currently stands at about 70 %. In comparison withother producing countries, this level is lower than in theDanish or Dutch industries (95 % and 85 %, respectively).In the context of a fast-growing cutting market in theEuropean Union and in the World, the French pig industryis currently making the approriate investment, mostnotably in the West of France. However, although thisevolution is unavoidable, this strategy is not without eco-nomic risk for French companies. It involves a large chan-ge in commercial strategies and having the capacity tosend each cut at the most competitive prices, as Danishcompanies do.This situation poses many problems for observers and

1- French pigmeat production in the European contextAfter the enlargement of the European Union to CEEC’s inMay 2004, France, with 15.3 million heads, is rankedfourth among European producing countries afterGermany, Spain and Poland. After a dramatic increasebetween 1988 and 1999 (+ 39 %), sow inventories havedecreased 7 % between 1999 and 2003, although theimprovement of technical performance has maintainedpig production at a higher level than that of 1999.Environmental regulations and pressure from citizensslow down new investments (settlement or enlargementof piggeries) in the whole of France, in both high or lowdensity areas.As in other European countries (Germany, Italy, Spain…),pig production is becoming increasingly concentrated inone area, the West of France (Brittany, Lower Normandyand Loire). Today, this area accounts for 75 % of nationalpig inventories. Brittany, the French Western foreland,located in the heart of the main production area,accounts for 55 % of national inventories and 6.7 % ofEuropean inventories. The pig density of Brittany (4.8pigs/ha) is lower than in Belgium (6.7) and theNetherlands (5.3), but higher than in Denmark (4.4) and inNordrhein Westfalen (4.1).French pig farming is mainly based on small family farms.According to the 2000 Farm Census, the number of hol-ders with more than 4 sows and 19 fattening pigs is about19,000. Although they only represent 39 % of pig farms,farrow-to-finish farms own 74 % of national sow inven-tories and 61 % of national fattening pig inventories.Until now, this type of production has been encouragedby public authorities and professional bodies to avoid the

Introduction

Since 1988, French pigmeat production has grown at a dramaticallyfaster rate (from 1.78 to 2.37 million tons cwe between 1988 and2003) than consumption (from 2.11 million in 1988 to 2.25 million in2003), thus making France self-sufficient from 1994 onwards. In recentyears, its self-sufficient rate has stabilised at around 105%. However,the French pigmeat sector strongly depends on foreign markets withregard to both imports and exports. In 2003, 23 % and 30 % of natio-nal production were imported and exported by the French pigmeatsector, respectively. For this reason, French farmers and slaughteringindustry are in competition with other European pigmeat sectors notonly in their own domestic market but also in European markets suchas Germany, Italy, Greece, which traditionally import pigmeat and, to alesser extent, international markets. Nowadays, the French pigmeatsector is affected by the fluctuations and turbulences of the Europeanmarket.

20 21

SWINE PRODUCTION IN

Frenchpigmeatsector insearch ofnew dynamic

Yves TREGAROAgro-Economist in pig sectorOFIVAL (French intervention meat agency)Division Economie et Prospective (Economicand Prospective Department)80, avenue des Terroirs de France75607 PARIS CEDEX 12Francee-mail : tregaro.yves@ofival.fr

pig production

in france

sanitary and economic risks linked to fluctuation of pigand piglet prices. The average size of these farms is about120 sows and 640 fattening pigs. Only one hundred farmshave more than 500 sows. Finally, farrowing farms, i.e. 21% of national pig farms, own 25 % of national sow inven-tories. Fattening farms, i.e. 40 % of national pig farms,own only 36 % of national fattening pig inventories.

2- A large number of independent slaughterhouses inFrance.In the whole of France, just 220 pig slaughterhouses wereinventoried in 2003. A large number of them have a localuse, acting as a service provider for local players such asbutchers and small pigmeat processors. They are evenlydistributed in France. However, the 14 largest slaughter-houses, handling over 70,000 tons a year, i.e. 700,000heads a year, are all located in the West of France andhandle about 70 % of national production.France’s largest pig slaughterhouses, owned by the co-operative sector (60 %) and the private sector (40 %), areconsidered efficient and well adapted to the Europeanmarket in comparison with those in other large pig pro-ducing countries (Denmark, Germany, Netherlands orSpain). The size of pigmeat groups, however, is smallerthan those of its Danish (Danish Crown - 20 millionheads) or Dutch (Dumeco – 6.6 millions heads) competi-tors. Only Socopa and Cooperl, two co-operative groups,have more one slaughterhouse which treat about 2millions heads. The French slaughtering sector is thusfragmented.Unlike other European countries (Denmark, Netherlands,Germany, Spain…) where mergers and alliances occurredinternally or across borders between pigmeat groups, theFrench slaughtering industry has remained « congealed »over the last ten years. Only some co-operative groupshave bought into slaughterhouses previously ownedexclusively by private groups. In the present context, con-centrations can be seen in the downstream pigmeat sec-tor (pigmeat processors or modern retail market) andabroad. French slaughterhouses appear to be too dividedand disorganised to seal large contracts, or make headwayin negotiations with customers, seeking new outlets andnews products.With regard to the cutting rate of French slaughterhou-ses, it currently stands at about 70 %. In comparison withother producing countries, this level is lower than in theDanish or Dutch industries (95 % and 85 %, respectively).In the context of a fast-growing cutting market in theEuropean Union and in the World, the French pig industryis currently making the approriate investment, mostnotably in the West of France. However, although thisevolution is unavoidable, this strategy is not without eco-nomic risk for French companies. It involves a large chan-ge in commercial strategies and having the capacity tosend each cut at the most competitive prices, as Danishcompanies do.This situation poses many problems for observers and

22 23

SWINE PRODUCTION IN

decision-makers in the French markets :How to develop successful commercialstrategies in export markets in order tocontribute to a better global carcass price?; how to maintain the level of outlets inthe domestic markets while competitionwith foreign suppliers is increasing ?; howto provide good service to French andforeign customers ?; or how to provideadded value in downstream integration ?

3- Domestic and foreign outlets; a strate-gic challenge3-1 Domestic consumptionIn 2003, pigmeat consumption reached37.5 kg cwe per capita, i.e. less than theEuropean average (43.8 kg cwe per capi-ta), lower than in Spain (71.6 cwe percapita) or in Denmark (57.6 cwe per capi-ta). Although pigmeat is more consumedthan any other meat, poultry meat con-sumption has dramatically increased inrecent years and now competes with pig-meat, whereas beef meat consumption issuffering a slight decline.About 30 % of French pigmeat is sold asfresh pork (6 % to the catering sector and63 % to the processing industry).Hypermarkets and supermarkets handleabout 85 % of these sales. Sales of case-ready and elaborated products (sausageproducts, lardons…) are increasing. Forvarious reasons (traceability, manpowercost…), large-scale distribution prefers totransfer cutting and conditioning work tothe slaughtering industry.The processing industry isn’t generally lin-ked with upstream activities. Purchases ofraw material are often guided by pricemore than origin. Moreover, in recentyears, American (Sara Lee, SmithfieldFoods) and Spanish (Campofrío) compa-nies have bought or have taken a majorityholding in some French companies.Profitability being their main concern,these companies do not hesitate to playoff domestic and foreign suppliers againsteach other, thus intensifying competitionand cutting margins. The national linkbetween the cutting and processingindustries is thus less strict than before.3-2 International and European tradeTrade plays a very important part in main-taining the balance of the domestic mar-ket. Eating patterns and cooking practiceshave led to loin production exceedingdemand and shoulder and ham produc-

tion being insufficient to cover the needs of the processing industry.Since the mid-90’s, imports have stayed at the same level, around500,000 tons cwe, i.e. 20-25 % of French production. Exports, on theother hand, have increased, coming from 100,000 tons cwe in the mid-80’s to over 600,000 tons cwe in recent years. In 2003, the trade balan-ce showed a surplus of 115,000 tons cwe and 50 million euros.Imports mainly come from the European Union. Purchases are bonedfresh meat, notably cured ham used by the processing industry fromSpain, the Netherlands and Denmark. Purchases from Spain, for use bythe processing industry, have dramatically increased over recent yearsand have now reached 50% of all French needs due to a low-price policy.About 80% of exports are sent to the European Union, a figure whichamounts to a 9% share of intra-community trade. The main destinationis Italy, where 40 % of exported meat is sold. Heavy carcasses and hamsare sold for the processing industry (cured and smoked hams). The othermain customers are the UK (loins and meat for processing), Greece (car-casses) and Germany (meat for processing).In 2001 and 2002, exports to developing countries were reduced becau-se of sanitary issues (foot and mouse disease and swine fever). France hasnow recovered its position and sales are strongly increasing at present onthe Asian market (South Korea, Japan and Singapore). In contrast,exports to Russia are plummeting due to Brazilian competition.

ConclusionIt is clear that the French pigmeat sector is coping with several new cha-llenges. Due to economic and environmental constraints, French produc-tion could remain at the present level in the short term. This contextcould lead to an over capacity of slaughterhouses, notably in Brittany.Competition in both the domestic and European markets could requirethat the slaughtering and cutting industries reconsider their industrialand commercial strategies. Brittany’s industry, having previously beenconcerned with quantity, must now shift the emphasis to value added. Inaddition, recovering and securing the domestic market, which representsabout 70 % of French pigmeat outlets, is now a priority.

The pigmeat sector in Brittany After World War II, the farming and food sector in Brittany underwentdramatic changes. Today, thanks to the dynamism of its producers, thisarea is number one in animal production and accounts for 55 % of

national pig meat production (against 35 % in 1970), 60 % of nationalpoultry meat production and 30 % of national beef production (comingfrom dairy and suckling cows). At present, the pigmeat sector provideswork for 24,000 people, 8,300 of whom work in production.The geographical concentration in all parts of the pig sector (production,collection of pigs ready for slaughter, slaughterhouses, cutting units,processing industries) is the main feature of the increase in pig produc-tion in Brittany and the ability of slaughterhouses and processing indus-tries to export out of boundaries. Between 1980 and 2000, pig invento-ries increased by 55 %, more than in Denmark (+ 17 %) or in Belgium (+47 %) but much less than in Este (Spain) or in Lombardy (Italy), wherethe growth rate is near 100 %.According to the 2000 Farm Census, the number of farms with pigs (withmore than 4 sows and 19 fattening pigs) was about 7,400. Inventorieswere more numerous than in France, with on average 150 sows and 800fattening pigs per farm, the average land of which is calculated to be 53ha. The farrow-to-finish system (52 % of pig farms) predominates forsows (89 % of the total in Brittany) and, to a lesser extent, for fatteningpigs (70 % of the total in Brittany) because farmers are obliged to fattena proportion of their piglets outside their farm in Brittany or in neigh-bouring areas, due to the ban on farm enlargement after the implemen-tation of stringent environmental regulations. In Brittany, pig farms aremainly located in two areas of the region (the Finistere headland and theLamballe area), where pig density can reach 10 pigs/ha per county. Thesehigh animal densities (pig, poultry, cows and steers) have damaged theecological system and environment (high nitrate concentration in surfa-ce water and ground water, seaweed on the Atlantic coast…). The far-mers’ organisation and public authorities, aware of this situation, imple-mented a law of good practice in order to ensure greater respect for theenvironment. In addition, two programs (Farming Pollution Control Plans1996-2001 and 2001-2006) were implemented to adapt farms to thenew regulations. For this reason, pig production costs have increased andthe development of the sow herd in Brittany is slowing down. The pre-sent increase is mainly due to technical improvement in pig farms.At present, technical performance is of a very high in Brittany and is pro-bably among the best in the European Union (pigs produced per sow peryear : 20.4 ; total feed conversion rate : 3.04 ; daily gain (7-105 kg) :0.660 kg – average values from ITP -). Artificial insemination is verywidely used; farmers organise the on-site production of semen or buy it

from an artificial insemination center. Inthe first case, the diffusion of geneticprogress is ensured by the purchase ofboars and sows with a high geneticpotential to farmers (multiplication) inconnection with genetic firms (selection).Farmers attach great importance to thestate of health of their herds and are wor-king on how to control or eradicatevarious diseases. With the increasing sizeof farms, activities are more specialized inpig production, and now we often see oneperson for one activity (nursery, weaning,feeding…) in farms with several hundredsows. Pig production is now conducted inbatch management of 3 weeks in tradi-tional herds or one week in large and lea-ding farms. However, this technicalpotential also has a cost. For these andother reasons like environmental cons-traints, production and feeding specifica-tions, traceability, production cost(Û1.30/kg including wages) is higher inBrittany than in Spain, but is nearly thesame as in Denmark. In comparison withSpain, the gap is not in feed cost butmainly in labour and investment.In Brittany, producers’ groups are mainlyinvolved in these two activities. For exam-ple, leaders have taken shares in, or set uptheir own genetic firms. They have alsotechnicians who regularly visit farms andgive them advice on sanitary and feedingpractices. Gathering pigs and being incharge of negotiating the “best” pricewith slaughterhouses are, however, theirbasic, historical and essential activities.One body, the Marché du Porc Breton(decreasing bidding auction system), wascreated in 1972 to establish each week areference of procurement price arisingfrom the confrontation between produ-cers’ groups and slaughterhouses.Producers’ groups thus play a major rolein the vertical co-ordination of the pigsector in Brittany because they own ups-tream and downstream interests (gene-tics, feeding, slaughtering, processing).About half of national fresh and frozenmeat exports is generated by Brittany. In2000, one third was sent to developingcountries, though this share is now wea-ker due to the fall of exports to Russia.Brittany’s slaughterhouses have requiredveterinary services to take the necessarysteps to open news markets where Frenchmeat could be sold.

22 23

SWINE PRODUCTION IN

decision-makers in the French markets :How to develop successful commercialstrategies in export markets in order tocontribute to a better global carcass price?; how to maintain the level of outlets inthe domestic markets while competitionwith foreign suppliers is increasing ?; howto provide good service to French andforeign customers ?; or how to provideadded value in downstream integration ?

3- Domestic and foreign outlets; a strate-gic challenge3-1 Domestic consumptionIn 2003, pigmeat consumption reached37.5 kg cwe per capita, i.e. less than theEuropean average (43.8 kg cwe per capi-ta), lower than in Spain (71.6 cwe percapita) or in Denmark (57.6 cwe per capi-ta). Although pigmeat is more consumedthan any other meat, poultry meat con-sumption has dramatically increased inrecent years and now competes with pig-meat, whereas beef meat consumption issuffering a slight decline.About 30 % of French pigmeat is sold asfresh pork (6 % to the catering sector and63 % to the processing industry).Hypermarkets and supermarkets handleabout 85 % of these sales. Sales of case-ready and elaborated products (sausageproducts, lardons…) are increasing. Forvarious reasons (traceability, manpowercost…), large-scale distribution prefers totransfer cutting and conditioning work tothe slaughtering industry.The processing industry isn’t generally lin-ked with upstream activities. Purchases ofraw material are often guided by pricemore than origin. Moreover, in recentyears, American (Sara Lee, SmithfieldFoods) and Spanish (Campofrío) compa-nies have bought or have taken a majorityholding in some French companies.Profitability being their main concern,these companies do not hesitate to playoff domestic and foreign suppliers againsteach other, thus intensifying competitionand cutting margins. The national linkbetween the cutting and processingindustries is thus less strict than before.3-2 International and European tradeTrade plays a very important part in main-taining the balance of the domestic mar-ket. Eating patterns and cooking practiceshave led to loin production exceedingdemand and shoulder and ham produc-

tion being insufficient to cover the needs of the processing industry.Since the mid-90’s, imports have stayed at the same level, around500,000 tons cwe, i.e. 20-25 % of French production. Exports, on theother hand, have increased, coming from 100,000 tons cwe in the mid-80’s to over 600,000 tons cwe in recent years. In 2003, the trade balan-ce showed a surplus of 115,000 tons cwe and 50 million euros.Imports mainly come from the European Union. Purchases are bonedfresh meat, notably cured ham used by the processing industry fromSpain, the Netherlands and Denmark. Purchases from Spain, for use bythe processing industry, have dramatically increased over recent yearsand have now reached 50% of all French needs due to a low-price policy.About 80% of exports are sent to the European Union, a figure whichamounts to a 9% share of intra-community trade. The main destinationis Italy, where 40 % of exported meat is sold. Heavy carcasses and hamsare sold for the processing industry (cured and smoked hams). The othermain customers are the UK (loins and meat for processing), Greece (car-casses) and Germany (meat for processing).In 2001 and 2002, exports to developing countries were reduced becau-se of sanitary issues (foot and mouse disease and swine fever). France hasnow recovered its position and sales are strongly increasing at present onthe Asian market (South Korea, Japan and Singapore). In contrast,exports to Russia are plummeting due to Brazilian competition.

ConclusionIt is clear that the French pigmeat sector is coping with several new cha-llenges. Due to economic and environmental constraints, French produc-tion could remain at the present level in the short term. This contextcould lead to an over capacity of slaughterhouses, notably in Brittany.Competition in both the domestic and European markets could requirethat the slaughtering and cutting industries reconsider their industrialand commercial strategies. Brittany’s industry, having previously beenconcerned with quantity, must now shift the emphasis to value added. Inaddition, recovering and securing the domestic market, which representsabout 70 % of French pigmeat outlets, is now a priority.

The pigmeat sector in Brittany After World War II, the farming and food sector in Brittany underwentdramatic changes. Today, thanks to the dynamism of its producers, thisarea is number one in animal production and accounts for 55 % of

national pig meat production (against 35 % in 1970), 60 % of nationalpoultry meat production and 30 % of national beef production (comingfrom dairy and suckling cows). At present, the pigmeat sector provideswork for 24,000 people, 8,300 of whom work in production.The geographical concentration in all parts of the pig sector (production,collection of pigs ready for slaughter, slaughterhouses, cutting units,processing industries) is the main feature of the increase in pig produc-tion in Brittany and the ability of slaughterhouses and processing indus-tries to export out of boundaries. Between 1980 and 2000, pig invento-ries increased by 55 %, more than in Denmark (+ 17 %) or in Belgium (+47 %) but much less than in Este (Spain) or in Lombardy (Italy), wherethe growth rate is near 100 %.According to the 2000 Farm Census, the number of farms with pigs (withmore than 4 sows and 19 fattening pigs) was about 7,400. Inventorieswere more numerous than in France, with on average 150 sows and 800fattening pigs per farm, the average land of which is calculated to be 53ha. The farrow-to-finish system (52 % of pig farms) predominates forsows (89 % of the total in Brittany) and, to a lesser extent, for fatteningpigs (70 % of the total in Brittany) because farmers are obliged to fattena proportion of their piglets outside their farm in Brittany or in neigh-bouring areas, due to the ban on farm enlargement after the implemen-tation of stringent environmental regulations. In Brittany, pig farms aremainly located in two areas of the region (the Finistere headland and theLamballe area), where pig density can reach 10 pigs/ha per county. Thesehigh animal densities (pig, poultry, cows and steers) have damaged theecological system and environment (high nitrate concentration in surfa-ce water and ground water, seaweed on the Atlantic coast…). The far-mers’ organisation and public authorities, aware of this situation, imple-mented a law of good practice in order to ensure greater respect for theenvironment. In addition, two programs (Farming Pollution Control Plans1996-2001 and 2001-2006) were implemented to adapt farms to thenew regulations. For this reason, pig production costs have increased andthe development of the sow herd in Brittany is slowing down. The pre-sent increase is mainly due to technical improvement in pig farms.At present, technical performance is of a very high in Brittany and is pro-bably among the best in the European Union (pigs produced per sow peryear : 20.4 ; total feed conversion rate : 3.04 ; daily gain (7-105 kg) :0.660 kg – average values from ITP -). Artificial insemination is verywidely used; farmers organise the on-site production of semen or buy it

from an artificial insemination center. Inthe first case, the diffusion of geneticprogress is ensured by the purchase ofboars and sows with a high geneticpotential to farmers (multiplication) inconnection with genetic firms (selection).Farmers attach great importance to thestate of health of their herds and are wor-king on how to control or eradicatevarious diseases. With the increasing sizeof farms, activities are more specialized inpig production, and now we often see oneperson for one activity (nursery, weaning,feeding…) in farms with several hundredsows. Pig production is now conducted inbatch management of 3 weeks in tradi-tional herds or one week in large and lea-ding farms. However, this technicalpotential also has a cost. For these andother reasons like environmental cons-traints, production and feeding specifica-tions, traceability, production cost(Û1.30/kg including wages) is higher inBrittany than in Spain, but is nearly thesame as in Denmark. In comparison withSpain, the gap is not in feed cost butmainly in labour and investment.In Brittany, producers’ groups are mainlyinvolved in these two activities. For exam-ple, leaders have taken shares in, or set uptheir own genetic firms. They have alsotechnicians who regularly visit farms andgive them advice on sanitary and feedingpractices. Gathering pigs and being incharge of negotiating the “best” pricewith slaughterhouses are, however, theirbasic, historical and essential activities.One body, the Marché du Porc Breton(decreasing bidding auction system), wascreated in 1972 to establish each week areference of procurement price arisingfrom the confrontation between produ-cers’ groups and slaughterhouses.Producers’ groups thus play a major rolein the vertical co-ordination of the pigsector in Brittany because they own ups-tream and downstream interests (gene-tics, feeding, slaughtering, processing).About half of national fresh and frozenmeat exports is generated by Brittany. In2000, one third was sent to developingcountries, though this share is now wea-ker due to the fall of exports to Russia.Brittany’s slaughterhouses have requiredveterinary services to take the necessarysteps to open news markets where Frenchmeat could be sold.