CleanFARMS, an industry-led, national not-for-profit agricultural waste management organization partnered with the Canadian Animal Health Institute (CAHI) and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to co-fund the disposal program with support from CropLife Canada, Ontario Agri Business Association, Farm & Food Care Ontario, and the Ontario Fruit & Vegetable Growers' Association, in offering this free program.
"Ontario farmers are environmentally conscious and are pleased to partner with CleanFARMS to safely dispose of obsolete pesticides and livestock medications," says Craig Hunter from the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. "The CleanFARMS collection program provides an excellent one-stop service for Ontario farmers to continue to protect the land."
Farmers in Ontario have a long history of good stewardship practices. Since 1998, Ontario farmers have turned in more than 500,000 kilograms of obsolete pesticides.
"Ontario has a history of successful collections," says Barry Friesen, General Manager of CleanFARMS. "The participation of Ontario farmers shows they are good stewards of their land and committed to protecting the environment."
After collection, the pesticides and livestock medications are taken to a licensed waste management facility where they are disposed of through high temperature incineration.
The following locations will be accepting obsolete pesticides and livestock/equine medications from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. on the dates specified:
Tuesday, Sept. 20
Brodhagen - Hoegy's Farm Supply
Guelph - Woodrill Farms
Glencoe - Parrish & Heimbecker
Wednesday, Sept. 21
Brussels - Brussels Agromart
Ailsa Craig - Hensall District Co-op
Aylmer - Max Underhill's Farm Supply
Thursday, Sept. 22
Beamsville - NM Bartlett
Forest - Lakeside Grain & Feed Ltd
Kitchener - GROWMARK Inc
Monday, Sept. 26
Bothwell - Hagerty Creek
Alliston - Alliance Agri-Turf
Tara - Sprucedale Agromart
New Hamburg - Good Crop Services
Lancaster - Munro's Agromart
Tuesday, Sept. 27
Tupperville - Agris Co-op
Wellandport - Clark AgriService
Bradford - Bradford Co-op
Walkerton - Huron Bay Co-op
Alfred - Synagri
Wednesday, Sept. 28
Paincourt - South West Ag Partners
Princeton - Cargill
Oakwood - Oakwood Ag Centre
Harriston - Cargill
Casselman - Agro Culture 2001
Thursday, Sept. 29
Blenheim - Thompsons
Bolton - Alliance Agri-Turf
Trenton - TCO Agromart
Dundalk - Huron Bay Co-op
Richmond - Synagri
Verner - Verner Ag Centre
Gore Bay - Northland Agromart
Pembroke - M&R Feeds and Farm Supply
Arnprior - M&R Feeds and Farm Supply
Thornloe - Temiskaming Ag Centre
Thunder Bay - Thunder Bay Co-op
Friday, Sept. 30
Courtland - Cargill
Orangeville - Holmes Agro
Picton - County Farm Centre
Leamington - Agris Co-op
Chesterville - Synagri
For more information, please call CleanFARMS at 877-622-4460 or visit www.cleanfarms.ca
Canada. A recognized leader in crop adaptation to marginal soil environments, Leon Kochian will become the Canada Excellence Research Chair (CERC) in Food
Systems and Security at the University of Saskatchewan.
The United Nations estimates the world's population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050. Ensuring sufficient nutritious food will therefore be one of the greatest
challenges facing humanity in the 21st century. Working out of the university's Global Institute for Food Security, Kochian will lead a multidisciplinary team
to unlock the secrets of a plant's "hidden half"-the root system-an unexplored aspect of plant breeding.
His research will develop new root-based approaches to crop improvement that will enable breeding for improved root system structure and function, producing
new varieties with higher yields and greater capacity to thrive in difficult conditions. Kochian will identify and map the genes linked to root system
traits that are specifically responsible for nutrient and water uptake under drought conditions. He anticipates this research will enable increased crop
production in less fertile areas.
Leon Kochian is the University of Saskatchewan's second CERC after Howard Wheater, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Water Security. He becomes the country's 27th CERC.
In total, Leon Kochian's research will receive support worth almost $21 million. The Government of Canada is also providing $800,000 through the Canada Foundation for Innovation. The balance will be invested by the Global Institute for Food Security ($7 million) and the University of Saskatchewan ($3 million).
Fifty years of sustainability analysis and insight – that is what Egg Farmers of Canada (EFC) recently commissioned Canadian consulting firm Global Ecologic to produce. The report is entitled: “Environmental Footprint of Canadian Eggs: 1962 versus 2012.”
EFC CEO Tim Lambert says the study results demonstrate the way Canadian egg farmers have been, and still are, constantly looking for new ways to make egg production more efficient and environmentally sound. “While egg production increased by more than 50 per cent between 1962 and 2012 [from about 43 million dozen to 66 million dozen eggs per year],” he notes, “the industry’s overall environmental footprint decreased across all emissions and resource use domains.” Indeed, Nathan Pelletier (president of Global Ecologic) found the average environmental impact for eggs produced in conventional housing systems in 2012 was roughly one-third of what it was in 1962.
To begin the study, Pelletier identified the average conditions that existed in the egg production supply chains of 2012 and 1962, and measured supply chain water, land and energy use, as well as greenhouse gas, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. For this, he relied on recent environmental life cycle analysis done for EFC that outlined the state of the industry in 2012, and also drew from various sources to gain insights into the realities of 1962. Taking these conditions, uses and emissions, he then evaluated the resource and environmental performance gains linked to specific advancements over the past five decades, differentiating between changes attributed to supply chain versus farm-level activities.
However, any study that involves gathering and analyzing data from decades ago has potential challenges. “Important to conducting an analysis such as this is to know in advance which variables really matter, and to focus data collection activities accordingly,” Pelletier explains. “For example, having previously evaluated contemporary egg production systems in both the US and Canada, as well as a variety of other livestock production systems, I knew that gathering representative data for variables such as feed composition, feed conversion efficiency, rate of lay, and mortality rates in the early 1960s would be quite important for the overall results. Fortunately, 1960s data for these variables are available in peer-reviewed literature, Canadian random sample egg production test data and from Statistics Canada.” Pelletier also found good information on such factors as fertilizer production, and inputs and yields for feed production.
Pelletier found that compared to 1962, Canadian egg industry acidifying emissions (those that cause acidification of freshwater systems, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) of 2012 were a whopping 61 per cent lower. Eutrophying emissions (those that lead to excessive nutrients in waterways, resultant explosive plant growth such as algal blooms and death of animal life due to lack of oxygen; sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and ammonia) were even lower (68 per cent). Greenhouse gas emissions were 72 per cent lower. The energy, land and water use in the entire supply chain decreased by 41, 81 and 69 per cent respectively.
Pelletier notes the Canadian egg industry was in transition to cage-based production during the 1960s, and explains that the specific mix of housing systems does not really matter for an analysis such as this. “What is important are hen performance data (e.g. rate of lay, mortality, etc.), whatever the housing system employed. Quite good data are available for these variables.”
Reasons for improved performance
As you can imagine, the Canadian egg industry’s much-diminished environmental footprint compared to fifty years ago is due to several factors. The most important of these is changes, for both layer and pullet feeds, in feed composition, feed conversion efficiency, and the environmental footprints of specific feed inputs. Layer feeds in 2012 had, on average, just 38 per cent of the overall environmental impact of those of 1962, and pullet feeds 69%. This is because the average impact per tonne of production of feed ingredients improved, such as a 43 per cent decrease for corn in 2012 compared to 1962. It’s also because general inputs for field crops also dropped. Pelletier found, for example, that the energy required for ammonia synthesis (used to make nitrogen fertilizer) was cut by half over the study period. Improved crop yields and higher fuel efficiencies in freight transport also contributed. In addition, the amount of meat/bone/feather meals and fats in feed has dropped over the last 50 years, and these inputs have a much higher environmental impact compared to ingredients whose use has risen over the decades, such as soy meal.
Other important industry improv-ements include improved animal health and higher productivity in pullet and egg production. Production per hen has improved by almost 50 per cent and feed conversion efficiency by 35 per cent, while the combined mortality rate for pullets and layers declined by 63 per cent.
Energy use, however, was the least improved factor, and Pelletier says this is because current energy production involving fossil fuels requires more input energy (for extraction and processing, etc.) than it did 50 years ago. “Without the changes we’ve seen in feed composition and efficiencies at the level of pullet and egg production,” he notes, “contemporary egg production would be considerably more energy intensive, simply due to the declining efficiency of fossil energy provision over time.”
Several years ago, Pelletier and colleagues from other organizations conducted a similar 50-year comparison of life cycle environmental impacts for egg production in the U.S. (1960 compared to 2010). Feed efficiency was the biggest factor. “The feed conversion ratio for egg production improved from 3.44 kg/kg in 1960 to 1.98 kg/kg — a gain of 42 per cent,” he notes. “Nonetheless, achieving feed use efficiencies comparable to the best performing contemporary facilities [the range reported by survey respondents was 1.76-2.32 kg/kg] industry-wide would do much to further reduce overall impact.”
As it has in Canada, differing feed composition has also played an important role in reducing impacts — in particular, both reduction in the total amount of animal-derived materials used, as well as increased use of porcine and poultry materials in place of ruminant materials.
Overall use of study
Pelletier sees several uses to which the study results can be put. “First, they help us to understand the relative importance of specific variables in changing the environmental footprint of Canadian egg production,” he notes. “This knowledge will inform future efforts to continue to improve the sustainability of Canadian eggs in terms of priority areas for targeted management initiatives.” The results, in Pelletier’s view, also provide valuable benchmarks. He says looking forward individual producers as well as the industry as a whole will be able to measure their sustainability performance and track their progress relative to these benchmarks.
Finally, the study results provide solid evidence of the progress that the Canadian industry has achieved. “The results are also a source of inspiration for the future,” Pelletier says. “When I think about what has been accomplished over the past 50 years, I’m excited to imagine what will be possible over the next 50! The next steps, I believe, are for the industry to collaborate in defining a sustainability agenda, along with metrics, targets and milestones for sustainability initiatives looking forward.”
Lambert agrees. “Egg Farmers of Canada is becoming recognized as a global leader in agriculture for its commitment to society through its sustainability initiatives and dedication to social responsibility,” he says. “This 50-year study provides a firm foundation for the industry’s sustainability initiatives going forward, setting out benchmarks by which we can continue to measure progress. Understanding the components of the industry’s environmental footprint ensures that we can work with our producers and stakeholders to make sound, sustainable choices for the future.”
Percentage change in Canadian egg production from 1962 to 2012, per tonne of eggs produced
- Acidifying emissions 61% lower
- Eutrophying emissions 68% lower
- GHG emissions 72% lower
- Energy use 41% lower
- Land use 81% lower
- Water use 69% lower
- Feed conversion rate 35% increase
- Production per hen housed 50% increase
- Mortality rate (pullets) 21% lower
- Mortality rate (layers) 75% lower
Percentage change between 1962 and 2012, industry-wide
- Acidifying emissions 41% lower
- Eutrophying emissions 51% lower
- GHG emissions 57% lower
- Energy use 10% lower
- Land use 71% lower
- Water use 53% lower
- Egg production 51% higher
The poultry industry has a long and complicated supply chain, incorporating a wide spectrum of costs and benefits. When you think about sustainability in that chain, it doesn’t make sense to improve one part of the system if that change may unintentionally burden another part of the process and outweigh the advantages achieved.
Nathan Pelletier is the president of Global Ecologic, an independent sustainability consulting firm that measures and manages strategy in food and other industrial systems. Speaking at the 2015 Canadian Poultry Sustainability Conference in London, Ont., he explained how life cycle thinking could be used to help analyze the past, present and future of the poultry industry in the quest for sustainability.
Life cycle thinking – changing from a management perspective to a systems perspective – is an analytical process that helps to examine the relevant interactions associated with the production of goods and services, allowing us to pinpoint which aspects of the supply chain have the biggest impact.
The results of life cycle thinking can often be counterintuitive, flying in the face of our current thoughts. For example, is local food more sustainable? With life cycle analysis, this argument is no longer credible if you factor in the efficiencies of transport over long distances by rail, truck or boat. “There will always be trade-offs,” said Pelletier. “We need to be conscious of these to make decisions regarding our own priorities.”
For the poultry industry, he sees no alternative but to embrace this management philosophy throughout the supply chain, but Pelletier says it won’t be a straightforward journey.
Complexity will surround everything from agreeing on definitions of sustainability to operationalizing the information, but he predicts that life cycle thinking will become a requirement in the new marketplace, coming to the forefront of regulatory guidelines within 10 years.
Looking back over 50 years, in an in-depth historical life cycle analysis published in the Poultry Journal in 2014, Pelletier compared the environmental footprint of the poultry industry in the U.S. in 1960 versus 2010, putting some hard numbers around poultry production.
The modern poultry industry is not the same as it was 50 years ago, and that’s an interesting story itself. His results show astonishing changes.
While egg production in the U.S. has risen 30 per cent in 50 years, the environmental footprint per kilogram of eggs produced in 2010 is 65 per cent lower in acidifying emissions, 71 per cent lower in eutrophying emissions, 71 per cent lower in greenhouse gas emissions and 31 per cent lower in cumulative energy demand during that same time.
According to Pelletier, the reduction could be attributed to factors such as feed and manure management. Up to 30 per cent of the improvement is based in improved efficiencies of background systems, for example supply chain efficiencies in transportation and energy use. Thirty to 44 per cent was from changes in feed composition, reflecting efficiencies realized in crop production with less inputs for increased yields. Another 28 to 43 per cent was due to improvements in genetics, feed conversion and bird health.
Productivity has increased 50 per cent, from 195 eggs to 297 eggs annually. In 1960, 3.1 kg of feed equaled one kg of eggs; now only two kg of feed is needed per kg of eggs. Not only that but the birds are healthier, with 63 per cent lower mortality.
This is a good news story, but how does poultry stack up against other protein sources? It’s hard to compare unless studies have been done with the same protocols, said Pelletier, but in general, monogastrics are more efficient. The most efficient protein source is pork, followed by eggs, both better than beef. This matters because sustainability is becoming such a differentiating factor in the marketplace, for social license, regulatory compliance and market access. In this respect, poultry is well positioned for the future.
Looking forward, Pelletier suggested that proactive engagement in sustainability is essential, making four suggestions.
First, develop a Canadian life cycle inventory of consistent data to support production. Defending any kind of comparison requires such data.
The poultry industry also needs to develop and implement a transparent, multi-criteria sustainability benchmarking program for producers, to support sustainability initiatives and provide benchmarking and goal setting targets.
He sees a third opportunity in acting as a leader in pushing new frontiers. “Don’t be too attached to the status quo,” said Pelletier. “Just think about the changes in your industry over the past 50 years, and imagine where you could be 50 years from now?” Support and participate in the research that will be necessary to define the sustainable poultry production systems of the future.
Finally, formalize a commitment industry wide by engaging all stakeholders in a round-table discussion on sustainability, defining a common vision and a strategy to achieve it. As Pelletier says, “use it as an opportunity to see sustainability not as a challenge or as a hoop to jump through, but as a source of competitive advantage, as an exciting and necessary collaborative journey toward that shared vision of the future.”
April 1, 201`6 - The Government of Canada is investing $27 million to help producers find ways to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their farming operations, Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister, Lawrence MacAulay announced March 30.
The investment is part of the Government of Canada’s ongoing efforts to help the sector be innovative, competitive and sustainable. The Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Program (AGGP) supports research into greenhouse gas mitigation practices and technologies that can be adopted on the farm.
This new five-year investment (2016-2021) extends Canada’s existing commitment to support the objectives of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases.
The initial AGGP investment (2011-16) provided $21 million for 18 projects undertaken by universities, provincial governments, research institutions and conservation groups. These projects have resulted in innovative technologies and Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) in four priority areas for farmers: livestock systems, cropping systems, agricultural water use efficiency, and agro-forestry.
February 17, 2016 – New research has shown that tackling antibiotic resistance on only one front is a waste of time because resistant genes are freely crossing environmental.
Analysis of historic soil archives dating back to 1923 has revealed a clear parallel between the appearance of antibiotic resistance in medicine and similar antibiotic resistant genes detected over time in agricultural soils treated with animal manure.
Collected in Denmark – where antibiotics were banned in agriculture from the 1990s for non-therapeutic use – the soil archives provide an 'antibiotic resistance timeline' that reflects resistant genes found in the environment and the evolution of the same types of antibiotic resistance in medicine.
Led by Newcastle University, UK, the study also showed that the repeated use of animal manure and antibiotic substitutes can increase the capacity of soil bacteria to mobilize, or ready themselves, and acquire resistance genes to new antibiotics.
Publishing their findings in the academic journal Scientific Reports, the study's authors say the data highlights the importance of reducing antibiotic use across all sectors if we are to reduce global antibiotic resistance.
"The observed bridge between clinical and agricultural antibiotic resistance means we are not going to solve the resistance problem just by reducing the number of antibiotics we prescribe in our GP clinics,” said lead author David Graham, professor of ecosystems engineering at Newcastle University.
"To reduce the global rise in resistance, we need to reduce use and improve antibiotic stewardship across all sectors. If this is not done, antibiotic resistance from imprudent sectors will cross-contaminate the whole system and we will quickly find ourselves in a situation where our antibiotics are no longer effective."
Antibiotics have been used in medicine since the 1930s, saving millions of lives. Two decades later, they were introduced into agricultural practices and Denmark was among the leaders in employing antibiotics to increase agricultural productivity and animal production.
However, a growing awareness of the antibiotic resistance crisis and continued debate over who and which activities are most responsible led to the EU calling for the use of antibiotics in non-therapeutic settings to be phased out and Denmark led the way.
The Askov Long-Term Experiment station in Denmark was originally set up in 1894 to study the role of animal manure versus inorganic fertilizers on soil fertility.
Analyzing the samples, the team – involving experts from Newcastle University, the University of Strathclyde and Aarhus University – were able to measure the relative abundance of specific β-lactam antibiotic resistant genes, which can confer resistance to a class of antibiotics that are of considerable medical importance.
Prior to 1960, the team found low levels of the genes in both the manured soil and that treated with inorganic fertilizer. However, by the mid 1970s, levels of selected β-lactam genes started to increase in the manured soils, with levels peaking in the mid 1980's. No increase or change was detected in the soil treated with inorganic fertilizer.
"We chose these resistant genes because their appearance and rapid increase in hospitals from 1963 to 1989 is well-documented," explains Professor Graham.
"By comparing the two timelines, we saw the appearance of each specific gene in the soil samples was consistent with the evolution of similar types of resistance in medicine. So the question now is not which came first, clinical or environmental resistance, but what do we do about it?"
Following the ban on non-therapeutic antibiotic use in Danish agriculture, farmers substituted metals for antibiotics, such as copper, and levels of the key β-lactam genes in the manured soils declined rapidly, reaching pre-industrialization levels by 2010.
However, at the same time the team measured a 10-fold rise in Class 1 Integrons. These are gene carrier and exchange molecules – transporters that allow bacteria to readily share genes, including resistance genes.
These findings suggest the application of manure and antibiotic substitutes, such as copper, may be 'priming' the soils, readying them for increased resistance transmission in the future.
"Once antibiotics were banned, operators substituted them with copper which has natural antibiotic properties," explains Professor Graham.
"More research is needed but our findings suggest that by substituting antibiotics for metals such as copper we may have increased the potential for resistance transmission.
"Unless we reduce use and improve stewardship across all sectors – environmental, clinical and agricultural – we don't stand a chance of reducing antibiotic resistance in the future."
September 1, 2015 - Egg Farmers of Alberta (EFA) hosted an Environmental Stewardship Workshop in Edmonton August 26-27, 2015 that brought together a diverse mix of influencers and decision-makers from across the egg supply chain, including farmers, graders, retailers and restaurants, as well as industry, government and non-governmental organizations. Participants shared their ideas and provided strategic insights about the past, present and future of sustainable egg production in Alberta.
Susan Gal, General Manager of EFA said in a release that her takeaway from the workshop “is that all stakeholders have a desire to support one another as we work together to build a sustainable egg industry in Alberta, and across Canada.”
For Alberta egg farmers, sustainable egg production is socially responsible, environmentally sound and economically viable. The workshop enabled EFA to share past and present environmental initiatives in Alberta, including the launch of the Producer Environmental Egg Program – the Canadian egg industry’s first on-farm environmental program – and the publication of EFA’s inaugural Sustainability Report. More importantly, the workshop allowed other stakeholders to explain their views and expectations for the future around sustainability, as it relates to the egg industry and food production.
The workshop also included a tour of STS Farms, which is one of the more than 160 registered egg farms in Alberta. Susan Schafers, chair of the EFA and her family were gracious hosts, leading the more than 30 attendees through the pullet barn, layer barn and egg collection room. It was an enjoyable and educational experience, especially for those guests that had never been on an egg farm.
EFA says it will take the next step with these stakeholders and others on its journey of continuous improvement. Options are being considered to expand on these existing relationships and engage with additional stakeholders regarding the past, present and future of other important topics. “Even though we were focused on the topic of environmental stewardship, it was great to see and hear the stakeholders ask questions and offer opinions about the trade-offs between environmental stewardship, hen housing, animal welfare, food safety, economics and other factors,” said Gal.
What do poultry manure and emissions from Alberta’s oil sands have in common? They are both connected to a plant-like organism call micro-algae, which could help the province meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
Micro-algae grow by leaps and bounds when fed with poultry manure as an organic fertilizer, which in turn make them more effective for scrubbing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from industrial facilities and power plants before they enter the atmosphere.
“Chicken manure is high in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. It contains the main nutrients that algae need,” says Bob Mroz, President and Chief Executive Officer of a Maryland-based biotech company called HY-TEK Bio. It is developing and marketing patented technology using micro-algae for mitigation of greenhouse gases.
Alberta likes the potential of HY-TEK Bio’s technology, as the company was recently awarded a $500,000 grant as part of the $35 million international Grand Challenge: Innovative Carbon Uses competition offered by the province’s Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation (CCEMC). The corporation collects a levy from large greenhouse gas emitters that in turn is used to fund promising technology aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, like the micro-algae technology offered by HY-TEK Bio.
The company has identified a unique strain of micro-algae that is able to absorb 100 per cent of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from flue gases produced by industrial manufacturing and power generation.
Micro-algae are photosynthetic, plant-like organisms that need light, water, carbon dioxide and nutrients, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus. They can feed on compounds like carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compounds emitted from such facilities as heavy oil production plants and coal-fired power plants, releasing beneficial oxygen in the process and growing into a plant commodity with considerable commercial potential.
The challenge for HY-TEK Bio has been to find an inexpensive source of nutrients to fertilize the micro-algae to accelerate its growth to perform as advertised in a greenhouse gas mitigation application. Addition of nutrients like those in poultry manure make the micro-algae grow faster and increases its production, like fertilizer added to a corn crop.
Mroz says that as the company worked to develop its technology, it encountered organizations like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which expressed its concerns about poultry manure seeping into the region’s water drainage system, resulting in considerable algae growth in areas like the Chesapeake Bay. Because of this concern, and the availability of grants, HY-TEK Bio approached researchers at the University of Maryland, which has been working with micro-algae extensively for the past four years, to investigate poultry manure’s potential as a cheap nutrient source. The company already has a working demonstration facility with four bioreactors consuming flue gas emissions from a three megawatt, biogas-fueled power plant attached to a City of Baltimore waste water treatment plant.
University of Maryland scientists are now testing poultry manure as a natural fertilizer to feed micro-algae. The overall plan is to develop a pilot project that demonstrates a process that, in addition to showing how the micro-algae mitigates greenhouse gases, also demonstrates how the poultry manure-derived nutrients can be applied to maintain the growth and health of the micro-algae.
Should the application prove successful and commercially attractive, this could pay a significant environmental and economic dividend to poultry and egg producers, as well as help to solve a growing global problem. Not only would producers of poultry manure have a new and better method for manure disposal, but it could also create a new potential income stream for them.
Dr. Feng Chen, Associate Professor at the University of Maryland Centre for Environmental Science, says there are about 800,000 tons of poultry manure currently being generated annually in the Maryland and Mid-Atlantic area of the United States alone. Most of the manure is land applied as a form of disposal, but the problem is that sometimes the nutrients leach into the water drainage system. An alternative use of this poultry manure as fertilizer for micro-algae would direct that manure into a new, non-polluting direction.
Alberta is one jurisdiction that has shown an interest in what the university and HY-TEK Bio are accomplishing with the use of micro-algae in greenhouse gas mitigation in its massive fossil fuel industry. It has been identified as a notable contributor of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, especially in its oil sands mining and processing operations.
The University of Maryland research has just started and is being conducted at a basic level, with development of a system to economically extract the nutrients from the raw poultry manure, leading to methods of controlled release of the nutrients to the micro-algae to achieve certain performance targets.
While the research project is still in its early stages, the University of Maryland researchers say that they are “quite encouraged” by the results they have witnessed so far in using poultry manure nutrients to encourage micro-algae growth. The poultry manure they are using was collected from various commercial operations in Maryland. Now, the University is working on such issues as how to develop a consistent liquefied nutrient product from raw poultry manure, given the variability of the raw material from one poultry operation to another.
Mroz says while there is some variability, they all seem to work well as nutrients for micro-algae growth. The main issue is cost of production, taking it from its raw form to a liquid.
“When you are talking about 500 to 1000 of these bioreactor tanks to mitigate a power plant, the nutrient has to be really, really cheap,” says Mroz. About 400 of the company’s micro-algae tanks can fit on one acre, “but we can use multi-storey facilities to increase land usage.”
In addition to establishing an inexpensive process to convert the raw poultry manure to liquid form for use as a micro-algae nutrient, what HY-TEK Bio hopes to achieve through its research project with the University of Maryland is to determine if the brown color of the liquid manure is a deterrent to micro-algae growth because the algae needs as much light as possible to grow.
Should the University successfully develop a method to cost-effectively manufacture a clear, odourless liquid nutrient product from raw poultry manure, Mroz says this also has potential as a marketable, commercial product.
Dr. Russell Hill, Director and Professor at the Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology (IMET) at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, says the University’s research related to using poultry manure as a nutrient source for micro-algae is novel.
“If greenhouse gas mitigation using micro-algae is ever going to really be used on a large scale, the nutrient requirement will be huge,” says Hill. “It could really help to solve the problem of disposal of chicken manure, and potentially it could even put greater value on the chicken manure.”
For each issue of Canadian Poultry magazine, I give our production team several pictures that relate to the cover story and we sit down and discuss the photo options and the article. It’s often not easy to find photos that convey the story perfectly, but we try to have something relevant.
Taking photos inside of commercial poultry barns is tricky and requires a lot of equipment that I don’t have, and let’s face it there are only so many ways to photograph chickens in a barn. So, often I rely on stock photography.
Stock photography websites offer plenty of different options. In addition to photos of chickens, there are many photo options available to show a “concept” if you dig deep enough. For this month’s cover story (see page 10) I tried to show “growth” in the poultry industry in a generic form, without focusing on one specific driver. I gave the production team photos of a car dashboard (to show “driving”) and arrows on a graph to show growth. A bit of a stretch maybe, but I thought it could work with the right image.
Well my first attempt didn’t hit the mark but it brought up an interesting point about consumer perception.
Since the cover story discusses not only what’s driving growth, but how these drivers will allow growth to be sustainable, one of our production artists suggested a photo of chickens in loose housing or in a group outside, because in her mind, this type of production is “more sustainable.”
This was an innocent comment from someone who hasn’t had to sit through a multitude of cover meetings with me explaining why these types of photos are often inappropriate for many articles (she’s fairly new to the publishing company). Yet, her innocence is very telling of how an average consumer envisions what poultry production should look like.
This is matched by a recent survey reported by the Western Producer. Commissioned by Alberta Farm Animal Care, the survey asked more than 750 people about their knowledge of farm practices and how it might affect their eating habits. While it’s not surprising the market research firm found that [people] are “fundamentally ignorant about farming practices and what goes into what they are eating,” it also identified the term “super farms” emerged in the survey, which respondents used to refer to “large corporate industrial farms.”
It’s not clear if a typical poultry operation where chickens are housed in a barn would be considered a “super farm,” but respondents felt these types of operations should be monitored for their effect on the environment, animal welfare and human health. Concern over how “industrial” farms could be impacting health was identified as an emerging issue, and that women were more likely to believe confinement housing had detrimental health effects.
This shows that in addition to animal welfare – the key focus area for consumer engagement efforts as of late – consumers are worried about environmental effects, and how they could affect their own health.
If poultry is going to continue in a sustainable manner, it’s not going to be achieved solely on the type of operation envisioned by our production artist. The industry needs to consider how to address the “look” of confinement housing from an environmental, and animal welfare point of view.
November 19, 2014 - "Chicken juice" — the liquid produced from defrosting chickens – allows Campylobacter to form protective biofilms and boost its survival in food processing sites, according to a study from the Institute of Food Research. READ MORE
April 15, 2014 - A century ago, over half of Canada's population was farmers. Today, it's down to two per cent - with most people more than three generations removed from their farming ancestors. This shift has meant that most Canadians have lost touch - people often don't understand how their food is grown or how agriculture has changed.
Farm & Food Care Ontario (FFC), as the first coalition of its type in Canada, brings together tens of thousands of livestock, crop and horticulture farmers and related businesses with a mandate to provide credible information on food and farming in Ontario.
In order for FFC to stay in touch with both farmers and consumers, it is important to know what consumers (and farmers) are thinking. As such, the organization works with Ipsos marketing to create benchmarks and ensure that work is being done in the right areas.
"We integrated two studies that bring attitudes together from the consumers point of view and the producers point of view," says Bruce Kelly of FFC. "What we did differently [this time] when we went to the consumers, was instead of just asking them how they feel about animal welfare or about the environment, we put those in context of some of the greater social issues.
"For example, we asked 'How do you feel about the environment compared with paying the mortage? How do you feel about animal welfare in relation to food affordability?' And this has given us a much better context and insight. Food has to be economical for the people who buy it and generate a good return for the people that produce it."
For this study, Ipsos chose to use qualitative study groups rather than internet polling, as it allows them to meet the consumers/producers involved and engage with them at a more basic level. It also allowed Ipsos staff to sit back and watch a discussion unfold without much prompting thus allowing for the collection of key words that seemed to be used often in connotation with agriculture.
The research found that animal welfare and the environment are "higher order" concerns that emerge once food safety, affordability and health needs are met. Subjectively, it appears that farmers are more open to discussions relating to environmental practices, and view their role as stewards as part of the long-term sustainability of the operation.
Additionally, the study found that although consumers say animal welfare is less important than other factors, it represents significant risk due to the strong, negative emotional impact that neglect/abuse can have on consumers – perhaps more so than any other principle.
Other Key Findings:
- Adoption of animal care best practices is high (83 per cent). However, a sginficiant number of Ontario livestock farmers (39 percent) are lower adopters of animal care best practices.
- Adoption of environmental best practices is relatively high (71 per cent). However, a significant number of Ontario farmers (45 per cent) are lower adopters of environmental best practices.
- There is room for improvement in a number of areas, however the biggest area for improvement are Codes of Practice/staff training, biosecurity and resource planning as it relates to environmental best practices.
- Understanding the drivers and barriers to implementing animal care best practices will help to shift lower adopters to become higher adopters. Key drivers and barriers to adoption of animal care best practices revolve around: farmer attitudes; feasibility; awareness and knowledge of best practices; and public image.
More information on the findings can be obtained by contacting Farm & Food Care Ontario at 519-837-1326.
January 27, 2014 - A new study published in Poultry Science shows that while U.S. egg production has increased over the past 50 years, the industry has also been able to significantly decrease its environmental footprint. Researchers conducted a lifecycle analysis of U.S. egg production from 1960 to 2010 to evaluate environmental performance measures for the complete lifecycle from crops to hens to the farm gate. Study findings indicate that the environmental efficiencies are the result of a wide range of factors, including the reduction of natural resource use, improved hen feed, better disease control and advancements in hen housing systems.
"The U.S. egg industry has evolved remarkably over the past five decades by incorporating new technologies to protect natural resources," said Hongwei Xin, agricultural and biosystems engineering and animal science professor at Iowa State University, director of the Egg Industry Center and the study's lead researcher. "Egg farmers have improved their production practices, allowing them to provide an affordable source of high-quality protein while using fewer resources and producing less waste."
Key results of the study found that compared to 1960:
- The egg production process releases significantly less polluting emissions, including 71 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions.
- Hens now use 32 percent less water per dozen eggs produced.
- Today's hens use a little over half the amount of feed to produce a dozen eggs.
- At the same time, today's hens produce 27 percent more eggs per day and are living longer.
A Closer Look at the Findings
Due to increased feed efficiency, advancements in hen housing and manure management, egg farms now use less water and energy on a daily basis and release less polluting emissions. Every aspect of the egg production process, from cultivating feed to raising the laying hens, has led to a reduced environmental footprint.
- Feed efficiency plays a key role in reducing environmental impacts. Due to advancements in nutrition and bird breeding, young hens now require 48 percent less food during the rearing period than they did in 1960 and the laying hens have 42 percent better feed conversion. Using 1960 technology to produce the 2010 egg supply would have required 78 million more hens, 1.3 million more acres of corn and 1.8 million more acres of soybeans.
- Advancements in hen housing, such as improved building ventilation, temperature control, better lighting and a more secure housing environment, help to ensure that hens are protected from disease-carrying wildlife. These techniques have been widely adopted by egg farmers across the country, leading to healthier hens with lower mortality and higher rates of egg production. In addition, advancements in the development of preventative medicine to eliminate avian diseases have greatly improved hen health.
- Manure management has played a role in minimizing the egg industry's environmental footprint. The vast majority of manure from laying hens is recycled into crop production, providing nutrients for plants, contributing to healthy soils, saving energy and reducing commercial fertilizer use.
With the growing U.S. population and egg demand on the rise, egg farmers play an important role in providing an abundant and affordable source of high-quality protein.
"The U.S. population has increased by 72 percent over the past 50 years, but efficiencies in egg production have enabled us to meet the demands of the growing population with just 18 percent more hens, while also leaving a smaller environmental footprint," said Bob Krouse, an egg farmer for Midwest Poultry Services in Indiana. "Egg farmers are now in a position to help fulfill the growing need for an affordable and nutritious source of protein in an environmentally responsible manner."
The study was funded by the American Egg Board, the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, the United Egg Association -- Allied and the Egg Industry Center. To obtain data for 2010, researchers conducted anonymous surveys with egg farmers and collected data on 57.1 million young hens and 92.5 million laying hens. For more information visit www.incredibleegg.org or to read the full text of the study visit www.poultryscience.org.
GETTING THE LIGHT RIGHT
Conventional artificial light sources such as incandescent lighting provide a broad spectrum and have been extensively used by the poultry industry very successfully. However, incandescent lighting is the least efficient of any existing light source and its sale is to be phased out. This means that new, more efficient lighting sources need to be used – but these also need to be well researched to ensure the future prosperity of the poultry industry.
The spectrum provided by a lighting source not only looks different to the eye, but also affects bird physiology differently. Previous research has shown that light in the red end of the spectrum can penetrate the skull and directly stimulate the reproductive axis, while lower wavelengths from the blue/green end of the spectrum may be inhibitory to reproduction. Therefore, it may be possible to use a lighting system that is extremely efficient but using only part of the light spectrum to achieve the desired outcome.
Dr. Grégoy Bédécarrats’ research program at the University of Guelph is focused on light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which can be adjusted to produce any spectrum under unlimited luminance settings with minimal energy input. As such, this technology represents the best option for energy friendly, sustainable poultry farming in Ontario. Bédécarrats was interested in the effect of light wavelength on laying hens in order to design a novel LED lighting system to promote egg-laying without negatively impacting health and welfare.
Computer controlled LED light fixtures were mounted on top of conventional cages and the research barn was divided into three sections where hens were exposed to either pure green, white or pure red wavelengths. To determine whether any effect was mediated via the retina of the eye, a blind line of Smoky Joe chickens (containing both blind and temporarily sighted hens) was used. As the egg-laying industry progressively transitions toward colony-enriched cages and aviary systems, the research team also tested the effect of light wavelength on commercial layers housed in collective floor pens. Data was collected on their behaviour and social interactions (such as activity and aggressiveness), as well as on production levels.
The team’s findings showed that red light promoted an early, strong stimulation of the reproductive axis with a longer and higher peak production, while green light resulted in delayed sexual maturation. Since the researchers observed no difference between blind and sighted hens, they concluded that the retina of the eye does not appear to be involved in mediating the effect of light on reproduction.
Results also show that, unlike the line of Smoky Joe Leghorn (which has not been selected for egg production), commercial layers spontaneously matured prior to photostimulation, and as a result, light wavelength did not impact age at first egg or peak production.
RED LIGHT, GREEN LIGHT
Nonetheless, red light was once again superior in stimulating the production of sex hormones. Interestingly, green light promoted utilization of nest boxes but also resulted in the desynchronization of ovulation with eggs being laid equally during day and night. Finally, light spectrum had no major significant effect on feed consumption, body weight gain, stress or aggressiveness.
In conclusion, this work demonstrates that a light bulb within the red spectrum is the best option to promote optimum egg production without any significant impact on feed consumption, health and behaviour.
To that end, Dr. Bédécarrats has entered a partnership with a Canadian company (Thies Electrical Distributing Co.) to develop spectrum lighting LED bulbs suitable for use in barns and a product designed for the egg-laying industry is currently undergoing CSA and Energy Star certification. Follow-up research is currently ongoing to validate the use of this bulb in commercial settings.
Sept. 12, 2013, Ottawa, ON - As wild birds begin their fall migration, Canada's ninth annual Inter-Agency Wild Bird Influenza Survey is underway. The survey is part of global efforts advocated by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to detect avian influenza viruses that could threaten the agricultural sector and human health.
Canada's wild bird survey is coordinated by the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the Public Health Agency of Canada, and Environment Canada, as well as provincial and territorial government partners. The survey will have an increased sample size this year, as part of efforts to look for the potential presence of significant influenza viruses and indications of viruses from Europe and Asia.
The survey includes testing live and dead wild birds. Live birds are tested in order to track the viruses circulating in the wild bird population, as well as the genetic changes and exchanges that occur in these viruses over multiple years. Dead birds are tested in order to detect potential presence of highly pathogenic influenza viruses in the wild. The 2013-2014 survey will try to sample approximately 1,500 dead birds and between 1,000 and 2,000 live birds across Canada.
Anyone who finds a dead wild bird should contact the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre at 1-866-544-4744 or visit www.ccwhc.ca.
If the survey were to detect a virus of concern in wild birds in a location close to a poultry flock, the CFIA would alert producers in the area and conduct heightened surveillance in domestic poultry. The CFIA routinely monitors for notifiable avian influenza viruses in commercial flocks.
The CFIA is reminding producers and backyard flock owners of the importance of practicing biosecurity in order to protect their flocks from diseases such as avian influenza and Newcastle disease.
The following key biosecurity measures can help protect poultry health:
- Do not allow poultry or their feed and water to have contact with wild birds -- particularly ducks and other wild waterfowl, which are known to be reservoirs for avian influenza viruses.
- Control movements of people, animals, equipment and vehicles on your property.
- Observe your animals daily for signs of disease.
For more information on the measures you can take to protect your poultry from diseases, visit www.inspection.gc.ca/biosecurity.
The poultry industry could never be accused of resting on its laurels. It seems that every day there are new initiatives being undertaken to ensure that poultry producers have access to information, technology and the people who can help their farms remain successful.
Now, you can add one more initiative to the growing list – the University of Guelph’s Poultry Health Research Network (PHRN). Guelph has had a long-standing commitment to animal health, but now, the PHRN aims to further tighten technology transfer and enhance poultry research by creating a network of experts, consisting of poultry researchers and poultry health specialists, who address problems ranging from very basic biological processes to environmental concerns and industry-relevant issues.
Dr. Shayan Sharif is leader of the PHRN, which was established in 2012.
“What we are basically trying to do is to create a network of people, poultry researchers, who can address any sort of problem from basic to a very applied type of research,” he says. “This network is part of an integrated plan within the university and is a priority for both the Ontario Veterinary College and the University of Guelph. We are attempting to solidify the interactions between researchers and departments.”
The network aims to provide a forum for collaboration and co-operation not only among researchers within Guelph, but also between Guelph and other Canadian campuses. It will also, hopefully, reduce duplication where applicable.
While Sharif admits that there are other similar initiatives in Canada, and one in Georgia, he says that Guelph’s is unique because rather than focusing on production, as the name implies, this one focuses on health. But the idea is that all will complement each other.
The roster for the network currently includes 36 names, each one, says Sharif, being a “poultry health researcher and specialist.” Most participants (who could be approached or volunteer to participate) are from Guelph, with department affiliations varying from pathobiology and animal science to food science and mathematics – even engineering.
“Our team member from engineering is looking at the effect of poultry industries on the environment and human health. The computer science department is looking at modelling of poultry diseases, mathematically, but using computer software.”
The consumer studies and geography departments are also looking at the influence of poultry production on livelihoods of people, especially women in developing countries.
“In Africa, for example, women are the ones who look after raising chickens, while men look after raising cattle, and that actually has something to do with their social status,” says Sharif. “So, the researcher’s hypothesis is that by changing the way poultry is raised, you can [increase] social status.”
Within the network there is also a lot of expertise in vaccine development and diagnostic testing. There are also two industry members, Tim Nelson (Livestock Research Innovation Corporation, LRIC) and Brue Roberts (Canadian Poultry Research Council, CPRC). Both organizations fully endorse the initiative, along with the Poultry Industry Council.
The ultimate goal of research programs within the PHRN is to increase poultry health in Canada by facilitation and provision of means for production of safe, healthy and ethically produced poultry and poultry products. A key component is that the network is trying to strengthen interaction with industry, and that is also a top priority for the initiative.
Sharif says another item that’s high the to-do list is to create training programs that will help to qualify personnel for specific tasks. Ideally, he sees opportunities for both students and professionals so that they can become qualified via degree or non-degree programs. OVC has already taken steps toward reaching this goal by providing funding to hire a faculty member in avian diseases and health.
“We have managed to justify the hiring of a faculty person, even in this climate of economic downturn,” muses Sharif. “This person will be able to help with promotion, as well as officially being the avian disease specialist.”
Because the initiative is receiving some funding, the OVC will ensure that the network meets its objectives and remains accountable through a quarterly reporting system that goes directly to the Dean of the OVC, Dr. Elizabeth A. Stone. The network is set up similarly to a board. With Sharif as the leader and coordinator, meetings will be called on a fairly regular basis, given the research work and many hats worn by each of its members. Sharif hopes that they can physically get together at least every three to four months.
The network’s first official meet-and-greet, which took place on July 30, was informal, allowing the participants to become more familiar with one another and their respective research. Sharif says he’s also hoping to hold an industry day to showcase the network. This would be an opportunity for industry stakeholders to interact with members and learn more about what they do, and foster and strengthen interactions with industry.
There are no immediate plans to have the PHRN function as an incorporated organization with brick-and-mortar offices, but Sharif says that is a possibility for the future that obviously would require funding and much support from the industry level to ensure it is warranted.
The PHRN now has a website (www.uoguelph.ca/phrn), and a Twitter account will follow, which will highlight network information, news and events.
It is key not to confuse what the PHRN does with organizations like the Poultry Industry Council (PIC), CPRC or LRIC.
The PIC remains very involved in setting poultry research priorities and in developing and delivering programs that put the research results to work for industry more effectively and efficiently. Its board decides what it will and won’t fund.
CPRC’s mission, on the other hand, is to address national marketing boards and processor needs through the creation and implementation of programs for poultry research in Canada – which may also include societal concerns.
Says Tim Nelson, “LRIC’s mandate is to work on behalf of all livestock and poultry in Ontario to deliver a better return on investment for our research dollars. We also take on the administration of research for the various sectors, creating a simplified ‘one-window’ approach to research management from OMAF’s perspective and the research provider’s perspective (University of Guelph).”
Within the university, it also is important not to confuse the PHRN with the pre-existing Poultry Program Team (PPT).
The PPT combines the strengths and resources of Ontario’s poultry industry, the provincial government through OMAFRA and the university itself. Only five people, including Sharif, are a part of that team. The others are Gregoy Bedecarrats, Michele Guerin, Csaba Varga and Al Dam. Sharif says the PHRN is a bigger group who can collaborate and co-operate effectively and efficiently, and while the PPT has similar goals, it does have limited scope and mandate, given the narrower expertise.
“PPT will not necessarily phase out. At the time it was formed, it was an important initiative. The PHRN will envelope the PPT and I see it as a very well cemented nucleus to the larger group.”
Right now, Sharif says that as the co-ordinator, he is spearheading the PHRN, but that doesn’t mean that his research priorities are overshadowed.
“As a part of our vision, there is the provision for funds for an NSERC (National Sciences and Engineering Research Council) industrial chair in poultry health,” says Sharif. “And if that does take place, then the incumbent would take over direction of the whole initiative. They would then have a lot of administrative responsibility and would likely be relieved of some other duties in order to focus more attention to the PHRN. We will likely talk to the four marketing boards about helping to fund this as well.”
Sharif says the PHRN also helps to fulfil the expectations of the new Animal Health Lab and Pathobiology building where his office is situated.
“We’re sitting in a 2 ½-year-old building that was built with $70-75 million of taxpayers’ money – money that came to the university based on the premise that we would be enhancing our diagnostic capacities and animal health research related capacities. I don’t think that there is another facility like this anywhere in North America. We have the critical mass. We have the momentum and the PHRN will help us to maintain that forward impetus.”
In A NUTSHELL
PHRN members have expertise in:
- diseases of poultry (diagnostics, mechanisms, prevention, treatment, modelling and epidemiology)
- poultry production, nutrition, welfare and economics
- public health and environmental impacts of poultry production
- Dr. Agnes Agunos, Public Health Agency of Canada
- Dr. John Barta, Pathobiology
- Dr. Gregoy Bedecarrats, Animal and Poultry Science
- Dr. Andrew Bendall, Molecular and Cellular Biology
- Dr. Patrick Boerlin, Pathobiology
- Dr. Martina Brash, Pathobiology
- Dr. Hugh Cai, Animal Health Laboratory
- Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, Management and Economics
- Mr. Al Dam, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
- Dr. Rob Deardon, Mathematics and Statistics
- Dr. Joshua Gong, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
- Dr. Michele Guerin, Population Medicine
- Dr. Mansel Griffiths, Food Science
- Dr. Alice Hovorka, Geography
- Dr. Robert Jacobs, Pathobiology
- Dr. Gordon Kirby, Biomedical Science
- Dr. Steven Leeson, Animal and Poultry Science
- Dr. Emily Martin, Animal Health Laboratory
- Dr. Eva Nagy, Pathobiology
- Mr. Tim Nelson, Livestock Research Innovation Corporation
- Dr. Davor Ojkic, Animal Health Laboratory
- Dr. John Prescott, Pathobiology
- Mr. Keith Robbins, PIC Executive Director
- Dr. Bruce Roberts, Canadian Poultry Research Council
- Dr. Jan Sargeant, Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses
- Dr. Shayan Sharif, Pathobiology
- Dr. Durda Slavic, Animal Health Laboratory
- Dr. Dale Smith, Pathobiology
- Dr. Trevor Smith, Animal and Poultry Science
- Dr. Deborah Stacey, Computer Science
- Dr. James Squires, Animal and Poultry Science
- Dr. Patricia Turner, Pathobiology
- Dr. Bill Van Heyst, School of Engineering
- Dr. Csaba Varga, OMAFRA
- Dr. Qi Wang, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada
- Dr. Keith Warriner, Food Science
- Dr. Tina Widowski, Animal and Poultry Science
Common groundOver one hundred years ago the wild turkey was a…
Bird flu suspected at UK poultry facilityFebruary 16, 2017 – Up to 23,000 chickens are expected…
Biomin hosts antibiotic-free production eventFebruary 17, 2017 – Biomin welcomed 145 delegates from 23…
Perspectives: February-March 2017Health leaders around the world are using words like “historical”…
Western Poultry ConferenceMon Feb 27, 2017
Alberta Poulty Industry Annual General MeetingsTue Feb 28, 2017
The Food and Beverage ConventionThu Mar 02, 2017
Manitoba Turkey Producers' 48th Annual General MeetingTue Mar 07, 2017 @11:30AM - 04:00PM
London Poultry ShowWed Apr 05, 2017
Canada's Food Loss and Waste Forum | Finding solutionsWed Apr 12, 2017