Social approval of the community assessment model for odor dispersal: results from a citizen survey

Odors emitted from US Midwest hog production facilities present farmers, residents, and state regulatory agencies with a set of complex challenges. To predict odor exposure from multiple swine production sources simultaneously, and to determine siting recommendations for proposed new or enlarged hog facilities, researchers at Iowa State University designed the community assessment model for odor dispersion (CAM). A three-county citizen survey conducted in Iowa examined the level of hypothetical social acceptance of the modeling process, and level of trust in CAM results. While 69 % of respondents approved of modeling as a way to determine the most socially appropriate location for production sites, only 35 % would trust the results if potential odor exposure from a new facility were proposed to be built near their home. We analyzed approval of the CAM model, and level of trust, across a number of demographic, attitudinal, and belief factors regarding environmental quality and the hog industry. Overall, trust in CAM was uneven and varied across respondents. Those residents who would not trust CAM tended to be more concerned with environmental quality and less inclined to believe that the hog industry is critically important economically. Those who would not trust CAM results also had significantly more direct experience with odors. Findings point to predominantly positive, yet equivocal acceptance of CAM results among the citizenry, which is not unexpected given conflict typical of siting decisions in industry and waste disposal arenas. Recommendations are offered regarding the interaction of trust, beliefs and attitudes and the utility of CAM.

Industrial food animal production, antimicrobial resistance, and human health

Antimicrobial resistance is a major public health crisis, eroding the discovery of antimicrobials and their application to clinical medicine. There is a general lack of knowledge of the importance of agricultural antimicrobial use as a factor in antimicrobial resistance even among experts in medicine and public health. This review focuses on agricultural antimicrobial drug use as a major driver of antimicrobial resistance worldwide for four reasons: It is the largest use of antimicrobials worldwide; much of the use of antimicrobials in agriculture results in subtherapeutic exposures of bacteria; drugs of every important clinical class are utilized in agriculture; and human populations are exposed to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens via consumption of animal products as well as through widespread release into the environment.

The United States pork niche market phenomenon1

After the broad industrialization of the US pork industry, there has been a development of niche markets for export and domestic pork; that is, there is a pork niche market phenomenon. The US pork niche market phenomenon is characterized, and 2 of the major markets are explained in detail. With the Midwest's tradition of a diversified family-based agriculture and record low hog prices of the late 1990s, the conditions were conducive for this phenomenon to develop. Pork niche markets utilize various sales methods including Internet sales, local abattoir sales, direct marketing, farmer networks, and targeting to organized groups. In 2003, there were approximately 35 to 40 active pork niche marketing efforts in Iowa. The Berkshire breed is an example of a swine breed that has had a recent resurgence because of niche markets. Berkshire pork is known for tenderness and excellent quality. Berkshire registrations have increased 4-fold in the last 10 yr. One of the larger niche marketers of "natural pork" is Niman Ranch Pork, which has more than 400 farmer-producers and processes about 2,500 pigs weekly. Many US consumers of pork are interested in issues concerning the environment, food safety, pig welfare, and pig farm ownership and structure. These consumers may be willing to pay more for pork from farmers who are also concerned about these issues. Small- and medium-sized swine farmers are active in pork niche markets. Niche markets claim product differentiation by superior or unique product quality and social attributes. Quality attributes include certain swine breeds, and meat quality, freshness, taste or flavor, and tenderness. Social or credence attributes often are claimed and include freedom from antibiotics and growth promotants; local family farm production; natural, organic, outdoor, or bedded rearing; humane rearing; known origin; environmentally friendly production; and the absence of animal by-products in the feed. Niche pork markets and alternative swine production practices offer an unusual contrast to commodity pork markets and industrial confinement swine production. Because they strive to have these attributes in their product, the niche pork market producers are a distinct clientele group. If niche pork markets continue to flourish, the markets and the producers that supply them will be a viable sector in a diverse US pork industry.

Performance of finishing pigs in hoop structures and confinement during winter and summer

Performance of finishing pigs in hoop structures or confinement during winter and summer was evaluated in Iowa. Hoops are large, tent-like shelters with cornstalks or straw for bedding. During summer and winter seasons for 3 yr (1998 to 2001), six trials were conducted using three hoop barns (designed for 150 pigs per pen, one pen per hoop) or a mechanically ventilated confinement barn with slatted floors (designed for 22 pigs per pen, six pens in the barn). A total of 3,518 pigs started the trials. Summer trials were June through October, and winter trials were December through April. Target stocking density was 1.11 m2/pig in hoops and 0.74 m2/pig in confinement. Identical corn-based diets were fed ad libitum from 16 to 118 kg for 127 d. Pigs were scanned before harvest for backfat and loin muscle area. When seasons were merged (season x housing interaction, P > or = 0.05), hoop-fed pigs had more backfat (21.8 +/- 0.3 vs 20.8 +/- 0.2 mm; P < 0.001), smaller loin muscle area (41.3 +/- 0.3 vs 43.0 +/- 0.2 cm2; P < 0.001), less lean percentage (51.1 +/- 0.2 vs 52.1 +/- 0.1%; P < 0.001), and less yield (74.9 vs 75.8 +/- 0.1%; P < 0.001) than confinement-fed pigs. When season x housing type interactions were observed (P < 0.004), summer hoop-fed pigs had greater ADG (834 +/- 5 vs 802 +/- 3 g/d; P < 0.001), required fewer days to 113 kg (174.9 +/- 0.9 vs 178.5 +/- 0.6 d; P < 0.01), had similar ADFI (2.40 +/- 0.03 vs 2.35 +/- 0.02 kg/d, as-fed basis) and gain:feed (G:F; 348 +/- 4 vs 342 +/- 3 g/kg) compared with confinement-fed pigs. Lean gain/day and efficiency of lean gain did not differ between housing systems. During winter, hoop-fed pigs had similar ADG (794 +/- 5 vs 801 +/- 3 g/ d), required more days to 113 kg (176.7 +/- 0.9 vs 172.9 +/- 0.6 d; P < 0.01), had greater ADFI (2.54 +/- 0.03 vs 2.35 +/- 0.02; P < 0.001), less G:F (313 +/- 4 vs 341 +/- 3; P < 0.001), less lean gain/day (312 +/- 2 vs 322 +/- 1 g/d; P < 0.01), and less efficiency of lean gain (130 +/- 2 vs 144 +/- 1 g lean gain/kg feed; P < 0.01) than confinement-fed pigs. Percentage of mortalities and culls did not differ between housing systems. During summer, there was a trend for fewer light pigs at marketing (< 100 kg) from hoops (0.8 vs 1.7%; P = 0.10). During winter, there were more light pigs at marketing from hoops (3.9 vs 1.3%; P = 0.01) than from confinement. Bedding use in hoops was 92 and 122 kg/pig for summer and winter, respectively. Performance of finishing pigs in bedded hoop structures depends in part on thermal environment.