Welcome to Q2 and what a changing world we live in. While good margins in livestock production remain, the risk profile has continued to build given developments in geopolitics. The positive is that there are good margins to be made currently for livestock producers.

It was great to see great engagement at our swine and poultry workshops this past quarter. The poultry workshop held in Saskatchewan had great participation with a focus on feedmilling, calcium metabolism and eggshell quality.


The swine meetings in were held over several days in Lethbridge with great discussion on best practices to tackle the lower zinc regulations coming into effect. Thanks to everyone who made the time to come out and join us!

We hope you enjoy the articles within this newsletter. On the swine side of our industry, many producers are considering their options as the 2029 open sow housing deadline looms. Within is an article put together outlining some renovation options. Related to poultry, our team tackles the importance of water quality through providing practical guidelines. In dairy, Sam talks about why milk fever needs to be prevented.

Good luck to your farms and your communities as seeding gets going and we thank you for your business and your continued trust in our nutrition service.

Volatility continues as hostilities in the middle east and rhetoric surrounding them continue to take twists and turns. When we wrote the first draft of this, the strait of Hormuz had been reopened and several ships were beginning to sail through it. Crude oil had dropped from over $100 USD per barrel to $84. A peace deal had not been reached but it appeared cooler heads may be prevailing. However, over the weekend, the strait of Hormuz has once again been closed, an Iranian ship was seized by the US. There is a very good chance oil opens Monday somewhere between $95 and $110 per barrel depending on the messaging coming from tweets, truths, news articles and press conferences that occur over the next 24 hours.

As oil is a huge driver of the commodity complex, the basics are that if the situation escalates again, oil will increase potentially bringing other commodities with it. If peace prevails, oil should drop leading to a good chance of a drop in grain and oilseed prices.

While the above outlines both the upside and downside risks we currently face, it is important to note that good margins are still available to livestock producers. With that in mind, below is a commentary on specific commodities.

Corn currently sits at prices not too much higher than the start of the war in the middle east. It has backed off the late March highs and is closer to $4.50 USD per bu on the futures. With the Canadian dollar strengthening of late, this has further brought the cash price per tonne down in the Western Canadian market by about $15 CAD per MT over the past 2 to 3 weeks. From a supply and demand standpoint, there is plenty of corn in the world and it is likely this will keep a cap on Western Canadian feed grains.

Wheat pushed higher since war began given that it is primarily a food crop. We saw prices up to $302 in Southern Alberta last month and $295 in Saskatchewan. Still affordable, but certainly higher than the $280 available several months ago. Barley, on the other hand has climbed more significantly, hitting $303 to 305 in Southern Alberta ($285 Saskatoon area) with elevators doing a lot of buying for export to China.

Currently the farmer is less focused on marketing and more focused on seeding, road bans and the cost of fuel. This has held cash prices up for the time being. It is important to note though that there is plenty of grain in the world now.

For proteins, soybean meal traded sideways for several months but has pushed up of late hitting around $570 to 575 delivered Swift Current and Saskatoon areas and closer to $615 to 620 in Alberta. This appears to be driven more by managed money taking positions in oilseed related commodities, and less by actual supply and demand.

Canola meal has been up and down, but we have come off highs close to $360 and are currently looking at $325 to 330 in Alberta for May coverage. As we get into the spring and summer, look to coproducts such as millrun and DDGS which should see price drops providing affordable replacements for at least part of barley and protein needs for some livestock producers.

Moving from individual stalls to group housing is no longer just a welfare decision, it is a business decision. Done right, it protects performance and margins. Done poorly, it can quietly create problems that are hard to fix later.

Under the National Farm Animal Care Council Code of Practice, sows must be transitioned to group housing by July 1st, 2029, with stalls limited to the first 28 days post-breeding (plus 7 days for grouping). With that deadline getting closer, the main question is not if this change will happen, but how to do it without disrupting production and ensuring long-term profitability.

From what we are seeing in the field, and from conversations with producers who have already made the switch, one thing stands out: the system itself matters less than how well it is set up and managed.

Start with the right question: What fits your barn?
There is no one-size-fits-all system. What works best depends on:
- Your barn layout
- Labour required to operate the barn to complete the renovations
- Your budget
- How your flow is set up

Especially in Western Canada, many barns were not designed for group housing. That makes layout and feeding decisions more important than the system you pick on paper.

We’ve seen:
- Narrow barns pushed toward larger group setups
- Smaller farms stick with simpler systems that are easier to manage
- Larger operations lean into dynamic systems to keep flow moving

Renovation costs can vary quite a bit. In the barns we’ve looked at, they ranged anywhere from about $255 to just under $1,000 per sow space, mostly depending on how much had to be changed.

Three practical options

1. Retrofit existing stalls (low cost, fast)

Cut stalls at shoulder length, reconfigure pens, and reuse existing feeders/infrastructure. This works well when capital is limited, and the barn structure is older but still sound. In Western Canada, some producers have kept costs very low by working with what they already have, but only when layouts allow good flow, space, adequate flooring and penning durability.

Images courtesy of Polar Pork Farms, used with permission.
2. Remodel with a feeding system (moderate cost)

Install Electronic Sow Feeding (ESF) to improve intake control and precision feeding. This option balances cost and control, especially in barns that can accommodate feeders without major structural changes.

3. New build (highest cost, most flexibility)

Allows optimal layout, animal flow, and long-term durability. Best suited for expansion or when older barns are no longer practical to modify.

Feeding system drives performance

If there is one place where things go right or wrong, it is feeding.
- ESF gives you the most control, but it only works if gilts are trained properly and the system is managed consistently.
- Floor feeding is simpler and cheaper, but requires more hands-on management, and complicates feeding sows to body condition.
In most cases, problems were not caused by the system itself. They came from mismatches, too many sows per feeder, feed delivery that did not match intake needs, or groups that were not set up properly.

Producers using simpler systems often ended up sorting sows by condition just to keep things on track. So, while the system might look simpler, the work just shifts elsewhere.

Gilt training for ESF: where most problems start
This issue came up repeatedly. When things do not go well in group housing, it is usually traced back to how the gilts were trained to use the ESF.

The operations that had fewer issues made sure gilts:
- Knew how to use the feeding system before breeding
- Were comfortable in a group setting
- Came into breeding in the right condition

When that step was rushed, it created problems that followed those sows long-term.

The transition phase is the toughest part

Interestingly, most challenges did not show up after conversion, but during it. Producers had to:
- House pregnant sows in finishers while renovating.
- Ship pigs lighter than usual to make space for pregnant sows.
- Deal with some drops in conception/farrowing rate during the renovations.

Even in well-run projects, there were trade-offs for a period of time. The difference was whether those trade-offs were planned or forced.

Aggression: less of an issue than expected

Fighting is one of the biggest concerns going in. Most producers found:
- Fighting settled within a couple of days
- Once hierarchy was set, things stayed relatively calm

Good grouping, enough space, and proper mixing timing made a big difference.

What producers say after converting
Across the board:
- No one regretted making the switch
- Several said they should have done it earlier
- Sows were noticeably more comfortable
- Some even saw performance improvements (+0.5 pigs born alive per sow in one case)

Final takeaway
Group housing is not just a facility change; it is a different way of managing sows. The operations that make it work tend to:
- Plan ahead
- Choose a system that fits their barn and labour
- Spend time on gilt training
- Pay attention to the details during transition

For most producers, it is less a question of if and more a question of when and how to approach it in a way that works for their operation.

Water is the single largest input on any poultry farm, yet it is the one most producers often ignore. Under normal conditions, broilers drink roughly twice as much water as they eat feed by weight. During heat stress, that can jump to more than four times than normal intake (Lott & Simmons, 2007). Laying hens in full production consume 200–250 mL per bird per day just to keep kidneys working, regulate body temperature, and build eggshells. Poor water composition, independent of microbiological quality, affects how birds use their feed in ways that diet adjustments alone cannot fix.

Sodium, Chloride, and Dietary Electrolyte Balance
Feed nutritionists monitor dietary electrolyte balance (dEB), which measures how well the positive and negative minerals in a ration balance each other out. It is calculated as (Na⁺ + K⁺ − Cl⁻) in milliequivalents per kilogram of feed. The target is 200–250 mEq/kg for broilers and 150–200 mEq/kg for layers (Mongin, 1981). A common oversight is failing to account for minerals supplied through drinking water, even though they exert the same physiological effects as those provided in feed.

If well water sodium exceeds 50 mg/L, a frequent occurrence in prairie and dryland regions, it contributes approximately 0.09 g sodium per kg of feed equivalent. This is based on typical daily intake of 140 g feed and 250 mL water for broilers, and 110 g feed and 200 mL water for layers. Compared with a dietary sodium target of ~1.8 g/kg, this represents about 5% of total sodium intake coming from water alone. This contribution increases proportionally as water sodium rises and must be included in feed formulation.


Each eggshell requires approximately 2.0–2.2 g of calcium carbonate and takes 16–20 hours to form. While calcium is supplied through feed, the carbonate portion is primarily generated in the shell gland from blood CO₂ via the enzyme carbonic anhydrase (Nys et al., 2004). If insufficient carbonate is available, shell quality declines regardless of calcium intake.

High water chloride affects shell quality in a subtle but significant way. Blood electrolyte balance is governed by the strong ion difference (SID = Na⁺ + K⁺ − Cl⁻), which determines the blood’s capacity to carry carbonate. When chloride intake increases, SID decreases, reducing carbonate availability. Although the kidneys attempt to compensate by excreting excess chloride, continuous intake from water can overwhelm this mechanism (Borges et al., 2004). The result is reduced carbonate availability at the shell gland, leading to thinner shells even when calcium intake is adequate (4.0–4.2 g/bird/day). Increasing dietary calcium or vitamin D₃ does not correct this issue because the limitation is carbonate availability, not calcium supply. Conversely, high bicarbonate levels can induce alkalosis, increasing protein-bound calcium and reducing the biologically active ionized fraction. This reduces calcium availability for shell formation, particularly under heat stress. If water bicarbonate exceeds 400 mg/L and shell quality declines despite adequate dietary calcium, acidifying water to a drinker pH of 6.0–6.5 is recommended. In addition, ammonium chloride may be included at 1.0–2.0 kg/tonne, depending on severity and diet formulation.

Waterline Biofilm
Biofilm is a layer of bacteria that builds up on the inside walls of water lines over time. It commonly contains harmful organisms including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Campylobacter jejuni, and Salmonella enterica. These bacteria protect themselves by producing a thin slime coating (extracellular polysaccharide matrix) that clings to the pipe wall and physically stops chlorine from getting through to kill them. Bacteria living inside that slime need 100–1,000 times the chlorine dose required to kill the same bacteria floating freely in water (White, 1999). Running chlorine at normal in-line levels of 0.5–1.0 mg/L will not remove biofilm once it has formed, which explains why farms with perfectly clean source water and good sanitation can still have bacterial problems in the flock.

Removing biofilm between flocks needs a specific approach, not just standard chlorination. Fill the lines with 3–5% hydrogen peroxide and leave it to soak for 12–24 hours. This breaks down the slime layer and exposes the bacteria. Follow that with a 0.3–0.5% peracetic acid flush before birds go in. During production, keep the water pH below 7.0. At that acidity, chlorine works in its most active form, known as hypochlorous acid (HOCl), which is around 80 times more effective at killing bacteria than the weaker form it takes on in alkaline water (White, 1999). This is why acidifying the water and chlorinating together gives far better results than chlorine alone.


Practical Field Framework
Test your water at least once a year and any time you change water source. Collect samples from two points: the supply at the source and the last drinker at the far end of the line. These two readings are often very different because minerals drop out of solution inside the lines and bacteria can build up between the two points.

When water Na⁺ exceeds 50 mg/L
Count the sodium from the water when working out the total sodium in the diet, and reduce the salt added to feed accordingly. Keep an eye on litter moisture through the middle of the flock as an early warning sign.

When water Cl⁻ exceeds 100 mg/L (layers) or 150 mg/L (broilers)
Include the water chloride in the electrolyte balance calculation and add potassium bicarbonate (KHCO₃) at 1.0–2.5 kg/tonne if the balance falls below the target range. In layer flocks, monitor eggshell strength regularly as an early indicator.

When bicarbonate exceeds 400 mg/L
Acidify the water to bring the pH at the drinker to 6.0–6.5. Also review anything you are dosing through the water, such as vitamins or medications, since alkaline water breaks these products down much faster and birds may not be getting the full dose.

When hardness exceeds 150 mg/L as CaCO₃
Check that nipple drinkers at the far end of the line are flowing freely at mid-flock. For broilers past 21 days, the minimum flow rate is 60 mL/min. Scale buildup can quietly cut flow at the ends of lines without the problem being obvious at the header. For layer flocks, add the calcium coming from the water into your dietary calcium calculation.

Water Treatment: Reverse Osmosis and Controlled Blending
When mineral levels exceed manageable thresholds (Na >150 mg/L, Cl >250 mg/L, TDS >3,000 mg/L), water treatment becomes necessary. Reverse osmosis (RO) removes 95–99% of dissolved minerals and is the most effective solution. Blending RO-treated water (near-zero mineral content) with untreated water provides a cost-effective approach. For example, reducing sodium from 200 mg/L to 50 mg/L requires mixing 75% RO water with 25% source water (200 . 0.25 = 50 mg/L). Because RO removes minerals proportionally, this approach simultaneously corrects multiple parameters.

Conclusion
Water quality is not something to look at only when performance drops. It is a core part of nutrition management, as important as the feed formula itself. Every interaction described in this article is predictable, measurable, and correctable once you know what is in your water. A full water test, taken at the source and at the end of the drinker line, costs less than what you can recover in a single flock by catching just one of these problems. If water testing is not already part of your annual routine, adding it is the single best investment you can make in your current flock management programme.

Milk fever is a metabolic disorder in cows caused by a sudden drop in blood calcium (hypocalcemia) within 72 hours after calving. It is also called post calving hypocalcemia. It appears as muscular weakness, cold ears, and inability to stand, progressing through three stages to potential coma. Treatment involves immediate intravenous or oral calcium administration (1).

Signs of milk fever are nervousness, excitability, tremors in the head and limbs, and difficulty in walking. These signs represent the early stage or stage 1 milk fever. If not treated, the cow would suffer, showing more Stage 2 signs like inability to stand, dullness, low body temperature, cold ears/extremities, dry muzzle, and a "S-shaped" neck curve. In the last stage or the stage 3, the cow will be in a coma, lose consciousness, severely paralyzed, bloated, and may die if not treated promptly (1,2). Therefore, milk fever with the above signs is called clinical milk fever (1,2). In the mild or subclinical form of milk fever, there would no visible outward symptoms, however, blood calcium level would be low (lower than 8.5 mg/dL), leading to weakened immunity, retained placenta, and reduced milk production (1,2).


Milk fever results in economic losses therefore it is essential to manage dietary calcium before calving Milk fever, either in clinical or subclinical form can trigger a cascade of health issues such as dystocia, reproductive disorders, Downer-Cow Syndrome, retained placenta, metritis, and mastitis (1).

Downer-Cow Syndrome is found in cows that fail to respond to oral or intravenous (IV) calcium therapy. They remain recumbent and may even die or be culled. Data shows that the incidence of Downer-Cow Syndrome is 3 –to28 % of milk fever cases. The chances of death or fatality rate in Downer-Cow Syndrome is 20 to 70 %. Dystocia will likely occur. Calcium is needed for muscle contraction. Low blood calcium would reduce uterine contractions, leading to difficulty in calving and increased risk of uterine prolapse. Calcium plays a role in detaching cotyledons (placental buttons). As a result, there would be a higher chance of retained placenta (not cleaning), uterine infections and metritis. In addition, there would be a higher risk of other diseases like mastitis due to weakened immunity (1,2,3).

How to Prevent and Control Milk Fever?
Feeding far-off dry cows with an appropriate calcium level in a balanced diet and feeding a close-up dry cow with a lower calcium (Ca restriction) with low potassium diet can help minimize milk fever. Magnesium plays an important role in maintaining calcium homeostasis (smooth activity of parathyroid hormone, PTH), thus feeding higher dietary magnesium can also lower the risk for hypocalcemia. Feeding anionic salts like?, approximately three weeks prior to calving and properly managing a low DCAD (Dietary Cation-Anion Difference) diet has been shown to reduce the incidence of subclinical hypocalcemia by assisting with the cow’s homeostasis functions to increase calcium resorption from the bone in preparation for the increased demand for calcium with the onset of lactation (1,2,4).

It is not simple to eliminate hypocalcemia from dairy herds, but understanding the cause and adopting optimal feeding practices will minimize the chances of hypocalcemia, and consequently the cascading effect of health issues, production losses and related economic losses. Therefore, preventing milk fever in a herd by dietary means is better and more economical approach rather than waiting for treatments.

Note: For all articles, references are available upon request.

Congratulations to our partners who earned industry awards early this year! We at WAGS are very proud of you!

Hog Carcass Competition, Cramer Show, SK 2026
3rd Vanguard Colony
4th Bench Colony
5th Wymark Colony

Saskatchewan Egg Producers Awardees for 2025
Wymark Colony - 1st place Overall grade-out rating Star Egg
Sand Lake Colony - 2nd place Overall grade-out rating Star Egg Wymark Colony - 2025 Sask Egg Producer of the Year! Congratulations to Paul and his team at Wymark on this achievement for the second year in a row!

Congratulations to the WAGS partners who made it to the H@ms Marketing March Top 10 list for carcass quality of pigs going to either Thunder Creek, Britco and North 49 or Olymel. Well done guys!

THUNDER CREEK, BRITCO AND NORTH 49

INDEXING
4th Raley Colony

PERCENT DEMERIT FREE
1st Shamrock Farming Co. Ltd.
4th Vanguard Farming Company Ltd.
10th Southland Farming Company Ltd.

LEAN PERCENTAGE & LOIN DEPTH

Lean Percent Target
1st Vanguard Farming Co. Ltd.
10th New Dale Hutterian Brethren

Loin Depth Target
4th Bench Farming Company
9th New Dale Hutterian Brethren

Carcass Wt. Target
6th Raley Colony Ltd.

OLYMEL

INDEXING
3rd Old Elm Farming Co. Ltd.
8th Clearlake Farming

PERCENT DEMERIT FREE
8th Skylight Colony

PERCENT CLEAR TATTOO
10th Sovereign Farming Colony

LEAN PERCENT TARGET
3rd Clear Lake Farming

LOIN DEPTH TARGET
5th Summerland Colony Farming

PERCENT IN CORE AREA
8th Summerland Colony Farming
10th Clearlake Farming

Carcass Wt. Target
4th Old Elm Farming Co. Ltd.
8th Sovereign Farming Company