Brumm Speaks Out

With propane at $2/gallon, many producers have begun inserting ‘Tekfoil’ or similar materials between the bird netting and emergency drop curtains in cold weather. The question that needs to be asked – how tight can these emergency drop curtains be sealed and still maintain the emergency ventilation protection?

One way to estimate this number is to examine a curtain sided finishing facility measuring 41 x 200 ft housing approximately 1000 growing pigs. This number of pigs within this building dimension translates into 5 pigs per foot of building length.

A 5 mph wind against the long side of the building is 440 ft/min in velocity. With a 1 ft opening on both sidewall curtains, each 1 ft of length in the building receives 440 cfm of exchange, assuming 100% of the wind velocity is transferred thru the curtain openings. With 5 pigs per ft of facility, this becomes 88 cfm/pig.

This suggests that ‘Tekfoil’ type products, when installed, need to stop a minimum of 6” from the top of the opening in a 40 ft wide facility to ensure emergency relief for any curtain that has an ‘emergency’ drop function (magnetic relay or override thermostat) associated with it’s installation and operation.

In the case of double-wide facilities (80’ wide barns) there are 10 pigs per ft of barn length, so a minimum opening of 12” is needed to maintain an emergency ventilation rate at 5 mph.

For barns with 50 ft wide rooms, the number of pigs per ft of facility length increases to 6.1 for single wide and 12.2 pigs for double-wide facilities. A 1 ft opening on curtains translates into 36 cfm/pig on double wide facilities.

This cfm rate translates into effective heat removal for 50 lb pigs whenever outside air temperatures are less than approximately 65F. At the other end of the weight scale, this amount of emergency ventilation translates into effective heat removal for 200 lb pigs when outside air temperatures are less than approximately 50F.

Because of issues associated with even distribution of the ‘Tekfoil’ materials, etc. in sidewall curtain openings, I suggest that producers who rely on these curtains for emergency ventilation keep at least 12” of curtain open for the emergency function, regardless of building width.

By now, many of the readers of this blog have had time to read and digest the numbers in last Friday’s USDA Hogs and Pigs report. In addition, many of you have seen my interpretation of the report which keyed on the on-going changing structure of the US industry. At the same time, USDA continues to tweak the COOL regulations that became effective on Tuesday.

With all of this as background, the demand for large groups of high quality weaned and feeder pigs to fill production facilities in the upper Midwest continues. I’m sure the sharp decline in feed grain prices this week, which reduced the feed cost to grow a pig from weaning to slaughter by more than $15 per pig or almost $6/cwt gain, will also spur further demand.

Smithfield announced this past week that effective in April, 2009, all pork products from their packing plants will be labeled as US born, grown and processed. This means that producers who currently are filling facilities with Canadian born pigs (124,000 pigs in the week ending September 27, 2008) will no long have a market at a Smithfield plant.

It appears that the US will end the year importing approximately 7.2 million feeder pigs (pigs weighing less than 55 kg). While the pace of Canadian imports may slow due to fewer pigs being born in Canada, there is nothing in the available data to suggest fewer pigs will be imported due to COOL. This suggests a remixing of market destinations for many in the upper Midwest region. It appears that Smithfield will have to become somewhat aggressive in sourcing US born pigs to fill their slaughter needs, while producers who have traditionally sold Canadian born pigs to Smithfield plants will have to forge new marketing arrangements with other US plants.

At the same time as this shift in marketing arrangements is occurring, Iowa and southern Minnesota and Indiana remain in a growth mode relative to other US states for pigs to fill facilities. On September 1, 2008, USDA estimated that Iowa now has 29.9% of the US kept for market inventory, or 18.7 million pigs. Minnesota is number 3 with 11.4% or 7.1 million growing pigs. Indiana, a state where the governor has announced his support to double the number of pigs, now had 5.4% of the growing pig population or 3.4 million head. All of these states continue to grow in their share of the US industry.

Contrast this with what’s happening in Illinois. Illinois ranks number 2 in the US for both corn and soybean production. Yet the state continues to very gradually decline in their share of the growing pig inventory. Illinois now has 3.95 million growing pigs in inventory, or 6.3% of the US total. On the other hand, their share of the breeding herd continues to grow. For rural communities that have corn and soybean production as their basic agronomic crops, this suggests that alternative markets are becoming more important to their usage than pork production once was.

With the large number of imported Canadian feeder pigs, the growing number of Illinois feeder pigs that depart that state, and the on-going importation of feeder pigs born in Oklahoma, Missouri and Nebraska, I often remind audiences that the big sucking sound they hear is the demand in Iowa and southern Minnesota for feeder pigs. The data available suggests that pork production will remain as a key economic driver in this region.

I’ve written earlier blogs on the cost of propane this winter and the estimated impact on production costs, especially for contract growers with fixed payment contracts. This weekend I had a question from a veterinarian and finishing manager for a production system regarding how much propane pilot lights use on furnaces.

This morning I had heard back from one of the equipment suppliers to the livestock industry. Their estimate is that a pilot light on propane fired brooders used in poultry housing is 0.41 gal/light/day. Another supplier suggests that pilot lights consume 1200 BTU of propane per hour or 28,800 BTU/day. Propane contains 92,000 BTU/gal so this estimate is 0.31 gal/light/day.

Either way we look at it, pilot lights add to the fuel expense in pork production. If I take an average of the estimates at 0.35 gal/light/day, and a producer leaves the pilot lights lit all year in furnaces installed in production facilities, this amounts to 128 gal of propane per year per furnace. At $2 per gallon, this is $256 per year in propane just to keep the pilot light going. Most wean-finish facilities have 2-3 furnaces per 1000-1200 pig spaces. At 3 furnaces per 1200 pig spaces, this becomes $0.64/pig space just to keep pilot lights going.

Wow – an real eye opener for hidden costs in pork production. Once again, attention to the little details can return big dividends.

As agriculture continues to evolve in the Midwest, the impact of this evolution on rural communities is increasingly becoming fodder for community discussion. At the core of the discussion is the often unspoken concern that rural communities are dying because youth are not returning to the communities. In any survey of rural communities that I’ve seen, the declining rate of youth returning to the community ranks high as a concern of the citizens.

One of the challenges rural communities face is that parents in rural communities often send their children to college with the expectation that they will have more opportunities as a result of having a college education. In addition, the often unspoken message is that the parents want the youth to succeed without having to ‘work as hard as we did’.

Add to this the fact that the rural youth often meet and marry a partner who doesn’t have rural roots or expectations. Upon graduation, it becomes a major lifestyle change for these partners (often wives) to move to rural communities where employment opportunities are less, where shopping and services are vastly different, etc. Finally, many rural community citizens fail to recognize that today’s generation of potentially returning youth have many more opportunities for employment and lifestyle than previous generations.

Gary Hachfeld, Ag Business Management Extension Educator at the University of Minnesota has compiled information from the Minnesota Farm Business Management programs and the Minnesota Farm Business Association regarding the cost of living in rural communities. In his studies, he has examined the cost of living as reported by cooperating families, and translated this cost into the number of livestock or acres for given commodities that it takes to earn this cost of living.

For 2007, the average cost of living for cooperating families in 24 south central and south west Minnesota counties was $74,804. This living expense was for an average family size of 3.4 persons and includes all non-farm capital purchases, taxes, investments, etc.

Gone are the days when a family could be reared on a ¼ or ½ section of land. Using the 5 year average net return, including government payments, Gary estimates that in 2007 the farm family would have to have approximately 464 acres of corn and 464 acres of soybeans or a total of 928 acres of row crops to meet this expense.

On the other hand, a contract finishing facility could equate to this living expense if a total 16,586 pigs were finished each year. This number of pigs doesn’t account for the current high value to a cash grain enterprise of the associated manure from the pork production enterprise. In 2007, it took 127 dairy cows to earn the average family living expense.

When you look at these large numbers, you begin to recognize the challenge to youth returning to rural communities. New college graduates don’t have access to capital to begin farming 640 acres of land, especially considering that this coming year I’ve heard many estimates of over $400 per acre in costs to plant an acre of corn.

Livestock was often the traditional method used by our parents and grandparents to establish a farming enterprise. The challenge today is that many in rural communities are resistant to animal ag. Yet, the opportunity to construct and operate a contract swine production unit offers many young people the chance to invest in animal agriculture. This investment is backed by a 10-12 year production contract that allows the young family to borrow the necessary capital to enter into a farming enterprise.

If rural communities continue to resist animal agriculture, the data suggests that they will continue to decline in numbers. As Dave Hansen, former president of the Nebraska Pork Producers Association once said – it would only take 10-20 large farmers to farm all of Cedar County, Nebraska (280,000 tillable acres) – why should our rural communities even exist.

Without livestock, there is no need for a population base to support the agriculture system that feed grain farming is evolving towards. Without livestock, where are the opportunities for youth to return to rural communities and invest in their future?

While it is 9 days until the official end of summer, many producers and contract growers are already planning for winter management of production facilities. This planning includes contracting of propane supplies. At recent meetings, I’ve had producers quote $1.71/gal up to $2.20/gal as the price they have pre-paid for this winter’s estimated needs.

At every meeting, one topic of concern was the estimated impact of these higher propane costs on overall energy expense. For contract growers with a fixed payment, the increase in propane expense has a large impact on their overall cash flow.

Whether the production unit is a breed-wean site, a nursery site, finishing site or wean-finish site, I see several common mistakes repeatedly that result in higher than necessary propane expense. The biggest source of mistakes is ventilation controller settings. Producers, advisors, fieldmen, growers and managers often don’t have an understanding of how their ventilation controller really corresponds and controls the variable speed fan often used for winter minimum ventilation. This often results in the minimum speed setting in the controller being wrong, resulting in overventilation. This is especially true when the variable speed control is set by ‘listening’ to the fan and setting the speed so the fan ‘sounds’ right.

I recently bought a digital tachometer over the internet. With delivery charges, it was less than $40. I am using this tool to measure fan speed. As a rule of thumb, variable speed fans have 50% of their full speed rated output when the fan rpm is 65% of the full motor speed. This means a 24” fan that has a rated speed of 1050 rpm and 5800 cfm at 0.05 sp will have approximately 2900 cfm at approximately 680 rpm.

A second common controller error is to have the OFF setting for the furnace too close to the set point at which the variable speed fan increases speed. In general, the larger the furnace size relative to the space being heated, the greater the difference between the OFF setting for the furnace and the set point. Keep in mind that the perfectly sized furnace is one that turns off occasionally on the coldest day of the year. If it shuts off occasionally, it is keeping the facility heated, and there isn’t much temperature variation associated with the furnace turning on/off. However, if the furnace is greatly over-sized, it only runs for a short burst of time, with a corresponding large burst of temperature. This often results in the variable speed fan increasing speed shortly after the furnace shuts off. If this is happening in your facility, decrease the OFF temperature setting for the furnace relative to the set point. If your furnace has a variable output valve, turn the valve to the low setting. Leave it at the low setting until the furnace no longer can maintain temperatures.

I often see facilities poorly winterized. If large fans will be unused in cold weather, seal the shutters or replace the shutters with an insulated insert. This not only stops cold drafts, but also reduces or prevents condensation at the fan. I’ve seen a number of producers seal shutters effectively using a bubble-wrap insulation material.

Curtain holes need to be repaired. In a 1200 head wean-finish facility, if it is double-stocked at weaning, the total inlet area needed to meet the minimum ventilation needs of the newly weaned pigs is 7.5 ft². If there are 5 6”x6” holes in the curtains, this amounts to 17% of the total inlet needs, making temperature and draft management difficult.

Finally, don’t forget to verify the setting on the emergency mechanical thermostats. These thermostats are intended to operate heating and cooling devices in the event the ventilation controller is disabled from such things as lightning strikes, electric line surges, etc. The thermostat for the furnace should never be set closer that 5F to the controller set point. It may even need to be set more than 5F below depending on location of the mechanical thermostats within the animal space. I’ve seen instances where these were incorrectly adjusted and the furnaces were operated an entire heating season by these thermostats, with the variable speed fans often increasing speed to remove the excess heat produced by furnaces that were running too much.

Last week I sat in on a webcast from Iowa State University on the upcoming implementation of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). Hosted by Dr John Lawrence, extension ag economist and Dr Jim McKean, extension swine veterinarian, the webcast dealt with the myriad of details associated with the September 30 implementation of this federal legislation. While controversy continues to surround this legislation, the fact of the matter is that it will become a fact of life for US pork producers.

Because final details of this legislation were not passed until this spring, USDA has just recently published the proposed rules for comment in the Federal Register. It is possible that the rules and regulations will be changed in response to the comments received.

In the meantime, these proposed rules are what USDA will be using to initiate the legislation.

The basics of the proposed rules and regulations is that USDA will require retail fresh meat cuts (loins, blade steaks, etc for pork) to be identified in the retail meat display of larger grocery stores. In the webcast John Lawrence estimated that 52% of the US market will be covered under this regulation.

The proposed regulations will require fresh meat cuts to be labeled by country of origin in one of four possible manners:

1)      Product of the US. This means the pigs were born, raised and slaughtered in the US.

2)      Product of the US and Country X. This means the pigs were born in country X (most likely Canada) and raised and slaughtered in the US.

3)      Product of Country X and the US. This means the pigs were born and raised in country X (most likely Canada) and slaughtered in the US.

4)      Product of Country X. This means the fresh pork was imported from country X (could be Canada, Denmark, Mexico, etc.). 

Every sale of pigs will require an affidavit attesting to the country of origin of that pig(s) or lot of pigs. In the case of sale to slaughter, this means someone with knowledge and access to records to verify the affididavit must sign - its not something you can have a barn worker or trucker do.

Many of the producers who read this blog have already had conversations with their packer regarding this legislation and the affidavit. At least 2 packers have stated they will not buy pigs that are not born and raised in the US, which basically means they will not slaughter pigs born in Canada and raised in the US. However other packers are still trying to decide how to implement this legislation.

It appears to me that a major factor in implementation of this legislation is the consumer. If the consumer is willing to pay $0.05/lb more for fresh pork labeled as ‘Product of the US’ versus fresh pork labeled ‘Product of the US and Canada’, we can expect many packers to make efforts to participate in this product. However, if the consumer does not distinguish in price between the labels, there will be limited demand by the packers for US born and raised pigs versus Canadian born and US raised pigs.

The key to this will most likely be the buying and labeling decisions of WalMart and Kroger. According to the Food Marketing Institute, in 2006 these 2 grocery chains represented 33% of all of the food dollar expenditures of US consumers. If they differentiate between country of origin labels in their advertisements and pricing, you can be sure other chains will follow. Because they are so dominant, you can also be sure that packers will respond to their lead.

However, on the flip side, it appears that the US production chain doesn’t expect the labeling at retail to impact production in a big way. I say this based on the 144,000 Canadian feeder pigs that were imported in the week ending August 30. US producers continue to set records for the number of Canadian feeder pigs imported to fill finishing facilities. In fact, at the current pace they will import over 7.1 million feeder pigs this year, up from the 6.5 million imported last year.This suggests that they feel confident that these pigs won’t be discounted by the packer at the time of sale sometime this winter, or that the delivery requirements (such as a specific day of the week or a specific plant if the packer has multiple slaughter plants) won’t cause them problems.

Having said this, be aware that everyone in the production chain will be involved in more paperwork as a result of this legislation. I urge every pig owner to contact their hog buyer to be sure they understand what type of paperwork will be required beginning September 30 to verify country of origin. Also, be aware that the legislation requires sellers to maintain normal business and production records to verify country of origin for 1 year in the event that a trace back from the retailer occurs. While chances are small that your farm will be audited, the chance and risk of fines is still enough to justify becoming familiar with the requirements of these regulations.

The threat of a trade dispute with Mexico and the Russian announcement of a possible major reduction of imports of pork and poultry were reminders this week of the impact of world trade on US pork prices. At the current pace of exports, almost 25% of the pork we produce in the US will be in the export market this year. For the first 6 months of this year, exports accounted for 21.5% of all pork produced in the US. According to University of Missouri calculations, for the first 6 months of this year, exports contributed over $42 per pig to the value of our pigs at slaughter.

            According to Steve Meyer and Len Steiner (www.dailylivestockreport.com) exports for the Jan-Jun 2003 period were 851 million pounds and represented 9% of US production. For the same 2008 reporting period, exports of pork products was 2.5 billion pounds, 21.5% of US production. In 2003, Russia and China/Hong Kong combined imported 0.5% of our total production. In 2008, these 2 countries imported 7.4% of our production, with Russia at 2%. Thus, the Russian announcement of a possible curtailment or at least major reduction in imports hinted at a major market impact.

            All of this suggests that the long term financial well being of pork producers is more closely tied to world politics than ever before. With the +$40 per pig benefit of export trade comes the risk of the loss of this benefit at the whim of government policies that may or may not be related to animal agriculture.

            On Thursday of this week I traveled with Larry Sitzman, executive director of the Nebraska Pork Producer Association. We did producer meetings in Bloomfield and Humphrey, Nebraska. At both sites, producers and allied industry friends that I worked with during my career as an extension swine specialist at the University of Nebraska asked for my ‘take’ on many of the political issues and their impact on the pork industry.

            I think Larry explained it best when he responded to a question on the status of the free trade agreements that are in congressional hands for approval. While many of our Midwestern congressional delegations and senators support these agreements, there will be no votes in congress on approval of these agreements until next January at the earliest. Neither political party wants to cast a vote for or against any possible controversial bill as this vote may be used as ammunition in this falls political campaign.

            All of this highlights what I have been talking with producers for years about – the successful pork producer of the future will have knowledge of global issues. Along with this knowledge will come the acceptance of the fact that successful producers will be involved in the political process. Successful producers will take the time to become familiar with their congressional delegation and become involved in letter writing, phone calls, etc. to keep the delegation informed about the impact of legislation on pork producers. Without involvement in the political process at all levels (county, state and US), pork production becomes an industry that has to take what ever is handed to them in the way of regulation, export opportunities, etc. With involvement comes the opportunity to be part of the process. The future of pork production in rural communities is to important not to participate.

Every year those of us involved in pork production hear tales of pig deaths associated with manure pit agitation and manure removal from confinement facilities. These deaths range from a ‘few’ pigs in a corner of a curtain-sided wean-finish facility to hundreds of animals. In recognition of the risks to both pigs and people working in these facilities, the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pork Board sponsored a webcast on the topic of ventilation management during pit pumping last Wednesday (http://www.extension.umn.edu/swine/porkcast/).

As the presenter of this program, I spent considerable time in the past 2 months reviewing the limited information available on the topic and developing a set of ventilation guidelines. I also talked with insurance agents and commercial applicators about many of the issues associated with this activity. In conversations with commercial haulers, it soon became evident that they do not want to have anything to do with setting the ventilation systems in facilities they are agitating and removing manure from. As they point out, there are too many variations in controllers, fans, pig ages, etc. for them to be able to get it right at every site. In addition, many sites prevent access to facilities, which means access to ventilation controllers is often limited. The end result is a fact sheet developed in cooperation with Dr Jay Harmon at Iowa State University that outlines what we believe to be a reasonable strategy for management of the ventilation system during pit agitation and pumping. The fact sheet is available from the Minnesota Pork Board.

Not included in the fact sheet are some of the legal and insurance issues associated with manure agitation and removal. Increasingly, commercial manure haulers are asking producers to sign waivers of liability. These waivers basically say that the person signing the waiver will not hold the commercial hauler liable in the event of pig deaths, etc. In many cases, having a signed waiver for each site/facility is a requirement in the commercial haulers liability policy.

As pointed out to me by an insurance agent in Iowa who specializes in insuring contract grower sites, this waiver has a severe limit that contract growers and commercial manure firms need to be aware of. This limit is that the contract grower has no ownership or financial right to anything associated with the pigs. In the event of pig deaths, it is the pig owner who suffers a financial loss, not the contract grower. Thus, a grower’s signature on a waiver of liability cannot be linked to the pig owner as the grower is not an agent for the pig owner in most cases and does not have the right to sign the waiver for the pig owner.

If pig deaths occur during agitation and pumping, will the contract grower be liable for negligence under the terms of the grower contract? Does the pig owner have a written set of ventilation guidelines for this situation? If yes, there generally isn’t negligence on the part of the contract grower if these guidelines are followed. If the pig owner doesn’t have a set of guidelines, can the grower be negligent since there were no directions or guidance?

I suggest that every pig owner, contract grower and commercial manure firm visit with their insurance agent to be sure all parties understand the trail of liability associated with manure agitation and removal. The entire issue of liability and ventilation strategies to prevent pig deaths and the associated liability represent a major financial risk when one considers that the recent strength in hog prices mean every pig delivered to slaughter is now worth $165-$170.

Later this week, Canadian government bean counters will release their July 1 inventory numbers. Everyone expectation is a continuation of the decline in sow numbers and on-farm grow-finish inventory.

That leads to the over riding question that I have been getting from clients and others involved in the swine industry the past few weeks – have we lowered the North American breeding herd enough? I don’t get a sense that we have.

In my travels across the upper Midwest and in my conversations with industry people, I can’t put enough names on enough sows sold to slaughter to convince myself enough liquidation has occurred in the US to position our industry for a very profitable year next year.

There is no doubt that Canadian producers have liquidated many females from their inventory. However, not all of the liquidation was via the Canadian Government buy-out. The buy-out specified that an entire facility must be emptied and that no pigs could go back into that facility for 3 years. I’ve heard stories of producers selling sows, but not participating in the buy-out as they wanted the ability to return to production sooner than 3 years. I think these stories are reasonable in light of the current weakening of the Canadian dollar and the dramatic decline in feed grain prices.

In the US, the rapid decline in feed grain prices in the past 4 weeks, along with the unexpected increase in market hog prices due to strong export markets has me suspicious that any large scale sell off of breeding stock has been curtailed. Many producers now sense a light at the end of the tunnel – so why sell sows which represent the pigs that would go to market next summer? Both feed grain and hog futures suggest that next summer will see a return to profitable pig prices.

One of the dark clouds on the horizon is a slowly strengthening US dollar. The year to date increase in pork exports is dramatic by any account and everyone I know suggests they are the reason live hogs are above $60/cwt in late August when we are slaughtering over 400,000 pigs per day. US pork products represent a good value to our foreign buyers, both because of our producer’s attention to quality production systems and the weak US dollar.

As the US dollar gains strength relative to the Canadian dollar, in some markets Canadian pork products will once again become competitive with US products. I don’t have anything against our fine neighbors to the north, but I don’t think we want to see our export markets shrink due to a rapidly rising dollar and experience many of the problems the Canadian industry has had in the past year due in part to their strong dollar.

Yes, we have much larger domestic market as a percent of our industry than Canada has, but exports have become our salvation when we consider that we are selling all of the product daily kills of over 400,000 head represents. As we go into the fall months when slaughter numbers historically increase we need every market channel we have to keep product moving. If something were to happen to our export markets, we have too much production to consume it all at current prices in the domestic market.

Long term, I think the North American industry (Canada plus US) needs to continue to lower the number of sows in the breeding herd to assure another string of profitable production years. I don’t know what the ‘right’ number of females is, but until we can demonstrate a significant increase in domestic usage, we currently don’t have the ‘right’ numbers for the long-term well being of our industry. The large export numbers we are currently seeing have been our salvation this summer – but should we continue to put our future success on something that is subject to government interventions and weak vs strong dollar signals? I am all for having a strong export trade, but with this trade comes a risk that many producers no longer can accept in light of record high feed grain prices.

This past week I spent several days working with a production system doing grower meetings. One of the topics of discussion was emergency plans for wean-finish facilities and insurance coverage of these facilities.

My presentation included a section on maintenance and documentation of emergency systems. In the past 2 years, I have unfortunately become involved in several cases of pig deaths due to ventilation failures. I can’t stress enough that everyone involved needs to have a thorough understanding of the coverage inclusions and exclusions. When there is a sudden death event and hundreds of pigs die, the monetary loss can be huge.

Whether your facilities have on-site stand-by generators, emergency drop curtains or other emergency devices, routine testing and documentation of the testing is a must. For sites with on-site generators, logging of the generator hours (assuming the generator has a weekly auto-start feature) is not sufficient as it only verifies that the generator has run. On a regular basis (week, bi-weekly, monthly) the system needs to be tested to ensure that the automatic transfer switch works properly and properly disconnects from the electric supply grid and transfers to the generator.

For facilities with automatic curtain drops, these need to be tested on a routine basis, but probably less frequent than generator transfer switches. In all cases, keep a written log which verifies the results of the test, the date of the test and the signature/initials of the person doing the test. In the event of a failure, this log becomes important evidence for an insurance claim that the emergency system was maintained and functional. This routine testing and log may also qualify the site for a reduced insurance rate since there is now a plan for maintenance of the emergency system which reduces the risk to the insurance underwriter of a claim.

Emergency notification systems also need to be tested. Be sure the emergency notification system includes a long distance or cell phone number. I’m aware of a loss where the pig owners claim the emergency notification device malfunctioned. However, there was no way to verify this claim as all of the phone numbers were local numbers. Having a cell phone and/or long distance number in the calling directory increases the chance that there will be a record of that number answering the call.

All of the above sound relatively simple, but it continues to amaze me at how many facilities I work with that have emergency curtain drops disconnected. Many of the owners of these sites respond that they live on-site or on the same electric supply line and will know when the electricity is interrupted due to an ice storm, wind or other cause of an outage. This only works if someone is at the home site 100% of the time. The investment in pigs and facilities is too large to put it at risk from something as simple as not being there when an outage occurs.