Dear Reader,

For most of the big European pig-farming countries suchas Germany, Holland, Denmark, France and Spain, 2003has not exactly been a good year. The low prices paid foranimals, combined with the increase in the cost of rawmaterials like cereals, led to below-cost pig-breeding.

On the international scene, several countries look likebecoming big producers in the future. One which standsout is Brazil, a country has for a long time been strivingto improve its porcine sector, although experts now saythat the bulk of its exports to Russia will decrease. In thisedition of RotecnaWorld, we have put the spotlight onthis country to find out about the challenges it facesand the characteristics of its pig-farming facilities.

With regard to Europe, the key development in 2004 willbe the incorporation of new countries in the European

Union. From the point of view of the porcine industry,the only country which should really concern us for themoment is Poland.

Poland occupies third place in the list of producers in theUnion, and is ninth in the world ranking. Its annual pro-duction of pork is 2 million tonnes, which places it in agood position, though it will have to modify manyaspects of its infrastructure to satisfy the many require-ments of European Union legislation. Indeed, it is ourexperience in such aspects that gives us the lead in thisobstacle race.

Finally, we would also like to highlight the article on theSmithfield Foods, Inc. giant, which has set up a highlyfuturistic project consisting of the conversion of slurriesinto biodiesel. This is one more way of dealing with anenvironmental problem which is of concern to anyregion of the world where pigs are bred.

Gener Romeu Guàrdia

3

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

Gener RomeuRotecna’s President

4 6 10 12

14 16 18

ROTECNA WORLD

EDITION:ROTECNA, s.a.

DESIGN:Montse Guerrero

PRINT:Imprenta Barnola

ANIMAL SCIENCERESEARCH DEPARTMENT:

Maria Devant

EDITORIAL STAFF:Montse Palau

5 MAY 2004 ISSN: L-156-01

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

SUMMARY

Dear Reader,

For most of the big European pig-farming countries suchas Germany, Holland, Denmark, France and Spain, 2003has not exactly been a good year. The low prices paid foranimals, combined with the increase in the cost of rawmaterials like cereals, led to below-cost pig-breeding.

On the international scene, several countries look likebecoming big producers in the future. One which standsout is Brazil, a country has for a long time been strivingto improve its porcine sector, although experts now saythat the bulk of its exports to Russia will decrease. In thisedition of RotecnaWorld, we have put the spotlight onthis country to find out about the challenges it facesand the characteristics of its pig-farming facilities.

With regard to Europe, the key development in 2004 willbe the incorporation of new countries in the European

Union. From the point of view of the porcine industry,the only country which should really concern us for themoment is Poland.

Poland occupies third place in the list of producers in theUnion, and is ninth in the world ranking. Its annual pro-duction of pork is 2 million tonnes, which places it in agood position, though it will have to modify manyaspects of its infrastructure to satisfy the many require-ments of European Union legislation. Indeed, it is ourexperience in such aspects that gives us the lead in thisobstacle race.

Finally, we would also like to highlight the article on theSmithfield Foods, Inc. giant, which has set up a highlyfuturistic project consisting of the conversion of slurriesinto biodiesel. This is one more way of dealing with anenvironmental problem which is of concern to anyregion of the world where pigs are bred.

Gener Romeu Guàrdia

3

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

Gener RomeuRotecna’s President

4 6 10 12

14 16 18

ROTECNA WORLD

EDITION:ROTECNA, s.a.

DESIGN:Montse Guerrero

PRINT:Imprenta Barnola

ANIMAL SCIENCERESEARCH DEPARTMENT:

Maria Devant

EDITORIAL STAFF:Montse Palau

5 MAY 2004 ISSN: L-156-01

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

SUMMARY

ourinter-national

4 5

ROTECNANEWS

When ROTECNA, S.A. was founded in 1991, one of its firstchallenges was to export its products to wherever they couldbe useful.

This international outlook and desire to establish a worldwi-de presence in external markets have been one of the axes

of our strategic development, a fact reflected by the evolu-tion of our international sales figures, which have accountedfor 60% of our total turnover since 1998. This internationalprocess has meant a great investment and effort forRotecna, and over the years has become a key to the com-pany’s growth.

presence

all overthe

world

When a company wants to open up tothe international market, it has to dosome thorough groundwork. We onlywork with dealers around the world whocan offer us their experience and expertknowledge of each particular pig market.It is thanks to this that Rotecna’s pro-ducts have been installed in more than50 countries all over the world. Our firstinternational sale was in France, and welater launched our products in Denmark,gradually building up to the currentexports map, which goes from east towest and from north to south.

Since our first international sale, manythings have changed in the pig sector,and obviously, in our own company. Theeffort to add to our catalogue, the mostwide-ranging on the market, never stops,as we strive to satisfy the product requi-rements of all our customers, whetherthey are in Germany, Australia or theentire American continent. The variety ofwork practices on farms around theworld gives us the opportunity of develo-ping a product for each need.

Our sales figures are very healthy in developing countries, for examplein Asia, where it is not difficult to find pigs eating from our feeders orwalking on Rotecna slats. This market has provided us with a greatopportunity to expand our business in this emerging part of the world,on which many companies have set their sights because of the greatbusiness opportunities it offers.

The valuable work of our International Sales Department, headed bythe General Manager of Rotecna, S.A., relies on the visits our managerspay to customers. We also keep in touch with developments in the pigmarket through our presence at the main world trade fair events, suchas World Pork Expo, Viv Europe, Viv Asia, Eurotier or Expoaviga, inBarcelona.

After years of success on the international market, our next step is todefend our current share and, naturally, to increase it with the adhe-sion of East European countries such as Poland - which has an impor-tant pig livestock - and in Asia, without forgetting consolidation in themain and historical markets in Europe and America.

As the recognised number 1 world brand in porcine innovation, one ofRotecna’s greatest achievements in the international pig market hasbeen to offer our customers innovation and quality, maximizing therelationship between quality and price.

our international sales figures, haveaccounted for 60% of our total turnoversince 1998.

our next step is to defend our current share andto increase it.

ourinter-national

4 5

ROTECNANEWS

When ROTECNA, S.A. was founded in 1991, one of its firstchallenges was to export its products to wherever they couldbe useful.

This international outlook and desire to establish a worldwi-de presence in external markets have been one of the axes

of our strategic development, a fact reflected by the evolu-tion of our international sales figures, which have accountedfor 60% of our total turnover since 1998. This internationalprocess has meant a great investment and effort forRotecna, and over the years has become a key to the com-pany’s growth.

presence

all overthe

world

When a company wants to open up tothe international market, it has to dosome thorough groundwork. We onlywork with dealers around the world whocan offer us their experience and expertknowledge of each particular pig market.It is thanks to this that Rotecna’s pro-ducts have been installed in more than50 countries all over the world. Our firstinternational sale was in France, and welater launched our products in Denmark,gradually building up to the currentexports map, which goes from east towest and from north to south.

Since our first international sale, manythings have changed in the pig sector,and obviously, in our own company. Theeffort to add to our catalogue, the mostwide-ranging on the market, never stops,as we strive to satisfy the product requi-rements of all our customers, whetherthey are in Germany, Australia or theentire American continent. The variety ofwork practices on farms around theworld gives us the opportunity of develo-ping a product for each need.

Our sales figures are very healthy in developing countries, for examplein Asia, where it is not difficult to find pigs eating from our feeders orwalking on Rotecna slats. This market has provided us with a greatopportunity to expand our business in this emerging part of the world,on which many companies have set their sights because of the greatbusiness opportunities it offers.

The valuable work of our International Sales Department, headed bythe General Manager of Rotecna, S.A., relies on the visits our managerspay to customers. We also keep in touch with developments in the pigmarket through our presence at the main world trade fair events, suchas World Pork Expo, Viv Europe, Viv Asia, Eurotier or Expoaviga, inBarcelona.

After years of success on the international market, our next step is todefend our current share and, naturally, to increase it with the adhe-sion of East European countries such as Poland - which has an impor-tant pig livestock - and in Asia, without forgetting consolidation in themain and historical markets in Europe and America.

As the recognised number 1 world brand in porcine innovation, one ofRotecna’s greatest achievements in the international pig market hasbeen to offer our customers innovation and quality, maximizing therelationship between quality and price.

our international sales figures, haveaccounted for 60% of our total turnoversince 1998.

our next step is to defend our current share andto increase it.

Litters were standardized to12 pigs within 24 hours afterbirth and then weighed. Conventional pig management was followed, includingtail clipping after birth and the provision of creep feedand water from piglet nipple drinkers. No new pigletswere introduced or fostered after weighing. If any pigletdied, the date, cause and weight were recorded. Apparent water intake of each sow was recorded with anaccurate water meter (model 510, Tashia) daily at 09:00.Similarly, apparent feed intake of each sow was recorded.If any sow did not eat the whole ration, feed refusalswere recorded. Two basic feed curves were used, one forgilts and one for sows (Figure 1) divided into three por-tions offered at 06:00, 10:00 and 18:00. The ration was astandard pelleted diet providing 3.34 Mcal of DE/kg,16.8% CP, and 0.9% lysine. During the last 6 days of ges-tation the gilts and sows were fed 2 kg once a day at06:00, dropping to 1.5 kg two days before farrowing and

Farrowing house image

In the mechanically ventilated farrowing room, whereminimum and maximum room temperatures were recor-ded daily at 09:00, the pens were 1.6 x 2.4 m, separatedby a 50 cm high modular penning system. The crateswere 2.1 x 2.2 m with fingers. The floor was a combina-tion of metal tribar for the sows, plastic for the pigletsand a 1.2 x 0.4 m solid concrete nest area with underfloor heating.

Experimental design

A total of 224 Large White x Landrace sows were used forthe experiment in seven replicates of 32 animals. Sowswere weighed on entry into the farrowing pens, 24 hoursafter farrowing and post weaning. Sows in each experi-mental period farrowed within three consecutive days.

Genetic improvement of the prolificacy of sows duringthe last two decades has resulted in an indirect increa-se of milk production requirement. Nowadays, thegrowth rate of a litter can reach 3 kg/d, which corres-ponds to an estimated milk yield of about 12 kg/d(Noblet and Etienne, 1989) of which approximately81% is water (Hurley and Bryson, 1999). Generally,water requirement in the lactating sow increases byaround 40% compared to a non-lactating sow. Thewater intake is strongly related to feed intake andambient temperature, but also to drinker type choiceand system flow (Mroz et al, 1995).Nipple drinkers are commonly used for dispensing adlibitum water to lactating sows. In these systems waterflow is critical; it must be sufficient to stimulate waterintake, but not excessive to avoid spillage and increa-ses in slurry volume. Another option is a system thatmaintains a constant water level in the feeding trough.

An experiment was conducted on a 7,000 commercialsow farm in Lleida, Spain, to compare the varioussystems available to producers. The drinker type andposition with respect to the farrowing crate trough dif-fered as follows:Treatment one (T1) used a VRH aqua level valve, whichmaintains a constant water level at a depth of 5 cm inthe feeding trough.Treatment two (T2) was a nipple drinker placed in thefeeding trough.Treatment three (T3) had a nipple drinker with a bowlseparate from the feeding trough, positioned 10 cmabove the floor. In T3, feed presentation was always dry in contrast tothe other treatments where feed was mixed with thewater remaining in the feeding trough. The water flowrate for T2 and T3 was 6 and 3 litres per minute, res-pectively.

6 7

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Lookoutfor drinkingwaterduringlactationThree different drinking systems for lactating sows have beenevaluated for their effect on sow and piglet performance. A dra-matic difference in usage did not have a great impact on perfor-mance but can increase water and slurry disposal costs.

By Ph D Maria Devant,Rotecna, Spain

T1 T2 T3

Litters were standardized to12 pigs within 24 hours afterbirth and then weighed. Conventional pig management was followed, includingtail clipping after birth and the provision of creep feedand water from piglet nipple drinkers. No new pigletswere introduced or fostered after weighing. If any pigletdied, the date, cause and weight were recorded. Apparent water intake of each sow was recorded with anaccurate water meter (model 510, Tashia) daily at 09:00.Similarly, apparent feed intake of each sow was recorded.If any sow did not eat the whole ration, feed refusalswere recorded. Two basic feed curves were used, one forgilts and one for sows (Figure 1) divided into three por-tions offered at 06:00, 10:00 and 18:00. The ration was astandard pelleted diet providing 3.34 Mcal of DE/kg,16.8% CP, and 0.9% lysine. During the last 6 days of ges-tation the gilts and sows were fed 2 kg once a day at06:00, dropping to 1.5 kg two days before farrowing and

Farrowing house image

In the mechanically ventilated farrowing room, whereminimum and maximum room temperatures were recor-ded daily at 09:00, the pens were 1.6 x 2.4 m, separatedby a 50 cm high modular penning system. The crateswere 2.1 x 2.2 m with fingers. The floor was a combina-tion of metal tribar for the sows, plastic for the pigletsand a 1.2 x 0.4 m solid concrete nest area with underfloor heating.

Experimental design

A total of 224 Large White x Landrace sows were used forthe experiment in seven replicates of 32 animals. Sowswere weighed on entry into the farrowing pens, 24 hoursafter farrowing and post weaning. Sows in each experi-mental period farrowed within three consecutive days.

Genetic improvement of the prolificacy of sows duringthe last two decades has resulted in an indirect increa-se of milk production requirement. Nowadays, thegrowth rate of a litter can reach 3 kg/d, which corres-ponds to an estimated milk yield of about 12 kg/d(Noblet and Etienne, 1989) of which approximately81% is water (Hurley and Bryson, 1999). Generally,water requirement in the lactating sow increases byaround 40% compared to a non-lactating sow. Thewater intake is strongly related to feed intake andambient temperature, but also to drinker type choiceand system flow (Mroz et al, 1995).Nipple drinkers are commonly used for dispensing adlibitum water to lactating sows. In these systems waterflow is critical; it must be sufficient to stimulate waterintake, but not excessive to avoid spillage and increa-ses in slurry volume. Another option is a system thatmaintains a constant water level in the feeding trough.

An experiment was conducted on a 7,000 commercialsow farm in Lleida, Spain, to compare the varioussystems available to producers. The drinker type andposition with respect to the farrowing crate trough dif-fered as follows:Treatment one (T1) used a VRH aqua level valve, whichmaintains a constant water level at a depth of 5 cm inthe feeding trough.Treatment two (T2) was a nipple drinker placed in thefeeding trough.Treatment three (T3) had a nipple drinker with a bowlseparate from the feeding trough, positioned 10 cmabove the floor. In T3, feed presentation was always dry in contrast tothe other treatments where feed was mixed with thewater remaining in the feeding trough. The water flowrate for T2 and T3 was 6 and 3 litres per minute, res-pectively.

6 7

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Lookoutfor drinkingwaterduringlactationThree different drinking systems for lactating sows have beenevaluated for their effect on sow and piglet performance. A dra-matic difference in usage did not have a great impact on perfor-mance but can increase water and slurry disposal costs.

By Ph D Maria Devant,Rotecna, Spain

T1 T2 T3

a new lookROTECNATaking advantage of the latest edition of the FimaGanadera fair, Rotecna, SA presented its new corporateimage.

The design of its logo, which can already be seen on allof its products, has been updated, preserving the nowfamiliar figure of a pig, but with the addition of a morerounded outline.

As well as its new image, Rotecna, SA also released thenew catalogue with its wide product range at the fair.

8 9

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

1.3 kg the day before farrowing. The weaning-to-oestrusinterval was also recorded.

Seasonal effect consideredrandom

The study was conducted over a seven-month periodthrough the winter and summer. Initially it was hypo-thesized that there could be a seasonal effect. Minimumregistered room temperatures were 20, 21 and 23ºC andmaximum temperatures were 23, 26 and 27ºC for thewinter, spring and summer months, respectively.Average room temperatures were 21.5, 23.5 and 25 ºCfor winter, spring and summer months, respectively. Most trials where the temperature effect has been stu-died (Messias de Bragança et al, 1998; Quiniou andNoblet, 1999) have been conducted with a constantroom temperature. A temperature of 25ºC (Quiniou andNoblet, 1999) has been described as the critical tempe-rature where feed intake is compromised. However, tem-perature fluctuation provides the possibility to attenua-te the effects of high ambient temperature and givesthe sows a certain degree of respite (Quinou et al, 2000).As in Quinou et al. (2000), the temperature fluctuated inall study replicates and average room temperature wasunder 25ºC. Therefore, the replicates with the season-

temperature effect has been considered as a randomeffect and not as a fixed main effect.

Litter performance tendency

A total of 12 sows were removed because of differentpathologies that compromised their lactation. Sow andpiglet performance results are summarized in Table 1.No statistical differences were detected between treat-ments in sows' initial and post farrowing body weight,initial piglet weight and lactation days (251 ± 1.5 kg,217 ± 2.7 kg, 1.6 ± 0.01 kg, 20.2 ± 0.16 days, respecti-vely). The weaning-to-oestrus interval was also notaffected by drinker type. Seventy one percent of thesows showed their first oestrus in less than 7 days, 10%between day 7-21, 7.5% after day 21 and 11.5% wereculled. A tendency in final litter weight, litter weight increaseand piglet average daily gain was detected. Litter finalweight and litter weight increase were greater with T1compared to T2, followed by T3. An analysis of piglet mortality showed 36% died duringthe first 3 days, 37% died from day 3-10, regardless ofthe treatment. 74% of these piglets weighed 1-2 kg andthe main causes were non-viable (42%), sacrificedbecause non-viable (22%) and crushed (21%). A signifi-cant interaction between treatment and age was detec-ted, however, for piglet loss over 10 days of age with36%, 53% and 85% in T1, T2 and T3, respectively.

Nutritional restriction at end

Average sow apparent water and feed intake data areshown in Table 2. The average, pre- and post-farrowingwater intake was highest in T3, followed by T2 andlowest in T1. A day and treatment effect was detected(Figure 2); water intake increased two days before farro-wing, decreasing the farrowing day and increasing dayto day after farrowing. No statistical differences in average and pre-farrowingsow apparent food intake were detected, while a ten-dency in post-farrowing feed intake indicated T3 sows

consumed less food than T1 or T2 sows (4.41, 4.52 and4.55 kg, respectively). T3 also recorded the worse pigletperformance results. This could be attributed to theapparent lower food intake at the end of the lactationperiod. Feeding dry feed did not allow the sows to maxi-mize their food intake in the last part of the lactation.Piglet mortality analyses support the hypothesis thatthe nutritional restriction for T3 was at the end of thelactation period.

Ad-lib but not overflow

In summary, the worst litter performance results wereobtained with T3, which could be attributed to theapparent lower feed intake at the end of the lactationperiod. And yet water intake in T3 was twice that of T1and T2, which supports the theory that half of the waterwas wasted. When the sows pushed the stem of the nip-

ple drinker, not all the water was retained in the bowland overflowed into the slurry pit. The better litter performance result of T1 contradictsthe apparent feed and water intake of T2 sows. The gre-ater apparent water intake in T2 at the end of the lac-tation period was an unexpected result; it is generallyaccepted that animals get tired of pushing the stem andthat lactating sows do not drink all the water they need.The worse performance results of T2 support the propo-sition that water and feed was partially wasted in thelast part of the lactation where food rations are greaterbecause of an uncontrolled water level in the feedingtrough.The success of T1 is based on the maintenance of a lowwater level that reduces water and feed wastage, buttakes advantage of the strategy to mix the feed rationwith water (Roppa, 2002) to stimulate sow feed intake. References available on request.

a new lookROTECNATaking advantage of the latest edition of the FimaGanadera fair, Rotecna, SA presented its new corporateimage.

The design of its logo, which can already be seen on allof its products, has been updated, preserving the nowfamiliar figure of a pig, but with the addition of a morerounded outline.

As well as its new image, Rotecna, SA also released thenew catalogue with its wide product range at the fair.

8 9

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

1.3 kg the day before farrowing. The weaning-to-oestrusinterval was also recorded.

Seasonal effect consideredrandom

The study was conducted over a seven-month periodthrough the winter and summer. Initially it was hypo-thesized that there could be a seasonal effect. Minimumregistered room temperatures were 20, 21 and 23ºC andmaximum temperatures were 23, 26 and 27ºC for thewinter, spring and summer months, respectively.Average room temperatures were 21.5, 23.5 and 25 ºCfor winter, spring and summer months, respectively. Most trials where the temperature effect has been stu-died (Messias de Bragança et al, 1998; Quiniou andNoblet, 1999) have been conducted with a constantroom temperature. A temperature of 25ºC (Quiniou andNoblet, 1999) has been described as the critical tempe-rature where feed intake is compromised. However, tem-perature fluctuation provides the possibility to attenua-te the effects of high ambient temperature and givesthe sows a certain degree of respite (Quinou et al, 2000).As in Quinou et al. (2000), the temperature fluctuated inall study replicates and average room temperature wasunder 25ºC. Therefore, the replicates with the season-

temperature effect has been considered as a randomeffect and not as a fixed main effect.

Litter performance tendency

A total of 12 sows were removed because of differentpathologies that compromised their lactation. Sow andpiglet performance results are summarized in Table 1.No statistical differences were detected between treat-ments in sows' initial and post farrowing body weight,initial piglet weight and lactation days (251 ± 1.5 kg,217 ± 2.7 kg, 1.6 ± 0.01 kg, 20.2 ± 0.16 days, respecti-vely). The weaning-to-oestrus interval was also notaffected by drinker type. Seventy one percent of thesows showed their first oestrus in less than 7 days, 10%between day 7-21, 7.5% after day 21 and 11.5% wereculled. A tendency in final litter weight, litter weight increaseand piglet average daily gain was detected. Litter finalweight and litter weight increase were greater with T1compared to T2, followed by T3. An analysis of piglet mortality showed 36% died duringthe first 3 days, 37% died from day 3-10, regardless ofthe treatment. 74% of these piglets weighed 1-2 kg andthe main causes were non-viable (42%), sacrificedbecause non-viable (22%) and crushed (21%). A signifi-cant interaction between treatment and age was detec-ted, however, for piglet loss over 10 days of age with36%, 53% and 85% in T1, T2 and T3, respectively.

Nutritional restriction at end

Average sow apparent water and feed intake data areshown in Table 2. The average, pre- and post-farrowingwater intake was highest in T3, followed by T2 andlowest in T1. A day and treatment effect was detected(Figure 2); water intake increased two days before farro-wing, decreasing the farrowing day and increasing dayto day after farrowing. No statistical differences in average and pre-farrowingsow apparent food intake were detected, while a ten-dency in post-farrowing feed intake indicated T3 sows

consumed less food than T1 or T2 sows (4.41, 4.52 and4.55 kg, respectively). T3 also recorded the worse pigletperformance results. This could be attributed to theapparent lower food intake at the end of the lactationperiod. Feeding dry feed did not allow the sows to maxi-mize their food intake in the last part of the lactation.Piglet mortality analyses support the hypothesis thatthe nutritional restriction for T3 was at the end of thelactation period.

Ad-lib but not overflow

In summary, the worst litter performance results wereobtained with T3, which could be attributed to theapparent lower feed intake at the end of the lactationperiod. And yet water intake in T3 was twice that of T1and T2, which supports the theory that half of the waterwas wasted. When the sows pushed the stem of the nip-

ple drinker, not all the water was retained in the bowland overflowed into the slurry pit. The better litter performance result of T1 contradictsthe apparent feed and water intake of T2 sows. The gre-ater apparent water intake in T2 at the end of the lac-tation period was an unexpected result; it is generallyaccepted that animals get tired of pushing the stem andthat lactating sows do not drink all the water they need.The worse performance results of T2 support the propo-sition that water and feed was partially wasted in thelast part of the lactation where food rations are greaterbecause of an uncontrolled water level in the feedingtrough.The success of T1 is based on the maintenance of a lowwater level that reduces water and feed wastage, buttakes advantage of the strategy to mix the feed rationwith water (Roppa, 2002) to stimulate sow feed intake. References available on request.

10 11

TECHNOLOGY

After their launch three years ago,Rotenca present the updated version ofour highly successful VR-H Valve.

The new version incorporates two important changes.The first is a new double-layered membrane which, asa result, lasts twice as long, and the other is a simpler,more practical and much faster opening and closingmechanism. This characteristics makes the RotecnaVRH valve the best on the market for results and prac-ticality, as all other valves are currently out-of-date inboth design and features.

The design of the new membrane is symmetrical,or two-sided, thus eliminating the possibility of errorVR-H

valve

in assembly when attaching the membrane,as the two sides guarantee the correct func-tioning of the Rotecna VR-H. In this way,livestock breeders can safely fit the membra-ne themselves after a brief check. The newdesign also doubles the life of the membrane,as it can be used on both sides.

With regard to the opening and closingmechanism, the new version of the VR-H hasreplaced the 14 screws with a small leverwhich allows it to be opened and closed witha simple twisting movement. Before thesechanges, it took approximately fifteen minu-tes to close or open the valve, and now ittakes just 5 seconds to do the same operation.This system enables easy assembly and dis-mantling, and the internal servicing of themembrane to check its condition.

These changes improve the performanceof the Rotecna VR-H, the success of which liesin its ability to maintain a homogenous waterlevel and maximize water availability, anessential nutrient for productive performancein any livestock concern.

ADVANTAGES:

o quick openning and closing

o easy assembly and dismantling

o assembly without screws

o symmetrical membrane design: two-sided

double life andmore practica

Double layer membrane fordouble use and duration.

10 11

TECHNOLOGY

After their launch three years ago,Rotenca present the updated version ofour highly successful VR-H Valve.

The new version incorporates two important changes.The first is a new double-layered membrane which, asa result, lasts twice as long, and the other is a simpler,more practical and much faster opening and closingmechanism. This characteristics makes the RotecnaVRH valve the best on the market for results and prac-ticality, as all other valves are currently out-of-date inboth design and features.

The design of the new membrane is symmetrical,or two-sided, thus eliminating the possibility of errorVR-H

valve

in assembly when attaching the membrane,as the two sides guarantee the correct func-tioning of the Rotecna VR-H. In this way,livestock breeders can safely fit the membra-ne themselves after a brief check. The newdesign also doubles the life of the membrane,as it can be used on both sides.

With regard to the opening and closingmechanism, the new version of the VR-H hasreplaced the 14 screws with a small leverwhich allows it to be opened and closed witha simple twisting movement. Before thesechanges, it took approximately fifteen minu-tes to close or open the valve, and now ittakes just 5 seconds to do the same operation.This system enables easy assembly and dis-mantling, and the internal servicing of themembrane to check its condition.

These changes improve the performanceof the Rotecna VR-H, the success of which liesin its ability to maintain a homogenous waterlevel and maximize water availability, anessential nutrient for productive performancein any livestock concern.

ADVANTAGES:

o quick openning and closing

o easy assembly and dismantling

o assembly without screws

o symmetrical membrane design: two-sided

double life andmore practica

Double layer membrane fordouble use and duration.

Rotecna, S.A. has put a simple new product on themarket which functions as a support for floors: theBasic Post.

This support may be used as both as a central sup-port for features and their extremities. The sup-ports are better equipped to take the weight ofanimals without the beam bending or being dama-ged. The Basic Post can be used in long facilitiesand delivery pens, thanks to the use of lower andmore economical features.

This support substitutes the building-walls tradi-tionally used as a support for the beams on whichslats are installed. The supports are a good way ofavoiding disruptive on-site building work in bothnew construction and renovation work. Also, theymake it unnecessary to divide up the pit into diffe-rent parts, which has added advantages like pre-venting the accumulation of excrements on sup-ports next to walls, and cutting down on construc-tion costs.

Their manoeuvrability and easy installation facilita-tes the reorganisation of weaning sheds, for exam-ple, and their reconversion as maternity sheds, withno need for expensive pit conversion work. Bysimply moving the Basic Post, the shed can be res-tructured to suit the pig-farmer’s requirements.

The Basic Post can support any type of beam(metallic, Profile T or Delta Beam by Rotecna).Thanks to the supports, the pits can have a mini-mum height of 130 mm and a maximum of

12 13

710mm. During weaning, the pits can be heighte-ned to one metre by attaching 10-cm modules,which enable the pig-farmer to alter pits to suitparticular requirements. Once the Basic Post is ins-talled, its height is adjustable.

The Basic Post is not affected by damaging slurry,as it is 100% polypropylene.

All these features together make the Basic Post aversatile, practical and highly profitable investment.

TECHNOLOGY

basic postthe fulcrumsupport

ADVANTAGES:

o Easy installation, without buildingwork

o Pit-height adjustable to require-ments

o Corrosion-proof

o More hygienic: cornerless pits

o No need for building-walls

o Adjustable height

o Less wear and tear on facilities

o Highly resistant

Basic Post upper part

SER thread

Basic Post nut calibration

Basic Post supporting base

Rotecna, S.A. has put a simple new product on themarket which functions as a support for floors: theBasic Post.

This support may be used as both as a central sup-port for features and their extremities. The sup-ports are better equipped to take the weight ofanimals without the beam bending or being dama-ged. The Basic Post can be used in long facilitiesand delivery pens, thanks to the use of lower andmore economical features.

This support substitutes the building-walls tradi-tionally used as a support for the beams on whichslats are installed. The supports are a good way ofavoiding disruptive on-site building work in bothnew construction and renovation work. Also, theymake it unnecessary to divide up the pit into diffe-rent parts, which has added advantages like pre-venting the accumulation of excrements on sup-ports next to walls, and cutting down on construc-tion costs.

Their manoeuvrability and easy installation facilita-tes the reorganisation of weaning sheds, for exam-ple, and their reconversion as maternity sheds, withno need for expensive pit conversion work. Bysimply moving the Basic Post, the shed can be res-tructured to suit the pig-farmer’s requirements.

The Basic Post can support any type of beam(metallic, Profile T or Delta Beam by Rotecna).Thanks to the supports, the pits can have a mini-mum height of 130 mm and a maximum of

12 13

710mm. During weaning, the pits can be heighte-ned to one metre by attaching 10-cm modules,which enable the pig-farmer to alter pits to suitparticular requirements. Once the Basic Post is ins-talled, its height is adjustable.

The Basic Post is not affected by damaging slurry,as it is 100% polypropylene.

All these features together make the Basic Post aversatile, practical and highly profitable investment.

TECHNOLOGY

basic postthe fulcrumsupport

ADVANTAGES:

o Easy installation, without buildingwork

o Pit-height adjustable to require-ments

o Corrosion-proof

o More hygienic: cornerless pits

o No need for building-walls

o Adjustable height

o Less wear and tear on facilities

o Highly resistant

Basic Post upper part

SER thread

Basic Post nut calibration

Basic Post supporting base

Everyday Catalan cooking is, perhaps, not so traditionalas we have described it. Just like many other countriesin the world today, people do not have much time tocook. Nevertheless, at weekends or on special occasionsat home, hosts normally treat their guests to the tradi-tional cooking they have inherited from their parents orgrandparents. A traditional meal would consist of threedishes: a light starter (salad, soup, pasta or pulses), a fishor meat dish for the main course and finally, a dessert(usually fruit, dried fruit or dairy produce and sometimeshomemade cakes).

Traditional Catalan cuisine relies heavily on lightly friedingredients (tomato, onion and sometimes, garlic) andpicades ( ground almonds or hazelnuts, sometimes withgarlic and parsley) and combines the food of the sea andthe land (such as vegetables or mushrooms), togetherwith a variety of meat (pork, veal, poultry, rabbit).Among the herbs most frequently used herbs are thyme,rosemary, bay and fennel; and as for species, saffronand cinnamon are the queens of the kitchen.

Modern restaurant cooking is a combination of traditionand innovation. Many Catalan cooks - Ferran Adri‡ orSanti SantamarÌa to name just two ñ enjoy internatio-nal acclaim. They use Mediterranean products, but com-bine them using different cooking styles to create (as ifthey were painting a picture) new dishes to delightmany palates; the taste of the past with a modern daytouch.

If you have the chance to visit our little country, doníthesitate to try pa amb tom‡quet (bread spread withtomato), escudella, samfaina, embotits (products derivedfrom pork) or peus de porc (pigís trotters).

14 15

Mediterranean cooking is characteristic of the countriesaround the Mediterranean Sea such as Spain, France,Italy, Greece, Turkey, Morocco, Egypt, Jordanian or Syria,and countries like Portugal or the ex-Yugoslavia, whichthough not actually Mediterranean, have been influen-ced by their neighbours. Obviously, each country has itsown peculiar characteristics and differing styles ofMediterranean cooking are to be found in the samecountry, Spain being a clear case in point.

Mediterranean cooking ñ not always the same asMediterranean diet- has evolved over many years andbenefited from the influence of many peoples: Iberians,Celts, Greeks, Romans, Barbers or Arabs. Also, the Asians(with their spices) and the Americans (potato, chocola-te, tomato and pepper, thanks to the discovery of theAmerican continent) have contributed to this well-known and appreciated cooking. However, it was theRomans and Greeks who laid the foundations of theMediterranean diet of today with 3 basic elements:wheat, olive oil and wine. Apart from these ingredients,

this typical south European cooking also includes fruitand vegetables, pulses and fish and meat.

Catalan cooking is a good example of theMediterranean cuisine. Someone defined it as beingmainly Mediterranean, a cousin of Occitan (SouthernFrance), a relative of Iberian cooking (Spanish, Basque,Galician and Portuguese) and with contributions fromFrance, England, Arabia and the Jews. Though different,these cuisines do have things in common. A greatCatalan writer, Josep Pla, once said that Catalan cookingis as diverse as its landscapes: interior, coast and moun-tain. A definite characteristic of our cooking is that itcomes from the traditional cooking of women, fisher-men and countrymen.

SOMETHING ABOUT …

mediterranean

cui-sine:

theessenceof catalancooking

Everyday Catalan cooking is, perhaps, not so traditionalas we have described it. Just like many other countriesin the world today, people do not have much time tocook. Nevertheless, at weekends or on special occasionsat home, hosts normally treat their guests to the tradi-tional cooking they have inherited from their parents orgrandparents. A traditional meal would consist of threedishes: a light starter (salad, soup, pasta or pulses), a fishor meat dish for the main course and finally, a dessert(usually fruit, dried fruit or dairy produce and sometimeshomemade cakes).

Traditional Catalan cuisine relies heavily on lightly friedingredients (tomato, onion and sometimes, garlic) andpicades ( ground almonds or hazelnuts, sometimes withgarlic and parsley) and combines the food of the sea andthe land (such as vegetables or mushrooms), togetherwith a variety of meat (pork, veal, poultry, rabbit).Among the herbs most frequently used herbs are thyme,rosemary, bay and fennel; and as for species, saffronand cinnamon are the queens of the kitchen.

Modern restaurant cooking is a combination of traditionand innovation. Many Catalan cooks - Ferran Adri‡ orSanti SantamarÌa to name just two ñ enjoy internatio-nal acclaim. They use Mediterranean products, but com-bine them using different cooking styles to create (as ifthey were painting a picture) new dishes to delightmany palates; the taste of the past with a modern daytouch.

If you have the chance to visit our little country, doníthesitate to try pa amb tom‡quet (bread spread withtomato), escudella, samfaina, embotits (products derivedfrom pork) or peus de porc (pigís trotters).

14 15

Mediterranean cooking is characteristic of the countriesaround the Mediterranean Sea such as Spain, France,Italy, Greece, Turkey, Morocco, Egypt, Jordanian or Syria,and countries like Portugal or the ex-Yugoslavia, whichthough not actually Mediterranean, have been influen-ced by their neighbours. Obviously, each country has itsown peculiar characteristics and differing styles ofMediterranean cooking are to be found in the samecountry, Spain being a clear case in point.

Mediterranean cooking ñ not always the same asMediterranean diet- has evolved over many years andbenefited from the influence of many peoples: Iberians,Celts, Greeks, Romans, Barbers or Arabs. Also, the Asians(with their spices) and the Americans (potato, chocola-te, tomato and pepper, thanks to the discovery of theAmerican continent) have contributed to this well-known and appreciated cooking. However, it was theRomans and Greeks who laid the foundations of theMediterranean diet of today with 3 basic elements:wheat, olive oil and wine. Apart from these ingredients,

this typical south European cooking also includes fruitand vegetables, pulses and fish and meat.

Catalan cooking is a good example of theMediterranean cuisine. Someone defined it as beingmainly Mediterranean, a cousin of Occitan (SouthernFrance), a relative of Iberian cooking (Spanish, Basque,Galician and Portuguese) and with contributions fromFrance, England, Arabia and the Jews. Though different,these cuisines do have things in common. A greatCatalan writer, Josep Pla, once said that Catalan cookingis as diverse as its landscapes: interior, coast and moun-tain. A definite characteristic of our cooking is that itcomes from the traditional cooking of women, fisher-men and countrymen.

SOMETHING ABOUT …

mediterranean

cui-sine:

theessenceof catalancooking

Smithfield Foods Inc. on the verge of comple-ting construction of plant for conversion ofslurries into biodiesel.

The construction of this plant commenced in April, 2003 and Smithfield expected itto be completed in February, 2004. Some years ago, in 1999, the company invested15 million dollars in a joint project with the University of North Carolina, whereresearch is going on into ways of converting slurries into electricity.

In February, 2003, the North American Smithfield Foods, Inc. announ-ced that it would invest 20 million dollars in the construction of a plantin the state of Utah to convert slurries into biodiesel for vehicles. Withthis investment, Smithfield will take the controlling stake inBESTbiofuel, LLC, the company in charge of running the project.

When the company announced the news, the Vice-President ofEngineering and Environmental Affairs of this giant American pork pro-ducer, Robert F. Urell, commented that “livestock waste can be a sourceof clean, renewable fuel”. Garth Boyd, Head of EnvironmentalTechnology at Smithfield Foods and the person in charge of the plantproject, claimed that the main aim of the project is to obtain clean,renewable energy, and to prove that new technologies can be applied tosolving problems caused by slurries, for the benefit of society. In reality,public opinion has always seen Smithfiled as a large scale contaminator,so this initiative should go some way to restoring the company’s repu-tation.

The plant is being built on the company’s farms, Smithfield Circle FourFarms, housing around 57,000 sows, which produce 1 million pigsannually. Each animal produces almost 9 litres of slurry daily, includingboth excrements and waste water. The company chose the constructionsite near Milford in Utah because it is in this state that the giant porkproducer has the highest concentration of pig farms. In Mr.Boyd’s view,the construction of the plant, the completion of which has been dela-yed a few months by the cold winter, is something of a feat of engine-ering, as it is by no means easy to carry out a project of these charac-teristics. In fact, the original idea was conceived just over two and a halfyears ago.

Construction began in mid-2003, and Smithfield expected fuel-produc-tion to have begun in February 2004, or that the plant would at leastbe ready for production. Included in the project is the construction of apumping system to transport purines to the processing plant for con-centration. The concentrated liquid will then be conveyed to a secondinstallation for the production of biogas, which will be channelled to anearby plant where thermo-catalytic processes will convert it into bio-metanol.

smith-fieldto produceslurry-based fuel

16 17

The biometanol will be transported to aplant outside the state of Utah to beconverted into biodiesel from used oils,such as soya oil, animal fat or householdoil. According to Smithfield, the result isa renewable, clean-burning fuel whichcould help engines to run for longerthanks to its improved lubricating action.The fuel will not only be used to supplythe fleet of Smithfield trucks, but willalso go on general sale.

Speaking about this project, Jean-MariPeltier, Advisor to the AdministratorUSEPA (United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency), declared that “Weshould be very enthusiastic about theopportunities offered by projects likethese”, adding that “we can obtainimmediate benefits and possibilities forcreating additional economic opportuni-ties for livestock handlers and rural com-munities, too”.

In the future, Smithfield Foods Inc.,through BESTbioFuels LLC, plans to buildother plants like that which is soon tobegin operating, possibly smaller thanthe Utah plant, which will become thefirst plant of its type in the UnitedStates.

Smithfield Foods Inc. has shown a firmcommitment to the research and deve-lopment of superior environmental tech-nologies, as the joint project with theUniversity of North Carolina proves. Thecompany hopes that the University’sresearch will produce positive results thisyear in 18 different technologies tomodify or replace existing methods oftreating and recycling porcine waste.

Smithfield Foods Inc is the leading pro-ducer and distributor of pork in theUnited States and in the world, as well asbeing the largest producer of sows. Atpresent, the company owns 750,000mothers, which produce about 12 millionpigs each year. Smithfield started toexpand in 1981, with the takeover of itslocal rival, Gwaltney. The culmination ofthis expansion came in the year 2000,when it took over Murphy Farms, Inc.Smithfield not only trades in pork, butalso in beef.

FUTURE

Smithfield Foods Inc. on the verge of comple-ting construction of plant for conversion ofslurries into biodiesel.

The construction of this plant commenced in April, 2003 and Smithfield expected itto be completed in February, 2004. Some years ago, in 1999, the company invested15 million dollars in a joint project with the University of North Carolina, whereresearch is going on into ways of converting slurries into electricity.

In February, 2003, the North American Smithfield Foods, Inc. announ-ced that it would invest 20 million dollars in the construction of a plantin the state of Utah to convert slurries into biodiesel for vehicles. Withthis investment, Smithfield will take the controlling stake inBESTbiofuel, LLC, the company in charge of running the project.

When the company announced the news, the Vice-President ofEngineering and Environmental Affairs of this giant American pork pro-ducer, Robert F. Urell, commented that “livestock waste can be a sourceof clean, renewable fuel”. Garth Boyd, Head of EnvironmentalTechnology at Smithfield Foods and the person in charge of the plantproject, claimed that the main aim of the project is to obtain clean,renewable energy, and to prove that new technologies can be applied tosolving problems caused by slurries, for the benefit of society. In reality,public opinion has always seen Smithfiled as a large scale contaminator,so this initiative should go some way to restoring the company’s repu-tation.

The plant is being built on the company’s farms, Smithfield Circle FourFarms, housing around 57,000 sows, which produce 1 million pigsannually. Each animal produces almost 9 litres of slurry daily, includingboth excrements and waste water. The company chose the constructionsite near Milford in Utah because it is in this state that the giant porkproducer has the highest concentration of pig farms. In Mr.Boyd’s view,the construction of the plant, the completion of which has been dela-yed a few months by the cold winter, is something of a feat of engine-ering, as it is by no means easy to carry out a project of these charac-teristics. In fact, the original idea was conceived just over two and a halfyears ago.

Construction began in mid-2003, and Smithfield expected fuel-produc-tion to have begun in February 2004, or that the plant would at leastbe ready for production. Included in the project is the construction of apumping system to transport purines to the processing plant for con-centration. The concentrated liquid will then be conveyed to a secondinstallation for the production of biogas, which will be channelled to anearby plant where thermo-catalytic processes will convert it into bio-metanol.

smith-fieldto produceslurry-based fuel

16 17

The biometanol will be transported to aplant outside the state of Utah to beconverted into biodiesel from used oils,such as soya oil, animal fat or householdoil. According to Smithfield, the result isa renewable, clean-burning fuel whichcould help engines to run for longerthanks to its improved lubricating action.The fuel will not only be used to supplythe fleet of Smithfield trucks, but willalso go on general sale.

Speaking about this project, Jean-MariPeltier, Advisor to the AdministratorUSEPA (United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency), declared that “Weshould be very enthusiastic about theopportunities offered by projects likethese”, adding that “we can obtainimmediate benefits and possibilities forcreating additional economic opportuni-ties for livestock handlers and rural com-munities, too”.

In the future, Smithfield Foods Inc.,through BESTbioFuels LLC, plans to buildother plants like that which is soon tobegin operating, possibly smaller thanthe Utah plant, which will become thefirst plant of its type in the UnitedStates.

Smithfield Foods Inc. has shown a firmcommitment to the research and deve-lopment of superior environmental tech-nologies, as the joint project with theUniversity of North Carolina proves. Thecompany hopes that the University’sresearch will produce positive results thisyear in 18 different technologies tomodify or replace existing methods oftreating and recycling porcine waste.

Smithfield Foods Inc is the leading pro-ducer and distributor of pork in theUnited States and in the world, as well asbeing the largest producer of sows. Atpresent, the company owns 750,000mothers, which produce about 12 millionpigs each year. Smithfield started toexpand in 1981, with the takeover of itslocal rival, Gwaltney. The culmination ofthis expansion came in the year 2000,when it took over Murphy Farms, Inc.Smithfield not only trades in pork, butalso in beef.

FUTURE

inhabitant. This number is very eloquent,giving pork first place in the world ran-king, and earning it the title “The mostconsumed meat in the world”. In fact, ithas been the world leader since 1976,when it overtook bovine meat. In the last30 years, world pork consumption hasgrown by 1.9% a year. (Table 3).

What will world porkproduction be in 2010?

According to FAO, world population willhave reached 7 billion by 2010. To esti-mate world pork production in 2010, wemay take two approaches: the first is totake consumption per person as thesame as before (14.96%), or to assumethat consumption will continue to incre-ase at a rate of 1.9% per year. In the lat-ter case, pork consumption per personwill have reached 17.1 kg in 2010. Wemay consider the first possibility to bepessimistic and the second optimistic. Ifwe multiply these two perspectives bythe population of 2010 (7 billion peo-ple), this will lead us to the conclusionthat world pork production will be bet-ween 104 million, taking the pessimisticview, and 120 million tonnes if we aremore optimistic.

Where will pig produc-tion go up in the world?

The need to increase world productionover the next ten years to aid demogra-phic growth and curb famine leads us toask which places will be the best, andmost equipped to cater for this increasein production. An FAO document entitled“Agriculture Towards 2010” attempts toanswer this worrying question, on thebasis of reliable statistics which assesscurrent trends from the viewpoint ofrecent history. This study shows that in1978, 60% of pig production was indeveloped countries, with developingcountries producing just 40% of thetotal. This percentage, however, has alte-

18 19

Introduction.

Continuous world demographic growth has left researchers askingthemselves where food will be produced in the future. Which regionswill provide us with areas of land and the availibility of water for theproduction of food based on animal and vegetable protein? Whichtypes of food will it be possible to produce on a large scale, to meetthe needs of the world’s population? This study aims to analyse thepresent situation of world pig production, its growth potential, theextent to which it will be able to contribute to the production ofanimal protein of high biological value, and Brazil’s role in meetingthe challenges of growing world food shortage.

Pig production in the world today.

In 2002, pig breeders all over the world produce 93.62 million ton-nes of meat, with a livestock of about 1 billion animals. The biggestproduction (55.25% of the world’s total) was in Asia. In second placewas the European continent, with 26.92% of production, followedby the American continent with 16.52%, Africa with 0.78% andOceania with 0.53% (Table 1).

Principal world producers.

China is by far the biggest pigmeat producer in the world, producing44.28 million tonnes, 47.3% of the world’s total.It is also the big-gest individual consumer in terms of quantity, because almost all ofits production is consumed by its more than 1.3 billion inhabitants.As we can see in table 2, the 10 biggest producers accounted for77% of the world’s population in 2002 (Table 2).

World consumption of pork.

If we divide world pork production (93.62 million tonnes) by worldpopulation, estimated at the beginning of 2003 to be 6.25 billionpeople, we may conclude that consumption was about 14.96 kg per

SWINE PRODUCTION IN

globali-sation andperspectives forpig production in

BrazilLuciano Roppa,Veterinary doctor

inhabitant. This number is very eloquent,giving pork first place in the world ran-king, and earning it the title “The mostconsumed meat in the world”. In fact, ithas been the world leader since 1976,when it overtook bovine meat. In the last30 years, world pork consumption hasgrown by 1.9% a year. (Table 3).

What will world porkproduction be in 2010?

According to FAO, world population willhave reached 7 billion by 2010. To esti-mate world pork production in 2010, wemay take two approaches: the first is totake consumption per person as thesame as before (14.96%), or to assumethat consumption will continue to incre-ase at a rate of 1.9% per year. In the lat-ter case, pork consumption per personwill have reached 17.1 kg in 2010. Wemay consider the first possibility to bepessimistic and the second optimistic. Ifwe multiply these two perspectives bythe population of 2010 (7 billion peo-ple), this will lead us to the conclusionthat world pork production will be bet-ween 104 million, taking the pessimisticview, and 120 million tonnes if we aremore optimistic.

Where will pig produc-tion go up in the world?

The need to increase world productionover the next ten years to aid demogra-phic growth and curb famine leads us toask which places will be the best, andmost equipped to cater for this increasein production. An FAO document entitled“Agriculture Towards 2010” attempts toanswer this worrying question, on thebasis of reliable statistics which assesscurrent trends from the viewpoint ofrecent history. This study shows that in1978, 60% of pig production was indeveloped countries, with developingcountries producing just 40% of thetotal. This percentage, however, has alte-

18 19

Introduction.

Continuous world demographic growth has left researchers askingthemselves where food will be produced in the future. Which regionswill provide us with areas of land and the availibility of water for theproduction of food based on animal and vegetable protein? Whichtypes of food will it be possible to produce on a large scale, to meetthe needs of the world’s population? This study aims to analyse thepresent situation of world pig production, its growth potential, theextent to which it will be able to contribute to the production ofanimal protein of high biological value, and Brazil’s role in meetingthe challenges of growing world food shortage.

Pig production in the world today.

In 2002, pig breeders all over the world produce 93.62 million ton-nes of meat, with a livestock of about 1 billion animals. The biggestproduction (55.25% of the world’s total) was in Asia. In second placewas the European continent, with 26.92% of production, followedby the American continent with 16.52%, Africa with 0.78% andOceania with 0.53% (Table 1).

Principal world producers.

China is by far the biggest pigmeat producer in the world, producing44.28 million tonnes, 47.3% of the world’s total.It is also the big-gest individual consumer in terms of quantity, because almost all ofits production is consumed by its more than 1.3 billion inhabitants.As we can see in table 2, the 10 biggest producers accounted for77% of the world’s population in 2002 (Table 2).

World consumption of pork.

If we divide world pork production (93.62 million tonnes) by worldpopulation, estimated at the beginning of 2003 to be 6.25 billionpeople, we may conclude that consumption was about 14.96 kg per

SWINE PRODUCTION IN

globali-sation andperspectives forpig production in

BrazilLuciano Roppa,Veterinary doctor

them are in Brazilian territory: theAmazon and Plata/Paraná (Table 9).Brazil possesses 8% of all the planet’savailable fresh water, 80% of which is tobe found in the Amazon region. (Table9).

The advantage of areasof land for planting.

Large areas of land and low desertifica-tion mean that Brazil has great potentialfor food production. As we can see inTable 10, Brazil is already the world’s

second biggest soya producer and thethird biggest maize producer. Argentinais the fourth biggest maize producer andthe third biggest of soya. (Table 10).Table 11 shows how much land in the

principal countries of the world is used.Brazil is included here because of its sizeand its excellent possibilities for expan-sion. Brazil occupies over 46% of land inthe South American continent and hasgreat growth potential in agriculture, asonly 14.3% of its territory is currently

exploited. By making use of all of thearea available, it could produce 3 timesmore grain than the present figure of100 million tonnes. (Table 11).

The advantages of lowproduction costs.

Owing to its self-sufficiency in grainproduction and the low cost of premises,

potential for expanding production. Moreover, owing to its low percapita consumption, this growth need not necessarily depend onexports, though it could be based exclusively on the growing domes-tic market. It is important to link these considerations to the factthat Brazil is erradicating foot-and-mouth disease and is now freeof classical swine fever in several of its regions, and does not have

PRRS. (Tables 7 and 8).

The advantage of the availability ofwater.

Another of Brazil’s advantages is the availability of fresh water. If weobserve the location of the world’s largest water reserves, two of

Evolution of porkproduction in Brazil.

Brazilian pork production grew by 172%between 1990 and 2002. This percenta-ge increase was more than five timesthat of world growth (Table 6). Brazilianparticipation in world production wentfrom 1.5% in 1990 to 3.05% in 2002.(Table 6).

Principal advantagesfor pig production inBrazil.

Brazil holds important advantages overother areas of the world. With regard tocharacteristics and advantages, the lowcost of land, facilities and labour, itsfavourable climate and the growthpotential of domestic consumption standout.

A comparison of the characteristics ofChina, the United States, the EuropeanUnion and Brazil enables us to betterunderstand the positive prospects forgrowth in pork production in this part ofthe world. Brazil has only 4.4 pigs persquare kilometre, compared to 37.6 inthe EU, a figure which clearly shows its

20 21

SWINE PRODUCTION IN

red drastically in recent years, with a greater proportion of pig pro-duction being concentrated in developing countries. This FAO reportconcluded that the situation of 1978 will be the exact opposite in2010: Developing countries will account for 60% of world pigmeatproduction. Table 4 below shows this tendency clearly, based on datacovering an 8-year period up to 2002. (Table 4).

In the 8 years between 1995 and 2002, world meat production roseby 18.68% (from 78.9 to 93.62 million tonnes). If we analyse thefive biggest world producers, we will see that growth was 32.6% inChina, 9.0% in the EU, 10.8% in the U.S.A and 100% in Brazil. Chinaand Brazil, thanks to their continental dimensions and grain-produ-cing potential, stand out among the developing countries group.

Brazilian participation in world porcineproduction.

Brazil produced 2.68 million tonnes of pigmeat in 2002, a figurewhich represented 3% of total world production (Table 5). The num-ber of pigs was just over 37 million, representing 4% of world piglivestock. (Table 5).

in 2010: Developing countries will account for60% of world pigmeat production.

its self-sufficiency in grainproduction and the low costof premises, labour andland, Brazil can offer com-petitive prices

them are in Brazilian territory: theAmazon and Plata/Paraná (Table 9).Brazil possesses 8% of all the planet’savailable fresh water, 80% of which is tobe found in the Amazon region. (Table9).

The advantage of areasof land for planting.

Large areas of land and low desertifica-tion mean that Brazil has great potentialfor food production. As we can see inTable 10, Brazil is already the world’s

second biggest soya producer and thethird biggest maize producer. Argentinais the fourth biggest maize producer andthe third biggest of soya. (Table 10).Table 11 shows how much land in the

principal countries of the world is used.Brazil is included here because of its sizeand its excellent possibilities for expan-sion. Brazil occupies over 46% of land inthe South American continent and hasgreat growth potential in agriculture, asonly 14.3% of its territory is currently

exploited. By making use of all of thearea available, it could produce 3 timesmore grain than the present figure of100 million tonnes. (Table 11).

The advantages of lowproduction costs.

Owing to its self-sufficiency in grainproduction and the low cost of premises,

potential for expanding production. Moreover, owing to its low percapita consumption, this growth need not necessarily depend onexports, though it could be based exclusively on the growing domes-tic market. It is important to link these considerations to the factthat Brazil is erradicating foot-and-mouth disease and is now freeof classical swine fever in several of its regions, and does not have

PRRS. (Tables 7 and 8).

The advantage of the availability ofwater.

Another of Brazil’s advantages is the availability of fresh water. If weobserve the location of the world’s largest water reserves, two of

Evolution of porkproduction in Brazil.

Brazilian pork production grew by 172%between 1990 and 2002. This percenta-ge increase was more than five timesthat of world growth (Table 6). Brazilianparticipation in world production wentfrom 1.5% in 1990 to 3.05% in 2002.(Table 6).

Principal advantagesfor pig production inBrazil.

Brazil holds important advantages overother areas of the world. With regard tocharacteristics and advantages, the lowcost of land, facilities and labour, itsfavourable climate and the growthpotential of domestic consumption standout.

A comparison of the characteristics ofChina, the United States, the EuropeanUnion and Brazil enables us to betterunderstand the positive prospects forgrowth in pork production in this part ofthe world. Brazil has only 4.4 pigs persquare kilometre, compared to 37.6 inthe EU, a figure which clearly shows its

20 21

SWINE PRODUCTION IN

red drastically in recent years, with a greater proportion of pig pro-duction being concentrated in developing countries. This FAO reportconcluded that the situation of 1978 will be the exact opposite in2010: Developing countries will account for 60% of world pigmeatproduction. Table 4 below shows this tendency clearly, based on datacovering an 8-year period up to 2002. (Table 4).

In the 8 years between 1995 and 2002, world meat production roseby 18.68% (from 78.9 to 93.62 million tonnes). If we analyse thefive biggest world producers, we will see that growth was 32.6% inChina, 9.0% in the EU, 10.8% in the U.S.A and 100% in Brazil. Chinaand Brazil, thanks to their continental dimensions and grain-produ-cing potential, stand out among the developing countries group.

Brazilian participation in world porcineproduction.

Brazil produced 2.68 million tonnes of pigmeat in 2002, a figurewhich represented 3% of total world production (Table 5). The num-ber of pigs was just over 37 million, representing 4% of world piglivestock. (Table 5).

in 2010: Developing countries will account for60% of world pigmeat production.

its self-sufficiency in grainproduction and the low costof premises, labour andland, Brazil can offer com-petitive prices

supermarkets, butcher’s and restaurants, in such away that the whole population has access to accurateinformation on the excellent quality of this product.Brazilian pork exports andimports

In 2002, Brazil was responsible for 13.25% of worldexports, thus making it the 4th largest exporter in theworld (behind Canada, the U.S.A and Denmark). In2002, Brazil increased its exports to 475 million ton-nes, and at this time was hoping to increase this figu-re to 550 million in 2003.Its main customers are

Russia, Hong Kong, Argentina and Uruguay. Brazil currentlyexports 19% of its annual production. (Table 16).

Conclusion

Everything discussed here clearly reveals Brazil’s greatcompetitiveness in relation to the rest of the world. Itsclimate, land area, water availability, grain productionand low production costs are highly important contri-buting factors to high competitiveness. Its has greatpossibilities for increasing production to meet anincrease in domestic consumption, and achieve a gre-ater presence in the world export market. It is there-fore in a strong position to accept the challenge of theintensifying quest for food and the inevitable worldpopulation growth.

to increase spending power.

- Debating profiting margins with the big supermar-ket chains.- Increasing the consumption of meat in natural form.In Brazil, 30% of pork is consumed in the form of sau-sages, ham, topside and other industrial products. Thischaracteristic prevents greater consumption, as indus-trial products have higher selling prices and are onlyaccessible to higher income groups. As they are aminority, most of the population are unable to affordpork.

- Improving the presentation of raw pork cuts anddeveloping half-prepared dishes to appeal to themodern consumer, who has little time for cooking.

- Obtaining certification for the origin of the meatform the relevant bodies, to guarantee that the con-sumer is buying a quality product, produced by pro-fessional farms with a proven record in hygiene.

- Breaking the taboo over the consumption of pork.One of the most important factors inhibiting con-sumption is the general unawareness of the currentquality of pork.

- All advances in genetics, nutrition and handlingshould be published in continual marketing cam-paigns and conferences aimed at the medical profes-sion and nutrition experts. They should also be run in

te occurs; it is the most consumed meatin South America (51.5%) and the leastconsumed in the world (27.8%). (Table14).

Table 15 shows pork consumption inseveral Latin American countries, andcompares it with that in various develo-ped countries with higher per capitaincomes.As we can see, Chile has thehighest consumption of the continent(18.5 kg per person, per year) and is theonly one which consumes more than theworld average. These figures show thegrowth potential of pork production,because if a country like Brazil, with its175 million inhabitants, went from itspresent 12.6 kg to the present averagelevel of world consumption, pork pro-duction would have to go up by 400thousand tonnes. This means that this

country could increase its production by13%, thinking only of its own provisions.(Table 15).

There are several reasons for this lowconsumption: higher costs in relation tochicken, the spending power of thepopulation, higher profit margins insupermarket chains compared to chic-ken, lower dissemination, less availabi-lity in restaurants, greater inconveniencein preparation, greater consumptionthrough industrialised processses, andtaboos concerning its quality.Finding a solution to these problemsinvolves:

- Improving these countries’ economies,

22 23

SWINE PRODUCTION IN

labour and land, Brazil can offer competitive prices compared tothose of other regions of the world. Table 12 gives a breakdown ofproduction costs in various countries of the world, taken from astudy published in the journal Pig International, which gives itssource as “Iowa’s Pork Industry Dollars and Scents, 1998”. As can beseen, Brazil can boast the lowest production costs of the world’s big-gest producers (US$ 0.62 per live kilo of pig). It is worth mentioningthat the cost of production in the grain-producing areas of Brazil

(the central western region) reaches US$ 0.50/kg of live pig, makingit one of the lowest production costs in the world. (Table 12).Table 13 shows production costs in various Latin American coun-tries, based on information provided by the Breeding Associations ofthe respective countries in 2002. The figures are explanatory and

show the excellent competitivity of some countries in the fight forthe world pork export market. (Table 13).

Principal problems of pig production inBrazil.

Some of the main pig production problems in Brazil are inherent indeveloping economies. In this sense, credit difficulties, high taxes,economic instability and high interest rates are all factors whichimpede faster growth in production. Among the other problems, thetraditionally low consumption of pork stands out. In Brazil, bovinemeat and chicken are preferred by the population. In fact, the con-sumption of pork is very small. This may be a problem today, but itcould be a great opportunity for the future. If we compare what is

happening in South America with the rest of the world (Table 14),we will see a contrasting situation; the world preference is for pork,which takes up 42% of consumption, whereas in South America, thefigure is just 13.5%. In the case of bovine meat, exactly the opposi-

the consumption of pork is very small. Thismay be a problem today, but it could be a greatopportunity for the future.

Breaking the taboo over the con-sumption of pork.

supermarkets, butcher’s and restaurants, in such away that the whole population has access to accurateinformation on the excellent quality of this product.Brazilian pork exports andimports

In 2002, Brazil was responsible for 13.25% of worldexports, thus making it the 4th largest exporter in theworld (behind Canada, the U.S.A and Denmark). In2002, Brazil increased its exports to 475 million ton-nes, and at this time was hoping to increase this figu-re to 550 million in 2003.Its main customers are

Russia, Hong Kong, Argentina and Uruguay. Brazil currentlyexports 19% of its annual production. (Table 16).

Conclusion

Everything discussed here clearly reveals Brazil’s greatcompetitiveness in relation to the rest of the world. Itsclimate, land area, water availability, grain productionand low production costs are highly important contri-buting factors to high competitiveness. Its has greatpossibilities for increasing production to meet anincrease in domestic consumption, and achieve a gre-ater presence in the world export market. It is there-fore in a strong position to accept the challenge of theintensifying quest for food and the inevitable worldpopulation growth.

to increase spending power.

- Debating profiting margins with the big supermar-ket chains.- Increasing the consumption of meat in natural form.In Brazil, 30% of pork is consumed in the form of sau-sages, ham, topside and other industrial products. Thischaracteristic prevents greater consumption, as indus-trial products have higher selling prices and are onlyaccessible to higher income groups. As they are aminority, most of the population are unable to affordpork.

- Improving the presentation of raw pork cuts anddeveloping half-prepared dishes to appeal to themodern consumer, who has little time for cooking.

- Obtaining certification for the origin of the meatform the relevant bodies, to guarantee that the con-sumer is buying a quality product, produced by pro-fessional farms with a proven record in hygiene.

- Breaking the taboo over the consumption of pork.One of the most important factors inhibiting con-sumption is the general unawareness of the currentquality of pork.

- All advances in genetics, nutrition and handlingshould be published in continual marketing cam-paigns and conferences aimed at the medical profes-sion and nutrition experts. They should also be run in

te occurs; it is the most consumed meatin South America (51.5%) and the leastconsumed in the world (27.8%). (Table14).

Table 15 shows pork consumption inseveral Latin American countries, andcompares it with that in various develo-ped countries with higher per capitaincomes.As we can see, Chile has thehighest consumption of the continent(18.5 kg per person, per year) and is theonly one which consumes more than theworld average. These figures show thegrowth potential of pork production,because if a country like Brazil, with its175 million inhabitants, went from itspresent 12.6 kg to the present averagelevel of world consumption, pork pro-duction would have to go up by 400thousand tonnes. This means that this

country could increase its production by13%, thinking only of its own provisions.(Table 15).

There are several reasons for this lowconsumption: higher costs in relation tochicken, the spending power of thepopulation, higher profit margins insupermarket chains compared to chic-ken, lower dissemination, less availabi-lity in restaurants, greater inconveniencein preparation, greater consumptionthrough industrialised processses, andtaboos concerning its quality.Finding a solution to these problemsinvolves:

- Improving these countries’ economies,

22 23

SWINE PRODUCTION IN

labour and land, Brazil can offer competitive prices compared tothose of other regions of the world. Table 12 gives a breakdown ofproduction costs in various countries of the world, taken from astudy published in the journal Pig International, which gives itssource as “Iowa’s Pork Industry Dollars and Scents, 1998”. As can beseen, Brazil can boast the lowest production costs of the world’s big-gest producers (US$ 0.62 per live kilo of pig). It is worth mentioningthat the cost of production in the grain-producing areas of Brazil

(the central western region) reaches US$ 0.50/kg of live pig, makingit one of the lowest production costs in the world. (Table 12).Table 13 shows production costs in various Latin American coun-tries, based on information provided by the Breeding Associations ofthe respective countries in 2002. The figures are explanatory and

show the excellent competitivity of some countries in the fight forthe world pork export market. (Table 13).

Principal problems of pig production inBrazil.

Some of the main pig production problems in Brazil are inherent indeveloping economies. In this sense, credit difficulties, high taxes,economic instability and high interest rates are all factors whichimpede faster growth in production. Among the other problems, thetraditionally low consumption of pork stands out. In Brazil, bovinemeat and chicken are preferred by the population. In fact, the con-sumption of pork is very small. This may be a problem today, but itcould be a great opportunity for the future. If we compare what is

happening in South America with the rest of the world (Table 14),we will see a contrasting situation; the world preference is for pork,which takes up 42% of consumption, whereas in South America, thefigure is just 13.5%. In the case of bovine meat, exactly the opposi-

the consumption of pork is very small. Thismay be a problem today, but it could be a greatopportunity for the future.

Breaking the taboo over the con-sumption of pork.