IG TALES P September/October 2006 • No. 4
The Official Publication of the Kansas Pork Industry
Celebrate 50 Meeting Challenges in the 1990’s
Are you looking for an environmental
consulting service specializing in nutrient management compliance? You found it.
•
Kansas GOLDTM Assessments
•
Soil Sampling
•
Manure Sampling
•
KDA Nutrient Utilization Plan Updates
•
KDHE Nutrient Management Plans
•
KDHE Permit Application Updates
Now offering a 10% discount off basic charges to KPA Members! CALL THE KPA OFFICE @ 776-0442
FEEDPRO™
UP TO 40 TONS PER HOUR LOAD - MIX - METER AUTOMATICALLY
Jeff Dohrman Pork Producer Double D Hogs Bushton, Kan.
The latest technology for mixing feed.
Continuous Flow — FEEDPRO uses continuous flow mixing to generate accurate blends of ingredients. Accuracy is maintained when ingredient density (test weight) changes. The FEEDPRO units meter by weight so density changes are automatically accounted for - without frequent calibration.
ASK ABOUT THE new FEEDPRO LX800 MICRO SYSTEM!
Contact Vincent Pieschl, North Central Steel, 1349 Golden Road, Minneapolis, KS 67467, 1-800-382-0106
“Accurate, dependable, simple, and time-saving, all describe our Feedpro Continuous Flow feedmill. The ultimate benefit is excellant pig performance.” FEEDPRO™ CONTINUOUS FLOW UNIT
Managing Editor Mandy Gramkow President-Ceo Tim Stroda 2006 KPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chairman: Pete Sherlock – Washington Kent Condray – Clifton Chris Cox – Long Island Thomas Frederick – Hugoton Alan Haverkamp – Bern Jim Hicks – Leoti Michael Springer – Sycamore Ron Suther – Blaine Jim Nelssen – Kansas State University Kelly Wondra – Ellinwood 2006 KPPC BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chairman: Kelly Wondra – Ellinwood Steve Eichman – Westmoreland Alan Haverkamp – Bern Ron Suther – Blaine
ABOUT THE COVER
PIG TALES September/October 2006 • No. 4
The Official Publication of the Kansas Pork Industry
8
Celebrate 50
Meeting Challenges in the 1990’s
Enjoy a photo story of the pork industry and association in the 1990’s Pig Tales is the official bi-monthly publication of the Kansas Pork Association (KPA) and the Kansas Pork Producers Council (KPPC). The publisher cannot guarantee the correctness of all information or absence of errors and omissions, nor be liable for content of advertisements. We reserve the right to edit or refuse all materials. The KPA does not guarantee or endorse the performance of any products or services advertised within the publication. All Pig Tales inquires should be directed to the editors at: Kansas Pork Association, 2601 Farm Bureau Road, Manhattan, KS 66502, Phone 785-7760442, Fax 785-776-9897, E-mail: kpa@ kspork.org, Web site: www.kspork.org
IG TALES P
September/October 2006 • No. 4
The Official Publication of the Kansas Pork Industry
FEATURES
5
Pork Chop Open scheduled for September
6
Image Campaign to continue in October Communtiy Outreach Program Particpants New recipes for schools
7
Twelve producers promote pork in Price Chopper stores and at Kansas City Speedway
Fundraising event information
IN EVERY ISSUE 4
The President’s Corner
10
K-State Connection to the Pork Industry
12
Pork Checkoff News
15
Pork Recipes
The effects of feeding schedule on body condition, agressiveness and reproductive failure in group housed sows
Don’t be blah brand campaign provides return to producers; Pork Producers, U.S. Meat Export Federation forge a powerful partnership; Pork Information Gateway (PIG) answers your questions Fruit-Stuffed Pork Loin with Dijon-Garlic Crust Cooking Tips for Today’s Lean Pork
15
Everyone Welcome! Thursday, November 16, 2006 3-5 p.m. (following K-State Swine Day)
Celebrate
50Reception
All past-presidents will be recognized. Spread the word.
September/October 2006 • Pig Tales
While your organization has been celebrating through the year, the official “party” will be held Thursday, November 16th, following the Kansas State University Swine Day held at the KSU Alumni Center in Manhattan. All present and past members are invited to attend a reception beginning at 3 p.m. which will provide time to renew old acquaintances and make new friends.
Tim Stroda President-CEO Kansas Pork Association
The President’s Corner
All organizations draw their strength from their leadership. As you can see from the list at right, the pork industry has enjoyed its share of strong personalities who believed in the organization. These leaders are seen as the organization’s quarterbacks. They get the glory when things go right and the grief in tough times. However, there is another group of producer leaders who deserve credit for the continued success of the organization. The names of the producers who have served on the Executive Boards are too numerous to list. However, since the first meeting of the Kansas Swine Improvement Association in 1956, they have provided the direction for your organization as it has worked to provide opportunities and meet challenges. Working for you today is a dedicated group of pork producers who represent your industry in a very professional manner. These producers volunteer their time and talent to ensure the organization will remain on course during their watch. There is a listing of the current KPPC and KPA Executive Board members on the previous page. The next time you see them, please thank them for their contribution. As you can see from the list at right, the pork industry has lost some of its earliest dedicated leaders. A few others have embarked on new careers. I am working to contact as many of the past leaders as possible. If you have updates or recent address changes for any on the list, I would appreciate your help. Please join us for the 50th Celebration Reception. Just like our organization, it just won’t be the same without you.
Pig Tales • September/October 2006
Past KPPC Presidents 1956-1957
Joe O’Bryan
1958
Arnold Rose
1959-1960
Willis Huston
1961-1962
Fred Carp
1963-1964
Wallace Wolf
1965-1966
Bob Rose
1967
Jesper DeVore
1968
Duane VanHorn
1969
Don Sailors
1970
Roy Stroup
1971
Gene Reinhardt
1972
Floyd Meyer
1973
Don Gronau
1974
John Balthrop
1975
Stan Grecian
1976
Eugene Busenitz
1977
Emery Berry
1978-1979
Wayne Walter
1980-1981
Vyrl Fegel
1982-1983
Fred Germann
1984
Richard Featherston
1985-1986
Leo Schwartz
1987-1988
Tim Rose
1989
Ralph Rindt
1990
Dennis Hupe
1991-1992
Victor Krainbill
1993-1994
Sharon Schwartz
1995-1996
Roy Henry
1997-1998
Gary Stanford
1999-2000
Steven Cox
2001
Doug Claassen
2002-2003
Jim Zoltenko
2004
Kelly Wondra
2005
Doug Claassen
2006
Kelly Wondra
Past KPA Presidents 2001-2002
Doug Claassen
2003
Dale Springer
2004-2005
Keith Seimsen
2006
Pete Sherlock, DVM
Everyone enjoys a birthday celebration!
Celebrate
50Reception
PORK CHOP OPEN GOLF TOURNAMENT Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006 Washington, Kansas
What:
Pork Chop Open Golf Tournament 18-hole 4-man scramble
When:
Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006 Registration - 10 a.m. Shotgun Start - 11 a.m. Meal provided after tournament
Where:
Cedar Hills Golf Course 1344 Quivira Road Washington, Kansas (785) 325-2424
Why:
Kansas Pork Association Fundraising Event
How: Deadline:
$250.00 per team Send registration form and check to: Kansas Pork Association 2601 Farm Bureau Road Manhattan, KS 66502
Questions:
(785) 776-0442 kpa@kspork.org
Thursday, Sept. 21
Pork Chop Open Golf Tournament Registration Form Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006
Team Captain: Address: Phone: E-mail:
___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Meal Reservations
________
Names of Team Members:
Shirt Size
1. __________________________________
_______
2. __________________________________
_______
3. __________________________________
_______
4. __________________________________
_______
Registration Cost: $250 per team (includes cart, green fee & t-shirt) Check must accompany form and sent to: DEADLINE: THURS. SEPT. 21
Kansas Pork Association 2601 Farm Bureau Road Manhattan, KS 66502 (785) 776-0442 kpa@kspork.org September/October 2006 • Pig Tales
Image campaign to continue in October Community Outreach Pork and Soybean Checkoff ads displayed to improve positive Program Participants pork producer image
D
uring four weeks in October, the Kansas Pork Association, along with the National Pork Checkoff and the National Soybean Checkoff, will be sponsoring radio spots, newspaper advertisements along with billboards to create consumer and producer awareness about the positive impact of pork producers in their cities. The advertisements pictured on this page will be placed in county newspapers through out Washington, Nemaha and Marshall, Norton, Butler and Brown counties. Radio spots will run on WIBW 580 AM, KFRM 550 AM, KFTI 1070 AM, KNZA 103.9 FM, and KQNK Radio. Seven billboards, located in Washington, Marysville, Sabetha, Norton, Newton, Augusta and Hiawatha, Kan. state similar messages, “Support Kansas Pork Producers.” The billboards will be up the beginning of September or October, depending on the location. Please let us know if and how the advertisements are affecting your communities.
•
•
•
• Taxes gen erated by pork producers h school im elp fund Kansas provemen ts. Through th
ei support ne r tax contributions , w techno logy, build producers more extr ing upgrad ac es and Better ed urricular program s for our ucation cr students. eate Support yo ur local po s a better Kansas. rk produc ers.
New recipes for schools The National Pork Board has developed seven new pork recipes for school foodservice operations. Created by professionals in the school foodservice field, these new recipes feature Critical Control Point measures, nutrient content and serving yields. All of the school districts in Kansas will be receiving a mailing including the new seven recipes and the Slim6 Nutrition card, pictured left, emphasizing the important new information regarding the leanness of pork. Good nutrition encourages better learning in school and we hope to get more pork in the school lunches in Kansas. Pig Tales • September/October 2006
Mike and Peggy Bellar of Howard, Kan., sponsored pork at a free barbecue in July at the Howard Fair. Quivira Pork, Kansas Select Pork, Rolling Hills Pork and Sunflower Hills all located in the Washington, Kan., area, donated new sorting panels for the Washington County Fair’s 4-H swine show at the end of July. Kansas Select Pork of Washington, Kan., sponsored pork for a meal at the Washington County Fair. Haverkamp Brothers, Inc. of Bern Kan., sponsored pork for a meal, as well as advertising for the Bern Booster Club’s Annual Golf Tournament to be held in September.
connecting pork producers and communities The KPA would like to offer matching funds up to 50 percent of their expenses on selected community relations activities. To view guidelines and to find an application form, please visit the KPA Web site, www.kspork.org. Under the news section you will find a link to the Outreach program. You may also call the office at 776-0442.
Twelve producers promote pork in Price Chopper stores and at the Kansas City Speedway
ď‚Ť
The Kansas pork producers started by spending Friday, June 30, promoting pork in the Kansas City area. They were in charge of cooking and serving samples in four Price Chopper stores.Not only did they serve samples, but they directed customers to the meat case and also talked about their home operations.
Early Saturday morning, the producers along with other producers from South Dakota, Nebraska and Missouri, prepared pork sandwiches and served them to everyone in the garage and pit areas. After two long days of promotion, they enjoyed watching the NASCAR Truck Series race as well as the ARCA race. Frank Kimmel drove car #46, sponsored by the National Pork Board and came out with a win at the speedway! Those participating were as follows: Mike and Peggy Bellar, Robert and Lisa Cordel, Kent and Marian Condray, Marshall Dibble and Melany Cady, Leo and Sharon Schwartz, Gary and Patty Stanford and KPA Staff Mandy and Ben Gramkow. Thanks to all who attended.
September/October 2006 • Pig Tales
Celebrate 50
Meeting Challenges in the 1990’s • Expansion of the State’s Pork Industry
• Changing Business Structures within the Industry
• Record Low Hog Prices • No. 1 Press story in the state of Kansas in 1998 • New Environmental Regulations Pig Tales • September/October 2006
past 1985-86 Board Member highlight KPpc presidents of the Board 1993-94
&
Leo Sharon schwartz HOME TOWN: Hanover, Kan. Where do you reside now? Washington, Kan. how long have you been pork producers? 43 years as a partnership. We started out as a farrow-to-finish operation, but now are a SEW - grower operation. L: I had hampshires through FFA in high school and always knew I wanted to farm. What motivates you to keep producing pork? L: Having the satisfaction of knowing we produce the most tasteful, nutritous product we can--especially knowing how far we have come in the industry. S: We have pride in our industry and pride in our product.The pork industry also allows us to transition and adapt. It’s a good motivator to stay in the industry. What made you get involved in the kppc? L: The checkoff is what got me involved with the association. I wanted to help get the national checkoff going. I’ve always been a firm believer that if you produce a product, we need to help pay for advertising it. S: A big benefit and how we got involved was by attending the informational meetings. Everything we learned from those meetings, whether is was about research or promotion, we were able to bring something home to apply to our own operation. We also enjoyed the interaction among other producers. When were you president of KPPC? L: 1985-86 ; S: 1993-94 What was happening in the association in the late 80’s/early 90’s? L: There were corporate issues in Kansas on packers to own hogs. There was a fine line at what producers wanted. Some supported checkoff and some didn’t want to have corporate take over. S: The business structure of the industry was changing from not just family, but to integrated systems. With time, the lifestyles change and so did meeting times. We really started using different means of communication to get information out to producers. Siting was also an issue. We tried to encourage producers to feel ownership in product even if they might not own the pigs they were raising. The KPA also worked to formalize structure/acceptance, legislative so that every type of business structure would be legal. WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE INDUSTRY IN the late 80’s/early 90’s? L: On the health side, everyone was going to confinement, and in response the KPA worked with K-State to treat these diseases. Also, product acceptance was a real issue. At that time, not necessarily every consumer viewed it as a healthy product. Efforts started to go into play to target this message. S: It went from profitable to budget busting. Our production was out pacing the kill space at the packing plants. Expansion was happening too rapidly - contract growers, larger entities- sow units. What do you think about the KPA’s 50th Anniversary? It’s great! September/October 2006 • Pig Tales
K-State Connection The effects of feeding schedule on body condition, aggressiveness, and reproductive failure in group housed sows J. D. Schneider, M. D. Tokach, S.S. Dritz, R. D. Goodband, J. L. Nelssen, and J. M. DeRouchey
Introduction In many commercial swine facilities, sows are individually housed in gestation stalls; however, animal welfare concerns and equipment replacement costs may lead to increased usage of group housing strategies during gestation. Because housing sows in groups allows for an increase in freedom of movement and social interaction, it is perceived to be more welfare-friendly than individually housing sows in stalls. However, the social interactions between animals also can lead to greater aggressive behavior among sows. The condition commonly known as “boss sow” syndrome occurs when dominant sows that are high on the social order consume more feed than desired at the expense of other sows in the group. Not only does this form of aggression lead to timid sows consuming less feed than desired as they fail to compete with dominant sows, but also it is likely to result in high fear and distress in the less dominant sows. The ability to properly feed gestating sows in group housing is one of the biggest detriments of the system. Several approaches to feed group housed sows have been attempted, including feeding sows every other day, using feeding stalls within a pen, using electronic sow feeders, trickle feeding, and ad libitum feeding of high fiber diets. A recent approach used on some swine farms is multiple feedings per day, where pens of sows are fed small amounts of feed spread throughout the day (over 5 or 6 meals). The theory behind multiple feedings is that offering feed more frequently may result in dominate sows eating their allowance early in the day and possibly giving timid sows more opportunity to eat later in the day, resulting in less variation. Although this procedure appears to be popular among some producers, we are unaware of any research that validates this concept. 10 Pig Tales • September/October 2006
Therefore the objective of this study was to determine whether feeding group-housed gestating sows multiple times per day reduces variation in sow body weight, backfat thickness, aggressiveness, and feet and leg problems compared with twice per day feeding. Procedures A total of 208 group-housed sows were used on a commercial sow farm in northeast Kansas that typically housed gestating sows in pens. Sows were randomly allotted to treatments (13 pens/treatment) and assigned to a pen (16 × 10 ft; 8 sows/pen). A milo-soybean meal gestation diet was fed to all sows, but with either 2 or 6 feedings per day. Feed drops were set to provide 5.5 lb of feed per sow per day. Feed drops were scheduled to drop twice (7:00 am and 3:30 pm) or six times per day (7:00, 7:30, 08:00 am and, 3:30, 4:00, and 4:30 pm. Sow and gilt aggressiveness during gestation period was determined by visually scoring lesions on the total body and vulva. Total body lesion scores were determined from a scale: 1 = no blemishes to some reddening or calluses, 2 = less then 10 scratches or 5 small cuts, 3 = more then 10 scratches or 5 small cuts, and 4 = most or whole area covered with scratches/wounds with little or no untouched skin. Structural integrity for sows was performed by visual scoring of the feet and legs. Visual scores for mobility were determined from a scale: 1 = no lameness observed in front or rear legs, 2 = animals with slight structural and/or movement problems, and 3 = sows/gilts with severe structural problems and unable to get up or walk. Hoof integrity scores were determined on a scale: 1 = no obvious lesions or cracks, 2 = animals with slight lesions on their foot pad and/or between toes, and 3 = sows with severe hoof cracking and lesions on the foot pad and/or between toes. Lesion scores were recorded on day 1 (before mixing) and every 14 days until farrowing. Results Feeding frequency did not influence (P > 0.93; Table 1) total sow removal or the proportion of sows removed for reproductive failure. Although relatively few sows were removed for structural problems, they were all on the twice per day feeding frequency leading to a higher (P < 0.07) removal rate for structural problems for sows fed twice per day than sows fed six times per day. Table 1. Effect of Feeding Frequency on Removal of Gestating Gilts and Sows
Frequency of Feeding per Day Chi-Square Item 2 6 P-value (P <) Reason for sow removal Open 11 17 0.93 Structural problems 4 0 0.07 Total 15 17 0.97
Increasing feeding frequency from two to six times a day had no effect (P > 0.10) on overall gain, ADG, and back fat change (Table 2). Initial and final P2 back fat were not different (P > 0.10) among sows fed two or six times a day. Back fat gain (3.3 mm) was similar (P > 0.10) for sows on both feeding treatments. Sow weight variation increased from the beginning of gestation (CV of 10 and 12%, respectively) to the end of gestation (CV of 15 and 17%, respectively), but was not influenced (P > 0.10) by treatment. There were also no difference (P > 0.10;) in number born alive, stillbirths, or mummies when feeding either twice or six times a day during gestation. Table 2. Effect of Feeding Frequency on Performance of Gestating Sowsa
Daily feedingsb Item 2 6 SE Gestation data Initial weight, lb 504 512 12.28 Final weight, lb 602 600 10.72 Gain, lb 98 88 6.96 ADG, lb 1.03 0.93 0.07 ADFI, lb 5.50 5.50 0.01 CV of initial weight, % 10.6 12.3 1.09 CV of final weight, % 14.9 17.2 1.52 Initial backfat, mm 16.0 16.0 0.32 Final backfat, mm 19.4 19.3 0.35 Backfat change, mm 3.30 3.32 0.38 Farrowing data Total Number Born 14.64 13.58 0.38 Number Born Alive 11.98 11.32 0.39
(P <) P-value 0.66 0.90 0.32 0.30 0.22 0.31 0.20 0.85 0.95 0.96 0.08 0.26
Each value is the mean of 13 replications with 8 sows per pen. Pens that were fed twice daily received feed at 07:00 and 3:30 hours; Pens that were fed six times a day received feed at 07:00, 07:30, 08:00, 3:30, 4:00, and 4:30, respectively. a b
In sows, aggressiveness, as determined by visual scores of skin and vulva lesions, was more pronounced (Table 3; P < 0.01 and 0.04, respectively) when fed twice a day versus gestating sows fed six times a day. Gestating sows fed six times a day experienced less (P < 0.01 and 0.02, respectively) structural problems with feet and legs and hoofs as measured by higher visual scores. Table 3. Effect of Feeding Frequency on Aggressiveness and Soundness Scores of Gestation Gilts and Sows
Frequency of Feeding per Day Item 2 6 SE P-value (P <) Aggressiveness Skin 1.51 1.34 0.04 0.01 Vulva 1.08 1.03 0.02 0.04 Structure Feet/Leg 1.21 1.12 0.03 0.01 Hoof 1.05 1.01 0.01 0.02 It must be noted; however, that all scores were low indicating relatively few structural problems for either treatment. Vocalization was greater in the two hour period around the
to the pork industry morning (P < 0.07) and afternoon (P < 0.01) feeding periods for sows fed six times a day versus sows fed twice a day and returned to baseline values after meals were finished. Sows fed six times per day had three distinct vocalization peaks during each feeding period indicating that they were more active over the feeding period. Discussion Determining the welfare status of gestating sows can be challenging because of the complexities between different gestation housing environments and challenges quantifying measures of welfare. A common problem with group housing of gestating sows is that a condition commonly known as “boss sow” syndrome. This occurs when dominant sows that are high on the social order consume more feed than desired at the expense of other sows in the group. In this project, we increased the feeding frequency from two to six times per day and spaced the feedings at a designed interval in an attempt to induce the sense of satiety of the boss sows and reduce variation in sow weight gain within each pen. The similar final weight among sows on either treatment was not surprising because sows were fed the same total quantity of feed each day. The greater feeding frequency (six times per day) was hypothesized to reduce variation in weight gain; however, this did not occur. The more aggressive “boss” sows were expected to consume a greater portion of feed at the first morning and afternoon feedings and then allow more submissive sows to consume more feed at the second and third feedings. In reality, variation in final weight increased numerically in both sows and gilts when feeding frequency was increased suggesting that more aggressive sows may have been able to consume more total feed instead of less. Sows fed six times per day had lower skin and vulva lesion scores and leg/feet and hoof scores than sows fed twice per day. Lower skin and vulva lesions are an indication that fewer fights and subsequent injuries occurred in the sows fed six times per day; however, the differences between treatments were relatively small. Sows fed six times per day were expected to have fewer hoof lesions because there should have been less impacted feed in hooves of sows fed six times per day because of the lower amount of feed on the concrete at any one time. Sows fed six times a day were more active during the feeding period, as measured by vocalization, versus sows fed twice a day. Thus, the welfare criteria demonstrate both positive (lower lesion and structural problem scores in sows) and negative (increased vocalization) responses to increasing the feeding frequency. In summary, increasing the feeding frequency from two to six times per day does not appear to have a dramatic negative or positive impact on performance or welfare of group housed gilts and sows. This study was funded by the National Pork Board and further details can be found at our KSU Swine Industry Day, November 16, at the KSU Alumni Center. September/October 2006 • Pig Tales 11
Don’t Be Blah™ Brand Campaign Provides Return to Producers It’s a question that frequently perplexes business owners and marketers: How do you specifically measure the impact of promotion on the bottom line? Working with private-sector and university agricultural economists, the Pork Checkoff has developed a new tool to measure the return on pork producers’ Checkoff investment in the new Don’t be blah marketing campaign. And the early results are promising, according to Wayne Peugh, an Illinois pork producer who is president of the National Pork Board. The Other White Meat.® Don’t be blah™ brand campaign was launched in 2005 in six target markets: Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Philadelphia, and Sacramento. The campaign employs a variety of advertising and promotion tactics designed to increase pork sales by helping to position pork as an exciting solution to the everyday meal rut today’s cooks fall into. Now, at the end of the program’s first year, it is being evaluated with awareness, image and impact measures. The new tool measures changes in consumer expenditures that are attributable to Pork Checkoff promotion, advertising and public relations. “Pork producers expect meaningful measurements of results from their Checkoff investments,” said Peugh. “This new tool helps us provide that measure.” Jeff Hartz, director of marketing communications for the Pork Checkoff said the six target markets “provided a way to evaluate marketing success. Success is measured by awareness of a campaign, image of the brand and impact or purchase.” The overall evaluation of the Don’t be blah program started with a consumer brand-tracking study that found that awareness of The Other White Meat’s advertising has increased significantly since the start of the campaign. In addition, within the target markets, there has been an increase in upbeat descriptions of pork such as engaging, energetic, young, fun and exciting. The brand-tracking study also found that a change in perception and behavior has occurred. Those aware of the brand campaign have significantly higher ratings for The Other White Meat than those not aware. “These results are very encouraging,” said Hartz. “These were all specific goals of the Don’t be blah campaign. But it is the impact or purchase, where producers can really see their return on investment. And that’s where development of this new measurement tool came in.” With funding from the Pork Checkoff, the economists developed an econometric analysis that focused on calculating per capita pork expenditures as a way of measuring the impact of the integrated campaign activity in the target markets. “The concept starts with the price of the product, adjusted for inflation, multiplied by the quantity consumed per person in each market,” said Hartz. “The result is the expenditures per person. This concept correlates well with the University of Missouri Demand Index, but is far easier to understand and can be directly 12 Pig Tales • September/October 2006
related to Checkoff activities, unlike the Demand Index.” The economists were able to track actual pork sales in the target markets using pork-package bar-code data collected from retail stores. From March 2005 to November 2005, the first wave of Don’t be blah campaign activity, the program generated between $17.2 million and $20.1 million in additional pork sales at the retail level. This resulted in $4.22 in retail pork sales yielded from every $1 invested in the retail Don’t be blah program. Over the same time period, the producer share of retail dollars was 31.1 percent. Based on these figures, for every $1 producers invested in the program, producers received a return of $1.31. “The bottom line,” Hartz said, “is that the targeted advertising and promotion programs conducted in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Philadelphia and Sacramento clearly were successful in increasing total revenues for pork. And they provided producers with a positive return on their Checkoff investment.” “This study is an immediate or short-term measure of a program designed to create long-term impact,” said Hartz, who noted that the study did not account for any benefit seen at foodservice, which would account for additional revenue for pork in the target markets.
Pork Producers, U.S. Meat Export Federation Forge a Powerful Partnership With today’s record-breaking pork exports, it’s easy to forget how tough it was 30 years ago to convince producers that the export market offered untapped opportunities for profit. Few could imagine the day when the U.S. pork industry would advance from shipping 500,000 metric tons of pork per year in 1998 to exporting more than 1 million metric tons six years later. But it took many years and a lot of hard work to reach these milestones. We recently visited with Phil Seng, president and CEO of the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF), which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year, to get his insights on how Pork Checkoff dollars have helped support market development activities in more than 80 countries. Q: What was the status of U.S. meat exports 30 years ago when the USMEF was formed? A: Most producers agreed that it would benefit the pork industry to export more. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, all of agriculture was more concerned with imports, including anti-dumping cases against Canada. It was a huge job to convince producers that the export market had untold benefits
that would pay dividends. It was hard for people to visualize the future, but look at what a difference pork exports have made 30 years later. Q: When did the tide begin to turn for U.S. Pork? A: For years there was very little funding for pork exports. Through the mid 1980s we only sent frozen pork overseas, and the meat was simply a raw material for further processing. Things started to change in 1987, however, when we conducted the first chilled pork demonstration in Japan. We worked with Iowa State University and Texas A&M to send chilled product internationally, which dramatically opened up retail opportunities that are now common in Asia, Mexico and beyond. Q: What do you consider other major milestones that USMEF has marked during the past 30 years? Wayne Walter from Kansas, a former chair of the National Pork Producers Council, proposed a long-range plan for pork exports in 1991. While he still wanted to supply pork for further processing, he believed we should focus on supplying the international market with chilled pork. Clearly articulating the opportunities we saw for pork internationally helped open new doors. Today 55 percent of the pork we sell to Japan is fresh, chilled product and we’ve recently made tremendous gains in exports to Korea, thanks to chilled pork. All this gives us a competitive edge over Denmark, which can only ship frozen pork. After the long-range pork export plan was created in 1991, we were able to appeal to the Pork Board more directly to get more funding. In 1993 we received our first $1 million from the pork industry, and Checkoff dollars have allowed us to diversify into other markets. Q: How has diversification become a key component of pork exports? A: In the 1980s when I worked as USMEF’s Asian director, Japan made up 92% of the market for all U.S. pork exports. We didn’t want to put all our eggs in one basket, though, and the pork industry is much stronger because of the decision to diversify. Checkoff dollars have allowed us to reach new markets, and today U.S. Pork is sold in more than 75 countries. Q: How have Pork Checkoff funds made a difference in the USMEF’s work? A: Today USMEF’s budget totals nearly $30 million. Checkoff dollars are multipliers. The more dollars we receive from the Pork Checkoff, the more likely we are to get additional government funding. We are competing with cotton, California wines and other ag groups for these funds, but USMEF has been the largest recipient of these USDA dollars for the last 15 years. The Pork Board has been very progressive, and I complement the current leadership for doing a great job. By working together, the Pork Checkoff and the USMEF are accomplishing goals that producers couldn’t even dream of in years past.
Pork Information Gateway (PIG) Answers Your Questions Wouldn’t it be great to have an easy way to get answers to everyday challenges in pork production? Now you can ask the experts through the Pork Information Gateway (PIG). “This producer-focused resource is unique,” says David Meisinger, executive director of the Pork Checkoff-supported U.S. Pork Center of Excellence. “PIG [located at http://pork. porkgateway.org] is your one-stop shop for information on all types of pork production topics, including access to industry experts to get your questions answered fast.” PIG’s virtual library of resources gives pork producers an opportunity to find information in 16 categories related to swine or pork. Peer-reviewed information from leading swine researchers is included in nearly 200 fact sheets written in an easy-to-understand, producer-friendly style. If you can’t find what you’re looking for, the Answer Center can help. “About 75 swine experts, including Extension specialists, are available to answer your questions about pork production,” Meisinger says. “Within a couple days of your inquiry, an expert will respond to you via e-mail, fax or phone—whatever you prefer.” Dynamic system offers new resources When you log onto www.PorkInfoGateway.org, you can register for a free account. Registration entitles you to search the PIG Question & Answer database and view thousands of pieces of pork production information. “While you can look at everything on the public site without registering, accessing the information in the Answer Center requires you to register,” Meisinger notes. “We did this so we can find out which areas interest producers the most. Then we can provide more information on these key topics, which contributes to the dynamic nature of the site.” When PIG was debuted at the 2006 World Pork Expo, the feedback was positive. “Producers found that it’s very easy to use,” Meisinger says. PIG enhances Pork Centers of Excellence PIG is part of the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence, which is based at Iowa State University. The Center is designed to advance: •U.S. pork production as the world-class standard •A new paradigm for how research is conducted and information delivered •Society’s understanding and valuing of U.S. pork producers’ contributions to the economy, environment, community, and to consumer health and well-being •A thriving U.S. pork production industry The programs of the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence include a virtual research center of excellence on air quality, and a National Swine Institute that provides regional swine schools focused on practical, production-oriented pork classes. September/October 2006 • Pig Tales 13
14 Pig Tales â&#x20AC;˘ September/October 2006
Fruit-Stuffed Pork Loin with Dijon-Garlic Crust 1 boneless top loin pork roast, about 2 1/2 pounds 3 ounces (about 14) dried apricots 5 ounces (about 16) dried pitted plums (prunes) 1/4 cup Dijon mustard 1/4 teaspoon garlic powder 1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper 2 carrots, peeled and cut into 1-inch chunks 2 ribs celery, trimmed and cut into 1-inch chunks 1 medium onion, cut into 1-inch chunks 1 cup dry white wine
This roast is simple enough for a Sunday supper with the family or elegant enough for entertaining. In either instance it is a snap to prepare. Dried fruit (pick seasonal favorites) create a colorful and immensely flavorful channel down the center of the roast. The mustard coating seals in the moisture creating a delicious crust. Arrange overlapping slices of the roast on a platter and serve with steamed new potatoes or mashed sweet potatoes and a seasonal vegetable.
Arrange an oven rack one-third up from the bottom of the oven. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F. Stand the roast on its end and insert a thin-bladed knife down the center of the roast lengthwise, creating a tube-like opening. Stuff the length of the roast with the dried fruit, stacking a piece of apricot on top of a prune as you stuff it. (If necessary, cut a slit at the other end of the roast and stuff half the fruit from one side of the roast and half the fruit from the other side.) In a small bowl combine the mustard with the garlic powder and pepper. Rub the roast all over with the mustard mixture. Arrange the carrots, celery, and onion in the bottom of a 9-by-13-inch baking pan. Place the roast on top of the vegetables. Pour the wine over top and add up to 1/2 cup water to the pan. (The liquid should cover the bottom of the pan but be below the bottom of the roast.) Roast the pork, uncovered, for 45 minutes, or until an instant-read thermometer registers 150 degrees F. (Insert the thermometer into the meat portion of the roast, keeping the tip away from the fruit.) Remove from the oven, transfer the roast to a carving board, tent loosely with foil, and let rest for 10 minutes. (Discard the vegetables and liquid in the pan.) Serves 8. Nutrition Information per Serving: Calories: 228g Cholesterol: 70mg Protein: 28g
Fat: 6g Sodium: 148mg Fiber: 2g
Saturated Fat: 1g Carbohydrates: 19g
Cooking Tips for Today’s Lean Pork The Other White Meat® is leaner than ever. A new U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) analysis of fresh pork revealed six common cuts of pork found in today’s meat case are, on average, 16 percent leaner than 15 years ago. These six pork cuts (tenderloin, top loin chop, top loin roast, center loin chop, center rib chop, sirloin roast) have a nutritional profile that meets USDA guidelines for “lean.” Pork tenderloin meets government guidelines for “extra lean.” In fact, tenderloin is just as lean as the leanest type of chicken, a skinless chicken breast. The National Pork Board has prepared the following guidelines for flavorful cooking with today’s lean pork – less fat doesn’t need to mean less flavor. Perfectly Pink. A thermometer is a key to achieving tender, flavorful results when cooking with lean pork. Perfectly cooked pork will still have a faint pink blush inside. The USDA recommends cooking pork to an internal temperature of 160 degrees F. For large cuts such as roasts, the National Pork Board recommends cooking pork to 150 degrees F., removing from heat and allowing it to “rest” for 10 minutes before slicing. The temperature will continue to rise to 160 degrees F. and the juices will redistribute throughout the meat. Mouth-Watering Marinades. Marinades are a great choice for flavoring pork chops, tenderloin and roasts. Most marinades – either store-bought or homemade – contain an acid (vinegar, lemon juice,
wine), an oil and herbs or spices. The general guideline for a marinade is to allow six to eight tablespoons for every one pound of meat. For best results, place meat and marinade in a re-sealable plastic bag or covered container and refrigerate for 30 minutes to 12 hours before cooking. Be sure to discard leftover marinade. Brining Basics. When lean pork is soaked in a solution of salt, sugar and water, the levels of moisture in the solution and in the meat equalize to drive moisture into the meat. During cooking, the solution also helps to lock in the moist and juicy flavor. To prepare a basic brine, for each pound of pork, mix 1 quart cold water, 1/2 cup sugar and 1/4 cup table salt in a re-sealable plastic bag. Other herbs and spices can be added to taste. Add pork to brine, then seal and refrigerate for 30 minutes to 8 hours. Be sure to discard the leftover brine. Pork that is labeled “natural” works well with brining. Brining is not recommended for pork that has already been marinated by the manufacturer (as listed on the label). Flavor from the Inside. Stuffing pork chops and roasts is another way to impart delicious flavor from the inside out. Ingredients like rehydrated dried fruit, sautéed vegetables, cheese, mustard and prepared pesto add a big burst of flavor and help keep meat moist during cooking. And Flavor on the Outside. Wet rubs and simple crusts also boost flavor and help to contain pork’s moisture during roasting. And though it is questionable whether searing (browning meat at a very high heat) contributes to moisture retention, many cooks still appreciate the flavor and color that a quick sear provides.
Recipe(s) and photo(s) courtesy of National Pork Board. For this recipe’s nutrition facts and for more information about Pork. The Other White Meat, visit the Web site, www.TheOtherWhiteMeat.com. September/October 2006 • Pig Tales
15
Don’t Just Cover It
Protect It
Pro•Tec Engineered Hoop Buildings
are built to last!
A cost-saving environment for hog gestation and finishing. Contact Vincent Pieschl North Central Steel 1349 Golden Road Minneapolis, KS 67467 1-800-382-0106
Thursday, November 16, 2006 3-5 p.m. (following K-State Swine Day)
Celebrate
50Reception
All past-presidents will be recognized. Spread the word.
PIG TALES
The Official Publication of the Kansas Pork Industry
Kansas Pork Association 2601 Farm Bureau Road Manhattan, KS 66502
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
16 Pig Tales • September/October 2006